1. Planning
is supposed to be a level playing field, the rules should not depend on land
ownership and should be broadly consistent with their context. The decision
maker should be impartial, not have a vested interest, and should seek a
balanced judgment in the community interest. This is a major problem here as
the applicant serves the land owner, the State government, it is leveraging
public land for profit not for best use in the public interest. Lets call it
what it is; corrupt planning. The City of Sydney is outside this loop, is an
independent arbiter and should be the decision maker. This has compromised the
approach to this site including the earlier documents, including the 2008
consent, which ignored the local concerns. This plan starts with the 2008
consent and essentially more than doubles it, in terms of height and density.
We have been swamped with docs from different consultants, a reductionist approach
with considerable redundancy. Even for a professional like me, seeking to
understand confusing, perhaps deliberately so. This is not a serious
consultation.
We are familiar with this game,
Geoff in particular, such as with the Waterloo Masterplanning. The City went
into bat to seek better outcomes in terms of urban design, the public domain
and the quantum of social housing; still a poor response with a public asset.
2. We
should not accept the 2008 consent as a starting point but seek a scheme which
is consistent and compatible with the context, which also seeks benefits, and
minimises harm. Development consents vanish after 5 years, so should planning
consents.
3. This
area is called the Tech Central Innovation District: what humbug. It is an
office park with some housing, maybe 15% affordable, no social housing. It is
proposed to become B4 – mixed use commercial/industrial to be changed to an
employment zone in Dec 22. This is more flexibility for marketing a public
asset, but much denser than the norm for the B4 zone. Contrast this with the
Ashmore Estate redevelopment of industrial. And there were no heritage
constraints at Ashmore.
4. Heritage/Character
The
whole of the site is important, both sides of Eveleigh had a major role in the
making of the railway system in NSW and Australia, the most important composite
in these terms of evident State, if not National significance. So says the many
heritage assessments including the recent CMP revised this year for this
application. The current controls which pick
up some of the Heritage Items is reductive and ignores the whole. The adjoining
areas are all Conservation Areas with Heritage Items, embedded. This site
should be the same. For example, the scheme acknowledges the fan of tracks, as
a decorative theme in the public domain, nice, but the level of development
over and under the heritage fabric leads to substantial erasure. There is archaeology
over the whole site. They make most of discrete buildings Heritage Items. The
whole should be following normal heritage practice.
TZG architects did a fine job
with their addition to the Carriageworks as the fly tower for the theatre. This
approach may be fine for the Paint Shop for compatible adaptive re-use. But not
for the proposed elevated box for unspecified commercial use. This is not
acceptable adaptive re-use of a heritage building, apart from the huge bulk
looming over the whole, massively impacting on views within the complex, as
well as from Wilson Street and surrounds.
Contrast this with MIRVAC’s
approach on the former ATP – coherent, mostly respectful in terms of scale,
long horizontal forms, disciplined geometry and character, but for an office
park, not technology. The purpose has been thwarted, but the urban design is
admirable. Both ends must be served. The existing character reflects the grand
vision and rigour of Victorian engineering, a compelling geometric and mostly
rectilinear discipline, worthy of respect and emulation. There is no sign of
social purpose here except to maximise the leverage of state land. The proposed
lumpy aggregation of object buildings totally lacks coherence and respect it is
real estate opportunism that it is unlikely that even MIRVAC would buy. While
the Platform Apartments jump the scale, it is more respectful as a punctuated
brick building and provides a key for development elsewhere including the Paint
Shop.
5. The
Public Domain
Wilson
Street is a classic Victorian street, very fine, mostly a pattern of terrace
housing two storeys but rising up to 10 m to ridge lines; broken only at the
cross streets. The fall to this site, about 4m gives scope for a 3/4 storeys without
violation of the scale. Introducing a huge building at Codrington is a
violation: appalling to the street, but more so in closing the vista along the
Carriageworks Way to Redfern, as well as clear and rational access to the
Station. The proposed arcade so close to Redfern Street is a bad idea rather
than continue the existing pattern. It will fail, as the itinerant cafes in the
Carriageworks have failed.
6. Scale
It
is logical on this site to step up to the southern edge, for sun as well as
character, and to align higher buildings against the Line. The scale adopted by
MIRVAC on the other side is appropriate to the character, as well as amenity,
sun, and microclimate, not massive towers as object buildings. A continuous
mid-rise form is better in urban design and microclimate terms, as well as
serving as noise wall against the western line, the busiest in the city.
7. The
Numerics
The
FSR and heights were a gigantic fudge with the 2008 scheme. Applying the FSR on
the whole including the public domain and open space. This effectively more
than doubles the potential yield. It should be applied to the nett developable
land as applies to private land. Hence, the huge shift in scale and gift to treasury
This is corrupt planning. No doubt this is the main purpose here. The maximum
FSR cited is 2.78:1, but the actual is at twice this. The existing residential
is about 1:1, hence the array of towers in a low rise precinct of heritage
conservation areas with a myriad of Heritage Items; vandalism.
8. Open
Space
While
there are fine parks in the district, Sydney and Victoria Park for example, this
area is very deficient in terms of local walkable open space. Hollis Park the
only quality park in this area, is loved to death, with frequent renewal of the
grass required. North Eveleigh has become a mecca during the lockdown including
the Paint Shop precinct. Keeping the fan of tracks should not preclude deep
planting. A grid of trees can complement the structure and formality of the
precinct and make it inviting and comfortable to use. Ballast Point Park is a
good example of a former industrial site respectfully converted to parkland.
The State wanted erasure, the community and Council thought otherwise.
9. Traffic/vehicular
access
With
the 2008 Plan they stuck pragmatically to the only access at the western
extremity off-set with Queen Street. This is an uncontrolled and dangerous mix
of cars, bikes, and pedestrians, but workable with low volumes. We hired Chris
Stapleton, as a reputable traffic consultant to advise on the access. He
endorsed a connection at Golden Grove including some ramping down onto the
site. This was rejected as impracticable, too steep. The irony is that it now
appears to be OK at Shepherd Street, the same grades.
10. The
North/South connection
This
has been the elephant in the room with the serial masterplans prepared to date
raised by Geoff and many others – an essential pedestrian and cycle connection.
It should not be vehicular. It must be delivered this time most of the planning
studies including the CMP raise it as an issue to be resolved.
11. Design
Competition
The City will require a
Competition for this site. It would be better to abandon this
half-baked scheme and proceed
to do it now. Let us not repeat the Waterloo fiasco where the City actually
arrived at a much better scheme, with its ear closer to the ground and more
hands on design skills without the huge conflict of interest in terms of ownership.
Bruce Lay