Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Ask RiotACT

Quality childcare in a
welcoming & supportive environment

New Developments : Is this the Look that the Light Rail will Bring ?

By rommeldog56 16 November 2014 33

One of the benefits that the Light Rail is supposed to bring is higher density development along its corridor.  Fair enough.   Some argue that it may be the beginning of the end of “The Bush Capital”.  Personally, I think that newer development is a good thing, but using a Light Rail to generate that is not.  But I digress.

There is a new development going in at Greenway in Tuggeranong – in Anketell Street (opposite Bunnings) – called “Southquay”.  Fair enough.  It’s some very long overdue development in Tuggeranong.

An “artists impression” of one of the buildings has been released so they can start selling units off the plan.  Here is the add and the artist impression :

http://www.allhomes.com.au/ah/act/sale-residential/anketell-street-greenway-canberra/1316936991411

Now, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  But to me, this is, well, pig ugly – but maybe I will think it is beautiful when seen in the flesh.  Maybe I just haven’t got an eye for modern design ?  Its tall so will apparently be on Anketell street itself – in full view on a very busy road.

So, is this the sort of aesthetics that will spring up all along the Light Rail corridor and along the gateway to Canberra – Northborne Avenue ?   Surely, these sort of high rises can be designed to be a bit more aesthetically pleasing – as they often are in other cities ?   Who approves the aesthetics ?

Is this what Canberra will look like because of the mad push for a Light Rail construction and the rushed planning & development  that will presumably occur along the corridor ?  I for one, hope not.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
33 Responses to
New Developments : Is this the Look that the Light Rail will Bring ?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
McCissues 12:02 pm 27 Nov 14

We have put a holding deposit on the first stage of the SouthQuay development in Greenway SQ1 and I am having some trouble finding out about the developers Empire Global. The marketing all looks great but I was hoping someone could enlighten me about their past projects and any issues identified.

Rustygear 11:17 pm 18 Nov 14

That artist’s impression looks ok. What are you hoping for? Fake Victoriana? Dame Edna’s ‘burbs? 80s schmaltz? Stuff from 10 years ago? Fashions move on, and that’s what’s in at the moment. It’s a bit of a spurious essay you’ve got here, wondering if light rail has an impact on architectural style.

rosscoact 1:49 pm 18 Nov 14

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

Tarinedier said :

There isn’t even a tenuous link to light rail in this development. Why don’t you just pick an ethnic/religious/political group you dislike, then your headline can be: Are these the type of people that the Light Rail will bring?

I agree, this is a ludicrous discussion by the Statler and Waldorf collective.

You still watch Muppets?
Are they on the ABC or SBS?

It’s a cultural meme Dungers (you may need to look that up).

rosscoact 1:36 pm 18 Nov 14

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

ACT PS could be cut back at least 10%

Is that figure plucked out of the air, or do you have some reasoning behind that, such as 10% of the PS don’t have work to do? And what is your proof for this?

You have discovered Dunger’s super power and his nemesis

dungfungus 12:10 pm 18 Nov 14

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

ACT PS could be cut back at least 10%

Is that figure plucked out of the air, or do you have some reasoning behind that, such as 10% of the PS don’t have work to do? And what is your proof for this?

That is about how much it has grown in the past 5 years and I haven’t seen any improvement in services or productivity.
Are you one of the 10% I am talking about?

Maya123 10:20 am 18 Nov 14

dungfungus said :

ACT PS could be cut back at least 10%

Is that figure plucked out of the air, or do you have some reasoning behind that, such as 10% of the PS don’t have work to do? And what is your proof for this?

dungfungus 8:46 am 18 Nov 14

rommeldog56 said :

Watto23 said “Easy simple economics…. If they don’t increase population and thus rates, as everything inflation increases, your rates will go up even more to cover the inflated costs. The more you can spread the costs the less rates need to go up. So you should be encouraging as many people as possible to move into medium and high density property. The govt makes a lot more money then.”

Annual Rates should go up with CPI. New higher density developments will provide “profit” for the Gov’t as more and more Annual Rates are raised.

Annual Rates in the ACT are up to tripling before the Light Rail was announced as going ahead causing increased density/infill along the corridor. Given that, the comment “The more you can spread the costs the less rates need to go up” is just plain wrong.

To increase rate revenue we have to provide more rateable dwellings – I agree on that.
The problem is for the ACT Government’s “growth model” is that there must be demand for the building of more dwellings and given the doom and gloom from that same government about whole families having to leave Canberra due to the pruning of the Federal PS, where are the new buyers coming from?
Canberra’s unemployment is rising and the economic outlook is not good. Accordingly, it would be a good time to consolidate commensurate with the decline in employment, economic activity and the fall in population that must follow. It’s not rocket science.
For a start, the ACT PS could be cut back at least 10% and the light rail should be shelved for at least 5 years.
I would like Andrew Barr to present some financials on the exact state of the Territory’s finances as there are rumblings in certain areas that there are insurmountable problems.
Instead Barr claims a victory about Manuka Oval outselling Perth for the ODI cricket match.
Yeah, that’s going to save us.

Maya123 8:45 am 18 Nov 14

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

Felix the Cat said :

I don’t reckon it looks too bad, pretty tall though, not that that’s necessarily a bad thing. Not sure why some people are opposed to tall apartment blocks, would they prefer urban sprawl instead?

Sadly many would prefer urban sprawl.
Some more interesting designs and concepts would be nice though, along with colour. Some mundane, bland apartment blocks like this example are okay for those that want them, but they would not appeal to everyone. They look unfriendly; where the resident goes to hide themselves away and not involve themselves with others. More choice is needed. Perhaps some apartments could offer a communal garden, instead of just the manicured space, where residents could grow a few vegetables or flowers, and meet the other residents. This could be an internal courtyard, around the edge, or perhaps on the roof. Create a sense of community. Also non-smoking apartment blocks, so residents don’t have to breath their neighbours’ fumes. There would be other ideas. It would be nice if apartment blocks could be built to help foster a sense of community, but many as they are designed now, seem to be built to do the opposite of that.

Why pity people who want urban sprawl?
Canberra was designed around wide, open spaces. Detractors call this urban sprawl. Who wants to live in a box?
The light rail threatens to destroy the Canberra concept in the name of “progress”.
Wouldn’t it be nice for Canberra to stop expanding and consolidate?

You’re arguing against yourself there.
“Why pity people who want urban sprawl?”
“Wouldn’t it be nice for Canberra to stop expanding and consolidate?”

Fair comment.
I should have been more succinct. I meant that we shouldn’t pity the people who want (and have) urban sprawl; we should in fact envy them.
It is time we reined in the sprawl but not to allow in-fill. I like Canberra just how it is and I cannot see any point in burdening ratepayers with the cost of something that we simply do not need.

Easy simple economics…. If they don’t increase population and thus rates, as everything inflation increases, your rates will go up even more to cover the inflated costs. The more you can spread the costs the less rates need to go up. So you should be encouraging as many people as possible to move into medium and high density property. The govt makes a lot more money then 🙂

More density is needed in overall housing rather than sprawl, but the more the population goes up overall, the more the rates, etc will rise. They have to, to keep up with the increasing costs of new hospitals etc. With increasing population these expenses need to be increased much more than the expenses would be with a stable population. To suggest we need an increased population is like endorsing a Ponsi scheme. Works only for a time.

rommeldog56 7:22 am 18 Nov 14

Watto23 said “Easy simple economics…. If they don’t increase population and thus rates, as everything inflation increases, your rates will go up even more to cover the inflated costs. The more you can spread the costs the less rates need to go up. So you should be encouraging as many people as possible to move into medium and high density property. The govt makes a lot more money then.”

Annual Rates should go up with CPI. New higher density developments will provide “profit” for the Gov’t as more and more Annual Rates are raised.

Annual Rates in the ACT are up to tripling before the Light Rail was announced as going ahead causing increased density/infill along the corridor. Given that, the comment “The more you can spread the costs the less rates need to go up” is just plain wrong.

miz 7:00 am 18 Nov 14

Back to SouthQuay, the main worry for me is the promotion that it will be ‘like Kingston Foreshore’ which is a ghastly mix of architectural hodge-podge non-triumphs that basically block passersby from even knowing there is a lake there. There really is no need for these apartments to be so high, except for pure greed which seems to trump community aesthetics every time). And I understand that the Directorate’s rules on solar access are back to front! (this was pointed out to Minister Rattenbury at TCC’s most recent meeting and he said he would look into it.).
For all its faults Tuggeranong Lake is pretty and far more restful to the eye than ugly apartments that will essentially remove it from view of the passerby. (Yes I know they claim that one will still be able to stroll or ride around the lake, but not everyone has time to do that). Canberra used to actively try not to be one of those snobby places where people thought they were a cut above if they were on the ‘waterfront’ or on top of a hill with a view. I miss those days.

watto23 9:34 pm 17 Nov 14

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

Felix the Cat said :

I don’t reckon it looks too bad, pretty tall though, not that that’s necessarily a bad thing. Not sure why some people are opposed to tall apartment blocks, would they prefer urban sprawl instead?

Sadly many would prefer urban sprawl.
Some more interesting designs and concepts would be nice though, along with colour. Some mundane, bland apartment blocks like this example are okay for those that want them, but they would not appeal to everyone. They look unfriendly; where the resident goes to hide themselves away and not involve themselves with others. More choice is needed. Perhaps some apartments could offer a communal garden, instead of just the manicured space, where residents could grow a few vegetables or flowers, and meet the other residents. This could be an internal courtyard, around the edge, or perhaps on the roof. Create a sense of community. Also non-smoking apartment blocks, so residents don’t have to breath their neighbours’ fumes. There would be other ideas. It would be nice if apartment blocks could be built to help foster a sense of community, but many as they are designed now, seem to be built to do the opposite of that.

Why pity people who want urban sprawl?
Canberra was designed around wide, open spaces. Detractors call this urban sprawl. Who wants to live in a box?
The light rail threatens to destroy the Canberra concept in the name of “progress”.
Wouldn’t it be nice for Canberra to stop expanding and consolidate?

You’re arguing against yourself there.
“Why pity people who want urban sprawl?”
“Wouldn’t it be nice for Canberra to stop expanding and consolidate?”

Fair comment.
I should have been more succinct. I meant that we shouldn’t pity the people who want (and have) urban sprawl; we should in fact envy them.
It is time we reined in the sprawl but not to allow in-fill. I like Canberra just how it is and I cannot see any point in burdening ratepayers with the cost of something that we simply do not need.

Easy simple economics…. If they don’t increase population and thus rates, as everything inflation increases, your rates will go up even more to cover the inflated costs. The more you can spread the costs the less rates need to go up. So you should be encouraging as many people as possible to move into medium and high density property. The govt makes a lot more money then 🙂

dungfungus 6:10 pm 17 Nov 14

rosscoact said :

Tarinedier said :

There isn’t even a tenuous link to light rail in this development. Why don’t you just pick an ethnic/religious/political group you dislike, then your headline can be: Are these the type of people that the Light Rail will bring?

I agree, this is a ludicrous discussion by the Statler and Waldorf collective.

You still watch Muppets?
Are they on the ABC or SBS?

dungfungus 6:09 pm 17 Nov 14

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

Felix the Cat said :

I don’t reckon it looks too bad, pretty tall though, not that that’s necessarily a bad thing. Not sure why some people are opposed to tall apartment blocks, would they prefer urban sprawl instead?

Sadly many would prefer urban sprawl.
Some more interesting designs and concepts would be nice though, along with colour. Some mundane, bland apartment blocks like this example are okay for those that want them, but they would not appeal to everyone. They look unfriendly; where the resident goes to hide themselves away and not involve themselves with others. More choice is needed. Perhaps some apartments could offer a communal garden, instead of just the manicured space, where residents could grow a few vegetables or flowers, and meet the other residents. This could be an internal courtyard, around the edge, or perhaps on the roof. Create a sense of community. Also non-smoking apartment blocks, so residents don’t have to breath their neighbours’ fumes. There would be other ideas. It would be nice if apartment blocks could be built to help foster a sense of community, but many as they are designed now, seem to be built to do the opposite of that.

Why pity people who want urban sprawl?
Canberra was designed around wide, open spaces. Detractors call this urban sprawl. Who wants to live in a box?
The light rail threatens to destroy the Canberra concept in the name of “progress”.
Wouldn’t it be nice for Canberra to stop expanding and consolidate?

You’re arguing against yourself there.
“Why pity people who want urban sprawl?”
“Wouldn’t it be nice for Canberra to stop expanding and consolidate?”

Fair comment.
I should have been more succinct. I meant that we shouldn’t pity the people who want (and have) urban sprawl; we should in fact envy them.
It is time we reined in the sprawl but not to allow in-fill. I like Canberra just how it is and I cannot see any point in burdening ratepayers with the cost of something that we simply do not need.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site