The Only Way is up for ACT - say planners/Govt

Definitely in support. A week ago I would have been more hesitant, but I’d prefer the eyesore of overlarge buildings rather than the eyesore of what is going on out at Gungahlin. Seems like I just can’t get what I want in this place. Either its a tiny “house” that tries to mimic a traditional suburban home (but ends up little better than an apartment but without the conveniences) or its a decent sized apartment..built right on lakefront/prime land where I can’t afford it.

If the apartment is not sardine sized, and the location is not in high demand, then its a good thing IMO. Young people and families can buy homes that can accommodate their living needs without punishing their wallets. I just want a home. Not status symbol, or highly profitable investment, or luxury item.

Higher density housing or apartments makes sense if we’re going to be serious as a city about addressing climate change.

I have small children and would be completely happy to live in a well-designed apartment in a decent location, near to shops & schools, especially given the amount of wonderful park land and open space we have in Canberra where children can play. Apartments don’t need to be slums.

Many people I know in other cities live in great apartments in good neighbourhoods, and one of the great benefits is that community feel of getting to know you’re neighbours.

Townhouses would be good too. It would be great if people in Canberra could have a bit more choice.

And it appears that RiotACT itself doesn’t support Cyrillic (even though it showed up in the preview)… bugger!

Ahhhh the days of the Soviet Eastern Block and cheap mass construction:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2418/2533081839_8340ac838d.jpg?v=0

We could always replace the sign on the top with the following:
???????? Canberra ????????? ??? ????????????? ????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? Jon Stanhope

Translation:
Canberra citizens strive for perfection through the social engineering of our glorious leader Jon Stanhope

(apologies to any one who uses a browser that doesnt support cyrillic text)

Former? You mean those countries aren’t in Eastern Europe anymore?

Ummmm… most of the former Eastern Europe.

How about making Canberra like the real world, where – gasp! – shops and houses sometimes are together, not quarantined and forgetting this obsession with planning. We already have a Brazilia in a colder climate in the ACT; a few large scale public buildings deserted at night surrounded by roads and plazas and entirely unfriendly to human beings.

How about recognising that there was an oil shock three and a half decades ago – and a few since – and not spreading a city with a tiny population out further and further, making public transport more expensive and forcing its inhabitants to use cars.

As for Deb Foskey and here “rezoning land to enable flats in a 10-storey building may not replace the Government housing that was in the former Burnie Court development at Lyons”, how about she admits she’s a hippie communist parasite who has done sweet FA to tackle the problems above and whose biggest interest in public housing has been hanging onto a place for herself and bumping out the genuinely needy.

Talking about public housing, when are we going to see the dynamiting of all the ghastly, space wasting and outdated public housing down Northborne Avenue? Is there any other country that has a grand entry to its national capital through a row of slums?

The current height limit in suburban residential areas RZ1 & RZ2 is 8.5 metres, many developments exceed this because it is not challenged as it is not clear on the plans on the ACTPLA website. These areas (RZ1 & RZ2) are medium density, then it cascades up to Civic & Group Centres which have greatest height & density. The thing with the Burnie Court site is that it is crossing the road.

Developers always want to maximise units on the blocks and thus make a profit, which is why they are in business. The agreed limits on height plot ratio and parking for visitors are always being challenged. The Australian Building Code Board that is stacked by the development lobby sets standards such as turning circles etc.

The big problem is when developments have an adverse affect on existing residents in suburban areas. There is very little protection in the legislation (Land Act & T Plan) for existing residents. They have no right to sunshine or views and shadow diagrams in the plans are often dodgy. Indented street parking on nature strips for visitors is now acceptable for ACTPLA.

The Property Council and MBA are there to look after the interests of their members and so know how to influence both major parties so the planning laws favour them.

Not for me.

I love to spend half an hour cranking my 20yo smokey 2 stroke Victa of a Sunday morning into life… whilst wearing my favourite pluggers and footy shorts. Spend an hour stirring up the dust over the weeds, of what was my lawn. A cold stubby of VB will ensue afterwards. Looxury!!!

Don’t get that sort of quality of life living in a concrete box in a high rise!! 🙂

Of COURSE the Property Council are pushing for increased height limits- it’s much more profitable for its members to build and operate a taller building with a high floor area to footprint ratio. It’s debatable whether we need to go to hi-rise, or whether 3-5 storey medium rise (think Kingston) is sufficient denser to meet planning goals, eg to make public transport viable. Think of the many cities around the world that have large areas of what is, in effect, 3-5 storey medium density housing, without going higher. Hi-rise is ok when it’s near other hi-rise, but pushing 10 story buildings into suburbs causes serious problems, and would probably be electoral suicide for any government that tried to make a policy out of it.

The proposal for development in Lyons apparently involves a 10 story structure at the north end of the site- shading the rest of the development (and possibly other areas of Lyons) in winter. This creates an immediate conflict with Greenhouse/energy policy- areas around any potential hi-rise development need to have their solar access guaranteed, or be paid generous compensation. Makes you wonder about Stanhope’s commitment to renewable energy. (Speaking of the Bellerive development, how long will it be before an enterprising graffiti merchant paints “Mum, Grandpa’s being senile again” on the billboard featuring the d*ckhead wearing the skateboard on his head).