Sign In
or Create a new account
Draft 20 storey built form concepts
Council has development concept illustrations and design details to control the character of new 20 storey buildings. Do you think these concepts are adequate? Do you have any comments?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Relates to
document:
Draft 20 storey built form concepts (633.205 KB)
Comment 1 14 Mar 2010, 11:04 AM
environmental concerns
High-rise apartments are worse users of energy than lower-rise.
This is admitted by the state government when it applies a requirement of only 20% energy savings for multi-unit dwellings of 6 floors and above, but 30% for those of 4 or 5 stories.
Do not sell your children down the river in terms
of global warming for the sake of a developer's profits. Build townhouses (the most energy and water-efficient) or low-to-medium rise apartments.
Comment 1.1 24 Mar 2010, 4:53 PM
I totally disagree with your sentiments that 20 storey development is inappropriate for this area. How else will Sydney be able to cope with population growth and housing affordability when residents are adamantly against change. By building 20 storey apartments close to existing train stations it will greatly improve the use of trains instead of relying on private vehicles for commuting.
Every time high rise developments gets knocked down it will expand urban sprawl which means food producing farms in Sydney fringes will be demolished and more people will be relying on cars for mobility. Sydney doesn't need more cars on roads! Yes, ecological footprint is far smaller in high rise apartments than rows of townhouses to accomodate the same number of residents.
It is extremely selfish for locals to suggest that status quo should be maintained at all cost. Future generations would not be able to afford housing like previous generations because of lack of high rise developments.
Comment 1.1.1 24 Mar 2010, 7:35 PM
Your reply is not related to my statement. High-rise apartments are worse users of energy than lower-rise.
Ecological footprint is smaller in townhouses? They use the least energy and water so if they are replacing other dwellings you must be talking about some other aspect?
If you are so keen on 20 storey blocks, I suggest you write to Council and get them to put 20 storey blocks in all suburbs along the train line except Hornsby and Waitara - we have enough high density. The train service is excellent and there is therefore no reason why people would need to use their cars.
There is also no reason why all the houses in those other suburbs can't be pulled down, and as the existing density is lower than Hornsby/Waitara you would be gaining a lot more by replacing them with 20 stories, and at the same time displacing a lot less people.
There is also no food growing in any of those suburbs, so that is not a factor.
I would still vote against 20 stories in those suburbs also, but not 5 stories, what about you?
Comment 1.1.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 2:23 PM
How many townhouses will be needed to accommodate the same number of people as 1 20 storey apartment? It will be dozens.
I totally disagree with your reasoning that townhouses has smaller ecological footprint than one twenty storey apartments. I the apartment is situated close to existing public transport corridor like train station then it would not need a car to commute. Townhouses have backyards and
have larger space to insulate and thus would need more energy (eg. air conditioners and heaters) to change temperature.
This is like debating whether suburbs like Kellyville with mcmansions have smaller ecological footprint than apartments in Parramatta or Chatswood. The last figure I've seen, about 82% of residents in North West Sydney commute by car.
Comment 1.1.1.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 9:41 PM
If you don't want dozens of townhouses, build 5 storey apartments.
If townhouses are built within 15 minutes walk of stations, do people need to drive? I don't think so. Some people walk 20 minutes to Hornsby. If you are really worried that townhouses are too low density to see any benefit then you cannot argue against 5-, or 20- stories being better in your suburb, or against the low-density near your station being bulldozed in the name of global warming can you? Why does one suburb have to take it all?
To explain it from another aspect, even if there was more…
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.1 27 Mar 2010, 1:08 PM
The lower the density, the greater the propensity for residents to use private vehicles. NSW goverment has allocated a housing target for Hornsby Council because its infrastructure can cope with higher population greater than many suburbs. From Hornsby, Chatswood is only 20 minute by train and North Ryde is about 25 minute.
I am in favour of more density around train stations and major place of meetings. In fact I am in favour of 5 storey developments around Carlingford Court. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that higher density along existing train corridor gives a strong incentive to residents to use public transport for commuting.
Hornsby Council is not th only Council willing to embrace higher density development. Willoughby Council is stepping up to challenge by allowing 31 storey twin towers to cop with current and projected immigration intake. Same goes for Parramatta, Rhodes, St Leonards, North Sydney, Pyrmont, Green Square, Blacktown and Strathfield.
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 10:43 AM
Yes Carlingford should have some of the load, but the 834 new new dwellings is a bit over the top. We are already being saturated by The Hills council of 18 to 20 stories on the right of Pennant Hills Rd looking towards the mountains.
Pennant Hills Rd is grid locked at times. Getting to either Epping ot Carlingford train stations by public transport is a joke.
Changes in the last train timetable meant less trains stop at Eastwood station and more people driving to Epping.
Yes Carlingford should have some of the load but not 824 new dwellings.
It should be shared among each of the suburbs At the moment all it is achieving is residents of each suburb arguing against each other.
Shouldn't we all be voicing our strong disapproval at Hornsby Council and the NSW state Government. After all it appears alot of this is being pushed through before next years state government election.
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.1.2 29 Mar 2010, 12:37 PM
Show me proof - why people in townhouses are more likely to use cars than in highrise.
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 4 Apr 2010, 3:57 PM
P - They are not going to use less cars, however there will be LESS people per block therefore less cars.
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.1.3 6 Apr 2010, 8:50 PM
Sorry again! I wish to agree with Resonate(1.08 pm 27 March) not disagree.
Comment 1.1.2 24 Mar 2010, 7:40 PM
I also take issue with you saying it is "extremely selfish", and that future generations would not be able to afford housing. I am not saying no to any increased density am I? You are trying to twist my words.
In addition prices in any such highrise are always more costly than older low-rise stock and the strata levies high, so how can it be that I suggest to increase costs?
It appears you have an agenda to promote only 20 stories and only in Hornsby, now that sounds like "extremely selfish" to me?
Comment 1.1.3 25 Mar 2010, 10:07 AM
Resonate if you read the other comments on these discussion forums (particularly the Hornsby thread) you'll see the multitude of reasons why people are against 20 storeys in Hornsby and anywhere else in the shire for that matter. Development and higher density housing is inevitable, but Sydney should be dealing with population growth in a considered manner, not throwing up ad hoc planning proposals which will destroy the look and character of whole suburbs while adding immense pressure on already stretched infrastructure and with no apparent plan to mitigate this. There are train stations all along the north, are you suggesting 20 storeys in all of these suburbs too?
Comment 1.1.3.1 25 Mar 2010, 12:27 PM
As you said, development and higher density housing is inevitable - it is the only viable approach to dealing with Sydney's rapid population growth. Hornsby is an ideal place to increase density and for such developments. It is already a major regional centre like Liverpool or Penrith. It already has a significant amount of retail space and recently, it is becoming a commercial centre as well. It is a mini city itself. Placing such developments in centres like Hornsby will bring many benefits (greatly improving the local economy, providing convenient places to live etc). The model of placing high density more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.1 25 Mar 2010, 12:42 PM
But we can also create fresh new look and character of suburbs it's only 3 to 5 storeys in 1 street, hardly going to change the character of suburbs because it will be well hidden by trees and you won't even notice it.
No wonder State Government is selling and closing Berowra Police Station - there is no residents to protect, they are the one resisting change and shift it elsewhere that's already have their fair share. They only have themselves to blame don't blame the State Government.
Comment 1.1.3.1.2 25 Mar 2010, 12:50 PM
What Australia needs is government release more land and establish infrastructures before new residents move in.
Why do we have to build high when Australia have huge land mass compare to other countries?
Comment 1.1.3.1.2.1 5 Apr 2010, 9:36 PM
Mass of land? Only the coast is inhabitable, over 90% is desert. Moreover do you want to spend huge sums on new infrastructure (roads, water, power, etc), loose biodiversity, loose food production areas (Sydney's fringe currently produces 90% of our green veggies)all so people can live in their 1/4 acre? High density in existing developed areas makes sense, as much of the rest of the world has seen fit to do.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3 25 Mar 2010, 3:23 PM
Aussie17 - I don't think anyone would disagree that Hornsby is a commercial, employment and residential centre for the shire (the North Subregional Strategy confirms this and that it's earmarked for higher density). So I dare say, by and large, it's not an issue of resistance to change or higher density in Hornsby that is the problem for residents like me in Hornsby.
The resistance is to a poor and ad hoc planning process by the council, i.e.
- the proposal for 20 storey developments is unjustified. By proposing it the council violates the very planning principles it claims to be using more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1 25 Mar 2010, 11:16 PM
Well res12, I must congratulate you for recognising the need for higher density in such centres and hubs - you're one of the few people out there who understands this concept. Saves me a lot of time and explaining, so thanks.
First of all, I'd like to inform you about your reference to other suburbs. There are plenty of suburbs with over 20-storey buildings proposed, with Parramatta and North Sydney being a few examples. We also have Pyrmont, with a wealth of buildings over 20 storeys with a 22-storey building named "sugardock" under construction. St Leonards has a 33-storey tower proposed more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 12:32 AM
Just continuing on, Hornsby already has an urban form as a major transport/commercial/retail centre where people come to work and shop, so this development will perfectly complement Hornsby. Perhaps we shouldn't be focused solely on the count of storeys so much that we don't realise that they can be attractive and viable forms of building too. Sydney's densification is mostly happening at centres, so there will be an abundance of suburbs which won't see any change in the forseeable future, perhaps even in suburbs neighbouring Hornsby like Hornsby Heights.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.2 26 Mar 2010, 9:13 AM
Hornsby is hardly a major centre it basically just have Westfield and train line unlike Chatswood, Parramatta or Sydney CBD.
If we should develop then it should be Hornsby Westside first the buildings are so old and tired it's asking to be knocked down and rebuilt.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.2.1 26 Mar 2010, 10:31 AM
Actually, if we take a look at the 2030 plan for Sydney, Hornsby is recognised to be a major regional centre, up there with Chatswood or Bondi Junction. Res12 doesn't doubt that.
Again, it's only normal for us to resist change. But if Sydney is to remain sustainable, such change and developments will have to happen. Again, perhaps we wouldn't notice the benefits until after it's built.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.2.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 10:56 AM
We should address what is the ideal population for Australia first. 35 million by 2050 is way to many.
We should have infrastructure in place before over-populating our country.
By the way Aussie17, Chatswood and Bondi Junction are much closer to the city, work opportunities, universities, both have 2 massive shopping centres, lots of of office blocks and much wider bus network unlike Hornsby.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.2.1.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 12:03 PM
Well first of all, perhaps we shouldn't wander off our topic and talk about national issues at a local scale. The reality is that Sydney is growing rapidly, and there will have to be some major changes to cope with this, espcecially in centres such as Hornsby. It is normal for us to resist change, and we might not realise the benefits that it will bring until it's done.
Well, the key for the Sydney's strategic plan is to not focus all employment opportunities and growth in and near one single area, the CBD. The plan is to create a "city of cities", which identifies major centres and hubs throughout the entire area of the city and plans to grow them evenly so that instead of having one all-important centre, we can have centres spread around the entire city, to compensate for Sydney's huge sprawl. It model is no longer "develop more around the CBD and less outwards" - it is not sustainable that way. That's why centres such as Hornsby, Liverpool, Hurstville and even Penrith needs to be changed and developed. But let's not get out of our topic.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.2.1.1.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 12:15 PM
Res12 knows this anyway.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.2.1.1.1.2 26 Mar 2010, 12:21 PM
What employment opportunities? The only employment opportunities in Hornsby is retail.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.2.1.1.1.3 29 Mar 2010, 12:39 PM
You are talking about national issues at a local scale in virtually every sentence.
As an example, the city of cities does not anywhere mention Hornsby, so this is an irrelevant comment
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.2.1.1.1.3.1 29 Mar 2010, 9:53 PM
The City of Cities mentions Hornsby as a major centre, not as one of the Cities.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.2.1.1.1.3.1.1 16 Apr 2010, 4:02 PM
And what does the City of Cities say about major centres?
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.2.1.1.1.3.1.1.1 16 Apr 2010, 7:01 PM
Why on earth does anyone want to disagree with this comment? It was a question! an enquiry. Radas seems to know a bit about it so just tell everyone what it says. don't just disagree for the sake of disagreeing.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.2.1.1.2 3 Apr 2010, 5:02 PM
Enough is enough! How can we possibly think of a 'Big Australia' when our infrastructure eg public transport, hospitals and roads cannot support the present population. The NSW and State government should address these problems first then give us a plan. Maybe then we will support their housing strategies. As for the NSW government compulsory acquisition of land then reselling back to developers - this is so open to corruption it doesn't bear thinking about.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.2.2 26 Mar 2010, 2:30 PM
Hornsby may not be a major centre now but it has been planned to become one. In the Metropolitan Strategy it is listed as the major centre of the North Sub-region. As the sub-region's major centre, it is only logical, necessary and desirable that it grows to incorporate more business, government offices, more retail, entertainment etct ect facilities. In other words, it would become a more comprehensive, diverse and complex centre than it is now.
With good planning, architectural and urban design it should gprovide everyone much much more than the current Westfields, a couple of pubs and some straggly more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3 26 Mar 2010, 9:56 AM
Aussie 17 - The issue here is over-development. Too much, too close, too high... We only support sensible development.
Look at Chatswood, even though they build extremely high, at least it's a couple of streets away between high-rises.
But for Hornsby, it's going to be rows and rows of high-rises separated only by very narrow lane ways or 24 metres between buildings, it's way too close together. Hornsby will be the next Hong Kong or Singapore.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.1 26 Mar 2010, 11:11 AM
As I've already explained before, by building taller and thinner, we're actually getting more open and public spaces. It should also mean that developments shouldn't have to protrude a lot less than what building shorter buildings will. And can we please provide a clear definition of the word "overdevelopment", because it is sensible to call shorter buildings placed more densely over a much larger area "overdevelopment". Please don't solely focus on that count of storeys. We have to realise that this is actually beneficial. Refer to my previous post.
It isn't rows and rows of high rises. As they stated, it more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 12:13 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.1.2 26 Mar 2010, 12:33 PM
Aussie17 - do you mean dark narrow walkways between buildings "open and public spaces"?
I can see increase in crimes hidden in these dark narrow walkways.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.1.2.1 26 Mar 2010, 1:18 PM
Re-read my posts and the draft.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.1.2.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 1:38 PM
"What do you mean more "open and public spaces"??? They are residential buildings for residents who live in them not for you or anyone else, so it can't be classify as "open and public spaces".
Open and public spaces are parks, swimming pools, sport fields, libraries, civic place etc for the whole community to enjoy.
Exactly where in the plan promotes "open and public spaces?
From there previous plans they were going to have a park in the middle of Hunter Lane - not any more, so there will be less open and public spaces.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.1.2.1.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 2:21 PM
Swimming pools, libraries, parks. Great ideas for what we can put into those larger amounts of spaces if we had taller, thinner buildings instead of shorter and more.
This isn't the best way to explain it, but let's repost what I said earlier: "for one 20-storey building, we are only taking up half the space of two 10-storey buildings, or a quarter of the space of four 5-storey buildings."
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.1.2.1.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 9:56 PM
Aussie17 your "great ideas" make no difference to the residents of Hornsby if 20-storey apartments with their own private gardens are built - no open space before and no open space after. Except of course if you include street car parking spaces as open space, then it will be less open space.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.1.3 27 Mar 2010, 12:56 AM
Most of Chatswood highrise is office buildings, and the few residential towers there were not crowding out existing residents.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.1.3.1 27 Mar 2010, 1:48 PM
Existing houses were demolished in some parts of Chatswood to make way for both residential and commercial towers. I worked in Chatswood when this was happening. There is also an old block of units that has been demolished to build new higher units.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.1.3.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 9:57 PM
In that case, shame on Chatswood Council
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.1.3.1.1.1 30 Mar 2010, 7:18 PM
You'll have to realise that through the decades, Sydney has gone a long way. Sydney is now a world city, Australia's global city and a major contributor to the Asia-Pacific economy and is competiting in a highly competitive and rapidly growing and developing global environment. Sydney is Australia's most important economic centre. IIRC, just Sydney alone contributes to 22% of the entire Australian economy or even more, which is more than any other city in Australia. As I've explained, we need such developments to keep our global city efficient, sustainable and competitive. Transport is our biggest problem and if we have to complain about developments just about everywhere they appear (which is what Sydney's residents everywhere seem to be doing), especially in Sydney's major centres or identified major centres such as Hornsby, then we should do something much more productive instead and redirect our complaints to transport instead.
Sydney is not a bushland.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.1.4 29 Mar 2010, 12:41 PM
Hong Kong has been building 50 stories for years, don't try to make it look like a recent thing
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.1.5 29 Mar 2010, 12:42 PM
Sydney also appears in the top 10 liveable cities without highrise everywhere
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.2 26 Mar 2010, 2:37 PM
xfactor, If you look at the draft 20 storey built form concepts, it says that the aim is to avoid big bulky buildings (they have a few explanatory diagrams) and to maximise open space (again, more diagrams). I think you will find that this approach will not produce rows and rows of 20 storey buildings separated by crime ridden dark and narrow alley ways
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 12:17 PM
bellinid - you trust town planners and authorities too much... you've been con by their drawings (they are out of proportion) and how good it will look. These people makes blunders day in day out. You are too easily fooled.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.2.2 29 Mar 2010, 12:43 PM
I see Radas has suggested 20 stories in Normanhusrt so they share the impact - good idea!
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.2.2.1 16 Apr 2010, 7:12 PM
Dumb idea!!!! That is hardly SHARING is it? That is just being bitter and angry. It does not exactly amount to fair share of development does it? Normanhurst being a illage and all, and Hornsby being a major regional centre, does it? Normanhurst does not even have a bank for goodness sakes!
Put 20 storeys in Normanhurst and Hornsby will regret it because all the extra Normanhurst residents will be descending like a plague of weevils on Hornsby to access all the major centre services, because Hornsby is a major centre! And major centres are where all the services are logically located.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.2.3 31 Mar 2010, 1:49 PM
bellinid, tt will isolate existing properties and cause distress to current residents, you support this?
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.2.3.1 9 Apr 2010, 4:36 PM
How is this different to causing distress to residents of say, Berowra? Is it ok for them to be distressed?
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.3.2.3.1.1 9 Apr 2010, 4:50 PM
fewer residents will be distressed in Berowra than Hornsby according to the scale of development and the number of residents currently in each location
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4 26 Mar 2010, 3:57 PM
Aussie17 the discussion continues! I admit I haven’t read all the posts that your initial response to mine kicked off, so I’m just focusing on the points in the initial one. I think there’s a couple of things at least that we agree upon.
1. Higher density is inevitable, and is happening, in a lot of places, particularly those designated (and that already are) commercial/transport/employment hubs, like Hornsby.
2. That given current conditions, higher density developments should be focusing on areas where there are established transport nodes – again, like Hornsby.
I think our key point of disagreement is about what the above more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1 27 Mar 2010, 12:36 PM
Given that Sydney is growing rapidly, and that there is a shift towards having less people live in each household, there will have to be a sharp increase of the number of households in the near future. As you understand, for sustainability, the majority of the increase in population will need to be placed in or around centres like Hornsby, so as I’ve explained before in all of my previous posts, there will have to be a certain degree of change, and having taller and thinner buildings will be beneficial; as I’ve explained before, they will leave more open spaces, more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 12:26 PM
Aussie17, this is Australia we have so much land, we are not other countries like Hong Kong or Canada. By the way I lived in HK for 15 years, they don't put sky high residentials in CBDs they are for commercials. Residentials are built near all MTRs stations and bus corridors not just a few suburbs as you are proposing. Where will the commercial towers go if we are just building all residential, if you really like to compare Chatswood and Bondi Junction. They both have loads of it, I don't see much if any in Hornsby at the moment and most travel far and wide to work, so this strategy defeat the live, work and play idea.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 2:18 PM
Wow, really, perhaps you should go overseas and have a look. Canada, IIRC, has the 2nd largest land mass in the world after Russia and has a land mass of approximately 1 and 1/3 the times of Australia. Like Australia, the majority of Canada's land mass is almost uninhabitable.
As I've explained before, we cannot keep building like we did before. Perhaps it would have been alright to build lower densities and more sprawl decades ago, when Sydney's population was much lower, when the future of transportation looked like it would be dominated by cars and when Sydney wasn't as much more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 12:48 PM
You are focusing on putting 20 stories in Hornsby, every second paragraph, not anywhere else, so even if you say you live in Epping (which cannot be proved), why should anyone believe you have any agenda but to get the development out of wherever it is you live. You do not look at any other issues except how we should be like Canada. This is not what everyone else thinks (and why do you not live in highrise if it is so fantastic?)
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 12:50 PM
And as Radas says. it makes more sense to put commercial together and have the surrounding suburbs full of high density residential. The number of locations people need to go to is the important thing and if Hornsby is to be a centre for employment, then put offices there and residential everywhere else, and they will catch the train. Everyone (almost) living in Hornsby only need to go down two
train lines to get to work so being a transport hub adds nothing for people liviing there.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2 28 Mar 2010, 2:22 PM
Yes we have so much land. Pity that much of it is desert, water starved. If it had been so fertile it would have been developed and populated by now much like the USA.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 2:39 PM
Besides, as I've explained before, we canot sprawl any further or our cities will become even more inefficient. Our major cities are already oversprawled compared to world standards, and the fact that we have recently overtook the US to become the country with the biggest homes per capita proves just that. Well, If we had all that land mass, why don't we spread Sydney out to all cover all of NSW, Melbourne to cover all of Victoria, Perth to cover all of Western Australia, etc?
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 12:51 PM
So put the apartments everyhwere else along the train line
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2 28 Mar 2010, 4:39 PM
we mean outer western sydney, north west and south west of sydney where there are lots of empty government own lands not middle of australia
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 6:04 PM
People living in Western Sydney's fringe suburbs are socially marginalised because of the transport disadvantage. The poor coverage of reliable public transport choice mixed with an unsustainable urban form means residents are, by default, car-dependant. Residents without access to a car and with an absent or unreliable public transport service are thus effectively hindered from fully participating in the life of the city. They find it difficult to access activities such as employment, leisure, health services, further education, community programs and more. This translates to a poor quality of life for the many affected residents, including mothers in one car more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 6:53 PM
And also we should actively try to ensure that we get the very best in design outcomes.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2 29 Mar 2010, 12:53 PM
Hornsby is not better served for transport to employment or recreation than most other nearby stations on the train line, so why do you always push Hornsby
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1 29 Mar 2010, 4:54 PM
Hornsby IS better served for transport! Even Blind Freddy can see that! It is at a junction of 2 railway lines. A stop for interurbans and even countrylink trains. There are expresss trains. There is more employment there and it will as it grows be able to provide even more employment opportunities. It is a regional centre sdo it is only logical that it grows, and this includes providing more housing there too. That is why Hornsby is being chosen.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1 31 Mar 2010, 1:57 PM
crisis, as others have mentioned, bieing a transport hub is useful when people are going to, or coming from many places, not when they are going to only a few. Hornsby residents only go to a few locations for work (take either hthe North Shore Line or the Northern Line). If Hornsby is a centre for employment then people will come from many locations to get there (and go to many locations on the way home) so that it when it is important to be a transport hub. Not for the residents. Therefore there is no great advantage of putitng more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1 31 Mar 2010, 2:15 PM
That is absolutely ridiculous! How do you know where the residents of Hornsby work? And what could possibly be the difference between Strahfield and Hornsby? Sorry, as a centre Hornsby is already bigger. So bigger means more regeneration and growth of the town, so it can function better.
Successful and sophisticated urban environments are complex and diverse, They offer a lot of different amenities. In this way they thrive, not wither away and die like Hornsby most certainly will. And then you won't get any improvements because there will not be enough money or extra funding for it. So in this way you can forget about a new hospital, more commuter parking, road maintenance, new swimming pools, more books for the library.
And seriously, Hornsby does provide really good rail access to a lot of places.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1 1 Apr 2010, 10:58 AM
Also, if people in centres like Hornsby keep rejecting such calls for residential development, then the population will have to be put elsewhere with much less or no public transport, meaning that it is worsening Sydney's problems, not solving them. I've explained it before.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 2 Apr 2010, 6:54 PM
Aussie17, you've explained it before, we've disagreed before.
The other stations on the train line do not have much less public transport, neither do they have no public transport, so your assertion that not putting more housing in Hornsby will worsen Sydney's problems is not grounded in logic.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 2 Apr 2010, 7:09 PM
Some of the other stations do have much less public transport. Epping and Hornsby have significantly more and that is why it is appropriate that bothe these places should and will grow. Aussie17's argument is completely grounded in logic.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 6 Apr 2010, 1:52 PM
Those stations also have better facilities for coping with frail and elderly residents as well as people with disabilties.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 12 Apr 2010, 12:06 AM
matilda2, frail and elderly residents will be basically excluded from the Linda Street precinct if expensive apartments are built, so you had better improve the facilities at whichever station they are going to have to move to.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 12 Apr 2010, 1:18 PM
I agree with you. Facilities need improving at most of the railway stations in Sydney but that wont happen for a long time.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 12 Apr 2010, 1:37 PM
Why do you automatically assume that all the apartments will be expensive? Also, you can hardly argue that the majority of existing apartments, including the newer ones, are expensive. They are generally cheaper than a house in the area and cheaper than apartments in many parts of Sydney, including Kuringgai.
The very frail and elderly probably could not cope with living unassisted in any type of housing anyway. Their particular needs have to be looked at specifically. Also it would not be an impossible thing to allocate lower level apartments to the frail, elderly and disabled. Also for these people it is better for them to have housing which is very close to lots of amenities and services as they would be better able to access them.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2 2 Apr 2010, 8:57 PM
And I can't do anything to help you if you don't accept the logic and what's sensible yourself.
And if you have noticed, as I said before, every centre or identified centre like Hornsby in Sydney are getting such developments. In general, most of the developments in Sydney are happening around transport modes, if you can't see anything anywhere else except in Hornsby. It's just a matter of how much the area is being developed. As for Hornsby, as it is identified to be a major centre and transport hub up there with Chatswood and Bondi Junction (refer to Albert's post near the bottom of this thread) such developments, as I've explained before, are appropriate. It is the sensible and sustainable way to build for the future. So I can't help you if you don't accept what's sensible (all the things I've explained before); or if you keep repeating the same issues that I've already addressed for your benefit.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.3 5 Apr 2010, 10:04 PM
Anywhere north of Hornsby has limited transport. Two trains an hour going north is insufficient. Hornsby gets all the trains stopping and has extensive bus services (not enough though), therefore is better able to handle population growth.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.2 2 Apr 2010, 6:50 PM
crisis, you say azroc's comments are "ridiculous". You are twisting the logic - what are the transport hub advantages of Hornsby? A couple of train lines - that go to places that are also easily accesible from other nearby stations.
Buses? they don't go to any employment centres of note do they?
So the people who live in Hornsby who go to work in places not on the train line or bus stop, how do they get there? They drive, so why is it better for them to live in Hornsby from a transport perspective?
Strathfield? As azroc says you can take a train from Strathfield that goes to many different train lines, so is more likely to be of use as a transport hub.
Arguments about funding have no relevance because no matter where the people are located in the Shire, they still have to pay rates, so the Shire will benefit anyway. So tell me why Hornsby should have to raise funds for all the people in other suburbs?
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.2.1 2 Apr 2010, 7:22 PM
Will you guys decide once and for all on how many train lines Hornsby has? You keep changing it to suit what you say! Please be consistent!
Anyway A COUPLE of train lines sounds pretty damn good to me!
Oh and the buses. Well with more people concentrated in a smaller area there is clearly more incentive for increasing the bus services. Actually Azroc made no mention of buses.
I'm sorry but I think I have to agree with crisis about Azroc's statements being ridiculous.
I think crisis has a point about funding too. Governments, apart from a marginal seat situation will still tend to put money into growth areas. Hornsby shire is definitely not a marginal seat is it? It may be our only chnce to get much needed improvements in the area.
I think you and azroc are just desperately clutching at straws.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1 13 Apr 2010, 1:24 PM
As I stated in other posts Hornsby does not have "a couple of train lines". It is really serviced by a single train line with a branch line between Chatswood meeting back at Hornsby. To the normal person it appears to be an area with two train lines but the opening of the ECRL changed that. Technically it does have two lines but in reality not for the average Hornsby commuter.
Epping is a station that technically now has two train lies. You can go to the CBD via Strathfield or via Chatswood. With the exception of hoping on a more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.2.2 2 Apr 2010, 9:24 PM
People have to look beyond the short term future and into the long term future. Bus routes, train timetables etc can easily be changed.
Sydney is growing continuously. Sydney's population has reached 4.5 million recently, and just last year alone saw an increase of about 85,500 people; even more than expected. For the long-term strategy, if everything goes as planned and people don't keep complaining about developments even in centres like Hornsby, having such developments will be the much more sensible way of developing for a more sustainable future. Centres are the "cores" of the city. They are where people go more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.2.3 6 Apr 2010, 8:42 PM
sorry I meant to press "Disagree" so please count one more disagree for this comment by RADAS (6.50 pm 2 april 2010). I completely AGREE WITH CRISIS.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.2.4 9 Apr 2010, 4:41 PM
Talk about twisted logic! To further your not in my backyard cause a numer of you say hornsby has only 2 train lines whereas epping has three!
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.2.4.1 19 Apr 2010, 1:15 PM
Just a point on that and a reason why people are saying three lines is because no one can go direct from city to Hornsby down the northern line any more.
so Hornsby = Shore + Epping
Epping = Hornsby + City + Chatswood
Epping has become a 'Hub' like Central
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.2.4.1.1 19 Apr 2010, 3:49 PM
That still doesn't make it 3 lines. anyway it is not a major issue because we all know exactly where these 2-3 lines take us to and how frequently and how long it takes.
epping is a very baby hub so not much like central, a bit more like Strathfield, but still nowhere near it in terms of different destinations and directions.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.3 29 Mar 2010, 10:03 PM
Why do you keep mentioning Hornsby having good access to public transport as a reason it should be lined up for more development and not give the other suburbs on the train line equal weighting, which also have very good access to public transport?
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.2 28 Mar 2010, 6:52 PM
Well the north west sector should be densified if the north west railway gets constructed as should the south west. These areas have the oppportunity of being designed as proper Transit Oriented Development (TOD) virtually from scratch. And by doing this we can also minimise the relentless onslaught of ugly mcmansions, crowded together so everyones windows are a metre apart from their neigbours om side boundaries. A bit like a concrete jungle theme park such neighbourhoods are I would say.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.3 29 Mar 2010, 12:52 PM
So they should fill new land releases like Oran Park with new 50 storey apartment blocks and not put low density, so the people in exsiting areas don't have to suffer. So why do both bellinid and Aussie17 push to put everyhting in Hornsby? Selfish thats why
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.3.1 29 Mar 2010, 6:32 PM
Refer to my posts for why these developments are appropriate for Hornsby. Hornsby is identified as a major centre and it will inevitably grow, and theoretically, 20 storey towers will save 4 times the number of homes than building 5 stories. And as I've explained before, 20 storey buildings (sometimes more than 20, 30 or more) are the norm for all of Sydney's existing and identified major centres. You seem to be ignoring that and focusing on your wants rather than reality. Change and growth is a continuous process. You've also stated to put the 20 storey towers in other minor suburbs with much less infrastructure which aren't suited in the forseeable future for increased density like what identified major centres like Hornsby needs in the future, such as normanhurst. We can now see who's selfish.
Again, we need to stop solely focusing on the storey count and start realising what benefits such developments are bringing. Refer to my previous posts.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.3.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 10:07 PM
I would say probbin is focusing on the impact it will have on him/her personally, whereas you are just making grandiose statements and are ignoring that it will have a severe impact on current residents. And you complain I'm getting angry! Why do you think I'm getting angry, it affects me directly yet you just go on about it being good for everyone, about people resisting change, and pretending the people here in Hornsby do not exist!
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.2.2.3.2 31 Mar 2010, 2:00 PM
I vote for ideas like that - changing Oran Park to high density. Do all those who disagree care to comment why they voted agsint it? Otherwise the vote means nothing.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.1.2 23 Apr 2010, 9:42 AM
Aussie17 - no where in my post did I suggest that 'growth needs to stop when our system's not up to the load'. Pointing out where infrastructure is sorely lacking is part of the planning process - and my point was that the planning for infrastructure and the planning for housing do not appear to be remotely in tandem as they should be. There's no point in ignoring the transport issue - it is central to sustainable development.
And no where do I say that we should discourage the growth of areas like Hornsby. I've always made the point that Hornsby is a key centre in the shire and will, and must, grow. I disagree with the extreme form of development (20 storeys) proposed. As many others have mentioned in this and other threads, there are a variety of options to increase dwelling yields - low rise does not mean low density.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2 28 Mar 2010, 12:03 AM
I'll quote an interesting passage from the most recent plan for Rhodes (it just happens to further justify my points and why Hornsby needs such buildings):
"Current development on the Peninsula appears homogenous and indistinctive from both the road and the water. Open space is lacking (i.e. less than 7m2 per capita, or half what is provided at Pyrmont). Furthermore, the internal amenity and privacy of the perimeter-block building layouts around a narrow central courtyard, is observably poor.
The proposal provides for 30% more open space on the Peninsula. It will provide some additional passive recreation and seating areas, away from the more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 12:29 PM
Aussie17, you must be working for the public sector or constrution industry. These people make blunders after blunders everyday and you still trust them?
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 2:20 PM
So who do you trust? Are these the only people who make blunders? Are these the only people who make blunders everyday as you state? Of course they make blunders as do other sectors of society - lawyers, doctors, plumbers, tilers, welfare recipients, the classic average true blue aussie. ALL MAKE BLUNDERS!
So who should be planning and creating these plans and developments? Who has the expertise? Mr and MS average Norm?
I don't know what Aussie17 does for a living but he/she certainly has an in depth understanding of the issues we are discussing. He/she is not being hysterical like some people on this forum. Hysteria will get you nowhere, even if you are in the right.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2.1.2 28 Mar 2010, 2:47 PM
I'm a uni student doing a bachelor of urban planning. What do you do?
I'll repeat again that most of Sydney's developments are happening in and around major centres and transport hubs, so if people don't want the inevitable change and still want to live in "mcmansions", they've got plenty of suburbs that won't see much change in the forseeable future to choose from. As I've explained before, cities are constantly evolving and Hornsby is strategically recognised to become a major centre like Chatswood.
Again, perhaps we should stop focusing on the storey count and start realising what benefits such developments are actually bringing.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2.1.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 3:08 PM
Yes Xfactor, what do you do?
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2.1.2.2 28 Mar 2010, 3:29 PM
Aussie17 - No wonder you have conflict of interest with this issue
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2.1.2.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 3:40 PM
So, xfactor, what do you do?
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2.1.2.2.2 28 Mar 2010, 3:52 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2.1.2.2.3 28 Mar 2010, 4:44 PM
You are being extremely offensive to Aussie17. He/she has knowledge and expertise in the issues at hand and you dismiss these totally. If you were to go to the doctors do you dismiss their diagnosis of what may be wrong with you or do you respect their knowledge and expertise? Or do you prefer to listen to someone who has little or no expertise and who may, in the case of a medical condition, actually put your life at risk?
Please be respectful of others!
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2.1.2.2.3.1 29 Mar 2010, 10:15 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment discussed other users but not the issue
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2.1.2.2.3.2 6 Apr 2010, 2:08 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2.1.2.2.4 5 Apr 2010, 10:09 PM
Why is a specialist education a conflict of interest?
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2.1.2.2.4.1 6 Apr 2010, 2:10 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2.1.2.2.4.2 6 Apr 2010, 8:38 PM
Maybe because some people feel threatened and they don't like what they hear from the specialists
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2.1.2.3 16 Apr 2010, 7:22 PM
removed by moderator because the comment discussed other users and not the issue
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2.2 29 Mar 2010, 12:59 PM
Just becasue a council justifies what it has done by highlighting the benefits, doens't mean there aren't drawbacks.
Build everything in Normanhurst and other suburbs, not Hornsby, we have enough and don't care for Rhodes council hallucinations. What is so good about having tall iconic buildings in a bushland shire anyway?
You keep going on about change bieing inevitable and how we resist change - too patronising, and too focused on getting Hornsby to do most of the work.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.2.2.1 16 Apr 2010, 7:25 PM
No council called Rhodes, probbin. Build EVERYTHING in Normanhurst and other suburbs? NOTHING in Hornsby, the major centre of the area? Interesting......
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.3 28 Mar 2010, 12:44 AM
I'll also say again that much of Sydney's future developments will be in and around centres (since it is sensible to do so, if people still want their "mcmansions" (so to speak), there'll be plenty of quieter suburbs which won't see any significant change in the forseeable future.
I'd also finally like to add for other people that recently, Australia is now the country with the largest homes per capita, and has overtaken the US to become that. Australian cities (including Sydney) already have too much inefficient sprawl which is causing too many problems and planners are now realisng it. For this day and age, we can't keep building like we did before. So perhaps we should stop solely focusing on the storey count and start realising what benefits such developments are actually bringing for the future? Developments like these, as I've explained before, are going the right way for he future, so why don't we re-focus all of our efforts of criticising to improve our transportation system instead? It is Sydney's TRUE problem.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.3.1 28 Mar 2010, 2:29 PM
The sad thing about these large homes that are so much the ultimate aim and pride of so many is that they are poorly designed with unusable space and very often poorly constructed. So all this space is just wasted. Environmentally they are wasteful - not built to last, poor solar control, poor ventilation and so on.
And so many of these mcmansions are also so damn ugly! Uglier than many of the apartment buildings that are so despised. A blight on the landscape for endless square kilometres and also creeping into established older areas and destroying the existing streetscape.
One good thing that may come out of densification is that less of these mcmansion abominations will be built!
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.3.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 1:01 PM
So you should be pushing for Oran Park to be high density with a busway or new train line, not Hornsby being abused to save your suburb. Really no fairness expecting others to suffer at your benefit.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.3.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 10:18 PM
Good idea, it should be obvious to urban planners I would say. It would solve all problems at once and stop this argument (which no doubt is being repeated all over Sydney). probbin you are promoted to chief urban planner for Sydney, first job should be to sack all the amateurs.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.3.2 28 Mar 2010, 3:32 PM
Then what happens when town centres are fully developed? Are we going do build even higher in leafy suburbs? It seems to me that they can't be touched and be all heritage.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.3.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 3:56 PM
Who knows? Back in the early 20th century, people back then would have had no clue of what the world and its cities would look like today. Again, change is a continuous and inevitable process and the needs for the world's and its cities are constantly changing and developing. For Sydney in this day and age, such developments will ensure sustainability for the forseeable future (as I've explained before).
Again, I've told you what I do, so what do you do?
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.3.2.2 29 Mar 2010, 1:03 PM
and where will they fit the office buildings that Hornsby is supposed to get if it is to be a commercial centre, they will only have filled the place with low-level office buildings and tall apartment towers. Seems pretty dumb to me.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.3.2.2.1 29 Mar 2010, 6:08 PM
I think the office buildings will be high rise towers also
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.3.3 28 Mar 2010, 4:04 PM
Aussie17 and bellinid - we get your message.
More,closer and higher...
But you don't think of social issues like where are all these displaced people go when we build these towers? There are around 1200 to 1500 residents living there currently. The only way for them would be to build even more buildings somewhere for them to live. So it's catch 22 and noboby wins.
By the way, Linda St Precinct is already zoned for high density development years ago, so it's not a new area for housing and so it defeats the idea to have a Housing Strategy which is to find more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.3.3.1 29 Mar 2010, 1:04 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.4.3.3.2 29 Mar 2010, 6:18 PM
Nobody knows for sure what is around the corner in any aspect of their life.
THe building of these new aparmtents would be staged, not all at onec. That never happens
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.5 26 Mar 2010, 10:11 PM
Aussie17 your first paragraph displays too much sarcasm to be considered polite. Now people have a certain image of you which upon reflection you would probably regret (depending on what sort of person you are).
Following the logic in your commentary, what is the big drawback against building 20-stories in Normanhurst or Berowra? There is none as far as you are concerned except a notion that transportation is a problem, as all other things can be solved by jumping in a train or car can they not? But public transport is good to suburbs near Hornsby, and retailers and employment will more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.5.1 27 Mar 2010, 1:04 PM
Becuase Normanhurst of Berowra are not major transport/commercial/retail centres, nor are they recognised to be one or need to be one in the near future like Hornsby. Perhaps you're trying to take the problem elsewhere.
Hornsby is recognised to have to be a major centre up there with other centres such as Chatswood or Bondi Junction in the near future for a sustainable Sydney. So don't worry, Hornsby will grow.
I understand the needs in planning for the 21st century for Sydney. If it ever comes to my suburb, I will not resist, and I am true to my words. I know more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.5.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 12:31 PM
That can easily be changed by adjusting the train timetables now they have extra capacity from Epping to Chatswood rail.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.5.1.2 29 Mar 2010, 1:06 PM
No, I agree with Radas - the town centre should be reserved for commercial and keep the residential in surrounding suburbs like Normanhust and Berowra.
Comment 1.1.3.1.3.1.5.1.2.1 16 Apr 2010, 7:27 PM
This is outdated planning and design practice which has been recognised as not being the best way to go.
Comment 1.1.3.1.4 25 Mar 2010, 5:43 PM
And why can't people catch the train from Berowra, Mt Colah, Mt Kuringai, Asquith, Normanhurst, Thornleigh, Pennant Hills, Beecroft, Cheltenham, Epping? If there is increasing of density in those places, next to the station, the transport is so good it doesn't make any difference if they are there or Hornsby.
It would not be increasing sprawl, and it will also improve those suburbs economy, and they will be a convenient place to live, and they can have a "fresh and new look and character also".
They could even have more retail and commercial as results.
This model is also proven to work in many other countries, not just highrise.
I have just shown all your arguments apply to the other suburbs.
Now tell me if you are resisting change not wanting that in your suburb?
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.1 27 Mar 2010, 3:52 PM
Sorry, but where is it that you have shown all arguments apply to the other suburbs?
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 1:08 PM
Show me where I haven't. Your arguments all talk about needing to have residents with easy access to centres, and the surrounding suburbs do.
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.2 29 Mar 2010, 5:33 PM
Good point probbin,,
Everyone from around the world chooses to use Waitara station. I've even heard of some local residents walking to Wahroonga station from Waitara because it takes too long to purchase a ticket!
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.2.1 29 Mar 2010, 8:39 PM
Well maybe you should petition for an extra ticket vending machine or two. Problem solved.
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.2.1.1 6 Apr 2010, 9:43 AM
^^In two years time Waitara will require more vending machines, then two years from then they will require ever more...until a decision is made to expand housing in the surrounding area such as Normanhurst & Thornliegh to support the demand. Problem solved.
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.2.1.1.1 6 Apr 2010, 11:09 AM
Perhaps by the time even more vending machines are required, there may be different ways of buying tickets that rely less on vending machines.
I very much doubt that the number of ticket vending machines required is going to be a criteria for deciding where to increase housing. If required Waitara station would be upgraded, like Epping has been. And in any case, it will never become as busy as Town Hall for example, and its not like that station has hundreds of ticket machines.
Problem solved as both you and crisis like to say.
In the meantime extra vending machines sounds like an effective inexpensive option. Good idea, crisis!
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.2.1.1.2 19 Apr 2010, 9:08 PM
Maybe a refined version of Myzone will solve all these problems and you won't need a million ticket machines at Waitara station. Problem solved.
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.2.1.1.3 23 Apr 2010, 9:09 AM
Cat, I think the point about getting extra ticket machines is a really good one and will no doubt solve the waiting problem.
Walking to Wahroonga is not that far from some parts of Waitara and can just be thought of as a bit of exercise. Why not walk to Hornsby station instead? That is not far for some of the unit residents.
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.2.2 22 Apr 2010, 10:23 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.3 31 Mar 2010, 9:14 PM
High density already exists in Hornsby and Waitara. It is not and should not be appropriate for other smaller suburbs.
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.3.1 2 Apr 2010, 9:41 AM
matilda2 - high density exists in Hornsby but they want to put higher density, which will make the current high density look like medium density. So the incremental change in density is similar to moving smaller suburbs from low to medium (and will affect more local residents in an existing high density than in an existing low-density area).
And all the talk about higher density being inappropriate for Mt Colah, Berowra etc because they are bushland suburbs? The precincts targeted in those suburbs are covered by houses or run-down shops, not bushland. They have already had the bushland ripped out and replaced with houses, driveways, roads and lawns. If you could ask a native animal what they thought about those precincts they would dismiss them as undesirable places for them to live (and probably complain about some of the ugly rundown houses there). The bushland argument means something only to someone trying to bend the truth.
Is higher density appropriate in those lower-density suburbs? No it is not, but neither is even higher density in Hornsby, so if one suburb has to suffer, so should all.
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.3.1.1 2 Apr 2010, 6:04 PM
High density in Hornsby exists but in the precinct in question it is not all that high. Hornsby as a major centre is best placed to cater to the needs of a higher population. Greatly increasing the densities in much smaller suburbs is not a good idea because the suburbs will not be able to cater to the residents in the same manner as a larger centre. All these people will then be driving to Hornsby adding to environmental pollution, congestion and parking problems. Smaller centres often cannot grow in the same way as larger ones, and also it would more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.3.1.1.1 2 Apr 2010, 6:40 PM
Also, as I've explained before, building taller means more open spaces and therefore, more greenery can be planted.
Ever seen those cramped 10-story developments as people here seem to want? There's many around Meadowbank/Rhodes and perhaps Waitara. They're "concrete jungles" as some people like to call them. So if they built 20 storeys, they could have effectively halved the number of buildings and doubled the open spaces, perhaps leaving space for a park and more greenery.
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.3.2 2 Apr 2010, 6:58 PM
matidla2, I think it is appropriate, and you will have to agree to differ.
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.3.2.1 2 Apr 2010, 7:35 PM
Well that is your opinion and fair enough. But not necessarily correct. You know what? If you get rezoned for 20 storeys, you will not lose out financially, but 5-10 storeys would not be so attractive. With the money, you can then purchase a pretty decent unit, townhouse, or house in another area in the shire close to Hornsby, close to the train.
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.3.2.1.1 2 Apr 2010, 9:29 PM
And as I've stated before, Sydney is growing rapidly and continuously. Building taller means that less houses will have to be destroyed for new developments.
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.3.3 6 Apr 2010, 9:55 AM
matilda2, "High density already exists in Hornsby and Waitara. It is not and should not be appropriate for other smaller suburbs"
What is your definition of "smaller suburbs"? Waitara is probably a quarter the size of Normanhurst, or Mt Ku-ring-gai etc...
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.3.3.1 6 Apr 2010, 10:51 AM
I think Matilda is referring to the classification and scale of the business/commercial areas and the scope they have to grow (next to nil in some instances) and to the existing density of suburbs.
Hornsby is classified as a major centre and already has some high density. It is planned to become a larger centre (so it obviously has scope for growth). Normanhurst is 2.15 sq. km in size. Waitara is 0.77 sq km in size. Waitara though is basically an extension of Hornsby and is classified as a village. Normanhurst is classified a neighbourhood centre. Villages are higher up the size scale than neighbourhood centres.
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.3.3.1.1 6 Apr 2010, 1:56 PM
Thankyou Bellinid. That is what I meant.
Comment 1.1.3.1.4.3.3.2 19 Apr 2010, 9:10 PM
Waitara is a village and within easy walking distance of Hornsby. Realistically it is just a part of Hornsby mostly.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5 26 Mar 2010, 9:21 AM
Aussie 17, why don't you ask Council to rezone the area where you live to 20 storeys if you love it so much?
I am sure you live in a leafy suburb and try to shift it to others.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1 26 Mar 2010, 11:20 AM
I live in Epping, and I am true to my word; I surely don't mind having much taller structures here. But Hornsby is recognised to be a major centre like Chatswood or Bondi Junction. We can be sure that these developments are sensible, openly spaced with thin buildings, livable and much better than building shorter, more tightly packed and more as I've explained before. It is more like what livable cities like Vancouver and Toronto is doing to cope with increased populations like what Sydney trying to cope with, not Hong Kong. That's why I don't mind having these developments even if it happens near where I live. Please re-read what I have said. Perhaps we should all look beyond that storey count to realise what benefits these developments bring, shouldn't we?
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 12:26 PM
Big and tall is not always the best.
We should have good looking resort style 5 to 7 storey units like Breakfast Point and Homebush Bay along Parramatta River.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 1:26 PM
That's because suburbs like Breakfast Point aren't major centres. They don't have the transport access, other amenities and opportunities that centres provide. They have a much smaller population and generally much more space. Hornsby is a major transport/retail/commercial centre and needs to sustain a much larger population, hence taller and slimmer buildings for more open and wider spaces and enhanced liveability and attractiveness as well as better sustainability rather than shorter buildings and much less open spaces and much larger area of protrusion. I've explained it before. And I'll repeat that Rhodes have recently done the same, allowing 30-storey towers for more open spaces and public amenities. And, as I and the draft have stated and explained, the buildings in this development will be rich in architecture, enhancing the built environment and the sense of place and character. Again, please re-read my posts and the draft.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 1:42 PM
Again, It's normal for people to resist change. We mighn't notice what benefits it'll bring until it's done.
We perhaps will have to stop focusing solely on the storey count and start realising what benefits such developments are actually bringing.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 1:59 PM
Buildings just outside of Linda St Precinct late last year applied to Council for installation of 2 dozen solar panels up on the roof and it was approved just before they released the amended Housing Strategy. This approval means that airspace surrounding the buildings must not be interfere with. By having 20 storey right next to it, at least 5 hours of sunshine will be lost by overshadowing and these solar panels will become inefficient. I can see massive compensation happening.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 2:07 PM
Please re-read my posts. I've explained that taller but slimmer buildings provide more sunshine. Then read the drafts. Read the sections on shodows and how they comply.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 10:22 PM
Slimmer buildings provide more sunshine than open sky?
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.1.2 27 Mar 2010, 3:53 PM
Shadow modelling can be done to determine the extent of shading by any given shape. These can be adjusted to alter the effects of shading. This is what is done in the city for major developments.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 12:35 PM
but shadow modelling have not been done... if it's done council is hiding them, they know it looks bad that's why they hide it. It's too late to be done once rezoning is approved.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 3:10 PM
Of course shadow modelling has not been done ! There is no building design to shadow model!
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 4:19 PM
it's been done? nobody saw it. Counil must be hiding them from the truth
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2 28 Mar 2010, 6:57 PM
I repeat, shadow modelling is done when there is a design, ie schematic drawings - plans, sections and elevations that can then be used to work out shadows.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.1.2.2 29 Mar 2010, 10:24 PM
The sun moves during winter to summmer and I believe 17 stories above your head won't leave much room for allowing sunlight to shine all day, all year.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.2 26 Mar 2010, 2:18 PM
When it's done it's too late. Look at Waitara they are ugly looking and badly designed. Council said it will look good back then but it turned out to be opposite. So you you trust the authorities?
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.2.1 26 Mar 2010, 2:26 PM
So if they built taller, they'll have much more space, enhancing the attractiveness and liveability. Now, whether buildings are ugly or not is a matter of personal opinion, but according to the draft, you can be sure that the buildings will be rich in architectural interest. Again, we can look at Vancouver for example, which is often dubbed as the most liveable city in the world.
As I'm sure you know, there can be very ugly houses, townhouses, or apartments too.
Again, Sydney has to change. Perhaps we should all look beyond that storey count to realise what benefits these developments bring, shouldn't we?
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 2:52 PM
and if you think waitara's ugly, well that's why we shouldn't continue to build 8-10 storey concrete jungles like you said. Build taller and therefore less, creating more spaces and improving attractiveness, like what they do in vancouver.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 3:28 PM
I've lived at Waitara before and their units are built badly with inferior materials.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2 29 Mar 2010, 10:26 PM
Build taller than Waitara then they can be seen from much further away.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.2.2 28 Mar 2010, 3:14 PM
No I don't necessarily trust the authorities. But then it depends who the authorities are. If the authorities at some point in time are architects and urban designers who create a brilliant design scheme for a given site, then yes I would trust the authorities becasue we will end up with something so much better than what exists at present.
I was openly critical of how Waitara looks because it is bland and repetitive, not simply because of the height. And also because some of the buildings are poorly designed and constructed.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.2.3 16 Apr 2010, 7:30 PM
When they do the modelling is before building starts. It is part of the design process, before final plans are submitted to council.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.3 26 Mar 2010, 2:30 PM
Nobody is against change or development.
Please read other people's comments. It needs to be sensible and logical.
They are doing this in a piecemeal way. They don't have a master plan.
The ideal and fair way is to bulldoze the whole precinct all at once and start again with 20 storeys but not one here and there, it will make the area look like what Ku-ring-gai Council is doing around Pacific Highway.
The best area for new housing is along Pennant Hills Road and Pacific Highway at Waitara where all the car dealers are taking up most of the spaces. They should more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.1.4 27 Mar 2010, 12:16 AM
aussie17 it seems you are focusing on the storey count yourself, to try and convince everyone to keep development out of your suburb
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.2 26 Mar 2010, 2:43 PM
Aussie17 is quite correct in what he/she is saying.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.2.1 27 Mar 2010, 12:17 AM
Aussie17 you are not correct in what you are saying.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.2.2 29 Mar 2010, 1:10 PM
I agree with Radas, and putting a one-liner is there agreeing with someone is just a waste of space (like I am doing now) but I am doing it to make it obvious to bellinid.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.3 29 Mar 2010, 1:10 PM
Hornsby does not "need" to sustain a much larger population because it is a retail, transport commercial centre. Explain why it "needs" to. Without 20 pages repeating what you said before because none of that explains why it "needs" to.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.1.3.1 22 Apr 2010, 10:27 PM
Its destined to get bigger, man, thats why! So we can't just bury our heads in the sand and ignore it.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2 26 Mar 2010, 2:44 PM
Hornsby is not a resort style location on the river, It is a major centre. When do you ever see major centres anywhere in the world that try to look like resorts?
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.1 26 Mar 2010, 3:12 PM
I totally agree that Hornsby will be a major centre and I don't mine development but without adequate infrastructure in place first standard of living will drop. We can then talk about having higher density living once they are in place. Haven't we learned from north west and south west Sydney?
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 4:25 PM
well first, thanks very much for recognising the need for 10+ storey developments. As Sydney continues to rapidly grow and our transport system continues to decay, we have learnt from the north and south west that sprawl will only worsen Sydney's issues, so we should place the population near transport hubs and centres like Hornsby. Now, instead of hassling about developments, heights and density issues, we should focus on hassling about transport issues - it is THE issue which is crippling Sydney.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.1.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 4:55 PM
Under current NSW planning laws, 100% of strata owners must agree to sell before anything can be knocked down and rebuild, so building 20 storeys or any storeys for that matter is almost impossible. Even council minutes from December 2009 said the Linda St precinct will have almost zero chance for redevelopment due to numerous strata title owners. Plus this precinct was rezone to high density back in the 90s, therefore not a new precinct for housing. We should have more commercial buildings in town centre instead, there are hardly any at the moment. Even recently built Officeworks in George St is limited to 5 storeys they could have easily build double that but they know what's right for nearby residents and businesses.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 8:39 PM
Are you seriously saying that officeworks knows what is right in terms of height for nearby residents and businesses? That is ridiculous! Plus they are most likely leasing the building.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 27 Mar 2010, 7:59 AM
they own the building
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 27 Mar 2010, 10:51 AM
But did they build it? Or did they purchase it after it was built?
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.1.1.1.2 28 Mar 2010, 12:53 PM
There was a push to change this 100% agreement rule - Frank Sator was trying for a 75% rule before he got moved on.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 4:43 PM
Kevin07 - Frank Sartor got the sack because it was so unpopular
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.1.1.2 26 Mar 2010, 5:25 PM
Surely nobody trust governments building/improving any infrastructure. They are all talk and no action. Look at crippling Hornsby Hospital not only will they have to knock it down they have to increase capacity by at least 200% if we are going to fit all these people in high-rises.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.1.1.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 3:55 PM
They have to knock it down anyway because it is falling apart. When they rebuild it, it will be a bigger better hospital
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 4:21 PM
bellinid - again do you trust governements? when are they going to knock it down? they are going to spend $1.5 million on new roof.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 7:03 PM
Even if they knock it down they have to, in the interim, repair the roof so they can continue functioning. In the scheme of things, while $1.5 million is a lot of money to you and me, it actually is not much for a significant maintenance issue. Consider the fact that the State government has blown around $500 million on the Rozelle metro farce - 2.5 Hornsby Hospitals.
Planning, designing and building the hospital will take awhile. It is a complex building which will have to be staged as it needs to continue to function.
By the way have you joined the Rebuild Hornsby Hospital group on Facebook? I have.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.1.1.3 29 Mar 2010, 1:12 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.2 26 Mar 2010, 3:25 PM
bellinid - Then we can have Bushland Shire style.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.2.1 26 Mar 2010, 8:40 PM
And what exactly constitutes a Bushland Shire Style? Gum trees?
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.2.1.1 27 Mar 2010, 8:00 AM
5 to 7 storeys tucked in around trees
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.2.1.1.1 27 Mar 2010, 10:53 AM
Are you a design or planning professional? If so I am most interested to find out more about this Style from an expert.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 1:14 PM
Desing and planning professionals don't have all the ideas (obviously).
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 8:40 PM
And others probably do even less so!
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.2 22 Apr 2010, 10:29 PM
So probbin, who has the ideas?
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.2.2 27 Mar 2010, 3:24 PM
As you now understand, Sydney can't remain the same forever. Sydney is not a town or a bush. Now, Sydney has become a world city, Australia's global city, a major economic centre in the Asia/Pacific region competing with cities like Singapore and is growing rapidly. We cannot let Sydney and Australia down by opposing neccessary developments to keep Sydney competitive and sustainable. Times have changed.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.2.2.1 29 Mar 2010, 1:15 PM
Putting highrise all in Hornsby will make no difference to being competitive and sustainable, putting commercial in the town centre instead of commercial and residential in surround suburbs with trian lines might.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.2.2.1.1 31 Mar 2010, 9:20 PM
Why bother. If they are rebuilding anyway they might as well make it mixed use residential and commercial.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.2.2.2 2 Apr 2010, 9:48 AM
Sydney does not compete with Singapore and similar cities in terms of being an economic centre, it is mainly servicing the local economy whereas Singapore focuses on servicing internationally. Completely different places, due to the fact that Australia is mainly resource-based and Singapore the opposite (has no local resources so has to concentrate on service to others). We even outsource a lot of our IT to India now, and a lot of the Indians you see in Sydney are actually Indian citizens who are here fulfilling staffing needs the Australian companies have sent to Wipro, Tata, HCL, etc. Whole apartment buildings are snapped up to service this market.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.2.2.2.1 2 Apr 2010, 12:48 PM
If you look at GaWC's studies, Globalisation and World Cities based in the UK, Sydney is an alpha+ world city. The other cities in this ranking are Hong Kong, Paris, Singapore, Tokyo, Shanghai and Beijing. The only cities to rank above this alpha+ ranking are the two alpha++ cities, New York and London. Sorry if i offend you, but your comment further proves some people are still not realising how far Sydney has gone.
Again, Sydney can't remain the same forever. Our city has come a long way through the decades. Now, Sydney has become a world city, Australia's global city, a major economic centre in the Asia/Pacific region competing with cities like Singapore and is growing rapidly. We need such developments to keep Sydney competitive and sustainable, as we are competing in a highly competitive and ever developing global environment. Times have changed.
Sydney not a bushland.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 5:59 PM
Aussie17, you said Radas does not realise how far Sydney has gone. You are simply reading some reports but not reconciling it with reality.
Sydney is not a global economic powerhouse, what a laugh. Look at what we produce, and what services we provide. We simply export raw materials and produce, and have virtually no investment banking industry, manufacturing industry, international service industry, or any other indistry to speak of. Most of our citizens are servicing Australia.
Prove otherwise if you are so sure of those reports.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.2.2.2.2 2 Apr 2010, 6:09 PM
Sydney is Australia's global city and financial capital.
As for the Indians, I think someone mentioned them earlier too as making up a good proportion of the Hornsby population. Well there you go, there is a need! One or more future Hornsby apartment towers can conveniently be snapped up by this Indian market then! They will not languish unsold.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.3 27 Mar 2010, 12:20 AM
bellinid - why shouldn't Hornsby be the first to have style? Wouldn't that be good? Or are you just focussing on getting development out of your suburb?
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.3.1 27 Mar 2010, 10:59 AM
Radas, you left out a word again so the meaning has completely changed again! Someone mentioned "Bushland Shire Style", not just plain old, generic "Style". I asked what this particular style was, what was its defining essence. nobody, especially me said anything about style as in stylish. Hornsby will never be the first to have style, because, other parts of Sydney, (and most definitely, the world) have already beat it to it!
It would of course be wonderful for Hornsby to be attractive, stylish even, because at present it certainly is not! Lets jear from the style master on this topic - Xfactor!
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.1.2.3.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 1:18 PM
Looks like bellinid being pedantic again. I understand exactly what Radas meant, and he was taking a cue from xfactor - putting attractive apartment block hidden among trees across Hornsby Shire, not Hornsby.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.2 26 Mar 2010, 10:14 PM
Ah but where in Epping do you live, its a big suburb with many houses which are nowhere near a station so will never get 20 stories, and I wouldn't mind betting its extremely unlikely one will ever be built next to your place.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 10:16 AM
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with either bellinid or Radas. Epping could end up worst off then Hornsby as the housing strategy has been delayed, as both Hornsby and Parramatta Councils have to counsult together on the Epping area.
Could the state government have bigger things on the agenda for Epping? For example making it a massive transport centre for both buses and trains. Of course this would mean the North West train going through (actually being built). It would mean Epping would be nothing like it is today. A new bridge would have to be built across Beecroft Rd, new car parking facilites as there is no long term car parking available. turning bays for buses transporting people from suburbs on a regular basis.
This would all fall outside a ten yr plan. then we could have a change in government and axe the whole thing.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.2.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 2:32 PM
A new bridge over the railway would be a wonderful thing!
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.2.1.2 31 Mar 2010, 9:22 PM
Does anyone know what Barry O'Farrel's "giving planning back to the community" statement actually means? Has he backed the statement up with any details?????
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.2.1.2.1 31 Mar 2010, 10:53 PM
That is a very pertinent question matilda2 and one that she definitely should find out more about.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.2.1.2.1.1 1 Apr 2010, 8:45 PM
Everyone should ask him for more details on his policies. He replies to emails. Barry.Ofarrell@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Also, does anyone know any more about the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority? This is quoted directly from the recently released metropolitan discussion paper (department of planning website).
"An agreed approach for this can be initiated
by the Department of Planning, with built-in
flexibility to suit different scenarios. However,
more extensive control will be needed to
manage the substantial challenges and benefits
arising from transforming the significant
upcoming investment in Sydney’s transport
system to deliver sustainable growth across a
whole range of centres in the region.
An urban renewal authority could benefit from
special powers applying in more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.2.1.2.1.1.1 1 Apr 2010, 10:21 PM
I think that it is indeed what you think it is.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.2.1.2.1.1.2 1 Apr 2010, 10:21 PM
Thanks Matilda! I emailed him a little while ago and he replied with two links
or
www.barryofarrell.com.au (apparently this one has speeches on it)
According to his website:
The NSW Liberal & National Parties are committed to returning local planning powers to local communities (through their councils). We believe that local residents – through councils – are best placed to make local planning decisions affecting their suburbs. After all, it is local residents – not Macquarie Street planners – who have to live with the results of these planning decisions.
We will scrap ‘Part 3A’ – one of the wide-ranging powers NSW Labor has given its Planning Minister to override local communities, and a factor that ICAC noted had contributed to corruption risks in the planning process.
The NSW Liberals & Nationals will commence an overhaul of the planning system soon after March 201"
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.1 1 Apr 2010, 10:25 PM
There was also another article called "Labors Compulsory Aquisition- Keneally confirms nobody's home is safe".....
I've put a couple of quotes in from the article.
"Kristina Keneally and NSW Labor’s plan to force people out of their homes to allow properties to be seized and sold to developers will be strongly opposed by the NSW Liberals & Nationals, NSW Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell and Shadow Minister for Planning Brad Hazzard said today".
“The NSW Liberals & Nationals strongly support the right to own private property and we’ll defend that right in the face of this Labor takeover"
“No-one in NSW should feel safe knowing that the most incompetent and untrustworthy Government in NSW’s history proposes to compulsorily acquire their homes then on-sell them for a profit – it reeks of the whole ‘dollar for deals’ approach of State Labor"
Please read the article and let Mr O'Farrel know that this is an important isssue to you.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.1 2 Apr 2010, 9:54 AM
The town planners will be happy with compulsory land acquisition - it means they can dictate to everyone what they think is best for everyone, even if everyone else disagrees. This is what town planners dream of.
This will be a problem for Councils planners however, they would like that power for themselves but they are going to be overridden by someone with more power. Perhaps when the state govt starts putting in developments they don't agree with they'll finally realize what a nightmare it is to have someone with the power to destroy their life, for what that someone says is the "common good". and even then, it will only be going against their wishes, not necessarily pushing them out of their home, so will only be moderately annoying to them.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.1 2 Apr 2010, 6:11 PM
You are making very little sense there! Please rephrase!
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.2 4 Apr 2010, 12:55 PM
Thankyou! I found similar information. People who are afraid of having their land acquired for peanuts and then sold onto developers (so the government makes a profit!) should write submissions/ comment by the 30th of April 2010 at:
www.shapeyourstate.nsw.gov.au and click on Sydney Towards 2036
or by mail to: Metropolitan Strategy
Department of Planning
GPO Box 39, Sydney NSW 2001
or email: metrostrategy@planning.nsw.gov.au
Copies of this Discussion Paper are also available from the
Department of Planning Information Centre located at:
23-33 Bridge Street Sydney
Enquiries: 1300 305 695
Closing date 30 April 2010.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1 6 Apr 2010, 2:01 PM
Any developers on this website? Perhaps people from the Department of planning???? Who on earth would disagree with the request to write a submission to the department of planning so as to prevent the formation of the metropolitan development authority?
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.3 26 Mar 2010, 10:21 PM
And why is Hornsby a major centre - because three train lines radiating from it, a few offices and a retail strip (and light industrial in Asquith and Thornleigh)? Sounds just like Epping? Epping might even have four train lines soon, and is closer to the CBD, Olympic Park and Parramatta.
I think Epping will, and should, overtake Hornsby - the "recognition" that Hornsby is a major centre is out of date.
Who wants Hornsby to be a major centre, that you know, that lives in Hornsby? Whereas you seem to love highrise and that means at least one person in Epping should be pushing for it.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.3.1 27 Mar 2010, 3:35 PM
Epping has 2 train lines - one via chatswood and one via Strathfield
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.3.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 1:21 PM
3 - there is one to Hornsby, it is the different directions you can take, not whether it is the same train on the line which matters.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.3.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 6:32 PM
If you are referring to the railway line north of Hornsby, it is still called the North Shore line until Berowra. After that it is called the Newcastle and Central Coast Line
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.3.2 27 Mar 2010, 3:43 PM
No it does not sound anything like Epping. and strategically it makes sense to have a major centre at this point, this distance from other major centres. Epping will also grow, but in a different way. Hornsby as a major centre means that it will provide many more services for surrounding local residents who at present may have to go further afield. The larger the centre and the more services it provides gives it a much better chance of, "trivial" things like a better hospital, more public transport within and through the area. As long as it remains a backwater it will be largely ignored. It will also be very beneficial for local businesses. Critical mass when well considered does provide many benefits for us all.
The recognition that it is a major centre is out of date according to whom? Not the government.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.3.3 27 Mar 2010, 4:36 PM
Hornsby is a major centre is out of date??? It is the newest strategic plan for Sydney which states that Hornsby is a major centre for the region. Hornsby will continue to grow. It is inevitable. Res12 knows that. It is important that Hornsby gets such developments as I've explained before.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.4 27 Mar 2010, 12:30 AM
Presumably you would want to increase it to 50 stories, or 100, in Hornsby Shire? After all you seem to think bigger is better. But its not really necessary.
And why exactly do you think people move away from HK and Singapore if they can? It would appear you don't know many people from those places, because if you knew more than two, I guarantee the majority would tell you high density is bad except for one thing - you can sometimes get a supermarket downstairs (and even that doesn't really do them a favour, they usually get no exercise as a result).
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.4.1 27 Mar 2010, 3:56 PM
You are getting a bit hysterical there - 50, 100 stories. Please calm down and be sensible about all this.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.4.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 1:23 PM
50 stories is what Aussie17 was mentioning for HK and Canada, so they are probably planning 100, and Radas probably doesn't see why he always focuses on 20. Isn't that obvious?
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.4.2 27 Mar 2010, 4:43 PM
For Sydney's current and future rate of growth and sustainability, the norm for Sydney's centres are ~20 stories. I've stated many other centres which are building either the same, or even higher. I've explained why buildings of this type are neccesary too many times before.
Again, perhaps we should'nt focus solely on the storey count to not notice what benefits they're bringing, such as allowing for more open spaces and increasing liveability and sustainability and the slowed rate of destruction of existing buildings compared building with the shorter building models.
Hong Kong? Singapore? Just to let you know, Hong Kong's building 50-60 more…
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.4.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 12:40 PM
Aussie17. Exactly how much land have Hong Kong got compare to Australia? You can't compare apples with oranges.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.4.2.2 29 Mar 2010, 1:25 PM
Who cares what the norm for Sydney's centres is - why does Horsnby have to be like everywhere else - answer is: it doesn't
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.4.2.2.1 29 Mar 2010, 7:59 PM
It is not about looking like everywhere else. It is about effective planning, and this, as I've explained before, is the most appropriate built form for the future, and this is realised in other major centres like Hornsby too. In a global context, as planners in the 21st century are faced with rapid population growth are realising the inefficiency of 20th century style planning, such as the identification as cars as the dominant form of transportation, this is clearly, as I've explained before, the most sensible and sustainable way to develop. Change, especially in a rapidly growing world city competing in a highly competitive global environment is inevitable.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.4.2.3 29 Mar 2010, 10:38 PM
Which suburbs in Toronto and Vancouver are you talking about. I will ask my friend over there about the situation - whether they are in places where there is much parkland around, next to the water, etc, or constrained by topography and existing development in a small area like Hornsby.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.4.2.3.1 3 Apr 2010, 12:09 PM
If Hornsby is constrained then the other suburbs are even more constrained!
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.4.2.4 29 Mar 2010, 10:39 PM
Public transport you walk to/from the station at both ends while living in Linda Street you only walk maximum one block to/from Westfield, so more exercise catching the train.
Comment 1.1.3.1.5.1.5 28 Mar 2010, 4:08 PM
Aussie17 why don't you discuss this with all your neighbours up to a kilometre away see if they share your same views? I don't think much will unless they have "not in my backyard syndrome".
Comment 1.1.3.1.6 19 Apr 2010, 4:38 PM
I have read your blog with interest. I disagree with your view based on what I have seen in other cities around the world. High rise is an American way of life. I didnt seen 20 storey buildings in Paris apart from one big black one, there were none in Amsterdam, hell there were none in New Delhi. The propoasl of high rise is a just the longing of people who have offices and unit around sydney harbour. A fresh would would be one of an italian or french out look not an american one.
Comment 1.1.4 28 Mar 2010, 4:42 PM
Really, your comments are based on the state government's inability to make more CBDs around Sydney.
If we were to follow European style business town, we wouldn't need that many high-rise, we can live within our local area and work locally.
Of course, Hornsby council's proposal of 20 stories is just another "patching" solution to the poorly organised state government.
By doing so, it does not fix the root cause but in fact making things worse.
Comment 1.1.4.1 29 Mar 2010, 10:00 AM
kittle, the densification of Hornsby IS an example of making more CBDs around Sydney. Hornsby is to grow as a business centre. So in that way it does have the chance to become more like a European style business town. They build high rise in Europe too you know.
Comment 1.1.4.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 1:26 PM
If it is to be a business centre we need more office and move residential to surrounding train stations, not build out with residential.
Comment 1.1.4.1.2 16 Apr 2010, 6:31 PM
European business towns have many problems that we don't want, and they are not Australian.
Comment 1.1.4.1.2.1 16 Apr 2010, 7:33 PM
Can you please elaborate on that? Which towns, which problems? and give some concrete examples ie names of these towns. websites etc. and what do you mean by "and they are not Australian"?
Comment 1.1.5 30 Mar 2010, 3:17 PM
Resonate,
Could you please direct me to a cheap high rise development in hornsby? So far a two bedder cost nearly as much as a free standing house. Then you have rates and strata fees. Don't get sucked into the cheap housing debate it does not exist.
Comment 1.1.5.1 1 Apr 2010, 11:00 AM
The less stock there is, the higher the demand, and the higher the house prices go. Vice-versa.
Comment 1.1.5.1.1 2 Apr 2010, 9:55 AM
Prices go too high and people will not come to Sydney
Comment 1.1.5.1.1.1 2 Apr 2010, 12:52 PM
...
...
...
That'll mean the end of Sydney's boom and a start of a bust.
That'll create a huge economic downturn in Sydney's economy (perhaps Sydney's own exclusive GFC?)...
That'll be the start of Sydney's fall...
But I'm sure you won't mind if it means that your house price goes up, even if the bust that'll shortly follow it will lower your house price to much below what it currently is worth.
The world doesn't work that way.
Comment 1.1.5.1.1.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 5:53 PM
If prices go down then everything else adjusts downards also. Look at Hong Kong, where there prices go shooting up and down due to no capital gains tax. When the house prices go down there so do the prices of everything else, and vice versa.
Nobody (except the very greedy) wants their house price to go shooting up if it means young people can't afford a home. Local wages do not go up as fast as inflation so foreigners who have saved money in low-tax economies (e.g. Singapore., Hong Kong) or gained by corrupt means (e.g. China) buy all the more…
Comment 1.1.5.1.1.2 2 Apr 2010, 1:09 PM
Perhaps it'll be for your benefit if you study urban planning and economics...
Nice reply...
But again, I'm sure you won't mind what that'll cause to Sydney and perhaps Australia in a wider context if it means that your house price will go up, even if the bust shortly following will plunge that price downwards.
Comment 1.1.5.1.1.2.1 2 Apr 2010, 6:18 PM
I think that some people actually hope that such a situation happens thinking that they can sell really high then wait until prices collapse then buy again. Butt hen they may not realise that property prices are just one of the things that are affected. There are also jobs, job security.....etc...etc and the detrimental effects these can have on your life.
Comment 1.1.5.1.1.2.1.1 3 Apr 2010, 12:00 PM
Yeah, I only covered a few points.
Comment 1.1.5.1.1.3 2 Apr 2010, 6:12 PM
Well there you go, problem solved maybe?
Comment 1.1.5.1.1.3.1 11 Apr 2010, 11:54 PM
Yes, and that is what the federal govt has stated they also see as a solution - their new population portfolio is going to be concentrating on sending immigrants to areas where there is a shortage of employees, like the mining belts, not to Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.
Seems like the economists, big business and urban planners on the government staff don't think Sydney should grow larger and larger, unlike some here who do think it should. Maybe those who think it should stop reading textbooks on urban planning and try to understand the real world?
Comment 1.1.5.1.1.3.1.1 12 Apr 2010, 1:24 PM
Radas, that is good news......I hope?!
Comment 1.1.5.1.2 6 Apr 2010, 2:38 PM
Aussie17 - so Chatswood doesn't have enough??? and yet some of their apartments are worth more than $1million dollars. If I have a million I will buy house not small apartments.
Also on average, Hornsby residents earn only about $58000 a year. They are not going to afford new high-rises over $700000 and skyrocket strata levies over $1500 per quarter and rising by at least 20% per year. I can see empty new apartments like those along Pacific Highway between Roseville and Wahroonga that's been sitting idle for a couple of years but thousand times worse.
Comment 1.2 6 Apr 2010, 12:29 PM
How does that admit that high rise is less energy efficient? How about the lower transport costs associated with higher density (albeit supported by appropriate adjoining landuses?). town houses are barely medium density - really.
Comment 1.2.1 8 Apr 2010, 5:46 PM
You can still walk from a medium density to the station the same way you can walk from a high density to the station. Actually having all those low density near the stations is not efficient is it? They should all be replaced with medium density.
Comment 1.2.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 7:17 PM
It is better to concentrate the higher densities in major centres. It is an acknowledged and established planning and urban design practice worldwide.
Comment 1.2.1.1.1 9 Apr 2010, 4:55 PM
I agree that this is so.
Comment 1.2.1.1.1.1 9 Apr 2010, 9:50 PM
me too!
Comment 1.2.1.1.2 11 Apr 2010, 11:49 PM
So bellinid are you saying its efficient to have low density near valuable locations like train stations? Is that acknowledged and established planning and urban design practice? Give us some reference hyperlinks that say that.
Comment 1.3 13 Apr 2010, 1:56 PM
Environmental concerns? Why is it everyone mentions keeping Hornsby greener. Try living in the shadow of Westfield with no sun, the idiots who go in there after close and scream around shouting their heads off, of Westfield testing their alarms at anytime between 3am and 5am any day of the week they choose. I say let the 20 storey's go up, Im looking at a carpark anyway
Comment 1.3.1 14 Apr 2010, 9:00 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 1.3.2 14 Apr 2010, 10:15 PM
There is another solution rather than building 20 stories - move out of the area and let someone else live there - which doesn't affect the rights of others. and my comment above being deleted for not respecting others? I believe Twiff's comments are not respecting the rights of others.
Comment 2 14 Mar 2010, 11:04 AM
Waitara as an example.
People from outside the shire have commented to me on how bleak the Waitara precinct is with so many high-rise blocks packed into a few blocks. Now Council wants more of the same but even higher - just think of Waitara twice as high.We don't want another Waitara ghetto in Hornsby proper.
Comment 2.1 6 Apr 2010, 12:31 PM
i know many centres with highrise that look great. green square, parramatta, liverpool.
Comment 2.2 19 Apr 2010, 7:00 PM
Waitara ghetto is correct, I was held up by a group of teens at Waitara Park asking for my shopping of all things. I handed over my shopping, then they run towards the unit blocks.
I must say Hornsby police weren't too helpful either.
Comment 2.2.1 19 Apr 2010, 9:18 PM
Well Cat, you are lucky then. In Normanhurst about 9 years ago, a couple of teens demanded someones money. They stabbed or shot this person. The victim died.
This sort of thing can happen in many places. The teens that stole from you did not necessarily live in the high rise in Waitara anyway. Hopefully you will find a bit of peace and safety where you moving to.
Comment 3 14 Mar 2010, 11:06 AM
The Basix website holds a case study document for high-density housing :
http://www.basix.nsw.gov.au/information/common/pdf/cs/mondrian.pdf
which highlights the Mondrian development near Green Square. In it they state:
"The buildings range in height from four to seven storeys, in order to minimise the overshadowing of communal areas". If the State Government gives this as a good example of environmental design, why would we suggest building 20 stories in Hornsby and not five, and why would we punish those in the precinct more than other precincts.
Build lower-rise apartments at more locations.
Comment 3.1 16 Mar 2010, 7:54 PM
Hmm, I wonder why anyone would vote against this one, and yet remain anonymous by not adding a comment?
Comment 3.1.1 19 Mar 2010, 11:43 AM
Hi Radas
Have you thought that the ones voting for the development are most likely developers or estate agents or builders that have their proverbial finger in the pie.
Comment 3.1.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 3:11 PM
How arrogant you are. People are free to disagree with you without having a 'finger in the pie'.
Comment 3.2 6 Apr 2010, 12:36 PM
This is site by site case study. different circumstances require a different approach.
Comment 4 14 Mar 2010, 11:07 AM
Overshadowing of existing apartments.
Can you imagine what it will be like to have 20-storey apartments 24m from your place?
The draft guidelines play down this aspect, concentrating on how nice everything will look, but look at the details on
setbacks, then go and visit Waitara to see how much
sunlight will be found at any time except an hour or two each side of midday.
Reduce the limits to 5 stories.
Comment 4.1 16 Mar 2010, 7:55 PM
Why did someone vote against lowering the limit to 5 stories?
Comment 4.2 24 Mar 2010, 5:12 PM
Existing apartments overshadowed someone else's views as well. This is a selfish way to discuss urban planning. 20 storey apartments are appropriate for Hornsby/Waitara area because both suburbs have train stations which means less cars on road and more commuters on trains.
Comment 4.2.1 24 Mar 2010, 5:36 PM
That's why we should share the load then we don't have to build as high. Bring back the original strategy which includes Normanhurst and Berowra, both have train stations as well. Stop being so selfish people, share.
Comment 4.2.1.1 25 Mar 2010, 11:44 AM
There is a significant difference in the frequency of trains to/from stations north of Hornsby, versus the trains from Hornsby itself. Just having a train station doesn't guarantee that trains actually stop at these stations.
Comment 4.2.1.1.1 25 Mar 2010, 12:19 PM
But if we have 20 storey buildings Hornsby Station will be choked see if Normanhurst will like that cattle class standing room only for them if they can get on.
Also, traffic around Hornsby Town Centre, Pacific Highway and George Street will be in a gridlock, see if people north of Hornsby travelling south will like that?
Comment 4.2.1.1.2 25 Mar 2010, 5:44 PM
It is simple to change the train schedule - no excuse.
Comment 4.2.1.1.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 10:30 AM
unfortunately the state govenment don't seem to get it right when they do change train timetables.
Alot of the housing strategy seems to depend on whethter the state govenment is able to provide actual infracture that will make it all work.
Unforunately I do not have the confidence in the state govenment for necessary changes to let the housing strategy work.
Comment 4.2.1.1.2.2 12 Apr 2010, 4:47 PM
Its not that simple. People need to realise that the North Shore line is probably the most difficult train lines in Sydney to add capacity. It is currently running at capacity with its single pair of tracks from Chatswood and across the Harbour Bridge and there is no way to get more trains across without a tunnel from St Leonards and a second Harbour crossing through the CBD which is not happening. Its not even planned for. The previous idea of running a line under the Harbour is stupidly expensive (going on current costs most likely well over 25 to more…
Comment 4.2.1.1.2.2.1 16 Apr 2010, 3:38 PM
hmm one would imagine that it comes to votes and where the labour government thinks they can get the most bang for their buck ....
Comment 4.2.1.1.2.2.2 19 Apr 2010, 1:27 PM
Thank you for your info - I wonder why St. Leonards has 4 platforms? - the tunnel idea may have been looked at, or there is a possibility that an 'Overtaking line' each way for expresses may be in the design.
They are thinking of the light rail again - What if they could run it across existing bridges? ie down Victoria road direction.. Then West Ryde would become an additional major centre and the station would become another 'hub' like Epping.
Comment 4.2.1.1.2.2.2.1 27 Apr 2010, 3:07 PM
The 4 platforms at St Leonards come into a few plans that have all been aborted. These include the second harbour crossing I mentioned but also seen on the original plan for the full Parramatta Rail link of which only the Chatswood to Epping section was built.
The platforms are now planned to be used again for the proposed North West Rail link. How they work for that project is not clear but they were mentioned in the Government release of their "transport blueprint" as being required for the integration of the North West rail link to the Cityrail network. more…
Comment 4.2.2 24 Mar 2010, 7:45 PM
The existing apartments are already there, the new ones are not. Those are completely different impacts are they not? We were not here when those apartments were built, but probably would have protested against them if we were. So your comment is groundless.
Your comment about 20 stories being appropriate for Hornsby/Waitara does not ring true either - you give no reason that shows Hornsby/Waitara is a better location than Berowra, Mt Colah, Pennant Hills or any of the other suburbs with train stations. So why are you so keen on Hornsby - let me guess its because you don't live here (and who is being selfish?)
Comment 4.2.2.1 26 Mar 2010, 3:16 PM
I have lived in Hornsby and now live close by. The place is already too far from the CBD and the other sites you have proposed are even further away.
Hornsby has a major public transport interchange, access to two train lines, existing retail and bars & clubs. Sounds like a good start for a higher residential base and the culture that comes with it.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 11:22 PM
If it is too far from the CBD, and that is a reason not to build at the other locations, then it holds only slightly less weight as a reason not to build at Hornsby (and logically therefore increases the reasons why Normanhurst and those suburbs south should be increased in density).
What is the major transport interchange you are speaking of - the bus stops near the station? They are mainly to service residential areas for people wanting to take the train to the city, i.e. pass through Hornsby, and buses will service any area where there are people.
Train more…
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1 27 Mar 2010, 11:02 AM
The bars and clubs will occupy the lower levels of the new 20 storey mixed use blocks.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.1 27 Mar 2010, 3:13 PM
Bellinid makes a good point about bars and clubs occupying the lower levels of a 20 storey mixed block. You know what that means! Sounds and noise travels upward! Great...can't wait to have sleepness nights of drunks loitering, causing fights and vomiting on the streets! No way I'd want be on the lower levels of a 20 storey building...
Infact, no one in their right mind would want to occupy the top levels of a 20 storey building either! In summer it's like a sauna because heat rises! I've been in some Parramatta buildings which were about 15 stories high ... all of which were unoccupied. Unless those top floors are for commercial use only - with Air/Con on 24/7 in summer....they're of no good use! Environmentally and economically sustainable?? I don't think so!
20 storey building is far from adequate. More like overkill! It will stick out like a sore thumb in Hornsby I'm afraid, and unless I get offered market value or above market value to move...I ain't going to move!
So...how about all those owners who are "just outside" of the rezoning area?? I wonder how they'd take the news...I'd love to hear more from them!
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 27 Mar 2010, 4:01 PM
I thought that given that hornsby will hopefully become a much more urbane centre, the bars would not be vomit enducing ones, but quieter more civilised wine bars with tapas and the like. These of course would only be in those areas that are mixed use. Not all the Linda St precinct is designated for mixed use. On the upper levels of a 20 storey building you would most likely find that there would be good ventilation.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 10:00 AM
I highly doubt that a 20 storey buildings have "good" ventilation! I had siblings and friends live in 15 storey apartments, close to the middle and top levels. One was constantly complaining about stale "curry smells" and greasy cooking smells lingering in the corridor for days on end! The other...complained about how the garbage smells would seep into her unit from the Garbage shute. Yuck! I'm sure these problems along with bad piping is a dream haven for rodents, cockroaches and the like. I often wonder what these 20 storey buildings will look and be like in 20 years time!?
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 2:35 PM
The cross ventilation depends on the design of the building. A good architect with knowledge of environmental building design would design such a building. This is not impossible. It has already been done, also in commercial buildings.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 7:06 PM
Obviously people who have not a clue about building and environmental design have to disagree with this!
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 10:39 AM
Rapid said that the existing problems are with bad design.
You are saying that *as long as the design is good* then there will be no problems.
Care to guarantee that? I cannot and neither can you. This forum is about discussing what will and can happen - what is good and bad, and hopefully what we can and cannot do about this proposal.
I appreciate what rapid said as I have had both problems when I was renting in Edgeworth David ave.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 31 Mar 2010, 10:56 PM
Albert, good design is a very significant factor in getting good outcomes. Good building design, good landsape design good urban design and of course good planning. And good environmental design
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 29 Mar 2010, 10:44 PM
Looking at the Meriton building on George St which is only a few years old, I don't see much cross ventilation, as there are apartments on both sides of the building. I went to inspect a 3-bedroom one once and it did have, because it runs right across the building from east to west, but there were only two on each floor and maybe 10 x 2 bedroom. Those guys would bake in the summer and have their aircon on all day (and next to the train line!)
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 6 Apr 2010, 1:54 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment contained bad language
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.2 23 Apr 2010, 9:33 AM
bellinid - you obviously know things about the proposed development that no one else does! So we'll see 'quieter more civilised wine bars with tapas and the like' in the Linda St precinct! It will be like we're all living in a film noir! Perhaps you need to visit Hornsby on a Thursday - Saturday night and listen to all the drunks walking down Burdett St to understand there's nothing particularly elegant or urbane about having more places where people can get drunk.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.1.2 6 Apr 2010, 1:55 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment contained bad language
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2 29 Mar 2010, 1:28 PM
bellinid- That would be even worse for Hornsby as a commercial centre, wasting valuable office space which would be in short supply because new apartments were built instead of offices. SO move the apartments to surrounding suburbs with train lines.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2.1 29 Mar 2010, 6:36 PM
Successful major centres rely and thrive on mixed use development.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2.2 29 Mar 2010, 8:10 PM
If you had only noticed, it clearly stated in the draft that this development is only happening at the Linda St. precinct. As crisis said, successful major centres rely and thrive on mixed use development. As identified, Hornsby is a major centre and such developments, along with new office and retail space such as the new office building on George St. to the north of the two 14 storey apartments (the proposed developments here are much thinner), will be beneficial for Hornsby. Office only centres, or centres with only one form of use if called a specialised centre, such as the Mcquarie Park/North Ryde precinct.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1 29 Mar 2010, 8:31 PM
And office only centres become moribund after office hours and on weekends.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 8:58 PM
Totally true, crisis.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 10:48 PM
But non-mixed use localities are the most efficient places to do business, and the places the businesses want to be, otherwise you are stuck with a few pokey government departments.
Just think of North Sydney and Silicon Valley. Imagine if they had been interspersed with too many apartments, business would consider them poor candidates for doing business, they don't care about after hours.
And in Hornsby we have a retail centre cinemas and restaurants already here to take over on weekends. Why do you insist we need more?
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1 31 Mar 2010, 2:13 PM
So Radas, you are correct in that if there is only a couple of blocks of commercial, and a couple of blocks of retail (which are open all weekend), which have entertainment also (which are open all weekend) then it will not be a ghost town on the weekends. I agree. Not sure why people think it would be "moribund"?
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2 31 Mar 2010, 3:04 PM
Businesses do like mixed use zonings because it gives them a much larger range of easily accessible potential customers.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1 2 Apr 2010, 9:57 AM
This is only true for minor retail, etc not large commercial.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.1 2 Apr 2010, 6:20 PM
It is not just the corner shop and the butcher that does well from mixed use. It is also large department stores, supermarkets, cinemas, professional services.....
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.3 6 Apr 2010, 8:23 PM
North Sydney is pretty dead after business hours and hardly the sort of place you would think of going to for leisure and entertainment or eating out outside of those hours.
Most of the restaurants in Hornsby cater to the shopping crowd, the budget crowd, the fast food crowd, the I can't be bothered cooking tonight crowd. We don't have any genuine first rate pizzerias for example like La Disfida (Haberfield), or Pompeis (Bondi Beach), Pizza e Birra (Surry Hills), Rosso Pomodoro (Balmain). Plenty of non genuine that serve funny toppings like satay and ham and pineapple. So a few good restaurants would not go astray.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.3.1 8 Apr 2010, 4:32 PM
Yes I totally agree luisalow! I am getting tired of travelling so far every time I want to eat a good genuine pizza!
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.3.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 7:14 PM
Obviously someone does not know what a genuine pizza is! May I suggest a trip to Italy? You will come back reborn in terms of what a real pizza is!
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.3.1.1.1 9 Apr 2010, 5:00 PM
Someone prefers ham and pineapple mixed with tandoori from a chain pizza store on the gold coast perhaps?
I guess it is true then that there are folks out there who are not interested in food at all!
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.3.2 14 Apr 2010, 9:05 PM
luisa - it may be nice to have additional restaurants, but is it fair to push people out of their homes to get them? And who says they can't be built anyway?
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1.2 19 Apr 2010, 1:31 PM
Have a look at a senario further on that I came up with. Offices on the top floors, and residential below. The offices pay for the lifts so the strata is less for the residents, and there is work closer to home.. and I guess some sort of entertainment on the ground floor.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1.3 23 Apr 2010, 9:13 AM
So true crisis. They are dead and boring. That is what Sydney city used to be like until not too long ago. Thank goodness it is still not stuck in the 50's!
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.2 31 Mar 2010, 9:35 PM
I jsut have to point out that this statement "The same goes for Asquith and all stations north - around 2 minutes between stations doesn't add much to the length of time it takes to get somewhere really, does it?" is one of the most ridiculous comments I've heard! Sure it might be a two minute trip north or south but its usually an extra half hour - forty five minute wait for that train to take you that tiny little distance!
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.2.1 1 Apr 2010, 10:32 PM
Very true! Anyone been stuck on Asquith, Mount Colah, Berowra or Normanhurst Station in the scorching heat or the freezing cold whilst the trains skip your stop because they arent running to schedule. Trains stop in Hornsby because it is a major centre.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.2.2 2 Apr 2010, 9:58 AM
just time your trip to coincide with the timetable. If sometimes trains skip stations now, they won't do it when there's more people there, so the service will improve.
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.2.2.1 2 Apr 2010, 6:28 PM
You obviously don't catch a train from a minor station do you? Or you don't catch trains that often. Or you don't catch the train to work. One often "times" one's trip for when one is required to be at a certain place eg work, school and so on. You don't just say "I think I will start school at 9.30 am instead of the required 8.50 am because the trip timing is more convenient! Many people do not have that flexibility.
By the way you sound like you work for Cityrail. You constantly have so much faith and trust in their ability to willingly and reliably improve the train timetable and frequency of service!
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.2.2.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 5:43 PM
Anyone can catch a train a bit earlier than the one they used to if they need to start work a bit earlier, so why is that so difficult to do. If you start work a bit earlier you can often finish a bit earlier.
Also the interurbans from Hornsby are often late and miss connections at Epping, so it is more reliable to catch an all-stations train - what is the advantage of interurbans in this case?
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1 9 Apr 2010, 9:53 PM
hmm...not if you are a teacher, a nurse, a doctor, a mcdonalds worker, a coles or woolies worker.......
Comment 4.2.2.1.1.2.2.2 4 Apr 2010, 1:00 PM
Great idea. Why havent I thought of that before? I already spend enough of my life at work and travelling to and from work. My boss would love it if I got to work two hours earlier and left two hours later just so I could catch a train that was guaranteed not to skip my stop.
Comment 4.3 6 Apr 2010, 12:37 PM
happens all over the world...been happening for a very long time.
Ive lived in one..it was fine.
Comment 4.3.1 8 Apr 2010, 5:40 PM
So replace the house you live in now with one? I bet you would be complaining if council was suggesting that would you not?
Comment 5 14 Mar 2010, 11:13 AM
Visual impact.
Nobody wants to see 20 storey apartments sticking up in the Bushland Shire. Keep the levels to below the ridgelines.
Comment 5.1 16 Mar 2010, 7:56 PM
And yet again, why would people vote against keeping apartments below the ridgelines, without comment (and for the next few topics below this one)?
Comment 5.1.1 31 Mar 2010, 2:16 PM
Radas, odn't worry, the votes against your question are a good way to see who is voting down everything you say instead of agsint your comment. The Council should subtract the negative votes from such comments from all the netgative votes agsint your other comments to find out who is simplay being personal.
Comment 5.2 5 Apr 2010, 10:40 PM
Radas - the forum demonstrates plenty of people agree with 20 storey apartments.
Comment 5.2.1 6 Apr 2010, 2:46 PM
Feliz - Because they don't live in the area, of course they will support it.
Comment 5.2.1.1 12 Apr 2010, 4:58 PM
Agree with this. I think many people on here arent considering what is right for Hornsby or good planning, they are thinking that Sydney needs more density and they would rather it be stuck in Hornsby then close to where they live!
Comment 5.3 6 Apr 2010, 10:21 AM
Visual impact.
"Nobody wants to see 20 storey apartments sticking up in the Bushland Shire. Keep the levels to below the ridgelines."
Radas, I suspect there are some developers on this forum. lol
Comment 6 15 Mar 2010, 7:11 PM
Mandate for 20 storeys?
Did Councillors mention in the recent election that they were considering adding 20 storey apartments to the housing mix? Most certainly not.
Why then do they believe they should introduce buildings which are taller than those in Rhodes or Strathfield, and taller even than all but a couple of blocks in Chatswood and St Leonards? Are they trying to lead a charge for the state government?
Comment 6.1 6 Apr 2010, 12:38 PM
because urban sprawl is not sustainable, housing affordability is rock bottom..the list is very long
Comment 6.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 5:37 PM
"Urban sprawl is not sustainable" does not equate to having to put everything in town centres.
Comment 7 15 Mar 2010, 7:20 PM
The people in the Meriton apartments on George Street will be badly impacted as well. As they are potentially more wealthy (well they must be to afford the strata fees) they presumably will have studied the local planning before purchase and not seen any indication that such development will occur, then selected apartments on the eastern side for a view and a lack of train noise.
The plan is to have 20 storey blocks set back two metres from Hunter Lane, i.e. in their face, which look almost 10 stories higher than their block. The proposal gives them the same meaningless more…
Comment 8 16 Mar 2010, 10:15 AM
Is Council going to compensate residents living in the Meriton Apartments for lost in value to their units given only 2 years ago when potential residents bought their units they studied the local planning laws and did not expect Berlin Walls (10 stories higher than Meriton) directly outside their windows with no privacy and no direct sunlight.
Why is this area in Hornsby always a target with each housing strategy we all suffered enough from one or two voices from residents of Normanhurst and Berowra their voices weigh a lot more than residents who can't afford to live in quiet leafy suburbs.
Comment 8.1 16 Mar 2010, 1:25 PM
Likewise, is council going to compensate residents in other precincts who purchased houses in quiet, leafy streets who will now be faced with 5 storey unit blocks across the street?
Comment 8.1.1 16 Mar 2010, 1:43 PM
nexus at least you still have land with big sunny backyard which will appreciate in value as with all land due to housing shortage so leafy suburbs don't have to be compensated. Leafy suburbs love their massive 2 storey McMansions but no to extra level or two.
Comment 8.1.1.1 6 Apr 2010, 8:14 PM
The older leafy suburbs of Hornsby shire are not full of mcmansions. They have many beautiful older homes and gardens of heritage value.
Comment 8.1.1.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 4:35 PM
Why would anyone have disagreed with you on this one? It is blatantly obvious that there are many beautiful older homes.
I guess someone who is resentful perhaps.
Comment 8.1.1.1.2 8 Apr 2010, 5:36 PM
And they have many more ghastly old ones
Comment 8.1.1.1.2.1 9 Apr 2010, 5:04 PM
And when you look at the existing old unit blocks, htere are none that are attractive and many many many that are a hideous depressing eyesore!
Comment 8.1.1.1.2.1.1 11 Apr 2010, 11:42 PM
Some of them are quite acceptable and have spent countless hours building up quite nice gardens, if you choose to look, including quite a few trees. I doubt you have toured the precinct fully.
Comment 8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 23 Apr 2010, 9:15 AM
You can say exactly the same about the residential areas that you continue criticising. I doubt that you have toured those precincts fully.
Comment 8.1.1.1.2.1.2 19 Apr 2010, 1:41 PM
My flat has a balcony overlooking an internal garden. We (the owner / occupiers ) had a Christmas BBQ out there in the garden.. very nice. very quiet. very gone if the 20 storey plan goes ahead.
I feel that the attractive thing about the old buildings is that they are rarely above tree height, they are double brick - several of us has played DVD movies with all the sound systems turned up and After testing with the neighbours, I found that they couldn't hear much at all.
That sort of thing will definitely cause problems in the new buildings. Sub - woofers etc will go for several levels.
Comment 8.1.2 16 Mar 2010, 8:43 PM
They no doubt should, but as none of the councillors or planners will be living in or near any of the zones, do you think they care?
This is part of the problem, they should in fact rezone either at their place or across the road on their street so they can see what they are doing to others.
Comment 8.1.2.1 17 Mar 2010, 12:11 PM
That's why we need to be emailing our councillors and making submissions so they hear us. That's what made the difference for suburbs like Berowra and Normanhurst in the last feedback round. They were vocal in protecting their suburb. The more our councillors get bombarded with emails about this (even one-liners), the more they will HAVE to take notice.
Comment 9 16 Mar 2010, 9:04 PM
Let me see, if I had a requirement to build 20 storey apartments (which I remind you this council does not), and I had a few green paddocks to put them in, how closely would I space them?
45 m apart? I think I would choose more like 500m, with nice gardens/parks in between, wide promenades, etc.
Instead Council wants to cram them together and replicate Waitara but twice as high. Does anyone actually think Waitara is well designed, e.g. would they have bought an apartment there if another one was available which wasn't stuck right next to the others, or had an open view across Waitara Oval? I very much doubt it.
And that open view across Waitara Oval, which those guys paid a bit more for - it's now in doubt as there may well be more blocks on the other side of Waitara Oval soon. Bet those guys are thinking about the negative impact on their pocket, while the Councillors/Planners are not, have thought about it but don't give a stuff, or have promised someone (who stands to benefit more than HSC ratepayers) that they will get what they want, a nice area to develop.
Comment 9.1 17 Mar 2010, 9:23 AM
To enclose Waitara Oval with units would send shock waves across Sydney. There isn't a park in Sydney I know of which is enclosed/surrounded by unit blocks. Just take a minute to visualize this...
Comment 9.1.1 17 Mar 2010, 12:52 PM
Exactly ... isn't the point of an oval to encourage people to get out into the sunshine, enjoy the leafy view, exercise, etc? I don't think the point is to have an enclosed, darkened cauldron that no-one wants to use.
Comment 9.1.2 6 Apr 2010, 10:11 AM
Well actually Hyde Park in the city is surrounded by a reasonable amount of high buildings.
Comment 9.1.2.1 7 Apr 2010, 12:26 PM
The question I ask is how much larger/wider is Hyde park than the park / bowls club off Edgeworth David ave? The buildings near Hyde park do tail off in height close to the park, and College street only has 5 storey or less for a fair bit, also Hyde is top of the hill as it were.
However, I get your point. If the Hyde Park effect could be created in the Hornsby parks, then it wouldn't be too bad.
Just remember, not to be in either park after 6pm or you get attacked.
Comment 9.1.2.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 4:37 PM
These are the sort of things we should be aiming for.
Comment 9.1.2.1.2 13 Apr 2010, 9:41 AM
Good point Albert,
Waitara sports oval, (not really a park in the true sense of the word) forms the lowest point between the Hornsby & Waitara ridge. This is why it's catchment drains underground via Sherbrook Ave right down to the base of Bridge st.
If units were to be built on the other side of the oval, it will look reminiscent to a Roman amphitheater.
Comment 9.2 6 Apr 2010, 1:52 PM
500m is half a kilometre.
Comment 9.2.1 22 Apr 2010, 9:59 PM
No 500 metres is half a kilometre. 500m is half a km ;-)
Comment 9.2.1.1 22 Apr 2010, 11:20 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 9.2.1.2 23 Apr 2010, 9:19 AM
So what are you trying to prove with that reply? luisalow is correct in what she has written. Combining m with kilometres instead of km does not make it incorrect.
I can then suggest to you that it is not 500m is half a km but 500m is 0.5 km.
Comment 10 17 Mar 2010, 9:56 AM
Way too high and way too much and way too close together for Hornsby Shire...
Standard of living will drop...nobody will live in peace, it will be like the Sydney CBD with huge overshadowing and no natural sunlight street after street. The streets will look dull and boring.
This is environmentally unfriendly with residents having to folk out more on electricity because they will be living in darkness along with drying the washing, aircon, massive underground carparks, lobbys, common area corridors etc...
Comment 10.1 17 Mar 2010, 12:08 PM
And the council's own documents state that these 20 storey high rises will only see about 3 hours of sunlight a day - and not even all the units will see that. I can't imagine the complete darkness that surrounding low-rise units will be subjected to.
Comment 11 17 Mar 2010, 4:03 PM
I was told by the Council that it was the wishes of the community to build gigantic 20 storey towers (you mean developers pretending to be local resident). They must be dreaming let's vote them out ASAP.
Comment 11.1 17 Mar 2010, 7:46 PM
Really?! Did a councillor tell you that? If they did any consultation no one in my building was aksed. I don't think anyone would agree to have 20 storeys built next to them! I think they need to come up with a better reason than that ...
Comment 11.2 18 Mar 2010, 11:04 AM
I think you will find that many in other areas favour the "whack it all in Hornsby & Waitara" approach, so they escape themselves (for this round anyway). I'm in favour of all suburbs sharing the load.
Comment 11.2.1 18 Mar 2010, 11:54 AM
Absolutely. I was just looking through the original housing strategy and the focus and preference was definitely on 5 storey blocks spread around the shire. 8-10 in a few places. I don't have a problem with re-zoning Linda St precinct with 5 storeys. But 20?! There was no mention of anything near 20 storeys anywhere in the original strategy. Can anyone say back flip ...
Comment 11.2.2 19 Mar 2010, 2:34 PM
To be fair to all the other areas, Council specifically and repeatedly asked that people find and include in their submissions plausible, alternative areas across the shire for the proposed developments to go. One could imagine that if there was a vacant block already amongst highrise that people who were at risk of losing their homes would nominate that space- not because they wanted it anywhere else but because they were asked to do this. It would make sense to put more units in vacant spaces where units already exist than to destroy the character of suburbs without highrise and displace a significant volume of people who like living where they are.
If council do not comply with the State Governments request to plan for all these dwellings, then it can remove planning powers from the council. This is what has happened in Ku-ring-gai and that is why developments are popping up absolutely everywhere there. Council are obviously trying to avoid this scenario in the Hornsby Shire. I dont know about you, but would rather have council responsible for planning where these buildings should go.
Comment 11.2.2.1 19 Mar 2010, 3:56 PM
There are no vacant spaces in Hornsby, in the Linda Street precint. Did both the respondents and Hornsby Council both not know that?
Comment 11.2.2.1.1 19 Mar 2010, 4:17 PM
There are indeed, both vacant and underutilised spaces in Hornsby. George St is one long underutilized space, though to be fair to Council much of it is targeted for future high rise commercial development ( I think 20 storeys would not be a wrong supposition).
Also there is the disused service station and adjacent storage centre on the corner of the Pacific Highway and Pretoria parade.
And all the caryards........
Comment 11.2.2.1.1.1 19 Mar 2010, 10:56 PM
And if we were to get rid of all the caryards, how far do we have to go to buy a car?
Should the people in apartments near the storage centre have 20 story block built in their faces, or near your place?
Are there not business in George Street already which are servicing the community (except perhaps for a few between the AMF Bowling and the BBQ Galore, but by no means all of those).
Looking at the previous plans for George Street they had allowed 13 floors if mixed residential/business, and I think 8 if residential-only. Officeworks only saw fit more…
Comment 11.2.2.1.1.1.1 3 Apr 2010, 12:04 PM
You buy a car from where you get the best price/deal. I bought my last car in Leichhardt. I don't see what the problem is with driving to a car yard as it is not something you have to do regularly every week. Caryards can be more land use efficient and be multi storeyed.
Comment 11.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 9 Apr 2010, 5:07 PM
Is there a car yard proprietor on this forum??????
Comment 11.2.2.1.1.1.1.2 11 Apr 2010, 11:40 PM
And would you have gone to Narrabri to buy your car when all the car dealerships in Sydney and everywhere else close by were developed into highrise for efficiency's sake? Or if (the fuel cost to drive to/from Narrabri + the cost of your driving time to/from Narrabri + the cost of the car in Narrabri was cheaper than that in Parramatta?
Of course you do only have to go every few years (or every 10-15 if you are one of the not-so-well-off sods who are going to be turfed out of Linda St).
Comment 11.2.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 12 Apr 2010, 1:32 PM
Newsflash Radas, you dont have to live in a unit in Linda Street to be struggling finacially. I just wanted to point out that many of the people living in houses in the precincts you are repeatedly bagging arent huge income earners either.
Comment 11.2.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 12 Apr 2010, 1:52 PM
Probably a higher proportion of owner/occupiers too. More of the apartments would be investment units and rented out.
Comment 11.2.2.1.1.1.1.2.2 12 Apr 2010, 1:49 PM
If it were me, I would most likely go a bit further to say, Alice Springs!
Stop exaggerating! Car yards can be designed more efficiently you know. They don't all have to be low rise with sometimes acres of cars on display on the block. They can go high rise too. High density caryards - more or the same numbers of cars, taking up less space. Hardly rocket science.
Comment 11.2.2.1.1.1.1.2.2.1 16 Apr 2010, 3:44 PM
Excellent idea and one that was suggested in earlier submissions.
Comment 11.2.2.1.1.1.2 19 Apr 2010, 2:05 PM
There are industrial areas in King / salsbury / Leighton roads. It takes me 10 mins to walk to pick up my car from the garage there.
I can see one arguument which is why do they need to be on the highway if they advertise on the internet? However those that cannot get access won't know.
How about a compromise? the buildings - not 20 storey but maybe 10 or under. The ground floor is the small showroom for the cars (4 cars) and the bigger showroom is in the industrial area. Again the showroom helps pay for the lifts etc.
Comment 11.2.2.1.1.1.2.1 20 Apr 2010, 8:18 PM
These businesses we are talking of, occupy a huge amount of land. It seems so unfair that this land is there and being under-utilised and hence as a result so many people over the shire are having their properties rezoned and face losing their homes. If this land was to be rezoned to 5-8 storeys pressure could be taken off Hornsby, Balmoral Street.
Comment 11.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.1 20 Apr 2010, 9:54 PM
There was an article in the paper just a few days ago about Parramatta Rd being re-examined for redevelopment. All the car yards were mentioned and how land-use inefficient they are and how these would change so as to not take up so much space. so if they can do it on Parramatta Rd they can do it up this way too!
Comment 11.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 24 Apr 2010, 2:11 PM
Facinating! Its about time someone thought to look into this a bit more.
Comment 11.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.2 22 Apr 2010, 10:01 PM
Agreed matilda2, as long as they try for the 5 stories instead of 20.
Comment 11.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.2.1 22 Apr 2010, 11:13 PM
Radas, get writing and put that in your submission then!!! Could you imagine, if they did that along the whole strip there, how the area could be revitalised and if done properly and appropriately it could really help take some of the pressure off surrounding areas. Sorry Cat, I'm sure you will disagree but that huge amount of land is being poorly and selfishly used.
Comment 11.2.2.1.1.2 23 Mar 2010, 9:08 AM
I agree there are some underutilised parts of Hornsby and yes it will be (already is really) a commercial hub for the northern region. I have less of an issue with higher density housing being placed where it has been currently - along transport corridors (i.e. rail lines and along main roads). I have far greater concern when such high density, high rise development is proposed to cut back into a pretty large part of a suburb. To me, this is where very careful planning needs to take place, which is clearly justified - to be balancing the need for higher dwelling yields while protecting what makes the bushland shire great. Yeah there'll always be residents who don't like it, but for me the council is not providing clear evidence upon which it is basing its decisions for this revised strategy (it did a better job of this in the initial strategy). This is potentially the entire look and feel and living experience of residents that will be affected forever with this revised Housing Strategy.
Comment 11.2.2.1.1.2.1 19 Apr 2010, 2:20 PM
res - agree with you, the Council / State govt state that they want elderly and young families to live here, and I don't see that these flats will be affordable or practical for this. Not unless everyone gets a huge pay rise, then someone has to pay for the pay rise etc. 400+ families will be displaced.
HOWEVER I get the feeling that some of the discussions are relying on good planning or like your input saying that they agree to the development if the planning is good - but I would like to hear from those who would also like to give me the worst case scenario -
On the balance It doesn't sound like good planning yet.. personally, I don't think that I could put my trust in the planners who don't seem to have looked at the current price of flats in Hornsby, nor asked the elderly people who live all along my street about how it will affect them..
## remember, that we have only untill the end of this week before the end of submissions to the Council.
Perhaps the forum will be removed at this time?
Comment 11.2.2.1.2 19 Mar 2010, 4:52 PM
I'm sorry, I inserted my comment in the wrong space. I was just trying to say that council asked for residents to find other areas. I know many people who in their submissions, asked council to consider places where there were vacant blocks or under-utilsed blocks such as those mentioned elsewhere by bellinid.
Comment 11.2.2.1.2.1 19 Mar 2010, 11:27 PM
I understand Kathryn, and probably most of them wouldn't have suggested 20 stories. Maybe only one did, or maybe it was just the planners' great (not) idea.
Comment 11.2.2.1.2.1.1 12 Apr 2010, 1:32 PM
Thankyou. I cant imagine anyone dreaming up that idea :-)
Comment 11.2.2.1.2.1.1.1 12 Apr 2010, 2:28 PM
Thank you to both matilda2 and Kathryn. Vacant and under utilised blocks seem like logical solutions.
Comment 11.2.2.1.2.2 19 Apr 2010, 2:24 PM
Also those in lower areas? I guess they could be higher and not show up as much.
Comment 11.2.2.2 1 Apr 2010, 10:33 PM
People disagreed because they want the state government to intervene?
Comment 11.2.3 19 Mar 2010, 9:20 PM
I don't agree with your whack it all up Hornsby & Waitara comment. Please see my comment in the Asquith section.
Comment 11.2.3.1 20 Mar 2010, 10:04 AM
.
Comment 12 18 Mar 2010, 11:52 PM
You won't see any 20 storey apartments in the State Government's examples of good urban design:
http://www.patternbook.nsw.gov.au/
and the 10 storey ones in there look the worst of the case studies - because they always look out of scale with the surroundings.
I think of their three Designs, the garden apartments look the best for Hornsby Shire
Comment 12.1 19 Mar 2010, 4:06 PM
You can't make sweeping statements like that because Hornsby Shire is not all the same. If a development is in a town centre then it is appropriate that an urban apartment form be adopted because it incorporates mixed uses, with retail type uses on the ground level, thus enlivening the surrounding area.
Comment 12.1.1 19 Mar 2010, 11:00 PM
Apologies, I wasn't intending to give the impression I think Hornsby should be covered in garden apartments, just that if Hornsby was choosing a style from those three, wherever apartments are to be built, it was more in tune with the bushland (and I wasn't one to click disagree on your comment).
Comment 12.2 19 Mar 2010, 4:11 PM
Also the Pattern book is 5 years old and was actually in the making for a number of years before that. Chris Johnson is no longer government Architect or more recently, head of whatever section of the Department of Planning he went to after being Govt Arch. I suspect he is not against high rise apartments or any other building of 20 storeys because he is one of the people pushing for the latest plan for Barangaroo that so many architects, urban designers and concerned general public are against.
Comment 12.2.1 19 Mar 2010, 5:05 PM
Derr...that is really smart! Disagreeing with simple facts not opinions.
pattern Book - 2005
Beginnings of pattern book - early 2000s. I saw it happen as a matter of fact. Know people who worked on it.
Chris johnson - if you can be bothered, google him
ditto Barangaroo - find out about the whole sorry saga from when Phil Thalis and his colleagues won the original competition.
Furthermore, statements like "10 storeys look the worst because they always look out of scale with the surroundings" are incorrect when the surroundings are, indeed, in the order of 10 storeys. In such a case lower storeyed buildings would look out of scale. And there are many instances of predominantly 10 storey areas around, and higher, and of course lower.
Comment 12.2.1.1 19 Mar 2010, 11:05 PM
That's correct, they only look out of scale when they are amongst lower buildings (or higher ones).
Comment 12.2.2 19 Mar 2010, 11:03 PM
I don't know much about Barangaroo except that it seems incredibly dumb to build lots of office buildings near the waterline if there is supposedly going to be sea level rise in the future (even if it is a long way off).
Comment 12.3 19 Mar 2010, 5:08 PM
So you are an advocate of sleepy mono-zoned suburbia then? With only monolithic shopping malls as the not so public domain?
Comment 12.3.1 19 Mar 2010, 11:23 PM
I'm not sure which part you are getting that from but will happily discuss should you wish (and as you'd expect, the answer is no). I think it would be nice to see Leichardt-style cafes and restaurants. Offices I don't care for, there are plenty in Sydney already and putting many of them in your area will just increase the price of many things - housing for purchase or rent, supermarket prices, cafe and restaurant prices, rates, probably other things. The local residents don't really benefit that much except if they manage to get one of the local jobs, and more…
Comment 12.3.2 20 Mar 2010, 2:26 PM
I would have to counter by asking you - do you want 20 storey apartments next to your place, and a whole set of office buildings? And let's say for the sake of this question, you did not want to move or sell..
Comment 12.3.2.1 26 Mar 2010, 3:22 PM
Why do you feel Leichardt-style restaurants and cafes and 20 storey apartments are exclusive? It's actually the opposite.
Comment 12.3.2.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 11:26 PM
Where did I say that?
And you didn't answer my question just above your statement. Here's another one to add to it - which suburb do you live in?
Comment 12.3.2.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 6:37 PM
which suburb do you live in?
Comment 12.3.2.1.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 10:52 PM
If you'd read my posts you would see I live in the Linda Street precinct - and you?
Comment 12.3.2.1.2 29 Mar 2010, 1:30 PM
20 storey apartments lead to expensive cafes, not Leichardt style ones.
Comment 12.3.2.1.2.1 11 Apr 2010, 11:32 PM
hi probbin, looks like some people have never been to Leichardt,where cafes became established when there was absolutely no high rise.
Comment 12.3.2.1.2.1.1 12 Apr 2010, 2:49 PM
Cafes became established in Leichhardt thanks to the italians. It had nothing to do with high rise or low rise.
If you go to Italy you will just as easily find cafes in both small villages and in large cities, complete with high rise, such as Milan. Cafes for Italians are basically an extension of their own homes. Coming to Australia they opened cafes to continue this tradition.
Leichhardt in terms of density was and still is quite dense because of the narrow small terrace houses. It too has seen higher rise apartments being built and will get even higher ones in the future.
In a multi cultural country such as Australia, higher densities will make it possible to have more Leichardt style cafes because of higher concentrations of patrons and lifestyle changes that embrace a more public domainstyle way of living. This will benefit everyone, no matter what type of dwelling they live in.
Comment 12.3.2.1.2.1.1.1 23 Apr 2010, 9:24 AM
To find out about the history of Leichhardt and the impact of the Italians go to the Casa D'Italia and COASIT websites for further information.
Comment 13 22 Mar 2010, 11:26 AM
Council can't add up...
23 towers x 20 storeys x 6 units per storey = 2760 dwellings
no where near their 599 dwellings
Is Council trying to con us?
Comment 13.1 23 Mar 2010, 8:41 AM
I agree - it doesn't add up. In the previous Strategy there was a formula they applied to calculate the dwelling yield (i.e. how many units they could build). Something like 'so many dwellings per hectare if it's proposed 5 storeys, 8 storeys, etc'. But since in the original strategy they didn't propose 20 storey buildings there's no formula to work from and they didn't seem to publish one in this revised strategy.
I also found that, overall, in the 2009 strategy, the Steering Committee endorsed 25 precincts within 10 centres throughout the shire, with an estimated dwelling yield of 3,126 more…
Comment 13.2 15 Apr 2010, 8:41 AM
I agree, according to my maths (not my best subject) increasing the number of dewellings to 599 from 470 is an increase just under 30% or 1 extra story on each of the existing 3 story dewellings.
YES defiantly a council con.
Comment 14 22 Mar 2010, 12:28 PM
Hornsby - the Bushland Shire. I have lived in the Hornsby shire for more than 40 years. It is turning into a concrete shire. Please NOT 20 storey buildings. They will look ugly, UGLY, UGLY. They will be seen from miles around sticking up like a blight on the landscape of our beautiful suburb. The lower ones now built in the area around Linda and Hunter Sts. are partially hidden by the height of the trees. It looks OK. How did someone come up with 'let's build 20 storeys'? Did they pick a number out of a hat? Was it the dunces hat??
Please reconsider.
Comment 14.1 23 Mar 2010, 8:45 AM
Hi Moe - I agree. I live right on the edge of the proposed new Linda St precinct in a three storey building. I already have a clear view of the 12 storey units on George St - and can only imagine what staring out onto a 20 storey concrete jungle will look like. It will look even worse if 20 storey buildings start popping up here and there as developers move in. It will look like a complete mess.
I reckon it was the joker's hat they pulled this number from :)
Comment 14.2 23 Mar 2010, 1:57 PM
How come they didn't choose 50 stories? There isn't a difference to me if I have 20 or 50 stories to look at out my window, both are depressing. They will both be visible from kilometers away. Maybe becuase the traffic would be even worse?
Thse peeps who commute from Berowra better start out early as there would sure be a long wait for them at the traffic lights while all the Hornsby peeps drive out of the area to work.
Comment 14.2.1 23 Mar 2010, 3:48 PM
But there won't be a traffic problem because all of the development will generate jobs locally so there wont be a need to drive anywhere as we will all have local area jobs.
- NOT -
I've lived in Hornsby for 17 years and Ive always had a job outside of the shire. Cars are a fact of life for most people for work - me included -
What happens when the weekly F3 accident occurs post 20 storey development?
The RTA did a test run last year on a Sunday morning of one of the change-over thingys that alters the traffic flow all onto one side of the freeway with the speed limit set at 40klm/h. Where are the results of this test and was this factored into the traffic modeling for V2.0 of the strategy?
Comment 14.2.1.1 23 Mar 2010, 4:15 PM
You have identified one of the major issues that all of Sydney is suffering from and that is an inadequate extensive integrated public transport system. If we had a brilliant public transport system then we would not have more and more people driving and extra housing could be located in many more areas because they would now be accessible.
So basically existing areas would not have to suffer as much from higher densities.
Also there is the whole question of whether Sydney, and indeed the country, should be increasing in population so much, given the limited resources and other environmental issues.
Comment 14.2.1.1.1 25 Mar 2010, 3:37 PM
It seems a part of the problem is that we have a Prime Minister proposing a 'Big Australia' but he's not instigating a national discussion (or any discussion at all) on what this actually means for urban planning on the ground. What will our cities look like? Our suburbs? Our transport infrastructure? Basically all the things being raised on this forum.
Comment 14.2.2 25 Mar 2010, 2:00 PM
I'm in the Linda st precinct. The place is old but double brick. The new places like Waitara have floors where the guy downstairs can hear if you drop a pencil. No quality - just cheap buildings but 450k+ (mine is 340k)
I expect to be given a cheque for 'current value', thanks for supporting Hornsby for 6 years, and told to b%$#&r off.
I guess all I can say is Welcome To Mumbai or Hong Kong, because only those who are used to living in those conditions will want to settle here in the future.
Comment 14.2.2.1 25 Mar 2010, 3:34 PM
Albert don't give up! 20 storeys is not a foregone conclusion in Hornsby - send your feedback to the council ... they're wanting to hear our thoughts.
Comment 14.2.2.1.1 25 Mar 2010, 3:56 PM
Weell I could ask the council to get the Developers to give me one of thier new flats instead of money :)
The council point us to these forums, but I just realised, thanks to your comment, that they are 'not responsible for them' as the forum is not thiers. I assumed that they would be checking them.
PM's big aussie - hmm .. 50,000k's of barren soil, 1,000k's with 40 million people couped over the top of the only arable land available. Nice planning.
Comment 14.2.2.1.1.1 25 Mar 2010, 4:36 PM
Sorry Albert - I think I gave you the wrong impression. The council does take the comments on this forum as part of the consultation process. They included them in their submissions report for the last strategy feedback round anyway. I just know some people are doing both! (i.e. being on this forum and submitting something via email or post).
Comment 14.2.2.1.1.2 25 Mar 2010, 5:48 PM
You will be paying big strata fees in the new place, forget it. So you must move to somewhere else - where? If you are getting market price or bit more you are not going to get something in Hornsby as the prices always go up and many people bid them. That's why I think Council is putting us out of our homes and destroying our finances.
Comment 14.2.2.1.1.3 25 Mar 2010, 5:48 PM
And where are you going to live while its being built?
Comment 14.2.2.1.1.3.1 26 Mar 2010, 9:54 AM
I read there is a block of land up at Berowra that is soon to come on the market. The Berowra Pool is like the Ghost trains to the North West. Announced, then re-announced, and then for something new, announced again, only to be withdrawn each time.
Was this plot of land considered in v2.0 of the strategy?
If not, Why not?
Comment 14.2.2.1.1.3.2 9 Apr 2010, 3:00 PM
The Developer will put us into one of the new blocks at Lindfield / Killara that is vacant. - NOT
Comment 14.2.2.2 25 Mar 2010, 3:57 PM
Albert - I agree completely with your comments. The new apartment buildings are overpriced for what they are.
Comment 14.2.2.3 26 Mar 2010, 1:10 PM
I am a first Home owner.
On one hand, Kevin Rudd gave me a discount to help me decide to get out of renting and buy.
Now i've bought, Kevin via the State / Councils has taken that away. There are 4 of us in a 16 apartment block that did this. 1/4 of the block.
I may be able to afford the council fees for the new place; 3 retirees cannot. I am advised by Council that the zone change will raise our curent fees, but that I can defer payment untill I sell when they will take it out of more…
Comment 14.2.2.3.1 26 Mar 2010, 11:32 PM
Don't forget to write a letter to Council to protest. It is not a foregone conclusion, but you are already sounding depressed. The other nasty suburbs managed to push things onto us so we can push some of it back.
And make sure your neighbours know what is happening, they probably throw out council letters without reading them.
Comment 14.2.2.3.1.1 31 Mar 2010, 9:49 PM
Albert, best of luck. Put in a good fight.
Radas, you'll need to think of a better argument. Those suburbs have just been through a fight similar to yours. You arent going to win your argument with such petty comments.
Comment 14.2.2.3.1.2 9 Apr 2010, 3:09 PM
Thanks Matilda, but funny, Radas is right!!
I've gone around some of the other affected flats - no one knew!
Also a problem is that a lot are retirees and are not alerted by discussion forums like these. They need snail mail, or face to face. This is going to be a lot of hard work.
My block is going to do an 'information' run soon at Hornsby station to drum up more Council submissions.
We will try to get the Hornsby Advocate to tell everyone what the Council has proposed, and that the submission cut off date is (23rd)..
How about Ray Hadley :- recon he'd get into the fight?
The oldies listen to him :)
Comment 14.2.2.3.1.2.1 9 Apr 2010, 5:11 PM
I think that maybe a reasonable number of the residents are renters so therefore they would not have received anything from council. The information would have been sent to the landlord who could be living anywhere, even in Hong Kong.
Comment 14.2.2.3.2 27 Mar 2010, 1:58 PM
Well thanks for recognising the need for change and development, unlike some people. As you know, Sydney is rapidly growing and we do need such developments, as I've explained in my posts. Thanks again for recognising the need for change.
Comment 14.2.2.3.2.1 29 Mar 2010, 1:31 PM
What a laugh!
Comment 14.2.3 6 Apr 2010, 8:08 PM
So how does putting higher density in Berowra rather than Hornsby help avoid extra traffic for the people that live in Berowra?
Comment 14.3 27 Mar 2010, 12:59 PM
Sorry but the city or the suburb cannot stay the same just because there are people who have nostalgia back to the 1960s. There are challenges Australia faces like housing affordability, infrastructure, ageing population and ageing population. Urban sprawl is not the answer and it will only devastate the already shrinking food bowel farms in city fringes. Cumberland plain is one of the most productive terrain in Australia and it's a pity that low density houses have put pressure on food prices.
Once upon a time there were plentiful farms in North West and North Shore. Somehow farms were demolished to make way for detached houses. Then it gradually got demolished to make way for sub-divisions. Being a resident of Hornsby means one have already greased the wheel in favour of development ever since houses overtook farm properties. I'm sure farms back in those days had a different idea what 'Bushland Shire' meant.
Comment 14.3.1 27 Mar 2010, 3:34 PM
Resonate...you are correct that Australia faces housing affordability, infrastructure and ageing populating issues. I agree that communities and societies change and are a living, dynamic entity. However, a 20 storey building is overkill in Hornsby! I doubt it's practical for a vast amount of residents! Commonsense tells me that elderly or less mobile people would beable to tolerate living on floor 12 of a 20 storey building which primarily relies on lifts to get up and down. Imagine what that'd be like in an emergency?? (Can't use lifts...so they'd have to walk down 13-20 flights of stairs, what if they're wheelchair bound?)! This is impractical, has OH&S ramifications and consolidates the fact that a 20 storey building doesn't quite accommodate or benefit all of public interest.
In addition, I'm sure high density buildings would further contribute to the detriment of urban sprawl and would cause more traffic gridlocks, transport and parking problems. You only need to look at Parramatta and Chatswood to see this!
Comment 14.3.1.1 27 Mar 2010, 4:49 PM
One of my posts: "Given that Sydney is growing rapidly, and that there is a shift towards having less people live in each household, there will have to be a sharp increase of the number of households in the near future. As you understand, for sustainability, the majority of the increase in population will need to be placed in or around centres like Hornsby, so as I’ve explained before in all of my previous posts, there will have to be a certain degree of change, and having taller and thinner buildings will be beneficial; as I’ve explained before, they will more…
Comment 14.3.1.2 28 Mar 2010, 12:06 AM
Removed by moderator - this was a duplicate comment
Comment 14.3.1.3 28 Mar 2010, 12:49 AM
Removed by moderator - this was a duplicate comment
Comment 14.3.1.4 28 Mar 2010, 12:51 AM
One of my posts: "I'll quote an interesting passage from the most recent plan for Rhodes (it just happens to further justify my points and why Hornsby needs such buildings):
"Current development on the Peninsula appears homogenous and indistinctive from both the road and the water. Open space is lacking (i.e. less than 7m2 per capita, or half what is provided at Pyrmont). Furthermore, the internal amenity and privacy of the perimeter-block building layouts around a narrow central courtyard, is observably poor.
The proposal provides for 30% more open space on the Peninsula. It will provide some additional passive recreation and seating more…
Comment 14.3.1.4.1 29 Mar 2010, 10:58 PM
You should stop focusing on the big picture and focus on the effects on local people. Government can solve this in other ways, as probbin said a good start would be rezoning Oran Park ultra-high density and building a busway or train line there (I would add light rail or tram). But you seem fixated on stacking up Hornsby, and disregard the feelings of those who live there.
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1 1 Apr 2010, 11:07 AM
Sydney's population just reached 4.5 million a few days ago. The city's booming-last year saw an increase of 83,500 people. And as I've explained before, this type of planning is the best solution for Sydney, but if locals like us don't realise what benefits they're bringing and they stopped developing, then the near future would be even worse for us locals.
As I've stated too many times before, this is needs to happen AND is happening in all of Sydney's major centres, with some going even 30+ and 40+ storeys. Read my comments.
Again, Sydney has grown significantly over the decades and is now a world city competing in a highly competitive and ever developing environment and Australia's leading global city, a major economic centre in the Asia/Pacific region and contributes to the Australian economy more than any other city in Australia. We have to have such developments to keep Sydney sustainable and competitive. Sydney is not a bushland.
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1 1 Apr 2010, 9:17 PM
You make a lot of pertinent points. Do not forget that one of the things that makes Sydney a beautiful city is its Bushland. It is precious and needs to be protected.
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.1 1 Apr 2010, 10:17 PM
They are. The national parks and green corridors will be kept. However, as Sydney grows rapidly, the city, especially the centres, need to be densified, as I've explained before.
So while the national parks and green corridors will be kept, don't get it wrong. Sydney has grown significantly over the decades and is now a world city competing in a highly competitive and ever developing environment and Australia's leading global city, a major economic centre in the Asia/Pacific region and contributes to the Australian economy more than any other city in Australia. We have to have such developments to keep Sydney sustainable and competitive. Sydney is not a bushland.
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.1.1 2 Apr 2010, 6:47 PM
Sydney is not a bushland but it does have a number of bushland areas and also suburbs that are special because of their leafy surrounds and indigenous species.
I believe it is imperative that such areas be largely retained not destroyed. They contribute much to society and benefit the environment in many ways. Urbanisation must seriously consider this and provide clever solutions to increasing population. Densification of large centres is one solution because it concentrates development into a smaller area.
I don't want to see endless, hot concreted streets without trees and greenery just to satisfy economic imperatives. So the people designing our future developments have a big task ahead of them. I don't want to see everything decided and effectively designed by politicians and planners and the architects, urban designers, landscape architects and environmental designers being left out until the end.
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.2 1 Apr 2010, 10:25 PM
And one way of protecting the bush is to have higher densities in major centres.
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.2.1 2 Apr 2010, 10:01 AM
The bush is not in the middle of the other precincts, so it is not relevant. Why does it protect bush when you avoid knocking down houses to build medium density, but doesn't protect bush when you knock down high density to build even higher density?
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.2.1.1 2 Apr 2010, 6:50 PM
It does protect the bush by knocking down 3 storey units to build higher density, because:
1. You have less vegetation and are further away from the any real bushland.
2. You are housing higher numbers in a smaller area.
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 6 Apr 2010, 5:09 PM
crisis, can you explain why knocking down houses with a few shrubs and grass protects the bush? and why knocking down houses to build apartments isn't putting higher numbvers in a smaller area?
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.2.1.2 4 Apr 2010, 1:16 PM
There may not be "bush" as you call it, but in at least one of the suburbs you keep bagging there are a significant number of trees that likely to be remnants of original vegetation that are listed as endangered under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. There are also trees that are heritage listed and of local significance. These trees are established habitats to possums and native birds. I dont see any of these tree types in Linda street.
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.2.1.2.1 6 Apr 2010, 5:09 PM
There are possums and cockatoos, etc in Linda Street, and no dogs or cats (which kill wildlife).
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.2.1.3 6 Apr 2010, 4:57 PM
Agreed radas, most of those houses in the other precincts don't have bush on their property, maybe one or two trees. Some of them are urban disasters with old timber houses and rubbish in their yards.
The blocks around Linda Street do have trees.
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.2.1.3.1 8 Apr 2010, 4:42 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment sought to identify peoples homes
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.2.1.3.2 8 Apr 2010, 7:11 PM
Old timber houses are not necessarily urban disasters, and newer oldish unit blocks are not necessarily urban utopias either and some times they too have rubbish strewn around and neglected landscaping.
yours is just a disparaging, insulting cheap shot. And you did not have the courage to be more specific.
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.2.1.3.2.1 14 Apr 2010, 9:36 PM
bellinid - if you are suggesting probbin be more specific in pointing out horrible houses, I don't think that is from lack of courage but more out of common decency. Calling him/her a coward is too much.
I can easily see what probbin is talking about every time I drive up the old Pacific Highway north of Hornsby. Sure there are some acceptable places there, but there are a lot that are pretty bad. If you haven't seen them, you haven't been up there.
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.2.1.4 6 Apr 2010, 8:04 PM
Because the even higher density will house more people than the lower density. And because it is already high density it is less bushland like than the low density areas.
And the low density areas are totally inappropriate for high densities, even if they aren't bushland because they are small and can't become large centres. Hornsby is the largest town centre in the northern area and so it is appropriate for it to house the majority of the high density especially all the 20 storey ones.
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.2.2 2 Apr 2010, 6:40 PM
And another way is to replace all those houses in other suburbs, noting that houses does not equal bush, with higher density.
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.2.2.1 4 Apr 2010, 1:24 PM
These houses have established gardens with trees and plants and are visited by native birds, Australian brush turkeys, possums and lizards. Have you all forgotten that trees and shurbs are important for photosynthesis. Have you forgotten that Photosynthesis is vital for life on Earth? In case you've forgotten it helps maintain the normal level of oxygen in the atmosphere.
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.2.2.1.1 4 Apr 2010, 1:26 PM
Also, some other people I know in the asquith and mount colah areas are visited by wallabies and echidnas and are not that close to the bush.
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.2.2.1.2 6 Apr 2010, 8:12 PM
Wow when did planning extend its branches to biology?!?!
XD
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.1.2.2.1.2.1 9 Apr 2010, 10:03 PM
:-)
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.2 2 Apr 2010, 10:02 AM
Sustainability does not equal rampant growth of population.
Comment 14.3.1.4.1.1.2.1 2 Apr 2010, 6:53 PM
I agree that Sydney and Australia should not grow excessively for environmental reasons. But even without rampant growth Sydney is still growing and it needs to do so in a more compact way.
I think that more growth should also happen in coastal areas like Newcastle and Bega, which, incidentally was a potential site for the country's capital. Pity it was not chosen!
Comment 14.3.2 27 Mar 2010, 3:47 PM
How long has it been called the Bushland Shire? That slogan was coined relatively recently. Similarly, Baulkham Hills was named the Garden Shire. All touchy feely really.
So Iguess the early people who lived aroud here did not call it anything bushy.
Comment 14.3.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 7:07 PM
So what did they call hornsby back in the old days?
Comment 14.3.3 29 Mar 2010, 1:32 PM
Resonate - Your comment has nothing to do with pushing everything into Hornsby
Comment 14.4 27 Mar 2010, 3:31 PM
As you now understand, Sydney can't remain the same forever. Sydney is not a town or a bush. Now, Sydney has become a world city, and it takes pride in itself with being that. Sydney is Australia's global city, a major economic centre in the Asia/Pacific region competing with cities like Singapore and is growing rapidly. We cannot let Sydney and Australia down by opposing neccessary developments to keep Sydney competitive and sustainable. Times have changed.
Comment 14.4.1 28 Mar 2010, 4:31 PM
If Sydney can't remain the same forever then all suburbs must take fair share of developments and just a few
Comment 14.4.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 7:12 PM
Some areas are more suited and more appropriate for change and development. Hornsby is one of these because it is a major regional centre.
It will give us more reason to have a better hospital, more schools, more cultural centres and so forth, even better shopping experiences for the shopping obsessed! Actually I still tend to got to larger centres such as Chatswood, Sydney city and Bondi to buy things , particularly clothes, because Hornsby despite Westfield doesn't have what I like. I would dearly love to shop locally more often. With a bigger, more diverse centre that will be a possibility.
Comment 14.4.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 1:33 PM
Not if you fill it with apartments so there is nowhere to put more offices and retail - move the development to surrounding suburbs with train lines.
Comment 14.4.1.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 6:39 PM
How come other cities and towns in other parts of the world manage to achieve this and thrive at the same time?
Comment 15 27 Mar 2010, 7:55 PM
The only way to stop high rise development or in fact over development of any type is to stop immigration. The Government is allowing 300,000 migrants to enter Australia every year. Once here, they have to live somewhere, and the vast majority of them choose to live in capital cities close to transport. There is nor more space left. The only way is up. The only possible way to stop this is to stop immigration. This is not racist. It is fact.
Comment 15.1 28 Mar 2010, 9:44 AM
Clem - vote Liberal next time! However, regardless of weather your pro or anti-immigration the argument still remains that having a 20 storey building in Hornsby "IS" indeed clearly objectionable.
Out of all 29 proposed precincts - Hornsby is the ONLY one suggested to have a monsterous 20 storey building! With all others being 5-10 storeys or townhouses. I also notice that this "draft proposal" in Hornsby is highlighted as a "NEW" precinct! I wonder where the idea and numbers came from? Possibly pulled out of thin air! I notice that some previous "proposed" precincts were scratched such as; Normanhurst and more…
Comment 15.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 12:30 PM
The reason why Hornsby is getting 20 storey building is because this proposal is done by Hornsby Council! On the other hand the NSW government has taken control of developments 600m radius of Epping station which is why the draft has no proposal for Epping.
Hornsby is an ideal place because it has a major shopping centre, major train station which services Northern and North Shore line and an F2 corridor.
The closer the 20 storey development is to town centre, the greater the environmental and social benefits. It will add more patronage, improve public transport usage and stimulate local businesses from more customers willing to spend near their apartments.
Comment 15.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 1:35 PM
You need to put commercial and retail in a centre, not residential, and put the residential in surrounding suburbs. If you fill it with mostly residential it will never grow.
Comment 15.1.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 6:39 PM
Bad planning methods
Comment 15.1.1.1.2 29 Mar 2010, 9:00 PM
If you had only noticed, it clearly stated in the draft that this development is only happening at the Linda St. precinct. As crisis said, successful major centres rely and thrive on mixed use development. As identified, Hornsby is a major centre and such developments, along with new office and retail space such as the new office building on George St. to the north of the two 14 storey apartments (the proposed developments here are much thinner), will be beneficial for Hornsby. So don't worry, Hornsby will grow and thrive as a major centre in all areas. Office only centres, or centres with only one form of use if called a specialised centre, such as the Mcquarie Park/North Ryde precinct. And if you have noticed, such specialised centres become like a "ghost town" after working hours and on weekends.
Comment 15.1.1.1.2.1 29 Mar 2010, 11:01 PM
No need for me to repeat my reply to this repeated comment, please look elsewhere if you want to see it.
Comment 15.1.2 28 Mar 2010, 12:55 PM
Rapid_Endurance77, I do vote Liberal, but you missed the point. We wouldn't need to even be discussing 20 storey buildings in Hornsby or anywhere else in Australia if we cut these ridiculous levels of immigration. The root of the problem is record high levels of immigration. Put a stop to this and you can stop worrying about over development. And we can stop our beautiful country becoming an over populated ghetto as we see in Asia, India etc. Continue with these massive intake levels and Australia will become just like the countries the migrants are coming from.
Comment 15.2 28 Mar 2010, 11:41 AM
As an Australian resident I feel ashamed to be associated with your views as a fellow Australian. I strongly advise you move suburbs or at least visit overseas and get some perspective.
Comment 15.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 1:04 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 15.2.2 28 Mar 2010, 2:33 PM
nokeys, you have absolutely no right to advise me, strongly nor otherwise, to move suburbs or visit overseas countries. I have lived in this suburb for 23 years and I will certainly not be moving because someone who doesn't even know me "strongly advises" me to. And I don't need to visit overseas to see what a mess some citizens have made of their countries. I am an Australian citizen and as such have a right to voice my opinion on what is happening in my country. It's called free speech.
Comment 15.2.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 3:21 PM
God forbid that someone suggests you visit an overseas country! In fact why would you even visit anything south of the harbour!
And what is this "I am an Australian citizen" stance? A bit of one upmanship to someone who calls themselves an Australian Resident? Actually you can still be an Australiancitizen and not be a resident of this country.
Comment 15.2.2.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 8:00 PM
bellinid, stop changing people's comments. nokeys did not "suggest" I vist overseas. He/she "strongly advised" me to do so. A little strange don't you think, to give strong advice to a total stranger. I don't know why you would take offence from the comment that "I am an Australian citizen". I am, and I am extremely proud of it. And lastly, I am well aware of the difference between Australian citizenship and Australian residency. Actually one last thing, I don't even know what you mean with your comment about not visiting anything south of the harbour. It has absolutley no relevance to anything.
Comment 15.2.2.1.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 8:26 PM
Woops sorry! "Advise" is actually a much stronger word than "suggest"! I was being too gentle there wasn't I? How terrible that someone would actually strongly advise you to go overseas!
I guess your comments on a forum warranted such a suggestion perhaps. If not what are forums for? Obviously you are going to be dialoguing with strangers. Though of course there is the possibility that someone you know is actually nokeys! That is part of the allure of forums with usernames.
I am not offended that you are an Australian citizen. I am too. You just seemed to be saying that you had more right to some thing or other because you were Australian whereas nokeys referred to themselves as a mere resident.
You sound very defensive and a bit frightened of the unfamiliar, proud of having lived here for 23 years. Hence my comment about not even going south of the harbour becasue it is too far away , too different.
Anyway, I have lived in my Hornsby Shire suburb for more than 25 years and I love foreign places and also visiting other parts of both Sydney, NSW and Asutralia!
Comment 15.2.2.1.1.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 10:59 PM
bellinid, Again you misquote. nokeys did not strongly advise me to visit other suburbs. He or she had the audacity to strongly advise me to move suburbs. If nokeys ever visited other suburbs, he/she would realise over development is happening everywhere. I have travelled extensively in the U.S., Great Britain and Europe and I visit both north and south of Sydney several times a year to spend time with family. So your ridiculous comment about visiting anything south of the harbour still makes no sense and has no relevance. Another misquote of yours is that I stated I was proud to have lived in the area for 23 years. I said no such thing. I said I was proud to be Australian. Please do not misquote me again, and unless you can stick to the subject matter of this forum do not bother to reply.
Comment 15.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 8:41 AM
MESSAGE FROM ADMIN
Would users please keep their contributions on subject. Posts that contain personal attacks or are too far off topic will be removed.
Thanks for your contributions so far.
Comment 15.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 8:25 PM
I totally agree. In my immediate previous comment I asked bellinid "to stick to the subject matter of this forum".
Comment 15.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 9:22 PM
I think you had better take heed of your own suggestion then!
Comment 15.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 30 Mar 2010, 8:20 AM
crisis, I have not tried to change the subject of the forum. The fact remains. This forum is about over development. We wouldn't have over development if our immigration rates weren't so high. This is the truth but some people are having trouble accepting it.
Comment 15.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 31 Mar 2010, 10:03 PM
Actually Clem, I found your original comment offensive and If the option was there I would have reported it to admin.
Comment 15.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 10 Apr 2010, 10:19 PM
The fact that the option is not there to report my comment means it has already been reported and Admin has chosen to leave it on the forum.
Comment 15.2.2.1.1.1.1.2 29 Mar 2010, 9:07 AM
Clem you sound like you are deliberately trying to distract everyone from the forum topic, so hopefully this will now stop. Linda Street is already high density and it is in a major centre so it makes perfect sense to concentrate more development there not in other areas of Hornsby or some other minor suburbs.
Comment 15.2.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 29 Mar 2010, 1:38 PM
Disagree, it makes more sense to put office and retail there, to build a "concentration" and move the residential to the nearby surburbs with good transport (to make room for the "concentration"
Comment 15.2.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 9:02 PM
If you had only noticed, it clearly stated in the draft that this development is only happening at the Linda St. precinct. As crisis said, successful major centres rely and thrive on mixed use development. As identified, Hornsby is a major centre and such developments, along with new office and retail space such as the new office building on George St. to the north of the two 14 storey apartments (the proposed developments here are much thinner), will be beneficial for Hornsby. So don't worry, Hornsby, if we stop opposing such developments as they're heading in the right direction, will grow and thrive in all areas. Office only centres, or centres with only one form of use if called a specialised centre, such as the Mcquarie Park/North Ryde precinct. And if you have noticed, they become like "ghost towns" before and after working hours and during weekends.
Comment 15.2.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 11:04 PM
This is the third time Aussie17 has written the same thing, so I'll again refer you to my single reply.
Comment 15.2.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 2 Apr 2010, 6:43 PM
Because people keep bringing up the same theories and beliefs I've already addressed before, all I have to do is to copy and paste (perhaps adjust it a bit to fit into the new comment). This further proves why the pros for such developments heavily outweigh the cons.
Comment 15.2.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 6 Apr 2010, 2:59 PM
Aussie17 - you should comment on the Carlingford Precincts links, they are equally against your change for the better. Epping is closer to Carlingford then Hornsby.
Comment 15.2.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2 8 Apr 2010, 1:44 PM
Aussie17 yoiu state "This further proves why the pros for such developments heavily outweigh the cons". It does no such thing.
Comment 15.3 28 Mar 2010, 12:24 PM
Immigration issue is outside of the jurisdiction of NSW government and councils. It is a Federal matter and no matter how much community lobbies to council or NSW government there is no weight in changing this policy. All this energy is better used to how to work around the current immigration intake.
Also, there may be 300,000 migrants entering Australia but what about the number of those who leave Australia especially students, working holiday and temporary migrants?
Comment 15.3.1 28 Mar 2010, 12:46 PM
Resonate, while those students, working holidayers and temporary migrants are leaving Australia, more students, working holidayers and temporary migrants are arriving, along with the hundreds of thousands who arrive and never leave. It is ridiculous to say we have to leave the migrant intake at 300,000 per year. Of course we don't, and the sooner the Federal Government realises this the better. It is a well known fact that certain races have totally over populated their own countries. We must not sit back and let them do the same to Australia. We will eventually have a referendum on immigration but it must be done while there are still more Australians thant migrants in this country.
Comment 15.3.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 3:26 PM
Clem, that is appalling and offensive! -
"We must have a referendum on immigration while there are still more Australians than migrants in this country."
What defines an Australian? Being born here? Being an Aboriginal? Being a naturalised citizen, born elsewhere?
All these thing I thought. But I suspect you exclude some people forever based upon where they were born.
Oh and by the way, in the event of a referendum, even if the Australians were less in number than the migrants, the asutralians would be the only ones voting in a referendum.
Comment 15.3.1.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 7:13 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect the views of other users
Comment 15.3.1.1.2 28 Mar 2010, 7:42 PM
bellinid, You miss the point. It is irrelevant what I define as Australian. The fact remains - certain races over populate. And you "suspect" incorrectly. I do not "exclude some people forever based upon where they were born". That comment was very presumptious of you. Over populating Australia is not the solution to anything, and of course a country's own citizens should decide the future of that country. I would never presume to have any decision making rights in a country other than my own.
Comment 15.3.1.1.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 8:06 PM
Clem you are really offensive. Certain races do have more children than other races. But I know for a fact that Europeans less than 100 years ago were doing exactly the same thing.
Also there are some very predominantly caucasian religious sects that have many many children - like 12 or more and some of these actually live quite close to Hornsby shire!
I agree that overpopulating the country is not a good thing because resources such as water are limited.
Also I think you will find that skilled and educated migrants tend to have less children than say some long term residents who are ,shall we say, less interested in improving their lot. This is because they (the migrants)value quality of life and a good education for their children, not just maximising what they can get from welfare.
I speak from personal experience. I am foreign born, australian educated and an only child. I am of Italian background (so there goes another stereotype - the big italian family!, a dual citizen, and proud of the best that comes from both my cultures.
Comment 15.3.1.1.2.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 9:35 PM
bellinid, I would love to see your proof that "migrants value quality of life and a good education for their children more" than those you refer to as "long term residents". Do you mean Australians? This is absolute nonsense. All races have their good and bad. All races have hard workers and those who use welfare. But none of this relates to this debate. This is whether or not we should have high rise development in Hornsby. And to fight against over development without cutting immigration is like closing the gate after the horse has bolted. There is no way this type of development can be stopped unless we stop the massive increase in population. As I said previously, if 300,000 more people are going to be allowed to migrate to Australia every year, they have to live somewhere and we are going to have high rise development everywhere. Those against this development should address the cause of the problem - the increase in the population. And by the way, it is very demeaning of you to say some Australians are less interested in improving their lot. You don't know their circumstances.
Comment 15.3.1.1.2.1.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 10:16 PM
May I remind you that it is very demeaning of you to state that other countries are slums, that certain races are prolific breeders and to imply that they should not be allowed to live here. These sorts of statements by you have many more hidden insinuations attached to them by the way.
May I also remind you that you are the one who has brought all these subjects up and included them as essential to the debate about additional housing in Hornsby. By doing so you should be prepared to have some people disagree with you.
As a suggestion, perhaps you can get active about promoting the idea that other areas of NSW can grow such as Newcastle and Wollongong.
Also the increase in population comes from within the country too as people from outside Sydney come here for job opportunities.
And unfortunately it is a reality that some residents of this fair country are not at all interested in improving their lot, unfortunate circumstances or not. And sometimes baby bonuses don't help this situation!
Comment 15.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 10:45 PM
bellinid, again you misquote a previous comment. I did not "state that other countries are slums". And I am not "implying" anything. I am stating hard, cold truthful fact. Some races have over populated their own countries and 70% of the increase in the population in Australia is due to immigration. It is not a matter of agreeing with me or not. It is fact. It is truth. It is not debateable. And again you have gone off course. This debate is about over development which is caused by over population. Those who do not want to "improve their lot" and those who abuse the baby bonus system would include both Australians and migrants, but that is besides the point. I will finish off now because you continue to try to change this to a more personal debate and ignore the purpose of the forum.
Comment 15.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 9:10 AM
I think that comment of yours about slums may have been deleted. I remember reading it. But please no more of this!
Comment 15.3.1.1.2.1.1.2 28 Mar 2010, 10:32 PM
Additionally:
And unfortunately it is a reality that SOME, as I said previously, not all, residents of this fair country are not at all interested in improving their lot, unfortunate circumstances or not. And sometimes baby bonuses don't help this situation! So at the end of the day potential overpopulaters are alive and kicking within this country already without the newcomers.
As for migrants valuing a good education, selective schools are very well represented by the children of migrants.
Comment 15.3.1.1.2.1.1.2.1 29 Mar 2010, 8:06 AM
bellinid, This will be my last response to you. You are right, selective schools are overly represented by migrants. So is the train I catch to work every day. Maybe you are finally getting the point. 300,000 new migrants each year is far too many.
Comment 15.3.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1 6 Apr 2010, 1:48 PM
Yes, there are too many immigrants.
I am not racist but Australia is such a dry, infertile place that we really can't support this swelling population.
Comment 15.3.1.1.2.2 9 Apr 2010, 2:38 PM
On this subject, just some things that I have heard as facts - please correct me if you have other proof.
1/ 4000+ immigrants at the various centres at the moment - each one is costing $81,000 each year.
2/ Immigration was supposedly increased to cover the numbers of 'baby boomers' who are going to have expensive retirement plans.
*One reason that we are going to have these 20 storey flats is to allow these oldies to 'downsize' as the Council notes say into less expensive (for the government) areas.*
The other point is now we have many immigrants who are earning thier (and our) Superannuation / funds etc.
Cool.
What happens when THEY are at retirement age? Current policy means that Aus will have to double population again to cover them.. then they retire and it keeps going.
Comment 15.3.1.1.2.2.1 11 Apr 2010, 11:25 PM
actually Albert, I think the council would be helping the elderly and doing their bit for society if they were to put lower cost apartments near Westfield that are only available to people on the old age pension, not highrise which are only affordable to foreign students.
Comment 15.3.1.1.2.2.1.1 12 Apr 2010, 10:49 AM
Lower cost would be great - however I believe it is up to the developers to set affordability - going on the 470k+ costs of second hand Waitara, thats not going to happen.
St Ives has had a retirement village knocked down.
The council had set Retirement compliant regulations into some development, and they funded or refunded the developers for building them as an encouragement.
Unfortunatly, I believe the Council added a rule that if the places were not bought by 18months then they could be used for something else. So the developers didn't advertise them for the 18 months, with the result that the Council effectively subsidised the developers to sell flats to the normal public.
Comment 15.3.1.1.2.2.1.1.1 12 Apr 2010, 2:58 PM
Albert, we need to have more control and say about the dwelling mix so that people in need do have a chance of finding a suitable home. Nobody wants this to be an exercise in making greedy developers rich, and also I should add some investors too.
Comment 16 28 Mar 2010, 1:29 PM
I fail to understand how the council works! We are not Singapore or Hong Kong with limited land mass. What is the purpose of localizing the 20 story structures to a limited area?
This is absolute basics of planning, you clearly will over stress the infrastructure around that part of town resulting in severe inconvenience to people.
The planners have also failed to notice there are two sides to the station and there are many sides around the Hornsby shire where the density is a lot less? Why would you over populate the road next to the main shopping centre? My more…
Comment 16.1 28 Mar 2010, 3:01 PM
Maroota is in Hornsby Shire. It is sparsely populated and has lots of land. It is an outer area. Maybe they could put some offices and businesses out there. How to cope with getting to and from there is just a minor consequence.
Comment 16.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 4:06 PM
Maybe we should go down to Brooklyn too and further west of Maroota, to the outer limits of Hornsby Shire. Just think - lots of underdeveloped land and slopey bits that would hide the horrible 20 to 100 storeys that scare Radas in particular. Oh and there are trees too to further camouflage
everything.
Comment 16.1.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 1:39 PM
FLippant comments are not useful or welcome on this forum.
Comment 16.1.1.1.1 6 Apr 2010, 1:47 PM
They do prove a good point though.
Comment 16.1.2 28 Mar 2010, 4:38 PM
bellinid - then why you think Hornsby and Waitara won't have the same problems when we are already overstretched.
Comment 16.1.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 4:48 PM
Which problems are they xfactor?
Comment 16.2 28 Mar 2010, 3:20 PM
Hornsby disaster, please read my posts. For your convenience, I'll just quote some of them here (warning: long post!):
"As you said, development and higher density housing is inevitable - it is the only viable approach to dealing with Sydney's rapid population growth. Hornsby is an ideal place to increase density and for such developments. It is already a major regional centre like Liverpool or Penrith. It already has a significant amount of retail space and recently, it is becoming a commercial centre as well. It is a mini city itself. Placing such developments in centres like Hornsby will bring many more…
Comment 16.2.1 28 Mar 2010, 4:12 PM
This is merely repetition!
Comment 16.2.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 4:49 PM
Some people need to be told over and over again!
Comment 16.2.2 29 Mar 2010, 1:40 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 16.2.3 6 Apr 2010, 1:45 PM
Sorry, I didn't read it all but your opening line I do agree with. But I think it is important to us all, even if we don't live in Hornsby itself, that what is built is good quality and adds to the community, rather than just crass high rise.
I am very much in favour of medium and high density, as long as it's good and isn't alienating! :)
Comment 16.2.4 6 Apr 2010, 1:46 PM
Rhodes apartments aren't bad and nor is the shopping centre...
Comment 16.2.4.1 6 Apr 2010, 9:45 PM
And I'll just restate a quote from Rhode's most recent masterplan which happens to reinforce some of my points:
"Current development on the Peninsula appears to be homogenous and indistinctive from both the road and the water. Open space is lacking (ie. less than 7m2 per capita, or, half of what is provided at pyrmont) Furthermore, the internal amenity and privacy of the perimeter-block building layouts around a narrow central courtyard, is observably poor.
The proposal provides 30% more open space on the Peninsula. It will provide some additional passive recreation and seating areas, away from the main pathway/cycleway along the waterfront.
The more…
Comment 16.2.4.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 1:42 PM
As I replied in the other place you copied this comment, Rhodes was an industrial wasteland and displaced nobody. You are not concerned with the impact on current residents?
Comment 16.2.4.1.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 4:49 PM
I think that what aussie17 is getting at is that it is possible to build good examples of high rise, not anything about displacing anyone.
Comment 16.2.4.1.1.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 5:18 PM
Housing Strategy is just a model idea, Aussie17 or governments cannot control who's going to build in future. You could end up having Waitara again with inferior materials and building standards
Comment 16.2.4.1.1.1.2 11 Apr 2010, 11:20 PM
you have it spot on bellinid, aussie17 does not discuss what happens to those displaced, nor whether it is good for them, except to quote that there is resistance to change. I wonder why there is resistance, and whether it is good for those displaced, in aussie17's eyes? Surely the textbooks discuss that, or do they avoid it also?
Comment 16.3 30 Mar 2010, 7:02 AM
I agree with hornsbydisaster's comment on the 28th of March at 1.29pm.
Comment 17 28 Mar 2010, 5:21 PM
Hello Everyone,
I'm new at this. I am not qualified in any area of building structure(s), town planning, development etc.
All I do know, is that I am an owner and resident in one of the 3 storey blocks of units in Hornsby, and with all the trees surrounding and separating each block, it is easy to forget that I am living in a built up area.
I walk and/or drive past the 8 - 12 storey high unit blocks in Waitara, and they are soul-less, ugly, shadow producing structures that are an eye-sore.
A 20 storey high block is unimaginably tall and too more…
Comment 17.1 28 Mar 2010, 6:26 PM
Hels, welcome to the discussion!
Regarding your concerns, can you please read my posts. There's a long one which puts some of the posts together a few posts up.
I'd just also like to add about parking that as Sydney grows, Hornsby will inevitably grow no matter which built form. However, as the draft states, there will be additional parking and they will be concealed within podiums or located in basement levels. As I said, would you please read my posts, but perhaps re-reading the draft will also help to further answer your concerns.
Comment 17.1.1 28 Mar 2010, 7:59 PM
Interesting reading. Some here have pushed the fact that Hornsby is a major centre but the question should be asked why the North Shore is getting another one? It already has:
- North Sydney
- St Leonards
- Chatswood
- Gordon
- Hornsby
- Epping
- Macquarie Park
More if you count the North West region.
- Rouse Hill
- Castle Hill
- Rhodes
Looking at what the Government lists as Major centres do we compare this with the areas south of Sydney? Major centres listed as Hurstville and Kograh plus Botany or how about in the south west of Sydney? Liverpool, Bankstown and Campbelltown listed. How many 20 storey towers are more…
Comment 17.1.2 29 Mar 2010, 9:47 AM
Aussie 17: Mate, your posts are 3 pages long. Then you have made a post to reiterate your posts. Please don't spam your comments.
Please make your comments short and readable. This forum is not for one or two people to take over, but for anyone to discuss issues.
Comment 17.1.2.1 29 Mar 2010, 10:15 AM
Maybe Aussie17 should break his long posts up into smaller posts. He has some extremely pertinent points to make.
Comment 17.1.2.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 11:24 AM
Yep, sure. Maybe refer back to one post instead of cutting / pasting would help them.
Maybe the forum should also split into separate discussions about conditions / transport / building planning etc.
Comment 17.1.2.2 6 Apr 2010, 3:08 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 17.1.3 29 Mar 2010, 11:45 AM
A17 your point 2 says that when 20 storeys are built in Hornsby, then less areas will be destroyed for redevelopment. Why then build on the hill? Why not build just behind the bowling alley in the valley? Its 5 storeys further down there and would be less conspicuous IF it is a one off development as you say.
Unfortunatly Waitara IS modern architecture. Cheap modern architecture. I know it only arose in the last few years because I watched it buing built. The example building that we were given on the Council site is definitly not award winning.
Comments made about transport make think that moving the work places out from Sydney would be an option. I travel to the city (45 mins train). Where I work will probably move from there to Parramatta.
Do some workplaces need to be in a central area? Computers make it easier to build smaller regional areas that would spread the load.
Comment 17.1.3.1 29 Mar 2010, 3:32 PM
Exactly! Modern cheap material! I'd like to see what these highrise buildings look like in 10-20 years time!?? I wonder what structural problems they'd present and how long they'd last! No doubt there'd be a lot of neighbourly disputes over noise. Heard of so many neighbourly arguments over babies crying throughout the night to late night domestics from parties in the "communal" pool! YUCK! Doesn't sound like it'll improve standard of living, especially if I have to call the cops every weekend!
Comment 17.1.3.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 6:42 PM
Bad construction has being happening for a long time. I would expect that some poorly constructed unit blocks exist in the Linda St precinct too.
Comment 17.2 29 Mar 2010, 12:49 PM
Hels good on you for getting on this forum and having a say. I dare say many of us on here (myself included) aren't qualified urban planners, builders, developers, etc.
But as a resident, you've hit on all the key points we residents are most concerned about and done it in a very articulate way. I agree with everything you've said and hopefully the council takes our concerns on board.
Comment 17.2.1 29 Mar 2010, 6:00 PM
Thank You res12. I tried to keep my comments short. Plus, I wanted everyone to know that as a resident, I actually know what it is like to live in a unit block!
Not all of us can afford to live in big(ish) houses/homes, and living in 3 - 5 storey unit blocks, with trees/gardens and reasonable parking make it pleasant enough to live and share close quarters with neighbours and it feels "homely", whereas, a 20 storey block up to the sky......, no thanks.
Comment 18 29 Mar 2010, 12:30 PM
Fair points Albert and crisis - I'll try and keep my posts shorter too.
I thought maybe it would be useful to compare the 20 storey form documents with the 5 storey ones (both available on this site).
Some points I'd like to raise (split across a couple of posts):
- Overall, the 5 storey form docs are far more comprehensive and detailed than the 20 storey ones (4 pages (20 storey forms) vs 30 pages (5 storey forms)). On the face of it, it seems like the 20 storey ones were contain far less analysis.
- For example, the 20 storey form docs don’t appear to provide any outline of what a 20 storey mixed use building would look/be like. It just focuses on residential and says nothing about mixed use – despite the council wanting to include this.
Comment 18.1 8 Apr 2010, 4:51 PM
I think that they definitely need to work a lot more on this.
Comment 18.1.1 19 Apr 2010, 2:40 PM
Aggree but isn't there a time limit?
According to the Council timetable something has to be in by June 2010 and that the rezone will be implemented by June 2011.
I don't like how it happens, but if you treat the Councillors as people, then they have to put a tender out for a designer, give the tenderer a large list of requirements which don't match ours because the Council didn't ask, or haven't had time to ask. Then they have to recieve the results, make sure they are legal etc and then give us time to comment on them.
Any delays means a rushed / botched job - this will also happen when it come time to build I guess?
We get 1 month to sort out our reaction to this, then perhaps this forum gets closed?
Comment 19 29 Mar 2010, 12:34 PM
Quote from 20 storey forms document – ‘a network of “pathways” for residents and visitors to access lobbies or the street will be provided, and areas where informal social meetings may occur spontaneously’. Yes, I can envisage myself standing between two 20 storey buildings and engaging in ‘spontaneous social meetings’ with neighbours. To me it’s urban planning jargon with no basis for what happens in the real world.
Comment 19.1 29 Mar 2010, 1:18 PM
Of course my reaction was 'what social meetings when I won't be able to afford a new
flat in the complex that replaces me?'
Comment 19.1.1 31 Mar 2010, 8:41 AM
And as Rapid_Endurance77 has pointed out elsewhere - living in 20 storey buildings doesn't encourage people to get to know each other. 'Spontaneous social interaction' happens when you have a strong community base, including people with strong roots in the community (families, mature age residents) who know their neighbours and are engaged in the community. 20 storey buildings do not facilitate this.
Comment 20 29 Mar 2010, 12:38 PM
Quote from 20 storey doc – ‘twenty storey buildings should not compromise the private amenity which currently is enjoyed by residents of three storey walk-up apartments in this locality’. Is that a joke?
Comment 21 29 Mar 2010, 12:41 PM
Quote from 20 storey doc – ‘Retaining walls, balustrades and privacy screens around surrounding private courtyards will be constructed of materials that have a natural character (and providing contrasts to the otherwise-ubiquitous painted cement-rendered surfaces)'.
So, in short, there will be masses of cement-rendered, painted surfaces and a paltry attempt to camouflage them with more man-made materials that have a ‘natural character’. Fabulous – I’ll be sure to have a pot plant on my balcony so I can remember what natural vegetation looks like in the 'bushland shire'.
The 5 storey form docs have a number of references to the needs/character of the ‘bushland shire’ (e.g. see page 3). XFactor you’re right in saying this is the character of our shire and development should be sensitive to it – the council was clearly aware of this need in the original strategy. In fact it was one of urban design objectives of the initial strategy to maintain this.
Comment 22 29 Mar 2010, 12:44 PM
The 5 storey docs outlined controls for sunlight: ‘Alternatively where neighbours' windows and private open spaces currently receive less than three hours sunlight, maintain the full amount of existing sunlight’.
The controls for the 20 storey docs only appear to require 3 hours of sunlight per day for the new 20 storey dwellings. There’s no mention of sunlight control for neighbouring dwellings – probably because there won’t be any. We best make sure that we have our halogen lights going strong.
Comment 23 29 Mar 2010, 1:22 PM
If this is a Council excercise to get more people living in Hornsby, then why are they going to get rid of the owners currently living in this precinct?
Based on my block, they LOVE Hornsby, some have been around for 40+, 6, 14, 34 years. Others came in via Rudds encouragement.
It seems like Hornsby could lose its community.
I would like to agree that these are the last development like some of the others in the forums, but I think that these will be some of the first. The reason I think this is the placement. If they get away with the worst placement, the most inconvienient, then I would have thought they can turn the rest of the blocks into the same (maybe higher for the valley areas) without an argument.
Comment 23.1 29 Mar 2010, 3:27 PM
Community is an important and valid point Albert. It's important to know who your neighbours are and what condition they're in and I'm afraid a high rise building building over 20 storeys will diminish living standards as people probably won't care as much. They may be living in a tad TOO close proximity to care. Example of this is where they've even had problems with the apartments above maddison towers where bottles and rubbish are thrown onto the buildings below! So increase crime rates are a given and there's plenty of drug dealing that goes on in Waitara where the more…
Comment 23.2 29 Mar 2010, 5:52 PM
Yes the old school like myself who have been living here for over 40 years is getting out & looking for greener pastures.
Comment 24 29 Mar 2010, 5:47 PM
Those living in the surrounding suburbs of Hornsby will be indirectly affected regardless. All this development will triple the traffic in & around Hornsby. I'm shocked to see the amount of cars at Edgewoth David Ave of an afternoon waiting to to turn right into Sherbrook Ave. (opposite the bowling green)
Comment 24.1 29 Mar 2010, 8:59 PM
I find it strange why anyone would disagree with the above post re: traffic? it's no illusion.
Comment 24.1.1 19 Apr 2010, 8:33 PM
Because Hornsby traffic is not more special than traffic anywhere else perhaps?
Comment 24.2 4 Apr 2010, 8:51 AM
I rented opposite the medical centre, and the accidents at those lights were frequent. One was almost a fatality because there was a line of cars in the middle lane waiting to turn into the shops near the school. the line went across the lights and someone going to Waitara turned across them. Unfortunately there was a car in the left lane going up to the highway that side swiped it at 60kph.
With the increase of underground parking in the towers, there will be a very large increase of people turning across other traffic and blocking thoroughfares.
Comment 24.2.1 4 Apr 2010, 1:28 PM
I'm sure there will be alterations to the lights and roads to accomodate.
Comment 24.2.1.1 4 Apr 2010, 4:11 PM
I cannot see this (although I agree with you in hoping there is changes) the base reason why Hornsby is getting these towers is because they are near the station. I hope, but don't believe that these type of changes to traffic will be put in.
Comment 24.3 19 Apr 2010, 8:31 PM
Seriously why would the surrounding suburbs care about the traffic problems either way? Whether they develop Hornsby, Waitara, Asquith, Normanhurst etc, there willbe traffic and they will suffer. Do you think anyone will say "Don't put more housing in Hornsby because I will have to put up with more traffic, put it in my suburb instead!"?
We will all suffer from increased traffic no matter where the development goes. If the development is disproportionately in minor centres, then the traffic will be even worse for everyone.
Comment 25 29 Mar 2010, 9:06 PM
Anyhow the biggest losers are the poor sods who will be paying ridiculous strata fees & a poor standard of living amongst the masses.
The smart ones will sell out of the once "bush shire" and find a better environment to raise a family.
Comment 25.1 19 Apr 2010, 8:26 PM
Cat, there hasn't been any bush in Waitara for a long long time. Probably wasn't any when you moved there.
Comment 25.2 19 Apr 2010, 8:35 PM
You mentione that you were leaving so I assume you are luckily one of the "smart ones". Good luck in your new home. Enjoy!
Comment 26 30 Mar 2010, 9:42 AM
I have just realised something. Many protesters on this forum are saying that there should be no high rise residential in Hornsby, and no mixed use. They are saying that development should be commercial only.
Well any commercial development will be high rise. At the end of the day a 20 storey commercial building sticks up out of the ground in the same way as a 20 storey residential building. But the protesters seem to be able to accept the high commercial and not the residential. So if instead of Linda St being rezoned 20 storey residential it was rezoned to 20 storey commercial, hardly anyone will object. Right?
I don't quite get it then.
Comment 26.1 31 Mar 2010, 8:36 AM
I don't know where you're getting that information from. I believe those arguing against 20 storeys in Hornsby are arguing against the scale, height and impact of it whether it's purely residential, commercial or mixed. Many of the arguments are the same.
At the end of the day the council has proposed this ill-conceived development to increase their dwelling yield, which a purely commercial building would not provide.
Comment 26.2 31 Mar 2010, 2:23 PM
I don't see them saying the commercial should be high-rise, do you? Please advise where...
Comment 26.3 13 Apr 2010, 4:50 PM
Ummm, I haven't seen anyone on this forum say any such thing. If you are reading people's comments you'll note that many of them object to the extreme scale and scope of the 20 storey buildings being proposed - no matter what they're used for. Even if people aren't living in them (residential) - people would be working in them (commercial) - which still leaves us with transport and other infrastructure concerns anyway ... so I think you're confused.
Comment 26.3.1 13 Apr 2010, 5:05 PM
No I don't think crisis is confused at all. Any future office/commercial developments in Hornsby CBD will most likely be high rise. We don't yet know how many storeys though.
It is not mentioned in the Housing Strategy because it is not housing. This does not mean that there is no plan for the commercial section.
Some people on this forum have been saying that there should be just commercial development in Hornsby, no mixed use and housing located in other suburbs. So I think what crisis was saying is that some people seem to think that commercial is fine but that at the end of the day it too will be high buildings and that they would have the same impact as high residential. so why would the commercial version be more acceptable?
Comment 26.3.1.1 13 Apr 2010, 5:41 PM
The Hornsby Town Centre DCP (particularly Part 2) already outlines the controls, including height limits, for development of the town centre on both the East and West sides of the rail line. This DCP has been around for some time. A mix of building heights of up to 48 metres (on the Library carpark site) are already permitted.
See: http://www.hornsby.nsw.gov.au/uploads/documents/HTCDCP-2006pt2.pdf p.77
Comment 26.3.1.1.1 13 Apr 2010, 6:03 PM
So 48 metres would be 12-15 storeys. I wonder if the DCP will get updated and changed?
Comment 26.3.1.1.1.1 22 Apr 2010, 10:10 PM
And 48 metres (as MichaelO stated) is limited to ONLY the council carpark near the library, not anywhere else in the Shire. It has been there for some time and no developer wants to touch it.
Comment 26.3.1.1.1.1.1 22 Apr 2010, 11:29 PM
where did you find this out? I'd like to know more.
Comment 26.3.1.2 15 Apr 2010, 11:38 AM
There should be no medium to large scale commercial development in Hornsby. Only local commercial.
There is no reason to build another commercial centre in the Northern half of Sydney (North, North East and North West). I can not fathom why they would plan to add more office towers and jobs on the Northern side of Sydney when there is such an imbalance. The reality is that the Southern half of Sydney (South, South East and South West) has no real commercial centres. There is talk of making Liverpool a major centre in the future but take a drive out more…
Comment 26.3.1.2.1 16 Apr 2010, 3:59 PM
well said jim01. I hope you will be putting in a sumbmission on the revised metro strategy!
Comment 27 30 Mar 2010, 11:30 AM
Everyone loathes the towers in Redfern. Glamour them up if you like, but it's still the same thing no matter which suburb they are located.
My personal opinion is the developers are laughing. They will build these monstrosities with the sanction of the state government who will push them through via the Joint Regional Planning Panels leaving ugly buildings that will eventually develop all the social problems associated with high-rise. For a start, we are making people live alongside railway lines which were always considered less than desirable housing areas.
The government tells us Sydney is going to grow, yet we more…
Comment 27.1 30 Mar 2010, 11:45 AM
Ugliness is not just limited to high buildings you know, There are plenty of lower height buildings which could win gold medals for ugliness. Go to Kellyville, or anywhere where there are plenty of new homes - mcmansions and smother yourself in the ugliness. Just because they are lower does not make them better and more attractive.
Also, the Redfern towers are a poor and extreme example to use. Make a bit of an effort and look at some good examples of highrise and high density. They exist.
Comment 27.1.1 13 Apr 2010, 4:44 PM
And perhaps you could make some effort and look at some good examples of low rise, lower density developments. They exist too.
Comment 27.2 13 Apr 2010, 4:37 PM
I agree with Bandicoot - it seems like the people arguing for 20 storeys in Hornsby do so by referencing other places and the fact that they've done it - so, therefore, we must do it too. This is completely flawed. Why would there be a planning process if we just followed the logic that population growth = more dwellings = 20+ storeys basically everywhere.
To the people who say don't focus on the storey count - maybe you need to live in/next to one of these monstrosities. They are ugly, expensive to rent/buy and socially alienating. Development in Hornsby can be contained to under 8-10 storeys and a mix therein and still meet dwelling targets - like everywhere else in the shire is proposed to be zoned.
Comment 28 30 Mar 2010, 12:19 PM
Aussie17 - 4,698 words in your last 'comment.'
Comment 28.1 30 Mar 2010, 12:38 PM
I think maybe this person is writing their thesis! But for this forum it would be better delivered in smaller bits.
Comment 28.2 30 Mar 2010, 7:26 PM
If you've noticed, it is a collection of some of my previous posts, since people keep bringing up the same issues that I've already addressed over and over again.
Comment 28.2.1 30 Mar 2010, 8:19 PM
Aussie17 - we're intelligent enough to read through your ideas; you don't need to keep referring back to your past points. You ideas are being hidden in a forest of words.
The issues keep coming up because everyone approaches each issue from different perspectives and that is what a forum is for. Your points are not the final word on the current issues.
Comment 28.2.2 31 Mar 2010, 9:08 AM
I know this is what you did, but the problem is that people's attention wanders. also because you are saying things that don't appeal to some they get even more negative. I know you are frustrated, but shorter, bullet points maybe.
Much of what you say is spot on by the way.
Comment 28.2.3 1 Apr 2010, 9:13 PM
just put the date in and people can read back if they need to. Its doing my head in!
Comment 28.2.4 6 Apr 2010, 3:33 PM
Aussie17 - people keep on bring the same issues up is because you repeat too much for your uni assignments... and because there are concern residents out there who care about other issues such as displace residents, drop in standard of living, overcrowding, lack of natural sunlight, transport, traffic, lack of work opportunities, third world hospital etc not just about building higher and closer and lots of them living in sardine cans.
Comment 28.2.4.1 7 Apr 2010, 3:49 PM
Xfactor, what do you do?
Comment 29 30 Mar 2010, 8:08 PM
I had a few comments earlier and I would like to add to that-
To those who think this is the only solution to housing
a. have you stayed on the 20th floor in a 20 floor apartment?
b. do you plan to stay or "invest" in a 20 floor apartment
c. do you see the advertisement say, bang opposite shopping centre, 300 mts for rail line, close to school etc?
d. do you think the planners or builders stay in these units?
c. what alternatives have been offered to the citizens?
e. why cant we have blanket rezoning, 8 stories across hornsby?
f. what is the traffic more…
Comment 29.1 30 Mar 2010, 8:33 PM
Just read my comments and you'll all the answers you want.
Comment 29.1.1 1 Apr 2010, 9:14 PM
Oh good for you Aussie 17....you read my mind.
Comment 29.2 31 Mar 2010, 9:18 AM
A blanket rezoning of 8 storeys across Hornsby???? Hornsby becomes all 8 storey buildings
How on earth is this going to be better?1?
How does it affect less people?
How does it have less impact on infrastructure?
How does it produce less traffic?
What sort of a dreary endless monotonous environment would that produce?
I see some people are more than happy to pay big dollars to stay in high rise apartments in Sydney and elsewhere in australia ans the world. Millions of dollars in fact. and the papers regularly print storeys of extremely wealthy people buying and selling these units, as yes, they can be an investment. So someone obviously likes 20 storeys!
Comment 29.3 13 Apr 2010, 4:24 PM
I agree with most of hornsbydisaster's points/concerns here. Plus is there any development planned for the 'high side' of Hornsby? i.e. along the Pacific Highway where the cinema and restaurants are? That area needs a total facelift and could revitalise the business part and add 3-5 storeys of residential above it. But maybe that area is already zoned as such?
Comment 29.3.1 19 Apr 2010, 2:46 PM
I believe that there is a lot of history along that side, (check out the hardware place) perhaps it is too problematic at the moment.
Anyway they need room for the 70 trucks delivering daily garbage to the old quarry.
Comment 29.3.1.1 22 Apr 2010, 10:13 PM
There are a few heritage shopfronts, which can easily be retained with new developments behind them (though not by the kind of cheapskate developers we had in Waitara, who only want to build where they don't need to worry about that) and lots of extremely ugly no-value ones as well.
Comment 30 30 Mar 2010, 8:46 PM
Aussie17 - we have all read your comments! If as you think life was one sided, we wouldnt be here.
Please give others space. If you represent an organizations or a group of people, we understand you view point. Dont over crowd this forum with your ideas.
There are multiple ways to solve any given problem, this is fundamental. Be considerate and give others space.
Comment 30.1 31 Mar 2010, 9:23 AM
Aussie17 is not taking away anyone else's space. The space on this forum expands to fit everyone in. Why, for the sake of consistency, don't you say the same thing to others, like Radas or res12? Is it because what they say is the only thing you want to hear? I think the views of the like of these 2 are actually quite well represented on this forum, more than Aussie17 in fact. So give the guy a break!
Comment 30.1.1 2 Apr 2010, 7:24 PM
Nope - its because they address the issue that they replied to instead of saying "If you noticed" ..
If Aussie has said it all then they don't need to say any more. ;)
Comment 31 31 Mar 2010, 8:27 AM
Other strong reasons against 20 storey developments in Hornsby:
- The council claims to be protecting the needs of older residents and residents with a disability through their Housing Strategy (whose needs they are required to consider/actively meet under the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP)).
- Given that 20 storey developments will be less affordable (prices, rents, strata levies), the council's actions are in fact marginalising these groups in Hornsby, rather than protecting their interests.
- 20 storey buildings will result in a more itinerant population in Hornsby, with less families and less mature aged citizens with strong roots and history in the community - including encouraging interaction within the community.
- so it's not merely the 'look' of the community I think we're trying to maintain, but also the 'feel' of the community.
- comments on this Forum and from others I've spoken to around Hornsby (i.e. couples with kids and mature age residents who've been here 30+ years) have said they'll be seeking to leave the Shire if this type of development goes ahead.
Comment 31.1 31 Mar 2010, 9:31 AM
Yep I'm one of those ppl as well.
Comment 31.1.1 31 Mar 2010, 2:28 PM
That's probsably what some of the people who want 20 stories would like - everyone who disagrees with them to move out of Honrsby (probably out of Australia) so it can conform to their ideals. I'm not moving, but no way Council is going to force this on us.
Comment 31.1.1.1 1 Apr 2010, 9:35 AM
Hi azroc,
The unfortunate thing is that Council can. Council does not need our permission to proceed with the changes. The notification and exhibition process must be followed which they are doing but at the end of the day it is only a courtesy.
Comment 31.1.1.2 2 Apr 2010, 7:04 PM
azroc it is also what town planners would like - you move out so they can do whatever they want.
Won't it be grand if the state government takes over planning powers and decides that lots of redevelopment needs to be done in precincts where council planners and councillors, who don't want to move and don't agree with whatever textbook the state planners have been reading, live.
Comment 31.1.1.2.1 4 Apr 2010, 10:05 AM
State Development policy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1a. Set the Councils impossible and unpopular levels of development.
1b. Its all the Councils fault then.
2. Wait for the Public reaction against the Council.
3. Take over planning when the council democratically agree with the public against development.
By the way, I am not supporting Council or their own policies, just from my experience this seems to be the way that one form of Government take over others.
Comment 31.1.1.2.1.1 4 Apr 2010, 1:30 PM
That is what happened in Ku-ring-gai. Look what a shamble it is.
Comment 31.1.1.2.1.1.1 4 Apr 2010, 3:08 PM
yeah - the rest of my family live in St.Ives near the shops.
Shame is the flats are not all occupied. Neither is Waitara.
Comment 31.1.1.2.1.1.2 9 Apr 2010, 3:20 PM
Note: if Council need to find x number of new people in Hornsby area, are they counting the currently empty flats, (ie x minus number of empty flats) or are they assuming that all current flats are occupied?
Comment 32 2 Apr 2010, 5:42 PM
++--++
I went to the council info Exhibition; this is what I learned - note the maths.
1/ Population
- Population increase by 1.1million
- Requirement for 650,000 homes
- 11,000 in Hornsby district
- 4,500 Exist
- Future 3,900
- Total 11,000
Comment 33 2 Apr 2010, 5:45 PM
2/ Planning Considerations
- Heritage
- Retain Character
- Adequate infrastructure
- Wanting to ‘allow mature age people to downsize to smaller unit’
- Increase availability for small family and singles to enter the property market.
- Must be existing urban centers 30 mins from
o Hornsby
o Castle Hill
o Chatswood
o Parramatta
Comment 33.1 2 Apr 2010, 7:08 PM
Added up the post boxes in the area and 496 families are affected, all types; singles etc. Most won't be able to afford to buy new.
I'm on 63k per year - I could afford $350k, I don't see how there would be singles on $100k+ who could buy $450k+ apartments unless they had Government assistance.
Comment 34 2 Apr 2010, 5:49 PM
3/ Rates
- Rates are pegged (has an upper limit), but can increase 3.5%
- Changes to the ratios are distributed throughout the shire.
- If ours goes up, then yours goes down.
- eg if 3.5% = 1 .. 5 + 5 = 10 goes to 3 + 8 = 11
Comment 35 2 Apr 2010, 5:50 PM
4/ Schedule
- 23 Apr 2010 Submission deadline
- Review submissions
- Council MUST adopt something by June 2010
(NSW Directive)
- Department of planning
- Rezoned June 2011
- At that stage, Development Approval can be given and the Developers can start to make offers to the residents.
Comment 36 2 Apr 2010, 5:53 PM
5/ What happens if the Council tells the State to get stuffed?
- development approval is awarded to state; refer to St.Ives shops / Kur-ring-gai Council.
++++
Please note this is what I was advised by 1 councillor / what I got from the display information and what I heard about St.Ives.
This is NOT the last word and I am looking for others to please confirm what I wrote and to add to it.
Thanks
Comment 37 3 Apr 2010, 3:25 PM
I am an architect and I think the residents/affectees have a right to have access to 3D images of the proposal at the site [I happen to know that this technology is available], in order to have a far better idea of what is being proposed and to thereby be able to comment from a more informed position.
This will also empower the residents/citizens by reducing the 2D/3D gulf of visualisation that currently exists between the planners and the public, because the planners have access to 3D visualisation whereas the public participants in the consultation process don't.
What do other's think?
Comment 37.1 3 Apr 2010, 8:27 PM
Hi maksdesk. As an architect you should know that at this stage such detail probably does not exist. Perhaps the council might have access to more generic urban design images that show what a collection of 20 storeys would look like contextually in an area in which such heights do not currently exist.
Also, as you know there are many things apart from height that make or break, a good building. So you can visualise all you want using the latest and greatest Autocad 3d programme and still end up with an abomination. They would have used 3D graphics selling the latest farce at Barangaroo, to try and make it look good. You know very well that nothing down there will ever look like the graphics anyway.
And please please please use normal language. Just simply say "has council got any 3d images that show what these proposed 20 storey buildings may look like in this particular location as this could help people understand the proposal better." None of this 2D/3D gulf of visualisation stuff. It just makes everyone think that designers are just nutty, elitist people.
Comment 37.1.1 4 Apr 2010, 10:32 AM
Well said!!! Point taken!
Actually I have been studying technological possibilities for enhancement of the community consultative process and have come across a gap. It appears that present interfaces, including the one we are using right now, do not allow lay public to fully comprehend the future impact of the proposals. You are right details are irrelevant at the moment, but what if we could actually see a virtual 3D simulation of the height in question at the sute. You might know that this can be easily achieved by erecting a simple wire-frame structure, perhaps even comprising just a few light bulbs placed on pipes that coulkd could give passers-by a vivid idea of how imposing the 'thing' is eventually going to be, etc.
What do you think, won't that enhance the feedback of the community, specially if there was ooportunity at the spot to submit votes?
[I have tried my best to refrain from elitist mumbo-jumbo, but please point out if you see any germs still crawling around....cheers]
Comment 37.1.1.1 4 Apr 2010, 2:41 PM
The computer program Autodesk 3D Max - hmm familiar name there - has these features when you buy it. Also probably where the 20 storey designers got their building from.
However, what it doesn't have is something that lets you work out how many more people are going to be dodging cars crossing streets and how many cars are blocking streets wanting to turn into driveways.
If you want a realistic example for your study of what will happen, ask the people on the forum for their stories, or talk to the Police who have to clean up the mess.
Mine would be Bridge street driving up from the double roundabout from Sherbrook. I was nearly cleaned up by someone coming out of his driveway. He was blocked by parked cars in the street (4WD) and the driveway came up from under so he had no idea that I was there so he just came out into the street nearly into me.
Comment 37.1.1.1.1 7 Apr 2010, 11:49 AM
Spot on!!
You have just made a great idea, that if there was say a video display put up at the site of the future building that could be playing a 3D animation of what the same stree will look like 'after' the proposal was actually implemented, then that would really help the local people and passers-by have a clear idea of the impacts involved. How about that, I would really be happy if more people could please comment on this idea because that could help speed up work on making this technology more readily accessible in order to enhance such discussion/consultative forums as we are presently engaged in....cheers.
Comment 37.2 13 Apr 2010, 4:20 PM
I think this would definitely help - particularly as 20 storeys in the Linda St precinct will be in such stark contrast to the 3-5 storeys that will continue to surround it. I think people who live in houses nearby would also appreciate seeing what their 'vista' will end up like.
Comment 38 4 Apr 2010, 8:17 AM
Are developers going to build them and then nobody will buy them? Now that would be good planning.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/empty-nests-too-high-for-the-empty-nesters-20091101-hrld.html
Note that Mariton et al try to put some spin on it to stop people realizing that its not going to be a good place to buy into.
The problem is that someone has to build them first to find out nobody wants them, i.e. we have to suffer through the planning process, the developers hounding us, the construction noise and dust, and then the cliff faces in front of our windows, only to find out it was all a waste of time, and that we are going to be stuck with those monstrosities for ever anyway.
Then the question has to be - does the council actually commission completely independent studies to find out if such developments are appropriate for Hornsby, or do they just listen to a developer whispering in their ear?
Comment 38.1 4 Apr 2010, 8:55 AM
Agree and thanks for the SMH information.
Comment 38.2 4 Apr 2010, 9:31 AM
Very good and pertinent point Radas! What a shame and a waste of resources and money - if all these brand new apartments were built only to be left empty for months on end.
Commonsense tells me that high rises aren't the most practical place to live for renters nor are they the best place to buy even from a general investor's perspective.
Comment 38.3 4 Apr 2010, 1:33 PM
Dont worry. They wont be there forever. They will probably fall down in 10 years or so if they are built out of inferior materials. :-)
Comment 38.3.1 4 Apr 2010, 3:10 PM
Bring on Newcastle earthquake - Seriously, I didn't know until recently that Sydney is build over several fault lines - one forms the cliffs at Luna Park.
Comment 38.3.1.1 5 Apr 2010, 8:09 AM
Which raises another significant point. Risk management procedures and policy which may or may not exist in relation to if a natural disaster such as a; bushfire, earthquake or Tsunami "does" occur in the area. (Or even for something minor like a blackout or power supply control).
I'm sure the risk management and design controls of the building will no doubt be different and, need to be more comprehensive than the ones applied to the 12 storey buildings in Waitara.
Comment 38.3.1.1.1 6 Apr 2010, 11:27 AM
A Tsunami????
Comment 38.3.1.1.1.1 6 Apr 2010, 1:09 PM
That is very funny!!! I thought we were in one of the higher spots of Sydney. If nothing else we would be safe from such disasters and also rising sea levels.
Comment 38.3.1.1.1.1.1 7 Apr 2010, 12:11 PM
Plane flying into the flats. The turning beacon for planes coming from Brisbane is at Pymble. I guess if someone stuffs up they could come inland too far. More likely to be small private planes and choppers though.
Comment 38.3.1.1.1.1.2 8 Apr 2010, 1:38 PM
If sea levels rose 80m (supposedly the worst case scenario) Hornsby would be an island, so how to service the population (and most of Australia would be underwater, so where is everyone going to live, the Blue Mountains?
Comment 38.3.1.1.1.1.2.1 8 Apr 2010, 4:55 PM
I think that if and when this happens all this current stuff will be irrelevant, not an issue!
If hornsby did indeed become an island and vast amounts of everywher else ended up under thesea, then even more people will want to live here! 200 storey towers then!
Comment 38.3.1.1.1.1.3 9 Apr 2010, 2:25 PM
If HBY was an island, I think the worry would be food... I'll just stop off on the way home to buy a Fishing rod at KMART before it goes under :)
Comment 38.3.1.1.2 7 Apr 2010, 11:14 AM
Some of the people at Asquith who were worried about high rise buildings. They were saying that bushfire smoke will go straight through the building. I imagine someone with breathing difficulties would be ruing the purchase.
Comment 39 6 Apr 2010, 1:58 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment was potentially defamatory
Comment 40 6 Apr 2010, 2:28 PM
My comment displaying what might be interesting ideas for incorporating housing with public spaces, commercial etc was removed, however, how would you like your neighbourhood, i.e. Hornsby to look?
Comment 40.1 6 Apr 2010, 9:47 PM
And perhaps I'll restate a quote from Rhodes's most recent masterplan which happens to reinforce some of my points:
"Current development on the Peninsula appears to be homogenous and indistinctive from both the road and the water. Open space is lacking (ie. less than 7m2 per capita, or, half of what is provided at pyrmont) Furthermore, the internal amenity and privacy of the perimeter-block building layouts around a narrow central courtyard, is observably poor.
The proposal provides 30% more open space on the Peninsula. It will provide some additional passive recreation and seating areas, away from the main pathway/cycleway along the waterfront.
The more…
Comment 40.1.1 7 Apr 2010, 9:58 AM
Aussie17 is obsessed with storey count himself, didn't you say higher the better???
Hornsby is not Olympic Park and Rhodes. Olympic Park and Rhodes were mainly wasteland, empty spaces and polluted factories until the 90's when we won the Olympics, at least the majority of that area have a master-plan and build from scratch which is less disruptive and the reason why they can build high. Whereas Hornsby is already a built-up area with the most renewal in the Shire since the 70s which will cause extreme chaos to nearby residents and businesses if this rezoning occurs.
Comment 40.1.2 7 Apr 2010, 3:45 PM
Aussie17 is also proposing for Olympic Park and Rhodes style Bicentennial Park, cycle tracks, sporting stadiums, concert halls, Ikea and resort style living for Hornsby. I wish if we have any room left after rezoning. We are in the Bushland Shire not Waterfront or Concrete & Glass Shire.
Comment 40.1.2.1 9 Apr 2010, 10:13 PM
gee it would be good to have an ikea. I hate treking out to rhodes ;-)
Comment 40.1.2.1.1 19 Apr 2010, 2:52 PM
But we do - I just look round the sidewalks at around the 20th each month - hrm - I should not have said that - I should NOT have said that
IKEA closed in Gordon a couple of years ago.
Comment 40.1.3 7 Apr 2010, 4:07 PM
Again Aussie17, your idea of "more open and public spaces" does not exist in this tall thin 20 storey concept.
"Open and public spaces" are own and used by the community as a whole such as community centres, childcare centres, parks and playgrounds. There will not be any "open and public spaces" as they will be owned and used only by residents who live there. You will also need security device to enter into these properties. It should be call "Close private spaces". By the way, can you get into any residential buildings or their "open space gardens" in Waitara without knowing anyone who lives there or have a security pass?
Comment 40.1.4 8 Apr 2010, 1:36 PM
Rhodes was an industrial wasteland (and still has dioxins encased in the subsoil under the apartments and in the bay). It was pushing nobody out of the way as it used to be Union Carbide and other industrial sites. In essence a dumping gorund for all the apartments the council and residents didn't want to force on exsiting residents.
Hornsby is the opposite, so your endless planner-speak, which it seems always ignores the current residents, is not relevant.
Comment 40.1.4.1 13 Apr 2010, 5:06 PM
Agreed - that's why the context of a suburb and its surrounding area needs to be taken into account when proposing new developments. Saying that some type of development has worked in one area and so therefore should be put in another area is not a valid reason or argument.
Comment 40.2 7 Apr 2010, 11:39 AM
Aussie, You are talking about 20 years down the track.
Luisa, I would like to see Hornsby SLOWLY rise in hight. ie all the 3rd storey goes to 8, 8 to 15, 15, to 20.
3 changes, spread over say, 10 years = 30 years.
In 30 years maybe the Government has solved my transport problems and where I work is closer. There would be a new regulation regarding upgrading flats.
My flat is old '71 and due for replacement. If I bought into the 3 story now, I'd know that on, say, 2014 the place would demolished and rebuilt by 8 storey. BUT more…
Comment 40.3 7 Apr 2010, 11:59 AM
Another more detailed perfect day.
So on a perfect day in 2039, I get ready for work on my 7th floor, take the lift to the Call Centre on the 18th. My bank has just contacted me to sort out the next development next year.
I have already moved 4 times but within the same precinct because I like Hornsby.
When the first building upgrade happened, the people in the second building to be affected moved into the new spaces in the new building while thier building was demolished. The third moved into the second building after completion etc.
My new apartment is going to be in one of the new buildings built over the station. I have the option to move back or stay when construction is complete, but since I like railways I have asked to stay. The Call Centre has also moved to another building, but it is still only 10 mins away.
Using John and Ritas idea below, The roads have been built over the railways and the shops over that, A bit like Chatswood so the apartments in my building start at level 4
Comment 41 7 Apr 2010, 1:50 AM
Planners really shouldn't stop at 20 storeys to house the masses that are arriving to satisfy an excited Mr Rudd & his "Big Australia" desire.
Have we observed what is happenning in the Sydney CBD and fringe areas? Young student populations, on study visas need to keep close to the many "International" schools & colleges that have sprung up providing questionable courses. These same students ARE being housesd in high-rise apartments such as World Square & Paddy's Markets 3 or 4 people per bedroom.
This is all with the approval of building managers. 2 bedroom apartments with 8 students paying $100 - more…
Comment 42 7 Apr 2010, 10:35 AM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 43 7 Apr 2010, 2:51 PM
According to the Draft 20 storey built form concepts, minimum of only 2 metres separating between buildings along lane ways is totally unacceptable. It's way too close, no natural sunlight and lack of privacy. Imagine living in a 3 storey walk-in unit along the lane way directly facing the 20 storey monster. Even current apartments around Waitara have more building separation than they currently proposed for Hornsby which will double the height of Waitara. If they propose to double the height than they should double the separation (comparing with Waitara). Even prisoners have more room to more around.
Comment 44 8 Apr 2010, 11:33 AM
It’s just doesn’t make any economical and social sense to replace 470 dwellings with just 599 dwellings in Linda Street Precinct. That’s only a net gain of 129 dwellings. You don’t need to build 5 times higher just to get 129 extra dwellings (even 5 or 6 storey buildings will easily produce the 129 extra dwellings). This is an ill thought out costly exercise by Council to unnecessary displace thousands of residents and business owners with no real gain or benefit. Besides, the current buildings in the precinct are well kept and maintained and can last for decades to come. So leave the current 3 storey walk-ins and businesses as is. Even if you delete this precinct out the Housing Strategy, the target of 2600+ new dwellings for the Shire will still be met.
Comment 44.1 9 Apr 2010, 3:33 PM
The way to stop these developments is not by the usual legal steps which will ultimately fail as they did in Ku-ring-gai. Delay is the way to go, any delay that can be found to stop what the UK found to be the slums of the future and the UK is now tearing them down.
In a very few years such as about 2013 the economy will be starting to fail due to the increasing cost of fuel and the start of the no growth era. AS this will be a permanent feature of our economy credit will not be available for developers to build the 20 story blocks.
Governments will have much more important things to worry about than the need to house extra 100,000s of immigrants many of whom will be unable to reach Australia anyway.
I am aware that many here will find the above incredible but it is not far off even if the politicians continue to try and ignore what has happened. Note that I used past tense as the day that energy peak occurred was June 2008 just before the financial crash.
Comment 44.1.1 13 Apr 2010, 10:05 AM
Umm, interesting point regarding the units blocks in the UK.
I can't help think of those ugly unit blocks in Manchester being pulled down due to the social decadence in the 50's & 60's.
I can see Waitara heading down that path if things don't slow down.
Comment 44.1.1.1 19 Apr 2010, 8:24 PM
You are leaving remember. Going to greener pastures.
Comment 45 13 Apr 2010, 4:11 PM
I wanted to respond to posts by Aussie17 which continually use Vancouver as a model city and that its high rise development should be viewed as a template for higher density living in other cities (i.e. Hornsby, although it is a suburb).
It is simplistic and naïve to be continually raising Vancouver’s development in relation to how development in Hornsby should proceed. Part of the planning process is looking at the characteristics of an area (which many on this forum have raised) and simply suggesting that because 20 storeys+ has worked well in one context means it must work well in more…
Comment 45.1 14 Apr 2010, 9:49 PM
Thanks Jen7, there was an outstanding question to aussie17 asking for details on where Vancouver's highrise is located etc, which was not answered. It is good to see someone with knowledge of the area filling us in, otherwise we don't know if it really is applicable to Hornsby or not (similar it seems, to aussie17 who is reading it from the lecturer's notes, which no doubt are not specific to Hornsby).
Comment 45.1.1 15 Apr 2010, 8:36 PM
Again, please look beyond the local area itself and start realising what Hornsby is to the region it serves and northern Sydney in a wider context, as well as Sydney's expected growth. Briefly speaking, it is just unfair to look only at youself and not others around you.
Comment 45.1.1.1 27 Apr 2010, 3:38 PM
Again I question this assertion that Hornsby is needed as a major centre for the North region. I have argued this elsewhere on this site. In fact I think it is wrong to provide another major centre on the North Shore without a substantial Infrastructure upgrade.
The region and Northern Sydney does not actually "need" Hornsby to be developed as a Major centre, the Government wants it to be. They do not care what happens in the area itself, there is no backlash for them as the area mainly votes for the Liberal party. If they stuff it up, no one in the current Government cares.
In fact I have heard it argued that if Northern Sydney drops in value and desirability the Labor party would be happier!
Comment 45.1.2 15 Apr 2010, 8:46 PM
ps. I do agree that Epping could be suited for further growth and development, but at the moment, iirc, Epping is unfortunately a political turmoil, with 3 councils separating the CBD. However, iirc, there has been calls to develop and renew Epping, and if that happens, I'll be eagerly waiting for that to happen. Epping's remained the same for too long.
Comment 45.1.2.1 23 Apr 2010, 11:29 AM
I agree Epping is in need of some major revitalisation.
It's interesting catching the train into the city from the north shore - you see all the suburbs with the train stations and right around the stations (where there should be revitalisaiton going on and yes, higher densities) there is nothing! Old, tired looking places that desperately need, I'd suggest, 8-10 storey residential development with shops at the base. If these are planning principles in the North Subregional Strategy and councils argue that it should happen - why isn't it?!
I'd also argue that this is what the 'high side' of Hornsby needs too - along the Pacific Highway where all the restaurants/shops are. It needs a makeover.
Comment 45.1.2.1.1 27 Apr 2010, 3:26 PM
You and I must catch different North Shore trains! On the upper North Shore especially (Wahroonga to Chatswood) Its nothing but new 8 Storey developments all along the rail line, especially on the Pacific Highway side.
A huge amount of high density development has gone on along the major transport routes and the centres themselves are due to be developed next. Chatswood and St Leonards have and are having lots of development too. Council in Ku-Ring-Gai has no real say in what happens on the North Shore, its up to the NSW Government appointed planning panel.
Comment 45.2 15 Apr 2010, 8:31 PM
Well if you actually did take a look around, there's plenty of high-rise suburbs outside the metro core (Burnaby, New Westminister, Richmond, etc). Don't forget that population-wise, Vancouver is only a half of Sydney's size. How can Sunset be comparable to Hornsby?? Hornsby, as I've stated many times before, is an identified major centre, which is set to be up there with others like Chatswood or Bondi Junction in the near future. Perhaps a more comparable suburb in Vancouver would be Richmond. Also, contrary to what you think, vast majority of suburbs in Sydney will remain the same. As I've more…
Comment 45.2.1 15 Apr 2010, 8:56 PM
Change is a continuous process in a modern, dynamic and growing city like Sydney. True, Hornsby might had much more bush than it has today about 60 or more years ago when Sydney was about 1/3 or less iirc, but by moving to Hornsby yourself, you're supporting the development of Hornsby too.
Comment 45.2.2 16 Apr 2010, 10:46 AM
ps. If you're looking up street view, be sure to notice the space between the high rises in the high rise districts and compare it to the space between the houses. In most cases, you'll get a much more open feeling in the high rise districts.
Comment 45.2.2.1 16 Apr 2010, 6:56 PM
I am examining Vancouver and assessing its form, growth and development. I know someone who is living there at the moment, for a couple of years doing a degree and they love Vancouver. Great city apparently!
Ps Where are you doing your degree? Sydney Uni, Architecture Faculty? Actually they have changed the name.
Comment 45.2.2.1.1 16 Apr 2010, 10:57 PM
Don't forget to examine Toronto too! It's a more comparable city, since it's about the same size, and also one of the top rankers in liveability. Don't forget that Vancouver is only half the size of Sydney in population.
I do it at unsw. Don't think sydney uni has planning iirc.
Just forgot to add that every other major Australian city (Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Gold Coast etc) is building likewise. Even Melbourne, with the largest sprawl of any Australian city, is now realising the need to halt the sprawl and increase density. Not sure about Adelaide though, but that's because Adelaide isn't growing much at all, nor is it expected to grow much.
Comment 45.2.2.1.1.1 17 Apr 2010, 11:49 AM
There's a planning department at Sydney uni. I'm not sure if they only do post-grad though. Pardon my most probably dumb question, but what does "iirc" stand for?
I'll have a look at Toronto. Adelaide has some newer development further north where they provided different densities, but not in a high rise way. I can't recall the name but should be able to find it as I used it as material for a report I once did. It also incorporated environmental initiatives.
Comment 45.2.2.1.1.1.1 17 Apr 2010, 12:06 PM
iirc - If I Recall/Remember Correctly
Comment 45.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 17 Apr 2010, 3:03 PM
Aah! Thanks! I thought it was part of some course name!
I checked Usyd and Sydney only runs post-grad courses in Urban and Regional Planning, Urban Design and Planning, Transport Management & regional Planning.
Comment 45.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 17 Apr 2010, 4:54 PM
Ah ok!
Comment 45.2.2.1.1.1.2 23 Apr 2010, 11:24 AM
bellinid - have you come across to the dark side! I would love to hear more about Adelaide developments that provide different densities - but not in a high rise way.
That's what most residents in Hornsby, I would suggest, are arguing for.
Comment 45.2.2.1.1.1.2.1 23 Apr 2010, 3:46 PM
These are not in major town centre situations though (Adelaide. Hornsby is a different situation. Personally, I would prefer to see a variety of heights that scale down the further from the CBD centre that the buildings get.
I also think that more could be made of the low rise caryard environment on the Pacific Highway. It should be noted that there are plans for change to the caryards on Parramatta Rd. There could also be development that retains the heritage buildings and the traditional strip shopping nature of Hornsby westside.
There should be more intensive lobbying for South Dural to go ahead, together with an excellent bus service. As it is at present, the south dural site is an underdeveloped island surrounded by existing suburbia. To put more housing here would give more strength and justification for improved public transport.
And we need to loudly and incessantly demand that the north west rail link be built asap. Transport Oriented Development can occur along it. Also we need to push for the Epping-Carlingford missing link.
Comment 45.2.2.1.1.2 23 Apr 2010, 9:51 AM
Yes - and many residents in these other Australian cities are just as concerned/opposed to high rise development as those of us on this forum are. And some of these developments go no where near 20 storeys!
Comment 45.3 17 Apr 2010, 12:10 PM
ps. Richmond, Burnaby, New Westminister etc. are all further away from the Vancouver CBD than Sunset. Whalley is even further away and still they have 20 storeys there. Again, Vancouver is only half the size of Sydney in terms of population. Take a good look at Toronto too.
Comment 45.3.1 20 Apr 2010, 12:54 PM
All the banging on about how good this is going to be is not true. Toronto traffic is a nightmare 12 lanes of high speed driving into bowels of concrete spaghetti. Is this what you want? Other cities around the world dont have 20 storey buildings why should we? All we are doing is importing American ideals with these concepts of high rise. You cant make a silk purse from a pigs ear.
All you have done is mentioned how good it has been to places which have not had it any different from day one. This matter is about more…
Comment 46 23 Apr 2010, 11:11 AM
Perhaps we can stop looking to our American/Canadian counterparts for examples of 'excellent' high rise, high density living.
Let's look at arguably some of the most beautiful cities in the world - London, Paris, Berlin - they have all embraced low rise developments and have still managed to accommodate population growth.
And some experts' comments on the matter:
RMIT University, Innovation Professor of Architecture, Professor Leon van Schaik says: "High-density living does not have to be low-quality living, he says, citing Berlin, a city of roughly the same population as Melbourne, yet covering a fifth of the area, and consisting largely of five-storey developments".
(source: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/kicking-against-the-bricks/2006/01/28/1138319484198.html)
Kim Dovey, Professor of Architecture and Urban Design, along with Research Fellow Ian Woodcock, is completing an ARC Linkage Research Project into 'Intensifying Places: The Character of Urban Intensification'. Professor Dovey argues that: "buildings of no more than five storeys are necessary to achieve sustainable outcomes and that Melburnians are open to a more sustainable and walkable city".
(source: http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/news/5937/)
For every Vancouver or Toronto example of 'successful' extremely high density developments, there are counter-examples of successful low rise development (while still offering higher densities to increase dwellings).
Comment 47 23 Apr 2010, 11:18 AM
Low rise does not mean low density.
It is an alternative form of development to extreme high rises.
The council could re-zone more of Hornsby up to 5 storeys (with a mix of townhouses and 3 storeys as well) and 8-10 storeys along main roads/train lines and still meet its dwelling targets - without the need for 20 storey developments.
Comment 47.1 23 Apr 2010, 2:39 PM
yes there are a number of places that would be suitable for this, without impacting too much on current residents.
Comment 48 24 Apr 2010, 3:03 PM
To everyone who has been so critical of Normanhurst and accusing Normanhurst residents of having nominated Linda St Hornsby, Asquith, Waitara, Carlingford and anywhere else inappropriate, please read the following list taken directly from Volume 3 - Report on Submissions
Normanhurst submissions - Alternative Locations suggested:
Hornsby Westfield
Hornsby West Side
George Street, Hornsby
Pacific Highway, Waitara
Epping Town Centre
Beecroft Shopping Village
Pennant Hills shops
NOWHERE ARE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS MENTIONED.
SO PLEASE APOLOGISE!