Sign In
or Create a new account
Draft guidelines for 5 storey development
Council has developed new guidelines to control the character of new 5 storey buildings. Do you think these controls are adequate?
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:
Housing Strategy Vol2 Pt12 Appendix Draft 5 storey guidelines (6.367 MB)
Comment 1 20 Mar 2009, 12:09 PM
If any of these 5 storey developments are to be built the council should be ensuring that they are all built to minimize if not negate the increasing carbon footprint and global warming that this growing population that is being catered for is bringing. They should have the maximum levels of insulation possible, they should be powered at least in part by solar and they should be using grey and recycled water. Gardens should be planted with native plants that donot require much watering and lots of trees should be planted around them. All mature trees around them should be preserved (even the ones without preservation orders) Using concrete results in huge increases in the carbon footprint and alternative materials should be used. Developers should be forced to use the highest standards possible and should not be able to argue that their profits will be reduced because it is more expensive to build green.
Comment 1.1 20 Mar 2009, 2:42 PM
Actually you would find it quite difficult to build multi storey structures without using concrete. concrete is actually not that bad environmentally because of its thermal mass which means that it absorb heat during the day, store it and then release it as the temperature cools thus reducing the need for other forms of heating. also a well constructed and designed solid structure has the capacity to stand and function for centuries and would ideally lend itself to changing uses. All of this would contribute greatly to reduced environmental impact
Comment 1.1.1 20 Mar 2009, 3:22 PM
How does that work in the high temperatures that we experience? If it absorbs the heat then surely it just increases the need for air-conditioning during the the summer and also the need to use that air conditioning at night as the heat has been stored and is released at night. The surrounding houses will also find it very unpleasant as that heat is radiated from the buildings during the summer making it feel much hotter
Comment 1.1.1.1 20 Mar 2009, 3:58 PM
It still gets cold in winter and at night in other seasons. Basically you orient buildings with generous windows to the north. these get variously shaded by generous shading devices such as generous overhangs, screens verandahs, pergolas, deciduous trees. In summer when the sun is high in the sky, the angle of the sun is more vertical to the ground. This means that the direct sun light will not hit the opening, which remains in shade. In winter the reverse happens. The sun's angle is lower and so penetrates further into the building. The floor slab stores the heat which it then re-radiates back out into the internal airspace. You also need to ensure appropriate cross ventilation, and avoid too many exposed openings to the west
It is known as passive solar design. This is just a super basic outline of it. you can also have stuff like thermal chimneys to draw the hot air out.
Comment 1.1.1.1.1 20 Mar 2009, 4:31 PM
I hope that these design principles are going to be applied. What we don't want is for all those new apartments to be forced into using their air conditioners all summer and heating all winter increasing the already overloaded electricity grid and resulting in more power cuts (in addition to the increase in carbon output). I want to see anything that is built to be as green as possible. I have looked at the draft guidelines for the buildings but I am not an expert. I see that there is some mention of use of cross drafts but terms like a "reasonable proportion" seem rather wishy washy to me. I don't see any mention of insulation levels, solar heating or panels, though there is mention of grey water usage for plants.
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.1 8 Jun 2009, 11:56 PM
In theory at least, apartment blocks should be more thermally stable than detached dwellings, having a much smaller exposure to the outside temperatures. No hot ceiling space above. Many walls shared with neighbours.
Where my mother lives, on the ground floor of a retiremnet village 2 storey development, she is very positively kept cooler in the summer by the floor above, and neighbours on one side, and somewhat warmer in the winter.
And her unit is fortunately well set up for winter sun, summer shade.
Now, that's what we have to ensure for developments.
Do the development controls demand proper passive solar planning ? Need to check!.
Comment 1.1.2 23 Mar 2009, 4:50 PM
Concrete actually has low embodied energy but is the highest used building material on earth. It is one of the oldest construction materials in existence, since Roman times about 2000 years ago.
some of the advantages of concrete are:
1. Minimal indoor air impacts
2. easily cleaned with water and requires little or no finish when used as flooring.
3. Excellent fire resistance
4. Excellent Thermal mass - a signifacnt factor in achieving Passive solar Design ie you don't need to use too much fossil fuel, electricity
5. Excellent longevity. Ancient Roman structures are still standing
It becomes a problem when like so many other materials it only stays in place a little while and is then ripped up to be replaced by something else as is a common practice in our wasteful consumer driven society.
Comment 1.1.2.1 23 Mar 2009, 9:13 PM
What about specifying carbon-neutral concrete, or at least low carbon? There are newer types of cement now emerging which absorb CO2. I think you are missing Lizo's point about concrete having a carbon footprint - there is the CO2 emitted when producing the energy used to make it, but also all the CO2 emitted from the limestone etc used to make cement.
Comment 1.1.2.1.1 24 Mar 2009, 10:05 AM
I didn't intend to give the impression that concrete did not have a carbon footprint. i just wanted to say that concrete is not an evil, environmentally unfriendly material.
There is the new use of fly ash ( a byproduct from power plants) to replace some of the cement and this means that less traditional cement has to be produced, so that there are less carbon emissions involved.
Geopolymer concrete is being developed. Then there are eco -cements that reply calcium carbonate with other materials. I think a lot of it is still in the early stages, but no doubt we more…
Comment 1.1.2.2 24 Mar 2009, 9:02 AM
To whoever gives the thumbs down to my comments on concrete, you obviously don't know much about building materials or are just trying to be funny ( which you are not).
I am not particularly pushing concrete because I have a bias towards it. If you are keen you can consult an environmental scientist, environmental architect or engineer and you will discover that what I have said is completely correct.
What I have stated are simply substantiated facts. And the bottom line is that there are actually some examples of apartment buildings in the world which do function very well environmentally more…
Comment 1.1.2.2.1 24 Mar 2009, 10:25 AM
I don't think that is very helpful in letting people put their views across. This is a forum on commenting on the design drafts and people have a right to disagree with you. I am not one of those who disagreed with your comments on this, despite the fact that you commented on my original comments this is other people and they have a right to a view. There is a valid argument that concrete is not the be all and end all for developments and that it does increase the carbon footprint hugely. Many people just don't like the look of tonnes of concrete developments in their back yard. You've put forward your arguments as to why concrete should be used, so people can be educated to your point of view, but please don't have a go at people for disagreeing with you and put them down. If you have a go at anyone who disagrees with your point of view, then you might find that you lose a lot of potential helpers to your cause.
Comment 1.1.2.2.1.1 24 Mar 2009, 11:11 AM
Liz, I think that you are overstepping the mark and overreacting. Again, I have to say that I did not have a go at you or disagreed with what you said. you said good things and expressed good concerns. I merely said that it is a fact that concrete has real benefits. I know that you did not disagree with my comments.
I am simply annoyed that people who actually can't probably be bothered to write any comments, (and this is NOT YOU.I wish there were more people like you who would bother), go around clicking the thumbs up and more…
Comment 1.1.2.2.1.1.1 24 Mar 2009, 12:37 PM
I did not say that you disagreed with my comments I said you commented on my comments - and that is fine with me. I actually asked for you to expand on your comments about the thermal properties of concrete so I could understand your argument and you did and I then replied that I hope that these principles are applied. So I have not said that you disagreed with me.
However, I think it is not unreasonable in thinking that your comments about people giving the thumbs down may make people think that I could be be the person that more…
Comment 1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1 24 Mar 2009, 1:19 PM
I am pretty sure that you didn't give me the thumbs down but you seem to be very quick in defending the people who did. And this is not fair particularly when all I was doing was making a little more public some facts, not trying to push my personal opinion on something. Like telling someone that the earth is indeed round not flat, if they did not know it was. If they are not convinced of this they would say why they thought the earth was flat. That is how a discussion ideally should be.
Speculation it may be, but more…
Comment 1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 24 Mar 2009, 2:05 PM
Again, I did not disagree with you. I was actually going to agree on your comment about "It becomes a problem when like so many other materials it only stays in place a little while and is then ripped up to be replaced by something else as is a common practice in our wasteful consumer driven society." Because this is exactly what is happening in China, where Multistorey concrete buildings are put up and then, a few years later they are destroyed to be replaced with more state-of-the-art buildings, and we don't want in 10 years time for the same more…
Comment 1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 24 Mar 2009, 3:29 PM
Yeah well having high building standards is a whole huge issue in itself without adding anything about them being environmentally friendly.
So much is built very badly, cheaply and sub-standard especially by developers. There was that horror story on the news last night about a large mixed use development in Auburn which should never had been built and which should never have passed inspection. Even locally in Waitara, there are examples of where new buildings are already failing. The apartment complex on the corner of Romsey St and Edgeworth David Ave, the one with the green panels here and there is more…
Comment 1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2 9 Jun 2009, 12:09 AM
Lizo,
I used to go to Uni in the UK in a place that made a virtue of everything being raw concrete. Quite interesting, even attractive at the time. But I wonder what it looks like now. Will it have aged gracefully ?
But that aside. A lot of the concrete used in building high rise residential today is not actually visible. And if it is it is probably painted. (And hopefully the Body Corporate will budget for regular repainting). So, in many ways, it's not going to look much different to the current style of detached home building, McMansion style.
So, I can't really see that the use of concrete really is much of an aesthetic problem. An imaginative, creative use of concrete might be a bit better than "acres" of boring brick. It's what you do with the material that counts really.
Comment 1.1.2.2.1.1.2 9 Jun 2009, 12:00 AM
You said
"I am simply annoyed that people who actually can't probably be bothered to write any comments, (and this is NOT YOU.I wish there were more people like you who would bother), go around clicking the thumbs up and thumbs down boxes just for the fun of it or because they don't like the look of concrete. "
Still more we have in common. Get in touch !
Comment 1.1.3 28 Mar 2009, 6:06 PM
Not so long ago, on the New Inventors I think, they showed different type of concrete (possibly more related to the type used by the Romans) that used far less Carbon to produce than the current Limestone based stuff. I think it used Fly Ash (Power station by-product), so eliminating some weaste problem. And, of course, there are materials like Hebel, aerated cement/concrete. So concrete can be used without adding to the carbon footprint.
But does Hornsby Council ask for anything in this area. or the State govt ? No idea. It's possible, it's probably affordable. But developers naturally just do what is easiest. Unless enforceable stndards are raised.
Comment 1.1.3.1 30 Mar 2009, 10:23 AM
I mentioned fly ash about a week ago.
Developers build things so as to make a profit or else they would not bother being in business. Some are greedier than others and will cut costs wherever possible and more.
Perhaps more standards can developed. But to be fair to any builder, there are many standards that must be adhered to for fire safety reasons and the use of any construction material must first of all satisfy these. It is a legal obligation.
Comment 1.1.4 30 May 2009, 3:41 PM
If anyone knows of how a multi storey building can be constructed without the use of reinforced concrete and at the same time being capable of satisfying the BCA, particularly in terms of fire safety PLEASE let me know. I am really keen to know how it can be done
Comment 2 23 Mar 2009, 3:48 PM
The guidelines look like they are in fact a blank canvas waiting for the developer to interpret them to meet their needs. They are not adequate enough for the public to accept or even understand what they will be getting How can we comment on terms like "reasonable proportion"? It could mean anything. They have to be fleshed out and not after the consultation period has ended, when we won't have a say.
Comment 2.1 25 Mar 2009, 8:11 AM
Completely agreed with! THey are vague because they are pretty standard and general. If you were to read similar guidleines for any other council area you would find that they are similar. They don't relate well to any particular situation because they are essentially one size fits all generic. THey fail to look at a specific area and see what the individual merits and issues are.
Its all very well to have global generic broadbrush guidelines but it is very dangerous when these become part of the basis for choosing precincts and also when they fail to be developed further. From what you see around, I think they actually get diluted so you end up with something even worse than the guidelines.
Comment 2.1.1 1 Jun 2009, 9:31 PM
Lizo,
I put in a small submission to the council on this. See http://hornsby.wetpaint.com/page/RB4+-+Draft+5+Storey+Guidelines+-+Comments+%26+Suggestions , and please feel free to commnet on it.
Did you put anything in ?
I can't really agree with bellinid's comment. They are only guidelines, so have to be fairly broad brush. If you have no luck blocking all development, then I think what will be needed is a group of concerned people to really keep an eye on individual development plans as they come about. To make sure the guidelines are in reality applied reasonably and sensibly to each situation.
Comment 3 23 Mar 2009, 9:20 PM
The mixture of 2 and 3 bedroom apartments is a bit sub-optimal. 2-bedroom usually have young couples and 3-bedroom usually families, so it may be better to have a mixture in some floors/blocks, but also to have some blocks which were only 3-bedroom, so families might live together in the same block and not have to put up with the noise younger couples make. Such blocks could also have more child-friendly facilities, such as playgrounds.
If high-density is the way of the future, best to emulate somewhat how currently areas have houses (families) while others have apartments (couples).
Comment 4 26 Mar 2009, 8:18 PM
Where are the guidelines for 8-10 storey buildings and also 2 storey townhouse development both of which are also proposed in the strategy???????
Comment 4.1 27 Mar 2009, 3:19 PM
They're the existing DCPs currently used by the council (medium density and high density). The council doesn't have 5 storey guidelines at the moment, that's why the draft DCP is bundled in with the housing strategy.
Hopefully they update them when they move to the new system in 2011. The 'Analysis of Existing Planning Controls' makes it pretty clear what the council do and don't want in future developments for those densities.
Comment 5 28 Mar 2009, 6:26 PM
I'm sure what everyone would agree is that what we don't want is any more areas as badly developed as Waitara.
Waitara has two or three problems that I see.
1. Not a square meter of public / common space allocated! No play parks, no garden parks, no netball courts or basketball courts. Nothing !!!! An absolute disgrace. Someone should be criminally liable for that.
And one area of open space and facilities that there was, the Hornsby High play areas, have been locked up. Ridiculous! Take the damn fences down again ! (OK, you might need fences around the buildings. Sad fact more…
Comment 5.1 28 Mar 2009, 8:41 PM
RichardB43 how right you are! Thank you!
If only more people said the things you have said!
Comment 5.1.1 29 Mar 2009, 9:27 PM
Difference is, I believe we have to have all this extra housing to accommodate people, and it should go into high density central areas where the facilities are. Where as, you seem to want them all to go live somewhere else .... anywhere else.
I'm sorry, but I think you are going to lose. And you will burn yourself out in trying to just say NO, over my dead body, NIMBY.
What we need is your sort of passion aimed at realistic results. Not opposing high desnity, and then just selling up and moving out when you lose. But rather, PASSIONATELY insisting on QUALITY development. Which will have the result of imprioviong the value of property, which you can benefit from if you want to.
I hate to see people waste their energy looking for PERFECT, unattainable results, when it would be far more productive to maintain credibility, and put effort into achieving a QUALITY compromise.
On the other hand, you might be right to defend some particularly special corner from progress, if you think you realistically can win that one small victory.
Comment 5.2 22 May 2009, 3:10 PM
-
Comment 5.3 22 May 2009, 3:10 PM
-
Comment 5.4 22 May 2009, 3:10 PM
My late grandmother be turning in her grave at the sight of Waitara.
Comment 6 7 May 2009, 4:54 PM
If this rezoning goes through the council should demand that all the new high rise and town house developments do not have A/C but are naturally cooled and heated. All should have roof top solar panels, recycle all grey water and collect storm water for use in the sewage system.
Comment 6.1 30 May 2009, 2:31 PM
Urban consolidation is benefiting us ecologically with the objective of less travel, more by public transport, less impact on bushland etc.
So why do you demand a higher standard of ecological impact in the actual buildings, than for standard housing ?
As it is, I'm fairly sure the standards are gradually improving. Sure, not fast enough, but why a greater standard for some over that required for others.
Comment 6.1.1 30 May 2009, 3:44 PM
Because continous improvement is a stated aim of ecological development. also it is a good opportunity to request that higher standards be adopted.
Comment 6.1.2 9 Jun 2009, 12:16 AM
Since the first comment, I hve been given a lot more information, and collated what I can. see BASIX - NSW sustainable building controls at http://www.hornsby1.info/page/BASIX+-+NSW+sustainable+building+controls
Comment 6.2 30 May 2009, 2:31 PM
Duplicate post removed
Comment 7 23 May 2009, 9:56 PM
Fact is, is that it will turn into a concrete jungle, all hard drab surfaces and no seriously good environmental design. All multi deck egg crates, maybe with a twist of pseudo federation or some other cutsie design abherration which will fall off within ten years.
So sad because concrete is actually a fabulous building material.
Comment 8 28 May 2009, 1:35 AM
I have put a number of submissions to the council.
I share these with people for discussion, on a Wiki website www.hornsby.wetpaint.com. On this wiki website, if you join up, you can add your own pages and discussion too.
You don’t need to join up to view.
Look forward to your comments and contributions.
Richard Boult
RB1 - Asquith Shopping Centre – Council can and must be Pro-Active
RB2 - Suggested traffic control for junction of Amor St, Pacific Hwy, bridge ramp north
RB3 - Amelioration of increased Valuation and Rates problem.
http://hornsby.wetpaint.com/page/RB3+-+Amelioration+of+increased+Valuation+and+Rates+problem.
RB4 - Draft 5 Storey Guidelines - Comments & Suggestions
http://hornsby.wetpaint.com/page/RB4+-+Draft+5+Storey+Guidelines+-+Comments+%26+Suggestions
RB5 - Amelioration of Impact for some Asquith precincts
http://hornsby.wetpaint.com/page/RB5+-+Amelioration+of+Impact+for+some+Asquith+precincts
RB6 - Additional Areas for Development, and some removals
http://hornsby.wetpaint.com/page/RB6+-+Additional+Areas+for+Development%2C+and+some+removals
Comment 8.1 1 Jun 2009, 9:34 PM
Come on. Someone must want to bag me for these submissions, surely. Bring it on. Have a look, then have a go.