Sign In
or Create a new account
How important is it that we build three new community centres and new youth facilities as part of the Buildings for our Community program?
Council owned multi-purpose community centres are used by play groups, seniors, social and sporting groups; as meeting rooms for the community, musical or dance rehearsals, support services such as counselling; and for classes such as dance, yoga, multi-media and art.
Randwick City has community centres at Randwick and at Little Bay. The Buildings for our Community program proposes three new community centres - at Coogee, Maroubra Beach and Kensington – as well as youth facilities in the La Perouse/Chifley area.
With funding from the Buildings for our Community program these centres can be built within seven years. Without funding from the Buildings for our Community program it will take up to 50 years to build all these community centres.
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 website: http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/Your_Council/Community_consultation/Buildings_for_our_Community/index.aspx
Comment 1 17 Feb 2010, 9:37 PM
New community centres are not important at all. Increasing the utilisation of existing facilities/buildings in Randwick (both public and privately owned) is more sustainable than building new developments.
Increased building utilisation enhances vitality to the location where the facility is located and also provides increased safety through increased activity (casual surveillance).
Construction of community centres is not sustainable as there is no way to recover the capital cost of constructing these buildings. Revenue from leasing these buildings may cover maintenance but will not cover the initial capital outlay.
Opportunities include:
Facilities such as school halls (including those being built through Building the Education Revolution (BER) stimulus package) and university buildings could be leased to provide space for activities that would occur in proposed community centres. These education buildings are often underused and exist in a range of sizes to suit each user group.
Vacant privately owned buildings (or vacant buildings owned by state or federal government agencies) could be leased by Council long term, then Council could then lease these short term/ and for once off occasions to community groups.
Better utalisation of existing Council buildings such as using Surf Clubs for other community acitivities.
Comment 2 19 Feb 2010, 3:16 PM
I agree with points made by JMD. We need an audit of current facilities before building more. There is a proposal to build youth facilities in the La Perouse/Chifley area. I checked the MySchool website and La Perouse School has fewer than 50 pupils. That's a very small number of a school. There must be rooms available that could be used. Instead of building from scratch a lesser amount could be used to upgrade facilties at the school. Council should not operate in isolation of State Government facilities.
Comment 3 19 Feb 2010, 7:49 PM
Totally agree with JMD and Lynda. Too often, governments think that communities want new buildings, when facilities are already available but are poorly managed and/or underutilised. A particular concern is that a lot of the buildings that Council wants to build will be in parkland. That will mean losing green space.
Comment 3.1 22 Feb 2010, 1:40 PM
Council says planned cost is $34 million, but rate levy will raise $30m, with the balance from other sources. What are these other sources?
Council collects levies from developers (section 94 contributions), so how much is available?
Community centres and the like, should be funded from these contributions, rather than a permanent rate increase. Why the rush to build "everything" in 7 years - in 50 years our needs are likely to be much different.
Comment 4 2 Mar 2010, 8:25 PM
what is the relationship between these new centres and the exisitng smaller ones? Are there council facilities that may be rezoned or sold as surplus to needs if these new ones are built? If so, then lets see the accounting so that ratepayers are not paying for new facilities while council profits from the sale of old ones.
I don't have a problem supporting new ones if I can see the big picture and be re-assured that there actually is an overall plan that demonstrates what new facilities are needed AND what existing ones are surplus to needs AND that accounts for the proceeds from their disposal in any new plans BEFORE hitting the ratepayers for more money. I haven't seen this yet
Comment 5 9 Mar 2010, 7:35 AM
Randwick Council DEFINITELY needs more buildings? Bigger buildings? Oh, and council chambers needs a lick of paint too. AH HA! I bet you didn't see that hidden in the big money-grab scheme! How much money will they spend on upgrading chambers?
That's right folks. SMOKESCREEN.
Wake up everybody, smell the coffee. This is a BAD bad joke - on us.
DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE.
Comment 6 18 Mar 2010, 7:37 AM
Parking around Coogee is already at a premium. A new expanded community center, as is being suggested, would only add to the problem.
The surf club should be renovated to remove the concrete cancer, and together with the existing East Ward center, they should suffice for most needs in this area, without an expensive new building, which will only add to future maintenance requirements.