Except for two people, the meeting rejected high-rise.
Many issues were raised: the inadequacy of the proposed park for 2000 new residents; the need for additional schools, community and health services; the dangerous and inadequate access to the site along a major cycle route; and the inevitable parking overspill.
Planning should be a level playing field. There are well-established standards in terms of density, height, urban design, public and private open space, social services, which have been applied to redevelopment in inner Sydney over the last 20 years. These standards have been set aside on this site.
This is a very constrained site compared to others nearby. It is long and narrow with one uncontrolled access point at the western end, with the busiest railway in the city to one side in a setting of one- and two-storey terrace houses. It also has to service a large arts hub which hosts major events as well as the market and commercial activities. The site is an aggregation of heritage of state and national importance. Keeping the clothing store does not justify 20 storeys.
Harold Park is a much larger site with good arterial access, but is otherwise comparable. The following table shows how the two sites compare:
| Standard | Harold Park | North Eveleigh |
| Maximum Building Height | 8 storeys | 20 storeys |
| Landscaping within the housing . | 50% approx | 25% approx |
| Overall open space | 35% approx | 15% approx |
| Open space per capita | 6.6 m2 approx . | 2 m2 approx |
The proposed park is less than half what was committed by Frank Sartor as Minister for Planning in 2008. It is apparently okay to go to 20 storeys, as the tallest blocks are set back and will only overshadow the busiest railway line in the city. Bugger the noise for those new flat dwellers. Most will face off each other given the east-west aspect of most blocks, they might get a skerrick of early or late sun, as well as getting an eyeful of each other, across the narrow and shadowed courtyards. Fine for student and affordable housing! The lucky residents are in the new housing abutting Carriageworks: they get a north aspect!
The density/floor space ratios are about double the standard for inner ring development sites, and about five times the ratio in the existing residential areas. This ramping up of the yield and value of this site is corrupt planning, which should be investigated by ICAC.
Troy, it’s time to apply some standards!
I have worked in urban planning/renewal/high density housing/heritage for more than 50 years and remember the debate about high-rise in the 1970s – when low- and medium-rise high density replaced the towers model in Europe and North America. We need to learn from that experience, not repeat the mistakes of the past.
