Wait a minute.....

[Urban Sprawl]

Hi all,

I am a local from a neighboring suburb. I work in Preston and I ride through Comas Hill every weekday on my way to and from school. I have to say, I've been surprised to see the sentiment, "Halt the Highrise" being expressed in an area that I've always imagined to be more environmentally and socially conscious than most. My concern and curiosity prompted me to check the website to see exactly what it is that's upsetting so many residents. And from what I can see, the community is objecting to a small number of high density housing developments on the basis that they are "out of character" with the local neighborhood.

Yet surely, in order to create a sustainable future for our country, the character of our neighborhoods needs to change, and it needn't be for the worse. Big houses with big backyards, are not, and can not be for everyone. Low density housing for the masses means cities that sprawl over the horizon, chewing up countryside and bushland and necessitating ever-lengthening roads to carry residents of far flung suburbs in and out of the CBD each morning and afternoon. The other option, the option our planet's future depends on, is the option that provides medium and high density housing in the inner city. This will keep our cities compact and give more people the option to live in happening inner-city suburbs like Thornbury, close to the city (where many of them work), within a walk or a bike ride to services and amenities like council pools, libraries, public transport, markets and, of course, good coffee.

Perhaps there is an objectionable aspect to these developments that hasn't been made clear on your website. But high density housing in and of itself needn't be a bad thing. Rather than campaigning against new developments altogether, surely it makes more sense to put your energy into lobbying to make sure that developers produce beautiful and environmentally sound buildings which are in character with the surrounding suburbs and that councils plan for an increase in the local population. Thornbury is a beautiful suburb with a strong sense of community. Rather than viewing any change as for the worse, why not work together to make it change for the even better.

Something to think about....

Regards,

U.S.

[Apartment resident]

Hi U.S,

Just wanted to chime in and support your comment. I agree with your sentiment that higher density housing in and of its self needn't be a bad thing, and that housing density implemented in a sensitive way can be good for amenity and the environment.

I would also like to add that while I believe that the City of Darebin made the right decision in refusing planning approval to this particular project, I also share your concerns about the way the “Halt the High-Rise” campaign has been communicated to the community.  I live in one of the blocks of flats along Strettle Street and when I received the “Halt the high-rise in our streets” flyer in my letterbox I was somewhat disappointed.  It has two images on it: the first is a plan view of the current Comas Grove and Hill Street site depicting (as you describe) big houses with big backyards.  The text on the flyer reads “STOP THIS, BECOMING THIS”. The “BECOMING THIS” refers to the second image depicting a diversity of building stock consisting of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments as well as the current 2 and 3 bedroom big houses with big backyards.  For young, low-to-middle income residents such as myself, apartments are a great option that allow us to share the wonderful lifestyle (and yes, great coffee!) that Thornbury offers. The flyer’s suggestion that high-density housing is inherently undesirable makes me feel excluded. Increasing density and diversity in our neighbourhood can enhance its character, not destroy it! 

I agree with the City of Darebin’s decision to refuse planning approval for a number of reasons including the reduction in car parking spaces.  However, there are also a number of positive elements to the development such as rainwater tanks connected to the toilets for flushing, cross ventilation and bicycle parking.

See Council Meeting Agenda 19 December 2011.pdf for a breakdown of the planning decision.

http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/Files/Council_Meeting_Agenda_-19_December_2011.pdf

Finally, I agree with your suggestion that energy would be better spent lobbying developers and council for environmentally sustainable developments that offer a variety of housing stock, including affordable and sensitively designed medium to high density apartments. The Comas Hill Residents Group have clearly stated what they believe is inappropriate development, but it would be wonderful if they could outline an appropriate development for the site.

Warm regards,

Apartment resident

[dpanjari]

Hi U.S. and Apartment Dweller

 

Thanks for your comments on our forum. As a group we are not against development, just inappropriate development. 

 

We fully support environmentally sustainable developments that offer a variety of housing, including affordable and sensitively designed medium density apartments in our neighbourhood. Unfortunately the plan for this development does not fit this criteria.

 

Warm regards,

 

D.P.

[lifespace]

Hi Urban Sprawl
When I first saw the signs and the fliers mentioned, I had exactly the same reaction - I am lucky to have bought a small house in the area when prices were much lower than they are now, and felt it was being exclusive to work against people who either had no financial alternative or preferred, for lifestyle reasons, to live in apartments.

However the devil is in the detail. The reason I have decided to join the protest against what I do consider inappropriate development is twofold:
(1) the reduced parking space exemption. The reality is that even though we live relatively close to multiple public transport options, most residents will own a car and their visitors will too. So far Darebin has been lucky with very few streets really overwhelmed with parking problems as compared with say, Moreland, and inner southern suburbs. The developers should be made to provide adequate safe space for a minimum of one car per apartment.
(2) the height of the project. Even with the modifications there will be some 4 storey sections with a detrimental effect not only on existing surrounding houses but on the lower proposed apartment blocks.

If the development is modified further to meet these problems, then I shall certainly have no objection to sharing a great suburb with more people.
Regards
lifespace

On Friday, April 20, 2012 8:25:59 PM UTC+10, Urban Sprawl wrote: