The campaign to 'fix' Sydney (1 Viewer)

[Josie]

Re: the architects.... responsibility in design is something that is being increasingly pushed state-wide (wow, even by the Carr government) and nationally. One of these aspects is Basix, which is the new assessment tool for sustainability in the built environment. www.basix.nsw.gov.au the site is live, submission takes place online, and the old NatHERS system has been incorporated. Basically architects are being forced to take responsibility by for some of the disgustingly bad buildings they're plonking in Sydney. And being a famous architect doesn't help your cause, strangely enough- Harry Seidler has been known to use a pseudonym to get his plans through council.
As for the 60s/70s "inhuman crap", unfortunately those are never going to go away, not while there is such a small (and may I say stagnant) pool of architects in Sydney- there's new voices clamouring to be heard, but they're struggling to get past the old farts.
But these measures are basically for existing premises and renovations. The old ugly shit is going to be around for a while until it's demolished to make way for another tower of even uglier apartments.

As the housing spreads to the south, north and west, it's interesting to look back 30 years, when many of the workers actually lived in the inner city, east and west. A young draftsman could afford to live in Paddington, Balmain, Glebe, etc. House and property prices have forced the ordinary worker out of the city and into the satellite cities of Campbelltown etc. Meanwhile these small premises have been demolished to make way for the true mansions of the Eastern suburbs, for the rich and prosperous. Once again it seems to me a bit of monetary snobbery that is causing a few problems.

The ministers etc who refuse to take public transport are hardly setting an example, but the transport itself is hardly adequate- dirty, smelly, inefficient. This is basically because the Carr government has showed over and over again it does not care. (when it comes to state government, I'm not Labor or Liberal, i wish they'd all foad)

I don't think high density is neccesarily the way to go- do we want to turn into a New York or a Chicago with all the side effects of millions living in a small space? Although I agree, houses should be discouraged in the CBD in favour of medium density development.

I'll come back to this post later, I'm rambling now.

 

[ohne]

But wouldn't that create transport bottlenecks? I agree with what you said partially, however i favour medium density rather than high rise flats.

Hi, Sarah. Higher density development along major public transport corridors should not create more transport bottlenecks than releasing low density land on the city's fringe. This is because people are more likely to use public transport than cars. It is much easier to transport large volumes of people through public transport than cars. The single bus lane on the harbour bridge transports more people than all of the car lanes combined. If you locate development away from public transport people are essentially forced to use their cars and this leads to transport bottlenecks closer to major centres.

Ok, so what would be an alternative solution? Ppl use smaller streets to bypass the traffic on freeways, if free ways didn't exist the back streets would be used anyway. I think the emphasis on freeways is due to the amount of traffic. More needs to be done to encourage ppl to use public transport. Public transport itself is another issue though.

I don't think we should be demolishing freeways, but I am against new ones being developed. If you did demolish a freeway many people would still drive to work and use back streets making things potentially worse. The main problem is the development of the freeway initially generated new traffic that was not there previously, moving it away from other sources such as public transport.

There are bus and ferry services. The Northern Beaches is accessible if people bothered to catch the bus or take the ferry.

I don't think buses are particulary viable over such long distances. This is why the area is so car dependent and you have huge bottlenecks around the spit bridge and elsewhere. A train line to the northern beaches should have been constructed much earlier.

Public transport is costly. Problems with bus and train services are a dis-incentive to use them. I'm not sure what can be done other than the obvious e.g realistic timetables

I think the main problem with public transport in Sydney is that there is too much government involvement. Governments make stupid political decisions for popularity rather than ones which are viable over the long term, in my opinion rail and buses need to be privitised and spun off into a public-private partnership.

From what i understand, new houses incorporate those measures to reduce water wastage.

Yes, although we could definantly be doing more. Still, I think we need a new dam for Sydney. More emphasis must be given on reducing airconditioning and power consumption. We can't afford to keep building coal fired power stations to power air conditioners. It is not sustainable.

But where would you re-locate those people living in public housing? Areas where housing is affordable are further and further on the fringes of Sydney. You would merely be shifting those who need public housing. I do agree that the worst of the public housing estate do need to be redeveloped.

If public housing is sold off to the private sector there is no net loss of housing, people are merely encouraged to rent privately rather than publicly. Re-developing public housing estates should lead to increased net housing anyway. The trend is more towards private rent assistance than public housing.

Yes i think encouraging the development of regional centres is a good idea however what is the problem with business parks? I would think their advantageous due to economies of scale, closer proximity to suppliers and customers.

The main problem with business parks is transport access. The are generally situated away from public transport corridors and the only way to get there is by car. For example, if you live in Petersham and work in a business park in the northern suburbs, it may take you an hour to travel there by car and be more expensive. An office in the CBD is easier to access via public transport (about 10/15 minutes) and is surounded by better services such as shops, parks etc. It is a much better place and has character.

There's been a strong move to gentrifying inner city terraces so an attempt is being made. I don't know much about individual suburbs though. Maybe it's a local govt issue?

I think it's mainly market forces. Many people prefer to live in inner-city because it is more vibrant and has better transport access and facilities. Individual suburbs are mainly a local government issue although and local government planning policy can be overrided by the state government. Inner city suburbs are generally much more walkable and pedestrian friendly. Ironically in the 60s/70s these areas were described as "slums" and attempts were made to demolish them. Terrace houses in Paddington now sell for about a million dollars each!

 

[ohne]

Re: the architects.... responsibility in design is something that is being increasingly pushed state-wide (wow, even by the Carr government) and nationally. One of these aspects is Basix, which is the new assessment tool for sustainability in the built environment. www.basix.nsw.gov.au the site is live, submission takes place online, and the old NatHERS system has been incorporated. Basically architects are being forced to take responsibility by for some of the disgustingly bad buildings they're plonking in Sydney. And being a famous architect doesn't help your cause, strangely enough- Harry Seidler has been known to use a pseudonym to get his plans through council.
As for the 60s/70s "inhuman crap", unfortunately those are never going to go away, not while there is such a small (and may I say stagnant) pool of architects in Sydney- there's new voices clamouring to be heard, but they're struggling to get past the old farts.
But these measures are basically for existing premises and renovations. The old ugly shit is going to be around for a while until it's demolished to make way for another tower of even uglier apartments.

As the housing spreads to the south, north and west, it's interesting to look back 30 years, when many of the workers actually lived in the inner city, east and west. A young draftsman could afford to live in Paddington, Balmain, Glebe, etc. House and property prices have forced the ordinary worker out of the city and into the satellite cities of Campbelltown etc. Meanwhile these small premises have been demolished to make way for the true mansions of the Eastern suburbs, for the rich and prosperous. Once again it seems to me a bit of monetary snobbery that is causing a few problems.

The ministers etc who refuse to take public transport are hardly setting an example, but the transport itself is hardly adequate- dirty, smelly, inefficient. This is basically because the Carr government has showed over and over again it does not care. (when it comes to state government, I'm not Labor or Liberal, i wish they'd all foad)

I don't think high density is neccesarily the way to go- do we want to turn into a New York or a Chicago with all the side effects of millions living in a small space? Although I agree, houses should be discouraged in the CBD in favour of medium density development.

I'll come back to this post later, I'm rambling now.

I think we need more housing closer to the CBD, this is why I support higher density.

I am generally not a fan of Harry Seidler although I think Australia Square and the MLC Centre are decent enough buildings by themself. The building he designed on the north side of the harbour (I forget what it's called), is utter crap and should be demolished. I think all of the best buildings in Sydney were constructed before 1900, although the problem is this was before the era of high-rise/skyskrapers and we need more buildings like this. I don't support knocking down a heritage building to build a skyskraper/high rise flats, although we do need more of them.

New York and Chicago are not that high density are they? American cities probably have the lowest densities in the world overall, while New York and Chicago are above average, in my opinion they are among the best cities in the US. Chicago and New York are certainly better than unlimited sprawl in places such as Los Angeles.

 

[braad]

ohne, you're right. in regards to the buses and public transport, i agree, if it was there i'd use it, but for me my buses turn up whenever they want...and its usually quicker for me to spend 40 minutes walking from the train station than get a bus ride which takes 8 minutes (once im on the bus).

if the public transport system was reliable and predictable it'd get used more, thats possibly a positive about government intervention in the system. From my experience, government buses actually turn up, but yeh...ohwells

and...we need a new dam, more and more people moving to sydney and our water usage isnt going to drop so much that one dam can sustain it all (basically one dam). and is it me, or does it seem to rain all over the place (every now and then) and not in the catchment area? like, we are in a drought so rain is only really sprinkled over the coastal areas.

and recently i heard a state government ad, well i think it was..anyway, it said that if the water levels drop more they might build a desalination plant to convert sea water into drinking water.....now, from what i heard on the ad, they arent going to unless they absolutely have to...why dont they just build the thing now? or like the dam, build one now so they wont have to in 10 years...does it take absolutely insane situations for them to do anything to our infrastructure that'll improve it?

 

[Riddles]

i believe sydney is screwed beyond repair, which is why i refuse to live there

 

[spin spin sugar]

this thread is so interesting.

can anyone tell me if the train systems in major cities of japan are privately run/owned?? i heard some crazy thing like they're NEVER late, ever, ever ever.

 

[braad]

this thread is so interesting.

can anyone tell me if the train systems in major cities of japan are privately run/owned?? i heard some crazy thing like they're NEVER late, ever, ever ever.

thats it! WE'RE ALL MOVING TO JAPAN...NOW!

 

[Riddles]

mate, u can't even scratch ur balls, thats how close everyone is in the street

 

[Josie]

Yeah, and on one in a million chance they're late, they notify your boss

Ohne- I'm not a Harry Seidler fan either, I was just explaining.... Most of our modern buildings look like mass-produced crap.

And New York/Chicago still aren't brilliant in terms of public transport- while they're about a million times better than us, they've still got huge traffic problems.
Although once again, your Los Angeles example is probably better for my argument.

 

[Generator]

What would a new dam achieve (beyond ruining yet another river)? The system is both antiquated and falling apart, recycling is virtually non-existent and in a general sense we over-consume what should be our most precious resource. How would a new dam (to be built in a rain shadow if my memory serves) change anything beyond reinforcing the idea that the tap will never run dry and that we can quite easily control nature?

As for affordable housing, next to nothing has been set aside for new release areas and even Landcom only develops affordable housing whenever it is 'commercially viable'. Much more in this regard has to be done, be it by private or government corporations (or both in partnership).

 

[yenta]

All I can say is the government needs to stop fucking around with the north-west rail link and start building it already!

 

[ohne]

What would a new dam achieve (beyond ruining yet another river)? The system is both antiquated and falling apart, recycling is virtually non-existent and in a general sense we over-consume what should be our most precious resource. How would a new dam (to be built in a rain shadow if my memory serves) change anything beyond reinforcing the idea that the tap will never run dry and that we can quite easily control nature?

Building a dam is in my opinion more environmentally responsible than building a desalination plant. Desalination plants release huge volumes of salty water into the sea and are huge volumes of power (you would need to construct an entire power station to build one and this would likely be powered by coal causing pollution and greenhouse gas emmisions).

I agree that we over-consume water and that water recycling is viable. If it could replace the need to build a new dam/desalination plant I would support it. If your arguments were used in the 1940s/50s and the Warragamba dam was never built where would we be now? Remember that Sydney is essentially operating on a 1960s water supply system.

 

[Generator]

This isn't the 1940s/50s and the age of grand developments, though, and you would think that we would have moved beyond such modernistic approaches by now. To tell the truth, I agree that a dam (not necessarily large) would be preferable to a desalination plant, but I feel that we now have an opportunity to actually 'fix' the problem rather than just put it off for another decade or two.