It was in among the papers that had been kept for later
review and comment. Its rediscovery was surprising, just as alarming as the
original reading. Little wonder that it had been put aside, such had been the
initial shock. The Gold Coast Bulletin of Friday 30 May 2014,
highlighted with the title 2018 Commonwealth Games Host City, carried an
article in the BUSINESS section with the headline: ‘Design befitting our
suburbs on the rise.’ It was indeed a bold and clear statement made physical as
large black letters that dominated the page, page 29. It carried a declaration
with what seems to be a pun that, sadly, journalists and editors find
irresistible. The message appeared to say that the potential of the character
of our suburbs was being achieved with more and more good design. The
illustration appeared to challenge perceptions with a drawing of a heavily,
self-consciously over-styled tower.
The character of the headline was matched with an ‘artist’s
impression’ of what was described as ‘the multi-purpose tower earmarked to be
built at Main Place, Broadbeach’ on the Gold Coast – to be called Main Place.
The image depicted a brashly bold tower with sweeping lines stretching
decoratively and graphically over the façade. They reminded one of the slick, random
markings seen on sportswear.
The report started: ‘A Broadbeach trophy site earmarked for
a project whose transformative powers rivals that of the suburb’s twin-tower
Oracle precinct, is up for grabs.’ 'Twin-tower' is an unfortunate description. How was this Main Place design ‘befitting our suburbs’?
Deeper into the report, there was only one other comment that seemed slightly relevant to this claim: “Such
facilities, wherever established around the world, attract people with high
disposable incomes and change the nature of a suburb.” Perhaps the name was the
clue: Main Place suggested a challenge to all others places.
This statement only added to the confusion. Is it befitting
to seek to change our suburbs under the apparent guise of designing for them,
in character with them? What is the character of ‘our suburbs’? Is the ambition
to change the Gold Coast into a Dubai-like array of designer towers, each
seeking to outdo the other? Where is this intent made explicit? One has to ask:
Is this design really ‘befitting our suburbs’? What does the Gold Coast want to
become? Does anyone know? What is the character that is being envisaged? How is
any application to be assessed? The concerns linger and grow as we have seen
previously how the proposals seem to get managed very leniently: see - http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/approving-ghosts-grand-visions-and.html
The Oracle
The context of The Oracle
After having typed this piece, it was a real surprise to discover that today’s Bulletin, (12 March 2015), carries a report boasting about a new development at Burleigh Heads:
REAL ESTATE
Gold Coast City Council Planning Committee
backs 20-storey development for Burleigh Heads’ The Esplanade
ANDREW POTTS COUNCIL
REPORTER
GOLD OCAST BULLETIN
MARCH 12, 2015 3:49PM
Tuggeranong
Development Corp Pty Ltd have proposed a new development for Burleigh
A
BURLEUGH Heads high rise building which is tipped to become one of the
beachside suburb’s most desirable addresses has been given preliminary council
approval.
The
unnamed 20-storey building, earmarked for a 3034sqm block between The Esplanade
and the Gold Coast Highway will have 128 units and a community space with room
for an outdoor movie theatre.
The
project, proposed by Tuggeranong Development Corp, was yesterday unanimously
approved by the Gold Coast City Council’s planning committee. It will go before
the full council for final ratification on Tuesday.
The
high-rise and garden area will replace a series of four older low-rise units
over multiple blocks between the two roads.
Area
councillor Greg Betts said the multi-million dollar development would likely
become one of the most desirable addresses in Burleigh.
“This is
one of the last bits of land where something like this could be done, allowing
something to be built taking out all the land between The Esplanade and Gold
Coast Highway,” he said.
“It is
bigger than what would normally be contemplated in the current planning scheme
but the trade-off is that we get an open area along the front of The Esplanade.
“The
ocean views and the proximity to Burleigh’s shopping precinct should make it a
highly desirable place to live.”
Council
planning documents show the project will have 295 bedrooms across its 20
levels, including a mixture of two and three-bedroom units.
There
will also be a total of 191 car parking spaces in its basement levels.
A
development application was submitted to the council a year ago.
A total
of eight submissions were received about the development during community
consultation, with just two in support of the project.
Concerns
included the building’s height, density, shadow, road access and the removal of
trees from the site.
Council
officers noted the concerns did not warrant city leaders rejecting the project
after the size of the proposed building was reduced from 25 levels to 20 during
negotiations with the developer.
The
officers also noted in their report to the planning committee that the project
was a “high quality redevelopment” of a site which “is in need of renewal” and
would “provide a vibrant form incorporating distinctive architectural
elements”.
This development was “unanimously approved by the Gold Coast City Council’s planning
committee” even though area councillor Greg Betts acknowledged that: “It is
bigger than what would normally be contemplated in the current planning scheme
but the trade-off is that we get an open area along the front of The
Esplanade.” So the plan is compromised already? Just why Councillor Betts has
to become the sales person for the scheme is not known. The report notes: ‘Area
councillor Greg Betts said the multi-million dollar development would likely
become one of the most desirable addresses in Burleigh.’ Is it Council’s role
to grant approvals on such a basis rather than insisting on compliance with the
Plan? This approval will only generate a precedent that will stimulate more and
more, larger and larger developments, complete with ‘trade-offs.’ The message appears to be that Council is in the market: come an chat with us; bargain as if in a souk. Is this really 'the plan'?
It is
interesting to note the objections - ‘Concerns included the building’s height,
density, shadow, road access and the removal of trees from the site’ - that
were all over-ruled: ‘Council officers noted the concerns did not warrant city
leaders rejecting the project.’ This is the usual strategy that councils adopt: call
for objections as required by law and then prepare a set of conditions and statements
so that all objections can be ignored - project approved.
The article i the Bulletin concludes: ‘The officers also noted in their report to the planning
committee that the project was a “high quality redevelopment” of a site which
“is in need of renewal” and would “provide a vibrant form incorporating
distinctive architectural elements”.’ Is it the role of Council to assess
‘quality’ - whatever this might be; and ‘architectural features’ - whatever
these might be? What are they? Where? Why are these elements so critically significant that they allow the Pan to be overridden, ignored? Where are these magical pieces? Surely it is Council’s role to implement the
Plan for the area irrespective of the bargaining chips a developer might hold? Planning is more than a gamble; and a gambol. With all of the trading and negotiations, the Plan appears to get put
aside and all and sundry seems to be allowed, whatever - just as the developers want.
Whether
such a project is ‘befitting our suburbs’ does not appear to be of any real
concern. The worry is not only what this project holds for the future, but also
what all other potential developments might be and become: what our suburbs, if
managed in this casual, ad hoc manner might develop into. Sadly Council seems to have
only one plan - to trade-off all planning requirements as required to avoid the effort and cost of a legal challenge.
The great
irony is that the illustration of the Burleigh project goes to great lengths to remove
every reference to its particular context, the suburb. At least the Broadbeach
project illustration included a glimpse of what looks like an adjacent brick
parapet, nothing else of the supposedly loved suburb - just a swirling blaze of cinema-scope skies to suggest drama! The Burleigh project is
shown as being a tower standing alone looking out forever in all directions with no neighbours, to
distant mountains, totally unrestricted, above breezy palm trees. The reality
of this suburb is far different to this. Befitting? It appears not to be so.
The Oracle in its street context
Council has only one role to play in all development: to prepare a precise plan that can define a real future, and to enforce this plan so that its ambitions can be achieved. Council is not there to promote or facilitate any developer’s whim, no matter what the story might be. It is there to stand aloof and to assess schemes against the requirements of the Plan, not against any trade-offs or quality, architectural features. One might always expect that projects might be of good quality with a carefully considered planning and architectural inputs and outcomes. Did anyone in Council ask for detailed studies of this project in its particular context to be prepared? Having Council boasting about the desirability of any proposal it wants to approve is simply inappropriate. This is not Council’s role.
Don’t hold your breath hoping that Council might consider anything that might be ‘Befitting our suburbs.’ Council appears more concerned about promised glitz, commercial viability and its seamless approval when it should be assessing the developments against the facts of the Plan, be prepared to ensure that the Plan is complied with, and to reject schemes and fight for this rejection in court if it has too. Why else bother to go to the trouble to have a Plan when it is going to be haggled out of existence? We need better than this shambles of a process for it will only give us a shambles of an outcome.
One has
to shake one’s head in total disbelief when one discovers that Council seems to be more
concerned with stubbornly enforcing millimetres, (setbacks and heights itemized in the Plan), and colours, (defined in Local Area Plans), when it so chooses, and then becomes so
flippantly agreeable with major developments. There is something astray here.
Is it that butterflies are easier to deal with than elephants; that power is perceived to be greater when it can be exercised unchallenged by might?
Context of The Oracle
When one battles to get one of the Gold Coasts's nicest forest hill roads calmed, to have its traffic managed, limited and slowed down, no one in Council is interested in maintaining or improving this unique character of place. The above-named councillor's solution is for the complainant to move away from the Gold Coast with statements something like: "We're for growth! Go away if you don't like it!" These tower projects reflect this crude, rude thinking. The Gold Coast is becoming a place for indulgent performances in changed suburbs attracting 'people with high disposable incomes' getting and spending rather than becoming a place for being at home, contented. Sadly, the wonderful character of place now suggests that it should never be changed into this rising that is wrongly promoted as 'befitting our suburbs,' because it simply does not and is not. The 'rise' of design is limited only to the increase in height suggested in the terrible pun. There is no improvement in sensitivity or concern for place in these designs. The search seems to be for growth in grand displays and profits alone, at any price, and Council does not appear to give a hoot: see - http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/street-character.html
Bureligh National Park
National Park headland at Burleigh
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.