Full document: http://www.albany.wa.gov.au/website/uploads/2472_AMD171_240909.pdf (accessed 3rd September 2009)I'm in a hurry to get this posted, and haven't had a good look at the document.
If you have any comment to make about this or other proposed changes, including cycle ways, you have only got about a week to do it. Check out the council website:
Albany City council website: http://www.albany.wa.gov.au/
Public comment page: http://www.albany.wa.gov.au/your-council/public-comment/
(This is the first in the list of articles for public comment.)
Why Spencer Park?
What will it do to the character of the suburb?
How will these changes affect our imaging of place, as Albany evolves into a city?
What about water sensitive urban design?
Bloody acountants. City of Albany suffered financially at the hands of the global economic 'crisis' (wake up call I call it) so maybe the poor dears have no choice. The nice big blocks are rare 800-900m2 but can be subdivided into smaller ones. Because there is deep sewerage there the rates are pretty high and land value contributes to that I guess) but this way the council will possibly get more bang for its buck.
ReplyDeleteHaving said all of that, my mum lives on a long skinny block in Ellenbrook like that one and the house is so well designed that she shares no common walls with her neighbours and has enough room around her to not feel crammed in. For older people this is good, smaller yard. I think designers could learn a lot from Ellenbrook. Although it's a bit cliche in some ways it is a great design concept for high density living, with large areas of landscaped creeks and ponds and walking paths that are internal to the street system so relaxing and safe.
Ellenbrook sounds very interesting - not what's going on in Spencer Park by the sounds of it. There are some weird design requirements: like 85% glazing on street frontages for commercial buildings. They should be considering sustainability ratings and allowing designers to work within those constraints rather than imposing ideas about what it should look like!
ReplyDeleteThere are no considerations for the landscaping, particularly no consideration for permeable surfaces nor any other water-sensitive urban design. The size of buildings they are allowing (0m to 4.5m offsets) means a massive increase in paved/impermeable surfaces. NO consideration of the natural hydrology of the site at all!
...I'd better get on with my submission!
Mmmm...interesting about the glazing. I agree, how the hell can they dictate that sort of thing - that job belongs to architects and designers. Denmark council required us to have solar passive elements built into the design of our house - like a limited window to floor ratio and insulation UNDER the house for pole homes. And lots of insulation to cut down on energy usage. I suspect that they are much more in tune with that sort of thing than the City of Albany who make some really dumb and dangerous decisions.
ReplyDeleteGood on Denmark! That's great. Is Albany oblivious to what is happening just up the road?
ReplyDeleteI think there may be across the board changes for new buildings but when the COA insists on big windows facing the sea I wonder how much they really know. Another example: the recycling of re-usable goods in Albany is atrocious. Check an old blog of mine.
ReplyDeletehttp://michellefrantom.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html
They may have lifted their game recently but....I do think Denmark is still way ahead.
This is great Chrissie. Why don't you send this link to the council?
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure if I want to stir the pot too much just yet: I'm hoping to get a job when I get back!
ReplyDeleteBut I have put a submission in, and hopefully they will at least think about it. I'll post it. I was hoping to post it in time for you all to have a look and comment but as usual i've left it to the last minute (thought last date for submission was tomorrow!)
I'm sure there'll be heaps of other stuff happening though.