A Call to action - Rozelle Village

I should add that I think the height is a little too high. Bulk is okay, just height. Knock 3/4 stories off it.

Another FACT that the Nimbys don't want you to know is that they include the 8 or so underground floors in their "32 stories". This is a typical ploy used by such people. Dodgey yes, but these are the people who cast a shadow to the north in their renders.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
 
@Kul said:
I should add that I think the height is a little too high. Bulk is okay, just height. Knock 3/4 stories off it.

Another FACT that the Nimbys don't want you to know is that they include the 8 or so underground floors in their "32 stories". This is a typical ploy used by such people. Dodgey yes, but these are the people who cast a shadow to the north in their renders.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
Click to expand...

Great work Kul a really good insight as to what is happening.
 
@Kul said:
I should add that I think the height is a little too high. Bulk is okay, just height. Knock 3/4 stories off it.

Another FACT that the Nimbys don't want you to know is that they include the 8 or so underground floors in their "32 stories". This is a typical ploy used by such people. Dodgey yes, but these are the people who cast a shadow to the north in their renders.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
Click to expand...

Figured this was the case. The MLC Tower in the city is 67 floors "high" but six of those sink below Martin Place.
 
A few more things for Kul (just reading your post again). Surry Hills is completely different, and I wouldn't call it village, it's built around convenience.
The entrance for broadway is also completely different, as it doesn't affect the thoroughfare. But the residential entrance is Waterloo St, which will put more pressure on the Balmain/Darling St intersection, which can already be bad. And there will be another set of traffic lights for the retail traffic to enter/exit Victoria road. It has been noted that Rozelle Village have used flawed assumptions in their traffic modelling, and Leichhardt council will be doing their own modelling for their submission.
"If you include Balmain then this development will only increase total retail space by a small fraction." It's actually a large fraction. And according to Jamie Parkers site "The developer’s own economic impact assessment states that Balmain/Rozelle traders will suffer a loss of up to 11.2% equal to $20.4 million in turnover relative to turnover otherwise achievable at 2016\. (Source: Economic Impact Assessment April 2012 p 25.)"
My backyard is very private and luckily I'm far enough away from the development that I won't be affected. You may not have a problem with a lack of privacy, but some people like it, and those around the development won't have a choice.
 
Whoops, moderator must have missed the post that went before that one….
\
\
Hi Kul, thanks for responding and allowing me to clear some things up for you :wink:
Broadway did effect Glebe if you remember, it hammered it. And it has now changed and weathered it. Same as Bondi has effected Paddington, which is still struggling. This development isn't the size of either of those, but it's of the same vein, and future developments could further it.
Evans St is to the South East (not North), and since we're in the Southern Hemisphere (sun ends up in the North West), the shadow gets there. Straight over the 3 weeds according to Rozelle Village's enviro report.
There is a problem with looking in to Primary Schools, if you worry about your kids. My lad will start at Rozelle Primary right about when the development finishes, tops.
We are increasing density, Leichhardt council is 25% ahead of targets already.

Benjirific
My mistake about Siro, I had just read the annual report from October, and missed the point that he resigned in June.
I didn't say Benny was on the board, I just said he had a financial interest, which I understand he still does (quoting info from the RRAG).
The area west of Victoria isn't dead, but it's not going to get better until this development gets settled one way or another. I actually think the retail around there would do really well from this development, it's Balmain that will suffer.
There's plenty of BS being spouted, you just have to listen. Everything from quoting green star when they're not accredited (they had to remove that from the web site), to Ian Wright saying the council gave him no chance to speak at the Town Hall meeting (I was there, and he had as much chance as anyone). They ban and remove any FB users that say anything negative, and the youtube propaganda video has had comments disabled. There's just a lot of truth being hidden and bent.
Some people will support this development, and I'm sure it suits them and they have every right. It just gets my goat that they're using WT supporters for development support without giving them all of the facts.
 
Forget Broadway - what about Leichhardt? They seem to manage having a development like The Forum without the whole suburb falling apart. At the end of the day we live in a global city and unless you want a city sprawling out forever, you need to build up. I'm not suggesting they build high rise everywhere but the Rozelle site is on an fairly ugly main road. The arguments I've heard really don't cut it with me - it's the same self interested crap that stop even the most benign proposals for Callan Park.

Well done to Benjirific and Kul for some excellent and well thought out posts at the top.
 
I doubt the majority of WT Fans give a rats arse about where shadows form, or how many shops down Darling Street might have to work harder to ensure they can maintain business growth…

I think the majority of WT Fans would prefer to see ALL Revenue Streams maximised to ensure the long-term future for the Wests Tigers, and this such development is a major stepping stone to helping that become a reality.

C'mon Barry... Put an 'Approved' stamp on this application and lets get the ball rolling...
 
And being from Maroochydore, you probably don't care that the size of the club has shrunk dramatically, as you'd probably never visit, let alone be it your primary club.

I haven't heard one person against this development, that doesn't want a great usable club back. It's just that this development has less benefit, than a smaller development, except for extra profit solely for the developer.

It needs to be rejected in favour of something fairer to the club and the community. We only get one shot at it.

Anyways, you've heard enough from me, see yas at LO
 
They knocked down the old club to build a smaller club? How does that work…
 
@Staks said:
They knocked down the old club to build a smaller club? How does that work…
Click to expand...

Not very well I'd imagine Staks, not very well at all.
 
It depends what definitions you're using. The old club may have had more square metres but the layout was pretty poor and it was spread out on 3 levels. You could easily have what was there before with less overall space with a better planned design.
 
@Yossarian said:
It depends what definitions you're using. The old club may have had more square metres but the layout was pretty poor and it was spread out on 3 levels. You could easily have what was there before with less overall space with a better planned design.
Click to expand...

Agreed, to say it is smaller in terms of square metres, does not mean it has less facilities. I think some of the local residents need to realise this sort of development along Victoria road is going to become more and more of an issue and they wont be able to reject them all forever. Now that Pyrmont is pretty much fully redeveloped the stretch between the White Bay power station and the Iron Cove bridge is the next area in the plans of the Government and in my opinion it can only be good for the city.

for the record up untill a year ago my family had been in Balmain since the glory days of 1915 - 1920
 
If this does not go ahead… What does this venture mean financially for the future of:
Balmain leagues group?
Balmain fc?
Balmain junior league?
Wests Tigers?
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
 
@wtfl1981 said:
If this does not go ahead… What does this venture mean financially for the future of:
Balmain leagues group?
Balmain fc?
Balmain junior league?
Wests Tigers?
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
Click to expand...

I think they would just have to struggle on the funding they have now while the propose another redevelopment plan that gives in to the majority of the demands of the local residents, or sell the land and develop Wests Ashfield??
 
If it goes ahead they spend millions and a few years building it then try and attract pokie goers for revenue and return (not favoured too much in the local area) plus making sales with units and apartments..

Or if it does not go ahead… How does balmain fc support its junior league clubs, nsw cup tem and contribution to WT?

Sirro seems quite concerned in his pledging letter...
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
 
We've heard enough from stuttering dave because he has to say is NIMBY selfish-ism.
It's clearly in the best interests of the people of NSW that the development goes ahead. The interests of the Waterloo Street Whingers (aka the Recently-arrived Rozelle Residents Action Group) must not prevail upon the majority of the people.
I've lived in Balmain/Rozelle for a long time.
I fully support the current proposal to redevelop the Tigers Club site. So do ALL of the Birchgrove and Balmain residents I know.

The reason the weekend traffic is so thick on Darling Street is that we have to drive to Broadway, Leichhardt or Birkenhead Point to shop.

Darling Street west of Victoria Road is a dump. Bring on the Tigers Club redevelopment ASAP!
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
 
@Kul said:
I should add that I think the height is a little too high. Bulk is okay, just height. Knock 3/4 stories off it.

Another FACT that the Nimbys don't want you to know is that they include the 8 or so underground floors in their "32 stories". This is a typical ploy used by such people. Dodgey yes, but these are the people who cast a shadow to the north in their renders.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
Click to expand...

I agree with your point about the dodgy counting of subterranean floors but sorry mate, Evans Street is south not north of the development site.
However, who cares that that there'll be some extra early morning shadow on Callan Park? The ghosts of yesteryear's lunatics?
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
 
@willow said:
@Staks said:
They knocked down the old club to build a smaller club? How does that work…

Not very well I'd imagine Staks, not very well at all.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It's actually not a smaller club. The old club included a gym, last trading as Affordable Fitness. The new club has no gym but there will be a gym in the development. Plus, the old club had a lot of space that was never used, especially on the floor above the main bar where the committee room/s were.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
 
@MontagueStreet2041 said:
We've heard enough from stuttering dave because he has to say is NIMBY selfish-ism.
Click to expand...

Nice, sign up to the forum and your first post is to have a personal shot at me. And completely unfounded, since I have only stated facts (besides the outdated Siro/board thing), I don't stutter and am very far from lefty/nimby/green.

I've yet to hear from anyone, why this new proposal is better than the last one that got knocked back, or better yet, better than one that fits in to the current LEP, or better yet, one that's closer to the current LMC commercial requirement.

I'll shut up again, unless someone else drags me back in to it :wink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 327 (members: 11, guests: 316)
Forever online: Tigergran, Geo
Back
Top