@innsaneink said:
Will they be flying above the roof of the building or even within proximity to it?
A Call to action - Rozelle Village
- Thread starter Black_amp_Gold
- Start date
Will they be flying above the roof of the building or even within proximity to it?
@Yossarian said:
Would have to laugh if some of those potential residents are Mascot residents keen to get away from the constant incessant noise of EVERY incoming and outgoing plane.
@Yossarian said:
Yet somehow urban sprawl is better for the environment 😕
Notice how they called them "145m towers"…. this is the RL of the tower, not the height of the tower. RL at ground level is 35m, so these towers are 110m, not 145m as the NIMBYs and BANANAs claim
The recent SMH article also showed an early stage render of the envelope of the site, it does not resemble anything of the current DA.
I got into an argument with one of the NIMBYs recently regarding the number of floors.
The NIMBY was all like "it's 32 stories, that's far to big"
it got me thinking.
Residential developments are able to fit more levels into an envelope because of different FSRs and extra space needed for commercial office space, etc.
The Rozelle Village development sounds big at 32 stories, but at 110m it's not very tall by any means.
Take at look at Deutsche Bank Place, the 3rd tallest tower in Sydney at just 39 stories (7 more than Rozelle Village)
Standing at 239.9m or 160 to roof, it is much taller than Rozelle Village
See the ugly brown tower next to it? That's roughly the height of Rozelle Village
just goes to show that you shouldn't look at the number of floors that a building has
The NIMBY was all like "it's 32 stories, that's far to big"
it got me thinking.
Residential developments are able to fit more levels into an envelope because of different FSRs and extra space needed for commercial office space, etc.
The Rozelle Village development sounds big at 32 stories, but at 110m it's not very tall by any means.
Take at look at Deutsche Bank Place, the 3rd tallest tower in Sydney at just 39 stories (7 more than Rozelle Village)
Standing at 239.9m or 160 to roof, it is much taller than Rozelle Village
See the ugly brown tower next to it? That's roughly the height of Rozelle Village
just goes to show that you shouldn't look at the number of floors that a building has
D
davedave
Guest
I agree, the height is only noticeable when compared to the buildings next to it. Lucky the other buildings in Rozelle are …. well.. uh oh
vacant? lifeless? lacking appeal? suburban wasteland?
and to think that some people who claim to represent everyone in our area are against this :laughing:
it's always been dead. That whole section of Rozelle is so decrepit and stagnant even when the dull TIGERS site was there.
I can't wait to start to use all the amenities that this development will bring. Opening up Darling Street, increased foot traffic and an injection of vitality to that strip will be amazing! Who knows, maybe someone might fix up the Bridge as well? Could we have a new watering hole? :righton:
and to think that some people who claim to represent everyone in our area are against this :laughing:
it's always been dead. That whole section of Rozelle is so decrepit and stagnant even when the dull TIGERS site was there.
I can't wait to start to use all the amenities that this development will bring. Opening up Darling Street, increased foot traffic and an injection of vitality to that strip will be amazing! Who knows, maybe someone might fix up the Bridge as well? Could we have a new watering hole? :righton:
D
davedave
Guest
And this particular proposal is the only option that will provide such reinvigoration?
Only one on the table at the moment… But you're right you wouldn't want to overshadow the petrol stations and kitchen warehouse there at the moment
D
davedave
Guest
If it was a 4 storey development, that's all the shadow would bother…
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
B
Balmain_Supporter
Guest
I was very interested to see one of my neighbours from across Victoria Road, John Brown put a full page ad in todays Inner Western Courier. John Brown who was a Minister in the Hawke ministry and now rents (but not owns) an apartment in Rozelle across the road from the proposed development. It is great that John Brown is able to contribute through public speaking and I notice he is now a lobbyist for Rozelle Village. Typically an ad in the Inner West Courier costs $6,000 plus Gst. It's good that money talks just like the proprietors of RozelleVillage are doing with their proposal before the state Government. As stated earlier I support the Tigers but myself nor my family support the Rozelle Village proposal. We think the club has been ripped off and its name is being dragged through the mud with this development. We will continue to visit Fivedock and support the club but we don't want a bar of anything to do with Rozelle, until our Tigers leadership and the developer, have reconciled with the Rozelle community.
T
tigers_roar
Guest
@Yossarian said:
Hi Yoss
I've tried to put this letter into tomorrows SMH, but they haven't emailed me to say
they will publish it. I have exceeded my letter limit (two per month) so it makes it hard
to get stuff up.
"Robyn Lewis (Letters, June 14) is wrong to conclude that the Rozelle
Village development does nor benefit new home buyers.
By way of example, when Barangaroo gets built, the high end companies
in the city will move there, creating a vacuum of excellent accomodation
to the cities north, to be occupied by lower end companies at cheaper rents.
A chain reaction ensues The Rozelle development will create a similar,
albeit smaller vacuum across Sydney and chain reaction across Sydney.
In fact many more homebuyers benifit than those just those buying into
the development."
It would be helpful if someone could make an argument along these lines and
put it in the opinion section. If someone make this point in a different way
it would be useful, as they are claiming time and time again in the herald
that the development doesn't help sydney's housing crisis.
I would also note, that I have been officially refused to speak at the rally
regarding urban greenies highjacking green agendas. Mind you I am relieved,
as they would have torn me into little pieces.
Benjirific
New member
@davedave said:
Lower scale developments were put to council on a number of occasions, but each time they found a reason to reject it. I think everyone should take a look at a speech by Linda Voltz in Legislative Council from earlier this week:
"BALMAIN DEVELOPMENT
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [6.37 p.m.]: On 7 June Elizabeth Farrelly wrote an article entitled "Developers show their stripes all over town" in which she lamented the "truly outrageous applications" that will be approved. As an example she singled out the Balmain Tigers redevelopment. According to Farrelly:
Rozelle Village started at 10 storeys, linked to the then metro-to-be. By 2010, when it was first refused, it was 13 storeys. Now, though the metro is long-dead, the proposal has been accepted as "state significant" under Part 3A.
To keep Ms Farrelly in the loop, the "Rozelle Village" did not start out as a 10-storey development linked to the metro-to-be. I first saw the plans for this site in late 2006 after the Tigers had been in extensive consultation with Leichhardt council for over two years. The Tigers approached Leichhardt council as the first step of the redevelopment to get the advice and opinion of the council as the elected representatives of their local community. The Tigers were advised by Leichhardt council that they would need to purchase more land and to purchase adjoining properties around the club then submit a development that essentially encompassed almost the entire block.
When I first saw the plans for the redevelopment I was attending a lunch at Balmain Tigers, alongside Jamie Parker, who then was Mayor of Leichhardt and is now the member for Balmain. On seeing the plan I expressed my doubts to the Tigers that Leichhardt council would ever pass the designs, not because they were bad but because Leichhardt council is a serial offender in regard to rejecting just about any development for the most spurious of reasons. My fears were based on a long association of dealing with the council over State issues.
<26>
One site in particular sticks out—the new Water Police site. Despite the site being industrial, the State Government spent millions on redesigning the site, outsourcing maintenance, and converting two-thirds of the site to parklands, all at great expense to the taxpayers of New South Wales, in consultation with the council. That was only to see the plans rejected by council on the basis, as quoted to me by one councillor at the time, "The local government elections are two months away and everyone is voting against it because we know the State Government can call it in".
Tigers representatives informed me of their ongoing consultations with the council and how they had followed the advice of the council in regards to the development. They pointed out that they had purchased properties at the recommendation of the council, and the club followed a very engaged, consultative approach with the council. This represented the club's philosophy that it is part of the community. As Jamie Parker was present during this conversation I put it to him that the minute he had a couple of complaints he and his ilk would do a runner and knock back the development. He reassured me that the plans were fine and they just needed some tweaking. At the time Jamie Parker's reassurance made me think that I may perhaps be wrong and that because the Tigers had so engaged the council and were such a part of the community the miracle may happen. However, some time later it came as no surprise to me that, true to form, after four years of consultations the Leichhardt Municipal Council rejected the Tigers redevelopment.
And there we have it in a nutshell: anything that is a bit difficult will never be decided by the Leichhardt council because it relies on the State Government to make the hard decisions. The Leichhardt councillors are the Pontius Pilates of the local government system. The Tigers development had nothing to do with the metro-to-be. The development predates the metro considerably. The club had undergone extensive public consultation and actively sought the advice of the council. As a result the club carried huge debts that ended up threatening the viability of a foundation rugby league club and one of the last bastions of working-class culture on the Balmain peninsula. The Tigers set about redesigning the site, which by that time had to go before a joint regional planning panel [JRPP].
The club had its plans ready to go again when the New South Wales Government announced the CBD Metro. Faced with a choice between compulsory acquisition of the Tigers site, which the club needed, or working with the government, the Tigers had to work with the State Government to accommodate the metro. The metro, which has been consigned to the dustbin of history, never happened and the Tigers were left high and dry with a redesigned plan, after another 12-months delay, and had to begin yet again. Finally a plan was to be put to the joint regional planning panel. And what did Jamie Parker and the Leichhardt council do? They presented a new road traffic plan to the joint regional planning panel one day before the decision was taken without informing the Tigers of the new traffic plan or having the decency of allowing the Tigers to see it. Apparently the idea of community consultation is a one-way street at Leichhardt.
If Elizabeth Farrelly wants to know why the Tigers site seems to be one "where developments once considered dead—have lately bounced back", I advise her to seek out Jamie Parker and the Leichhardt council and ask them some hard questions about their original advice to the Tigers and their actions since."
That is exactly why this site hasn't been developed.
Benjirific
New member
@Balmain Supporter said:
Who exactly do you mean by 'out Tigers leadership'?
That's an excellent speech from Voltz.
DonnyBrasco
New member
What an awesome project this is.
Cant wait for this big stinking turd in the middle of migetville to be developed. All that awesome traffic jams and wear and tear on the roads that will have to be being fixed coming out of our pockets.
I hope they make it twice as high and wide and make zillions of dollars and then do it again next suburb all the way to canada bay because we deserve it.
\
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
Cant wait for this big stinking turd in the middle of migetville to be developed. All that awesome traffic jams and wear and tear on the roads that will have to be being fixed coming out of our pockets.
I hope they make it twice as high and wide and make zillions of dollars and then do it again next suburb all the way to canada bay because we deserve it.
\
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
Good contribution…
innsaneink
Well-known member
@Yossarian said:
Ironic
Just because you dont agree…...??
@DonnyBrasco said:
I hope we just let the city sprawl and sprawl and sprawl, thats the way to go! whats that? what about our food bowl on the edge of our city? nah bugger that who needs fresh fruit and veg when you can have pool!! and the 3 hour trip into the city wont be to bad cause atleast i wont have to look at any big sky scrapers!!
innsaneink
Well-known member
Only an idiot would move 3 hours from the city if they were required there every day
