Canning Bridge Precinct Plan – Post 3

I’ve posted previously on the Canning Bridge Precinct Plan here and here. Apparently there is a part of the development that has not been given a height limit. Now there is a whole lot of great images put out by interested parties showing how the development could look with extreme high rise developments – there was a great one in my local paper last week but i can’t find a copy of it on the net. Shame, as its a great bit of anti-development propaganda. Of course, it was always going to be an issue once the Raffles was approved that it did stick out, so would need some more high rise around it. Some of the land in that area is really not looking too flash, so could really do with some improvement. I think the challenge here is to create some attractive, functional, interesting high rise residential in Perth. Get Ken Yeang over to teach us something about climate-responsive high density residential! The problem in Perth is so much of the high rise development so far has been ‘same-same’ boxes, so of course people don’t want to keep seeing these churned out. Give Perth-ites an opportunity for some creative options and I think people would take to them. Because eventually we’re going to have to – Perth can’t sprawl for ever!

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Canning Bridge Precinct Plan – Post 3

  1. The photo in the paper made the skyline look horrible to me. Maybe you could scan it and ask permission from the editor to put it in your blog with acknowledgement?

    As citizens we need to stop being so complacent about our built environment because one day we will turn around and we may not like what we see…but it is too late when its already there!

  2. This area will suffer massively with high-rise developments the size of the raffles. There area few low-rise developments around (some good, some awful) that suit the location and context better than the raffles abomination. But you have hit the nail on the head in terms of the buildings that Perth cranks out – I am pro density but not pro developer-driven shit boxes thrown up at a minimum of cost to earn someone a big pay day. It’s not necessary to get Ken Yeang involved because we have incredibly talented, creative people here in our city that can give the public all the amazing options you could ever dream of. The only way that could lead to incredible buildings, however, is if the profit aspect were removed from the process, but that’s never going to happen in Perth, because the dollar comes before architectural/planning/cultural/lifestyle integrity. Every time.

    • Good point David. There are definitely better buildings about than the Raffles, especially when you look at the functionality of the building (the transparency into people’s private lives or the constant closing of the blinds!) I guess the issue is though, now that its there, is it acceptable to leave it sticking out as the sore thumb? Or would it be better to do more around it, much better buildings, to show the potential of the site? Although this seems kind of wasteful. A fair point about our local architects – I bet we could do much better, if we were given the opportunity. It would be great if apartment design went further than dollar-driven – we have a fantastic climate, in fact thats what makes Perth such a drawcard to visitors / immigrants, and yet most apartments in Perth are cut off from the outdoors and focus only on how many cheap and standard media rooms and caesarstone kitchens they can provide. Consumers need to demand better – but do they know how?

    • David

      I’m curious if you know anyone who would happily ‘lose money’ on a development in the aim of architecture/planning/culture/lifestyle???

      And if you do, im curious what bank would fund a project that does not meet financial profit measures!!!

      Please dont get me wrong, I understand your comment and your disappointment that the almighty dollar gets in the way of a good development, I agree with you, but your post above gives me the impression there is an alternative..

  3. I have worked extensively on the Canning Bridge Precinct Vision for a number of residents and land owners in and around the Canning Bridge area. Unfortunately the main issue with the vision is not the vision document itself, its the misunderstanding of its content.

    If the document is read thoroughly, people will understand that the document DID (its final approval now has a cap on all height) have no height limit on the internal areas of the Canning Bridge Precinct. However, there were roughly 3-5 significant community benefits that each landowner (or in most cases developers) will need to provide to get the additional height. things such as financial contributions to a new bridge, active roof top locations, public parking stations and of course the giving of reserved land for road widening purposes). So although the vision will ultimately increase the scale or density of the development within the locality, it also has a number of mechanisms to ensure that a wide range of essential services that currently do not occur in the area are provided. I will also note these are all services and facilities that the government can not afford to provide.

    I think the easiest way to put this into context is as follows. The City of Melville’s Town Planning Scheme No. 5 currently DOES NOT have any mechanisms within in to ensure that developments/redevelopments within the Canning Bridge area provide any community benefit. all landowners are currently able to lodge and seek Approval for developments that ultimately give nothing back to the community. case in point, the recently completed (2-3 years ago) Domino’s,TAB,residential development behind the Macdonalds on Canning Highway. I would hate to think there would be anyone who would defend that development as giving anything to the community, not even a half decent building to look at. That development from my review of Minutes etc was basically compliant with the City of Melville Town Planning Scheme No. 5 apart from some supportable variations to car parking numbers etc. That is an example of a development that will infiltrate the Canning bridge area if support for the Canning Bridge Vision is not continued.

    If i lived in Applecross I would prefer to support some additional height that would come with a range of services and facilities, over completely market/financial driven developments like that mentioned above.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s