Step 2: Respond
» Write a letter responding to the Draft Redfern Waterloo Built Environment Plan
You’ve got from today until 5pm on 13 April, 2006.
Letters should be addressed to:
Mr Robert Domm, CEO
Redfern Waterloo Authority
PO Box 3332
Redfern NSW 2016
» Post a copy of your letter on this website
You can share your concerns with other residents who have already posted their letters on this site using the form at the bottom of this page.
March 7th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
I walk past Marian Park regularly, whenever I visit the Watertower building. This park has a peaceful, spacious ambience and provides an attractive buffer from the fast-moving traffic. It is a very pleasant green space for pedestrians to use, in the midst of inner-city hurly-burly.
It has always amazed me how such large, healthy trees manage to grow so well in this environment. But they do, and in doing so, improve the environment even more. There are several varieties of birds which use these trees; some, eg mudlarks, build their nests here in this park.
It would surely be a more positive, far-sighted approach for developers to consider this space and asset to any development of Redfern Station and the surrounding area, rather than fill it with more buildings!
Redfern desperately needs this green space to remain.
March 15th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
PLEASE do NOT destroy this urban oasis.
There are so few places left like this. Once this is gone it will never be replaced. To even consider removing this grassed area is criminal.
Why?? Doesn’t council have enough areas already visually destroyed?
March 21st, 2006 at 5:08 pm
The idea of developing huge buildings on this little park could surly be hatched only in the head of the bureaucrat who doesn’t live locally and doesn’t care a bit about people living around this small park !!! We, the local residents must do everything to stop this from happening!!! The council should developed that small park further by planting more trees, not contemplating even for a minute to destroy it !!!
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Mr Domm,
I am writing to you to object in the strongest possible manner to the proposed development of the little oasis that is Marian St Park between Margaret and Marian Sts Redfern.
This is a difficult letter to write as I am quite literally seething with anger. What I would like to do to anyone involved with this project is based on the more violent aspects of the movie ‘Casino’ - if you remember it. As we live in a relatively advanced society I am not going to resort to baseball bats and heads in vices, but that is the strength of my feelings.
My little oasis of green opposite the Watertower block is not huge, overly private or historically significant I suppose but I use the park daily for nothing other than going for a walk. It is the primary reason I bought this property. In fact I was taken by the uniqueness of the whole area - and it is being destroyed before my eyes.
I am appalled at the heavy handed and uncaring behaviour of the State Govt. There is absolutely no benefit for anyone at all by destroying the last remaining few native trees in ‘my’ little park. Why are you not looking at wrecking an area that is already aesthetically destroyed?
When I walk along the rail lines and down into this park I see the untouched remaining trees that would have been here 200 years ago that still exist. Why do you have to destroy everything here?
What should be occurring is amenity improvement - why destroy something that could be a beautiful native garden? With a tiny amount of money this could become such a feature. It is an absolute delight for me to feed the native noisy minors that inhabit this area - why can’t such animals be encouraged, not concreted. God knows how hard it is for anything other than cats to thrive in this environment.
Once my little park has been swamped by tall buildings it will be gone FOREVER. WHY? The only answer is greed. And that disgusts me.
If this proceeds you will have removed the only light source I have from my dwelling.
You will remove ALL light from the entire eastern side of this block.
You will destroy some of the last remaining original trees from the area.
You will have effectively turned my little unit into a Meriton apartment.
You will have tremendously increased the traffic in a quiet street.
You will have removed ALL the parts of this property that I hold dear.
You will have turned a small but pleasant view into a view of the road and property opposite.
You will have obviously massively reduced the monetary value of my property.
Sadly I have had to become legally aggressive to defend myself in the past and if this goes ahead I will of course be requiring adequate compensation for the loss of value these highrises will cause to my home.
I have just looked at your draft proposal again and I am absolutely gobsmacked that you are seriously suggesting EIGHTEEN storey buildings anywhere near here at all! AND ON A PARK!
There is absolutely no way to describe this as anything other than money grabbing ecological vandalism.
Maybe you look upon us as collateral damage. Maybe you believe that as only aboriginal communities live here no one will get upset or raise a finger to help save something special.
Redfern has a special character. If you have ever visited La Boca in Buenos Aires you may have an understanding of what can be achieved. I see Redfern as a place that one day will have an Eveleigh St full of brightly coloured terraces and Aboriginal markets and handiworks for sale as a tourist mecca. Seven and Eighteen storey buildings are inconceivable in such an environment.
To quote your words ‘the decline in population and the traditional industrial base has impacted on the area’s economic sustainability’ This is absolute rubbish, but probably could have been levelled at Paddington in the 1960’s. This area is in the middle of a transformation based upon its historical character and because of that character.
What has happened (as you well know) is that bigger business found smaller factories and warehouses unproductive and moved to much larger premises out West, which was made more viable by way long overdue improvements in transport. As these businesses left, the area reverted to a relatively higher proportion of residences as a natural progression. What you are trying to do is artificially change that and it shows a lack of understanding that is almost beyond my comprehension.
Any development to this area MUST be sympathetic to this residential revival or you will destroy all the character that local residents cherish and appreciate.
I have major issues with any 4 storey plus building in the entire area. I am simply stunned that you want 18 storey buildings and apoplectic that not only do want these hideous light stealing behemoths at all BUT YOU WANT THEM ON MY PARK!
I am a person who does occasionally make money out of property development among other things. I often have to fight council’s to see what I see in a project because of arcane laws and people with no foresight. I now find the same governing body being guilty of the most flagrantly unsympathetic development I have yet seen (including Mr Triguboffs finest) and in such a heavy handed and uncompromising way I am lost for words.
I will fight this hideous proposal in every way that I can.
March 28th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Dear Mr. Domm,
Re: Draft Redfern-Waterloo Built Environment Plan and its potential adverse impact on the residents of The Watertower, Marian St. and of Ariane, Rosehill St., Redfern.
Apart from the obvious and already widely condemned proposed vandalising of two of the already scarce patches of trees in Redfern, to be replaced with concrete and the token minimal amount of landscaping demanded by the rules, this proposal is an abomination in many other ways.
We are owners of a strata unit in The Watertower, 1-9 Marian Street, Redfern, and along with all residents of the Watertower, we are filled with dread by these plans to clear-fell the trees and enclose The Watertower with office blocks. Not only because it will obliterate this architecturally significant building from the Redfern horizon, but because it will also restricts The Watertower’s air and light. Another overlooked and impossible-to-calculate factor is the resulting increase in wind funnelling that already affects The Watertower’s upper floors.
But our principle concern is loss of Marian Street Park bounded by Marian, Rosehill & Gibbons streets, and the trees in the adjacent area to its north. Replacing these with steel and glass boxes of workers and residents will create chaos in many other ways for residents of Rosehill, Marian and Cornwallis streets.
e.g., vehicle access, already difficult due to the over-use of the ONLY route to The Watertower, Rosehill St., due to saturation parking, which was unplanned for when the Rosehill St. commercial sites were proposed, is already subject to the whim of one careless parker or indifferent deliverer. Our access will become secondary to and at the mercy of, an explosion of traffic in Rosehill Street, to service the high-rise buildings that used to be Marian Street Park. And please do not try to tell us “Sufficient parking will be provided”. They said this for the commercial buildings in Rosehill St., and now look at it in business hours. The size and the purpose of these buildings and the planned density of this whole Redfern-Waterloo project means saturation traffic in streets that are already too narrow; Cleveland, Lawson (esp. the railway bridge), Regent, Henderson Rd., Gibbons, Rosehill, and probably, as the only escape route from the inevitable Rosehill Street quagmire, Cornwallis St., which is also one-way, narrow, with no scope for widening to two-way traffic.
But the main issue here is the park and some few remaining trees in Redfern. The authors of this plan might think that sacrificing a few trees is “the price of progress”. Today, a few people might agree with them. But tomorrow, when they see what has happened, they will not.
As there will be losers from this project, there will be winners; politicians and other stakeholders, who will try to assure us with the usual doublespeak. “Trust us. We will plant new, shinier trees” and “At the end of the day, the bottom line is that in effect, the trees are only being transferred to a more compatible environment, where they will be much happier.”
After comparing feelings and reactions with other residents of both Watertower and Ariane (Rosehill & Margaret Streets), we can promise that any tampering with Marian Street Park will raise long-lasting bitterness and opposition, however impotent (until next Council and State elections), in this Redfern block.
Yours sincerely,
Gordon and Betty Phipps.
April 2nd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
I am utterly horrified that Marian Park will be destroyed under the current plan and replaced with buildings up to 18 storeys. I understood that part of the problem currently facing inner city residents was a massive lack of recommended green open space. As such I find it incomprehensible that the tiny patch of trees that make up our local green space can be threatened by development. This area may be small and therefore seen as unimportant in development terms, but I wish to point out just a few of the crucial things this tiny patch of green does for us as local residents.
The pollution created by the very heavy road traffic along Gibbons Street is already quite extreme. I have a coating of black dust on everything on my balcony and in my house through the open windows within hours of having cleaned it. As we all know, trees are helpful and efficient in absorbing pollution and cleaning the air. Without the many trees of our small park doing this work I dread to think how severe the pollution will become, and the decrease in local resident’s health which will accompany it.
I am lucky enough to live in a west facing apartment which gets sunlight in the afternoon which, among other things, feeds the plants which I grow both for pleasure and to help combat the pollution. If the proposals to destroy the park and replace it with buildings go ahead, I will lose all sun on my balcony, which will not only kill my plants but will make my apartment a very dark and depressing place to be. The office blocks will also have a lovely view of my living room and the loss of my privacy greatly concerns me.
Having consulted the draft plan, it seems that the ‘commercial core’ that I will suddenly be resident of contains two miniscule areas of open space. The Cope Street Reserve would be hard pressed to be called a park rather than a large bus stop, given that footpaths already concrete the majority of it. In actual fact, despite walking there almost daily, I did not realise it was supposed to be a park/open space until I looked at the Draft plan. Given that according to the draft plan the remains of Marian Park will be of similar size I don’t think anyone could argue it being a green/open space – it’s just a leftover awkwardly shaped triangle of land that can’t fit a building on it, with a lot more local apartment residents and office workers squashing in trying to pretend it’s an ‘open space’.
This park simply cannot be destroyed and I will fight this aspect of the proposal in any way I can.
I love living in Redfern. The area is unique in Sydney and the local character is vitally important to me and why I love the area so much. The stated aims of the RWA in regenerating the area are admirable, especially in retaining the character of the current community. I understand that new buildings to house new workers and shops and services are part and parcel of any urban renewal. However I have to say that the current plan does not seem to me to consider the current community character in any way. It looks to me (despite the cunning single trees masking the enormous buildings in the artist’s impressions of the new ‘civic space’) like the ‘new’ Redfern will be nothing more that a new Chatswood – a barren wasteland of paving, concrete and enormous buildings with nary a living thing in sight and a tomb-like atmosphere after office hours. As someone who often works until very late at night I dread the deserted concrete canyons I would be walking through to get home. If I wanted to live in Chatswood that’s where I’d live. I thought we were supposed to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them.
I understand that I live in the inner city and the convenience that I enjoy as a result balances the scales with the noise and the pollution and the other less attractive aspects. Yes Redfern Station is massively under-utilised given its volume of train traffic, yes there are social problems in the area that need addressing, yes there are areas which are degraded which can be improved. But decimating the local Aboriginal community, our open green space and our community identity does not balance the scales for the alleged benefits. I realise that there must be some developments that we won’t enjoy to get the community benefits we desire, but it seems that this draft gives us a lot of bad and no good.
I urge you to rethink the planning to take into account the community of Redfern. I’d rather have no development and no addressing of social issues than this monstrous proposal that gives the local community no benefits, only drawbacks.
And save Marian Park, for all of our sakes!
April 2nd, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Dear Robert,
In responding to a section of the RWA Draft BEP Stage 1, I write to you with a profound feeling of shock and anger, but not despair. By appealing to you with rational, cogent, heart-felt convictions and ideas, I write with hope and determination to influence some changes in the plan. In doing so, I make the assumption that both you and your team of planners are approaching this whole exercise with open minds, with a willingness to take on board recommendations from the community and react positively.
I believe some amendments to your draft plan are absolutely critical, not just for the local community of today, but for our society in general, well into the future.
I should begin by acknowledging that I am a resident of the Watertower apartment building (yes, people live in this building), on the 4th floor, eastern, Rosehill Street side, with a roof-top terrace overlooking Marian Street Park. I have had sixteen years of pleasure living at this inner city location (and for four years around the corner in Lawson Street before that). I chose to move from the eastern suburbs of Sydney, where I grew up, to Redfern. I have both gained from and contributed to living in this very multi-cultural, broad socio-economic community.
I agree that there are changes that could be made to improve the environment of Redfern/Waterloo, coupled with employment, educational, cultural and care provisions for my community.
However, I totally fail to see how (in fact I totally disagree with the concept) plonking a series of 18 storey office blocks, or any towers for that matter, here in the heart of Redfern and looming down Gibbons Street, can do anything for the people who live here except cause great grief; providing opportunities for residents from all over Sydney to train in to, at the expense of Redfern locals, is an anathema to me. We are a richly diverse community which deserves to be encouraged and protected, not trod upon. Sydney society will be the beneficiary.
As a Watertower resident I’m angered by the statement on page 50 of the draft RWA BEP which states ” the public domain within and around the site”,(Redfern railway station/Gibbons St) ” is unattractive and uninviting”. I say, take a look at Marian Street Park and the Watertower building.
In commenting on the draft BEP(stage 1), I want to address two issues in particular:-
1 The Preservation of Marian Street Park
At www.marianpark.net you can read the history of two previous struggles to prevent Marian Street Park from being subsumed and obliterated. There is also a cogent case outlined for the preservation of Marian Street Park ( with which I totally agree) and the absolute necessity to have the area ( bounded by Gibbons and Rosehill Sts ) REZONED as RESERVATION OPEN SPACE. The easement must be removed and the entire park gazetted and registered as PUBLIC RESERVE in perpetuity.
This should include the area in front of the Watertower building, north of Marian Street which is currently a bitumen covered area being use as a car-parking space, but planted with 28 trees and a further 47 outside the current fence line. It should be noted that this area was originally included as the park.
This is publicly owned land and should remain that way, as parkland (social capital). We should never be considering selling off publicly owned land, covered with trees, and planning to replace the existing treasured green space with privately owned tower blocks.
Public awareness is very mature these days in relation to the invaluable social importance of URBAN GREEN SPACE. Some important battles have been fought and won. We are fighting hard to win. The community needs this green lung of mature trees (so do the variety of 20 kinds of birds seen here). We need it for health, recreational and aesthetic purposes.
Surely any rational human being doesn’t need to be convinced in this day and age about the philosophical and scientific questions around green zones.
a) My personal experiences of living adjacent to this park are numerous
—SKY GAZING -sunrises, sunsets, glorious cloud formations, rainbows, storms lightning, moon rising, star gazing
—TREE GAZING -light and movement in the foliage, 20 different kinds of birds, foxes, observing enormous growth in the trees over the years
—PEOPLE GAZING - elders strolling, kids playing, parents with youngsters in buggies and babies in prams, cyclists, walkers, luncheon on grass, people reading, resting, meditating, chatting, walking their dogs, waiting for friends, workers traversing or hurrying by, or even praying
—CITY GAZING - north through trees to City of Sydney skyline
—LOCAL ENVIRONMENT GAZING - daydreaming, mentally resting, spiritually nourishing, aesthetically replenishing
—SOAKING UP SUNLIGHT, not shadows
—SENSUALLY EXPERIENCING THE NOR-EASTERLY BREEZE
ALL THIS WILL DISAPPEAR if you plonk 18 stories, or even 7 stories on the site.
b) Park utilisation is also about it JUST BEING THERE, bearing witness to nature - providing a green lung for our body’s health, but also a green visual space for our peace of mind.
c) The look of the park changes with the shifting light throughout the day and throughout the year. It can provide an aesthetically nourishing experience for those people who reside or work nearby as well as be a delight for occasional visitors to the surrounding area.
Even the thousands of motorists who pass by each day, often stuck in long traffic jams next to the park, can experience some calm and solace from the green zone of Marian Street Park.
d) I read recently that parks/gardens are a growing part of the business landscape in New York. Architects and designers are finding new ways to use nature, for the beauty of a park/garden enriches and nourishes. It appears that putting nature to work is good business.
Parks/gardens can and should be an integral element with surrounding buildings
Therefore,RWA Planners, please take note, Marian Street Park should not only be preserved, but the area to the immediate north of the Watertower resumed as park and the whole area be enhanced and upgraded.
There are at least 20 apartment buildings which have been created in the area in recent years (from Lawson Square down to Henderson Road, Regent, Cope, Gibbons, Wyndham, Rosehill, Cornwallis and Garden Streets - of course bringing a greatly expanded residential population.
How could it even enter a single mind to consider removing an existing green space which has 150 plus trees amongst thousands of residents, as well as many more visitors who pass through this area on a daily basis?
e) 3 excellent examples of public parks which are very similar in area size to Marian Street Park. These three parks each have one busy road passing by a perimeter with two or three less busy streets on other sides - they are all surrounded by residential buildings.
- PUBLIC GARDEN OF MONTHOLON
79, rue La Fayette, 1X eme, PARIS, France - created in 1860’s 4571 square metres, bordering the grand boulevard, La Fayette - it has central lawns, magnificent plane trees, seating, sculpture, a small children’s playing area. It is an absolute oasis and enjoys both active and passive utilisation by all age groups. It was originally dedicated to the Parisian worker.
- HOLLIS PARK - 168-184 Wilson St, NEWTOWN - recently restored, this area is a neighbourhood favourite with its giant Moreton Bay Figs, native plantings, seating, children’s playing area. It, too, enjoys active and
passive utilisation by all age groups from sitting reading to kid’s birthday parties to friendly chit-chatting.
- ROYAL HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN PARK, PADDINGTON - Glenmore Road, from Brown Street to Begg Lane - a new public park opened in 2005 - dedicated to the community of Paddington, it occupies 0.5 hectares on the northern section of the original hospital site.Clover Moore describes it as “a valuable open and recreational space for a densely populated Paddington”. Any comparisons spring to mind?
2 Protection of the Integity of the Watertower Building
The WATERTOWER apartment building, with its eastern facade facing on to Marian Street Park, has a symbiotic relationship with the park - the integrity of both the park and building are intermeshed.
The Watertower is not listed asa heritage site, but it is regarded as having great historical and architectural significance. It was built in 1903 and is in the genre of buildings on the Everleigh site, the wool/bond stores and Powerhouse Museum. The building was originally the McMurtrie & Co Ltd making Macmur and Coo-ee boots and shoes - there were also many outworkers for McMurtrie in cobblers’ shops along Regent Street. Louis Stone in his novel, JONAH, refers to McMurtries as Packards. Sydney Theatre Company commissioned a two-act musical based on JONAH and ABC TV screened a mimi series based on JONAH.
The conversion of the building to apartments was carried out in 1984 and it is often referred to as a landmark conversion - at present it commands a majestic presence in the local environment. This is an all too rare quality in Sydney these days and so Sydney, let alone Redfern, needs to preserve it as such.
You can destroy a building in more ways than actually demolishing it.
I feel it is essential to preserve the current sightlines of the building:-
– NORTH - the front of the building can be viewed clearly and unbroken, all the way from Waverton, and also, straight down the railway line from Central Station, platforms 1 and 2
– SOUTH / WEST - wonderful view from west in the ATP, up past the 19th century iron watertower towards the Watertower building - n.b. this sightline is preserved
– EAST - from Regent & Gibbons Sts, through park to Rosehill St
– from the windows of the TNT towers too, no doubt
The Australian Technology Park has, in my opinion, done an excellent job in the preservation and re-use of the heritage buildings on the site. I especially like the protection and preservation of the industrial ’sculpture’ (largely connected to the 19th century locomotive building) and the accompanying excellent signage. I am proud to walk visitors (especially from overseas) here. It would be fabulous to be able to walk around other, nearby parts of Redfern-Waterloo and be as proud.
What about it planners?
I’ll finish by saying, parks contribute an important role as city populations increase and cityscapes expand - they help people find there some moments of serenity in this busy world. And of course, the trees help to contribute to our general health by counteracting the pollution in the atmosphere and the depleted ozone levels.
The RWA state on page 51 of their BEP that they want to be sensitive to the existing residential developments in the vicinity. They’d be on to an absolute winner by preserving Marian St Park and rezoning it as parkland forever. This could become a jewel in the heart of your plan.
Yours sincerely, ROBYN GORDON
* This letter includes 7 appendices showing photos of Marian St Park from a variety of angles ; plus an early 1900’s photo, as well as current images, of the Watertower building.
April 2nd, 2006 at 4:59 pm
BRIEF BACKGROUND
On coming to live and work in Redfern 20 years ago, the area appeared to have reached its nadir. Casual perusal of the Sydney Morning Herald’s real estate section at the time would reveal no houses or apartments listed for sale in Redfern – compare that with today.
We’ve watched and participated in the slow progression of the area; the ebb and flow of daily life and change.
We’ve lived with two state governments
We’ve been attached to two state seats – Marrickville and Bligh
We’ve lived with two local councils – South Sydney and City of Sydney
So we are used to change: both political, and in style and emphasis.
In recent years the pace of change in the local built environment has accelerated. This is due in part to actions by the State Government (e.g. Australian Technology Park, and two refurbishments of Redfern railway station), but more largely to organic growth by small developers, businesses and households under established and well-understood local government planning codes.
This change has increased, and to a certain extent altered, the local population. However within this structure serious and self-evident social problems persist.
It is well-understood and documented that the fundamental nature of public housing occupancy has changed in the last 30 years, and that tenants are more likely to be socially disadvantaged.
The indigenous population retains a strong presence in the area not only as residents, but also as providers and consumers of services (e.g. Aboriginal medical services). NB: Recent sensitive redevelopment of 35 Cope Street as an Aboriginal Community Aged Care Program Office and Centre.
RESPONSE TO THE RWA PLAN
At first glance, the RWA plan just doesn’t seem to make planning sense.
Some 35 hectares of mainly public land, held in trust for the people of NSW by the current State Government, to be intensively redeveloped for private sector profit.
As Wayne Parcell PSM, former resident of The Watertower, succinctly puts it: “The whole thrust of the plan is the sale of public land dressed up as a law and order and social policy to save the disadvantaged and less-privileged – essentially a wrecking ball dressed up as a mirror ball.”
One is reminded of the famous response emanating from the Vietnam War: “ It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”
The 70 pages of glossy brochure, written one suspects to attract developers, is a fundamentally flawed document. It is a vast array of assertions and assumptions littered with ‘feel-good’ statements, made with the purpose of deflecting criticism and in-depth analysis.
The Human Services Plan “sets out a framework for improving access to health, education, employment and other essential human services in Redfern and Waterloo.”
The real question is: Will these mantras be delivered by the transfer of public land to private ownership – the development of 440,000 sq ft of medium and high-rise tower blocks to accommodate 18,000 business jobs?
The plan is littered with anomalies. Take the artistic vision on page 4:
FANTASY: Redfern Station / Plaza / People sitting, chatting. Note the four-lane highway with half a car in sight.
REALITY: Windswept area bisected by Gibbons Street double set of traffic lights, funnelling a high volume of cars, trucks and emergency vehicles into City-South, Redfern-East and Darlington areas, Truck noise, breaking and fumes are also deceivingly absent.
The supposed Redfern gateway Plaza straddles two main roads: Gibbons Street and Regent Street. How will the intransigent RTA solve these problems?
CONCLUSION: Ridiculous
It is impossible to critique in detail such a voluminous and complex plan, however I think two areas are in need of special pleading:
• The Marian Street Park, that area of well-trodden green open space bounded by Redfern railway station, Gibbons and Rosehill Streets’, and adjacent to Marian Street.
• Cope Street Park, that area of roughly grassed, tree-fringed open space adjacent to the former Redfern Public School, butting Cope and Phillip Streets’.
MARIAN STREET PARK
First let me declare my special interest, living as I do on the top floor, Eastern face of The Watertower. The park commences on the other side of Rosehill Street less than 20 metres from our apartment terrace. The top of a mature gum tree is framed by our living room windows.
The open space provided by the park allows sunlight to flood in. The north-easterly breeze provides welcome relief during the warmer months.
The lack of buildings to the east and north-east provides for special delights:
- a tiny glimpse of a curve of the harbour bridge
- being able to see part of the city skyline and central railway clock tower when eating on the terrace at night
- being able to cultivate a garden
- watching the setting sun strike the western face of the Telstra Tower building, the Waterloo flats; and then slide across the buildings in the middle-distance
- seeing in part the photograph on pages 8 and 9 of the RWA brochure
- being conscious of changing cloud and weather conditions
- seeing sunrise and moonrise over a middle-distance, disparate landscape
The RWA proposes to destroy this ‘green lung’ with adjacent 18 and 5 storey buildings to the east; and 18 and 7 storey buildings with active street frontages to the north.
The Watertower is a 100 year-old iconic, industrial building was redeveloped in the early 1980s and now contains 65 apartments. Ariane is a new, lower building which houses 54 apartments sitting neatly to the south. Both will be drastically affected.
If the current plan procedes, the loss of amenity will be enormous:
- total loss of sunlight, breeze and privacy
- total loss of green open space
- visual pollution from the rear of the new commercial buildings
- 24 hour bright artificial light intruding into living and bedroom areas
- noise from deliveries and services
The Watertower is a majestic building. Its size and dominance in the landscape, due to the open spaces around it make it one of the most important industrial buildings in Redfern; and along with the Turner/Renwick Streets’ electricity generator building, the most important in private ownership. It should rank alongside the Harris Street woolstores.
The fact that such a building has high visibility is important. One can see it: standing on platforms 1 and 2 at Central Railway Station, looking south down the tracks; driving up Gibbons Street; travelling through Redfern by train; walking to Redfern station from the Australian Technology Park, and; standing in Marian Street Park.
The Watertower is part of our built heritage. To surround and squeeze such a building with unwanted, unnecessary and dominant high-rise development would effectively remove it from the local landscape and community.
Marian Street Park, including that area touching the railway site now alienated by its use as a car park, is beyond price. It should form the focus of any sensible redevelopment in the area.
Inner-city green space must never be removed or destroyed. It must be nurtured for the present and greater public good. Once built on it will never be replaced. Shannon Reserve, Surry Hills; Camperdown Memorial Rest Park, Newtown – what great value these areas provide to their neighbourhoods.
• Marian Street Park is crucial to a mature, well-planned Redfern.
• Sensible planners recognise that people use such areas now, and will cherish them in the future.
• Rather than destruction, the park needs extensive landscaping to become a focal point for the local community. (For a more detailed backgrounding and arguments for open space retention, see Appendix 1.)
COPE STREET PARK
This park has over a long period, acted as a playing area for Redfern Public School.
To state, as the RWA Draft Plan pg.62 does:
“The majority of the site is not used … access to the playing fields … has been boardered up,” is inaccurate.
Access has been continual via the pedestrian link between Redfern and Phillip Streets’. A further pedestrian link has been informally established between the housing commission towers and the Regent Street shops. This link is used by numerous people every day.
All the generic arguments for green open space retention apply as for Marian Street Park.
With minimal vision one can see such an area becoming an active space for children and adolescents from the high-rise flats, perhaps in conjunction with local sporting clubs. It could also emerge in part as a passive area for adults to meet, greet, exercise themselves and their animals – another ‘green lung’ for future generations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Accept and embrace the history and heritage of the area as outlined in 2.3, ‘Heritage and History’.
• Demonstrate to existing residents that housing, jobs, education and training can proceed without gross overdevelopment and environmental destruction.
• Encourage the area to grow organically within the present planning codes and building regulatory regimes.
• Develop user-friendly access to Redfern railway station platforms
• Improve links between Redfern railway station and the Australian Technology Park, including the proposed bicycle/pedestrian cross-track link.
• Develop a green bicycle/pedestrian link on or adjacent to the railway land between Redfern station, City Road and Central station.
• Reserve and extend all green open space:
- Marian Street Park should extend from Railway exit on Gibbons Street, south to Boundary Street. It should be owned and managed by the City of Sydney Council
- Cope Street Park could be both an active and passive recreational area, owned by the Council, and perhaps managed by local sporting clubs.
• A reaffirmation of the difficulties faced by The Block, and a concerted effort to resolve them in a manner acceptable to the wider indigenous community.
April 5th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Dear Mr Robert Domm CEO
Redfern Waterloo Authority
PO Box 3332
Redfern NSW 2016 April 3,2006
As an owner and resident I strongly object to the building of a 18 story building and or a 5 story building on the Marian Park site.
The buildings being placed in the middle of residential buildings which are only 4 stories high is unconscionable. Since most of the surrounding buildings are residential and under 10 years old it is unlikely they will be developed to mirror the 18 story but it will be an eye sore out of place.
There is a major concern among those of us living in buildings adjacent about the support viability for just a high heavy building. As the sub terrain is undermined by train tunnels. All local buildings of only 4 stories feel most trains going under. As this is experientially reverberated upwards, the concern for stability grows with each story added.
Your proposal that it will invigorate the area and stimulate growth is flawed. There is no support for office space or new units as there is already an over abundance of units in the area a true glut on the market with more nearing completion. AS for commercial space local buildings are having difficulties finding tenants now. There is no parking or infrastructure to support the number of people which would populate an 18 story commercial building.
It is currently the only non-metered parking available to local residents and that is only on 1 side of the street. Tenants in the area have all been denied resident parking permits as the council says no parking was intended for residents. Wyndam/Gibbon Street is the main arterial road from the airport into the city through Waterloo and Alexandria. These buildings will be built with no consideration for parking.
It also is taking the remaining ground absorption area for rainwater. The three buildings approx (150 units) already have a problem with run off water from the storm water drains back flooding our parking garages in heavy rain as the system is undersized, parts are unreachable and as more bare ground is eliminated by new buildings the bigger the problem. Now you want to eliminate one of the last two blocks of ground area, the larger one.
There is no consideration fro the 15 or so Lorikeets, 4 Rosellas, and 1 Kookaburra who live in the strip. It is hard enough to encourage native birds into a concrete jungle without eliminating one of the last strips of 150 trees.
There is also a concern it will create a wind tunnel and trap the auto emissions and funnel them straight into the existing units. Wyndam/Gibbons is a very busy 4 lane one-way street. It will increase the risk to asthmatics by increasing air pollution and limiting tree absorption of the same. Stand next to the T&T building and note the wind activity. Move 1 block down and note the difference. It will severely limit the natural light any of the current tenants get.
Sincerely
Casey Kimes
Owner Unit 26
13-23 Gibbons Street
Redfern
April 6th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Dear Mr Domm,
Re: Proposed Built Environment Plan – concerning the Marian Street Park
I am writing this in response to the RWA’s request for comments on its Draft Built Environment Plan (Stage One) released in February this year. I am horrified by the Plan’s proposal to build business towers surrounding the Watertower, my home for the past nineteen years.
As a student of culture and art, I have enjoyed a sense of history and cultural diversity of Redfern, as well as its proximity to the city. Over the nineteen years, I have seen welcoming changes in the area, particularly the sensible development of ATP, new residential apartment blocks nearby and the Redfern Community Centre at the Block.
I attended functions at APT, including a conducted tour of some of the old buildings that had been refurbished to house the centre for latest technologies. I have always admired the heritage-conscious approach to the whole APT development, and have felt proud to live right next to it, in another old warehouse building imbued with the sense of history as well as of now and future. The increasing residential apartment blocks have brought ‘lived-in’ feel to the area. I have also attended functions at the Redfern Community Centre, including a photography exhibition, and evening fitness classes (until a back problem prevented me from continuing).
The spontaneously grown community of Watertower residents has been inclusive, supportive and informative from the moment I moved in. Perhaps it was natural that people who chose to live in the Watertower, despite generally negative perception of the area, share similar values. I believe that the character of the building, its landmark significance, has played a major role in these values.
I live on the eastern side of the Watertower, overlooking Marian Street Park, the stretch of green space between Gibbons and Rosehill Streets and including the northeast of the building currently used as car parks. The trees and the soil in the park are food source to many resident and visiting birds. I see Rainbow Lorikeets, Red Wattlebirds and Noisey Minors feeding on flowering gums, banksias, wattles, grevilleas and other flowering native trees. During the last ten years or so, Rainbow Lorikeet has been on the increase, thanks to the growing number of native flowering trees in the area. Common Ibis feed on worms after rain, and so do kookaburras – I saw three kookaburras last week, catching worms/grubs, defying protests from the territorial Noisey Minor. The large gum and plane tree on the western side of the park have been home to Peewee families. My neighbours and I have watched chicks grow in the nest. The parent birds would regularly take pieces from hanging baskets on the fourth floor balcony to make/repair the nest. They survive on insects and worms in the park, as do other birds - Swallows, Wrens, Willy Wagtails, not to mention Magpies and Currawongs. Other occasional visitors include Sulphur Crested Cockatoo (and, recently, Corella), Yellow Winged Honeyeater, Silver Eyes, Galah, Koel and Bul Bul. At night, we also see and hear fruit bats.
I have taken such comfort from seeing and listening to those birds amongst the traffic noise, alarms and sirens during the nineteen years I have lived in this building. The precious piece of nature has provided me with a buffer against various stress associated with inner city living. I cannot imagine life in the Watertower without Marian Street Park.
Yet, your Draft Plan proposes to build an 18-storey business building on this green space. At least five apartment blocks currently surround the Park, and we would all not only lose the buffer and relief from stress but also be confronted by concrete structures whose occupants would be unlikely to care about the environment of the area – they would ‘only work there’. You and Mohini stated that the Plan was designed to bring back population in Redfern – do you mean a ‘daytime population’, or people who actually live in Redfern, who would suffer and might leave the area if such buildings materialise? The psychological benefits of feeling close to nature are not always obvious, and I am afraid that many residents of the apartments around the Park may not be aware of them until they are gone from their lives.
I attended the meeting when you visited the Watertower on 13 March, and was disturbed by the implication of your comments: while stressing that the Plan was a ‘draft, and subject to a review’, you managed to present the it as a means to ‘improve the local business and provide training to disadvantaged people in the area’, as if to say that opposition to the 18 story business tower outside my window would be a selfish attitude that would deny local communities opportunity for improvements.
I do care about the local community. The question is: would my putting up with living on the back of a business tower, losing the sun, not being able to open the window for fear of being looked into, and coming home in the evening to deserted streets etc. guarantee revitalisation of the local community in return? I do not think so. I am an art historian and former museum worker, and do not have expertise to suggest or argue an alternative plan. However, listening to other technically minded people in and outside the Watertower has convinced me that a more sensitive approach to local characters and heritage, as demonstrated by the ATP project, is not only possible but makes better sense in terms of the economy, location and needs of the community. Why not, for example, take advantage of the visible heritage that is the Watertower as one of the landmarks of Redfern?
I have moved from Japan to Australia nearly 30 years ago. Although I retain Japanese citizenship for legal and family reasons, I do not intend to return to Japan to live. Australia has given me a lot and I would like to think I am now giving it back. I deeply value the inclusive and diverse community in and outside the Watertower. Your Plan, as it stands, would shatter my feeling of belonging to it.
I hope you reconsider the Plan and retain Marian Street Park area as an example of people-friendly, heritage-sensitive development.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Chiaki Ajioka
April 6th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Hon FRANK SARTOR MP
Minister for Redfern-Waterloo
Minister for Planning
Level 34 Governor Macquarie Tower
1 Farrer Place, Sydney, NSW 2000
Dear Frank,
My first two personal encounters with you were both a surprise, but then amiable and rewarding.
The first was in the late 1980’s when my husband and I were living in a tiny house in Lawson St Redfern. As a city councillor you came door-knocking, at night, to enquire what we as residents would like to see as improvements in the area. Our answer was a library, more green space and less heavy traffic in Lawson St. We were impressed by your efforts.
The second time was in the 1990’s when you were Lord Mayor of Sydney - we met on the steps of the Sydney Opera House after a free performance there for the Sydney Festival. I had my young niece and nephew from Lismore with me and they (both now graduates of Sydney University and residing in Sydney) still remember the animated and genuinely enquiring conversation you had with them as country kids.
I can only hope that in 2006 my third encounter with you, now as Minister for Planning and Minister for Redfern-Waterloo, will engender an equally satisfying result for me.
Re the RWA DRAFT BEP
I know you will not have time or opportunity to read all of the letters sent in to Robert Domm as CEO of the RWA.
Therefore, I’m including here for you:-
1) My submission to Robert Domm which includes a visual response and a series of photos.
2) A copy of a document prepared by the Marian St Park Preservation Group on the history of
the park, 1996 - 2000.
The bottom line is, I’m asking you to prevent any building development (18 storey or otherwise) on this green lung and to rezone it as open space parkland in perpetuity. This area could be upgraded and become a sparkling centrepiece in any RWA BEP and be a fine legacy for the community today and citizens of the future.
Yours sincerely
Robyn Gordon
April 6th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Max Middleton 213 “The Watertower” 1 Marian Street Redfern 2016
Mob: 0418 484 211
6 April 2006
Mr Robert Domm CEO Redfern-Waterloo Authority PO Box 3332 Redfern NSW 2016
Dear Mr Domm,
DRAFT REDFERN-WATERLOO BUILT ENVIRONMENT PLAN (STAGE ONE) – FEBRUARY 2006
I am opposed to the over-arching control of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority (RWA) and its blatant inadequacy of governance in protecting the interests of the existing residents and businesses. This authority is akin to the draconian feudal laws that existed in the middle-ages in England.
I object to the proposal plan on two main fronts. The first is RWA’s disregard for how a dramatically changed environment will impact on the habitat of existing residents, including myself. The second is RWA’s misguided claims of providing a strategy that will “challenge the area’s social and economic disadvantage by fostering jobs, educational and life opportunities and a higher standard of living.” (Refer p2. “Redfern-Waterloo: On the threshold of revitalisation”.)
My first objection is based on the fact that I have lived in The Watertower apartments for over 20 years – with about 120 wonderful like-minded fellow residents in a building and an environment that engenders a community spirit that would surprise most. It is no coincidence that the long term residents at The Watertower and other nearby dwellings support the notion that peaceful and harmonious communities are nurtured by creating village type places and buildings, shops and housing that are consistent with those places and objects that have aesthetic and historical significance value for future generations as well as for the community today. This includes open park-like spaces for them and their families to live, work and play.
I wonder what your personal reaction would be if there was a proposal to erect three 18-story buildings towering three times the height of your residential apartment building in close proximity to one side with another 7-story building immediately adjacent to another side, and thus entombing your home with reduced light and outlook, and at the same time obliterating one of the few open green spaces remaining. Think of North Sydney by night or weekend – an unattractive lifeless concrete wasteland comprising of many office buildings with little to no residential opportunities and no open green space. That’s our new Redfern if the RWA get their way!
Quote from p2: “Redfern-Waterloo: On the threshold of revitalisation”……..
“It is imperative that the local community is a major beneficiary of the urban renewal program and all of the planning is being directed to this end. This is particularly the case with the more disadvantaged sections of the community, where unemployment and welfare dependency are major factors.”
“Fundamentally the draft Plan is aimed at ensuring that benefits gained from redevelopment and economic prosperity are shared by the whole community, especially local residents and businesses by facilitating:
• The provision of about 18,000 jobs
• The construction of about 2,000 new dwellings which will provide greater housing choice, demographic and socio-economic mix and is supported by an affordable housing program
• An upgraded Redfern Railway Station, civic square and public domain improvements promoting better amenity, safety and surveillance
• the establishment of cultural and community facilities
• the improved opportunities for the establishment of Aboriginal enterprises and cultural facilities
• high quality urban design and architecture”
I fail to see how selling off green space, i.e. “Marian Park” will benefit the local community; to most, it clearly provides generous commercial opportunities for “big” developers and adds substantial funds to the State Government coffers. Although not strictly designated as a park, this recreational area has for more than 20 years provided a little ‘breathing’ space for the enjoyment of people living in a high density residential area. It’s preposterous to think that massive 18-story buildings on this space can compensate in any way.
My second objection is based on my valid observations of living in Redfern for 20 years. I have lived through all the problems and issues associated with the prevailing disadvantages and low socio-economic standing of a large number of its people.
However, with the ‘natural development and progression’ of the area in the past few years, I have witnessed a gradual overall improvement to the working demographics and a substantially reduced level of crime and anti-social activity. This is attributable to the attraction of an increasing number of higher socio-economic level workers who are taking up work and housing opportunities in the area. (For example, the opportunities that have been created by Australian Technology Park and housing provided by numerous newly developed dwellings). This natural progression has been positive and beneficial to all existing and emerging residents and businesses.
I do not agree that your claimed 18,000 jobs will provide any real work opportunities for the welfare dependent and unemployed in this community. Rather it will attract more corporate type workers from other areas and leave these people no better off. Of course the ‘gainfully employed’ demographics will show improved levels. That is a statistical spin!
Furthermore, I believe that the proposed radical development changes will drastically intensify the levels of individual marginalisation due to greater exposure to the disparities between ‘the haves’ and ‘the have-nots’. This situation would be exacerbated by the proposal to increase affordable housing to levels beyond what is currently considered exceeding optimum. These factors will lead to desolation and higher levels of anti-social behaviour and undermine the community aspirations and social gains achieved to date and potentially in the future.
There are many aspects of this proposal that have not been considered adequately (and some not at all), particularly relating to the environmental impact relating to space, light, noise, traffic and the ‘real’ demographic and socio-economic effects to this area if this plan is to proceed.
I implore you to think carefully about the true and far-reaching impact that this sweeping proposal will have on the ‘now’ people of this community and their futures and take appropriate action to have this plan reformed based on the voice of the people who really matter.
Max Middleton
cc.
Mr Frank Sartor MP
Ms Clover Moore MP
Ms Kristina Kenneally MP
Dr Meredith Burgmann Duty MLC
Ms Lee Rhiannon MLC
Ms Sylvia Hale MLC
Ms Verity Firth Deputy Load Mayor of Sydney
Mr Tony Pooley Councillor
Mr Michael Lee Councillor
Mr John McInerny Councillor
Ms Tanya Plibersek MP
Mr Peter Garrett MP
Ms Sue Kennedy, Total Environment Centre
E M Farrelly, Sydney Morning Herald
Debra Jopson & Gerard Ryle, Sydney Morning Herald
The South Sydney Herald
Prof David Richmond, RWA
Mr Michael Collins, RWA
Ms Marcia Ella-Duncan OAM, RWA
Dr Col Gellatly, RWA
Mr Richard Johnson MBE, RWA
Ms Samantha Mostyn BA LLB, RWA
Ms Lucy Turnbull LLB MBA, RWA
Ms Jennifer Westacott BA, RWA
April 6th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Warren Smith, 214 “The Watertower” 1 Marian Street Redfern 2016
Mob: 0425 235 045
6 April 2006
Mr Robert Domm CEO Redfern-Waterloo Authority PO Box 3332 Redfern NSW 2016
Dear Mr Domm,
DRAFT REDFERN-WATERLOO BUILT ENVIRONMENT PLAN (STAGE ONE) – FEBRUARY 2006
I’m writing to express my serious concerns at the Draft Redfern-Waterloo Built Environment Plan.
‘Environment’ suggests a concern about or an emphasis on enhancing the local environment; where in fact your plan removes several green areas, including the Marian Street Park which is adjacent to the building in which I live; The Watertower. In a suburb that has precious little green spaces and sporting facilities, I find it staggering that you can suggest reducing this valuable and limited resource at all!
How can you imagine that bring thousands of commuters into the area is going to enhance it, or improve the quality of life of its residence? A massive movement of people in and out each day will do little to make this a better place to live. In contrast it will increase the pressure on already stretched resources.
These plans can only;
1. Increase air pollution, while at the same time reducing green spaces and destroying the few remaining trees, which can help combat carbon monoxide pollution.
2. Increase noise pollution.
3. Reduce the natural light, which many buildings around your ‘development’ currently enjoy.
4. Destroy the unique heritage emphasis of the old warehouse buildings in the area, including The Watertower, Redfern Station and Australia Technology Park.
5. Increase traffic to the area, which as a major arterial link to the airport are already congested by considerable excess traffic already.
May I remind you that the State Government has a responsibility to look after all of it’s people, which includes myself and my neighbours. In fact, more than a responsibility, you are in fact responsible and answerable to us. As the people who vote the State Government into power, I’m staggered by the hard nosed tactics I see being introduced in this so called ‘consultation process’. I have lived and work in African countries over the past 2 decades, and these sort of antics are frankly what I would expect of an African country run by a Dictator, where blatant disregard for its people and environment are the norm. I feel like I’m dealing with a Dictatorship, where my opinion, local environment and amenity are completely disregarded for the obvious benefit of commercialisation.
Redfern is a unique area, with it share of problems and issues, I agree - and I would support and encourage any actions to improve the area by working with the various groups of people which call Redfern home. However, to bastardise the area with massive high rise commercial developments couldn’t be more detrimental. This will destroy the village feel that many of us experience and enjoy living in this area.
Warren Smith
cc.
Mr Frank Sartor MP
Ms Clover Moore MP
Ms Kristina Kenneally MP
Dr Meredith Burgmann Duty MLC
Ms Lee Rhiannon MLC
Ms Sylvia Hale MLC
Ms Verity Firth Deputy Load Mayor of Sydney
Mr Tony Pooley Councillor
Mr Michael Lee Councillor
Mr John McInerny Councillor
Ms Tanya Plibersek MP
Mr Peter Garrett MP
Ms Sue Kennedy, Total Environment Centre
E M Farrelly, Sydney Morning Herald
Debra Jopson & Gerard Ryle, Sydney Morning Herald
The South Sydney Herald
Prof David Richmond, RWA
Mr Michael Collins, RWA
Ms Marcia Ella-Duncan OAM, RWA
Dr Col Gellatly, RWA
Mr Richard Johnson MBE, RWA
Ms Samantha Mostyn BA LLB, RWA
Ms Lucy Turnbull LLB MBA, RWA
Ms Jennifer Westacott BA, RWA
April 9th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Mr Robert Domm
CEO, Redfern-Waterloo Authority
Re: Draft RWA Built Environment Plan
10 April 2006
Dear Robert,
I write to you in response to the Draft Built Environment Plan released by the RWA in February of this year.
Whilst the scope and good intent of much of the plan is noteworthy, I have some significant concerns – notably those relating to the elimination of vital green open space.
Please find attached a more detailed elaboration of my objections, and please consider them in the further development of the Built Environment Plan.
Sincerely,
Stephen Paillas
My background
I have lived in the inner suburbs of Sydney for four years. I hold a degree in economics and social science, and completed an honours thesis in the discipline of Political Economy in the 2005 academic year.
My interest in the RWA Plan is twofold:
It is direct and personal in the sense that it affects me; particularly the development of Redfern railway station and adjoining areas.
It is also a philosophical and intellectual interest. I hold strong beliefs in social, economic and physical planning which prioritises sustainability and equity, and does not subordinate them to commercial imperatives.
Commendations of the RWA’s approach
With some of its stated objectives, the Built Environment Plan, and the Redfern-Waterloo Plan more broadly, show a genuine interest in improving the local urban landscape and improving living conditions for currently marginalised local residents.
Pages 2 and 10 of the B.E.P discuss the aims of holistic and sustainable planning; and community and cultural development respectively.
The merits of these objectives are widely agreed upon. They include benefits of reduced socio-economic inequality and social alienation, and a reduction in crime and anti-social behaviour. Improved outcomes in these areas could undoubtedly be realised in the Redfern-Waterloo area, given the right approach.
Problems with the RWA’s plan
It must be strongly stated however, that the B.E.P’s approach to these goals of sustainable and equitable development is misled, and has the potential to do more harm than good.
Upon my reading, there are at least two ways in which the RWA’s analysis of the Redfern-Waterloo area is insufficient, and as such is misguiding with regard to the plans that it has informed.
First, the plan seems to assume a direct and inevitable correlation between commercial development (at this stage unspecified) and secure, local employment growth. Further, it can be seen that much of the local cultural and community development is simply hoped to emerge from an increase in material prosperity.
There is no clause within any of the RWA documents which ensures these outcomes, nor any natural tendency for them to occur. To encourage an influx of economic activity – which the B.E.P does through both its proposed commercial and infrastructure developments – but not place controls on the nature of it is fraught with danger. Local, poorly-resourced and poorly-skilled residents will be excluded from any growth in prosperity, and worse still, may be squeezed out of the area completely.
Let us hope this is not the underlying agenda at play here…
—–
The second glaring error in the B.E.P is the distain with which green open space is treated. As an inner-city area in which such spaces are becoming increasingly scarce and valuable, the Redfern-Waterloo holds some priceless pieces of green open space.
These parks need to be preserved for the goals of sustainability and community and cultural sensitivity. The B.E.P purports to support these goals, yet the development it proposes threatens one of the most important parts of public open space in the area – that of the Marian Street Park, off the south-eastern corner of Redfern railway station.
The Marian Street Park is a vital component to the Redfern railway station and Australian Technology Park area. It provides great recreational, aesthetic and health value for local residents, local workers, and visitors alike; and the ‘green lung’ that the park constitutes is clearly visible in the aerial shot of the area on pages 64-5 of the B.E.P.
The thought that such a priceless piece of green open space, home to hundreds of trees, could be lost for 18-storey commercial towers is frankly quite absurd. As can be seen in the Sydney Morning Herald (27/03/06), local government and local residents have realised the value of public parks in the urban landscape. The RWA ought to realise this also.
Green open public space facilitates community and social development far better than exclusive office blocks. If the RWA really values the objectives of culture, community and sustainability, it must preserve such vital sites.
Urgent reconsiderations for the RWA
What the RWA needs most urgently to change is the hierarchical way in which it obviously views commercial and community objectives. It has been proven time and time again that focusing on achieving economic prosperity, and waiting for social benefits to ‘trickle-down’ is a completely inadequate planning approach. Hence to subordinate sensitive cultural and community imperatives to commercial ones is highly irresponsible and unsustainable.
The RWA Plan must more actively pursue growth in social capital and local community if it is to honour its own objectives.
The most pressing instance in which this revised approach needs to be applied is with regard to the Marian Street Park. The aesthetic, practical and health amenity that the park provides has clearly been all but ignored in the B.E.P. To lose more green open space to high-rise commercial development would be a devastating blow to the Redfern-Waterloo area.
If the RWA wants to be looked back upon fondly by future members of the area, it ought to preserve the Marian Street Park in its entirety. If it fails to do this, both a priceless public asset, and the faith of the community, may be permanently lost.
April 9th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
4th April 2006
Robert Domm
CEO Redfern-Waterloo Authority
PO Box 3332
Redfern NSW 2016
Dear Mr Domm,
I belong to a small but very vigorous association known as The Independent Scholars Association of Australia which regularly holds Seminars and Evening Conversations at the State Library of NSW. In August 2005 the ISAA Seminar was titled ‘Looking for Forests Seeing Trees: A Continent at Risk?”. This Seminar and a very important earlier ISAA Evening Conversation between Elizabeth Farrelly and Linda Burney, and specifically on the Redfern /Waterloo Project leave me in absolutely no doubt that the insidious disappearance of green space in cities and unwarranted logging of trees is both extraordinarily short sighted and ugly, but in public planning terms must almost amount to vandalism.
Honing in therefore on the idea which is being proposed for an 18 storey office building to be built on the Marian Street Park, it is difficult to even contemplate town planners of the 21st Century, with all the current information and knowledge at their disposal considering such a distasteful solution to the problem of accommodation within the new Redfern/Waterloo re-make. It would be so obvious to anyone looking at the site, that the green strip of parkland adjacent to The Watertower stands out in stark contrast to acres of concrete and asphalt and examples of previous planning mistakes in highrise housing. It must under no circumstances be encroached upon by such an obvious ‘quick fix’ solution to office accommodation. If there is no other solution than to build on this site then this will be a living testament to the paucity of vision, lack of real knowledge and good sense, and lack of responsibility to the general community of those who contemplate signing off on such a sterile and worthless plan. I cannot imagine this would be for you a preferred testament to your work.
It will also of course also be no surprise that I object to the grandeur of the Watertower building being diminished by having an 18-storey ‘modern’ architectural structure being placed so close to it. A major part of the strength of the visual impact of The Watertower is that it can be seen as sitting comfortably in its natural space. It is an ex-factory which was restored decades ago for inner-city living by people who had the vision of its innate elegance and they were justified.
As a Sydney citizen I think I am justified in asking you what moral right have you and your Authority to destroy something which is one of the best things about Redfern? Surely you must know that you are accountable, not just to your Authority but to the citizens of Sydney. The ‘big picture’ does not stop once the requirement of ‘the bottom line’ seems to be met for one specific planning exercise, because there should should always be whole-of-city planning.
Can I, and thousands of the silent majority, be assured by you, Mr. Domm, that the Authority of which you are the CEO will not act as an anonymous and faceless machine, but will ultimately be proud to put names and faces to plans for the re-working of Redfern/Waterloo because ordinary citizens’ objections have been listened to and acted upon.
Yours sincerely
Jane Burns AM
April 9th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Mr Robert Domm CEO
Redfern Waterloo Authority
PO Box 3332
REDFERN NSW 2016
Re: Proposed development between Rosehill Street and Gibbons Street (sic. Marian Park) as part of Built Environment Plan.
Dear Robert Domm
I bought into Ariane just over one year ago precisely because it had green space in Rosehill and Cornwallis Streets, both of which abut my building.
Your proposed plan to erect an 18 storey office tower, or any building, in Marian Park to “revitalise” Redfern is incomprehensible. You will be removing an area that contains over 150 trees. This is not “revitalising”, it is destruction. It would be destroying the very trees needed to help clean the air of the increase in pollution the extra traffic your proposed developments will no doubt create.
In addition Ariane and the WaterTower will face the back end of your towering “iconic building”. We residents will lose privacy, sunlight, clean air, easterly breezes on hot days, relative quiet from street noise and a green, natural environment.
Ariane is mainly populated by professionals and is approximately 80% owner occupied. Similarly, the occupants of the WaterTower are mainly professionals. Before they moved into the Water Tower, the building consisted of rented units. It was unloved, unkempt and showed it. Conditions have so much improved that there is now a waiting list to buy or rent in the building.
Many owners have expressed reservations about staying in Ariane or the WaterTower if Marian Park goes. Finding the idea of the back of an 18 storey tower with its car access, garbage bins and graffiti untennable.
On the other hand, I can’t help but wonder how many businesses will buy into your new tower when Ariane and the WaterTower revert to ghettos?
I love the cultural mix of Redfern. I love the village feel and human scale. Most people in Ariane and the WaterTower feel the same because we shop in Redfern and use its pubs, restaurants and facilities. You assume that we want Redfern to become like Central or Chatswood? Why would we want that? Personally, if I wanted to live in the CBD, I would have bought there. Chatswood used to be a great place to shop, but it has totally lost its humanity and now I would rather chew my arm off than go there.
If you are serious about developing Redfern why not think of the people who already live here? Surround us with buildings of a human scale and don’t remove buffer zones or green spaces. Give us places where we can sit at lunch time and our visitors can relax in the open. Rather than creating more dark alley ways that reinforce criminal activity, give us secure open spaces. Only a feeling of safety will bring people into the area; development alone will not do it.
Marian Park should not only be retained but developed as a park. As ratepayers we have, since 1989, paid to have Marian Park mowed and maintained by the South Sydney City Council. I therefore feel, that the land between Rosehill Street and Gibbons Street (known as Marian Park )should be transferred to Council ownership so that it can continue to be used in perpetuity for the recreation of Redfern residents. This will achieve the “excellent amenity, solar access and passive surveillance” you describe as your “general urban design principles”.
Sincerely
Julia Martin
Unit 13 Ariane
32-42 Rosehill Street
REDFERN NSW 2016
Cc
Frank Sartor
Maurice Iemma
Clover Moore
April 10th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Mr Robert Domm CEO
Redfern – Waterloo Authority
PO Box 3332
Redfern
NSW 2016
RE: Marian Park
Dear Mr Domm,
I am writing a letter to you in reference to the regentrification of Redfern and the affect it will have on Marian Park and the people of Redfern.
My partner and myself are new residents to Redfern, we moved here early March 2006. It was apparent from the first time we pondered the idea of considering Redfern as an area for us to relocate to that this suburb held many assets. It was incredibly close to the centre of Sydney, it has a great infrastructure, it held a wonderful sense of community and it has a lovely grassy area directly outside our building that enhances the welcome ambience that we instantly were aware of.
This green patch, also known as Marian Park, has people walking through it on the way to and from work, couples walking their dogs, kids playing, picnics on weekends and countless birds waking us up in the morning. None of which people naturally associate with Redfern, but has endeared the area to us even more.
It obviously distressed us greatly to find out that Marian Park, a hub for the community, has fallen victim to the so-called reformation of Redfern. The other changes seem to make sense. Developing the natural wealth of the area and improving many aspects of Redfern. But why does replacing our park with a 18storey building make any sense? This will destroy many trees, and take away the natural habitat of animals and birds that make Redfern so gorgeous to live in. A suburb of the city that almost feels suburban.
It is apparent, that like us, more and more people are moving into Sydney and we only have a finite amount of parks that to take one away is the wrong decision.
I do urge you on behalf of the Redfern community that you reassess the plans for Marian Park and leave us with the “green patch” that we call our own.
Yours Truly
Milli Howson
April 10th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Dear Mr Domm,
I am writing to you to discuss the regentrification of Redfern and the effects that it will have on Marian Park.
As a Redfern resident I am very pleased that the area is going to be given a new lease of live by the proposed plans. I am not, however, happy that these plans involve the destruction of some of Redfern’s much needed park life.
Any city in the world needs it parks. As a communal meeting place, as a source of beauty and a habitat for birds and animals. Marian Park provides this and much more to the Redfern area. Situated near to Redfern Station it provides some much needed beauty to an area, which is going to become very built up. To plan the removal of this grassy area and around 117 trees and replace them with an 18 storey business building is going against everything that the regentrification of Redfern is aiming to do. How can you bring beauty and community to an area by destroying on of the few areas in the suburb that already provides this.
The area around the park includes The Water Tower, Ariane and the Technology Park. All these buildings have been built and designed to fit in with their natural surroundings. Anyone who alights at Redfern Station is greeted with a picturesque area of businesses and residential abodes and a glorious park. A newly built 18 storey building will destroy the ambiance of the area and may well have the opposite effect and drive people away from the area. Who wants to live or work in an area under an imposing 18 storey block?
I very much hope you reconsider your plans for Marian Park. It remains a beautiful vista amongst the hustle and bustle of Redfern. It would be a crime to take away an area that provides so much joy to so many people.
Yours sincerely
David Michael Brown
April 10th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Mr Robert Domm CEO
Redfern Waterloo Authority
PO Box 3332
Redfern NSW 2016
Dear Mr Domm,
I was not aware we have been relegated to living in a dictatorial society? How disappointing to find a small handful of ‘elected’ officials, (who employed a number of ‘non elected’ folk) have declared themselves the purveyors of planned ugliness.
Perhaps there is a solution – I am not certain where the officials, planners, live. Perhaps they were imbibing, or on drugs, when they constructed the notion a skyscraper residential tower should replace the Marian Street Park, or, who have equally ridiculous plans for the Cope Street greenery – however, may I recommend they move the plans they are so keen to implement, and do so, to their area of residence? Far more logical as they seem so anxious to proceed with the construction.
Having lived in Redfern for many years, initially in the Watertower and now in Lacey on Regent Street, I am horrified at the total change of direction for the green areas as now dictated by the Redfern Waterloo Authority. Progress is essential – was there not a height limit for residential and commercial buildings in this area? Surely progress should be applied taking into consideration the well being of the residents of this area – current and future. Are you not aware Redfern has less green and open space than almost any other city suburb? I fully support an underground road with more trees on the streets, however, in no way would that compensate for stealing our green space.
A key factor in my decision to purchase my residential property in Redfern and commercial premises in Waterloo was the manner in which South Sydney Council considered all planning – I do recall residents had input and were listened to. Those were the days!
My view will be greatly obstructed - I love looking across to the Watertower and the trees - the only unsightly outlook is provided by the TNT towers - now it is your intention to totally spoil it.
The Council actually listened to the residents when making planning decisions. Unfortunately, although elected by the residents, they now have little say – perhaps we should explore the legality of the ‘takeover’ move by the Redfern Waterloo Authority?
I also recall when the Watertower was undergoing its transformation to units, the architect and developer were obliged to pay a considerable sum to the Council for the purpose of “greening” the car park opposite the Watertower (it was a public car park at that time, prior to being hijacked by the State Government and leased out) and to plant trees and shrubs.
I also recall admiring the creation of the Marian Street Park (prior to its creation there was an ugly collapsing fence separating it from Gibbons Street) - where have those thoughtful planners gone?
At one time I had a commercial building renovated to house my business, then in George Street Redfern, and with Council permission. I was obliged to pay a sum to the Council to provide funds to allow the Council to develop sufficient parking spaces, for my workers. With the hijacking of the area by the Redfern/Waterloo authority it would appear all residents/workers have been given little or no consideration.
The infrastructure for this area in no way could support such an increase in population – or traffic. Obviously you have not spent 20 minutes in peak hour trying to exit Cornwallis Street. Of course the fumes from the stationary vehicles with their motors running can lead to eye and lung problems – however, it would appear that too is immaterial. Of course there is a possibility some may catch trains and some trains could even run on time, that is, if folk are prepared to stand during peak hour.
The State Government was elected to take care of State matters, not to dictatorially take control of the Redfern Waterloo area.
Why cannot we be allowed to retain the little green we have? Perhaps you could take advantage of your overseas trips and travel to Savannah in Georgia – one city that has capitalised on their green area rather than destroying it. We should be expanding green spaces, not stealing them.
Redfern has a wonderful mixture of people as residents - business people, retirees, students, pensioners, our own Aboriginals, folk from many different parts of the world. We are a community with a voice, please listen!
How could you so ruthlessly and arbitrarily decide to steal our community’s minute green areas?
Lynn McDonough
April 10th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
10 April 2006
Mr Robert Domm
CEO, Redfern-Waterloo Authority
PO Box 332
Redfern, NSW 2016
Dear Mr Domm
I am responding to the release of the Built Environment Plan for the Redfern – Waterloo area. I have been particularly distressed that the Plan shows little recognition that the area around Redfern, Regent and Gibbons Streets is already a residential area, with a strong and growing sense of community.
My family and I moved to the Watertower more than 20 years ago when it was first redeveloped as apartments. The Watertower is our family home, and Redfern is where we identify ourselves as belonging. The children (now adults) have grown up in Redfern, in the Watertower, and over time we have used a different mix of all the facilities of the local area – shops, medical services, schools, universities, playgrounds, parks and open spaces, public transport, cafes, restaurants, and galleries. I work nearby at the University of Technology, Sydney and can walk to and from work each day.
My mother-in-law lives nearby in public housing in Waterloo and this area is also her home. She uses an additional range of local services and facilities designed for the elderly and those with limited mobility and she also has a deep sense of the community that surrounds and supports her.
None of my family is opposed to development in the area. We have welcomed past improvements – such as the development of the ATP, the renovation and redesign of Redfern Station, and improvements to Alexandria Park, and our hopes for the area have risen with the opening of new shops, galleries and cafes, and fallen with the demise of more marginal activities that have not been supported by other needed development in the area. Personally, I am not opposed to high-rise development, but it does need to be well-considered and well-integrated with successful existing structures, ventures and activities, rather than driving out residents and their activities.
Residents in the area could provide you with a long list of developments that are needed – better access to Redfern Station for people with mobility impairments; better integration of Redfern with Chippendale / Darlington through reintroducing a bridge across the railway line; easier through routes for pedestrians moving across Regent and Gibbons Streets; street furniture that allows refuge from the wind and traffic; maintenance of our excellent medical and care services; easily accessible child care and schools; and, of course, preservation, extension and maintenance of open and green spaces. I would applaud schemes that redevelop the Block as affordable, well-maintained housing and other services for Aboriginal people, under Aboriginal management, and that maintain public housing and improve the quality of life for public housing residents. The current proposals for the built environment around Redfern, Regent and Gibbons Streets provide little hope that any of these outcomes can be achieved. The argument that the proposed development of multi-storeyed office blocks will provide employment for local people is spurious. Because we are so close to the city, and have easy and cheap access to public transport, we already have access to employment in many office blocks (often under-utilised) in the southern end of the city. Unemployment in the Redfern area will not be alleviated by building multi-storey buildings.
I am particularly concerned about the proposals to allow development of up to 18 storeys on Marian Park – the area of land bounded by Rosehill and Gibbons Streets, and partly abutting Redfern Station. Even though this area is not presently formally registered as a public reserve, custom and practice have seen it used as such for several decades. In an area that already has a very low ratio of green space to residents, the proposal to resume open, green space for high-rise development is unconscionable. I cannot believe that the person(s) who drew up the plan actually visited the area and saw the damage that would be wrought. I submit that Marian Park should be rezoned as ‘Reservation Open Space’, that the easement currently on the property is removed, and that Marian Park is registered as ‘Public Reserve’ in perpetuity in care of the local Council.
I am also concerned about proposals to allow development of up to 7 storeys on the block at the front of the Watertower. This block, currently used as a carpark, has been inaccessible to residents of the area for some time, but for many years it was a short cut for people moving between Lawson Street and Cornwallis Street and provided a pleasant, tree-bordered walk. Again, this space could easily revert to open, green public space with greater facilities for residents of the area and access to Redfern Station. The currently proposed development of this space, as well as the proposals for Marian Park, will have the severely detrimental impact of overshadowing the Watertower – resulting in many residents on the east and north of the building receiving no sunlight at any time. The proposed developments will also block or impede sightlines around the Watertower that currently link this historic building with other significant sites in the built environment – Redfern Station and the recycled industrial buildings of the Technology Park.
I have travelled internationally for work and have seen many examples of city developments that enable investment, growth and employment while retaining a city scale that integrates people’s everyday activities within the city. I’ve also seen examples of developments that have not worked – where business development has driven out residents and soulless cliffs of buildings have resulted.
What my family and I want is a Redfern that is habitable; where people have easy and familiar access to their community and its services and facilities, and where green, open spaces are easily accessible and well-maintained. Residents, rather than day-workers, help to build pride in community, and the preservation and enhancement of services and pleasant spaces for residents in the area is important for long-term sustainable development.
Yours sincerely
Lyn Shoemark
April 10th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
I have been a resident of Marian St, Redfern since I was eight years old, in 1985. Growing up in Redfern, Marian Park was always an important and sorely-needed patch of green space for children; I have continued to use the park as an adult, and would hope that the park will exist for future generations of my family to play in. I am therefore very concerned about the proposal to transform the only green space in the Redfern station area into a high-rise development.
You may be aware that the Marian Park has been threatened by plans for development in the past; over 15 years ago, as a child, I organised a group letter from young residents of Marian street to protest against plans to change the park into a transport hub. We won that battle, and the reason we won it was because the council and state planning authorities recognised the park was an important resource for local residents, and for children in particular, who are too small to travel easily to parks in Waterloo, Alexandria and Chippendale.
Mr Domm, if the Council recognised over 15 years ago that this park must be kept, how can this proposed redevelopment be justified when the area surrounding Marian Park has only become more populous in the meantime?
The only reason such a decision could be made would be to make profits by developing an already over-developed part of the inner-city, at the expense of current residents and tax-payers. Instead, I urge you to consider the needs of Redfern residents – both adults and children – and to retain Marian Park as a much-needed and greatly used community space.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Mr Robert Domm, CEO
Redfern-Waterloo Authority
PO Box 3332
Redfern NSW 2016
Wednesday 12 April 2006
Dear Robert,
I join with voices in the Redfern-Waterloo community to express disappointment, sadness and great anger as I begin to construct a meaningful response to my reading of the Draft Redfern-Waterloo Built Environment Plan (Stage 1) February 2006.
I fail to understand how the creation of an 18 story building on one of Sydney’s (surviving) precious open green spaces, Marian Street Park, can in any way facilitate the process of urban renewal and revitalisation in the Redfern-Waterloo area!
The RWA Plan describes activating, defining, appropriating, managing, supporting, reinterpreting and far too forcefully, developing the space that is Marian Street Park as well as other targeted areas in Redfern-Waterloo.
MARIAN STREET PARK IS ALREADY an active, defined, appropriate, managed, supported, constantly reinterpreted, and developed space (it has seen its fair share of landscaping and I dare say there is more to come!).
In support of this statement, I find that it is important to listen to how the community describes the place that we speak of. These words …breath, buffer, green lung, spirit, ideas, nature, feeling, recreation, peace, pleasure, health, access, native garden, urban oasis, open, local character, culture, cherish, light, air, harmony, solace, visual, silence, history, memory, social, community…what more meaning could possibly penetrate this space? What other structure could possibly continue to provide this experience to all who move through, witness, and live in proximity to Marian Street Park?
I am not a resident of the Watertower building, however I have close relations with many who are. It is a piece of built heritage. It does provoke a majestic presence that is a visual pathway to the CBD. It does trigger history and memory in this cultural, social, and politically diverse space in the inner city.
For this rich sense of place to continue to exist, the Watertower must remain to be seen! Nurturing these spaces and structures can connect generations, can educate and inspire generations; people share, protect, preserve and take responsibility for the welfare of their natural and built surroundings.
IT IS NOT THE HOUSES. IT IS THE SPACES BETWEEN THE HOUSES. Like the poet who wrote these lines (James Fenton in A German Requiem 1981) evoking memories without revealing them, we in the Redfern-Waterloo community are concerned with how the immediate development proposals will destroy a capacity for a space to tell its history.
Marian Street Park and the Watertower building hold an historically significant place in Sydney’s inner city.
I have hope.
Yours sincerely,
Ruth Paillas
April 13th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Download a PDF version of this submission, including photos and elevations
Paving Paradise to turn Gibbon Street into a Parking lot
Submission regarding the Redfern Waterloo Authority Draft Built Environment Plan
[Photo: The view towards Marian Park from the corner of Boundary and Gibbon Streets. Note this the last traffic light before the railway station (about 400m away).]
DRAFT PLAN AND SEPP AMOUNTS TO A BLANK CHEQUE.
There is so little information in the Draft Plan and SEPP that it effectively amounts to a blank cheque.
The Redfern Waterloo Authority is yet to indicate that it shares resident’s views on what is important and needs to be preserved or enhanced in rejuvenating the area. This plan was an important opportunity to prove commonality. To assure us that it not just a vanguard for developer land grabs.
The plan should be held over until more detail on how these height and usage zoning can be supported and their probable effects on the utility of Redfern Waterloo.
Significant change in traffic patterns
The bulk of the plan involves the rezoning of areas that have extremely narrow roads or that would affect arterial roads yet the plan gives no indication that these have been planned for.
These height and business zonings imply increases of thousands of resident vehicles and significantly more transient vehicles. Yet most of the roads in the area are so narrow that fire brigade vehicles cannot travel freely.
Logically many properties will need to be seized to allow for the widening of roads especially around the railway station.
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN POLLUTION PROFILE
The draft plan and SEPP should not proceed at this time as no consideration has been given to the significant changes in the amount of pollution created by changed traffic patterns along Gibbon Street and Regent Street.
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN NOISE PROFILE
The draft plan and SEPP should not proceed at this time as no consideration has been given to the significant changes in the amount of noise and the type of noise that the plans represent.
It displays no consideration of the
* Noise absorption that the Earth bank and trees provide
* The beneficial noises that the trees and birdlife provides to residents
* The effect of noise reflected off the new buildings.
* The additional traffic demands of the new buildings.
* The effects of the changed traffic patterns will have.
* The type and quantity of traffic that will be forced onto narrow side streets.
These changes will make Gibbon St. and the side streets surrounding the Marion Park “Penisula” increasingly unlivable, with increasing noise turning to mostly braking and acceleration noise.
DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT NOISE PROFILE
[Photo: view of Marion Park roughly where Margaret St. would cut across the park.]
Traffic between the region Gibbon St. between Boundary St. and Margaret St. REDFERN is mostly flowing, being one of the last great traffic runs before the city.
Three (3) lanes plus one lane parking (4 total) wide heading toward the city. Traffic is only stopped by the traffic lights in front of Redfern station at the top of the hill which are mostly in sync with the traffic lights at Lawson St.
There is significant amounts of traffic noise that existing buildings are not designed to handle. But as the traffic mostly whizzes past at close to 60 km/ hour, even the most extreme noise is fleeting. The booming bass of car stereos late Saturday nights fly past the apartments before any significant annoyance can take effect.
[Figure. a sectional view at the corner of Gibbon and Margaret facing the city..
Note the steep hill that Margaret St. is expected to travel across if made into a through road. Not to scale but the slope is an adequate representation]
[PHOTO: Marion Park from the Corner of Margaret and Gibbon Streets. Note that most of the parks usable space has been zoned for towers and roads.]
WEEKDAY SAMPLE OF NOISE FROM THE CORNER OF GIBBON AND MARGARET ST.
* On weekdays traffic noise on Gibbon St. starts at around 3:30am,
* 4:30am the traffic noise is loud enough to wake you up.
* 5:30am the noise is constant with occasional stationary moments. But traffic tends to trickle past.
* Sunrise: the morning chorus of the birds from Marion Park can actually drown out the traffic noise. Birds from surrounding parks fly in and all the local pet birds start chirping out their territory. This can last up to an hour when it fades I wake up and get ready for work.
* Upto 10 am traffic trickles past slow but constant.
* 10am Traffic starts flowing freely, extreme fleeting noise, residents can enjoy a day off work with the aid of headphones.
* 3pm Traffic starts slowing to Peak
* 8pm Traffic starts flowing; traffic flow remains constant with frequent lulls caused by the traffic lights at Boundary St.
* 11pm Traffic becomes increasingly infrequent
CRITICAL EFFECTS OF DRAFT PLAN AND SEPP
CURRENT DESCRIPTION OF MARGARET ST.
* Margaret St. is barely two (2) lanes wide.
* Two way street acting as a link road between Gibbons and Regent St.
* Currently Margaret St. is broken where it crosses Marian Park (between Gibbon and Rosehill St.).
* A removalist truck or taxi is enough to block Margaret St. causing sometimes entertaining altercations between frustrated drivers.
* Cnr. Gibbons and Margaret is a frequent location of accidents and near misses during peak hours.
* Margaret St. is a step climb from Cornwallis St. upto Rosehill St.
EXTENSION OF MARGARET ST TO BECOME A THROUGH ROAD
* Extending Margaret St. across the Park would mean a steep climb from Gibbon St. to Rosehill St. This would mean significant acceleration and breaking noise to traverse this climb.
* Margaret St. does not have adequate capacity to take the extra demands of the proposed towers and shopping plaza.
EXTENSION OF MARION ST TO BECOME A THROUGH ROAD
* Marian St. at three lanes wide is the only street wide enough to provide adequate capacity for the proposed towers, it would probably be the only street wide enough to feed the carparks necessary to support a shopping complex above the railway space.
* None of the side streets on the railway side of Marion Park are capable of taking the capacity that Marian St. could provide. This would result in congestion on that side of Marion Park.
SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF EARTH BANK AND TREE NOISE ABSORPTION
* The earth bank of Marian Park absorbs and diffuses significant amounts of noise.
* The significant numbers of established trees diffuse the noise as it reflects between the buildings either side of the park.
CHANGE OF TRAFFIC PATTERNS FROM MOSTLY FLOWING TO STOP / START
* Safe operation would require the addition of traffic lights at both Margaret and Marian St. frequently turning Gibbon St. into the proverbial parking lot. Traffic lights will cause Gibbon Street to gets upward of 4 lanes of braking, idling and accelerating vehicles. Significant increase in frequency and type of noise. Pollution from idling and accelerating vehicles.
* Traffic would bank up in Margaret and Marian Streets causing significant noise and pollution.
* The addition of significant cross traffic would have a detrimental effect on the arterial roads of Regent and Gibbons street. The resulting congestion would make the William Street lane closures feel like a Labor party fund raiser.
LOSS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONNECTION
* Marian Park has a significant psychological effect on residents.
* It provides a convenient park for locals to walk their pets, with the community that forms between pet owners.
* Abundant birdlife that roost in trees in Marian Park and trees above the existing railway station, can often drown out traffic noise and contrasts with the significant traffic noise.
* The proposed towers and road works would consume most of the park, leaving a small steep wedge of park land, that will be difficult for locals to enjoy safely.
* Most of the parks open space is immediately under the proposed 5 storey and 18 storey towers.
* No accounting for the climatic effect that the green space has on surrounding buildings.
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OF TRAFFIC NOISE AND POLLUTION
* As indicated previously the plan implies significant increase in vehicles.
* The plans imply that these vehicles will be moving through the area at slower speeds, with frequent stopping
* The plan gives no indication how the associated noise and pollution will be handled.
LOSS OF OXYGEN OUTPUT
* Marion Park has a significant number of trees; I suspect it has a marked effect on the air quality that residents inhale.
* The proposed towers and road works would remove most of the established trees leaving less than 20% of the current number of trees, mostly younger trees.
CONCRETE CANYONS INCREASE REFLECTED NOISE
[Figure. A before and after sectional view across Margaret St looking towards the city.]
* The proposed towers as indicated by the height rezonings would create a concrete canyon along the busiest part of Gibbon St.
* This would have significant effects on reflected noise, especially considering they would remove the absorption effects of the earth and trees they replace.
INCREASED RELIANCE ON AIR CONDITIONING
* Increased noise and pollution from the changes mean surrounding residents will need to close their windows.
* This will result in an increased reliance on Airconditioning.
* Many of the existing buildings have not been designed for airconditioning and strata restrictions will inhibit the installation of more efficient systems.
* I predict the increased usage of inefficient personal / room airconditioners.
TRAFFIC DEMANDS OF PROPOSED TOWERS
* The proposed towers as indicated by the height rezonings would create their own demand for car parks and service vehicles.
* If the towers were allowed to have vehicular access from Gibbon St. then it would cause traffic to slow around these entrances.
* Rosehill street is too narrow to accept increased traffic that these buildings can generate.
EFFECT OF RAILWAY TUNNELS ON SUBTERRANEAN CAR SPACES
* The area in around the railway station has the Eastern Suburbs railway tunnel that travels under the Marian St. Park.
* Towers built on that park will not have any subterranean space to provide suitable parking for their tenants. This will require them to consume above ground floor space for parking or utilize the minimal kerb parking.
LACK OF ABORIGINAL OPPORTUNITY AND INCLUSION
* The proposed plans seem to make good on various politicians suggestions of “bulldozing the block”
* The “Block” is historically a meeting area for Aboriginals from across the state, many of whom do not have adequate housing or access to telephones. Communications is by word of mouth and travels extremely quickly. Aboriginals can locate family members and accommodation, and pass important messages. This will not change simply because the block been concreted.
* As the Aboriginal community on Eveliegh St. is dispersed to nearby suburbs, such as Waterloo and Surry Hills, criminal elements travel in from as far away as Mount Druitt to commit crimes before returning to their suburbs. There will no longer be adequate presence in the Eveliegh St. area of Aboriginals of various standing to self police and support the community.
* The proposed zoning of Eveliegh street district seems to deny affordable housing for significant numbers of Aboriginals of various means, within the historical “Block” region. As all land by Aboriginal co-ops are denied adequate zoning and aboriginal residents in and around Eveliegh St. are destined to be compelled to give up their leases and titles.
* Yet the plan seems to be filling the same area with significant proportions of non-Aboriginal housing, a sort of “whitewashing” either intentional or not.
* Aboriginals dispersed to nearby suburbs run the risk of being moved further away as their accommodations are “re-modelled” under the RWA grand scheme.
* There is no indication of low income housing in the Eveliegh Street plan.
LACK OF OPPORTUNITY FOR LOW INCOME REDFERN WATERLOO RESIDENTS
* The proposal gives no indication on how they intend to improve the job prospects of locals.
* There is no net growth of public housing under the RWA grand scheme and no indication of low income housing in this draft, which means many low income residents will end up living outside the area and have to commute to gain these job opportunities.
* Many will be moved away from the district while there accommodations are “re-modelled” under the RWA grand scheme.
LOSS OF PANORAMIC VIEW FROM REDFERN STATION
[PHOTO]
* The path outside Redfern railway station offers one of the best panoramic views of Sydney’s fireworks displays without getting amongst the crowds. You can see the city silhouetted by fireworks from Darlingharbour across to Rose Bay.
* The proposed height restrictions on Eveliegh street and surrounding streets effectively reduces the panoramic view to insignificance, therefore removing another positive aspect of the Redfern Waterloo area.
No provision for bus terminus on the plan
* With significant development occurring in and around Redfern station there is no indication where public infrastructure such as a bus terminus will be located.
No indication of protection for railway station and other historic buildings
* The draft does not indicate whether the historical railway station will be preserved
* The draft does not indicate buildings of significance and what protection will be provided.
SIGNIFICANT NECK INJURIES AS RESIDENTS LOOK SKYWARDS FOR THE HORIZON
[PHOTO: A Sunset viewed along narrow side street between Gibbon and Regent Streets.]
* This is far fetched I admit but there are significant psychological benefits from being able to look towards a horizon across Marian Park. If you are wearing headphones to block the traffic noise you can almost forget the cars are there.
* As tall towers and apartment blocks sprout over Redfern we increasingly only see our environment if we look skywards.
NO PROTECTION OF GREEN SPACES
* The draft plan does not suggest how the green spaces will be preserved.
* The draft plan seems to imply that existing green space is merely included as undeveloped real estate.
* The draft should consider that the green spaces are what differentiate the Redfern Waterloo region from surrounding suburbs such as Surry Hills.
SEPP OR SOMEONE ELSES (POLITICAL) PROBLEM
* Fans of “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy” get a good chuckle when they see the letters S.E.P. together. They stand for “Someone Elses Problem”.
* The major political parties lost their opportunity to control over development applications in the City of Sydney mayoral race.
* The Redfern Waterloo Authority appeared almost overnight to override the Council approval processes and established legislation, guaranteeing the State Government control over lucrative development applications within the councils area.
* At a time when political parties are desperate for campaign funds the potential for political corruption by developers is enormous, as they vie for previously unattainable land without all of the usual compliance requirements.
* The Redfern Waterloo Authority can be directed to follow the whims of the state government which is determined by whichever political party gains office.
* But at the end of the day, it is the people of Redfern / Waterloo and the Sydney City Council that must live with the developments, the road congestion, the noise, the loss of trees, the pollution, and the non compliance with applicable legislation.
* We deserve significantly more detail before these plans are approved, this will provide us assurances from the changing priorities of the state government.
Submission prepared by
Patrick Ryan
Margaret St
Redfern NSW 2016
April 13th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Dear Mr Domm,
I am writing in reference to the proposed development of Marian St Park in Redfern.
I am a resident of the City of Sydney and am very proud to live in the heart of one of the world’s great cities. One of the things that makes Sydney so wonderful is how green our city is and how livable our inner city areas are.
It is mind boggling then that our precious green spaces can be threatened in the name of ‘development’. Surely a proper definition of development is about improving places for people to live. This would mean that not only building new dwellings but simultaneously catering for all the other essentials. Efficient public transport, well maintained amenities and substantial amounts of green, leafy spaces are non-negotiables in terms of the standard of living in contemporary Sydney.
It is therefore distressing that the Authority would seek to destroy the rare oasis that is Marian St Park rather than working to increase the green spaces and thus the living standards in Redfern.
Yours sincerely,
Abi Monaghan
April 13th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Mr Robert Domm
Chief Executive Officer
Redfern-Waterloo Authority
PO Box 3332
Redfern NSW 2016
Re: Redfern-Waterloo Authority Draft Built Environment Plan and the future of the Marian St Park.
Dear Mr Domm,
I am writing to express my concern about the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Draft Built Environment Plan. I am particularly concerned about the likely loss of the Marian St Park in the proposed plan.
This publicly owned land must remain a park, as a public reserve, in perpetuity. Any proposal to increase the commercial and residential density of the Redfern area will correspondingly increase, not decrease, the need for public open, green space. Redfern already has below average (for Sydney) open spaces. Trees within this area are a rarity.
The Marian St Park provides a resting and recreation area for locals and visitors alike. It is a scarce inner city haven where people, trees and birds cohabit. An aesthetic experience of real value within the busy metropolis.
It is not acceptable in the 21st Century, considering our awareness of the importance of green spaces as quiet zones, as breathing spaces, as buffers against noise and air pollution and the contribution such spaces make to the overall health of cities, to follow earlier patterns of development and planning that see their demise as acceptable, even inevitable.
The Marian St Park should, must, be saved and upgraded in any proposal for the redevelopment of the Redfern Waterloo area.
Yours faithfully,
Lucienne Fontannaz-Howard
April 13th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Mr Robert Domm
Chief Executive Officer
Redfern-Waterloo Authority
PO Box 3332
Redfern NSW 2016
Redfern-Waterloo Authority Draft Built Environment Plan
Dear Mr Domm,
I write to voice my concern about several aspects of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Draft Built Environment Plan.
Although I do not live within the immediately affected area, I regularly visit various homes, shops and galleries that fall within the scope of the plan, and more generally have a personal and professional interest in developments within Sydney’s urban environment.
Firstly I am surprised by the overall density of proposed development for the area. Will such a high level of development be met by matching demand for office and residential space? And even if this is the case, I believe this is not the appropriate location, on the edge of the City of Sydney, and within medium density housing, for such an extension of very high density buildings, related functions and services.
Secondly and more specifically, the proposed eighteen storey office block buildings surrounding the Gibbons and Marian Sts intersection will be entirely out of scale and character with the historic and more recently constructed buildings adjacent to the area.
Thirdly, there will be a substantial, indeed massive, loss of open public space in this already densely populated and highly traversed area.
Fourthly, and perhaps most alarmingly, the Plan envisages the loss of the Marian St Park. A scarce piece of green space remaining within this region of the inner city fringe which is proposed to be ‘developed’ with an eighteen story building!? By what good fortune for the city and neighbourhood has this park been spared into the 21st Century? Surely it would be a travesty of common sense and urban planning experience and expertise to lose it now.
Finally the proposed plan represents a huge loss of amenity for local residents and visitors to this significant inner city residential and mixed-business area. Amenity relates to the availability, condition and character of spaces and buildings. This precinct has a distinctive, and in some areas, like the Water Tower, a truly unique character. The Redfern-Waterloo Authority Draft Built Environment Plan as it currently stands will largely destroy this amenity and character.
I submit that the Plan should therefore be revised to take into account the serious concerns identified.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Howard
April 13th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Robert Domm, CEO
Redfern Waterloo Authority
PO Box 3332
Redfern NSW 2016
Dear Robert,
It was kind of you to come and meet the residents of the Watertower a few weeks ago. It was an awkward circumstance for everyone. It is my opinion that you are doing well in managing the rage and apprehension felt in the community.
Upon reflection over the communications of the past few weeks there seem to be issues that would make you, if you were in my place, question the reliability of the Draft Built Environment Plan (the plan) and those who stand behind it.
For example, elements which have been included in the proposed plan and later referred to publicly as “Pie in the sky”, like the tunnel to Darlington, saying “we had to put it there, but it won’t happen”.
Further, Chris Ford stated well before the publication of the BEP that Regent and Gibbons Streets will not revert to two-way operation, however on page 28 of the plan the opposite is inferred. Yolande Gill repeated this false claim at a Focus Group conducted as late as 20 March.
Further, when asked why not start with mass development at the ATP, where Gill admits there is potential for higher densities, the response was “to avoid complaints from Alexandria residents”.
How can you be taken seriously?
Robert, it appears that we also have a safety issue. I have heard you mention the ‘disconnects’ on quite a number of occasions. On page 50 of the plan they are described as a “major safety issue for pedestrians” that “disconnects the station from the retail heart of Redfern”.
How can you talk about bringing 18,000 new people to work next to the disconnects, before making it safer for them to cross the street?
Wouldn’t the ideal solution be to move the traffic underground at the top of Gibbons street? Shouldn’t moneys be directed there for a true solution?
It seems that the pedestrian safety, just one of the complex issues of Redfern/Waterloo, is not in line with the Minister’s agendas for the area.
The pedestrian safety issue has a commercial implication. Local businesses on Regent and Redfern Streets will not profit from the redevelopment of 18 storey complexes with lots of new retail outlets. Why would workers want to cross a dangerous street when they can get all they want in the new established retail outlets at the bottom of their building.
I have been a strong supporter of the RWA and a believer in its ability to bring positive change to the area. When asked, as a community representative on the RWA’s Built Environment Ministerial Advisory Committee, about the unique aspects that make Redfern/Waterloo a special place, I felt that someone was really listening. I felt very optimistic that any change brought by the RWA would be sensitive to the unique character of the area, respecting its residents and understanding the value of social currency.
I could not have been more disillusioned when the draft Built Environment Plan was first released to the public. The proposed magnitude was unfathomable – I was shocked.
I could not begin to imagine what effort went into the production of such document, but in all fairness I believe it holds more words than required for what it’s really telling us: Many strategies and design concepts are described only in general terms, promising a more detailed study to be undertaken at some point in the future, while others are embedded with caveats or aspirations, and they’re all presented in language somewhat inaccessible to the demographics described in Appendix 1 of the plan.
How can you push for approval of a plan that is incomplete and will probably end up in a disaster because no one has thought it through?
What is evident and a true standout of this document is the generous FSR and height allowance ‘on offer’. One might think this document is aimed at developers, somewhat like a marketing brochure. Supporting this perception is the fact that the other two plans, Human Services and Employment and Enterprise have been printed on normal white paper stock with black ink, while this professionally designed, full-colour, printed on high-grade recycled paper looks quite attractive. As you explained (in your own words), it’s about creating a framework for developers.
Subsequently, many residents who enjoy living in what the plan describes as the “unattractive and uninviting” area South of the Railway Station, are asking themselves who is Redfern being revitalised for? Over 400 people (erring on the safe side) will be immediately affected