Page 3814 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One reason that has been suggested for this development is that it would be a gateway to the Woden town centre and provide a stronger visual impact. Everyone would agree that it would provide a stronger visual impact, but that does not mean it is a good idea. The other reason that has been used to justify the tower is that of reducing site coverage. However, as I said before, if some of the single storey or two or three-storey buildings had an extra storey in them, no additional land need be used and the tower could be avoided.
As I mentioned before, the tower is planned for the north-east corner of the site. It will significantly overshadow other buildings on the same site and the open space around them. Many people have stated that if we are to have a high-rise building, the proponents or ACTPLA have chosen the worst possible site for it. In fact, we had a submission from one person which was a redevelopment of the site plan, including a 10-storey element, but putting it at the southern side, which would be a better outcome from a solar point of view. It is clear from the public consultation that the thing people most objected to is the 10-storey element.
If we are serious about public consultation we need to take seriously what the people say. What they said was that they did object to densification, they thought it was appropriate at that site, but they did object to 10 storeys. I have given considerable thought to the proposal to have 10 storeys there, and the aspect that has moved my considerations is the overwhelming local public objection to it. That objection has been sustained over quite a few years.
As I have still got a few more minutes left, I will talk a little bit more generally about tall buildings. You do not need to be a genius to realise that tall buildings use more resources and energy to build. They were first designed when energy, labour and resources were cheap. Vast amounts of steel, concrete and glass are needed to construct tall buildings and these materials do have a large amount of embodied energy.
Despite myriad ways to enhance energy efficiency, tall buildings use disproportionately more. They have to have heavier foundations, they usually have to have lifts and they usually have to have mechanical rather than passive means of heating and cooling. Another reason why they tend to use more electricity is that water has to be pumped up to the highest floors. They may well require pumping for the sewerage system. They are generally air-conditioned, and often natural lighting is not accessible in rooms far from the windows and windowless spaces such as lifts, bathrooms and stairwells.
Some of these buildings, of course, are better designed and hopefully that will make them more eco friendly. There is considerable professional debate about what height is best for sustainable development. I have spent quite a bit of time reading and talking about this because, as I said, the 10-storey element has been my main consideration in respect of this variation to the territory plan. Yes, it will use less space, but the planning debate is very unclear as to what is the sweet spot, as it were, in terms of height. Many commentators have pointed out that traditional multistorey buildings in European cities tend to be four or five storeys high, and many commentators have pointed to that as a good height.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .