Drinkers who enjoy a quiet off-the-wood XXXX in the afternoon sun will find themselves in the shade for several months a year if plans for a 17-storey tower are approved.

Key points:

  • The land is flood-prone
  • Proposal is for 17 storeys (7 storeys over the neighbourhood plan limit)
    • 199 units
      • 45 one-bedroom apartments
      • 117 two-bedroom apartments
      • 16 three-bedroom apartments
    • 21 two-level “SOHO” (small office/home office) units
      • 18 three-bedroomers
      • 3 two-bedroomers
    • 247 cars over five basement levels
    • 234 bicycle parking stations
  • 10-metre buffer to Brekky Creek Hotel
  • Development’s “podium levels” will have cafes & restaurants on Brekky Creek frontage
  • ‘Because the plans did not meet the council criteria for the site, they were considered “impact assessable” and open to public submissions both for and against the proposal.’
  • billytheid@aussie.zone
    5·
    1 year ago

    um, no. Those regulations exist for very good reason, ask an architect what developers try to slip past regulation

    • Zagorath@aussie.zoneOPEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Some of the regulations exist for very good reasons. Others for arguably less-good reasons.

      Certainly I don’t think anyone would oppose building quality rules, and I think a lot of us are broadly in favour of rules that require large developments to provide a broader range of housing (e.g. a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom places).

      But density limits are quite a bit harder to justify. Parking minimums are extremely hard to justify in places that are well-served by public and active transport, or are within walking distance to the CBD.