Australian Institute of Architects. Barangaroo Stage 1. Submission to Barangaroo Delivery Authority

Transcription

1 Australian Institute of Architects Submission to Barangaroo Delivery Authority

2 SUBMISSION BY Australian Institute of Architects NSW Chapter ABN Tusculum, 3 Manning Street POTTS POINT NSW 2011 Telephone: Facsimile: nsw@raia.com.au PURPOSE This submission is made by the NSW Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects (the Institute) to the Barangaroo Delivery Authority in response to the Lend Lease proposal for Stage 1 of the Barangaroo development site and the associated display. At the time of the submission the office bearers of the NSW Chapter are: Brian Zulaikha (President), Dr Deborah Dearing (Immediate Past- President), Joe Agius, Abbie Galvin, Adam Haddow, Ben Hewett, Esteban Insausti*, Chris Jenkins, Steve Kennedy, Matthew Pullinger, Gerard Reinmuth, Howard Smith, Glen Spicer, David Springett, Agi Sterling. The Office Manager of the NSW Chapter is Roslyn Irons. This paper was prepared by Murray Brown, Policy & Advocacy Manager for the NSW Chapter. INFORMATION Who is making this submission? The Australian Institute of Architects (the Institute) is an independent voluntary subscription-based member organization with approximately 9,783 members, of which 5,557 are registered architect members. Members are bound by a Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures. The Institute, incorporated in 1929, is one of the 96 member associations of the International Union of Architects (UIA) and is represented on the International Practice Commission. The Institute s New South Wales Chapter has 3,059 members, of which 1,610 are registrable architect members representing 53% of all registered architects in NSW. * Mr Insausti is an employee of Lend Lease design. In recognition of his declared conflict of interest he has not been involved in any Chapter Council discussions on Barangaroo. ii

3 Where does the Institute rank as a professional association? At 9,783 members, the RAIA represents the largest group of non-engineer design professionals in Australia. Other related organisations by membership size include: The Design Institute of Australia (DIA) - 1,500 members; the Building Designers Association of Australia (BDAA) - 2,200 members; the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA) 1,000 members; and the Australian Academy of Design (AAD) members. iii

4 BARANGAROO STAGE 1 The Australian Institute of Architects NSW Chapter is pleased to respond to the recent public display presented by the Barangaroo Delivery Authority within the Old Ports Building at Millers Point. The views expressed in this submission reflect a statement by the Institute printed in the current issues of the Institute publications Architecture Australia and Architecture Bulletin. The Institute considers that Barangaroo offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to dramatically increase public engagement with Sydney Harbour. It s a major missing link in the chain of sites providing permanent public access to the foreshore of Sydney s greatest asset. Our primary concerns are that public access to the harbour is not compromised and that the development of the site serves the public interest ahead of commercial interests. One of the key roles of the NSW Government is therefore to plan the site in its role as protector of the public interest. The size and strategic position of the site require best practice in all matters related to its planning and design. What happens at Barangaroo could set the scene for the future planning and development of other prime harbourside sites, particularly the Bays Precinct west of Pyrmont, which is already being considered for re-development during the next decade. The Institute has prepared a proposal for a well considered, professional and participatory planning process for the Bays Precinct in association with the Planning Institute of Australia NSW Division and Australian Institute of Landscape Architects NSW Group. It is unfortunate that a process of this kind has not been a feature of the Barangaroo development to date. The planning process We are disappointed that the Government has appeared to have abdicated from its role as protector of the public interest in regard to the planning for this site. The 2005/6 competition could have been the first stage of an appropriately transparent process. It is difficult to have confidence in the current process when a scheme that won the jury s approval (with modifications) has been ignored in favour of a rival scheme that won a commendation but did not win the competition. The concept plan prepared by the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority and approved by then Planning Minister Frank Sartor in February 2007 was only loosely based on the competition winning proposal. Approved floor space for this proposal was 388,300 square metres, 25% of which would be residential. The total allowable floor space was increased by 30% to 508,300 square metres in February 2009, three months after the creation of the Barangaroo Delivery Authority. This increase in commercial floor space is larger than the total amount of residential floor space in the concept plan. 1

5 The Government has justified the increase as being consistent with the Government s objective of creating a world-class city precinct that will contribute to Sydney s future. (Premier s media release, 25 February 2009). But what makes 508,300 square metres inherently better than 388,300? We can understand the benefit to a commercial developer, but how does this increase the impact on transport and other infrastructure? Have those impacts been considered in relation to the assumptions behind the plan? We note that the announcement of Lend Lease s winning bid for the Stage 1 development was made on the weekend before Christmas, timing guaranteed to elicit a muted response from a substantially depleted media contingent. The subsequent exhibition of the winning proposal at the Old Ports Building did not provide an adequate explanation of the public domain proposals it contains, nor was it clear why the winning bid was favoured over its competitor s. All concept drawings so far displayed have a monumental quality that militates against any sense of urbanity; there is none of the fine grain that would allow smaller developments to create a more friendly environment at the ground level, the place where cities really work. It is all so much Dubai bling rather than real urban development. We are dissatisfied with a process that has appeared to be neither rigorous in its protection of the public domain nor in its explanation of the decisions that have been made. Private development vs public interest The Institute believes that the present proposal to sell the rights for the development of Barangaroo to a single private sector organization has significant risks attached to it. What is needed at Barangaroo is natural city growth; the public needs to be assured that the outcome will be diverse and exciting new city fabric, a world leader in design and sustainability, providing generous and inviting public spaces - and full access to the harbour. The Institute acknowledges that the engagement of the private sector is a necessary step in the evolution of our cities. But private organisations must inevitably balance the cost-benefit equation in their own interests and those of their shareholders. The Government needs to fulfil its responsibility as an informed client and advocate for the public interest by defining the broad scope of the project - rather than leaving this critical step to a development tender. Concept plan modification Since winning the right to develop Stage 1 of Barangaroo Lend Lease has submitted a concept plan modification that includes: additional gross floor area in Block 1 additional height across Blocks 1-4 a 6,000 square metre encroachment of the Block 1 building into the recreation zone 2

6 the proposed hotel to be built in the harbour west of the site boundary pedestrian bridges over Hickson Road non-compliance with four of the built form controls in the concept plan In short, the developer has proceeded as developers always do to push the envelope of any controls in place and to extract the maximum floor space from the site. In part this is a consequence of the decision to restrict intensive development to Stage 1 at the southern end of the site, leaving the remainder of the site as largely open space. The dangers of the current approach are evident in the Director-General s Requirements for the Barangaroo Concept Plan amendment (Modification No 4) issued on 3 May. The environmental assessment of the amendment must explore the relationship of urban spaces and their adjoining built form, consider the relationship between the public domain and ground floor uses of the landmark building, demonstrate the new access hierarchy, including the relationship between streets, footpaths and buildings and detail the amendments to the foreshore promenade. These are major issues affecting the long-term public amenity of the precinct and access to it, yet they are under consideration nearly six months after the selection of the winning bid and three months after the government has signed a contract with the developer. They should all have been determined through a transparent master planning process so that the amount and configuration of the public domain in the precinct was decided well before any developer had the opportunity to tender for development rights. The present process is the reverse: the developer has been chosen and the extent and configuration of the public domain have yet to be determined. It is another demonstration of the way the government has turned planning principles on their head in undertaking this project: appoint the developer for the most commercially viable stage first (leaving a question mark over how development of the rest of the site will proceed) consider increases in previously determined maximum building height and floor space after the contract is signed welcome the intention to erect a 50 storey building over the harbour seek clarification from the developer on its intentions regarding the public domain for Stage 1, rather than determining the size and style of the public domain before seeking commercial tenders Commercial interests have taken absolute preference over sound urban design principles. The hotel proposal The current proposal includes a so-called public pier that is in fact the forecourt to a 50 storey hotel building containing 8% of the total gross floor area of the site. It is proposed to be built outside the western boundary of the 3

7 site over Sydney's most valuable public asset, its harbour. This is an example of how public and private interest are confused in the winning bid. In the Institute s view the only justification for a pier on this busy stretch of the harbour is to provide a wharf for ferries and other small craft that can serve the water transport needs of the precinct. In addition, the hotel and the bulk and height of the proposed high rise towers will create a significant afternoon overshadowing problem, particularly for the recently constructed medium rise buildings in the King Street precinct. What is needed The Institute urges the Government to develop a master plan for the precinct with a clear framework of streets, squares and parks that are designed for the people of NSW, not the interests of any single developer. Public infrastructure and public space should be clearly defined and delivered early, as occurs in many other first-world cities. There should be no ambiguity of public and private space and no privatisation of the harbour. The master plan should create and protect views and connections to and from the city; it should come replete with a transport strategy. The plan also needs to closely consider the relationship between this seven hectare site with its neighbouring precincts, which include the King Street / Shelley Street commercial city area, the Walsh Bay commercial/entertainment/residential precinct and the largely residential historic precinct of Millers Point on the hill overlooking the site. It needs to take some cues from these areas in the provision of public streets, walkways and parks. With the increase in commercial floor space in 2009 the percentage of residential floor space has dropped from 25% to less than 20; the 10% provision for tourist uses takes this to a potential total of 30%. In the Institute s view a residential population of between 25% and 35% would establish the conditions for a precinct with street life in after-work hours. Anything less and the Stage 1 development risks becoming a commercial enclave, not an urbane precinct; certainly not one that will add to Sydney s claims to world-city status. Conclusion The Institute is concerned at the Government s refusal to adopt a more active role in determining the future of Barangaroo. We want to see the Government involved in preparing a master plan for the whole site, and we want that plan to clearly define the precinct s public spaces. Commercial interests must have a role to play, but not to the exclusion of all others. 4