Twenty eight of the 29 pages of the Brisbane City Council’s Brisbane City’s Sustainable Growth Strategy, 3 of its 4 Priorities and 3 of the 4 Pillars of its proposed actions are careful, caring and well argued. By contrast, a single page – page 21- appears to have been parachuted in with no attempt to relate it to the rest of the document with which it is in clear conflict. It proposes an extreme action – 90 storey unit blocks towering over the city’s cultural complex and river frontage – which bears no relation to the careful logic and arguments of the Strategy’s other 28 pages. It can only be concluded that this has been done in order to re-invent and intensify the failed proposal of the dead and buried Kurilpa Master Plan of 2013-14 that was famously rejected by the incoming progressive State Government eight year ago.
By contrast, the Strategy’s preceding 20 pages make the points that Brisbane is already on course to meet the aggregate housing need forecast by the Regional Plan for 2041, that the best places for this to be done are in the transport-related suburban hubs being increasingly well served by transport improvements of the Cross River Rail and Brisbane Metro initiatives, accommodating the “missing middle” low cost town houses and medium rise unit blocks that are best suited to support affordable housing and family life. The Strategy specifically recognises that the pathways to affordable housing are by such initiatives as incentives to build for affordable rental – often termed “inclusionary zoning” and by continued cooperation with such admirable public interest suppliers as the Brisbane Housing Company- which has built nearly 2,000 affordable dwellings mainly in transit- orientated locations around the Brisbane suburbs in the last fifteen years.
Such successful strategies recognise that it is very much less costly to acquire sites around suburban rail, metro and busway stations than in key riverside locations like Kurilpa Point – valued at over $100 Million, 10 years ago- and hugely more expensive to build as the height level increases.
The idea of building 90 storey tower blocks on the Kurilpa Peninsula to provide affordable housing would be laughable if it were not so cynical. It is also sadly bereft of even the most basic understanding that the height of buildings and associated density cannot be considered in isolation from other impacts. e.g. increased density brings with it a need to consider traffic and on and off-street parking impacts, micro-climate management, and importantly for this part of Brisbane, the physical provision of open space.
If land subdivision to produce a similar yield was proposed on the city’s fringe, the community and the future residents would demand open space of many types and a responsible planning authority and developer wouldn’t blink but would positively deliver. If BCC is proposing vertical 100-300 lot developments, the need for public open space is not diminished-planning for very tall buildings that will foster high dwelling yields can’t sensibly proceed without more public open space. If there is one lesson from COVID, it is that green space for people to connect has many attributes beyond recreation.
By contrast, the West End Community groups – the West End Community Association (WECA) and the Kurilpa Futures (KF) – have for many years campaigned for genuine affordable housing in the area. Kurilpa Futures has met with the State Government Planners twice in the past 18 months to urge, amongst other things, Inclusionary Zoning, to ensure that all new permissions stipulated a minimum of 20 per cent of all new housing should be statutorily required to be affordable through partnerships with public interest providers or similar means. KF is currently awaiting a meeting with the Inner City Strategy team to urge, among other priorities, that the city follow the lead of its sister bodies in Melbourne and Sydney and also enact such measures. That’s the genuine path to achieve affordable housing. Far from being NIMBYS, we want to preserve the mixed use and occupancy character of this and other inner city suburbs so that the neighbourhood can continue to play key roles in the accommodation of all of the inner city’s activities, including recreation and residence, especially for low income workers and disadvantaged people. By contrast, the Lord Mayor’s 90 storey proposals and their supporters appear both lazy and cynical.
To understand how higher densities can be delivered without the need for very tall buildings, one only has to look at the way the South Bank Corporation has facilitated mixed use development bounded by Melbourne, Cordelia, Merivale and Russell streets. Moderate height, public walkability, and designs much more aligned to the character of West End and South Brisbane.
Only a failure to read the Strategy thoroughly could explain or excuse the casual comments of some commentators that it is “selfish Nimbyism” to oppose the inherently extravagant, out-of-scale and excessive developments of P.21 , at densities which could simply not be served by open space, educational or social services. An hour spent reading the Sustainable Growth Strategy would have indicated to even an inattentive reader that the riverside inner city, 90 storey proposal has been parachuted into an otherwise admirable document and conflicts with its prevailing demonstration that the city is already on track to follow the transit orientated development strategies of its own City Shape and City Plan commitments, following established policies which have recently been strengthened by transport initiatives currently being developed by both the City Council and the State Government.
The State Government must now repeat its wise actions of ten years ago, rejecting the Kurilpa Master Plan of the Campbell Newman Council of 2013. It can do so by refusing to sanction the Temporary Local Planning Instrument that Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner is planning to submit, enabling bizarre windfall profits to accrue for luxury housing in this key inner city location, which should instead be open to everyone for recreation, culture and social life.
Planning that links the demands for additional density to all its implications and impacts must be a sensible first step in the public interest. Height for height’s sake without considering its context and impacts is a step backwards.
Cover image iStock ID:617596754
Related Story
