Higher Density Sydney

I've read an interesting article this morning regarding development in Sydney over the long term. I'm sure the same general principles would remain for other large cities.

Three visions for Sydney's density as 2.4 million more people call it home

The report provides different development scenarios for the city over the next 30 years, basically asking if there should be more higher density closer to the city or expand the city fringes with lower density.

Essentially they said the higher density development closer to the city is preferable as its lower commuting time for and places less pressure on infrastructure.

 

Buy up units in older well located low-rise blocks and wait for the developers to buy you out.

 

Seeing what happened at Macquarie Park this could be a really good strategy. Obviously you need to pick spots that have a good chance of accepting taller buildings.

 

I agree with the strategy but disagree with the execution of it.

Firstly older apartment blocks can mean big maintenance costs. But apart from that, for a developer, it is a better idea to buy out a house / land than paying each and every unit out.

Small blocks of old established units wont offer enough land to build a much larger complex. Therefore chances are the developer has to pay out everyone in your block and then a couple of other properties next door. In a very booming market that may be possible but it is far more feasible to buy a few lands and build a large complex than buying out small apartment blocks.

Also if someone builds next to your old block, guess what that does to the value of your unit.

 

And the number one buyers of Ferraris and Lambos will be the strata managers.

I'm sure they will be collectively pleased.

 

There was a proposal in the UK entitled Supurbia, which envisaged increasing the density of Zone 3 of London (the middle ring) by subdividing gardens, and building low rise apartment blocks. At this stage it's only a study, but it seems to have some interest from the government.

Supurbia - HTA Design LLP

It's probably best illustrated by a couple of sketches. This is what a typical London suburb looks like. There are semi-detached houses on large plots, which are generally owned by older, empty nesters. (Like Sydney, the younger generation are priced out.)



Meanwhile, this is what could replace it. The houses are replaced by smaller townhouses and apartment blocks.



It's portrayed as a win-win: The older generation are able to release equity or downsize. The younger generation get affordable housing.

Whether it'd work out in practice is a different matter. There are a lot of utopian ideas that didn't turn out to be so successful when they actually got implemented.

But it is a different model to the proposals that I've seen for Sydney. It probably works better for London, as the public transport network there is far superior, and that's a central part of the concept.

 

"But it is a different model to the proposals that I've seen for Sydney. It probably works better for London, as the public transport network there is far superior, and that's a central part of the concept."

Personally, I'm all for building high density living in the inner city although a large number of people are so adverse to towers its hard for councils/governments to allow them. But yes, like you said, public transport needs to be constantly updated regardless of if they build up, or out.

Many people don't like apartment living, or raising families in apartments - which is fair enough! Even a 3 or 4 bed apartment living area can be far too small for a family. My personal thoughts of getting around this - councils and governments need to increase the minimum size requirements of apartments.

At the moment an apartment could be 50sqm for a 1 bed, 75sqm for 2 bed, 90sqm for 3 bed (or thereabouts) etc. Why not increase these substantially, say double, and have larger living area in apartments?? The developers would then be faced with a smaller number of apartments they can sell, but this would be offset by increasing height limits substantially (by say double).

Like you said, for this to occur, substantial investment in heavy rail would be required along the location of the high density buildings.

 

I'm all for high density but not the way it seems to be perceived in Sydney - i.e. ugly massive towers in middle of nowhere suburbs with ancient infrastructure. Look at cities like Paris and Barcelona to see how high density living can work when it is well designed

 

Yes, those buildings are beautiful, I wish it could look like that too!

At the moment I think Sydney can't decide to go the full way up or expand outwards, so instead its gone in between with medium density in a lot of areas with some distance to stations.

One area, for example, which I think they can make high density is Randwick Junction (with the provision they build heavy rail under). It has the hospital, university, close to the city. But if you do that now with no rail, it's just chaos!

I also think Sydney City's height restrictions on buildings is just insane. It's the CBD, time to increase substantially and allow true inner city living with larger apartments, more offices, courtyards (like in the picture). Right now it's being left behind by other world cities.

 

It's interesting comparing the population densities of cities:

• Paris: 21,500 per km2
• Barcelona: 16,000 per km2
• London: 1,500 per km2
• Sydney: 400 per km2

Paris and Barcelona are extremely dense, and they're characterised by low rise mansion blocks, and I agree with @Cimbom and @Sharpy that they're attractive. These keep urban sprawl down, and allows for more efficient public transport. I've not been to Barcelona, but Paris is easy to walk or get around on the Metro.

Amsterdam and Berlin are around 4000 to 5000 people per km2, and are both liveable. (If I move back to Europe, it'll probably be one of those two.) Properties are smaller than in Australia, though apartments are probably more generous than new-builds in the CBD. Again, public transport in both is good, Berlin has the edge here with its U-Bahn and S-Bahn.

 

Very interesting with the population per km2. Australians have a mindset that can't handle that kind of density I think...

 

I agree generally but the demographic in Sydney is constantly changing and evolving.

I see projects like the Central Park precinct in Chippendale as a good example of high density done well.

The main thing holding Sydney back at the moment is the infrastructure but there are active projects in this place that will help. Isn't to the standard of a great city like Paris, but we need to start somewhere!

 

Don't get me wrong, Sydney is a beautiful city and world renowned for a reason! And there is definitely a lot of infrastructure currently underway or planned and of course that is a good thing. But it needs to continue and go further (and hopefully it will). The Central Park development is excellent, and to me that is certainly the type of design that should be encouraged and what I think there should be more of.

 

This type of proposal would be seen as elitist as 'the working poor/essential workers'cannot afford modest accommodation within cooee of the capitals (syd/melb). How ate they going to afford well proportioned McMasions in the sky?

 

My partner is European and he says 4 level walk ups are everywhere in Europe and it's a good thing. The buildings are attractively designed, there's density so you get frequent public transport services (and not so much road congestion), good access to light and no overcrowding, and plenty of open communal space for kids to play outside. A less sprawling city if people can have a mind shift.

 

Damn that's nice. Melbourne is a mess. I don't think the government respects Victoria so it let foreign developers take a massive dump on us. Have seen Docklands? It's a ghost town. Prime land wasted on empty dog box crap.

Is there hope for the Docklands?

 

There is too much heritage conservation in the inner city areas to be able to develop new buildings in any significant way. Central Park was essentially a single piece of disused land, not too many of those left for similar developments unfortunately.

 

Inner city Sydney is already pretty dense. Surry Hills, for example, is 28% terraces and townhouses, and 70% apartments.

The problem is the suburbs are less densely settled, due to the dream of the quarter acre block, and that is why the city sprawls.

The other issue is that current owners tend to dislike change, particularly when it has a negative impact on them. The article I linked to above suggests that they're the biggest impediment to reworking the city's fabric.

 

Yes, it probably would to be honest. To begin with, the large apartments would in fact be very expensive, but if they lift the height controls high enough to increase supply, over time, they would become relatively more affordable.

 

I agree there is a lot of heritage in the city that couldn't be touched, and I'm not suggesting at all that be removed. But there are still a heap of sites where it could happen, including redeveloping older buildings