Strathfield Comprehensive STRATHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE LEP ... Comprehensive STRATHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE LEP ... Road Corridor Urban Design AUGUST 2010, reviewed February 2011 ... Flemington

  • View
    223

  • Download
    9

Embed Size (px)

Text of Strathfield Comprehensive STRATHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE LEP ... Comprehensive STRATHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE...

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR1StrathfieldComprehensiveLocalEnvironmentalPlanParramattaRoadCorridorUrbanDesign

    AUGUST2010,reviewedFebruary2011

    StrathfieldComprehensiveLocalEnvironmentalPlanParramattaRoadCorridorUrbanDesign

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR2

    LEPControlInvestigationsScenarioTestingandDevelopmentReport

    1. SpatialHierarchy2. UrbanFormandDevelopmentTesting3. Zoning4. FloorSpaceRatios5. Heights6. TransportandParking7. OtherDevelopmentIssues

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR3

    1.SpatialHierarchyImplicationsarisingfromspecificlocationsandtheirspatialrelationships

    OUTCOME:Developingaspatialhierarchythatguidesthelocationofdensity/intensityofusesandbuiltform.

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR4

    STAGE2

    Urban ContextParramatta Road in context of Strathfield, Olympic Park,Flemington, Concord, Lidcombe

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR5

    STAGE2

    High Level StructureThe Basic High Level Road/Rail network structure - Existing settingup the hierarchy of places from Sydneys movement perspective

    M4NorthStrathfield

    FlemingtonHomebush

    Strathfield

    ParramattaRd

    HomebushBayDrive

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR6

    STAGE2

    Public Transport StructureThe Basic Public Transport Network Structure - Existing Bus and Rail -setting up a hierarchy of accessible places to Strathfield

    NorthStrathfield

    FlemingtonHomebush

    Strathfield

    BUS

    458

    459

    BUS

    525

    526

    BUS

    408 BUS

    407

    483

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR7

    STAGE2

    Land Use StructureThe Basic Land Use Structure - Existingsetting up a hierarchy of land uses in relation to the corridor

    NorthStrathfield

    FlemingtonHomebush

    Strathfield

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR8

    STAGE2

    Street HierarchyBasic Network Structure - Existing and Potential, setting up the basichierarchy of local places that can work with land uses

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR9

    STAGE2Spatial Structure Principles for the CorridorCentral Place Types, Connection Types - Existing and Proposedwhich give a focus for use/movement density/intensity. The existingcontrols did not recognise any spatial hierarchy.

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR10

    2.UrbanForm&DevelopmentTestingTestingtheexistingControls,theresultantBuildings,anddothesecreatethedesiredfutureforthearea?Whatchangesareneededtomaketheareawork?

    OUTCOME:Developinganappropriatebuiltformresponsetothearea,itsstructure,itsplaces,andalowcarbon,sustainablefuture.

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR11

    STAGE2Testing the Controls for Urban Form.The existing (proposed) built form under the current LEP/DCP20controls has been modelled and tested to examine whether theoutcomes reflected the intention in the controls for the built form

    PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR-DCP20REVIEWPROJECT

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR12

    STAGE23D Modelling of Existing & Proposed DevelopmentTesting the Massing/Built Form Control as approved (building)against the actual control envelope (yellow massing). All D.A.s inthe area were reviewed for the reality of their performance.

    PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR-DCP20REVIEWPROJECT

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR13

    STAGE2

    The Issue.

    The amount of usable green open space in manybuildings in the Parramatta Road Corridor was foundto be minimal. The Landscape Controls wereresulting in developments that did not genuinelycontribute to the amenity for the residents of the newbuildings.

    It was found that buildings with horizontal wingstaking the majority of the rear area of thedevelopment lot produced tokenistic open space atbest in terms of usability and amenity. As can beseen here, they are often more of a green drainagepit than open space.

    Issue: Poor Quality Open Space in Developments

    OneFamily

    Manyfamilies

    In some instances combined with on site detention,the result was a tiny space more for storing waterthan being usable green space. This is meant to beused by many people. Compare this to the spacethat a single family has available to them in thearea.

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR14

    STAGE2

    In order to address the issue of providing greateramenity for higher density developments in thearea, the concept of shifting the horizontal wingvertically was developed. This frees up space forprivate open space, creating greater amenity forthe development.

    Solution: Move part of the building, vertical

    The key change for the area is the increase inheight for smaller tower type buildings. Withincreased green space, there is also increasedseparation between buildings. There is alsoimproved outlook over larger internal areas ofgreenery, rather than over more buildings andother apartments.

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR15

    STAGE2

    The Issue.

    For part of the length of theParramatta Road Corridor, alarge setback was mandated.Now that a development hasbeen built with this, it can beseen that it does not work thatwell, and can be very poorlydesigned. As it is private space,it has hard to maintain controlover, as against if it was publicspace.

    Issue: Poor Quality Frontages in Developments

    The other aspect of poor qualityfrontage came from the actualdesign quality of developments,and how the building addressesthe street. Many buildings builthave blind frontages or havevery few entries and shopfronts,that overall do not contribute tothe streetscape, nor to activityon the street, compared to theold style, or historic shopfronts.

    On the Gehl scale, thesefrontages would be classified astype C or type D, which do notproduce very good results forstreetlife, activity, and safety andsecurity. It is recommended thatthe standard be set at A in corelocations, then B and then C atthe edges. Also thesetback is removed.

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR16

    STAGE2

    The Issue.

    With Climate Change, Peak Oil,Carbon Minimisation and all theassociated issues withResource Depletion, the builtform needs to be one that isrobust, adaptable, and one thathas a sustainable operation,that has good natural light andventilation.

    Issue: Sustainable Built Form

    The original controls did seekthis, however, many applicationswent beyond the controls,producing buildings that havedoubtful sustainabilityperformance. Thus the testing ofFSR and Height has born in mindthe need for sustainablebuildings.

    As can be seen from these twoexamples, buildings have beenbuilt much thicker than thecontrols permit, which reducestheir sustainability - their abilityfor natural ventilation and naturallight penetration. This also hasimpacted upon the amount ofuseable open space on each lot,which is tokenistic.

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR17

    STAGE2

    Each Site has been tested for Built Form ParametersFSR, Height, Building Width/Depth, etc.

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR18

    STAGE2

    Each Site has been tested forBuilt Form ParametersFSR, Height, Building Width/Depth, etc.

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR19

    STAGE2Each Site has been tested for Built Form ParametersIncluding how each of these, FSR, Height, Building Width/Depth, etc.,might vary under the premises of the controls, if flexibility isintroduced in the supporting DCP for building width/depth.

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR20

    STAGE2The effect of the change.The existing (proposed) built form under the current LEP/DCP20controls has been modelled and tested to examine whether theoutcomes reflected the intention in the controls for the built form

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR21

    STAGE2

    Spatially-appropriate outcomes, recognisingaccessibility and centrality

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR22

    3.Zoning:ReviewofExistingLandUses&Implicationsofwiderlandusestudies

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR23

    STAGE2

    Residential Land Use StudyThis study makes specificrecommendations that affect thedesignation of possible land usezones within the study area.

    Economic Land Use StudyThis study makes specificrecommendations that affect thedesignation of possible land usezones within the study area Theplacement of zones does notreflect the spatial structure of thearea, nor how the existing landuse structure works.

  • STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR24

    STAGE2

    There are significant differences between the Economic and Residential Land Use Studies in the zoning thatthey propose for the various areas across the DCP20 Review area.

    The Economic Land Use Study has taken convenient straight lines to define different land use zones, withoutany close examination of what the land uses are on those lots, and how the broad land economics is workingon those lots. Also, it has not examined the network structure, nor the spatial structure, to assist indetermining likely optimal land use locations. This is a serious deficiency, as the combination of spatiallocation and existing land use influences the values, and hence the appropriateness of different buildingtypes (according to land use). For example, given the relatively high value of land in the area, lower valueindustrial/empl