How high do we want to fly?
Andrew Edwards says Hobart must quickly decide on height limits for city buildings and take the uncertainty and stress out of development proposals
THE time has come for Hobart City Council to take a decisive stand on high-rise developments in the city and its surroundings, which hopefully will follow the forthcoming report by urban design consultant Leigh Wooley into recommended building heights for the city.
The need for prompt action is inescapable as the pressure from high-rise developers, particularly the Singaporebased Fragrance Group, intensifies. The group’s most recent bid, which is to construct 12- and 13-storey twin towers in the city’s midtown precinct, will change the face of this historic area. It is a proposal that infers a lack of empathy with the city and its immediate surroundings.
This apparent design disconnection with the built environment of Hobart may also be a consequence of the group’s decision to engage a Western Australian architect to design a high-rise structure, despite the fact Tasmania is noted for award-winning architects who live and work in the city and who are skilled in heritage developments.
Sadly, it suggests a lack of interest by Fragrance in heritage values and a distinct preference for erecting highrise boxes it can fill with paying tenants and visitors in order to maximise its financial return. The implications for the city, particularly those neighbouring the site for development, appear inconsequential to Fragrance and its interstate architect.
The mid-town proposal is for 91 apartments and 214 hotel rooms in two adjoining buildings that will tower above the surrounds where the recommended building height limit is 11.5m. It will cast an enormous shadow.
It is becoming apparent that t Fragrance has a standard approach to seeking building approvals. It firstly proposes a structure that grossly exceeds recommended r building heights. Then, when it faces rejection by council and the community, it presents a compromise, somewhere between its first proposal and the recommended height limit.
Fragrance has done exactly that with its hotel proposal for lower Collins St. The group’s original plan was for a hotel of 75m in height, which is 60m above the recommended limit for the area. Then it put forward a compromise plan for a 50m-high building, which is still 35m above the recommended limited.
It is an old strategy developers have been using for decades. However, it is one council must resist.
Late last year, council commissioned Leigh Wooley to investigate and report on the question of building heights in the city, following growing public disquiet over proposed high-rise developments in historic Sullivans Cove and Hobart’s iconic waterfront. That concern has since spread with the announcement by Fragrance of its mid-town development.
Mr Wooley’s report is expected to be presented to council sometime in July,
which will be a watershed moment for the future of the city. It will be the time when council must put in place unambiguous rules about buildings heights that are compatible with protecting and enhancing our unique city landscape. It will be a time for council to make it clear it has no intention of allowing Hobart to become like so many of the world’s tower-filled cities.
Equally, council must reassure investors and developers the city remains open for business, provided they are willing to work within clearly defined requirements to maintain the city’s unique appeal and authenticity.
This approach, where the rules and requirements are clearly spelt-out, will benefit developers. Once they know what is expected and that those expectations are essentially non-negotiable, they will adjust accordingly.
The appeal of Hobart as an investment site will not diminish although it may mean that those who are only interested in high-rise/high return buildings will decide to look elsewhere. Conversely, those developers looking to create unique buildings that add value to the city’s existing appeal will be encouraged by such regulatory management.
There will need to be provision in the planning process to allow for a level of discretion when deciding whether a project meets the intention of the regulations as well as the expectations of the community. However, discretion should not be used as a mechanism for developers to endeavour to bend the rules.
Arguably the biggest winner will be council and its aldermen. Once clear rules are in place, they will no longer have to act as arbiter between fiercely competing views on projects for which there are no clear rules and requirements. It will remove much of the angst from project approvals. Andrew Edwards is a prominent Hobart property valuer and a founding director of Edwards Windsor Real Estate.
The need for prompt action is inescapable as the pressure from high-rise developers, particularly the Singapore-based Fragrance Group, intensifies.