A reminder!
- No councillor uttered the word ‘tree’, ‘open space’ when the decision was made
- No mention by councillors or officers of the further loss of public open space
- No consultation with residents
- No mention of the destruction of huge gums
- No mention that recently planted trees and shrubs would be ripped out
- No preliminary traffic report or investigation
- No clear and decipherable architect’s drawings revealing the extent of incursion into public open space
- No upfront honesty from anyone!
We’ve visited the site again in recent days and found:
- One huge gum is now dying because its roots have been torn to shreds. Certainly not a surprise when trenches are dug to at least 30 cm around it. That leaves the question as to whether or not a fully qualified arborist was called in to ensure that the excavations would not damage the few remaining trees left along Gardener’s Rd.
- No change to the bus route to East Boundary Road. So much for years of ‘advocating’!
- No costing on what the destruction of newly planted trees and shrubs will be and what it will cost to replace them
Glen Eira Debates 
March 29, 2013 at 12:45 PM
Moderators – in your reminder section you didn’t mention that no meaningful analysis of the car parking requirements of GESAC or any cost benefit analysis of the various options presented. Needless to say no Councillor raised this as an issue nor did they mention any need for community consultation, particularly consultation with the residents most impacted (ie. the Gardners Road residents). Once again Councillors just rubber stamped what the Administration wanted and by doing so again failed to do their job (i.e. represent the residents).
So far $1.6m has been spent on ad hoc, incremental GESAC parking at the expense of open space and residential amenity. So far not one analysis of current and predicted parking requirements has been presented – all that is presented is the nebulous “we are a victim of our own success”, lets spend another $600K. Not good enough!!!
Since Council is only able to come up with expensive parking options that result in lost open space here’s some low cost options they should consider:
. introducing restricted parking for surrounding areas within a 1 km radius(Council has previously stated it costs less that $50 to manufacture and install each street sign) and exclude any development that increases the number of dwellings on a lot from the residential parking permit scheme.
. banning ALL GESAC staff from parking in the GESAC parking area. Council constantly justifies waiving parking requirements for developments by claiming this supports the push to convert the residents to using sustainable transport options. If it’s good enough for residents, it’s good enough for staff.
. start a bus shuttle service – Council already has the buses.
March 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM
It is not unusual for large projects or even smaller projects to have costs blow outs and then cover-up it’s inadequacies. For example the Carnegie Library initial approval was for $7 million, but it ended up with over $11 million, that is about 60% over run. Assuming the same for GESAC (including investment costs) the $41 million should end up with $65 million. It will eventually all come out, in dribs & drabs, over time. That is if we have a Councillor that can read financial statements and Annual Reports. Smaller projects can get by without anybody noticing anything unusual as they require forensic financial skills and understanding how things can be manipulated.
March 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM
I’m curious about the third photo. I’d say that this will be planted out and become another visual obstruction for cars reversing out of the parking spots. Council’s brilliant traffic or landscaping people have done the same along Leila Road alongside Packer Park. Trees planted blocking drivers views of what’s coming down the street. Made ten times worse because cars will be reversing out. Magee should tell us what the imbecilic plans for this safety hazard cost – that’s if he even knows!
March 31, 2013 at 11:37 AM
SCR. Rubbish. The project in Carnegie was on time and on budget. Your analysis is made up and wrong.
April 1, 2013 at 12:11 AM
I took the trouble to check my figures. First the final cost of the building.
Location: Carnegie Victoria
Building owner: City of Glen Eira
Architect: Perrott Lyon Mathieson
Builder: JA Dodd
Bricklayer: McGaw Bricklayers
Building cost: $10.4 million
Austral Bricks products:
Elements Series Zinc
Sandstone Series Sorrento
From http://www.australbricks.com/CMSPages/GetMetaFile.aspx?fileguid=11306fa1-30a9-4bb4-8dd8-06afaf572b43
Now to the initial allocation. Originally Posted by DOI
Glen Eira City Council
Branch: Carnegie
Library: Glen Eira Library & Information Service
Funded: 2002
Completion date: September 2005
Grant: $500,000
Total project: $6,500,000
Type of works: Relocation
Progress: Commenced May 2004.
The new library will provide increased community access to a broader range of library services with innovative programs for all ages, increased information technology facilities and a larger, more diverse collection. The new library will offer much needed space for relaxed reading and quiet study.
From http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=233930&page=3
The result is exactly 60% increase in the final costs. I am sure that the project was on time and on budget, but somehow the budget bloated over time with the approval of Councillors. I think the outcome is pleasing and worthwhile. It’s just seems to be a habit of Glen Eira Council to start with a low budget and finish high. Reminds me of Sir Humphrey in Yes Prime Minister http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8keZbZL2ero explaining a lie to a politician (and perhaps some accountants).
Another example of course is GESAC.
April 1, 2013 at 10:05 AM
I thought Cr,.Sounous the Greens councillor voted against the carpark extension number two, The other Greens Councillor was absent.
Sounnous gave his reasons why!, .
It took more of our in short supply of pubic open space,
He said that it was bad planning.that this extension was a afterthought.
The planners must have known that this extra carparking was needed all along, but didn’t the the courage to lay it on the line from the very beginning,
ie, Read between the lines of his message, that was lost on everyone there on both sides of the fence
This is the theft of public open space by planning stealth!
April 1, 2013 at 12:26 PM
Wonderful phrase ‘planning stealth’ not a lie.
April 1, 2013 at 5:37 PM
The loss of public space is classic Salami Tactics [Yes Prime Minister: The Grand Design]. The original plan didn’t disclose how planners reached the conclusion that 271 parking spaces was adequate, but the number of visitors per day has been revised upwards from 2000 to about 3000 since then. There simply are no details publicly available about mode-share, or number of visitors per car, or average duration of stay per car, or variability in number of park users. In the absence of these its hard to see how anybody could have been confident about any prediction made at the design stage—predictions such as “unlikely to have any significant negative impact on parking conditions in the vicinity of the site”.
Cr Lipshutz went so far as to say “… after consultation and initial plans being drawn it became obvious that Carnegie was both too small but further traffic would adversely affect residents. This was in contrast to the East Boundary Road site that ticked all the boxes”. The ongoing degradation of Bailey Reserve is one of the boxes he ticked.
April 1, 2013 at 6:25 PM
Degradation of Bailey Reserve didn’t bother Magee or the other councillors who twice voted to extend car parking. Magee even went so far as to claim that this last effort would only result in the loss of some nature strip. Either he lied or didn’t bother to find out the full story. The best part of all this is the claim that officials and cricketers shouldn’t have to park in adjacent residential streets – but it’s okay for them to park in Gardener’s Road. Somehow that doesn’t count as a residential street. Worse is that the residents of Gardener’s Road don’t count.
April 1, 2013 at 10:38 PM
I attended many sw. pool meetings and Cr Magee only wanted an upgraded pool . The meetings were very indroctinating and the crowds signed a petition for two good pools in Glen Eira. Then the he pool “salesmen” came around or Andrew Newton thought it would be a good idea to have a large one.and then it was the monstrosity we had to have and then with hard ball courts. I knew the parking was going to be inadequate and expressed these views at meetings, and can now only suggest that rather than qllocate more good land from open space worth up to a million a site to send a driver in q community bus around the whole municipality on two or three round trips a day. and give these residents a break.
April 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM
Anonymous: The Bailey reserve carpark extension did concern the Greens Cr. Sounnous, to the point he HE VOTED AGAINST IT and he gave very good reasons why! The same reason that are being espouse here on this blog as all good.
1 Cr. opposed .. 7 Cr. supported .. 1 Cr. absent = that does not translate into all councillors supporting the Bailey reserve carpark.
Give credit were credit is due, Well done from the Camden Ward Cr Sounnous.