PRECINCT 1 (with more to come!)
442 dwellings comprising 5 buildings and 8 double storey townhouses that are either 3 or 2 bedroom.
|
BUILDING |
HEIGHT |
ONE BEDROOM |
TWO BEDROOM |
THREE BEDROOM |
| 1A | 6 storeys |
29 |
27 |
1 |
| 1B | 6 storeys |
65 |
29 |
9 |
| 2A | 5 storeys |
36 |
24 |
0 |
| 2B | 4 storeys |
34 |
8 |
4 |
| 3A | 5 storeys |
88 |
66 |
14 |
| TOTAL |
252 |
154 |
28 |
THUS 58% OF PROPOSED NEW DWELLINGS ARE SINGLE BEDROOM! Only 28 dwellings (excluding the 8 townhouses) will be 3 bedroom apartments, equalling a paltry 6.45%!
How many of these little boxes will have direct sunlight is never clearly enunciated. Instead we have such qualifications as – Where possible, new dwellings have been orientated to achieve optimum solar access to balconies and internal living areas. We can only surmise that this means that most bedrooms will be devoid of natural light!
PS: For those with an eye for looking at plans, we’ve included a ‘snap shot’ from part of the Development Plan which is repeated throughout. Please note at the top right hand corner the size of apartment and the size of balcony – a miniscule 4.0 sq. metres. This should be read in light of the following Age article where the City of Melbourne is considering plans to ensure that apartments do not become chicken coops because of size and where London has enforced a 50sq.m minimum size for one bedroom places. See: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/council-considers-minimum-floor-size-for-citys-shrinking-apartments-20130727-2qrhi.html
Glen Eira Debates 
February 9, 2014 at 11:32 AM
If you don’t have access to natural light you also don’t have access to natural ventillation!
February 9, 2014 at 12:32 PM
I’ve been looking at the plans and find them appallingly deficient in detail and that’s on top of the promises that all necessary information would be included in this Development Plan. It’s been designed as a marketing tool and that’s it.
The goal of the MRC and its developers is to make as much money as they can and that means cramming as many apartments in as possible. To my way of thinking “diversity” of dwellings doesn’t mean a preponderance of single bedroom units and a tiny ratio of three bedroom apartments that could cater for families. If one bedroom places are there to cater for “students” then what happens when Monash finishes its plans for 1500 student accommodation places?
The Phoenix precinct is like its namesake dead and buried. It’s been dismembered repeatedly and the overall vision for the site turned into a potential slum area that will forever have significant traffic, environmental, and social repercussions for residents for miles around and not just the surrounding streets. When cars realise that Kambrook Road for example is non viable, they will find side streets that extend as far as Rosstown via Glen Huntly.
February 10, 2014 at 3:23 PM
The MRC has started flogging the sale of units to its members in personal letters. They must be pretty confident that their plans will be rubber stamped.
February 10, 2014 at 4:30 PM
they should offer it to the gamblers at their pokies as well to get them closer to the venue!
February 10, 2014 at 8:01 PM
The sale office has been up for a long time now. Does anyone know if they needed a permit to put this up and if they even applied to council or just went ahead like they do with everything.
February 10, 2014 at 7:30 PM
Caulfield East might as well rename itself as Caulfield Slums if this disgrace gets up. Cheap accommodation for overseas students.
February 10, 2014 at 7:52 PM
and astute ‘investors’!
February 10, 2014 at 8:56 PM
Wonder if the rooms will be long enough for a free full body stretch on the single bed unlike the cubbies in Dudley Street.
February 10, 2014 at 9:04 PM
Some appartments don’t have natural light and air, Pilling a Sounnous will be jumping with joy, and pass this one with a big green Koala stamp, just like the 8 storey monster in Elsternwick they loved so much, and busted their gut to vote for
February 10, 2014 at 9:08 PM
It should be pointed out that NOWHERE in any of the countless Development Plan documents are the number of units without natural light and ventilation specified. Generalities and qualifications are all that is there.
February 10, 2014 at 9:34 PM
It’s a strange situation—there are no amenity standards that apply to C60/C111, unless the developer ends up needing a permit. Exceeding the nebulously defined heights and setbacks are a trigger for a permit, but otherwise the normal design criteria for amenity have been waived. And everything is discretionary, including heights and setbacks. Officially, it’s not a residential zone.
February 11, 2014 at 12:07 AM
If a development doesn’t satisfy the basic amenity standards for access to natural light and ventilation, then electricity consumption will ensure sustainability standards are also breached.