The Urban Design report for the development of Virginia Estate is a remarkable document in several ways. The stated methodology is to analyse developments around the world in order to determine ’best practice’ which can then be applied to Virginia Estate. The trouble with such ‘comparisons’ is that what is presented in the document is either NOT comparable or information is presented that is completely erroneous.
One of the ‘comparisons’ is the Caulfield Village development. Please remember that although the development plan for Precinct 3 (Smith St) is still to make an appearance, the Incorporated Plan has stipulated that:
- Heights will be at least 20 storeys for this precinct with a potential for 22 storeys
- The number of known dwellings at this point in time equals 2063
- Residential density would then be close to 400 dwellings per hectare and not the 80 claimed
- These ‘facts’ were known years ago so why is a document dated November 2017 presenting such bogus figures?!
Given the above, why is the Virginia Estate document portraying this development as only up to 14 storeys and only catering for 1200 dwellings? We certainly don’t believe that the MRC has suddenly become so magnanimous as to have changed their minds an reduced the scale of their vision.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Next for comparison is the Bradmill development. It is similar in size to Virginia Estate (ie 24 hectares) but will contain according to the figures only 1500 dwellings. Of far greater note, as can be seen from the image below, is the amount of open space proposed for the development. In contrast to what is in line for Virginia Estate (ie one park of 2500 square metres and a sprinkling of more dots on the map) Bradmill is close to 4 hectares of open space on a similar sized lot and BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE 6 STOREYS AND NOT 8!
We don’t believe that it is too much to ask that when documents are published years after the facts are known, that they be accurate, detailed, and actually informative!
November 28, 2017 at 11:13 AM
Bradmill main park is a touch under 3 hectares. Our main park is only 2500 metres which converts to a quarter hectare for the same sized land mass. They get 6 stories around the park and we’re supposed to believe that 8 stories won’t have any detrimental effect on overshadowing. Pull the other leg vpa council and Gillon.
November 28, 2017 at 11:42 AM
Presumably all the docs have gone through countless hands. Council planners, planning authority staff. consultants in scores and the community reference committee
. Maybe 50 people and no one saw the crap about caulfield?
November 28, 2017 at 2:03 PM
Other developments and comparisons are questionable too. The French one is a couple of minutes from a major city plus close access to various modes of public transport. None of these things can be applied to the Bentleigh proposals. Why these get a mention is beyond me.
November 28, 2017 at 2:22 PM
Unbelievable errors, comparison are more often than not, odious. Here are good example. Are these mistakes purposeful corruption of the data presented or just plain old very unprofessional mistakes, who knows.
Public open space should be a lot more in East village all water runoff should be treated onsite, using the open space as a filter, as is done in almost all large development happening around Melbourne and beyond these.
Glen Eira has a long history of being mediocre or far less, East Village should be a turning point and seen as an opportunity to get some environmentally sound design element into this project.
A Canyon Village with dysfunctional on site public open space shouldn’t be entertained.
November 28, 2017 at 2:58 PM
Council conned residents with Caulfield village and looks like they’re doing it again. They admit to 3000 apartments exactly like they started off with 1100 at Caulfield and will end up with double that and more. Watch out because a leopard doesn’t change his spots.
November 28, 2017 at 6:29 PM
Making money is the goal for Gillon and council. That means buildings and apartments and more apartments. The rest is all bull.