Sirius is an example of what is described as " brutalist architecture " style which happened to get built where it has sweeping views of both the Opera House and the Harbour bridge. It exceeds what is now the permitted height for the iconic Rocks area and its apartments are in need of a very costly makeover to bring them to a modern standard. Since 1980 they have provided accommodation for public housing tenants.
The existing tenants are fighting tooth and nail to have this building preserved as Housing Commission stock because they don't want to lose their fabulous views, and that is understandable but it is that view that would bring more than a hundred million dollars it the site were was offered on the open market.
Developers would pay a fortune to demolish and build modern housing which would actually be smaller than the existing building. The plans for a new building would need to be no higher than the bridge decking and make no restriction to sight lines from the bridge to the Opera House. The building would provide a similar return if the apartments were offered for public sale and the new owners allowed to make their own internal renovations. That would probably satisfy the many people who wish to see the building preserved or added to the heritage register.
The fate of Sirius is similar to what is happening to older public housing at Millers Point. This also have sweeping harbour views and are being sold for redevelopment with the funds going to create more public housing on the outskirts of the city. For each Millers Point property sold, the funds build five new homes. So far this has resulted in 700 new public housing homes being added to the stock and another 372 under construction.
Those with socialist views complain that public housing tenants are being denied space in opulent suburbs with pleasing views to make way for rich people. We have a long waiting list for public housing and it is a matter of economics that selling properties which have added value frees the funds to create a greater number of homes where the site value is lower.
Some would question the wisdom of new public housing being sited far from the city centre and mainly composing free standing houses on individual building blocks. This is ideal for families with small children, but it runs counter to what is happening in the general population. More families are being forced to adopt apartment living and perhaps public housing should concentrate on this provision.
Those far outer suburbs face a transport problem accessing city jobs and this adds to traffic congestion and the toll cost to provide labour for low wage essential jobs that keep the city functioning. More apartment public housing would be welcome on high volume transit routes being served by new trams and the metro.
It should also be remembered that public housing was never intended to be an offer of a home for life. For the average person it was an interim measure while they developed their skills and moved to a higher income that allowed them to move to home ownership, or to enter the public rental market.
It is essential that public housing stock be continually turned over to generate the funds to increase the volume. Public housing will never meet demand and the argument to retain public housing because it has nice views falls short on reality grounds. Few languishing on the waiting list would accept that point of view !
No comments:
Post a Comment