Q: Housing?

A: Infill.

The exam is beyond ridiculous.

Jobbing architects know that the process is as important than the product. Sometimes more so. And nowhere is this more evident than in the missing middle: inserting infill housing into existing suburbs runs the full gauntlet: difficult sites, unrealistic clients, negative Councils, activist NIMBYs, and reluctant banks. It’s a hard slog, mostly well rewarded, occasionally not.

In the last decade we’ve designed over 30 infill products we call low and close. Low scale (3-4 storey), medium density (30-50 dw/Ha), well located, modest housing. I showed a dozen on my last outing. Today I’m turning to the exigencies of the infill process, this time with just one example, where the final product eventually looks like this.

This process to get to here was hellishly difficult, fraught with astonishing twists, and devastating turns, almost 10 years from concept to commission. It’s not a typical process - none are, they are all unhappy in their own way, to misquote Tolstoy - but this one is a rollicking tale, sadder and stupider than most, so hang on for the ride.

Brief

Our client, a family man with young children, realised there was a great opportunity for a local childcare centre (a CCC) in Baulkham Hills, an established middle ring suburb in Sydney. Some of his friends, successful developers, encouraged him to take on the project as a new build infill if he could find somewhere suitable.

Site

The site he found, and bought, was a derelict old-style petrol station, originally with pumps under a single awning and a mechanics workshop, located on a two-lane feeder road through the middle of his suburb. It backed onto six shops fronting a small public square with trees, some carparks for shoppers, and a rear lane for loading docks. The through road had a regular bus service.

The zoning allowed shop top housing, requiring retail at ground level with residential above. The floor space ratio - FSR - and height limit were generous: enough for some shops, with about 14-16 apartments in two storeys over. The site was flattish, with 3m jump up to the little civic square. The houses opposite had generous setbacks from the road. All in all, a very promising housing infill site.

The Pre-DA

In early 2014 we drew a modest CCC underneath 14 apartments, each facing sideways to north with courtyard style balconies. It had carparking underneath, with drop-off zones for children. All permitted or required under the planning regulations. CCCs were much in demand in Baulkham Hills then, as they still are. We lodged with Council for advice in a Pre-DA.

Council ruled it out. Not immediately, they took 2 months to respond. A noise problem for residents they said. Absurd we said. CCCs make ideal neighbours: weekdays only, starting later than many businesses, they finish early, closed on holidays. I know, I’ve lived next door to one for years. Even with a well-known operator involved, Council’s computer said NO.

First DA

So, back to the tracing paper, the ground floor became more of the same old: unknown retail that we hoped would be better than the usual high-priced, low-quality grocery. Our client waxed enthusiastic about a coffee shop. Modified plans were lodged in September 2014. The locals’ reaction: 200 objections. Council's reaction? No discussion, outright refusal the day before Christmas.

First court case

Advice from town planners and lawyers supported the scheme; an appeal was made to the Land and Environment Court - LEC. The hearing begins with a meeting on site with the Commissioner and lawyers for both parties, where they hear from the local objectors. The NIMBYs vehemence had to be experienced to be believed.

It became a noisy debacle. With over 200 local residents crowded around, the Commissioner became annoyed, entirely counter-productive on the protesters part. As a peace offering the Council’s lawyers suggested that we withdraw the scheme, make some agreed modifications, and Council would approve it. Naively, we believed them.

NIMBYs

There are always NIMBYs protesting infill proposals as ‘dreadful and disastrous’, ruinous for their precious suburb. It’s depressing for professional architects and planners to be berated by locals whose houses are nothing short of low-density schlock: ugly, wasteful and crass. Whilst it’s their right, they are inevitably wrong.

This is the housing opposite: two-storey 1970s brick venereal diseased boxes, with cars parked in capacious front yards. The suburb’s density had fallen so low that the former petrol station became uneconomic, and shops were vacant. They couldn’t see anything beyond their suburban housing: no diversity, nothing different, no ‘other’.

Second DA

After refusal of the DA, as we prepared a new design, my client suffered a catastrophic heart attack and died. His family regarded Council’s obstinacy in the process contributed, at least in part, to his extreme stress. His friends rallied, and together with his wife, helped us prepare a revised scheme, lodged in April 2015.

Council consultation

There were less objections, but Council was not for turning. Despite previous assurances, a refusal was in the offering, so off we headed to the LEC, again. Despite the appeal, or perhaps because of it, Council suggested a community consultation, with the town planner and I invited to address a public meeting hosted by Council. An ambush had been laid.

The meeting was stacked with objectors, who were vituperative and untruthful. But their rudeness paled in comparison to the councillors and mayor in particular. It was galling to be addressed by the wrong name, be interrupted and refused the right of reply. The meeting turned from consultation to insultation.

Second court case

The second case went far better, mostly because Council made a critical error. They employed one of Sydney’s best urban designers as the expert witness for them. Rather than tear it down, she immediately saw value in the scheme and suggested ways in which it could be expanded. Yes expanded. “How about another shop facing the square, with more housing over?” Yes please.

We hastily re-drew again, and the LEC approved the scheme in December 2015.

Approval and construction

With an approval, the family sold the site to recoup the costs for the project. We prepared preliminary construction drawings, but after that we were no longer involved in the project.

We understand the site was sold again and construction was delayed until 2017, and then delayed again with the difficulties of site remediation. Construction was finished, exceptionally well, during the Covid pandemic, entirely in accordance with the DA design (only the courtyard garden disappeared).

Costs, values, profits and losses

The long times in the process increase holding costs and consultant fees, adding to the cost of the project and decreasing its viability. For the last ten years, the increases forced by Council’s intransigence have been masked by rising sales values. But deep down the messy and divisive approval process makes projects less and less affordable. We just haven’t seen it until recently, as values fall and projects stall. This project was finished before that happened. Our current state is stasis.

Product

The apartments sold well for the developer: one-bedroom units were about $580,000 pre-construction, and $640,000 after. In context: one-beds are about one third, and two beds one half, of the local three-bed houses. It's one of the first offerings of alternative, more affordable, dwellings in that suburb. Despite the protestations of locals, there is a ‘market for the product’.

The three retail spaces are all useful for the locals: a large medical practice including a physio, and on the upper level a dentist / cosmetic surgeon on the public square. These uses are better than Council's idea of a cafe with outdoor seating opposite the roundabout. The existing cafes facing the square are better placed, and undergoing a bit of a revival, driven in part by the increase in residents, and the new retail creating a critical mass.

Car parking is on two levels, a basement for the residential off-street car parking, and ground level for retail. A lift provides resident access to their elevated apartments which have district views.

Dénouement

Sadly, my client never lived to see the success of the vision, nor his family benefit as they should. Also sadly, Council has not changed its ways. It continues to oppose proposals that offer alternatives of diversity, social and affordable housing, in its middle-class suburbs of monocultural design. The same council took two years to approve a CCC we designed on another site, without any housing attached. Nothing’s changed.

It’s hard to believe all this can happen in just one project. Time for the new planning minister to demand better.

Reference: Tone on Tuesday 168: Blood sweat and tears: the missing middle muddled process: week 25/ 2023.

Tone Wheeler is an architect / the views expressed are his. The designs are by environa studio. The photos are by TW unless noted otherwise.

Short pieces are published every Friday in A&D Another Thing.

Longer columns are Tone on Tuesday, published then.

You can contact TW at toneontuesday@gmail.com

Tone Wheeler

Blood-sweat-and-tears-the-missing-middle-muddled-1732064435.png

Let’s connect!