The High-Rise Conundrum: Where Density Meets Heritage in Woollahra

The proposed rezoning plan for Sydney’s east aims to add 9400 homes, raising questions about finding a balance between housing density and heritage preservation. At stake are the character of Woollahra’s streetscapes, state and local heritage items, and what makes a neighborhood livable.

NSW Planning Minister Paul Scully claims his government has struck a balance between heritage and housing uplift in Woollahra. However, Woollahra Council is skeptical, arguing that the plan will lead to a “devastating loss of local heritage buildings.” The council’s concerns are valid, given the precinct contains seven state heritage items, 200 local heritage items, and three heritage conservation areas.

Heritage preservation is often seen as an impediment to progress, but it also contributes to what makes a neighborhood desirable. In Woollahra, residents have fought hard to preserve their unique character. The proposed rezoning plan raises questions about the true cost of “uplift.” Will 40% of homes being built within 200 meters of Edgecliff and Woollahra train stations mitigate the impact on heritage items, or will it lead to a homogenization of the area?

Critics like Sydney YIMBY’s Justin Simon argue that councils have taken too broad an approach with heritage preservation. According to Simon, prioritizing a smaller percentage of the LGA for heritage protection would allow for more efficient housing development. However, this approach risks erasing the essence of what makes Woollahra special – its diverse architectural styles and rich history.

The debate in Woollahra is part of a broader issue: finding the right balance between growth and character in Australia’s cities. Cities like Melbourne and Brisbane are grappling with similar issues, often involving compromises that threaten to undermine unique neighborhoods. In Woollahra, the stakes are high, but so too is the potential for innovation.

The proposed rezoning plan assumes the precinct has “uniform capacity” for uplift, which is problematic given Woollahra’s varied landscape. Some areas, like Queen Street and East Woollahra, are particularly sensitive due to their low-scale streetscapes, mature landscapes, and sandstone walls. Others, like Trumper Park and Rushcutters Bay Park, will be significantly impacted by the proposed developments.

The government’s heritage analysis clarifies that heritage items would generally be retained, but direct demolition is not the main risk. Instead, bigger risks lie in demolishing “contributory fabric” – items that aren’t individually important but add to the significance of a heritage item. This raises questions about what constitutes “heritage worth preserving.” Should it be individual buildings or entire streetscapes? The answer has significant implications for urban planning.

Woollahra Council’s Deputy Mayor Sean Carmichael has proposed an alternative solution: fewer, taller, and thinner towers up to 45 storeys. According to Carmichael, this approach would take up less land and save more heritage items. While it may seem counterintuitive to build higher rather than denser, Carmichael’s argument highlights the importance of considering height as a solution rather than a problem.

The proposed rezoning plan is not without its flaws, but it also presents an opportunity for innovative urban planning. By prioritizing density and clustering height, developers can create more visual compatibility with existing heritage items. However, this approach requires careful management to avoid overwhelming the area with too much development at once.

Finding the right balance between housing density and heritage preservation will require a nuanced understanding of what makes Woollahra special. The proposed rezoning plan may not be perfect, but it also presents a chance for Sydney’s planners to rethink their approach to urban development – one that prioritizes both progress and preservation.