PlanningAlerts

45 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. 122 crystal street, or “Tindal” is an iconic grand terrace of petersham and it would be an uniformed destruction of heritage for it to be demolished.

2. This is a beautiful old terrace and to destroy it would be to destroy part of the inner west’s architectural heritage. This DA must not be approved.

3. You would think any proposed development on this site (which is justified, given the location and lot size) would look to incorporate portions of the existing building and layer the old with new. I don't think it's in the interest of this community to demolish well crafted century old buildings for the sake of maximising GFA and more of the same modern architecture. Hopefully council can help guide the applicant to find a site specific solution that retains portions of the existing structure.

4. Stop destroying our history.
   Stop destroying our character.
   Stop destroying what makes a suburb a suburb.

   Everything that makes Petersham what it is does not include giant modern apartment blocks no one asked for.

   People are sick of watching the older suburbs being savaged by developers, everything we love of our suburbs is slowly being broken down for the benefit of very, very few to create horrible eyesores.

   We are sick of it.

5. I oppose the DA to demolish 122 Crystal St. This building is a beautiful and iconic part of Petersham history. We need to continue to protect and enjoy historical architecture, not knock it down to make way for apartment blocks (of which there are far too many in the inner city already!)

6. After living for many years in the Petersham area, I was often saddened to see the continuing destruction of buildings that were unique and told the history of the area. This submission is yet another example of a developers needless destruction of what is a historic building which should by all means be covered by heritage protection.
   There are smarter ways to utilise and restore old buildings for new use, and knocking it down is not one of them. Council, please do the right thing in this instance and be part of the solution in protecting these beautiful examples of period architecture for future generations to admire and appreciate.

7. This is a grand part of petersham history and should be preserved, no amount of shops or apartments will make up for a loss of heritage, culture and great architecture. We need to incorporate and preserve unique structures like this to add value and retain the essence of petersham and Sydney as a whole.

8. What reason is given for razing this piece or architectural history besides density increase? I'd be objecting this DA building destruction based purely on its age & heritage value, an example of building features from its period and emotionally from the 'not another' apartment replacing a century + grand old 'lady'. Council please consider its heritage value over any dollar signs or consider some incorporation of the original build into the new design.

9. This is a heritage building, part of the area’s history and identity. It should not be demolished.

10. Petersham’s character and value comes from its history and impressive Victorian/federation architecture. It’s why I moved to the area and would hate to see landmarks such is this grand terrace turn into another shop or apartment complex. Re-development doesn’t add value to the area, restoration and preservation of history and architecture does.

    Please think about what makes suburbs like Petersham highly valuable and coveted compared to those concrete jungles and charmless suburbs where no respect has been paid to historical architecture. There is a reason why Petersham is more covetable to live in and that’s why we buy there, pay council taxes etc. we don’t need another cookie cutter suburb with masses of new developments

11. Strongly oppose knocking down old homes of historical significance in the local area.
    Just to line the pockets of property developers whom from recent observations have provided no community benefit or upgraded local infrastructure that needs to be updated to cope with extra congestion that new developments bring to the community and the sub standard quality of the dwellings being sold to unwitting consumers

12. This building as an fantatist example of heritage architecture should not be demolished to be replaced with anything. Once this is gone a price of history will be lost never to be replaced. I strongly oppose this DA.

13. I've recently seen the demolition of historical buildings in the Inner West to make way for more apartments. The Inner West has such beautiful history in its buildings and we need to protect it. I oppose this DA.

14. Please stop approving the destruction of the architectural heritage of the inner west. The layered architectural history of homes in Petersham and the inner west more broadly is a significant part of what makes our area special. We do not need more old homes to be replaced by architecturally lightweight apartment blocks.

15. I oppose this DA based on the fact that there will soon be an extreme amount of apartments in the area with two new apartment precincts in Petersham already under construction.
    Local amenities cannot support this amount of new dwellings and the traffic issue alone is a concern. Schools and transport will also be overloaded.

    People living in these areas often move here to experience the character of the area. There won't be any 'character' left if houses like this are continually knocked down for 'lego' brick style apartments with empty shops underneath.
    Many of these retail shops under apartments are left empty and not utilised for years, which is already an eyesore to the area.

    This is a clear form of knocking down rather than upscaling an already beautiful building.
    In Europe places of historic value and kept and renovated to modern standards.
    In Sydney, everything is flattened.

    Soon enough the area will be as homogenous as Canterbury has become, and Hurstville before it.

    Please stop destroying the character of the area and building the same unit blocks over and over again.

    The apartments that are submitted for building will NEVER hold as much historical value as this one building has already.

    I oppose this DA.

16. I oppose this application on the grounds that

    a) the existing structure well represents the period in which it was erected;
    b) the demolition of the existing structure would further diminish examples of Sydney's built history;
    c) the site does not well accommodate density of this kind; and
    d) Sydney generally has suffered due to a spate of dense over-development over the past decade or more

17. Sounds like a great development, I support it. This building does not have any particular heritage credentials apart from being old.

    If we abstained from building on any site with a building over 100 years old we wouldn’t have any new housing in the inner west.

18. I oppose this DA. There are already major developments of apartments occurring within Crystal, Trafalgar and Audley Street. The recent developments still have shop spaces that have not been leased out over the last two years. More idle shop spaces are not required. Where are all of these new residents and visitors going to park cars? There is very limited parking available in the area between Crystal, Trafalgar and Audley streets. Why destroy more of architecture that speaks to the history of the area? The current new apartments lack any thought in design and have been hastily built. How about you wait and see what the occupancy rate is on all the new developments before approving more?

19. I oppose the demolition of this heritage building. This destruction of our history has to stop.

20. I oppose the demolition of this building. Period homes are the very fabric of the Inner West. We have lost too much of our history already. We need to pay more respect to the craftsmanship that has gone into the houses built at this time. Far more than any of the mostly eyesores that are being developed in modern times - you just need to drive a few blocks along Parramatta Rd to witness ill thought, poor quality developments. European cities have buildings hundreds of years old why can't we. Governments should build our future but not to the detriment of our legacy. Sydney is sadly becoming more and more soulless year after year.

21. This eyesore of a building should be knocked down to allow for more affordable housing in the area, strongly support redevelopment occurring on this site.

    It is not historically significant, it is just an old building that could serve our community much better with another purpose.

22. I’m appalled that the council is considering this application. This particular property has historical architectural value. The Inner West needs to retain its character. We do not need more units, especially given the lack of capacity in Inner West schools to accomodate the population growth that results from increased housing density.

23. The proposed development is gargantuan and unnecessary.
    There is no need for additional shop frontage in this area, gown there is considerable commercial vacancies on or around Crystal street.
    The proposed development does not add to the character of the street and in its current form is overt and oversized.
    
    The current building fits with the style and character of the area and has significant heritage value. Its Victorian era styling with side garage is unique and should be retained and provided heritage status to ensure is longevity into the future.
    It's demolition would be detrimental to the character of Petersham and have a negative impact on any rejuvenation efforts of Crystal Street and adversely alter the low density surrounds

24. So many people against this development and none in support! It would therefore be a farce if Council did not listen to its constituents and approved this development.
    I too agree that this building holds the key to the areas history and culture, wiping it away would be a tragedy, a miss carriage of the will of the populist and not a way for any council representative to gain the favour of its constituents, if they wish for reelection in the future. There are multiple old warehouse type lots that would be much more aligned with a development of this type in the area. Retain this building and reject the DA submission is my vote along with almost everyone else who has commented.

25. Please don’t destroy more of our heritage buildings, this is a land mark building and it is beautiful. The building should not be pulled down to build a block of flats.

26. Absolutely do not think that heritage buildings should be removed from Petersham to make way for boring apartment buildings devoid of architectural merit.

27. definitely a shame. don’t knock it down tell the developers to go find another plot.

28. In 50 years the inner west will be a sea of poor quality, featureless, soulless square blocks. I oppose this development as buildings such as this, which represent a period in inner west history, should be preserved. Most locals care about their history, so why are developers, who are not sympathetic to an area’s cultural and historical significance, permitted to come in and demolish what is important.

29. Please ensure that our old historic buildings are incorporated into new developments. Europe and the UK do this very effectively and a similar process should follow here. The buding i s attractive and should be preserved and incorp oirated into the new development.

30. As a Petersham resident, I strongly oppose the nature of this DA.

    The destruction of the suburb’s character and increased density created by the proposal are both contrary to what is best for the area. I would expect that council can understand this and have taken note of the strong opposition to this DA by existing residents.

31. I note that apartments are already being sold off the plan and the development of 122 Crystal St is proposed to commence in December of this year. So, I guess the wanton destruction of history is another foregone conclusion. Developers pay big money to get their way. The ugly development proposal is another nail in the coffin of the innerwest’s charm and liveability.

32. Please do not demolish this beautiful piece of architecture and history. This is an important part of the innerwest

33. I oppose this demolition. I was shocked to see the sign. Right under your nose too! Shame.

34. Please don’t demolish Tindil. The Inner West Council should not allow another piece of our history to be pulled down and replaced with something structurally and aesthetically inferior. Sydney has already destroyed so much, we need our planning laws to protect the character of the inner west and our city.

35. Character filled buildings such as this one make the suburb what it is. Destroying it instead of incorporating the existing structure is a crime. Designing an amazing and complex new build to work with this wonderful building should be part of the approval process.

36. We were residents of Petersham for many years and loved its diverse historic architecture. Developments like The Majestic show that the area's character can be preserved and enriched . 'Tindil' could be sympathetically re-purposed with some accommodation, a cafe, offices, retail - all sorts of possible uses. Reward a developer who shows imagination and some empathy with the area's heriatge, don't endorse another set of high rise boxes.

37. This is just wrong and shows council is more interested in developer fees and future rates than maintaining heritage or the growing traffic gridlock in that area of the inner west which will only get worse.

38. I live in Leichhardt and am so disappointed in seeing so much of the heritage of the area being demolished for modern constructions. Tindil is an unique building worthy of retaining either in its entirety or partially as the façade of a more modern structure. Please don't destroy all the lovely buildings in the inner west in the name of progress.

39. I absolutely oppose this DA due to historical, cultural and heritage reasons. This historic home provides character and beauty to our neighbourhood and is an excellent representation of colonial/Victorian architecture. This building should/must be preserved and restored.

40. I can not believe that demolition of this heritage building is even being considered. The development should have to incorporate the original building into the design. This has been done so well with other heritage buildings in Petersham. To destroy this building and replace it a boring no personality apartment building would be an opportunity lost and a such a crying shame.

41. I support this development. I don't think there's anything particularly special about this building other than its age. I've walked past it hundreds of times and I can't say I've ever felt any emotion when I've looked at it.
    There's a housing affordability crisis in this country and we need to build more residences and increase housing density, particularly in places like where this development is proposed – because it's only about 150m from a train station and bus stops, which means the residents won't need cars.
    Certainly there are some buildings worthy of conservation, but we cannot heritage list every old house in Sydney because we like the look of old houses and are averse to change.
    If someone can build twelve residences in the footprint of one, I think that's fantastic.

42. There is nothing special about this building, it is just another old building that needs a new life. There is no significant historical value to it either. People need to come to realization that while preservation of heritage is highly regarded, we also need to make way for new development because that is how we have built cities over time. There would have been absolutely no construction on any piece of old land, or any civilization at all, if we had stopped demolishing anything of old age.

43. Please don't destroy our heritage.

44. House histories are important because they tell us about the makeup of a suburb, how it developed and about the people who lived there.

    Homes such as the one at 122 Crystal St, hold a wealth of information and old buildings are reminders of an areas culture and complexity. Once a piece of history is destroyed, it is lost forever.

    Work to heritage buildings should conserve what is important about them and provide the opportunity to reveal and interpret their history, while also providing sustainable long-term uses. This is a challenge that I hope architects, developers and clients will relish.

    Other communities are using their heritage to enhance the appeal of their suburbs and neighbourhoods by giving their heritage buildings and precincts a new lease of life through adaptation. Through innovation they are achieving the goals of heritage conservation and financial viability. I oppose the current DA as it does not achieve these goals.

45. Please don't allow this to be demolished. It has such beautiful heritage features that enhance the streetscape. So many modern buildings are soulless and unattractive boxes, that do not beautify the area.
    It would be a disgrace to lose the heritage significance of this building.
    Please deny this application.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Inner West Council (Marrickville). They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment