Building Height Standards Review Project Prepared for the Hobart City Council Leigh Woolley Architect June 30 2018 Building Height Standards Review Project Prepared for the Hobart City Council Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 224 Murray Street Hobart Tasmania leigh@leighwoolley.com.au +61 (03) 62311711 Project team : Leigh Woolley , Toby Woolley © Photography / mapping June 30 2018 Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 3 4 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 Photography: Leigh Woolley Contents Background 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Urban Context A city with an intelligible topography A small city in a large landscape p.9 p.11 2.1 A dynamic landscape shelters settlement 2.2 Settlement landscapes and urban identity 2.3 Settlement expansion 2.4 Consolidating the primary activity centre 2.5 The central urban blocks of the Primary Activity Centre 2.6 The shape of the Central Business Zone 2.7 The urban amphi-theatre 2.8 The amphi-theatre to the cove 2.9 Landform underpins urban structure 2.10 Intensity at the heart of settlement 3.0 Response to context Considering a layered urban form p.27 3.1 ‘Non-conforming’ development 3.2 Generating height control planes 3.3 Considering a potential area of ‘built intensity’ 4.0 Maintaining Connectivity Views and View Cones p.35 4.1 An initial Inventory A. Cenotaph Headland B. Cove Floor C. Cove Slopes D. Cove Ridges E. City Centre ‘basin’ F. City Centre slopes G. City Centre edges 5.0 ‘Shaping’ Outcomes Integrating view protection and height control planes p.85 5.1 Identifying the Inner Core precinct 5.2 Considering the Inner Core Urban blocks 5.3 Indicative Sections : longitudinal 5.4 Indicative views : Axonometric 5.5 Summary Considerations 5.6 Emerging design principles 5.7 Conclusions Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 5 6 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 Background Building Height Standards Review Project Project Brief The Objectives of the project are : Identify an appropriate height control plane back from the Cove Floor (decending with and moving back form the Macquarie Ridge contour) while generating an emphasis west and north west. (i) To prepare height control planes for both the central area of Hobart and Sullivans Cove and consider appropriate maximum (non -discretionary) height limits for inclusion in the the relevant Planning Scheme. Consider an area of built intensity where provisions could be modified to complement chnages in height limits (beyond the amenity building envelope) or potentially to incentivise better design outcomes. (ii) To identify additional important view lines and vew protection planes in the central area of Hobart and Sullivans Cove for inclusion in the relevant Planning Scheme. 3. Designate additional important view lines and view protection planes Issued by the Hobart City Council (10 November 2017) (iii) To define the urban context of Central Hobart and identify design principles for new buildings in the central area of Hobart and Sullivans Cove for inclusion in the relevant Planning Scheme. Scope and Key Tasks 1. Define Urban Context In the regional urban landscape, confirm the place of Central Hobart within the ‘activity centre hierarchy’ Locate and identify characteristics of the ‘urban amphitheatre’ Develop spatial principles to inform an appreciation of the ‘urban amphitheatre’, also acknowledging the ‘amphitheatre to the Cove’. 2. Prepare height control planes for both the CBD and the Cove and consider maximum (non discretionary) height limits Identify , through appropriate modelling, ‘nonconforming’ buildings that confuse consideration of the ‘amphitheatre to the Cove’ and the ‘urban amphitheatre’. Prepare an inventory of view lines and view protection planes as they currently exist in Masterplans, Site Development Plans and integrate and co-ordinate into view management provisions for Central Hobart to be included in the planning scheme. Extend to include city wide alignments incorporating connection to regional landscape horizons. Develop view protection planes to ensure connectivity between the ground plane of the city centre and the cove floor and regional landscape horizons. Model view shaft alignments and outline coordinates prior to determining height control planes. 4. Identify design principles for new buildings in the CBD which aim to protect the identified townscape and streetscape values. Develop guidelines for development above the ‘street wall’ to consider how bulk reduces as height increases, to encourage permeability of light between buildings. Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 7 Report Structure In response to the brief and having regard to the scale of the setting and the evolving process of development of Central Hobart, the report is divided into five sections. Individual view lines as well as view cones are identified, with modelling indicating the potential connectivity with and without height control planes. Following an introduction the Urban Context of a ‘small city in a large landscape’ is discussed in response to the settlement expansion of the city region and the role of Central Hobart in the urban hierarchy. The key spatial characteristics of the Urban Amphitheatre and the Amphitheatre to the Cove are identified in order to locate and appreciate ‘intensity at the heart of settlement’ in Central Hobart. The last section combines outcomes of the previous sections, integrating view protection and height control planes (with councils existing amenity building envelope) to generate a potential envelope for each urban block. Together with co-ordinating data for each urban block, this also assists in considering design guidelines in response to the identified townscape values. In response to the context, and in order to consider a layering of the urban form ‘non conforming’ development is identified, along with height control planes between Sullivans Cove and the city centre and then the inner hills. As a result a potential area of built intensity as an inner core precinct can be considered. An inventory of View Lines and View Cones as view planes is then provided to identify the connecting alignments between the city centre and the regional landscape horizons. 8 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 The approach uses available modelling data including Councils K2Vi model. Considerations arising will accordingly be subject to detailed survey. 1.0 Introduction A city with an intelligible topography City as landscape All cities are experienced as landscapes where they are placed, as well as how they are formed in response to their locations influences subsequent judgements, and demands consideration in planning and design terms. In topographically diverse cities such as Hobart, there is also a constant reminder that, like the individual homes that form them, cities are sheltering places within larger landscapes. In contrast to many cities that celebrate a capacity to over come geography by diminishing topographic diversity, in Hobart the opportunity still exists to celebrate and acknowledge the fundamental symbolic and ecological significance of the regional landforms and their particularities, from the centre of settlement. Topography underpins and informs settlement. In Hobart the terms : Ridge, Cove, Hillside, Domain…etc. are references to landforms that underpin the experience and knowledge of the place. Orientation within the dwelling region is provided by landform and water-plane references, more than by built form. Movement within and across the surface of the city (across its landform) will continue to inform its planning and urban design, not only in terms of the orientation and alignment it offers, but in seeking an intelligible topography that includes the evolving built form. Accessing the view Although Tasmania is not particularly mountainous, a complex geology and limited ‘low ground’ means the ‘natural rise’ is strongly evident throughout the state, especially in the Hobart region. As a result views are an inherent feature of the dwelling experience. Even near the estuarine waters edge, the city’s wider frames of reference are likely ‘in view’. ‘Accessing and sharing the view’ is synonymous with movement within and across the city’s landform, especially its hillsides. Views are also synonymous with residence. While the footprint of settlement has grown considerably in recent decades, often blurring settlement margins, the capacity Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 9 to view beyond the built margins from the centre of settlement, continues to identify Hobart as ‘a small city in a large landscape’ 1 . Confusing the layered urban scale phenomenon. ‘Human life swings between two poles: movement and settlement‘, Mumford reminds us, but ‘At the dawn of history, the city is already a mature form’. 4 To improve ‘urban liveability’, integrated planning (including metropolitan governance) is considered essential to overcome policy silos and achieve coherent and consistent policy between departments and agencies.5 With its footprint now spread over 169,546 sq. km.6 (refer fig. p.15) Greater Hobart as a settlement is no longer a ‘compact’ city - indeed it is now one of the least densely settled major cities in Australia.7 In counterpoint, especially in terms of sustainability, the city centre, in striving to be the intense ‘compact’ focus of settlement, should be more concerned with generating urban intensity, and the quality Height and density of living space being provided, than with Although they often align, building height is ‘density’ per se. not a measure of density. (The footprint of “There is no single scale at which to Empress Towers and the adjacent Princes measure urban density, but the larger Park, if considered together, would for the scale the lower the density. The best example be less dense than an equivalent approach is to understand density as multi area of adjacent Battery Point housing.) – scalar: for any location there is an internal 2 As indicated in the previous report density, a net density, a walk-able density building height in Central Hobart should and a metropolitan density.”8 be considered an outcome of location and (built) form. And this form will be Five reports in one in response to other planning scheme provisions including the urban townscape, To address the specific tasks in the brief, and as well as the developments contribution in the absence of a strategic plan for the to the specific urban precinct/ block and city region and an urban design framework adjacent street spaces. for the city centre, this report necessarily ‘over reaches’. In effect it is five studies in Central Hobart aspires to provide ‘a one report: Urban Context, Non-conforming compact built focus to the region and buildings and structures, Views / View operate as the commercial hub of the Cones inventory, Height Control Planes, and state, reflecting an ‘intensity at the heart of conceptual urban massing leading to outline Design Principles. Even with consistent settlement’. 3 effort and the best intentions, it is difficult Inherent to urban intensification, and to adequately address the scope of the indeed to the sense of being urban, brief - each section deserves more than time is the process of ‘densification’. As a permits. feature of human settlements, density is increasingly contested, but it is not a recent 4  Mumford, Lewis. The City in History. Pelican 1961 p.11 In acknowledging the role of the regional urban landscape to the place of settlement, the project brief seeks to locate and consider spatial principles of the ‘urban amphitheatre’ (focused on Central Hobart) while also acknowledging the ‘amphitheatre to the cove’. With these in mind the continuity of scale inherent to the city’s built form, has been reviewed by identifying ‘non-conforming’ buildings and structures that currently confuse the layered rise of the built. 1   Urban Design Principles Project 2004 Woolley L. p.2 2   HIPS 2015 Height Standards – Performance Criteria Review. Woolley, L. 2016 3   op cit p. 53 and HIPS 2015 – PSA -17-3 Amendments and Hearing Feb 21 2018 10 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 5  ‘Creating liveable cities in Australia’ RMIT Center for Urban Research Oct 2017 p.19 6  Australian Bureau of Statistics 2017 7  Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy 2010- 2035 p.11 8  Dovey, K., Pafka, E. Urban density matters- but what does it mean ? The Conversation May 20 , 2016 2.0 The Urban Context A small city in a large landscape A dynamic landscape shelters settlement not least from the urban centre. This ‘lived’ landscape, where distant views are part of the felt experience of place, along with the By definition port cities provide refuge. As a shifting scale of outreach they offer, ensures significant deep-water southern ocean port, that ‘landscape’ is appreciated as foundaHobart not only provides safe harbour for tion to urban character and form, rather than simply urban ‘back cloth’. vessels, its expansive embayment /estuarine catchment also focuses and shelters While the city’s urban morphology has been the urban dwelling region. shown to be a response to its topography,9 the continuing task is to strengthen the In contrast with its sky and water horicapacity of the city to reveal, through its zons and circumscribed by high and rising evolving form, the place of settlement. ground, settlement in Hobart is integral with the layered undulations and familiar In contrast to other major settlement landforms of the region. The diverse and distinctive topography of Hobart, combined locations in the nation, the place of Hobart with a clear ‘lucid’ atmosphere, allows the and the shared experience of its landscape ‘near’ and ‘far’ to have equal prominence, 9  HIPS 2015 Height Standards Performance Review. Woolley , L. 2016 op cit Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 11 kunanyi ‘the mountain’ The mass of the Wellington Range and its familiar profile and escarpment above Hobart is known as ‘kunanyi’ – a Bruny Island word for ‘the mountain’ (Greg Lehman pers comm. 17 jan 2018). Use of the term in this report is with this encompassing landscape presence in mind. This includes the familiar scale and form on the horizon within the Urban Amphitheatre, also when viewing west/south west from Sullivans Cove. can continue to determine its urban character, especially the development and form of the city centre. While the landscape of the dwelling region provides the abiding urban context, the challenge is in cultivating and curating its urban form. ‘Nature and the past are remarkably palpable in Tasmania …. so far as the two are separable, nature has evoked deeper appreciation than history.’ 10 While a city’s natural environment and its urban form when taken together ‘comprise a record of the interaction between natural processes and human purpose over time’,12 landscape values and their protection especially at the urban scale, (and notwithstanding their perceived subjectivity), is a complex task. 13 An initial approach is in acknowledging the environmental foundation to the urban context, and then integrating it into policy and development outcomes. While all cities Settlement landscapes and urban are experienced as landscapes, Hobart more than most, and certainly more than any identity other state capital, is understood as ‘ a small 14 The importance of settlement landscapes to city in a large landscape’. It is not merely that one can view undeveloped naturally the community’s collective sense of place and culture, let alone their contribution to vegetated horizons from the centre of the city, but that even a casual urban gaze can economic development within the region assist the viewer in scaling the city within its 11 has and continues to be, acknowledged. landscape. Below : Central Hobart within its settlement landscape. The ‘natural rise’ from sea level to alpine (1271 m). Section line W/SW from Cove Floor to kunanyi ‘summit’ (7.5km) Section profile 12 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 10  Roe, M. Illustrated Register of the National Estate 1981 Section 7/5 11  Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy, (STRLUS) State Growth Population Strategy 2015 p.37 (Also refer substantial literature – eg. JB Jackson, Yi Fu Tuan, K. Lynch, Hidenobu) 12  Spirn, A. W. The Granite Garden 1984, p. 12 13  STRLUS op cit p.36 14  Woolley, L. 2004 op cit p.2 Do Central Hobart - landform structure in ma Riv ule t from : HIPS 2015 Height Standards Performance Criteria Review (Woolley 2016) p. 9 Hill Headland (Trinity) (Queens Domain) Basin e Delta Reclaimed R Hunter Island ur st) g id ath (B <10m <20m ge R <30m <40m Cove <60m (M ac qu ar ie ) id <70m <80m <90m tR ivu le t <100m <110m Ho b ar <120m <130m Hill <140m (Barracks) <150m Headland (Battery Point) This puts Hobart in the enviable role as a city with identifiable natural limits, at the southern margin of the urbanised world, that can advance a specific understanding and appreciation of settlement values. These include a custodial role to wilderness landscapes within the Tasmanian jurisdiction and beyond. 0 50 100 200 constitutes one of the most vital elements of human and landscape aesthetics, all the more so when applied to the complexity of the city, the location where the experience of change is expected, if not constant, 16 being both ‘natural object and a thing to be cultivated’. 17 Settlement expansion The shared cultural and natural heritage that ascribes to peoples surroundings, Notwithstanding the terrain, the form of of which landscapes are an essential component, are recognized as a foundation Tasmanian settlements was determined not by grand plans, but by expansion to cultural identity.15 Attachment to place along main roads. Even Hobart’s initial town plan (Meehan 1811) provided an 15  Council of Europe, European Landscape Convention 2004 Article 5 : ‘Each party undertakes to recognize landscape in law as an essential component of peoples surroundings, an expression of the diversity of their shared cultural and natural heritage, and a foundation of their identity.’ 16  Lynch K. A Theory of Good City Form MIT 1982 p.42 17  Levi Strauss in Spirn op cit . p iv Right : Central Hobart landform structure as an extended framework, beyond Sullivans Cove. Identifies landform features as a sequence of ‘lifts’, including city centre slopes, city centre fringe, Inner hills, mid ground hills. Also includes city ridges. High ground Middle ground hills Inner Hills City Centre Fringe City Centre Slopes City Ridge Cove Slopes Basin Cove Floor Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 13 open grid capable of extension, its form ‘presuming a future provincial town rather than a capital city’. 18 The post war change in personal mobility assisted by private automobile ownership, combined with declining household occupancy rates, and in the absence of a regional strategic plan, gave rise to a polycentric, low-density development pattern in the Hobart region. This is now characterized by competing retail centres along topographically constrained radial transport corridors. Coupled with a resultant decline in public transport patronage, and expansion of the urban footprint exacerbating travel times and distance, this fundamentally changed Greater Hobart’s urban structure, diminishing Central Hobart’s role as the only major centre and retail hub. Although ‘sluggish urban growth had preserved Tasmania’s towns and cities Below : Greater Hobart is characterised by a poly-centric low-density settlement pattern. 14 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 18  Ratcliff, E. and McNeill, B The Companion to Tasmanian History UTAS 2005 . p.478 from the ravages of twentieth century development’ 19 the increasingly periurban low density urban pattern, is now encompassing earlier outlying villages and hamlets, challenging the earlier hierarchy 20 and its defined gradation of settlement that has ‘ long been distinctive in the Australian urban pattern’. 21 The municipal population of Hobart declined for a time from the 1960’s as the metropolitan area developed and grew. Larger residential blocks, including substantial growth of un-serviced residential land,22 generated significantly increased vehicular movements over ever- increasing distances. As the footprint of settlement expanded, so retail activity also dispersed to these suburban centres, while also servicing peri-urban growth.23 ‘This dispersement of the population has lead to the creation 19  Davison, G. The Companion to Tasmanian History UTAS 2005 20  Scott, P. The Australian Geographer Vol 9 Issue 3 1964 p.134 ‘No other (state) displays so equitable a population balance between metropolitan city, town and country’ 21  Scott op cit. p.134 22  State of the Environment 2003 soer.justice.tas.gov.au 23  Hobart Congestion Traffic Analysis 2016 Left : Greater Hobart and Metropolitan Melbourne at same scale. 10 km + 50 km Radii Settlement expansion : Greater Hobart * Serviced and unserviced urban areas (estimate) * Hobart, Glenorchy, Clarence , Kingborough, Brighton and Sorell. •• Inner Hobart has the highest population density in the state with over 700 people / sq km People per sq km. Inner Hobart : 700 or more Hobart (remainder) : 500 - 700 Glenorchy : 300 - 500 Clarence / Kingborough : 100 - 300 Brighton/ Sorell : less than 100 (ABS) Serviced Unserviced • Tasmania. Municipalities comprising Greater Hobart 20km Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 15 of a car-dependent settlement pattern and significant areas of rural land being converted to what is essentially residential use’.24 Reciprocal impacts on the central city in these decades (1960 – 90’s) included increasing demolition for surface and multi-storey car parking, together with diminished pedestrian activity and movement.25 Although the focus of a low density urban region, Central Hobart has the densest population in the state. It is the location where density is anticipated. Above : Sullivans Cove (Cove Floor) to Forest Road (Mid ground). Below : The Cove Floor focusses public and civic activity _ PW1 Dark Feast. Consolidating the Primary Activity Centre Greater Hobart is now one of the least densely settled of the major cities in Australia with one of the highest proportions of single detached dwellings.29 To address inefficiencies and inequities emerging from an expansion of the settlement footprint, and as low-density An outcome of urban sprawl is creating development potentially threatens longlong travel distances with fragmented and term sustainability, areal growth (particular dispersed urban activity patterns that make residential growth) needs to be managed it difficult to develop and sustain a viable on a regional or ‘whole of settlement’ basis, public transport system. Over the past underpinned through a regional strategy few decades traffic volumes have grown plan. considerably in Greater Hobart especially ‘in parallel with traffic growth there has been In seeking to ensure that Greater Hobart can multiple changes to land-use and transport become a more sustainable and compact systems which have increased congestion settlement, with Hobart CBD the principal levels’ 26 activity centre, an urban growth boundary intends to ‘minimise urban sprawl and lower Accordingly planning policy confirms that density development’.30 At the same time Greater Hobart be a more sustainable and this is intended to accommodate an increase compact settlement, with the CBD the in population (especially along main transit Principal Activity Centre in the state.27 While corridors). As the principal activity centre Inner Hobart’s population is the densest in the regional hierarchy of Activity Centre in the state with over 700 persons / sq Networks, the Central Business Zone (as km.28 this does not yet reflect sustainability the core of the Hobart Activity Centre) within the urban region. is intended to be the densest and most 24  Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use strategy – Providing for housing compact development precinct in the state. needs. P.24 The ‘primary hub for Tasmania ….where a 25  Townscape Topic Report CASP 1991 Woolley , L. 3.14 26  Hobart Congestion Traffic Analysis op cit. significant proportion of all employment 27  STRLUS op cit. 28  Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012 opportunities within the region… should continue to be focussed’.31 It is not the purpose of this report to confirm anticipated population growth or consider available developable land in the dwelling region or the city centre. In the absence of a settlement strategy and supporting urban design policy at the state level however, it is noted that current government policy is to grow Tasmania’s population to 650,00 by 2050 32. With Central Hobart already experiencing 29  STRLUS op cit. p.11 30  op cit. p.85 31  op cit. p.76 32  Dept. State Growth Population Growth Strategy, 2015. 16 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 Bottom: The Central Business Zone urban blocks vary in area. Alignment varies as a result of the non orthogonal streets Below : The non orthogonal streets - Liverpool, Murray and Elizabeth ‘growing pains’33 it is necessary to both acknowledge and recognize the implications of reinforcing the role of Central Hobart as the ‘primary hub’. As the principal activity centre in the state, and the intended focus of commercial, retail and tourism activity, this necessarily anticipates an increase in density (‘densification’) with urban consolidation. (The form that this urban focus should take needs further detailed consideration - including urban character assessments- beyond the scope of this project.) The Central Urban Blocks of the Primary Activity Centre Only outline morphological analysis of Central Hobart has been undertaken.34 For this report it is necessary to confirm the landform character and topography of the location on the urban structure, including amongst other characteristics, its street alignments. In response to the location, the scale and form of the urban blocks 33  ‘Mercury’ editorial Oct 17 2017 34  Woolley, L. 1991, 2016 differ from one another, varying in size from 10,000 m2 – 40,000 m2. The alignment of the non-orthogonal streets (Liverpool, Elizabeth and Murray) has assisted some blocks in being larger, with others reduced in area. The scale and permeability of the urban blocks also differ with the terrain. The ‘narrowest’ urban blocks are those between Macquarie and Davey Streets, in response to the topography of both the (Macquarie) Ridge and the Escarpment descending to the cove floor. The ‘densest’ urban blocks are those adjacent the Hobart Rivulet. The central urban blocks have consolidated along both the low ground of the Rivulet ‘trough’ and the elevated ridge along Macquarie Street. The largest and less intensely developed blocks, are those on the more elevated land on or adjoining the central area slopes to the north and north west of the central urban blocks. By contrast the generally ‘flat floor’ provided by reclamation within Sullivans Cove, accentuates the adjacent rising ground. This differentiation is especially apparent in the NW NE SW SE Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 17 Below left: Detail from the City of Hobart Plan 1945 and the proposed deviation at Warwick Street - and the resulting outer and inner business zones. Below right : The current Central Business Zone (dark blue) and the narrowing along Elizabeth Street. 18 vicinity of the ‘Escarpment’ adjacent Davey Street. While several urban blocks extend the central area pattern, for the most part the Cove Floor is characterized by multidirectional space, established as concrete aprons for port operations. Freestanding buildings, many utilitarian port service structures, provide frontages ‘in the round’ in contrast to the ‘cheek by jowl’ street facing urban blocks of the CBZ. The planar space of the Cove Floor contrasts with the undulating terrain of the city centre, enhancing its public and civic purpose. (refer current zoning plan below). It would seem that this extension, and the general location of the rest of the zone, was largely based on the City of Hobart Plan of 1945 (the ‘Cook Plan’). 35 The shape of the Central Business Zone Cook accordingly suggested a deviation at Warwick Street (never acted upon) to Molle Street near Macquarie Street, to provide a diagonal by-pass of Central Hobart. The zoning he suggested (two business zones) (A) and (B) identified a core (Business ‘B’) bounded by Bathurst, Harrington and Argyle Streets with buildings up to 7 stories or 80 feet (nom. 26.5 m ) and a business Zone ‘A’ being roughly triangular, pivoting from Warwick Street with buildings up to a maximum of three stories or 40 feet ( 13.2 m ).36 Elizabeth Street has been the primary commercial axis in the city from the early nineteenth century. The location and shape of the Central Business Zone (CBZ) has been formalised since the mid twentieth century. Its current form is primarily focused NE/ SW containing the urban blocks adjacent the rivulet trough and its natural ‘basin’. Beyond this there is a narrow edge that runs along Elizabeth Street as far as Warwick Street. The Plan was written when Elizabeth Street was the main commercial street and primary vehicular artery, extending to the principal port frontage in the state. (The pontoon bridge across the Derwent was not completed until 1946, and the Brooker Highway was not opened until 1958). 35  City of Hobart Plan 1945 (Cook, F.) 36  Cook, F. op cit p. 32-33 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 Hobart Central Business Zone Disclaimer: The City of Hobart does not warrant that the information contain This appears to have influenced the Central Business district as a stretched precinct up to this higher contour, beyond the compact focus on the lower contours. At the proposed building scales, the triangulation of the zone (and views across it) would be comparatively unaffected by topography, notwithstanding the intention that the densest zone was on the lower contours. While the primary business zone was focused within the lower contours of Elizabeth Street and the rivulet basin, the extended triangular zone was predicated on soon to be outdated intentions. ma Do in Below: The topography of Central Hobart identifying the ‘Basin’ + the CBZ urban blocks let vu Ri Below right : The CBZ core + fringe areas and solar penetration streets (HIPS 2015) Hill The contours around Warwick Street at Elizabeth Street are among the highest in the Zone, the others being along Macquarie Street between Harrington and Barrack. The lower contours are where Cook and subsequent planning schemes sought to consolidate the zone, not stretched along the rising contours. (Elsewhere in the 1945 Plan the low-ground areas were deemed ‘decadent’ and zoned for redevelopment, in contrast with the popularity of these areas today). Figure 22.2 Central Business Zone Height Areas Headland (Trinity) (Queens Domain) Basin ge d Ri Delta Reclaimed <10m hu rs t ) Hunter Island <20m (M ac qu ar ie ) (B at e dg Ri <30m Cove <40m <60m <70m <80m <90m Ho b ar tR ivu let <100m <110m <120m Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant <130m 19 Mount Direction Grass Tree Hill Meehan Range Mount Hull Pavilion Point Knocklofty Rosny Point Kangaroo Bluff Battery Point Middle Harbour kunanyi Long Point Blinking Billy Point Mount Nelson The landform ‘structure’ of the urban amphitheatre 20 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 Droughty Point N The Urban Amphitheatre Shared landscape of the dwelling region The urban amphi-theatre acknowledges the terrain of the dwelling region focused on Central Hobart, including the layered rise of landforms, from the datum of the water-plane to the landform horizons The Urban Amphitheatre refers to the integration of natural features (landform, water, sky) contributing to the urban setting, when viewing to and from Central Hobart. As the layered terrain of the dwelling region, focused on Central Hobart, the urban amphitheatre includes the progressive scaling of the ‘natural rise’, including the water-plane and its bathymetry (Derwent Estuary and Harbour). Accordingly it includes topographic features on both the western and eastern shores of the city that contribute to the sense of ‘containment’ by rising and high ground, and those features that contribute to the sense of ‘release’ within the scale of the setting, especially assisted by the waterplane of the harbour. The relationship between land and water in this setting is accentuated by headlands, that often focus the continuous line of ridges and crests rising from and descending to the waterplane. The Urban Amphi-theatre allows an appreciation of Central Hobart ‘in the round’, offering a consideration from multiple differing view-points. As a layering of landform across scales, (low, mid and high ground) the scale and spatial character provided by the urban amphitheatre seeks to ensure the familiarity that attaches to the landform of the city is acknkowledged, particularly when viewing into and out from the urban centre. The water-plane provides a focus between land and waterappreciated regionally as an accessible public edge and extended civic margin. By focusing on the place of built intensity in Central Hobart, the Urban Amphitheatre assists in scaling urban development and the relationship it has with the landscape setting, including the scales of the layered rise. The Urban Amphitheatre provides a spatial framework that can accommodate views within and beyond the municipality. Accordingly it identifies the layers of the landscape of which the city (centre) is a part. The Urban Amphitheatre includes: The Derwent Estuary, especially the ‘Great Embayment’ / Middle Harbour Wellington Range / kunanyi/ Mount Hull, Mount Faulkner The western shore (low, mid and high ground) including, (but not limited to), Knocklofty, Mount Nelson hillface and horizon leading to Porter Hill and then Long Point, Lower Sandy Bay. The eastern mid to high ground - Meehan Range, Mount Direction, Gunners Quoin, Grass Tree Hill, Headlands and points on both shores – including Battery Point, Queens Domain and Pavilion Point, Natone Hill and Lindisfarne Point, Rosny Hill and Rosny Point, Bellerive Bluff and Kangaroo Point, Droughty Hills and Droughty Point. Spatial Characteristics: The Urban Amphitheatre is defined by the rift valley of the Derwent Estuary. Consists of undeveloped horizons, both high ground (generally vegetated) and water-plane The landform character predominates at this scale, rather than built form character ‘Containment’ by rising and high ground - contrasts with ‘release’ across waterplane Urban ‘structure’ incorporates landform and built form as a reciprocal relationship Landform assists orientation within the urban environment. The continuity of landforms and their horizons assist re-orientation with the urban amphitheatre. Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 21 Queens Domain Trinity Hill Domain Headland Knocklofty Barracks Hill kunanyi Battery Point Hobart Rivulet valley N 22 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 Amphitheatre to the Cove Landscape and settlement focus of the dwelling region The layering of rising ground from water-plane to horizon, incorporating adjacent hills and ridges, climbing away from Sullivans Cove and its earlier rivulet outfalls, being the low point of the location and flanked by distinct headlands. The Amphitheatre to the Cove refers to the layering of rising ground from waterplane to horizon, climbing away from the earlier rivulet outfalls as the low point into Sullivans Cove, incorporating adjacent hills and ridges, especially to the west and north-west, and also flanked by distinct headlands. The Amphitheatre to the Cove also refers to the progressive scaling between the high ground summit and the water-plane of Sullivans Cove. The emphatic topography of the urban setting reinforces the ‘natural rise’ as the most pronounced and most compressed in urban Australia. (Sea level to alpine (1270m) in 8.5km ) Accordingly specific layered landform references are identified to acknowledge this, together with movement across the land and the progressive stepping down from high ground to waters edge. Sullivans Cove – landform characteristics The ‘Cove’ is a place of connection between waters of the land and the sea - a re-entrant space at the outflow of the mountain stream, removed from the deeper fast -flowing waters of the Derwent Estuary. It is an inclining inwards, a progressive stepping down and leveling out to the focus of the waters edge and beyond. The slopes that identify the cove are reinforced by adjacent ridges and headlands. The headlands that define and embrace the cove also help provide sheltered waters. The landforms of the cove do not generate a uniform incline as slopes differ, especially toward the low lying ‘delta’ or outflow of the Hobart and former Domain Rivulets. Of changing gradients, the slopes vary from a gentle ‘swale’ and incline (at the south west corner of the cove – now encompassing St Davids Park), Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 23 an Escarpment edge (of the rise to what is now Franklin Square), through to a shallow transition between land and former sand spit (at the low point of Macquarie street @ Market Place / Campbell Street). Spatial references in the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme include: Cove Floor, Cove Slopes, Cove Ridges, the ‘Wall to the Cove’ and the ‘Back of Cove’. Each of these topographic conditions suggest a built relationship acknowledging the cove as both an inclining inwards and ‘natural’ focus. With movement along and down the grade the sense of the cove should be reinforced. As the shared ‘civic’ domain for both the city and the state, this expectation should be further reinforced through development. Below : The Amphitheatre to the Cove within the Urban Amphitheatre The intention is to amplify appreciation of the spatial character of the setting and its landscape, through the form that the city takes. This is not to devalue the evolved urban morphology, including some incongruous developments (refer ‘Non conforming’ buildings), but to identify and reinforce appreciation of the spatial characteristics of the cove, and in part the city centre, in response to its landform. Accordingly the distinctive layers of Cove Floor, an Escarpment edge, (sometimes including Cove ‘Wall’) a Ridge line above the escarpment, Cove Slopes and distinct Headlands are identified. Each of these anticipate a layered response between water and horizon. By reinforcing the form and role of the cove and the delta formed by its rivulets, the built response should progressively ‘step down’ from its more elevated contours to the waters edge. This consideration is embedded in a spatial appreciation of the ‘amphitheatre to the cove’. In Hobart ‘the cove’ does not exist without ‘the amphi-theatre’, it is both geologically enmeshed and culturally integrated, and inherent to an understanding of the place and its morphology. DRAFT Includes: Sullivans Cove, and the extended waterplane adjacent Middle Harbour The rising ground includes hill slopes leading to and including Wellington Range / kunanyi Escarpments, slopes and ridges adjacent the topographic incline to the cove / ‘cove floor’ The outfall of the Hobart and Domain Rivulets and their low-ground ‘delta’. Headlands and Ridges of Battery Point and the Queens Domain Characteristics: Visual connectivity to undeveloped horizons, both ‘high’ ground and water-plane Landform character differentiates the reclaimed edge to the Cove Floor ‘Containment’ by rising and high ground - contrasts with ‘release’ across water-plane Urban structure is an interplay of land-form and builtform Horizon High ground Cove slope Headland Waterplane 24 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 Cove Floor Ridge Basin Escarpment Diagrammatic section: The Amphitheatre to the Cove within the Urban Amphitheatre Landform underpins urban structure Both the Urban Amphitheatre and the Amphitheatre to the Cove, are embedded features of the rift valley of the Derwent, and its evolving urban densification. As landforms they provide foundation to, inform and have helped determine the urban structure of Central Hobart. Judgements made when moving across the terrain, prior to and as a result of settlement, demand negotiation - be that crossing watercourses, ascending steeply rising land or negotiating challenging ground. The outcome of these decisions provide the foundation to the urban morphology. Central Hobart is a case in point. The topography of ridges, basin, hill-sides and knolls provides a spatial framework in its own right, (refer figs. p.13, 24 ) defining alignments that have come to include the shape and form of the urban blocks. Even where there is no apparent land, decisions reveal themselves, such as is the case in Sullivans Cove and the urban morphology of the ‘Cove Floor’. “ As a differentiated zone, neither of the land or of the sea, nor indeed of the town, reclamation generated an intermediate (‘in-between’) ground as a separated form, engineered as a continuous horizontal surface, in counterpoint to the ‘given’ undulating land adjacent and below. Partly suspended and frequently piered, it is a major construction, its depth belying its surface expanse. Concrete now provides the material synonymous with the ‘floor’ of the cove, and assists in delineating significance. As water is also ground for vessels that count on it for support, the ‘floor’ also includes the water of the cove. The tough resilient space is synonymous with being in Hobart, confirming the sense of being ‘on the edge’, while gesturing to the often harsh reality of confronting ever-changing weather and the movement and harbouring of vessels within an oceanic landscape. These utilitarian planar forms orient and locate citizens, both within their city and the world. In contrast to the undulating landform contours adjacent, the ‘rawness’ of the cove is essential in maintaining its historically differentiated working port functions and its distinct, yet idiosyncratic role as civic space within the state. ‘Multi-directional’ movements, inherent to the design and function of the wharf ‘aprons’, now provide the planar, changeable civic space hosting diverse events year-round.”1 1  Woolley, L. ‘Sheltering Human Presence: Revealing place through urban design practice.’ Paper : Designing Place Conference , Nottingham UK 2012 Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 25 Intensity at the heart of settlement “The city centre will provide a compact built focus to the region and operate as the commercial hub of the state, reflecting an appropriate intensity at the heart of settlement.. “ DFC 2016 Central Hobart is the location where urban density is intended and where intensity is anticipated. While ‘Density’ refers to the amount of people or elements of urban form (eg. dwelling units, floor area) per unit area of land, ‘Intensity’ is more complex, referring to the concentration of activities for example within streets and the urban blocks of the city centre . Intensity is generated in response to the form of a location, yet it will also influence that form. While density can be determined, intensity needs to be pursued. Intensity is anticipated in Central Hobart, ‘at the heart of settlement’. 26 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 Where density can be quantified, intensity is qualitative. As such intensity could be defined as the expression of density in terms of quality. The challenge when considering ‘intensity’, is how to work toward densification while also bringing qualitative improvement to the living / public space involved. In Central Hobart this can mean maintaining a level of visual connectivity through the city blocks not just along streets, reducing bulk where height increases above the street wall, and also ensuring light into streets and public spaces. As Central Hobart is viewed down to, as well as viewed through, the volumetric form of the urban blocks, as well as their street edge character, will be influenced by the intensity of development. In this respect ‘intensity’ is part of an integrated approach interweaving spatial planning intentions with urban design principles into the form the city centre is becoming. Considering ‘non-conforming’ buildings or structures assists in considering and adjusting, that form. 3.0 Response to Context Considering a layered urban form ‘Non conforming’ development “Identify through appropriate modeling ‘non conforming’ buildings that confuse consideration of the amphi-theatre to the cove and the ‘urban amphi-theatre’”. Development (identified in red) likely to confuse the ‘layers’ within the natural amphitheatres. As settlement and urban design values mature and planning schemes change, so expectations influencing the form of urban development also change. The term ‘Nonconforming’, does not necessarily apply to the time a building was built, nor does it indicate a lack of architectural excellence per se. It is an assessment based on the emerging definitions and interpretations of the Urban Amphitheatre and the Amphitheatre to the Cove, in particular where individual buildings or structures could now be seen to contradict or confuse these definitions. Accordingly it is a review of these buildings and structures against current and emerging planning intentions and urban design values. ‘Non conforming’ accordingly applies across scales, notably where spatial considerations contained within the SCPS (1997) apply. For example when considering the ‘amphitheatre to the cove’, it is necessary to recognize the Cove Floor as a space in its own right - (cf. SCPS 6.2) where incursions into that functional space are considered as important as the form (and height) of buildings above. Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 27 ‘Non Conforming’ Development Compiled as a general list to broadly consider height and scale provisions, especially in response to the spatial characteristics of the SCPS (1997). NB. 23.2 : ‘that bulk and height of buildings must reflect the natural topography of the Sullivans Cove Planning area, the amphi-theatre sloping down to the Cove and the Macquarie and Regatta Point Ridges.’ And subsequent provisions arising from Height Standards - Performance Criteria Review 2016 and subject of PSA -17-3-1 including that : ‘The city centre will develop in a way which reinforces the layered landform rise back from the waterfront having regard to the distinct layers of the landform, respecting the urban amphitheatre including the amphitheatre to the Cove while providing a reduction in scale to the Queens Domain, the Domain and Battery Point headlands and the natural rise to Barracks Hill ’. Location Building Comment Cove Floor 1 Franklin Wharf Former Marine Board Building Design + Construction: 1969 -71 Architect : Philp Lighton Floyd and Beattie Prominently located on the Cove Floor, at the intersection of the Argyle and Elizabeth street alignemnts, the free -standing office building generated a controversial built scale – significantly higher than the 2-3 storey’s typical within the cove / port precinct up to that time. Its location in the view -line from the Town Hall to the water-plane of the harbour and the port, undermined intentions that the adjacent urban block/space be developed as an open ‘civic square’. Issues: Height (39.5m ) and resulting bulk in this location. Lack of active edges to the ground floor (at time of construction) - Subsequent wind turbines detract .. Cove Floor Corner Morrison and Elizabeth streets HEC offices Design and Construction : 1970 -72 Architect : Bush Parkes Shugg and Moon Extending the frontage of the existing 1938 HEC offices on the Davey / Elizabeth street corner, the new building increased height on the Elizabeth / Morrison street corner on the Cove Floor -generating the second tallest office building in the city at the time. (47.5m) Issues: Height as a sheer wall (47.5m) and uniform bulk in this location. Lack of active edges, especially to Morrison Street, wind and shading impacts to the Cove Floor, especially along Morrison Street. Cove Floor Castray Esplanade Former Hobart Grain Silos (c.1958) Now Silos Apartments (c.1998) Architect : HBV Former industrial building sold by Grain Elevators Board - now residential apartments – change of use just prior to SCPS (1997) being sealed. Building scale remains an existing ‘non-conforming’ height, inconsistent with acknowledged principles for Cove Floor / Wall. With changed use building scale is ‘non conforming’ in the precinct. Issues : Being on the Cove Floor height confuses Castray Esplanade, Salamanca Place scale Cove Floor 1 Davey Street Grand Chancellor Hotel (formerly Sheraton Hotel, ) Construction 1985 + Architect : (WATG) Wimberley Allison Tong and Goo Located at the earlier outflow of the two rivulets into Sullivans Cove. The site remains the low point of the Amphitheatre to the Cove. The built scale, (including bulk and height) is inconsistent with the topographic character and surrounding built scale. Considerable impact on the urban morphology of the early town, especially Hunter street / former Causeway and lower Macquarie Street. Issues : Height (40 m) and bulk. Precinct impacts. 28 Cove Ridge adjacent Princes Park, Battery Point Empress Towers Construction : 1967 Architect : Bush Parkes Shugg and Moon Located adjacent Princes Park at the leading edge of the Battery Point Headland, the site on the corner of Battery Square and Hampden Road is prominent, especially from the south-east. The buildings’ height (42m) in this location underpinned sufficient concern for the heritage values of the precinct that a separate planning scheme was enacted. Cove Ridge Harrington and Davey Streets Transmission and telecommunications towers Above former ABC television studios, Harrington Street, and former Telecom/ Telstra building on the corner of Davey and Harrington Streets. Prominent feature of (generally redundant- ABC television) infrastructure. Within the view field from Salamanca Place to the layered slopes of kunanyi, the former transmission tower is accordingly among the most photographed ‘non conforming’ structures in the city. City ridge, Between Collins, Macquarie and Harrington streets Commonwealth Government Centre Between Collins, Macquarie and Harrington Construction : 1971 Architects : Commonwealth Department of Works Amalgamation of lots in the late 1960’s to create an extensive site capable of providing large floor plates - allowed a tall and bulky building on the north facing slope - part of the Macquarie Ridge. Horizontally aligned spandrels and fenestration accentuate the monolithic presence, in a previously finegrained precinct. Height : 58 m Issues : Height and bulk on a prominent ridge. Additions to roof top clutter the view field, especially from the west. Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 City ridge Bathurst and Argyle street corners Vodaphone Building Corner Argyle and Bathurst Streets Construction : 2012 Architects : Issues: Sheer walls to street frontages rise the full height of the building. Unrelieved boundary wall to the western elevation accentuates building bulk, with little opportunity to mitigate impact, also overwhelms adjacent heritage structures. Frontage at ground level allows minimum depth to activate the street edge. Car parking structure within the ‘street wall’ provides permanent vehicle ramp (above ground level) as an inactive frontage. City basin Argyle street Elevated walkway across street Streets are a foundation to the public domain providing orientation and connection within the urban landscape of Central Hobart. Their amenity, including their relative openness, assisting connection to landscape horizons, should be protected. The elevated walkway across Argyle Street was built as a private access between offices and the General Hospital. The enclosed structure, (with dark tinted glass) impacts views along the street space, especially from the higher slopes beyond Bathurst Street. Its scale compounds shading of the street edge. Cove Ridge Murray and Davey Styreets Executive Building Construction : 1986 Architects: Blythe Yeung and Menzies The redeveloment of the former Mail Exchange Site was subject to urban design principles emerging from the 1983 Sullivans Cove Urban Design Study. The view line from Franklin Square to St Georges Church Battery Point was to be maintained across the escarpment site. Accordingly the buildings shape was champfered, although the view shaft was reduced in width. Further guidelines stipulated the building be no higher than the HEC offices. Issue : Height in this location. Cove Floor Macquarie Wharf Mac 01 Hotel Construction : 2017 Architect : Circa Morris Nunn The scale of the former Mac 1 shed allowed each side of the Cove ‘wall’ to be appreciated more easily, as the IXL buildings (Art School) are higher. There is a subtle distinction between freestanding buildings on the ‘Cove floor’, generally being of lesser scale, and those of and beyond the ‘wall’ providing an edge to that space. Earlier buildings were on solid ‘natural’ ground, not ‘reclaimed’ – including those along Hunter Street, albeit above a sand spit and rock island. The additional height of the new hotel, especially across the Cove, confuses this ‘layered’ hierarchy . The Cove Floor is multi –directional public (and often civic) space, facilitating movement and views across the planar surface. The additions at the NE corner of the building in this respect, could also be regarded as ‘non-conforming,’ as they provide a differing pattern to the free-standing shed form. At the same time the SCP scheme seeks improved circulation, including better physical and visual links across the floor, especially to the water, a quality the extension interupts. Cove Floor Murray Street pier Franklin Wharf Murray Street Pier re-development Construction : c 1995 Architect : Les Penzes Enhanced connections from the Main Spaces of the Cove Floor (including Parliament Gardens) to the waters edge are anticipated in the SCP scheme. (21.2) The water edge has been traditionally reinforced by piers/ buildings that provide public access around their perimeter. As buildings they are longer than they are wide. The Murray Street Pier building was re-developed prior to the SCPS scheme (1997), its form departing from the (wharf) shed typology. Its widened frontage reduces visual and physical curtilage and is also inconsistent with the pattern of freestanding finger pier buildings. City Ridge Corner Davey Street and Hampden Road Repatriation Hospital Construction: c 1977 The multi storey brick building is located on the rise to Barracks Hill. Given the role of the Hill to the origins of the town, the buildings scale and form in this location diminishes its landform significance and that of the Barracks. Accordingly the heritage precincts (of which the Barracks provide the pivot), are also impacted. Back of Cove / City basin Campbell street Royal Hobart Hospital Construction: 2018 The scale of the new hospital extension (currently under construction) will rise to 68m as a uniform volume above Campbell Street. This scale will exceed existing and anticpated development envelopes for the precinct, noticeably those within / adjacent the low ground ‘delta’. Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 29 Concept diagram Height Control Planes - a layering back from the cove floor while generating an emphasis west and north west Reinforcing the amphi-theatre Generating height control planes ‘Identify an appropriate height control plane back from the cove floor (descending with and moving back from the Macquarie ridge contour) while generating an emphasis west and north-west.’ Having regard to the Urban Amphitheatre and the Amphitheatre to the Cove, Height Control Planes are proposed in consideration of the Desired Future Character statements - emerging from HIPS Review 2016 (and the subsequent PSA 17 -3.) In particular: ‘ The city centre will develop in a way which reinforces the layered landform rise back from the waterfront having regard to the distinct layers of the landform, respecting the urban amphitheatre including the amphi-theatre to the cove, while providing a reduction in scale to the Queens Domain, the Domain and Battery Point headlands and the natural rise to Barracks Hill.’ Rationale Escarpment zone In response to the topographic expectations inherent to the desired future character statement, specific considerations emerge. The Cove Floor is regarded as a space in its own right where existing height controls should continue to apply. It is noted that an approved Site Development Plan exists for Macquarie Point. An Escarpment Zone is then identified. This is aligned with the edge of the escarpment to the shore (approximating the shoreline prior to reclamation) and rising to a curving edge in deference to both the shore and the natural rise. To the NE it incorporates the ‘delta’ as the low-lying outflow between the earlier rivulets as well - as a re-entrant edge acknowledging the Hobart Rivulet as the primary stream. Above the SW corner of the cove, a deeper re-entrant edge acknowledges the ‘swale’ that mediates the leveling of the slope now incorporating St Davids Park. Beyond this a further Escarpment edge is maintained with a natural rise to manage alignments to kunanyi from St Davids Park and the rise to Barracks Hill on the southern margin. Escarpment and Cove Face zone 30 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 Above the Escarpment Zone and rising with the Macquarie Ridge a Cove Face height control zone negotiates the incline, as well as the curve from the delta as the ‘back of cove’ and Domain edge. It rises to an edge roughly parallel with the escarpment zone, arcing back as far as Bathurst Street to the NE. Extending to Harrington Street to the SW, its depth extends beyond the Macquarie Ridge to Collins Street. It is recognised that views from the Cove Floor to kunanyi are particularly sensitive to height impacts from this precinct edge of the cove. An Inner Hills Zone further encircles the ‘basin’ and the central area, beyond the margins of the Cove Face zone. This zone provides a potential transition in scale from the fine grain of primarily residential precincts adjacent. It is located in response to the natural rise of the city centre slopes, beyond the lower contours of the ‘basin’. The area ‘contained’ by the height control planes provides a potential area of ‘built intensity’ where consideration for height beyond the amenity building envelope may be considered subject to scheme provisions including : Amenity, Heritage and Townscape. Proposed Height Control dimensions: Escarpment, Cove Face and Hill Face zone Cove Floor: Existing height controls apply - nominally 12 m - 18 m (12m eaves, 18m roof ridge) having regard to the spatial characteristics influencing development on the cove floor. Escarpment Zone: 18 m at the edge of the Cove Floor, (existing heritage, townscape and amenity provisions notwithstanding), rising to a maximum 30m, plus the landform rise across the zone. Cove Face Zone: Rising above the Escarpment Zone to a maximum 45 m. Returning deeper into the Domain Rivulet ‘valley’ to ensure a reduction of scale adjacent the Queens Domain. Inner Hills Zone: Rising from an outer edge of 18 m to a maximum 45 m toward the centre. Battery Point edge: a transition in scale from the 18m escarpment edge to 12 m across the headland. Escarpment, Cove Face, Hill face and Battery Point edge zone Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 31 Considering an area of ‘built intensity’ The area contained by the Height Control Zones is a location at the centre of the Central Business Zone and generally within the Central Area ‘basin’. It is defined both ‘Consider an area of built intensity where by the course of the Hobart Rivulet and the provisions could be modified to complement rising ground of the city centre slopes and changes in height limits (beyond the ridges. It is generally behind the Macquarie amenity building envelope) or potentially to Ridge and largely forward of the Bathurst incentivise better design outcomes.’ Ridge. Being at the core of both the historic and contemporary city centre, it is the location The area ‘contained’ by the height control zones provides a potential area of ‘built intensity.’ Hill Face Zone Section Collins Street viewing NE 32 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 Proposed Height Control Zones where enhanced public movement and activity is anticipated. Being the centre of the ‘primary activity hub for Tasmania’, it is the location where intensity of activity would most efficiently be serviced. Accordingly it is the location where permeability should be incentivised, and where public amenity should be prioritised. Subject to existing and emerging scheme provisions, it is a location that could be considered a potential area of built intensity. Topographically this area would generally be located below the 20 m contour with its lowest contours adjacent the Hobart Rivulet in Argyle Street. The boundaries of the zones have been developed primarily in response to the landform, while also responding to subsequent street alignments. In consequence the zone boundaries are often located through the urban blocks, though also having regard to earlier laneways and their alignments. Escarpment Zone Cove Face Zone Hill Face Zone Axonometric Section Argyle Street viewing SW Cove Face Zone Escarpment Zone Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 33 To co-ordinate with the proposed height control planes and reinforce the built focus of the activity centre network, areas beyond the control planes (and within the Central Business zone, Commercial and Mixed use zones) should be subject to an 18m height limit. Hill Face Zone Axonometric Section Bathurst Street viewing SE Cove Face Zone Hill Face Zone Section Argyle Street viewing SW Axonometric Section Murray Street viewing NEd 34 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 4.0 Maintaining Connectivity Some of the proposed view cones viewing west above the estuary and Sullivans Cove to kunanyi Views and View Cones Managing and protecting views is inherent to an appreciation of the Hobart landscape, especially from the city centre. The interplay between views, vistas and desired view protection cones and planes will assist in shaping the urban form of the city centre. (eg. Cenotaph headland, Mount Stuart lookout), whether they have historic connection to the development of the city (eg. Hunter ‘Island’ – beneath Hunter Street, Salamanca Place edge). Most are viewing ‘out’ from within, while some are viewing ‘in’ to the centre. An inventory of views (as a foundation to a View Code or View Framework) has been compiled (refer pages 37- 40) having regard to the landform structure of the City Centre and Sullivans Cove. Consistent with the spatial characteristics of Sullivans Cove, and extended to include the Central Area, they are categorized according to the spatial character of the location. Accordingly they are grouped according to Cove Floor, Cove Slopes, Cove Ridge, city centre ‘basin’, city centre slopes + edges, with a pivotal location (Cove HeadlandCenotaph) individually identified. The locations have been determined by their public accessibility, (eg. street edge, parkland, roadway), whether they are recognized viewing locations or ‘lookouts’, Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 35 Beyond the Cove, the landform of the central area progressively reveals the categories of: City Centre ‘Basin’, City Centre ‘Slopes’ and City Centre ‘Edges’. The City Centre Edges also locates viewpoints beyond the city centre. Their inclusion in the inventory is however specific to views to the city centre. View protection cones + view lines seek to maintain connection between the ground plane of the City Centre and the Cove Floor and the regional landscape horizons. The inventory is structured as a framework that can progressively be added to. Hobarts urban image is synonymous with its undeveloped landscape horizons. 36 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 View : a sight or prospect of a landscape, that can be taken in by the eye from a particular place Viewing place/ viewpoint : an acknowledged place or area from which the view can be seen and from which the features of the view are more or less consistently visible. Landscape in the view: the separate elements subject to viewpoint and viewer: such as foreground , middle ground and background, focal points, vanishing points, sky scape and framing, among others. Each of these three elements interact with each other and will contribute to the quality, understanding and experience of the view. (ref. Oxford Preservation Trust) Within this report the terms ‘View Line’ and ‘View Cone’ are used to distinguish between a defined alignment (along a street for example) as a ‘view line’, and a view field from a specific location to an expanded landscape horizon, as a ‘view cone’. View Lines and View Cones An initial Inventory (Refer also individual reference sheets) View Point _Topography_ View Subject _ Description / Geographic location RL Cenotaph Headland The prominent headland providing the northern rampart to Sullivans Cove and the SE margin of the Queens Domain 22.0 A1_ to regional horizons A 1.1 Kunanyi and Wellington Range HIPS Height Standards Review 2016 A 1.11 Knocklofty (NW) HIPS 2016 A 1.2 Chimney Pot Hill (SW) HIPS 2016 A 1.3 Mount Nelson (S) HIPS 2016 A 1.4 Porter Hill (S/SE) HIPS 2016 A 1.5 Long Point, Lower Sandy Bay (S/SE) MPDC Masterplan 2015, SDP 2015, 2017 HIPS 2016 A 1.6 Harbour water-plane (S/ SE) HRUDS 2008, MPDC Masterplan 2015, SDP 2015, 2017 Middle Harbour ‘expansion’ to Betsey Island A 1.7 Howrah Hills / Droughty Point (SE) (Refer also C 3.1) HRUDS 2008, MPDC Masterplan 2015, SDP 2015, 2017 NB. She- oak re-vegetation A 1.8 Sunrise 25 April (E) HRUDS 2008, MPDC Masterplan 2015, SDP 2015, 2017 A References / background A 1.9 River water-plane, Tasman Bridge, Meehan Range , Domain edge (NE/ N) A2_ to local features A 2.1 Macquarie Street (SW) SCUDS 1983 SCUDWTS 1987 A 2.2 Parliament Forecourt , Cove Floor MPDC Masterplan 2015, SDP 2015, 2017 A 2.3 St Georges Church Spire, Battery Point MPDC Masterplan 2015, SDP 2015, 2017 A 2.4 Government House and Domain Hill CLA 2009 Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 37 B Cove Floor The reclaimed space, including flat fill and piered concrete structure, generating the traditional port frontages, now also provides civic space to the city and the state. B1 Franklin Wharf B 1.10 Hunter Island (to kunanyi) HIPS 2016 B 1.11 Hunter Island to Betsey Island HIPS 2016 B 1.2 Constitution Dock SE corner (to kunanyi) Civic Square Masterplan 2016 3.5 B 1.3 Elizabeth Street Pier SE (to kunanyi) B 1.4 Elizabeth Street alignment to Mt Stuart B2 Princes Wharf B 2.1 Forecourt PW 1 (to kunanyi) B 2.2 Paddock to Cenotaph B3 Salamanca Place B 3.1 Base of silos (to kunanyi) B4 Macquarie Wharf B 4.1 Between Mac 1 + 2 (to kunanyi) C Cove Slopes C 1 Battery Point PW1 + 2 Site Development and Conservation Plans 2000 The sloping ground adjacent to the Cove Floor - Identifying the change in contour C 1.1 Salamanca Place @ Mc Gregor to kunanyi and Hobart Rivulet Gully (including Knocklofty) C 1.2 McGregor Street to Cenotaph (across cove) C 1.3 Montpellier Retreat to Cenotaph (across Cove Floor) C 2 ‘Saddle’ and ‘Swale’ between Macquarie Ridge and Battery Point Headland C 3 Franklin Square to / from Cove Floor via Brooke Street PW1 + 2 Site Development and Conservation Plans 2000 C 2.1 St Davids Park to kunanyi C 3.1 Franklin Square @ Treasury forecourt to Cove Floor IMAS SDP 2012 C 3.2 Brooke Street to Treasury forecourt PW1 + 2 Site Development and Conservation Plans 2000 C 4 Back of Cove C 4.1 Campbell Street @ Bathurst Street (across Cove Floor and waterplane) C 4.2 Campbell Street @ Bathurst viewing NW SCUDS 1983 SCUDWTS 1987 CASP – Townscape 1991 SCPS 1997 (6.4) ACIPA SDP (2013) D The landform ridges beyond the cove slopes and escarpments, reinforcing the enclosure of the cove D 1 Macquarie Ridge D 1.1 Franklin Square to St. Georges Church Spire, Battery Point Cove Ridges SCUDS 1983 Montpellier DA submission D 1.2 Franklin Square to kunanyi D2 Battery Point headland 38 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 D 1.3 Macquarie Street alignment (from Antill St) to Cenotaph SCUDS 1983, CASP Townscape 1991 D 2.1 Princes Park to Cenotaph (across cove) HIPS Height Review 2016 E City Centre ‘Basin’ The generally lower lying ground forming part of the Hobart Rivulet ‘trough’ (and its adjacent delta outflow) and defined by the rising ground of adjacent ridges (notably the Macquarie Ridge to the SE), and other enclosing city centre slopes . E 1 Viewing south- east (NW – SE) E 1.1 Bathurst Ridge to Macquarie Ridge - (and beyond) along Argyle Street E 1.2 Along Elizabeth street from Brisbane Street E 1.3 Bathurst Ridge to Macquarie Ridge along Murray E 2.1 Liverpool Street from Argyle to central area E 2 Viewing south west slope beyond Molle Street (NE – SW) E 3 Viewing NE (SW – NE) E 3.1 Liverpool Street from Elizabeth to Argyle (and base of Bathurst rise) E 4 Viewing north west (SE – NW) F E 4.1 Along Elizabeth Street from Liverpool Street City Centre slopes The rising ground providing containment to the central area ‘basin’, especially to the N/ NW F 1 from North F1.1 Boa Vista Saddle Historic view - mid 19c F 1.2 Carr Street F 1.3 Elizabeth Street, from Warwick St F 1.4 Murray Street near Devonshire Sq Historic view – mid 19C F 1.5 Barrack Street across rivulet trough/ Mac Ridge / Barracks Hill F 2 from West F 2.1 Goulburn Street from Barrack towards Harrington street F 2.12 Lower Forest Road to Goulburn Street F 2.2 Bathurst Street toward Queens Domain CASP – Townscape 1991 G City Centre Edges Confirming the landform perimeters of Central Hobart while also reinforcing its location at the outflow of rivulets, at the base of ridges and contained by inner area hills… G 1 East G 1.1 Glebe / Domain Carpark G 1.2 Edward Street , Glebe G 1.3 Scott Street, Glebe G 1.4 Liverpool at Aberdeen Street G 1.5 Tasman Bridge G 1.6 Kangaroo Bluff , Bellerive G 1.7 Tranmere, Howrah Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 39 G 2 South G 2.1 Long Point, Lower Sandy Bay G 2.2 Mount Nelson lookout, Mt Nelson G 3 West G 3.1 Huon Road, South Hobart G 3.2 Forest Road, West Hobart G 3.3 Summit Kunanyi G 4 North G 4.1 Elizabeth Street, North Hobart to St Georges Church spire G 4.2 Mount Stuart lookout, Mt Stuart This is an initial inventory intended as a framework to be reviewed and added to. Alignments and outline co-ordinates subject to detailed survey. References : SCUDS 1983 _ Sullivans Cove Urban Design Study Lester Firth 1983 SCUDBWTS 1987 Sullivans Cove Urban Detail Study Woolley et al 1987 Central Area Study Project (HCC) _ Townscape Topic Report Woolley 1991 SCPS 1997 _ Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997 Princes Wharf 1 + 2 _ Site Development and Conservation Plans Shelton, Woolley 2000 HRUDS 2008 _ Hobart Railyards Urban Design Strategy SCWA 2008 Cultural Landscape Assessment _ Queens Domain Sheridan 2009 SC Masterplan _Office of the State Architect 2010 View Code Sullivans Cove / Visual impact assessment Woolley 2011 IMAS SDP (UTAS) Woolley 2012 ACIPA SDP (UTAS) Woolley 2013 MPDC Masterplan 2015, MPDC SDP 2015, Masterplan Civic Square Hobart (HCC) Woolley 2016 HIPS Height Standards Performance Criteria Review Woolley 2016 MPDC Re:set SDP 2017 40 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 A Cenotaph Headland A1.9 The prominent headland, being the south-eastern margin of the Queens Domain and the northern rampart to Sullivans Cove A1 . 11 A1.1 A1 . 8 kloft y A1 .6 A1 A1 .2 knoc .3 A1 Chim .5 ney .4 Po t A1 na ny i N 1828. Att. G.W. Evans NLA Rex Nan Kivell Collection http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-135297750 Ku Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 41 A1 Regional Horizons A 1.1 kunanyi and Wellington Range A 1.4 Porter Hill (S/SE) A 1.5 Long Point Lower Sandy Bay (S/SE) A 1.3 Mount Nelson (S) A 2.3 St. Georges church spire (S) 42 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 A 1.2 Chimney Pot Hill (SW) A 1.11 Knocklofty (NW) A 2.1 Macquarie Street (SW) The distinctive headland above Macquarie Point (previously Queens Battery now the Cenotaph Headland) and War Memorial (Hutchison and Walker 1925), provides a publicly accessible and ceremonial location from which to view the city centre and its landscape setting - between mountain and harbour. The location has long provided extensive prospects as well as more intimate connection to the evolving form and activity of the port, its town and city. The location is a pivot point when considering the place of the city. NS 1013_1 925 Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 43 A 1.3 A 1.4 A 1.5 A 2.2 A 2.3 A 1.9 River waterplane and Meehan Range 44 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 Grass Tree Hill 544m Gunners Quoin 447m Mount Direction 448m A 2.4 Govt House and Domain Hill A1 A 1. .2 1 A1 A1.9 A 2.1 .11 A1 . 8 A1 .6 A 1.11 A1 .3 A 1 .4 .1 A 2 .3 .2 A1 .5 A1 A1 View Point : Cenotaph headland, either side of the monument. South west side : A 1.1 , A 1.11, A 1.2, A 2.1, A 2.2, South east side : A 2.3, A 1.3, A 1.4, A 1.5, A 1.6, North east side : A 1.8, A 1.9 Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 45 A 1 .1 A1 .11 kunanyi view cone ( A1.1) and Knocklofty view cone ( A1.11) should be considered together A 1 .1 A 1.11 Knocklofty Reserve hillface (A 1.11) above right : Right : The layered rise from the railway terminus (now Brooker Highway Roundabout) c. 1885. Foreground: former Domain Rivulet, Mid frame: Bathurst Ridge with Knocklofty behind, High ground : kunanyi and the landform horizon. 46 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 UTAS e-prints An accessible hillside (for a time called Woodmans Hill), Knocklofty was subject to woodcutting and quarrying before being purchased by the council in 1945 for the community. Now revegetated thanks to local volunteers, the popular bushland reserve of 140 hectares links to the Wellington Reserve, providing an important middle ground between town and the high ground beyond. The base of the view cone includes the high ground of Trinity Hill. B Cove Floor The reclaimed space, including flat fill and piered concrete structure, generating the traditional port frontages, now also provides civic space to the city and the state. Between land and water, the Cove Floor is a differentiated, publicly accessible space. As a planar surface extended from the land into the cove, it assists orientation. PH 30_1_5604 Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 47 Prideaux Harris 1804-5 (TAHO) Hunter Island (foreground) prior to the causeway and subsequent reclamation to generate the Cove Floor. Hunter Island is a pivotal location within Sullivans Cove and the city, although now beneath the concrete pier and apron of Hunter Street and Macquarie Wharf . Connected to the shore via a sand spit, it was the ‘transition’ betewwn waterb and land upon which the settlement and the port depended. Accordingly it references both landform and settlement origins, providing a place of interpretation and orientation. 48 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 B Cove Floor B1 Franklin Wharf B1.10 Hunter Island (street) to kunanyi B 1.10 View Point: SE Corner of Victoria Dock View Field : Wellington Range _kunanyi, including ‘Organ Pipes’ and horizon View Point elevation : 2.29 m (state datum) * Co-ordinates: E 474 822.332 N 658 943.174 * Horizon Cone width = 22 0 21’ * Elevated Cone width = 32 0 * Cone Elevation = 7 0 55 ’ * As provided by HCC Survey : April 2018 B1.10 View Point B 1.10 combines with view B 1.11 to provide a deep vista SE across the harbour water-plane. View B1.10 should also be considered with A 1.1 and A 1.11. Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 49 0o degrees west 12.50 degrees south of west B 1.11 View Field B 1.10 View Cone 50 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 B1 Franklin Wharf B1.2 Constitution Dock SE corner to kunanyi B 1.2 View shaft 81049’ 81033’ 82030’ 85016’ 85016’ View Point : SE corner Constitution Dock View Field : Across and including enclosed dock and urban block along Argyle Street, to face of kunanyi including horizon. View Point Elevation : 2.29 m (state datum) Shaft co-ordinates as provided by HCC Survey : April 2018 B1.2 Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 51 B1 Franklin Wharf B1.3 Elizabeth Street Pier (SE) to kunanyi View Point : SE corner Elizabeth Street Pier View Field: toward kunanyi including SW horizon View Shaft : along Elizabeth Street to Mount Stuart and Goat Hills Elevated above the waters of the cove, the view-field from the SE corner of Elizabeth Street Pier reinforces the breadth of kunanyi. The continuity of the horizon can be further appreciated with the view-shaft along the Elizabeth street alignment, connecting the mid ground of Mount Stuart and the higher contours of Goat Hills beyond. B 1.3 52 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 B2 Princes Wharf B2.1 PW 1 forecourt to kunanyi View Point : Forecourt PW 1 View Field : aligned to kunanyi The horizon of kunanyi across the Cove Floor and Parliament Gardens from the entry to Princes Wharf 1 shed, reinforces the layers of the amphitheatre. Particularly evident at dusk, the alignment also refers to the ‘swale’ and creek bed now incorporating St Davids Park, arcing back from the escarpment edge and the ‘wall’ to the cove. (Refer Fig.C 2.1 ) B2.2 ‘Paddock’ (Princes Wharf) to cenotaph View Point : Between PW1 shed and IMAS @ Castray Esplanade View Field : Cenotaph with Grass Tree Hill beyond Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 53 B3 Salamanca Place B3.1 Base of silos (NW) to kunanyi B 3.1 54 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 B3 Salamanca Place B3.1 Base of silos (NW) to kunanyi B3.1 View Point : Base of silos in Salamanca Place View Field : kunanyi + layered rise, including Knocklofty Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 55 B4 Macquarie Wharf B4.1 Between Mac 01 and Mac 02 (W) to kunanyi, (SE) down river Stretching from the west to the southeast the concrete apron between Mac 01 and Mac 2 shed provides a panoramic view of the landscape horizon. From the high ground of kunanyi to the W/ SW, to the deep prospect down river to the SE, the piered edge offers a significant public viewing point. B 4.1 W/ SW SE 56 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 C Cove Slopes The sloping ground adjacent the Cove Floor Identifying the change in contour C 1.1 C3 .1 3 C 1. C 1.2 C 2.1 C4 .1 The Escarpment to the Cove viewing along Davey Street c. 1885 NS 869_1_437 Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 57 C1 Battery Point C1.1 Salamanca Place @ McGregor Street to kunanyi and Knocklofty C 1.1 C 1.1 From this location on the cove slope rising from the Cove Floor to the base of McGregor Street, the spatial characteristcs underpinning Sullivans Cove and Central Hobart are in view, as a scaled sequence. They include the Cove Floor, the Cove Wall, the Cove Slopes, the Cove Ridges, the City slopes, the Inner hills, the Mid-Ground and the High-Ground. These connections should continue to be experienced in relation to one another, in order that the urban landscape remains intelligible. The ‘non conforming’ impact of outdated television infrastructure, is an unecessary imposition within one of the most photographed urban view-fields in the nation. C 1.1 58 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 High Ground Mid Ground Inner Hills City slopes Cove Ridges Cove Wall Cove Floor C1 Battery Point C1.2 McGregor Street to Cenotaph (across cove) C 1.2 C1 Battery Point C1.3 Montpellier Retreat to Cenotaph (across Cove Floor) C 1.3 Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 59 C2 ‘Swale’ and saddle between Macquarie Ridge + Battery Point C 2.1 St Davids Park to kunanyi C 2.1 A creek running to the SW corner of Sullivans Cove, in an area described in 1805 as ‘a place of real seclusion and rare beauty’, meant this area became the settlement’s initial burial ground, prior to it becoming St Davids Park in 1919. Providing a gentle grade from the Cove Floor to the base of Barracks Hill and the Macquarie Ridge, this ‘swale’ also aligns with kunanyi and the regional horizon. 60 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 C 2.1 C3 Franklin Square to / from Cove Floor via Brooke St C 3.1 Franklin Square @ Treasury Forecourt to Cove Floor As one of the few public places where the ‘escarpment’ to the cove is experienced as an abrupt change in grade, the Brooke Street ‘link’ also provides an historic connection between Franklin Square (and the previous courts) and the waterfront. Views from both the top of the escarpment (C 3.1) and the Cove Floor (C 3.2) assist orientation and an appreciation of the urban landform and its evolving built history. C3 Franklin Square to / from Cove Floor via Brooke St C 3.2 Brooke Street Pier to Treasury Forecourt C 3.1 C 3.2 Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 61 C4 Back of Cove C 4.1 Campbell Street @ Bathurst Street viewing SE (across Cove Floor and harbour water-plane) The deep prospect along and down Campbell Street extends across Sullivans Cove and the waterplane to the undeveloped and defining headland of Droughty Point. (refer Urban Amphitheatre p.20) Beyond the rising ground of the Howrah Hills above Droughty and Trywork Points, the view-field includes the elevated Mount Augustus above Sandford. In the far distance (some 50 kms away) the high-ground of the Tasman Peninsula (Mount Koonya and Mount Arthur), confirm this as among the deepest prospects, (on-ground from a central city street), in urban Australia. C4 Back of Cove C 4.1 Campbell Street @ Bathurst Street viewing NW Viewing NW along Argyle Street, the inner hills (including the Boa Vista ridge)provide containment to the Central Area. Further definition is provided by the high ground horizon of Goat Hills, leading to Mount Faulkner. 62 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 D Cove Ridges The landform ridges beyond the cove slopes and their escarpments reinforcing ‘enclosure’ of the cove. Woolley 1981 © Alignments from the ‘escarpment’ above the cove, (now Franklin Square) defined the town and then the city. The Battery Point headland is amplified by the spire of St Georges Church (as viewed in 1981). Refer. D1.1 D 1.1 D 1. 3 D 2.1 D 1.2 Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 63 D 1 Macquarie Ridge Franklin Square is the principal public open space along the Macquarie Ridge, and Central Hobart. Its location above the escarpment provided overview of the cove and then the docks. St Georges Church Battery Point amplifies the ridge of Battery Point. Alignment to it from Franklin Square connects headland and ridge, assisting orientation and comprehension of the urban landscape and its layered history. Vulnerable to development on the cove slopes, the view shaft has been actively identified since 1983. D1.1 64 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 NS 1013_1_971 D 1.1 Franklin Square to St Georges Church, Battery Point D 1 Macquarie Ridge D 1.2 Franklin Square to kunanyi D 1.2 The role of the escarpment, (upon which Franklin Square is now located) is significant to the development of the city. Intended as the public focus of the Meehan Plan (1811), then the site of the first Govt. House, before becoming Franklin Square (1852), the location has long been pivotal to the form and growth of the city centre. Connections to the landscape horizons of the city (kunanyi) are still possible from the park - literally located at ‘the heart of settlement’. NB. kunanyi on the horizon W/SW beyond Macquarie Street Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 65 Meehan Range D 1 Macquarie Ridge D 1.3 Macquarie Street alignment NE to Cenotaph The alignment NE along Macquarie Street reinforces the role of the Meehan Range to the Urban Amphitheatre, providing containment to the central area. (above right and right) The street-space ‘scale’ along Macquarie Street varies between the urban blocks. With movement NE along Macquarie Street, the headland of the Queens Domain is reinforced by the Cenotaph Obelisk (1925). The Royal Engineers Building (1846) formalises the Macquarie Street alignment, also strengthening the ceremonial role and orientation provided by the headland. Across Sullivans Cove the grassed headlands of Battery Point, ( Battery Park foreground - below) and the Queens Domain, (Cenotaph headland - middle distance - below), can be appreciated. D 2 Battery Point Headland D 2.1 Princes Park to Cenotaph 66 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 E City Centre ‘Basin’ The lower lying ground forming part of the Hobart Rivulet ‘trough’ (and its adjacent ‘delta’ outflow) defined by the rising ground of adjacent ridges (notably the Macquarie Ridge to the SE) , and other enclosing city centre slopes. .1 E3 .1 E4 E1 E1 c. 1860 .3 E2 .1 NS1013_1_928 .2 E1 NS1231_1_18 .1 c. 1910 Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 67 E 1 Viewing South-East (NW to SE) E 1.1 Bathurst Ridge to Macquarie Ridge (and beyond) along Argyle Street The ‘street space’ (and hence the connecting ‘view-shaft’) is strongly impacted by a sky- bridge, when viewing SE along Argyle Street. E 1 Viewing South-East (NW to SE) E 1.2 Along Elizabeth Street near Brisbane Street Tall trees in Elizabeth Street Mall now mask the traditional ‘view to the docks’ down Elizabeth Street 68 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 E 2 Viewing South-West (NE to SW) E 2.1 Liverpool Street from Argyle to central area slope beyond Molle street The central area ‘basin’ is appreciated when viewing along the undulating alignment of Liverpool Street. At either end of the street the natural rise to vegetated horizons confirm the ‘contained’ scale of Central Hobart, between Queens Domain vegetation and the Meehan Range to the North East (below) and the base of Chimney Pot Hill to the South West. (right opposite) Viewing SW along Liverpool Street from near Argyle Street E 3 Viewing North-East (SW to NE) E 3.1 Liverpool Street from Elizabeth to Argyle (below) and above Barrack (left) E 3.1 Liverpool Street above Barrack viewing NE Liverpool Street viewing NE from Elizabeth Street corner Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 69 E 4 Viewing North-West (SE to NW) E 4.1 Along Elizabeth Street from Liverpool Street E 4 Viewing North-West (SE to NW) E 4.2 Along Argyle Street from Cove Floor and Macquarie Ridge Being a primary street of the urban grid, Argyle Street provides deep views across the undulating terrain of Central Hobart - from both its south-eastern and north-western extremities. From the Cove Floor the Macquarie Ridge confirms Argyle Street as a cove slope (bottom left), while from the Macquarie Ridge the Bathurst Ridge is evident in the middle distance (right), with the inner city hill side of the Boa Vista saddle beyond. The street space (and hence the views) are compromised by sky bridges. (Refer ‘non conforming’ p.28 ). E 4.2 From Cove Floor along Argyle �treet 70 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 E 4.2 From Macquarie Ridge along Argyle �treet F City Centre Slopes The rising ground, especially North and North-West of the low ground ‘basin’, providing containment to the Central Area F1 .2 F2 F1 F1 F1 F2 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 2 F1 .3 F1 .1 Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 71 F1 North F 1.1 Boa Vista Saddle View Point: At the junction of Park Street and Letitia Street with Boa Vista Road, North Hobart. View Field : Toward the harbour waterplane including Betsey Island on the south- east horizon. Located at the edge of the topographic ‘saddle’ between the Queens Domain and the inner hills of the city centre, the deep prospect down and along the edge of the Domain, and above the former Domain Rivulet, connects to the harbour water-plane and the southern sky, above Betsey Island. Long recognised as an arrival point within the urban landscape to the capital city, (refer Knutt Bull 1865 below) the alignment is vulnerable to development bulk and height adjacent to the Cove Floor. TMAG 72 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 Leigh Woolley Architect Urban Design Consultant 73 F 1 From North F 1.2 Carr Street North Hobart F 1 From North F 1.3 Elizabeth Street from Warwick Street 74 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 F 1 From North F 1.4 Murray Street near Devonshire Square corner Viewing south east from the ridge above Murray street Murray Street near Devonshire Square viewing south east From Macquarie Ridge along Murray �treet The abrupt rise west of the city centre (formerly Lime Kiln Hill) was a popular late nineteenth century viewing point, (right) - now less publicly accessible. NB. Murray Street at its base - centre right. Above: Viewing NW from the Macquarie Ridge across the Bathurst Ridge to the inner urban hill face - from which the image (top left corner ) and the historic image were taken . Murray Street NS 1013_1_731 Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 75 F 2 From West F 2.1 F 2.1 Goulburn Street from Barrack towards Harrington F 2.2 Lower Forest Road to Goulburn Street F 2.2 F 2 From West F 2.2 Bathurst Street towards Queens Domain Meehan Range 76 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 G City Centre Edges G 1.5 G 2 .1 G 2 .2 Locations confirming the landform perimeters of Central Hobart - also reinforcing its placement at the outflow of rivulets, at the base of ridges and contained by inner area hills above the waterplane datum G4 .2 G 1.4 G 3.2 G 3. 3 G3 .1 G G 2 .2 2 .1 G 1. 5 The layered topographic rise is strongly evident from Tranmere Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 77 G 1 from East G 1.1 G 1.1 Glebe Carpark G 1.2 Edward Street, Glebe to Chimney Pot Hill G 1.2 G 1 from East G 1.3 Scott Street 78 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 G 1 from East G 1.4 G 1.4 Liverpool Street at Aberdeen St G 1.5 Tasman Bridge G 1.6 Kangaroo Bluff, Bellerive to kunanyi G 1.5 G 1 from East G 1.7 Tranmere, Howrah Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 79 G 2 from South G 2.1 Long Point, Lower Sandy Bay G 2 from South 1 from East G 2.2 Mount Nelson Lookout Mount Direction Gunners Quoin Meehan Range Queens Domain Battery Point The Mount Nelson summit view : with the city centre located between defining headlands, ridges and landforms. 80 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 G 3 from West G 3.1 Huon Road, South Hobart From this elevation (RL75 m ) and alignment (E/NE), the waterplane of the river and harbour (combined with the valley of the Hobart Rivulet), affirms the location of Central Hobart. The landform horizons of the Meehan Range provide scale and continuity. Rosny Hill in the middle distance, enhances and focuses these layered relationships. Together with the waterplane it provides scale and orientation and assists in identitying the city centre ‘in its setting’. Accordingly the landform of Rosny Hill is significant from this view-point, and should be identified. Meehan Range Rosny Hill Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 81 G 3 from West G 3.2 Forest Road, West Hobart The city centre viewed from the Forest Road lookout. (85m contour) G 3 from Westrom East G 3.3 Summit kunanyi 82 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 G 4 from North G 4.1 Elizabeth Street, North Hobart Deep views across the urban landscape are offered from various locations on the edge of the inner city hills. Viewing south east from Elizabeth Street North Hobart, St Georges Church spire on Battery Point with Porter Hill , Lower Sandy Bay behind, (and Betsey Island further beyond), indicates the depth of view from ground level still possible across the city and the urban landscape. G 4 from Westrom East G 4.2 Mount Stuart Lookout, Mount Stuart Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 83 View Point A * B 1.1 View Point Escarpment Zone * B 1.2 View Point Cove Face Zone View Cone B 1.2 Hill Face Zone Viewing E/SE The analysis uses available modelling data including Councils K2Vi model. Considerations arising will accordingly be subject to detailed survey. 84 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 5.0 ‘Shaping’ outcomes Integrating view protection and height control planes Height Control Planes have been developed and modelled together with view fields including View Protection Cones and view shafts. A potential area of built intensity has been indentified as the area ‘contained’ by the height control planes. The integration of height control planes + view cones generate a conceptual volume over the contained ‘centre’. townscape provisions of the planning scheme. It does indicate however that from significant viewpoints, potential height beyond the amenity building envelope, could be considered without detriment to views identified. When these components are modelled together, an ‘envelope’ is generated that will not impact the identified regionally The height control planes themselves are locating views. This can then be considered also influenced by specific view shafts as a potential outcome in its own right. and view cones. The further integration of these is necessary to develop an integrated It is recognised that this potential modelling as a potential outcome. ‘envelope’ (or residual ‘volume’) is a conceptual massing, rather than a potential ‘mass’. It is not a development envelope. Any development within this ‘area’ would be subject to the amenity, heritage and Hill Face Zone View Cone B 1.2 Cove Face Zone Escarpment Zone View Point B 1.2 * View Point B 1.1 * * View Point A 1.1 Viewing W/SW Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 85 5.1 Identifying the ‘Inner Core’ Precinct : Considering the area contained by the height control planes and the influence of View Cones shaping its potential canopy Inner Core View Cone F 1.1 The Inner Core precinct defined by the adjacent Height Control Planes View Cone B 1.1 Influence of View Cones on the Inner Core precinct View Cone A 1.1 View Cone A 1.11 View Cone B 1.2 86 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 F 1.1 B 1.2 B 1.1 A 1.1 A 1.11 B 1.1 A 1.1 F 1.1 B 1.2 A 1.11 Top : Primary View Cone alignments passing over height control planes and the potential area of built intensity, the ‘Inner Core’. Left : Shape of view cones (colour coded ) over Inner Core precinct Bottom : View Cone alignments (colour coded) with urban blocks differentiated, above the Inner Core precinct. Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 87 A5 5.2 Considering the ‘Inner Core’ urban blocks A3 B5 A4 The ‘contained’ space of the Inner Core B2 E1 F3 E2 D E3 1 D 2 E4 C 1 D 3 E5 C B1 2 D 4 C 3 D 5 A1 C 4 A2 B3 C 5 B4 Comprising the core Central Hobart urban blocks, the ‘contained’ area can be identified topographically as primarily within the ‘basin’, defined by the Macquarie and Bathurst Ridges, (to the north and south respectively) and also by the narrowing of the rivulet ‘trough’ (to the SW), and its opening out as a ‘delta’, (to the NE/E). F2 Analysing the Inner Core urban blocks F1 Having identified the ‘inner core’ urban blocks not subject to height control planes, but beneath view cones, and recognising the role of the amenity building envelope, it is possible to consider the shape and scale of the envelope generated between the two. Central Hobart urban blocks and the Inner Core Precinct ( ) in ma Do Elongated along their NW/ NE and SE / SW faces, the central urban blocks are generally located within the central area ‘basin’, between the natural rise of the Macquarie and Bathurst Ridges. (Refer diag. upper and middle right) The course of the Hobart Rivulet provides a natural focus within the ‘basin’ that drains through the adjacent ‘delta’, (historically) to Sullivans Cove. Further landform definition is provided by the rising ground of the adjacent ridges together with the Domain and Battery Point headlands, and the adjacent Barracks and Trinity Hills. (refer diagram upper right) NB. The Amenity Building Envelope* is identified in HIPS 2015 (Fig. 22.3) On NW / NE frontages it indicates a maximum 20m street wall face, above which a 310 building envelope rises to 45m. On SW/ SE facing frontages a 15m street frontage height and 450 building envelope, also rising to 45m seeks to maintain solar penetration to the opposite side of the street. 88 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 t Hill Headland (Trinity) (Queens Domain) Basin e Delta Reclaimed Hunter Island <10m hu rs t) dg Ri Ri <20m <30m <40m Cove <60m (M ac qu ar ie ) (B at e dg <70m <80m <90m ule t <100m ba rt Riv <110m <120m Ho In response to Meehans 1811 plan and setout the Central Area street grid aligns NW / SE and NE / SW. (Refer alos : HIPS Height Review 2016 Woolley p.11) The central urban blocks are as a result generally rectilinear, typically around 200 m x 100 m, providing a typical surface area of some 20,000 m2. Non-orthogonal streets (Liverpool, Elizabeth and Murray) contribute to the differing dimension and configuration of the urban blocks. (Refer diagram lower right) ule (refer also p.17) Riv Comments about the urban blocks <130m Hill <140m (Barracks) <150m Headland (Battery Point) 0 50 100 200 Accordingly each ‘inner core’ urban block has been considered with regard its topographic features (grade and alignment), its configuration (lineal and areal dimension), its existing built form and the configuration and pattern of individual lots within the urban block. With this foundation information the ‘amenity building envelope’* can then be overlain to generate a ‘base’, or anticipated block massing condition. (Heritage and finer grained townscape provisions not - withstanding). The outcome is the identification of a potential envelope, above the amenity building envelope, that will not impact on the identified key view fields. It may also, subject to other provisions being satisfied, provide for development beyond the amenity building envelope. This analysis is undertaken for each of the identified primary urban blocks, (secondary streets and laneways excluded) leading to a diagram of the potential massing, assisted by a section through the subject block. NB. Within each urban block buildings under construction, or with development approval, are toned pink. B3 NE 9.9 Liv erp oo lS t Cam pbe ll st 2.8 Arg yle st Topographic features 4.7 Co l in ss t 8.7 SW lS t oo Liv er p SSection ection t 15 7.0 158 .3 M ac qu Co ar llin ie s sS t 23 79 5m 2 14 7.0 162 .8 Proportion / dimensions SecSe tion Collins St Liverpool St B3 Section B3 Built form (existing) Lot configuration S ec tio nB 3 Urban Block B3 Largely located within the low ground ‘basin’ of Central Hobart, also incorporating the Hobart Rivulet on its SW edge, the precinct and especially the rising ground toward Liverpool Street has long been known as the Hospital ‘block’. With an area of 23,795 square metres, it is one of the largest urban blocks in the central area. Being roughly square, (each boundary being approx. 150 m with orthogonal corners), it is unusual within the Central Hobart urban grid. The natural rise NW along Campbell Street, from the low point at its corner with Collins, provides a 7m change in grade, while the Liverpool Street edge remains generally level. At the edge between the Inner Core Precinct and the Cove Face Height Control Zone, the potential envelope above the amenity building envelope, and beneath the ‘ceiling’ generated by view cones (A 1.1, F 1.1) , is focused toward the NW edge of the urban block. As a result of its sheer face to Campbell Street, the bulk of the new hospital (under construction), would rise beyond the amenity building envelope. In this instance View Cone F1.1 would also identify this additional bulk as ‘nonconforming’. Amenity building envelope Potential integrated envelope Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 89 C3 NE 7.7 Liv er po ol st st le gy Ar 7.9 5.0 st 8.7 Co l in s Eliza beth st SW ve r Li .5 111 Co llin 150.9 sS t 19 85 3m 2 14 6.8 7.6 15 po ol St Topographic features Proportion / dimensions Collins St Liverpool St Section C 3 Built form (existing) Se c ti on C Urban Block C 3 The urban block has an area of approximately 20,000m2. Incorporating the Hobart Rivulet, that aligns diagonally from near its NW corner (Elizabeth and Liverpool) to its SE corner, (Campbell and Argyle) it is located within the low ground ‘basin’ of Central Hobart. 3 Lot configuration With the only orthogonal corner being Argyle / Collins, the urban block is primarily shaped by the non-orthogonal alignment of Elizabeth Street along its south western side, and Liverpool along its North-Eastern edge. Although the resulting urban block is roughly square, with its perimeter street edges typically 150 m in length, Collins Street is the anomaly, being 111.5 m in length. The re-entrant laneway of Kemp Street provides access to the block interior (and previously the Hobart Rivulet), from the Collins Street frontage. The configuration of property boundaries / lots within the block differs between narrower frontages along Elizabeth Street, contrasting with deeper lots along Argyle and Liverpool. Substantial lot amalgamation is evident, especially toward the interior of the block, much of which remained undeveloped until the mid 20c by virtue of the open course of the Hobart Rivulet. Amenity building envelope Potential integrated envelope 90 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 C4 NE 14.6 Arg yle s t Ba th ur st st 8.6 Elizabe th st Liv erp oo l st 10.4 8.1 SW 17 8.3 Ba th u rs tS t 15 27 8m 2 20 1.0 0.3 10 Topographic features Liv er po ol St 104.5 Proportion / dimensions Liverpool St Bathurst St Section C 4 Sec Built form (existing) Lot configuration tio nC 4 Urban Block C4 Located within the Inner Core precinct at the north-eastern edge of the ‘basin’, the urban block is generally rectilinear, being some 200 m along its Bathurst Street frontage and 100m along its Argyle and Elizabeth Street edges. The shape of the urban block is largely defined by its non-orthogonal streets, Liverpool and Elizabeth, as only the Argyle / Bathurst Street corner is orthogonal. With an area of 15,278 m2 it is not a large block, with the natural rise to its north-eastern corner now defined by the bulk of a recent office/ carpark. With respect to the Amenity Building Envelope this is a ‘non-conforming’ form. The configuration of property boundaries / lots within the block differs between narrower frontages along Elizabeth Street, contrasting with deeper lots along Argyle and Bathurst. The section between Bathurst and Liverpool Streets identifies a potential envelope above the (existing) amenity building envelope, and beneath the view cone (A1.1). In response to the dimension of the urban block, the envelope generated is centrally located, broadly elongated north-east / south-west. Amenity building envelope Potential integrated envelope Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 91 C5 NE 21.1 Arg yle s t M elv il e st 15.9 Ba th ur st st 14.3 10.9 Elizabe th st SW Topographic features 17 8.3 M el vi lle 19 10 6m St 2 20 1.0 100.3 Ba th u rs tS t 104.5 Proportion / dimensions Bathurst St Melville St Section C 5 Sec Built form (existing) Lot configuration tio nC 5 Urban Block C 5 The urban block is primarily located within the Inner Core Precinct. Bound by Elizabeth, Bathurst, Argyle and Melville and comprising an area of some 19,107 m2, it rises in grade from a low point at the Elizabeth / Bathurst corner some 10 m (diagonally) across the block, to the Argyle / Melville corner. The natural rise toward this corner reinforces a distinctive ‘knoll’. Largely rectilinear, the urban block has frontages of approximately 200m along Melville Street (Bathurst Street 178m) and approximately 100m along both Elizabeth and Argyle Streets. The configuration of residual property boundaries / lots within the block differs between earlier narrower frontages along Elizabeth Street, and the contrast with deeper lots along Bathurst and Melville. Substantial lot amalgamation is evident, especially toward the NE corner. The section between Melville and Bathurst Streets indicates a potential residual envelope generated above the (existing) amenity building envelope, and beneath the view cone (A1.1). Given the dimension of the urban block, the potential envelope generated is an elongated centrally aligned volume. Amenity building envelope Potential integrated envelope 92 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 D2 NE 10.1 Eliza beth st Co l in ss t 11.7 M ac qu ari es t 13.4 17.4 Mur ray s t SW Topographic features Co l 2 17 3.8 M M ac ac qu qu ari ari e S es t t 18 55 0m 17 8.8 lin sS t 107.8 Proportion / dimensions 105.4 Macquarie St Collins St Section D 2 Built form (existing) Lot configuration Sec tio nD 2 Urban Block D 2 With no orthogonal corners, but with both Elizabeth and Murray and Macquarie and Collins generally parallel to one another, the urban block generates an 18,550m2 parallelogram. The Cove Face Height Control Zone arcs through the urban block (NE to SW) with the whole block also subject to the Hunter Island View Cone (B1.1). The SW corner is subject to the View Cone (B1.2), from the edge of Constitution Dock viewing to kunanyi. As a result the potential envelope above the Amenity Building Envelope is not significant (refer indicative section). It is also noted that the urban block, especially its SW edge, comprises many heritage properties, potentially limiting application of the amenity building envelope to the precinct. This is less the case at the NE edge of the block where more substantive development has already occurred, with further development underway. Amenity building envelope Potential integrated envelope Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 93 D3 NE 8.1 Liv erp oo l st Eliza beth st 9.2 Mur ray s t Topographic features Co llin ss t 11.1 12.9 SW 17 7.8 C M ac ollins qu ari St es t 24 37 0m 2 16 8.2 Liv er p oo lS t 149.4 Proportion / dimensions 135.1 Collins St Liverpool St Section D 3 Built form (existing) Lot configuration Amenity building envelope Potential integrated envelope 94 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 Sec tio nD 3 Urban Block D 3 Frequently described as the ‘city centre’ block, and located within the Inner Core Precinct, the urban block is bound by Collins to the SE, Liverpool to the NW and Murray and Elizabeth to the SW and NE respectively. With an area of 24,370 m2 and frontages varying between 135 m and 178 m, the block is less rectilinear than those adjacent, especially to the SW, where the rivulet trough narrows and the urban blocks elongate. (refer diags. p.88) Being within the ‘basin’, topographic character is determined by the SW to NE aligned course of the Hobart Rivulet, flowing through the block from Murray to Elizabeth. Comparatively shallow grades along street frontages further identify the central area ‘basin’ location. The section (D3) between Liverpool and Collins identifies a residual envelope above the amenity building envelope and beneath View Cone B1.1. In this block the street wall is often higher than the amenity building envelope, especially at the NW and SW corners, where sheerwall structures predominate. D4 NE 10.9 st st hur Bat Eliza beth st 8.3 Mur ray s t Liv erp oo l st 20.5 11.8 SW Topographic features M Liver ac qu pool ari St es t 5.0 12 16 5.8 18 88 5m 2 Ba trh ur 16 3.2 st St 108.3 Proportion / dimensions Liverpool St Bathurst St Section D 4 Built form (existing) Lot configuration Sec tio nD 4 Urban Block D 4 The extended urban block is located within the Inner Core Precinct. The primary block is bound by Elizabeth, Bathurst, Murray and Liverpool and comprises an area of some 18,885 m2. A sub-block running parallel with Elizabeth, is formed by Criterion Street. Predominantly aligning NE – SW with frontages varying between 108 m and 166 m, the extended urban block is characterized by the change in grade from the lower ground within the ‘basin’, to the Bathurst (Street) Ridge. This is evident along both the Murray and Bathurst Street frontages, where changes in grade of some 10 m are experienced. The lot configuration within the block differs between the earlier narrow frontages in evidence along Liverpool Street, contrasting with deeper amalgamated internal lots toward Bathurst Street. The section between Bathurst and Liverpool Streets indicates a residual envelope generated above the (existing) amenity building envelope, and beneath the view cone (A1.1). The existing ‘street wall’ along much of the Liverpool Street frontage is below the Amenity Building Envelope. Streetscape character requires detailed consideration. Amenity building envelope Potential integrated envelope Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 95 D5 NE 14.1 Eliza beth st M elv il e st 11.1 Mur ray s t Ba th ur st st 20.1 21.1 SW Topographic features B 16 2.4 103.4 at M ac hurs t qu ari St es t 16 25 6m 2 M el vi 15 7.8 lle St 104.7 Proportion / dimensions Melville St Bathurst St Section D 5 Se Built form (existing) Lot configuration c ti on D5 Urban Block D 5 The urban block is located within both the Inner Core Precinct and the Hill Face Zone. Bounded by Elizabeth, Bathurst, Murray and Melville and comprising an area of some 16,256 m2, its lower contours are part of the ‘basin’, its rising grades forming part of the Bathurst Ridge. Relatively flat along its Murray Street boundary between Bathurst and Melville, by contrast it has a 10m fall along Bathurst between Murray and Elizabeth, while the gentle grade along Elizabeth Street underpins its urban amenity. A finer grain of residual lot boundaries is more evident along the Elizabeth and Murray Street frontages than along Bathurst and Melville. Here lot amalgamation has generated large lots, sometimes allowing through-block links, as evidenced with the development of the Bathurst Street Car Park. The cross-section between Melville and Bathurst identifies a potential envelope above the amenity building envelope, and beneath the view cone ( A1.1), also shaped by the interface between the Inner Core and Hill Face Zones. The building bulk of the Bathurst Street offices, is evident beyond the anticipated amenity building envelope along the Bathurst Street edge. Amenity building envelope Potential integrated envelope 96 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 E3 Mur ray s t Liv erp oo l st NE 11.6 12.9 t ns to ng rri Ha Co l in ss t 14.9 16.1 SW Topographic features Liv er p SSeSecx ec ti on E Built form (existing) Lot configuration Collins St Liverpool St Proportion / dimensions M ac quC aorill einss tSt 19 9.8 120 .5 oo 24 20 0m lS t 2 18 0.8 134.3 Section E 3 3 Urban Block E 3 encompassing part of the Hill Face Zone and the Inner Core Precinct and bound by Collins, Harrington, Liverpool and Murray Streets the urban block predominantly aligns NE – SW, with frontages varying between 120 m and 200 m. It has an area in excess of 24,000m2. Victoria Street cuts through the southwestern corner of the block, linking Harrington and Collins. Located within the ‘basin’, this rectilinear urban block also incorporates the ‘trough’ of the Hobart Rivulet. The diverse configuration of lots differs between the earlier narrow frontages along Liverpool and Harrington and larger interior lots, now typically straddling the rivulet. The Victoria Street laneway provides service access to the ‘interior’ of the block, also differentiating the slightly more elevated south-western corner between Harrington and Collins Street. The cross-section between Liverpool and Collins Street identifies a residual envelope generated above the amenity building envelope, and beneath the view cone (View B1.1) The ‘street wall’ to each frontage is generally below the Amenity Building Envelope. Accordingly streetscape character requires detailed consideration. Amenity building envelope Potential integrated envelope Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 97 E4 NE 21.4 t st s hur Bat Mur ray s t 12.2 Harr ingt on s t 15.8 Liv erp oo l st 26.1 SW Topographic features st St 126.4 St ol Proportion / dimensions Built form (existing) Lot configuration Liverpool St Bathhurst St Sec M ac qu ari es t Liv er po 142.3 17 8.1 22 47 7m 2 Ba th hu r .4 157 Section E 4 tion E4 Urban Block E 4 The extended urban block is located within both the Hill Face Zone and the Inner Core Precinct. The primary block is bound by Harrington, Bathurst, Murray and Liverpool and incorporates an area of some 22,500 m2. A sub-block running parallel with Murray is generated by Watchorn Street, with an internal lane (Harrington Lane) between it and Harrington Street. Predominantly aligning NE – SW with frontages varying between 125 m and 180 m, the extended urban block is characterized by the change in grade from the Bathurst Street ridge to the lower ground of the ‘basin’. The change in grade is especially evident along the Murray Street frontage. The diverse lot configuration differs across the extended block notably between the narrow frontages along Liverpool Street and the deeper internal lots that negotiate the incline. The section (E 4) between Bathurst and Liverpool Streets identifies a residual envelope at the edge of the Hill Face Zone and Inner Core precinct, generated above the amenity building envelope, and beneath View Cones A1.1, B1.1. The ‘street wall’ to each frontage is generally below the Amenity Building Envelope. This is noticeably so along Liverpool Street where streetscape character requires detailed consideration. Amenity building envelope Potential integrated envelope 98 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 Campbell The Inner Core precinct within the Central Area landform, identifying (potential) envelopes beneath View Cones NW Cove Face Height Control Zone Cove Face Height Control Zone 5.3 Indicative Sections : Longitudinal F 1 .1 B4 NE C4 V i ew C one Argyle B C SE one A D4 SW - NE Longitudinal sections (# 3, 4) NW - SE Longitudinal sections ( # B, C, D, E) View C E SW - NE Section # 3 Hill Face Height Control Zone View Cone B Amenity Building Envelope 1: 5000 @ A4 Hill Face Height Control Zone 1.1 E4 View Cone A 1.1 Murray SW - NE Section # 4 SW Elizabeth 3 4 1.1 D Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 99 100 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 SW - NE Section # E SW - NE Section # D SW - NE Section # C 1: 5000 @ A4 SW- NE Section # B Hill Face Zone Bathurst 1 C5 E4 D5 Liverpool View Cone B 1. 1 D4 E3 1 C one B 1.2 D3 B3 Collins B 1 .1 Liverpool Liverpool V i ew C4 Liverpool View Cone F 1. Bathurst Bathurst Bathurst View Cone A 1.1 Melville View Cone A 1. Melville Brisbane Hill Face Zone Hill Face Zone Amenity Building Envelope Hill Face Zone Collins Cove Face Zone C3 Collins D2 Collins Cove Face Zone Macquarie Macquarie Escarpment Zone C2 Cove Face Zone Macquarie Escarpment Zone View Cone B 1.2 Escarpment Zone Escarpment Zone 5.4 Indicative views: Axonometric Conceptual massing: Inner Core urban blocks ( and adjacent height control zones ) D5 E4 D4 E3 C5 Hill Face Zone C4 D3 D2 C3 B3 C2 Cove Face Zone Escarpment Zone Above: Viewing North-West from above the Cove Floor Below: Viewing South-West from above the Queens Domain View Cone A 1.1 Escarpment Zone View Cone B 1.1 Cove Face Zone E3 D2 View Cone F 1.1 C2 View Shaft B 1.2 E4 D3 D4 C3 B3 D5 C4 C5 Hill Face Zone Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 101 El i zab eth C5 rs t ol hu po t Ba le er gy Liv Ar C5 B3 Co lli ns C4 D5 Mu rra 45 m 45 m 45 m C3 y D4 D3 E4 D2 E3 50 m Composite Plan: Inner Core Precinct The primary urban blocks (excluding secondary streets and lanes) are considered at incremental heights, incorporating set backs for the Amenity Building Envelope (fig. 22.3 HIPS 2016) and identified View Cones. 55 m 60 m 65 m 70 m 75 m Note: This analysis does not consider individual property boundaries, secondary streets and laneways, detailed townscape and heritage provisions. 80 m The analysis indicates that the deeper blocks can conceptually accommodate development above the current amenity building envelope (45m). This potential is however progressively limited above 65m. 102 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 5.5 Summary considerations A layered urban form underpins an intelligible topography Reinforcing natural amphi-theatres A dramatic landscape provides the foundation to Central Hobart’s urban structure and identity. Landform horizons can be experienced from the centre of settlement, including Sullivans Cove and the city centre. Maintaining this spatial character can, and should, guide future growth of the city centre. As the primary hub of the state activity centre network, the Central Business Zone should provide the compact centre of the dwelling region and the state, and the anticipated location of built intensity. assist a compact centre that can continue to be viewed ‘down to’ and also ‘viewed around’. The massing of the urban blocks within and adjacent to the area of the rivulet outfalls (the ‘delta’) should reinforce the contour incline, generally to the low point of the amphi-theatre to the cove, and the focus of the urban amphi-theatre. Height Control Planes Acknowledge that height control planes when applied across Central Hobart, would ‘shape’ built form ‘back’ from the cove, and To assist in providing an intelligible also assist in differentiating the Queens topography as the city centre consolidates, Domain (and Barracks Hill and Battery Point) a ‘layering’ of built form, stepping back from the central urban blocks. from the Cove and its low lying delta, will reinforce the landform experience of the Acknowledge that the suggested height ‘Amphitheatre to the Cove’, while providing control planes including ‘Escarpment’, ‘Cove the built focus of the regional ‘Urban Face’ and ‘Hill Face’ zones, will assist in Amphi-theatre’. managing built form to progressively reduce in height from the higher contours toward Recognise that ‘non-conforming’ buildings the Cove Floor, (and from within the central confuse the anticipated layering of built area ‘basin’), also reducing toward the form, and do not provide an ongoing headland promontories. building height datum. Topography and location Development above the ‘street wall’ within the Central Business Zone will generally have greater impacts on views the higher the contour. The higher locations in the zone are along Macquarie Street above Harrington and upper Elizabeth Street, above Brisbane. View Cones Acknowledge that connectivity to landscape horizons and significant landforms of the dwelling region from the city centre and Sullivans Cove, can continue to be achieved by implementing view shafts and view cones from recognised view points. Views to kunanyi from the Cove Floor will likely be more substantially impacted by Densification should be encouraged on development outside the Amenity Building the lower contours of the CBZ, while also Envelope, if located SW beyond Harrington acknowledging the importance of stepping Street in the CBZ. back from the rivulet outfalls. This will Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 103 Views to the water-plane of Sullivans Cove and the harbour water-plane leading to the regional landscape and the southern horizon, can be achieved in part by implementing a view cone from the city edge ‘saddle’ (near Boa Vista Road and Cleary’s Gates) (F 1.1) Views to the regional landscape horizon and high ground of kunanyi and the local B 1.2 Composite images from key View Points, including proposed height control planes and potential envelope massing within the Inner Core precinct. Right : From Franklin Wharf B 1.2 Below: From Cenotaph A 1.1, A 1.11 Far Right : From Hunter Island B 1.1 Far right middle and below : From Boa Vista ‘saddle’: F 1.1 A 1.1, A 1.11 104 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 hill face of the Knocklofty Reserve will be retained by implementing view cones from the Cenotaph headland. (A 1.10, A 1.11) Views to kunanyi from Franklin Wharf (B 1.2) and Hunter (Island) on the Cove Floor (B1.1) can continue to be accessed by implementing view cones from these locations. 1.1 extended view Leigh Woolley Architect Urban Design Consultant 105 5.6 Emerging Design Principles Some considerations Diversity and varied scale As the focus of the region and its encompassing landscape, Hobart’s city centre has well defined central urban blocks of varying dimension and built scale. By virtue of the landscape, the city centre nestles within the low ground ‘basin’ also undulating across ridges, and inner city slopes. Local landform and topopgraphy, together with the emerging built form, contribute to the spatial experience of streets within the ‘Inner Core’. Topographic diversity will continue to contribute to diversity within the central city built form. Accordingly a diversity of building height within the inner core should be pursued rather than a particular or uniform height datum. Where height increases bulk reduces Streetscapes and urban block ‘massing’ in Central Hobart reflects a layering of building period and scale. Generally there has been an absence of large monolithic structures of uniform bulk. To maintain familiar streetscape rhythm and to assist in providing amenity, and to seek view glimpses between buildings and avoid sheer walls, a set back on internal boundaries (above the ‘street wall’) should be pursued. An increase in setback should be considered for residential use. Buildings in the Central Business Zone accordingly should where height increases, reduce in bulk, particularly if beyond the Amenity Building Envelope. This should apply Conceptual representation of envelope modelling (Inner Core precinct urban blocks). to varying degree to each elevation not just - viewing east from kunanyi. (elevation 1240 m) above the ‘street wall’. Taller buildings in Central Hobart accordingly must be designed ‘in the round’ - to be seen from all sides. Buildings outside the amenity building envelope must be considered (and argued) across scales, in the context of the individual property, the urban block and the city centre. ‘Street space’ scale considered Central Hobart has variety and diversity in the pattern of street frontages and corresponding ‘street wall’ heights. In the context of each urban block, street frontage heights should link streetscape character, and the scale of street space enclosure. Ensure development addresses laneways and linkways as well as primary street frontages. Maintain adequate light to street spaces while providing continuous pedestrian protection to the street edge. City roof-scape As the Central Urban blocks are viewed ‘down upon’ from surrounding hills, buildings in the Central Business Zone, particularly if outside the Amenity Building Envelope, should be designed with a profile and roof treatment in consideration of the cityscape. Roof spaces and their forms should be treated as a considered aspect of the overall building form - effectively a fifth elevation. Fine grain / diverse height Although Hobart’s central urban blocks vary in size, they are generally not large (typically 100m x 200m) and streets are not wide (typically 18m). Accordingly it is appropriate to avoid, especially when there is lot amalgamation, a uniform height (and mass) to buildings above the ‘street wall’. To ensure (as much as possible) the fine-grain evident in frontages is carried through to its skyline character, and to avoid a ‘wall of towers’, differentiation in urban modelling is sought. (The progressive implementation of the amenity building envelope will contribute to this outcome). This may necessitate separation between building elements, even the deliberate extending of finer profiled elements higher, to visually differentiate the building mass, rather than building mass being uniform. 106 Building Height Standards Review June 30 2018 Conclusions • To maintain the characteristic gradation in scale of fine-grained low-rise residential precincts (on adjacent slopes) transitioning to a compact centre, development intensity should be located on the lower contours of the ‘basin’ of the CBZ, rather than its higher contours. • Height control zones stepping back from the Cove and the inner hills assist in identifying an ‘Inner Core’ precinct within the ‘basin’. Modelling suggests that development above the Amenity Building Envelope could be pursued within this precinct, without intruding into primary view cones, thus maintaining connectivity to regional landscape horizons and significant landform features. • The area ‘contained’ by height control planes (identified as a potential area of built intensity) be considered an ‘Inner Core’ precinct of the CBZ. Accordingly it be termed the ‘inner core (height) precinct’. • Initial modelling of the ‘inner core’ urban blocks, the amenity building envelope, identified View Cones, (while acknowledging outline townscape provisions), indicates capacity for development above 45m, with limited opportunity on most urban blocks above 65m. Conceptual envelope modelling - urban blocks (Inner Core precinct) and adjacent height control planes. Viewing south -east above Elizabeth Street. • In the precinct contained by the height control zones (the ‘Inner Core’ precinct), height beyond the anticipated Amenity Building Envelope could, in several locations, rise to 75m without impacting primary view cones, subject to heritage and detailed townscape provisions. • By locating within the lower contours of the Central Business Zone (within the ‘basin’), development outside the Amenity Building Envelope will more readily be ‘contained’ within the city’s natural landforms, being also set back from the Queens Domain, generally (NW) of the Macquarie Ridge and generally (SE) of the Bathurst Ridge, while also grading down to the Cove Floor. • In considering appropriate height control planes for Sullivans Cove and Central Hobart the following are recommended: An Escarpment Zone rising from 18m to 30m (+ natural rise), A Cove Face Zone rising from 30m to 45m, (+ natural rise) A Hill Face Zone rising from 18m to 45m. (+ natural rise) (Refer to plan p. 30 - 32) • Within the inner core precinct amenity, townscape and heritage provisions and identified view cones should determine height outcomes. • The combination of proposed height control planes with view protection planes will assist in maintaining Central Hobart as a ‘compact’ and ‘contained’ urban form. LW 30 June 2018 Leigh Woolley Architect + Urban Design Consultant 107