Central Coast Quarter - HDA Scheme

The following is from https://goodhumanhabitat.org/the-human-scale/benefits-of-the-human-scale/
Benefit #3. Human-scale buildings are more environmentally friendly to build and operate relative to high-rise buildings.
There is a widespread belief that high-rise development is climate-friendly relative to other forms of development. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Research conducted over the last twenty years consistently shows that high-rise buildings exact a far greater environmental cost both to build and to operate relative to human-scale development.

Points to consider:
Researchers at Scotland’s Edinburgh Napier University completed a study which found that high-rise development elevates greenhouse gas emissions in a way that building at the human scale does not. During high rise construction, far more CO2 is released into the atmosphere in relation to concrete and steel production, and high rises require significantly more energy to operate.12
A study by a team from the firm that designed the world’s tallest building (i.e., the Jeddah Tower) also determined that high-rise buildings consume appreciably more energy during operation than their human-scale counterparts. The reasons are many but include higher air infiltration rates in upper stories that are typically wrapped in glass. These upper stories experience unwanted heat gains in the summer, and heat loss in the winter.13
A study completed by researchers at University College London determined that human-scale commercial buildings having 6 or fewer stories consumed half the electricity per square meter than commercial buildings having 20 or more stories.14
BC Hydro is a public utility that supplies electricity to Vancouver residents. In 2019, they did a study that further dispells the myth that cities grow greener as they grow taller. The utility examined energy use across Vancouver. It found that the amount of electricity used per square foot nearly doubled in new buildings relative to those built in the 1980s. Their study notes, “Despite many new, high-end condo buildings being marketed as being energy-efficient, British Columbians living in them have a much larger energy footprint than those living in older condos and apartments–regardless of what they may think.”
Human-scale development is well-positioned to take advantage of recent advancements in reinforced timber. Although there has been hype surrounding the use of reinforced timber for high rises, it does not stand up to scrutiny. Those involved with high-rise projects using reinforced timber have concluded that building towers with timber “does not make sense”, but point out that the technology is a very suitable replacement for concrete and steel in larger “low-rise” projects.15
Building at the human scale with timber (reinforced when appropriate) sequesters carbon. Using timber also dramatically reduces the use of concrete which is one of the most environmentally destructive materials on the planet.16 In addition to producing enormous amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, global concrete production requires 50 billion tons of sand annually. And if you think this sand is coming out of deserts, think again. It all must come from aquatic areas teeming with life for reasons to do with riparian sand’s binding properties.17
You can find more information about the studies referenced above in a companion article titled, Climate Rhetoric and Reality: The Case of Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Benefit #4. Human-scale development accommodates population densities comparable to high-rises.
Despite sounding counterintuitive, human-scale development of up to 6 stories can often handle population densities comparable to high-rise development. Yet, this is what the research has consistently shown when you take into account real-world regulations relating to providing adequate air and light to buildings and streets.
Below, I refer to studies that factor in European regulations governing building access to light and air. No comparable research has been done in China, where cultural differences normalize cramped living conditions that most Americans would find intolerable. All this is to say is that research coming out of Europe is relevant to the objective of accommodating higher residential densities while maintaining an American standard of living.
Points to consider:
The fact that high-rise densities can typically be accommodated at a reduced number of stories was clarified publicly in 1975. That year, British architects Lionel March and Leslie Martin published these findings in a well-regarded book titled Urban Space and Structures. This ability to reduce building height and maintain an equivalent density depends upon the use of a building type referred to as a court.  Courts can be built at  lower heights than podiums (a.k.a., high rises), occupy a greater percentage of a parcel, and still provide the necessary light and air required by municipal regulations. Below, on the left, are podiums. On the right, we have courts. The two sets of figures represent equivalent densities.18
More recently, researchers, Meta Berghauser Pont and Per Haupt, drew from March and Martin’s research and developed an innovative graphical tool (Spacemate) that enabled them to analyze the relationship between urban form and density. With this tool, they analyzed housing across Holland and found that “lower-rise buildings” (i.e., court-style buildings with 6 or fewer stories) could have been used in place of most high rises and provided comparable densities. Sometimes, heights exceeding 6 stories were required, but buildings were still significantly lower.19
Researchers at University College London replicated the Dutch findings when analyzing buildings in London. As before, they found that taller buildings needed to be separated more widely than human-scale buildings to gain access to the same amount of light and air, hence they use more land. Here again, sometimes, heights exceeding 6 stories were found necessary. Yet these heights were still much lower as illustrated in the example below where an 8-story courtyard building provides an equivalent density to 36 and 41-story towers to be built along with separate 7-story buildings.20
Edinburgh Napier University’s research on tall buildings and emissions also investigated ways to optimize urban design for increased residential densities. To do this, the team developed a computer model that could produce over 5000 simulated urban environments. The model used real-world zoning regulations governing light and air. The team found that human scale design could accommodate densities comparable to high-rise development. The authors state, “The results of this study suggest that there is no merit to the claim that building denser and taller is more sustainable. By building dense, low-rise urban environments, the same populations can be accommodated for drastically lower carbon costs and without having to significantly increase land use.”21

The existing development height is characteristic with the neighbouring structure, with similar heights.

The requested height increases will monopolise the views for many other potential buildings further back in Gosford. Recommendation would be to stagger the heights like most other waterfront areas, with lower building heights nearer to the foreshore.

Additionally, the parking requirements and traffic impact of the additional housing would be substantial compared to the previous submission. While there is a need for new housing, there’s also a need for supporting infrastructure.

Recommend keeping the initial approved submission, and not approving the updated plan, due to the impacts to views, supporting infrastructure and parking per the notes above.

This development will significantly affect the landscape and views to the buildings behind on Henry Parry Drive. The 15 story building (white and burgundy) between Mann st and Henry parry drive is tall enough some would say too tall. This project is two towers 36 and 42 stories tall absolutely ridiculous. It will devalue the area. I’m all for development but in moderation where it doesn’t stand out. This would stand out massively and not in an appealing way. The building should be no taller than those around it so the landscape is modern and updated but doesn’t impact existing buildings and their values.

There is Inadequate parking facilities for this project to proceed. This will directly impact the street I live in -which is already impacted with the inadequate parking for existing facilities. This is an existing problem all through Gosford and this project will only make it worse. When people move into an apartment they often have 2 to 3 cars and are looking to park on the street in the surrounding area.
I am also concerned that current infrastructure is inadequate to support such a project and Council do not have enough funds to increase the infrastructure.

This is a such a significant over reach of the current planning laws. It will put further stress on public instrastructure, sewer, water and parking. Given the current planned high rise developements already approved in Gosford city, as a rate payer we will again be forking out for unplanned upgrades by developers taking advantage of the current SSD system to increase their margins. This kind of overreach has nothing to do with providing affordable homes

I support the project, I believe it will really improve housing affordability and availability.

I would like to see the number of units and storeys significantly increased.

Good looking buildings. Excellent utilisation of space. We need to build up, this is perfect. The buildings in Gosford have made it such a beautiful place to live.

I object to the proposed 42‑storey development on the grounds that its height and scale are excessive and inappropriate for the Gosford and Central Coast context.
A building of this height is significantly out of character with the surrounding area and would have a dominant visual impact on the skyline. Gosford is not the Gold Coast, and development of this magnitude risks undermining the distinct character of the Central Coast rather than enhancing it.
I am supportive of sensible development and continued revitalisation of the Gosford CBD. However, this proposal goes well beyond what is reasonable or consistent with existing development in the area. A reduced height, aligned with comparable developments such as the Quarters Tower, would be far more appropriate.
There are numerous vacant and underutilised sites throughout Gosford that could accommodate increased housing density without concentrating it into a single, overly tall structure. A more distributed approach to high‑density development would better support urban renewal while maintaining scale, amenity, and visual balance.
For these reasons, I request that Council reconsider the proposed height and require a substantially reduced scale that better reflects the character, planning intent, and long‑term liveability of the Gosford CBD.

I strongly object to the extension of the two Central Coast Quarter towers to their newly proposed heights. I think the original smaller proposal was acceptable, but the height of the new proposal is excessive for Gosford and this location, especially being so close to the waterfront.

Gosford isn't the Gold Coast or Sydney Harbour, and I don't think we want to be. The waterfront is Gosford's best asset, it's a very special place, and should be protected. Any developments so close to the waterfront should have to meet stringent criteria.

In my opinion, I think Gosford needs to develop, but do so carefully, while keeping some charm and protecting our natural beauty. We should not just approve every enormous skyscraper that developers want to build. Please keep the original smaller heights that were proposed.

Please also try to ensure buildings that are approved have been designed well with good style and charm, so they are not ugly or an eyesore or soulless - that's the last thing we need.

Look to recent developments that have been widely praised for their appearance, such as the Archibald towers (27 and 28 stories high), the new Newcastle Uni campus in Gosford and the new regional library in Gosford.

I object to the scale of the proposed changes to SSD -90960208. The revised height of the towers is vastly out of context with the ongoing development in the Gosford CBD.
The revised development will be higher than the surrounding hillside of Gosford and will greatly detract from the councils established policy of retaining a backdrop to the city of eucalypt forest on the ridgetops.
In addition the development will no longer provide a graduated view from the waterside (which is under further planning proposal to enhance the waterfront precint) to the park area and onto the Gosford CBD.
This proposal is totally unrealistic for a small regional town. If additional housing is needed there are plenty of other areas that could be developed along the rail line on the western side of Brisbane Water with much less visual impact on the city.

It is too high for Gosford not fit the place previous design had been much better

This is far too high for Gosford and not in line with the current waterfront tower 1 in which I live. I would not have bought here if I had known the other 2 towers would be so high. It will block the views and light for everyone around. The traffic is already crazy around Gosford and adding this many extra apartments will make it worse. I am all for progress, but these are just too high right in front of the water.

Gosford is a beautiful city for those who arrive by road. For those who arrive by train, it's dreary and boring, which is a shame considering the two precincts are so close to each other. I support anything that revitalises the precinct around the train station

I believe the unprecedented increase in the size and floor ratio of the project at 26-30 Mann Street goes well beyond the height of surrounding buildings. This will create a significant disruption to the view of residents nearby as well as when observing Gosford from the waterfront. I have no objection to the initial proposed size of the project but this expansion is untenable given the discrepancy of the size of the buildings with those around it and will increase the likelihood of other similar buildings being developed, further impacting traffic and limited parking. Currently my commute through Gosford centre already takes anywhere from 5-15 minutes on what is less than 500m of road. Adding far more density is not tenable in the current arrangement. Thankyou for your consideration.

I am seriously against the proposal to significantly increase the height of the southern tower an eastern tower. I believe in the original planning of this complex, that that height would the be same or lower than the existing tower. I love that new developments are popping up around Gosford but the central coast quarter as it currently stands is already quite imposing for anyone driving into Gosford. It already overshadows a lot of the park area. Having another hotel proposed for Gosford seems very overkill having worked for an online hotel booking agent for over 11f years and I believe with not much happening in Gosford other than the odd games at the stadium having empty hotel rooms and empty apartments in the many high rises we already have, end us with us having an over supply of units that will negatively impact the housing market here. the proposal of 36 and 42 storey blocks is way too high. We do not have the infrastructure, roads and transportation systems in place to support all these new apartments, parking is already severely limited and has been for a while.