Councillor Chris Harris

In Elizabeth Farrelly’s piece on the Surry Hills Neighbourhood centre (Quest for green, yet engaging, public building May 16, 2007) she tells us that striving for viridity in urban design is worthwhile.

But she also says we all need to become eco-heads because we ‘can’t trust government to find the green pastures and lead us there’.

She uses the Surry Hills Neighbourhood Centre to underline her point. But is she right?

It’s true we are living in an age where greenhouse gases are at levels rarely seen in the history of the world. However being an ‘eco-head’ is not that hard.

With 75 per cent of the world’s energy being used by cities we need to design our buildings in such a way that we don’t go on pumping water from a far away dam to flush the toilets and pump our sewage to a far away ocean outfall. By the way the electricity that we use to do all this pumping is provided by burning coal, and guess what? Coal contributes 33 per cent of our total greenhouse gas emissions.

So how do we fix this?

First up we take less water from our rivers so our farmers can do what they do best – provide us with food. How? We simply work out what the yearly rainfall is, how much water each building needs and install water tanks to meet that need. How hard is that? If there is a shortfall – say unexpectedly low rainfall - then dam water can be used as a back up. The dam of course, by not being drained for toilet flushing, is now full.

Secondly we treat and recycle our sewage and use that water to flush toilets - 70 per cent of a non-residential building’s needs - water gardens, circulate through cooling systems and eventually, when we get over the ‘yuk’ factor, drink it as does half the known world including London and Singapore.

Thirdly we design energy-efficient buildings using solar, wind or even gas-fired turbines to generate electricity. On smaller buildings where this may not be feasible, we buy green power.

Now we come to the focus of Ms Farrelly’s piece. The Surry Hills Neighbourhood centre. If ever a community needed and deserved a modern community centre it’s the Surry Hills community. When this project was first discussed by South Sydney Council, prior to amalgamation in 2004, it was envisaged that there would be a childcare centre for around 25-30 children, a library, community meeting rooms and some commercial space for a cafe.

What do we have now? Childcare, a library and a community meeting space. The big difference is the cost. The current facility is listed in the 2007/08 budget at $19 million but only two years ago in the budget documents it was just $3.6 million. A council resolution in March unanimously requested a detailed explanation of the increase in cost and as yet this explanation has not been forthcoming.

Clover Moore, as member for Bligh, criticised the South Sydney plan because one floor of the library was in the basement and because it had a cafe.

Guess what? The new plan has one floor of the library in the basement and a cafe. The childcare centre is located on the top of the building with no room for expansion. The 26 places available will be filled before the building is completed and there will be a waiting list twice that number prior to the building becoming operational.

But let’s say that the cost increase is justified, and I am not yet convinced that it is, to have a truly sustainable building council should have insisted that the plans for the Surry Hills Neighbourhood centre incorporate all the sustainable inclusions listed above.

Did we do that? No.
Yes, the building has a number of energy and water efficiencies built into it. There is a 60,000 litre water tank and there will be a small number of solar panels mounted on the building that will provide some power. But given what we’re up against with climate change this is simply not good enough.

I sought advice on the building from well-known sustainability coach Michael Mobbs and his comment was that “this building gives sustainability a bad name”.

His calculations indicated that the building would import over 600,000 litres of dam water and the same amount of sewage would be pumped out of the building and into the ocean causing massive greenhouse gas emissions. And this is not even taking into account council’s own consultant’s calculations that the building’s stationary energy would produce 330 tonnes of climate changing pollution each year.

So for $19 million we get a neighbourhood centre that is clearly not a sustainable building, this despite the protestations of the Lord Mayor.

At the council meeting I was not alone in this view. I was supported by the three Labor councillors and one Liberal councillor in asking for the plans to be amended to reduce the cost and improve sustainability. Clover Moore’s five ‘independents’ voted as a block to tie the vote. Clover then used her casting vote to push the development through.

This project, the first instituted by this council from scratch, is overpriced and does not address climate change in a responsible manner. Recently completed buildings such as CH2 in Melbourne and the privately owned Building K in Double Bay are much better value for money and are streets ahead in reducing greenhouse gas pollution.

Elizabeth Farrelly believes that viridity in urban design is worthwhile. On that she’s right. Where she’s wrong is that we know that council is making the wrong decisions on the Surry Hills Neighbourhood Centre. We know that with this project we could easily create a sustainable ‘beacon on the hill.’ It’s a shame the City of Sydney doesn’t see it the same way.