“Due to the prominent inner-city location of the site, the provision of affordable dwellings within the building is not considered appropriate,” town planners say.

“Due to the prominent inner-city location of the site, the provision of affordable dwellings within the building is not considered appropriate. Units within the development will, however, be an aspirational purchase decision for many who will use the purchase to elevate themselves up the property ladder,” Saunders Havill Group said.

“…[T]his will then provide opportunity for others to step into dwellings vacated by those purchasers, which are traditionally located in more affordable areas of the city.”

So according to these arseholes, people on lower incomes don’t deserve to be able to live close to the CBD.

  • anathema_device@kbin.social
    2·
    1 year ago

    @Zagorath " the provision of affordable dwellings within the building is not considered appropriate"

    Not considered appropriate by whom? (I mean, I can guess)

    " Units within the development will, however, be an aspirational purchase decision"

    Wow that is some bullshit :(

    • Zagorath@aussie.zoneOPEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      By the “town planners” that were hired by the developer.

      The developer being Aria, and the “town planners” being Saunders Havill Group.

      • BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        Fuck Aria. They’re eating the inner suburbs and no one is stopping them. Did the same shit in Fish Lane - except they decided to add an extra 2-5 floors (iirc) above both the plans and the council limitations.

        One quick bribe (donation), problem gone.

        And the public green space required to build was immediately turned into private commercial Alfresco space, because fuck you.