You are here

Do you support the draft plan for 5 Storeys in Corinda and Sherwood?

Submitted by webmaster on Sat, 22/05/2010 - 9:45pm
Strongly Support
11% (4 votes)
Mildly Support
0% (0 votes)
Ambivalent
0% (0 votes)
Mildly Object
3% (1 vote)
Strongly Object
86% (31 votes)
Total votes: 36

Comments

  • But Corinda already has medium/high density:

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=corinda,+...
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=corinda,+...
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=corinda,+...
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=corinda,+...
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=corinda,+...
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=corinda,+...
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=corinda,+...
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=corinda,+...
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=corinda,+...
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=corinda,+...
A lot of it appears to have been built long before this website was started :P

  • Look, I don't think anybody is saying we should be putting medium/high density in places like this:

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=corinda,+...

  • But surley places like this would work quite well:

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=corinda,+...
Giving space in the suburb over for people to live rather than a boring car park is clearly better.

  • Lets face it, cities always change. Once upon a time Brisbane looked like this:

http://bishop.slq.qld.gov.au/webclient/StreamGate?folder_id=200&dvs=1274...
And now it looks like this:
http://www.lindalaing.com.au/photogallery/Brisbane-CBD-QLD-&-Gabba-.jpg

  • Nothing stays the same forever, and at the end of the day, cities are for living in, not looking at. I just don't see why Corinda deserves special treatment over anywhere else in Brisbane. If the CBD has been able to gradually grow and change over a period of time then Corinda should too
  • It just makes me want to bang my head against a wall when people KNOW we have issues like not enough housing, housing being unnafordable, traffic congestion, the environmental impact of excessive car use, urban sprawl destroying bushland etc. So building new dwellings close to existing transport infrastructure, shops and community facilites is a great solution to this problem. But we are told "no, build it somewhere else', this area has character, close knit community etc".
  • Problem is, the same can be said for virtually every inner/middle ring suburb in Brisbane (Hate to break it to everyone, but Corinda isn't the only place with old Queenslander houses). What also complicates things is that the suburbs well served by the rail network also tend to be the older ones, so we're stuck spinning our wheels, on one hand we need higher density with less car dependence for the city to survive, but at the same time the best places for this to occur meet opposition.
  • Even in places where you think there shouldn't be a problem, you still get oppostion. Capalaba isn't a character suburb, but higher density is being opposed there. Milton has a gaint stadium, brewerey, big commercial buildings like officeworks and kennards, plus tall office buildings, yet somehow big residential buildings to go along with all the other big stuff is somehow unnacceptable?
  • It also makes want to bang my head me the 'family oriented' line gets trotted out: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo ) But its clearly distracting the issue, because some apartment buildings in central corinda aren't going to stop people from having a happy family. (And if somebody can give me a clear cause+effect explaination as to why family life would be destroyed by apartments, I'm all ears) To say nobody wants them is garbage anyway or else nobody would buy apartments, but they do, so clearly some people prefer a higher density lifestyle.
  • As for Corinda being quiet, yes, right the back streets, definitley, but this isn't where the development is proposed. Central Corinda is reasonably busy anyway, but again, I doubt new people living around there are going to cause a great deal more car traffic, since they'd use the train to get to work, walk literally 2 minutes to get to the shops etc, which is the whole point of this type of development.

Hi Gavin,
 
I think you are getting confused with the difference between LMR (Low-Medium Residential) as it is currently zoned - a maximum of 3 storeys and the proposed MR (Medium Density Residential in the draft Neighbourhood plan to 5 storeys.  Additionally MP3 (5 storeys) will apply in the designated commercial shopping area.  We have not yet maximised the use of the LMR area as you can probably see from the maps references you have supplied.
 
Could I suggest if you are interested the details are available on the council website at http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2736
 
This document will also show there is a heritage protected building behind the carpark in one of your other maps.
 
Regards,
Allan.

So where do all the cars go? Where do the three wheely bins per new unit go? If you want a preview of what the area will look like you only have to look at parts of Sydney where these types of development result in crowding, poor visual amenity and ultimately a reduction of quality of life all round.  If this was the only option then it might need to be considered.
Hop on your bike and take a drive to Toowoomba along the back roads around Lowood for example, acres of land, a railway line.  For goodness sake why pile everyone on top of one another here when there are countless alternatives?
The council should drop the five storeys back to three (ie as we already have in the areas under discussion) and tell the state government to go and jump. If they then forced it through they would be exposed as the villains. This is elementary politics surely. 
And another thing the smarties who are buying up blocks of land and sitting on them for years should be forced to keep them tidy in the interim. I'm sick of mowing other peoples footpaths who buy up land in my street and sit back to make a profit while the amenity where I live suffers!
 

  • Could I suggest if you are interested the details are available on the council website at....

Have looked through it.

  • MP3(5) and areas seem to be of little impact, since its commerical anyway (Much of it pretty bland/unpretty at present...our brown brick Coles...ugh), and much of it is bounded by the rail coridor, which is wide enough to provide a good buffer.
  • But I'm guessing the real issue is the MR(5) areas.

So lets run through them. first with Corinda:
Dunlop st: Seems to be already multi res (5 out of 9 buildings in street are multi res), not particularly leafy, and brick houses with little architectural merit: http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=corinda,+...
Lynne grove: Again, not that leafy, much of block is taken up by railway depot: http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=corinda,+...
Overshadowing wont affect nearby residents in this area. When the sun rises the shadows for the buildings would only be across the rail coridoor, at midday the shadows cast to the south would be minimal, and in the arvo they would be across oxley road (so oxley road would recieve some shelter from the hot afternoon sun)

....And much of it is newish anyway and doing its job. So in effect, the area would remain largley the same for the forseeable, and the effect would be 5 storey ones popping up in the gaps between the existing 3 storey ones (proportionally a 3 to 5 storey variation is less than the common 1 to 2 storey variation)

  • This document will also show there is a heritage protected building behind the carpark in one of your other maps.

Newer and older buildings can be seen to exist side by side all the time:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=corinda,+...

  • So where do all the cars go?

Underneath the apartments.

  • Where do the three wheely bins per new unit go?

In multi residential, you typically just have shared dumpsters for waste.

  • If you want a preview of what the area will look like you only have to look at parts of Sydney where these types of development result in crowding, poor visual amenity and ultimately a reduction of quality of life all round.

What do you mean by 'crowding'? Are you saying a few 5 storey buildings will result in the footpaths around Corinda becoming like the footpaths in the CBD?
Visual Amenity....Again, Cities are for living in, not looking at. There is no reason why a 5 storey building cant be made to look nice:  http://66.230.220.70/images/post/parisstreetwall/01.jpg I'm all for council enforcing some degree of architectural merit in proposals.
The visual amenity point is moot anyway, because the 5 storey developments are in the commercial centers, so its not like character streetscapes are being impacted because the stuff that is there (supermarket, train station, services club etc)
Reduction in Quality of life...See, unless you've made the choice to live in one you shouldn't go saying that it's a bad way to live . To me, being able to live without having to spend hours in total per week to drive everywhere (And subsequently spending less, which leaves more money for other niceties), whilst still having the city a short train ride away sounds like a good quality to life for me. Again, we already have apartments throughout the city, and people wouldn't pay so much for them unless they had inherent advantages.

  • Hop on your bike and take a drive to Toowoomba along the back roads around Lowood for example, acres of land, a railway line.  For goodness sake why pile everyone on top of one another here when there are countless alternatives?

And this is where your argument falls down. It costs taxpayers more and has greater environmental impacts to build on greenfield sites and establish all the associated infrastrucuture, then to simply build within existing suburbs. Furthermore, living out that far means a very long trip for anyone wanting to travel to the city....There isn't an operating railway to Lowood. There is the railway to Toowoomba about 17km away, and for your idea to work you'd be looking at spending billions to dupicate the line and electrify it to make it workable for commuter use.
On the other hand, building in existing suburbs means we just use the infrastrucutre that is already there, and the only outlay is to just schedule more train services...Much lower cost, millions, not billions.

My concern is the camel's nose in the tent. While Gavin's case is largely that a little bit here or there in the designated areas is neither here nor there the likelihood is that over time the precedent establishes the norm and we move in the direction of increased density.
Rescheduling trains. Great idea.  Lets see if they can get the ones currently in place to fit through the existing infrastructure without overcrowding.
Ask the people of Kedron and Woolowin and Lutwyche what they think about the "cost" of putting something new alongside, over and under where they currently live.  The area around the Kedron Park Hotel looks like a meteorite strike. 
My argument about Lowood was just an example.  I could have suggested the rail corridor based on the NSW line to the border, the area  around Bundaberg, or between Warwick and Toowoomba. (or many others) If the cost of greenfield sites is so large now consider what it will be in the future.  If we follow the logic of increasing the density there is ultimately a limit. 
I guess it's personal preference. If we have the option to be a large country town forever or become another megatropolis I'll take the former.  I can remember when the train line permanent way ran along the Pacific highway near Tugun on its way to Cooloongatta. The whole line was deemed unnecessary and sold off. Later it transpired that "We need a rail line to the Gold Coast".  Presumably it wasn't re put through to Cooloongatta as the cost of resuming the permanent way was "too high".
In summary
1. Lets not stuff up the liveable areas of Brisbane now for what everyone can see will only be the relative short term.
2. Lets identify the future Springfields  (but give them streets wide enough to get Fire trucks and buses down!!!***)
3. Identify and preserve the transport corridors and get all the fights about them over sooner rather than later.
And yes I am suggesting we will ultimately have a more crowded, more noisy, cars coming and going at all hours of the day and night, sirens screaming every twenty minutes future if we don't make a stand now.
 

  • My concern is the camel's nose in the tent. While Gavin's case is largely that a little bit here or there in the designated areas is neither here nor there the likelihood is that over time the precedent establishes the norm and we move in the direction of increased density.

So basically, your argument is not about what is on the table right now, but about something that nobody has actually suggested. Furthermore, "Transport oriented developement"is exactly that, Transport oriented. It's not really going to spread beyond the designated areas because then you'd be getting too far from the stations, the concept loses it appeal, so it ultimatley doesn't get built. You've also got character/heratiage rules in play that would kick in to stop it spreading to areas where it wouldn't suit.
Lets not stuff up the liveable areas of Brisbane now for what everyone can see will only be the relative short term.
But what exactly is being 'stuffed'? The issue I take is that all of Sherwood, and all of Corinda gets lumped into the same category, as if somehow the entire suburb has exactly the same character throughout:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=sherwood,...
Go look at the aerial image above, compare the area on the right hand side (Where MR(5)) is proposed and the area on the left (staying as it is). Even from that image you can see that the right hand side has a very different 'grain' to that on the left. The right hand side isn't being 'stuffed', because there is nothing to be stuffed in the first place. It's already multi res!
Finally, I've raised a number of points as to why denser transport oriented developments would be 'livable' too . I'd like to know why I am wrong.

  • Ask the people of Kedron and Woolowin and Lutwyche what they think about the "cost" of putting something new alongside, over and under where they currently live.  The area around the Kedron Park Hotel looks like a meteorite strike

Will it look like that forever though? In a couple of years time they'll be the ones laughing since less traffic through their suburbs means higher property values for them.

  • Rescheduling trains. Great idea.  Lets see if they can get the ones currently in place to fit through the existing infrastructure without overcrowding.

Cross river rail comes online in 6 years, and that will free up the current capacity bottleneck with the rail network.

  • I could have suggested the rail corridor based on the NSW line to the border, the area  around Bundaberg, or between Warwick and Toowoomba.

Again, this is where the argument falls flat. People who want to live in these areas already can quite easily. The issue is that people want to live in Brisbane, and ultimatley we're a nation that does not restrict the movement of it's people, so if more people want to live in the Brisbane metro area, we have a choice between knocking down bushland to accomodate them on the fringes, or filling in existing suburbs. If Brisbane is the place where growth is occuring then building stuff hundreds of kilometers away Isn't solving the problem.
Funnily enough, people don't always want to live miles out, and the opportunity to live closer in is dashed because so much of the inner/middle ring is taken up by detached houses, even though not everybody needs/wants this type of dwelling.

  • Lets identify the future Springfields  (but give them streets wide enough to get Fire trucks and buses down!!!***)

To get Springfield to 'work' they've had to extend and duplicate the centenary highway, have had to build the new rail line, laid out entire road and water networks and so on, and have cleared a massive area of bushland to acheive this. Whats the point of doing all this when there are so many opportunities to build up in existing suburbs. Lets not do any more Springfields until we have done more with the existing city.

  • And yes I am suggesting we will ultimately have a more crowded, more noisy, cars coming and going at all hours of the day and night, sirens screaming every twenty minutes future if we don't make a stand now.

No they won't. Living in apartment doesn't make you some nocturnal zombie that goes out driving at 2am for the fun of it. Plus people in these newer developents would be using public transport/walking mostly, so car movements aren't going to suddenly jump up.
Sirens? Even with apartments, Corinda/Sherwood would still be a 'good' area (To be honest, I think the sirens bit just sounds like scaremongering on your part)
 

Gavin,  thankyou for the lecture on scaremongering.  Time will tell who is right. My simple argument is that we have one of the most liveable areas in Brisbane now. Increasing the density of the population on the presumption that the existing infrastructure can easily accommmodate it is not established to my satisfaction. Areas currently undergoing the impact of the so called concrete pouring improvements may well be happy when it is all over but it is never over!!. Obviously the next big thing will be a replacement  or duplication for/of  the Walter Taylor Bridge.  While the current consultation is not about that it is clear where increasing population pressure heads us.   As I said previously if everyone rolls over on this what next? Who can seriously suggest this document will have a lifespan of more than five years?  By the way among other things I drove cabs for 15 years including ten years at night. I can assure you that flat dwellers are by the far the biggest nocturnal users of cabs.

  • Gavin,  thankyou for the lecture on scaremongering.

Well sorry, but you're painting this image that there is a cause and effect relationship between building higher density, and having ambulances and police cars running everywhere. They're proposing more housing, not a nightclub district.

  • Increasing the density of the population on the presumption that the existing infrastructure can easily accommmodate it is not established to my satisfaction.

But Corinda to Northgate is the only section of the Brisbane train network with quad tracks (In contrast, the Ferny Grove, Doomben, Shornciffle and Cleveland lines still are stuck with some single track sections). If there is any part of the network that is capable of having usage ramped up, ours is it! At the present time, our infrastructure is greatly underutlised.
As for the noise debate, the thing is, the higher density areas proposed are close to oxley road and the rail lines anway, and cars/trains use them all day and all night anyway.
It's not as if the higher density areas are proposed to be deep in the suburb, with people having to pass through the quiet areas enroute to get to them, it really does appear to hinge off existing routes.

  • My simple argument is that we have one of the most liveable areas in Brisbane now.

But the same can be said for virtually all of the inner/middle ring.

But the same can be said for virtually all of the inner/middle ring
I agree.
Well sorry, but you're painting this image that there is a cause and effect relationship between building higher density, and having ambulances and police cars running everywhere. They're proposing more housing, not a nightclub district
Yes that is exactly what I am saying.   If I am right, and I say my experience of the existing high density living areas of Brisbane would bear me out, then we go down a path which can not later easily be reversed. 
 

  • If I am right, and I say my experience of the existing high density living areas of Brisbane would bear me out, then we go down a path which can not later easily be reversed.

And my response to this "if it happens it happens", and I guess it comes down to freedom of choice and people 'voting with their feet' so to speak. People have chosen to live in the MR(3) units we already have in the suburb. They could well have instead chosen a detached house in the suburb, but they've gone for the flat...Doesn't that tell you that even now some people have a preference to live this way?
Now, if higher density housing goes ahead we'd have two outcomes, people will move into it, or it will struggle to sell. If people do choose to move in then to me that is saying that is what people wanted all along. If people don't, then you could rest easy because no more would be built.
Ultimatley, it will sort itself out. I personally am a believer in people having choice in the type of dwelling they want, which really doesn't exist in our area (90% are detached houses). You talk about a 'path' of high density development, but the path wouldn't exist unless people were actually going out and choosing to live in them. Is it really up to you to be telling people how/where they should live?
Look, Corinda and Sherwood, Graceville and Chelmer do feature some wonderful streetscapes, just look at what is along Honour avenue for instance, and these should definitley be protected. But at the same time, you cant deny that there isn't some crap around too. It is these areas that can be reconfigured, and indeed, this is what is proposed.
If they were to go and wave a wand over every square inch of the area and say "its all MR5, go crazy!" then there would be a definite issue, as you'd end up with a horrible patchwork of taller apartment blocks next to character homes, with destruction of the streetscapes in the process. But this isn't the case.
But the proposal as it stands is to concertrate the density into defined areas which have limited character anyway, and the outcome will be that the quiet areas will remain quiet, and the denser areas become denser, and there wont be any overlap. Remember the point I raised earlier about these 'blocks' of higher density being adjacent to the main roads. If traffic did increase, it's not going to pass through quiet areas, since they are the opposite way to where people would be going (back to join the main road)

  • Who can seriously suggest this document will have a lifespan of more than five years?

And on the contrary, who can say that a if decision did come about to stop MP(5) and MR(5) would last for more than five years?

And my response is if it happens and I sit by and say nothing I will later regret it. Fortunately this process, flawed as it is, still allows me to disagree with "the planners". I am old enough to know that the process is largely a joke, the decisions having already been taken. But that doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it.
Have a look at this morning's Courier Mail.  Three "new" satellite communities  proposed near Ipswich.  A new super co-ordinating body to make sure the "high density around transport hubs" thing happens. AS I said previously the BCC's job is to represent the current people of Brisbane.  This would have been best done by giving the five stories thing the flick and yes not just in Corinda but across Brisbane! This would have forced the hand of the State Government to do what indeed it is or was always going to do and ram the idea through.  This would have allowed a clear political choice.  As it is the situation is now completely muddled.
So here is some prophecy.
1. This consultation will continue to run its course.
2. Some minor fiddling around the edges will occur.
3. The plan will go forward to the government and be approved.
4. A few years will go by and it will transpire that "five stories is not enough",  "We can't get developers to make the dwellings "needed" quick enough".. So a plan for seven or more stories will emerge as "that will provide the incentive" ...... and so it will roll on.
Having said that I've enjoyed our debate if that's what it was.
 

AS I said previously the BCC's job is to represent the current people of Brisbane.  This would have been best done by giving the five stories thing the flick and yes not just in Corinda but across Brisbane! This would have forced the hand of the State Government to do what indeed it is or was always going to do and ram the idea through.  This would have allowed a clear political choice.  As it is the situation is now completely muddled.
Well possibly the reason is because the council actually agrees with the state government on this one.  To say there should be no 5 storey developments anywhere is unworkable. Again, it boils down to people wanting to live close in to Brisbane. I'd have no intention of moving out to the sticks into one of these new sattelite cities..not until they offer the level of facilites that Brisbane offers.
Current people of Brisbane??? If you are only thinking about the current people, then you aren't thinking about the future.

Actually I am thinking about the future. The reason that many people want to live in Brisbane is that is or has been a place with all the facilities minus the rat race! I suppose you could argue the economics of increasing the congestion until people don't want to come here anymore. Duh! I am just trying to head that off.
Look my family first came into the area in 1887. Of course I am not saying there can be no change. Our manufacuring company was centred in Sherwood for over 70 years. The houses came and surrounded it! Naturally we moved on.
How would we in Brisbane recognise a tipping point in our development if one came along? I and many others say it is here now. I guess you are saying it is a long way off. We can "fill in the gaps" in the meantime and five stories is the way to do it.  I am saying that we will probably live to regret a lost opportunity.
One of the saddest days of my life occurred when travelling to school on the train and seeing trams on their sides piled two and three high at Milton as they were burned to ashes. This was the direct result of a "far sighted" Lord Mayor who thought Brisbane should be a place where anyone could drive their car into the city at any hour of the day or night!
God spare us from yet another far sighted Lord Mayor. I am sorry to tell you but all wisdom does not reside in Adelaide St or in George  St for that matter.  Re-read Alan Howards comments from yesterday. I think they show great insight into the issue.
 

I have been following Gavin's spirited support for destroying our local neighbourhood with 5 story buildings and presumably the inapprporiate bus depot.  A quick check on the electronic white pages suggests Gavin lives in Seventeen Mile Rocks (if it is the right Seipelt).
If that is correct then I think it appropriate that only people who live in the area and who are directly affected comment. Otherwise one perceive such comments as lobbying by vested interest groups

I'd say it does affect me, Corinda is the station I use, and is where I go for shopping, post, haircuts, doctor etc. Lived in Teesdale St Corinda prior, and (I the current place i live in is pretty much live right on the 17 mile rocks suburb boundary anway). A suburb boundary is just a line in the ground, and whatever happens, I'll still end up frequenting the area and seeing it every day (Heck, if we get some apartments by the station, id look into getting one!)
I just don't see how it is destroying the suburb, because the streets with true character are staying untouched, and all the taller development is clustered. Again, it comes down to this point I made earlier that people seem to treat the whole suburb as if it is exactly the same throughout, which is just not true.
and presumably the inapprporiate bus depot
And for the record, I don't have a problem with that either. I think many of the arguments against the bus depot are silly anway. Buses won't endangers children because children use buses to get to and from school anyway and are familiar with them anyway, its going to reduce traffic congestion, not increase it since a bus can take 40 cars off the road, and furthermore I'm all for improving the quality of public transport in Brisbane, and if the Depot is in an industrial area then I can't see the issue.

^And to add to the point above....I think every train and busway station across SEQ should be allowed to have higher density development occur in its immediate vicinity where it is possible, to me it's just a very common sense way of doing things.

Yes, people will walk to their local Coles/Woolworths to shop if they shop daily, and don't have to carry home 10 bags of groceries.  And maybe that is the modern trend.  But where is their bank?  Where will they go to buy clothes?  That is still going to be Indooroopilly Shoppingtown or Mt Ommaney, which will mean driving.  The railway station at Indooroopilly requires you to walk up the hill to Indooroopilly Shoppingtown - okay if you are young and not disabled in any way or the weather is fine.  But I imagine that most people will still drive to Indooroopilly, and there will be more cars on Oxley Road.  Also, most parents of young children drive their children to school nowadays.  So, again, cars will be on the road going to Sherwood, Graceville or Corinda SS or to the local kindergartens.
 
My other concern about 5 stories is their sustainability with respect to power usage:  anything over 3 stories requires a lift; most modern units all have air conditioners; there are no clothes lines, so units need dryers to dry their clothes; there are no eaves or window shades over many windows because of the desire to build more units on the block of land and the proximity to the boundaries, so they will be hotter.  There will be lighting in stairwells, and will this be on all night?  Will there be swimming pools/spas built with the units?  This all uses extra electricity.  Will future unit developments be required to have rainwater collections to look after their landscaping? 
 
The BCC is already allowing units to be built close to property boundaries (see the units built on the corner of Lynne Grove Avenue and Oxley Road for example -- the poor neighbours once had one family living beside them.  Now there is a block of 9 units - many with a balcony overlooking their property and many with air conditioning units facing their property.) 
 
At Corinda:  Parking is a problem now at Corinda and will only get worse.  The carpark at the back of the library near the Corinda Railway Station which was perhaps once used for people shopping is now full because of people parking there to catch trains.  Where will shoppers park?  It can now be difficult to get a park at Coles around 3 pm as people park there whilst they pick up their children from St Joseph's or when they go to church on Sunday morning.
 
At Sherwood:  If the density is increased in the block between Oxley Road, Jerrold Street and Sherwood Road, I can guarantee that most of those residents will use cars to shop at Coles Corinda or Woolworths at Sherwood.  Those who don't may be the ones who are already responsible for illegally removing shopping trolleys from the local Woolworths to take their groceries home, and then leaving the trolley on the streets.  Some of these units will be more than 400 m from the shops and unless they are picking up one or two items, residents will drive.  More cars means more difficulty parking.  On a number of occasions I have attempted to shop at Woolworths, and have ended up driving on to Coles at Corinda because I couldn't get a carpark in the Woolworths carpark - even the lower level.

I agree that one occasionally may have to leave Corinda for good and services not available locally.  But the point is that you don't have to go there as often.  Certainly, no one I know buys clothes every week.
 
Equally not everyone will be able (or wiling) to walk or ride to local shops, but it will be easier and more inviting.
 
That said, there are buses from Corinda to Mount Ommaney and Indooroopilly Shoppingtown.  The train stops directly next to Toowong Village, and also travels to the city and many other places.
 
I do, however, have to agree with most of your concerns regarding power use in apartments.  Perhaps motion-sensitive lights are a good answer.  Similarly, sharing one pool between 9 units is more efficient than 7 separate houses having one each.
 
That said, I live in an apartment and don't use an air-conditioner at all, and I bought a small rack to dry my clothes on the balcony.  I also believe that building regulations now require space for hanging clothes and also rainwater tanks.
 
Like many things, I think a lot of this comes down to whether individuals are willing to either be lazy or do their bit for the environment.

  • But where is their bank?  Where will they go to buy clothes?  That is still going to be Indooroopilly Shoppingtown or Mt Ommaney, which will mean driving.

If the hill was that much of a bother they could stay on the train for an extra two stops and use the banks at Toowong (I'd imagine the extra time spent on the train would be less than walking up the hill to Indooroopilly.
I tend to do my clothes shopping in the CBD, so no need for a car there either.

  • So, again, cars will be on the road going to Sherwood, Graceville or Corinda SS or to the local kindergartens.

At the same time, many of the new residents will be smaller households without kids, so I doubt there would be a significant increase in school traffic.

  • there are no eaves or window shades over many windows because of the desire to build more units on the block of land and the proximity to the boundaries, so they will be hotter.

Setback rules apply to the building mass. Things such as eaves, shading devices etc are allowed to extend closer to the boundary.

  • most modern units all have air conditioners

So do most modern detached houses, so what's your point?

  • The carpark at the back of the library near the Corinda Railway Station which was perhaps once used for people shopping is now full because of people parking there to catch trains.

The problem then isn't rail users, its the lack of enforcement to prevent people parking all day.

  • It can now be difficult to get a park at Coles around 3 pm as people park there whilst they pick up their children from St Joseph's or when they go to church on Sunday morning.

Kids should be taking the bus to school to avoid parking problems (Oh wait, buses are 'bad' aren't they?)

  • More cars means more difficulty parking.  On a number of occasions I have attempted to shop at Woolworths, and have ended up driving on to Coles at Corinda because I couldn't get a carpark in the Woolworths carpark - even the lower level.

I've never understood this attitude. Its ok for you to drive to the supermarket, but not anyone else? Traffic congestion isn't caused by "other people"...if you are in your car you are part of the problem. Or is it a case of "I was here first so I can do what I like"?