For those following along at home with Sydney’s real-world, real-time giant game of Monopoly, you’ll be familiar with Precinct 75, one of a growing number of large-scale build-to-rent complexes springing up across Sydney. For those who are still arguing over who gets the thimble and whether the boot should be brought back, see my previous commentary on the matter.
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
Precinct 75 is situated at the intersection of Mary, Edith and Roberts streets in St Peters, a suburb of Sydney’s inner west. A modern boho style area with the most slamming coffee, an eclectic arts and culture scene, just a stone’s throw from several leading universities, transport links and the CBD.
As with many rapidly growing capital cities, inner-middle suburban ring locations such as this are amenity rich but can be short on public open space.
The 1.52 hectare mixed-use development, approved by the New Sout Wales state government Housing Delivery Authority in May 2026 comprises 471 residential apartments (a small portion of which will be affordable housing) and is bracketed by a hand-picked diversity of commercial properties and creative studio spaces.
According to major stakeholders in the project, the activation signals a new era in housing implementation: the project serving as a design experiment of sorts before being rolled out elsewhere in the country.
Large scale build-to-rent is relatively new in Australia, but given Coronation Property, the entity that owns Precinct 75, also boasts the largest planned pipeline of build-to-rent developments in the country, one doesn’t need to “win $10 in a beauty contest” or “collect $25 in consultancy fees” (I have the old-school version of the game) to see where this is going.
High-density living in Sydney is growing. This means more people in more apartments in closer proximity. Precinct 75 is deliberately designed to be part of this new built up lifestyle landscape.
Set to house about 1000 long- and short-term residents at any one time and provide hundreds of on-site jobs, the development with its polished finishes and communal spaces is anticipated to bring new energy and productivity to the suburb. Proponents of the concept are excited about the possibilities, citing economic growth, place-making and community connection as some of the benefits.
The site also enjoys multiple challenges, including the arguably flawed approach to administering and implementing affordable housing in NSW, the limited floor ratios of apartments in the precinct, starting from 30 square metres (with only nine three-bedroom dwellings up for grabs), and the failure of mixed-use developments to translate from rhetoric into reality.
Research from around the world consistently indicates that private rooftop gardens for example, which is effectively what Precinct 75 is offering, are underutilised by residents. Common reasons include unpleasant wind factors, lack of atmosphere and a feeling of disconnect to other amenity.
Consider the number of empty shopfronts under multi-storey residential developments currently scattered across other Sydney suburbs as a case in point.
Additionally, there is the likely increased traffic congestion and strain on nearby schools and hospitals owing to the uplift in residential and commercial impacts of the build, as well as the potential maybe/maybe not flood prone location.
Furthermore, there was a litany of concerns across the chronology of the development process related to historical land contamination, air pollution from WestConnex, and noise pollution from the general surrounds – potentially not helped by the lack of trees.
Where is all the public open space?
If people are expected to live in apartments, and let’s be real, these are tiny, and according to the state government’s own admission, local parks are the new suburban backyards of the future, there doesn’t appear to be any truly substantial “fit for purpose” increase in public parks directly set aside to cope with the influx of residents and workers expected to inhabit the surrounding area long-term.
Cox Architecture’s website states: “The public domain structure is the focal point of the master plan.” A point of pride, certainly, but considering those apartments with balconies are little bigger than my favourite yoga mat, the semi-private communal spaces within the build, and the public realm, are going to have to do a lot of the heavy lifting as a result.
The state government approved the final plans with about 33 per cent of the site reserved for “communal open space”. This sounds impressive until one considers what that realistically includes and how it translates into high-density living, mixed-use functionality, foot traffic, and so on.
The relatively small footprint of the site, and the number of renters plus the number of workers, visitors to the retail offerings, and allowing pedestrian access between buildings, seating for outdoor dining and a plaza, means there will be little or no space for a more traditional flat grassy area for people to enjoy.
Much ado has been made about the “semi-private” shared communal spaces for residents, such as the rooftop pool, as but another open space for residents and their guests to enjoy.
However, planning theory does not always translate into social usage. Research from around the world consistently indicates that private rooftop gardens for example, which is effectively what Precinct 75 is offering, are underutilised by residents. Common reasons include unpleasant wind factors, lack of atmosphere and a feeling of disconnect to other amenity. Anyone else notice the evolutionary “legs verses wings” bias kicking in?
What does public domain actually mean?
This is where semantics enter the fray and the distinctions between similar phrasing becomes important for knowing what you’re getting from the urban amenity menu. Consider it the difference between a latte and a cappuccino.
Public open space is an element of the public realm that includes parks, gardens, sportsgrounds and bushland. In the case of a residential development such as this, it refers to the amount of space allotted to the lawns, rockeries, flower beds, shrubbery and tree canopy within the site boundaries.
According to the final plans this includes Bark Park, The Lawn and the Mews as traditional public open space elements, whereas Makers Way and The Grove are communal open space elements.
In an ideal world it should go without saying that a largely concreted walkway between buildings, no matter how prettily landscaped, does not serve the same environmental or human health and recreational purpose as a park.
However, as cities densify and political will prioritises directly profitable infrastructure, the lines become blurred. Hence the term “communal open space” as a subtle shift in wording to allow a broader interpretation of public open space, or, hopefully we won’t notice the extra concrete.
In a broader planning context, obviously public open space is not the only priority when considered against other city-shaping infrastructures. Understanding the ways and means in which it is traditionally measured, however, is useful in explaining why your local park is the size that it is, and whether or not you are going to get that multi-tiered deluxe play equipment, Olympic grade BMX track or sensory garden.
Public open space is measured in three basic ways: a population ratio (how many people can comfortably use it based on size), a land percentage ratio (how much land in percentage terms compared to the whole should be set aside as non-built-up green space), or a catchment based standard (how far is it to the nearest park as the magpie flies from your house).
Additionally, qualitative demand-based ratios (such as what other facilities are in the area and what do the community want) are increasingly overlayed as a means of creating better, more liveable public open space outcomes. State-based statutory instruments supported by the Environmental Planning Act (1979) are not perfect, with urban planners split between wanting more or less guidance in place for their implementation.
Just for fun, here’s looking at the precinct as an isolated entity using the common practice measures in place before the start of the new Sydney Plan (13 August 2026). With traditional population per hectare ratio measurement for public open space allocation, which happens to be 1000 residents per 2.3 ha, the public open space allotment on its own translates to 2.3 ha (23,000 sq m). This is 0.8 ha (8000 sq m) larger than the precinct itself without all its urban accoutrement, and that’s without considering the standard calculation of 10 per cent more of the baseline resident population as visitor or worker traffic. If this were an item of clothing, the side note would caution, “size runs small”.
Alternatively, if we twist the kaleidoscope to a public open space land percentage ratio measurement of 15 per cent as recommended by the state government in areas of high-density, and apply it to the development, it calculates as 0.23 ha (2300 sqm) of non-built-up green.
This is pretty much what the state government appears to have finally settled on according to its approved landscape plans – up from 0.06 hectares (600 sq m) from the previous concept submissions.
This sounds much more reasonable given the site size, but again, translate that data into daily life terms in a high-density situation where people are stacked like shoes and the story changes. At 0.23 ha – that is barely a postage stamp, let alone a pocket park that can reasonably accommodate the expected precinct population, because if we convert that back into a population ratio, it approximates to space for 100 residents, or if we’re being generous, 150.
Granted, not all residents will use the space all at once, but it comes back to a question of adequate provision.
Reluctantly meeting a selfimposed standard is one thing, but to use another of the state government’s own ethos, creating connected, sustainable and liveable environments people can enjoy is another.
The Inner West Council notes in response to the final assessment, that opportunities for deep root soil zoning and an appropriate tree canopy have been lost and more should have been done in regard to the public open space design.
Here is where the Precinct has got it right. Building a pocket park over an underground carpark is a good use of space. Other entities should do this more. However, it also means that in this case, 70 per cent of that grass allocation is shallow rooted, thus rendering it less effective in terms of environmental output. Still, having it is better than not having it.
However, add the additional burden of 90 per cent over-shadowing of the area during the winter, and one can’t help but wonder, is this pocket of grass being set up to fail so it “must “be replaced in a year or so with an alternative ground cover? After all, by then, commercial tenants should be situated, apartments rented, launch party over and photo opportunities done. Then the tweaking of the original plan because the grass failed to thrive and residents weren’t using it would be perfectly justified. Having said that, for the love of green space, may my musings be unfounded, and the park has a long and happy life.
All things being equal, this is where a flexible approach to public open space allocation should come into its own, whereby any combination of methods, elements, and provision such as funding, land, developer agreement, community demand, nearby alternative resources, policy and priority are combined to create the most optimal outcome for the community within any given context.
One problem facing this approach is that developers often tend to “misinterpret” the spirit of their intent to serve themselves by dressing their plans up with pretty hues of green and evocative words that claim to enhance the public benefit.
Yet somehow through the process they are impinged upon by broader floor ratios, taller buildings, increased concrete infrastructure, until there is little meaningful or functional nature left. For the record, a drain easement does not count as public open space allocation.
Precinct 75 appears to have found a technical compromise, in finally adhering to the government’s own recommended standard for public open space allocation in high-density areas, which in theory one would assume would be taken into consideration from the get-go by the architects and designers, but was not necessarily the case according to the documentation and cited by the Inner West Council as a problem in their list of objections to the development. No matter which way you run the numbers, the public open space allotment for the development is not enough. This is a dangerous habit for the Housing Delivery Authority to form particularly as more and more of these large-scale high density development projects are approved.
In the meantime, Monopoly anyone? I bags being the hat.
