[CAN] New Mayfield | 41-61m | 11-17lvls | Mixed Use

[MAH]

I take it you're one of the "poor schmucks who lives next door"...?

Yes I am. Bought the land and built a house. Followed all the planning laws. Was aware of all the hight restrictions when I built.

But changing the planning law to introduce the new concept of catalyst sites, which are not subject to prescriptive planning requirements has made a schmuck out of me.

It doesn't matter that I used good design principles to ensure plenty of natural light, shading for summer, passive heating for winter. It doesn't matter that I bought a piece of land where I could optimise solar panels, knowing that the existing planning laws gave me the necessary certainty to be able to go ahead and sink my money into project.

I'm not against development, but when the planning system can't provide you with a level of certainty then it makes you a schmuck.

MAH

[MAH]

The road will possibly be widen if it's too narrow for trucks?.

Only if they're planning on buying the houses on Meyers Lane and knocking them down. Right on the corner either side of the entrance there is no setback from the footpath.

[phenom]

Why wouldn't trucks enter Meyers Lane from the other end (which is extremely wide, in fact, about 4 cars wide) and the end which is closer to the development rather than the teeny tiny one way entrance shown here? Turning in off Sturt Street would also be a lot easier than turning in off Gilbert Street. Meyers Lane is really 'half' a road - a full wide road for the last half then it narrows down to a one-way road.

I do have some sympathy for the view that we seem to have moved very rapidly from one extreme to (a relative) other but that reflects the way the CBD planning has been lost in time for decades. Whilst I am not a neighbouring poor schmuck of this development proposal, I do live in a CBD townhouse next to an old warehouse/shop thing that is no doubt a prime target for a future building much taller than would have been anticipated even at the relatively recent build date of my current place - and which would no doubt cut a considerable amount of light and views for me. I accept though that part of the convenience factor of living in the city requires this - and I have no doubt the neighbouring cottages felt (at least similar) when a block of townhouses went up next to them.

At the end of the day, I would think and hope the vibrancy of this development would be worth the sacrifice (few CBD denizens are actually home during most sunlight hours?) although yes, I would say these revised planning rules will significantly reduce the areas of the city where you can have a 'quiet suburban' feel whilst still being in the CBD.

[MAH]

Why wouldn't trucks enter Meyers Lane from the other end (which is extremely wide, in fact, about 4 cars wide) and the end which is closer to the development rather than the teeny tiny one way entrance shown here? Turning in off Sturt Street would also be a lot easier than turning in off Gilbert Street. Meyers Lane is really 'half' a road - a full wide road for the last half then it narrows down to a one-way road.

No idea, but the the submitted plan identifies semi's entering via Meyers Lane from Gilbert and all other delivery vehicles entering from Sturt St. I presume it's because a semi would need to reverse around the corner on Sturt St to be able to back into the loading dock. From Meyers Lane they can pull straight through, then reverse into the loading dock.

I would say these revised planning rules will significantly reduce the areas of the city where you can have a 'quiet suburban' feel whilst still being in the CBD.

I'm not after a "quiet suburban" feel. I hate the Burbs, that's why I've chosen to live in the CBD for the past 18 years. I'm all for vibrancy in the CDB (except for Clipsal 500 ). My concern is that the overshadowing negates all the good design that specifically built into my house. I'd say my house is a fair bit higher that 5 Green stars with all the energy reducing features and water conservation features. The State Government just announced that electricity is going up 18%, couple that with A) the reduced energy I will receive from access to the sun and B) the flip side of needing to increase energy usage at the same time, and I'm not a happy camper.

Considering I only finished this build about 3 years ago, changing the planning laws so dramatically in such a short space of time is pretty crapy.

The State Government's own planning department recently said people need a level of certainty in the planning system to be able to adequately get on with their lives.

Anyone want to buy a lovely 3 bedroom townhouse . What, you don't want to live next to such a big block of apartments !

[cruel_world00]

I get that you feel hard done by with this development but you do live in a CBD of a major metropolitan (or one that is trying to be a major metropolitan). The kind of design features you're talking about a better suited to town houses in the burbs.

Buying in the CBD, you ran the risk that eventually there would be development, even if the regulations at the time wouldn't impede on you... a developing city will grow and change the rules.

Thems the breaks, unfortunately for you.

[rev]

If you want to live in the city, then get used to living in an appartment. Because that's the way things are slowly headed. That change is only going to accelerate in the coming decade or two.
If you want to live in a 'house', then go to the suburbs.

These little townhouses around in the Adelaide city area that look like crap and are a blight on the landscape, will start to disappear.
Another shining example of what an epic failure the Adelaide City Council is. What should be out in the suburbs, has been allowed in the City.

[MAH]

Buying in the CBD, you ran the risk that eventually there would be development, even if the regulations at the time wouldn't impede on you... a developing city will grow and change the rules.

That's a ridiculous statement. The legal framework, whether its planning law or any other law, is meant to be relatively stable, so as to provide certainty of action. One of the main principles of any legal framework is to remove risk of uncertainty, particularly business uncertainty.

The changes to the planning act to allow such developments (and not just in the CBD, any site over 1500sq/m) effectively displaces individuals and places the future of the City into the hands of large developers. The crazy thing is communities are organic, they can't be imposed by simply building 427 apartments. A thriving stable community already exists in this neighbourhood and the numbers could have been added to in a much more sympathetic nature.

The aims of the State Government, to increase the City population, can be achieved without such development. Large scale apartment complexes in a small city like Adelaide, lead to transient populations, who move once their life stage has outgrown their apartment. This the very opposite of stable communities and local business relies on stable populations. Sydney and Melbourne already exist, no need to replicate them.

This development is more akin to serviced apartments and adds little to mix of real housing options.

Serious question, to all the people who support this development, will you buy one of the apartments? If not, why are you supportive of it.

[MAH]

These little townhouses around in the Adelaide city area that look like crap and are a blight on the landscape, will start to disappear.

Are you serious? You think there are enough people in South Australia who want to live in high density apartments to take over the City? You think there is enough business opportunity in South Australia to attract people from interstate or overseas and they will want to live in a 1 bedroom 57sq/m apartment?

You think that developers will buy out tracts of existing townhouses to knock them down and build highrise apartments?

The south west of the city has a few sites that are likely to be developed in this manner, now the planning laws are changed, more in the north west, but there is no way the character of the south west corner will change. The sites left in these areas are of a scale that means they are subject to the normal planning laws not the special powers of the DAC.

Another shining example of what an epic failure the Adelaide City Council is. What should be out in the suburbs, has been allowed in the City.

Being a long term resident of the City, I can tell you that without the building of all those townhouses, there would be virtually no small businesses servicing the local residents. The City would be stark and barren place and no developer would contemplate building new apartment blocks. These large scale developers are feeding of the community life that has been created many individuals.

[[Shuz]]

You live in the CBD, put up or shut up.

[monotonehell]

You live in the CBD, put up or shut up.

Shuz that's not constructive criticism at all.

I have another for you; either make a civil point, and back it up with logical rhetoric or shutup.

[MAH]

You live in the CBD, put up or shut up.

I own 2 properties in the City.

I work in the City (have done for over 20 years).

My wife works in the City (over 10 years)

We do 90% of our shopping, drinking and dining in the City (in fact I'm just about to log off and go to Panacea).

My wife volunteers at one of the community centres in the City.

I think we contribute to the City community quite heavily.

I'd say that's a pretty fair example of putting up.

I think I've earn't my stripes to be able to be critical of a high rise block on my doorstep.

[Wayno]

MAH, i empathise with your plight. I also agree there's room in the square mile for development of all sizes & scales. Anyone declaring Adelaide City should only consist of high rise apartments has zero perspective on reality.

This situation is mostly the fault of the ACC who have repeatedly failed to evolve their development plan with the times. The term 'regulatory scelorosis' comes to mind. I rarely point blame, but yes, i'm looking at you Town Hall .

The ACCs most recent chance was back in 2008 when they initiated one of their bi-millenial dev plan reviews. Nothing changed even though industry & social experts, the property council, the state govt, and the members of this forum requested an increase in building heights. Here's the link to our submission if you're interested ==> http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... m.php?f=20

So thanks to the above the ACC were stripped of their powers, and the state govt was forced into implementing a large policy shift, simply to catch up with the real world. Collateral damage was inevitable.

[MAH]

Anyone declaring Adelaide City should only consist of high rise apartments has zero perspective on reality.

This situation is mostly the fault of the ACC who have repeatedly failed to evolve their development plan with the times. The term 'regulatory scelorosis' comes to mind. I rarely point blame, but yes, i'm looking at you Town Hall .

Fair call. If the ACC had made allowances in the past, the State Government wouldn't have needed to form the DAC and invent such things as catalyst sites. We wouldn't need the Mayfield site to force different forms of development.

There needs to be a mix of development that provides housing for people at all stages of their life cycle. A City full of apartments will cater only for the young with no families. Alternatively a City full of cottages and townhouses will cater only to middle age professionals or retirrees. A mix is needed and the ACC missed their chance to make this happen on their terms.

One thing I would like to point out is how the rationale for this development reminds me of communist era or 1960's British socialist planning. The idea of having targets for population and housing growth, then building high rise housing complexes, then telling people they should live in them was a failure of the time and probably will be a failure now. Communities grow organically over extended periods of time. Imposing the States will, or in this case the States will backed by private investment, is a path to failed housing estates. As part of my undergraduate studies I remember touring the Park Towers in South Melbourne. In it's day it was hailed as a marvel of modern inner city development, winning a number of awards. It was the tallest precast concrete load-bearing-wall panel building in the world, the third tallest building in Melbourne and the second tallest residential building in Australia. What a great architectural and engineering feat! But pretty soon it became a site of social exclusion and all the ills associated with "planned" communities.

A good example of higher density housing that has grown organically to meet diverse needs are housing co-operative developments, such as Christie Walk. OK they aren't nearly as high density as the Mayfield development, but they specifically meet the needs of indviduals, not the targets of a central planning unit.

What a bizzare twist where State sanctioned planning targets are the bedfellows of freemarket speculative investors.

[AG]

Mega-complex gets go ahead
Political Reporter Daniel Wills
June 15, 2012 11:00PM


An artist's impression of the new Sturt St development.

A PROJECT in Sturt St - including more than 400 flats, shops and offices - has been approved as the first "catalyst site" under planning reforms.

The $200 million overhaul will dominate nearly a full block. The State Government in March announced new planning regulations for the city which included special exemptions for blocks of land more than 1500sq m, allowing architects freedom to use space creatively.

Planning Minister John Rau said other city mega-developments were under consideration. Developer Sturt St Land is seeking cash from the Government and Adelaide City Council for public works including new bike lanes, tree plantings, wider footpaths and walking links to the Central Market.

The New Mayfield project is bordered by Sturt, Gilbert, Norman and Myers streets in the city's south-west. Construction is expected to start early next year. The 7377sq m site features three main buildings, with 96 apartments quarantined as affordable housing. The largest building is 95m high, with 14 storeys of apartments and shops.


Sturt Land director David Bertram said the development, built on the site of the former Mayfield Electrics factory and designed by Adelaide architectural firm Woods Bagot, would bring new life to the city.

Property Council of Australia SA executive director Nathan Paine said abolition of stamp duty for off-the-plan apartments valued less than $500,000 would spur buyers. "I believe it is a sign of things to come across the city and North Adelaide including the Le Cornu site," he said.

[Dvious]

I think theres an error, it says the largest building is 95m high?