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

[crawf]

Bless, Ben Hewitt.

“How anyone can believe that 14-storey glass and steel towers can be complementary next to bluestone cottages in the area, that just gobsmacks me,” Jordan said.

They can. Maybe you should leave your humble cottage and explore the world.

You live in the CBD of a State Capital of nearly 1.3 million people. Stop your whinging

[phenom]

As someone who lives in the 'Beirut Quarter', I received a lovely flyer in the letterbox last week from (I presume) this group all in bright red and black warning me in highly panicked tones that we'll have skyscrapers galore surrounding us in our cottages and townhouses.

I appreciate their democratic right to agitate against change (seriously) and I have memories of similar protests in Rundle Mall back in what must have been 2001 or so against some sort of 'too tall' proposal somewhere in the city.

I'm just not sympathetic (as is *my* democratic right) for all the reasons outlined by others, including the person in the article, that it's simply a case of no change for so long that any change seems 'too much'. 14 storeys in what is still fairly core-ish CBD is hardly overkill and you don't need to draw comparisons with Brisbane (for example) to show how much of an over-reaction this seems. A cluster of 30 storey towers might add some credence but in this case the tallest part will be just 14 storeys and won't be far from buildings just as tall almost within throwing distance.

Also, there's an irony about the character they are trying to protect... the run down warehouses (I have literally seen rats running around in that area), the car park for those spray-painted hire vans and and an old electrical substation is hardly 'heritage' or aesthetically appealing... and frankly, aside from a fairly small group of quite new townhouses (themselves mainly 3 levels) there are very few cottages that would directly abut this development anyway. There's big wide streets on Sturt, other warehouses and commercial, more flat carparking and a large housing trust development that from memory is about 5 levels high anyway and is very well shielded from the 'tall' part of this proposal anyway.

Ultimately I think the sense of community this protest is actually trying to preserve (if I'm generous in my assumptions about the motivation) would actually be aided by this development simply because of all the streetscape upgrades and activation that will come with it instead of this massive bit of urban blight right in the middle of the city. Hope it goes ahead!

[rhino]

Phenom, you should make your own flyer, saying pretty much what you've said in your post above, and do a mailbox drop in the Beirut Quarter. Let the NIMBYs know that not all their neighbours feel the way they do.

[kenget]

Or how about a Sensational Adelaide peaceful protest, asking for it to be 24 levels!

[crawf]

Phenom, you should make your own flyer, saying pretty much what you've said in your post above, and do a mailbox drop in the Beirut Quarter. Let the NIMBYs know that not all their neighbours feel the way they do.

That's a good idea Rhino.

[Waewick]

what annoys me about people like this is they over look the benefits of the developments.

yes, there is going to be tall buildings, but tall buildings bring more people, more people bring more businesses, more businesses bring more activity, more activity bring more vibrancy

however, it may also bring more crime and anti social behavior but that comes back to creating a sense of community that deters that kind of behavior

[cometthecat]

The thing is though, Adelaide is a CITY! Not a suburb, it should be expected of residents in the city that larger scale developments will take place compared to the suburbs. If they want quiet low development areas the move to the suburbs!

[Ho Really]

The thing is though, Adelaide is a CITY! Not a suburb, it should be expected of residents in the city that larger scale developments will take place compared to the suburbs. If they want quiet low development areas the move to the suburbs!

Yes...or to the country where it is even more peaceful. I can understand these people as they've lived there all their lives and have enjoyed relatively quiet city living. So you need to sympathise with them a little. Their sense of loss could be huge! However as said, Adelaide is a city, and cities must go forward. I don't know much about this development, but if they do it responsibly (and it sounds like it) I cannot see why those complaining and those wanting highrise cannot both get a win out of it!

Cheers

[Goya's Line]

... however, it may also bring more crime and anti social behavior but that comes back to creating a sense of community that deters that kind of behavior

Yeah, I think 'safety in numbers' will help this area - hopefully city west gets the same treatment.

[Will]

From the Advertiser:

Just as an aside, it is interesting to note that member for Adelaide, Rachel Sanderson, from the supposedly, pro-business Liberal party is on the side of the NIMBYs.

City dwellers oppose 'gross-overdevelopment'

Brad Crouch
Sunday Mail (SA)
August 18, 20123:07PM



MORE than 200 inner city residents have protested in Whitmore Square today against planning reforms allowing taller buildings.

The residents, who live in the south west corner of the city, say the Capital City Development Plan Amendment will dramatically raise building heights and their homes will be overshadowed.

Premier Jay Weatherill and Planning Minister John Rau did not attend, despite invitations, while Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood told the group he opposed the amendment in its current form. But he supports city development which allows more city residents to walk to work.

Protest group spokeswoman Julie Jordan said the amendment dramatically raises building heights and relaxes planning policy, saying homes will be overshadowed and residential streets will become access lanes for apartment towers.



"Already hundreds of high-rise apartments have been fast-tracked, including the massive New Mayfield development on Sturt Street, with 425 apartments, shops, offices, nearly 500 car spaces, and towers of 10, 12 and 14 storeys." she said.

"High-rise developments are being fast-tracked without public notification or rights of appeal. This amendment is the most retrograde planning policy in many years.

"It was hatched behind closed doors with the community shut out.

"This will mean gross over-development of the unique and historic city.

"It allows high-rise towers adjacent to small cottages, with residents denied the right even to know what's being built next door to them, let alone object."

Mr Yarwood said the Adelaide City Council had not endorsed the DAP, but noted there needs to be a 'balanced dialogue' and more residents meant more people on the streets, which mean safer streets.

"Some of these developments will bring life to our city, it will bring vibrancy," he said.

Member for Adelaide Rachel Sanderson and Greens MLC Mark Parnell also addressed the group with strong criticism of the amendment.

Some residents carried placards saying their solar panels would be in darkness when the New Mayfield development proceeds.

[Matt]

A Lib opposing something? Never.

[Waewick]

A Lib opposing something? Never.

You mean a pollie opposing the other teams idea.

[jk1237]

Bless, Ben Hewitt.

“How anyone can believe that 14-storey glass and steel towers can be complementary next to bluestone cottages in the area, that just gobsmacks me,” Jordan said.

They can. Maybe you should leave your humble cottage and explore the world.

You live in the CBD of a State Capital of nearly 1.3 million people. Stop your whinging

exactly. I advise Jordan to visit Toronto or even Montreal. They have hundreds of streets of historic terrace homes mixed in with highrise and it worked and looked fine to me. Had a great atmosphere too

[Waewick]

well put simply, the person isn't an expert in Urban design nor in complimentary architecture so his opinion doesn't really have much sway.

Just because you can't conceptualise it, doesn't mean it can't be done.

[Ho Really]

A Lib opposing something? Never.

You mean a pollie opposing the other teams idea.

I wouldn't put as opposing the other team's idea. I'd put it down as the local member's job...to oppose. Maybe those people actually voted for Sanderson, we don't know. If the member for Adelaide was from Labor, Greens or whatever he/she would do the same. It's like you said...politics.

Cheers