News & Discussion: General CBD Development

[bva]

scaffolding around 118 franklin street
looks like that upgrade is starting
sorry cant seem to link back to images from May last year

[Shahkar]

Here you go. Thanks for the info! Completely forgot about this one!

Designed by Pruszinski Architects:







Existing building (bunker):

[Nathan]

Such a shame. The new look is just bland. Whilst I can accept that many people find the current building ugly, at least it's unique and interesting. The real problem was that it was allowed to get run down and grubby.

[Goya's Line]

+1

Does the current building qualify as brutalist? I love it.

[Ben]

The Medina Grand treasury has now renamed to Adina as per below

http://www.adinahotels.com.au/toga-hote ... s-for-2013

[Wayno]

I've been thinking about the Adelaide CBD population target (increase from 22,000 in 2012 to 43,000 by 2020). So an extra 20,000 people (2,500 per year for the next 8 years). Is it doable?

Let's break it down by examining a couple of existing developments/proposals.

• * The Rowlands will house 200 people. Simple math (20,000 divided by 200) means 100 similar buildings to hit the target.
  * Mayfield Sturt St will house 600 people. Same math (20,000 / 600) means 33 similar buildings to hit the target.

In reality we'll get a mix. Let's assume we end up with 5 'Mayfield sized' complexes (imo a bit of a stretch in 8 years, but let's assume it happens) then that's 3000 new residents. Let's also assume we get 10 taller apartments (e.g. like 123 Flinders) accommodating say 300 people each - that's another 3000 residents. In the meantime the ACC is approving various low-rise developments around the CBD (e.g. the ACC themselves are building town houses across from Mayfield on Sturt St) so maybe an extra 1000-2000 new residents if lucky (which also eats into available real estate space for taller apartments - a conscious strategy? ). Rounding up that's 8000 in total.

So we'd still need 60 Rowland sized developments to achieve the target ((20,000 - 8,000) / 200). Basically needing to construct 7-8 per year til 2020.

Bottom line: 43,000 is not doable - 30,000 residents by 2020 is a more realistic goal. Is this a bad result? absolutely not - it will be a fantastic achievement! The CBD will be abuzz. Think about it from the context of the new development required to achieve such a goal (couple of Mayfields, many Rowland style apartments towers, and few taller ones like 123 Flinders St).

You know, I bet the 43,000 target was pulled out of someone's ar$e as it was Adelaide's peak population back in ~1915 (see here). Synchronicity and all that.

[Ben]

I've been thinking about the Adelaide CBD population target (increase from 22,000 in 2012 to 43,000 by 2020). So an extra 20,000 people (2,500 per year for the next 8 years). Is it doable?

Let's break it down by examining a couple of existing developments/proposals.

• * The Rowlands will house 200 people. Simple math (20,000 divided by 200) means 100 similar buildings to hit the target.
  * Mayfield Sturt St will house 600 people. Same math (20,000 / 600) means 33 similar buildings to hit the target.

In reality we'll get a mix. Let's assume we end up with 5 'Mayfield sized' complexes (imo a bit of a stretch in 8 years, but let's assume it happens) then that's 3000 new residents. Let's also assume we get 10 taller apartments (e.g. like 123 Flinders) accommodating say 300 people each - that's another 3000 residents. In the meantime the ACC is approving various low-rise developments around the CBD (e.g. the ACC themselves are building town houses across from Mayfield on Sturt St) so maybe an extra 1000-2000 new residents if lucky (which also eats into available real estate space for taller apartments - a conscious strategy? ). Rounding up that's 8000 in total.

So we'd still need 60 Rowland sized developments to achieve the target ((20,000 - 8,000) / 200). Basically needing to construct 7-8 per year til 2020.

Bottom line: 43,000 is not doable - 30,000 residents by 2020 is a more realistic goal. Is this a bad result? absolutely not - it will be a fantastic achievement! The CBD will be abuzz. Think about it from the context of the new development required to achieve such a goal (couple of Mayfields, many Rowland style apartments towers, and few taller ones like 123 Flinders St).

You know, I bet the 43,000 target was pulled out of someone's ar$e as it was Adelaide's peak population back in ~1915 (see here). Synchronicity and all that.

I thought it was 2030?

[Wayno]

I clearly remember John Rau saying 43,000 by 2020 just a few weeks ago. Found reference here although could not find a more formal reference - anywhere.

Anyways 30,000 by 2020 seems reasonable, and so does 43,000 by 2030 (being an extra 1000 to 1500 people a year).

[Waewick]

I like the target as well.

I think it would be more achievable if the Government stopped shadow subsiding green fill developments and started working on ways to make residential apartments/townhouse more attractive (i.e removing asset value charges, improving infrastructure that will allow for growth)

yes, I realise it is a tad hypocritical, but it is still an investment in things being used now, and provides a critical mass in the future.

[Reb-L]

I find these targets a tad meaningless - there have been so many of them and usually they get nowhere close to the actual outcome. That's understandable; you can only project what's happened in the past and make more or less educated guesses about what'll happen after that. To juggle around a lot of numbers about what the situation will be in 30 years' time is mostly beneficial to the bureaucrats creating the reports. I'm not suggesting that planning is worthless - I guess that what I want to say is that some of the people working on these targets could put aside some of their time to try to do something about the present. Then we might have a better chance to get closer to those ambitions. What I found interesting though is that Adelaide's current population is less than half the one 100 years ago and it's probably an unachievable target to reach the same number within 20 years. And still some people think the city is already overpopulated! Maybe they want to go back 200 years instead?

[Wayno]

yep Reb-L you're correct in the sense that goals are meaningless unless:
a) they just happen as a natural course of events (i don't believe that's the case here), or
b) you *make* it happen (which means the State Govt & ACC must pull out all stops and be reviewing/assessing progress on at least an annual basis, and adjusting their approach accordingly)

For b) there's various ways & means to kick starting things:
* the ACC & State Govt could help ensure sufficient new developments get proposed by pointing out suitable prime development sites to developers,
* the State Govt could compulsorily acquire certain sites (not using taxpayer funds - instead using developer funds),
* the State Govt could lower taxes in the city (tick. already done - maybe more could be done?)
* the ACC could earmark certain sites for *minimum* heights (don't allow new 1-2 storey developments on prime sites where many more levels are permitted)
* etc

[Norman]

If the State Government was serious about that target and a little more risk-taking, they could fund more affordable or mid-range housing developments themselves on top of what the private developers are already doing.

Sent from my RM-821_im_mea3_306 using Board Express

[claybro]

Could not agree more Norman. The city needs to be made more attractive to small families, ie more affordable larger appartments. If this has to be heavily subsidised by the Government then so be it. Large suburban sprawl has significant hidden costs which end up being bourne by the Government anyway. With a greater mix of residents, ie not just students and empty nesters, the city would become more viable (variety of business and services) and would start to become multi gernerational as kids that grow up in the CBD will themselves continue to reside in the CBD as they grow up and leave the nest and purchase other dwellings within the CBD, creating a more sustainable property market in appartment sales.

[rhino]

and would start to become multi gernerational as kids that grow up in the CBD will themselves continue to reside in the CBD as they grow up and leave the nest and purchase other dwellings within the CBD

Interesting. My experience tells me that relatively few people buy houses in the suburbs they grew up in. They might stay on the same side of town (e.g., western suburbs), but usually relocate to the areas dictated by their financial situation - again using a western suburbs example, a person who grew up in, say Torrensville might move towards Lockleys, Henley or Glenelg if they're doing well, or towards Hindmarsh or Croydon if that's where their finances dictate. I can't see that people who grow up in the CBD will stay there because that's where they grew up.

Just my 2c.

[Matt]

My 2c... the overwhelming majority of people I grew up with, went to school with, are all living within a 5km radius of where they grew up. (southern suburbs)

I'm the minority. Moved far further than most!