ONH: [Port Adelaide] Newport Quays | $1.2b

[Redback20]

I have to agree with how_good_is_he thats its a bit of a naive view.... have you worked elsewhere in the world stumpjumper?
With all due respect this is how commerce and governments oil the wheels the western world over. Practicalities. If they didnt, then nothing would get built anywhere, ever.

If working arrangements between developers and pollies in SA like over the Port or le cornu site worry you, then don't even go to India or China!

The planning regs around such old docks as those mentioned in liverpool, england are much more sensitive than ours. Firstly theyre far older, many were bombed to pieces during WWII and therefore v rigid guidelines to be observed on what remains....And I'm sure you'll find the developers support Tony Blair's government at election time

Port Adelaide is still a newbie by comparison and every development as possible has to be encouraged, again echoing the previous post, even if some parts of it aren't ideal... its better than leaving it to rot which is the stark alternative.

[stumpjumper]

Those are weasel words (of Planning SA's) and Planning SA doesn't know what it's talking about.

Have a look again under L for Land Management Corporation on the govt's Major Projects website. (URL above)

That site declares the Port Adelaide Waterfront Redevelopment to be a Major Project.

[Pants]

I agree with alot of what stumpjumper says in that development for the sake of development (and a quick buck) should not be encouraged, but if profits are the only basis on which the site would have been developed, something's better than nothing.

A bit more architectural inspiration wouldn't have gone astray, but the development isn't that bad asthetically. How it will age is another issue...

As for regeneration of the area, these new residents will want somewhere to eat, shop be entertained etc so even if not part of this development, those things will follow.

It seems that stumpjumper has a much greater interest in this than your average observer though. Why so passionate/obsessed about this development in particular?

[stumpjumper]

Good posts. WHile I have hammered one side of this, it is true that the contaiminated site and probably the size of the project had either put off or defeated developers. For example, the builders of the houses on the southern part of the Port? Reach (correct me if I'm wrong), and the builders fo the tiltups on McLaren Wharf didn't go on to greater things in the area, so your point is well made.

My point though, is not that the govt shouldn't have ben involved. My point is that the govt and its co-developers have gone for the safest, lowest common denominator, least imaginative solution possible.

They could have included room to capture the growing market for cultural tourism, thereby creating jobs beyond constrcution, making the area a magnet for local and external visitors etc.

I have worked overseas in exactly this area - Gloucestor Docks, Gloucester UK; Mystic Seaport, Connecticut, USA; Katharine Docks, London, UK.

All of those redevlopments were handled with far more sophistication and imagination than our effort.

[shuza]

Another bad case of the Adelaide Syndrome perhaps?

[how_good_is_he]

The cold hard reality is this development was advertised for tender internationally and only 2 companies competed [Urbans/Multiplex vs Baulderstone]. So what choice did the govt have - its not as if developers were fighting to develop the site! Also the size/cost of the project, long time frame and limited income, population & low population growth would deter many.

If you were an international developer, where would you have more confidence investing $1.5 BILLION - a re-development in Port Adelaide or say London?

I also feel you may be judging it too early, as they are only up to stage 2 of say 10 and there is scope and mention of tourism precincts later in the masterplan.

Also you need people living there first and then other things follow. The cultural/tourist precincts wont pay the bills for the infrastructure and should come later in the development when the developer/govt has made money and can afford to re-invest it back.

Look at Marina Pier, Glenelg as an example of getting it wrong. They built the marina/bars/restaurants/shopping at the start. The developers/govt made nothing on the first stage - they had to subsidise commercial rents with many places going bust, all because the area wasnt established and there werent enough people to support the precinct.

Further the area was akin to a big building site and didn't really endear the public to come until the later stages when it was more complete.

[stumpjumper]

Fiar comment, hgih. It's not finished yet, but there's a strong indication of a monoculture (ie housing) being built.

Btw, didn't Kinsmen toss their hat into the ring at some time?

[urban]

The cultural tourism elements were already in place at Port Adelaide. They just needed to be identified and re-presented instead of bulldozed. The new buildings should have been constructed around the old. This can not be done at the macro scale the large South Australian developers work on when they are presented with a site of this scale. The project needed to be broken down into smaller sections with the most commercially viable sections done first. This would have allowed a broader range of developers to be involved and resulted in a more diverse architectural palette. In the absence of unlimited funds many small developments are better than one large development.

We need to understand what we have and work to show that to the world instead of being jealous of what everyone else has and trying to imitate them.Port Adelaides rejuvenation will be seen as a missed opportunity in 20 to 30 years time when it will compare unfavourably with Fremantle, Constitution dock, Geelong and possibly even Darwin. Each of these developments were based around the existing character of the area and gave the city something unique. Port Adelaide is unfortunately looking much like a poor man’s Docklands.

[how_good_is_he]

Urban can you specifically explain what has been bulldozed of any heritage value in Newport Quays to date?

All I have seen so far is vacant, barren & contaminated wasteland being remediated and developed [stage 1 & 2].

The developers have made a commitment to restore Harts Mill and surrounding character buildings [as they should as they would look great done up and have architectural merit].

So what old buildings were bulldozed?

[urban]

HGIH go back and have a look at stumpjumpers post on May 12 for your answer.

I haven't been to check whether they have been demolished yet but there are also a number of significant wharf sheds to be demolished for the tourism precinct. The retail/residential precinct was far from an empty site. There are some important historical vistas which are being blocked such as the view to the semaphore flags. The fabric of a city is more than just its built fabric. Existing uses are also being demolished. If I had to choose between a revitalised port and our fishing industry I would choose the fishing industry every time.

Land that has been part of a working port for 160 years is rarely vacant and barren. A good redevelopment would have picked up the previous uses of the site and used them to inform the layout and design of the new elements. The cities and areas that people go back to are the ones where you wander the streets and find something new and unexpected every time you go around a corner. You wouldn't even bother getting out of your car to have a look at the proposed residential development.

While I am on my high horse I see our 60s planners have had their way again neatly separating the different uses into their own precincts ie tourism, heritage, residential, commercial. The exciting cities are the ones where everything is thrown in together because each different use is active at a different time.

[Pistol]

Sorry guys to get off your topic but I thought that I should share this image with you. I received another information pack from Urban Construct today about Newport Quays and the Port redevelopment. Everything was basically what we knew already but they had a 'sneak preview' on the back page of the release of stage 3 which "due to market demand, Newport Quays is releasing stage 3 this year."
So this is an image of one of the proposed buildings in stage 3 which looks like it is around the 12 storey mark and built over the water. Hard to tell from this simple render but it sort of looks like it has design cues from Wave. Doesn't say how many other buildings are in Stage 3 but if this is anything to go by, it should be promising.

Sorry about the photo quality.

[Brando]

Thanks for the update Pistol.

That render/preview looks awesome. That is the sort of development that will 'inspire' the whole precinct.

[AtD]

Interesting render. Looks very... Queensland.

[shuza]

12 floors in the Port?
That will stick out like dogs balls.
Yes, very much QLD-style. looks good.

[rhino]

That will stick out like dogs balls.

Yeah, on a cat!