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

Message

#106 Post by **Will** » Thu May 24, 2007 4:26 pm

urban wrote: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.

There is a limit as to what constitutes heritage. These 'signifivant wharf sheds' most definately do not constitute heritage. Just because they may be 100 years old, does not make them anything special. Next time you are in Port Adelaide walk around Semaphore Road, Jenkins Street, Wilson Street etc. These sheds are hideous. They give the impression of an industrial wasteland. This discussion reminds me of how back in 1997-98 when the Holdfast Shores development was about to begin, there were calls to make the carpark at the end of Anzac Highway heritage listed, as well as a toilet block where the Pier Hotel now stands.

urban · #107 Post by **urban** » Thu May 24, 2007 5:07 pm

It seems to be a common misconception that something is only heritage if it is made of stone. It is not a buildings age or materials that determines its value it is the role that it played in the development of a community or architectural style or as the backdrop to historical events.

Such sheds can with the help of sympathetic extensions and landscaping form an attractive part of a city's life. Have a look at Goolwa Wharf particularly during events such as the Wooden Boat Festival.

The carpark and toilet were just some peoples desperate attempts at stopping the Glenelg development and should not be used as an argument.

how_good_is_he · #108 Post by **how_good_is_he** » Thu May 24, 2007 6:42 pm

Urban, the land being developed now has been barren and contaminated for DECADES - so what would you like the developers to do now - re-create an 1800s town and port for you? Simply, much has been lost over time BUT dont blame this development as its buildings/community etc was lost long ago. The developers are merely picking up the pieces after years of neglect.

Its ok to get sentimental and nolstalgic and want to hang on to the past if there is something to hang onto!

Urban, why dont you go down and see the area for yourself before pontificating... lets hear your ideas to get tourists to come visit 50 hectares of VACANT WASTE LAND. Because thats what this development mainly consists of!

The only "buildings" they are getting rid of are the "shipyards" and I agree with Will, they are ABSOLUTE CRAP and have no heritage value and comparable to the tin, shanty-town slums found in the third world.

In Europe, they bulldoze things which may be 600 or 700 years old if they are crap - so get over it.

urban · #109 Post by **urban** » Fri May 25, 2007 1:11 pm

HGIH the last thing I want is some pseudo heritage residential theme park.

My point is the proposed development has been lifted straight out of the the Gold Coast and divided up into sanitised precincts where everything is separated.

At the moment it is heading towards another soulless west lakes just slightly denser.

The rest of the world has moved on from the style of development proposed here. Wipe the slate clean and start again and all you are left with is another shitty suburban development. Interesting cities evolve organically remembering the past and building on.

Combine the residential, commercial and retail in every precinct.
Create public uses facing the water everywhere.
Allow the history of the site to inform the materials used for each different precinct.

HGIH you obviously have no design training because if you did you would understand that to understand the history and evoke a sense of place you do not need to slavishly copy historic building forms.

Go to Geelong, Constitution Dock and Fremantle and you will understand what I am talking about.

It is not an either or situation. Port Adelaide needs dense redevelopment THAT draws its design cues from the highly varied histories of the various sites.

It just requires a little extra effort on the part of the designers which would account for .01% of the project budget. It won't send anyone broke. Developers aren't that fragile that they can't take some design criticism. They will whinge and complain that it will cost them a fortune and that it will stop the project but its all just bluff. They know that if they were doing the project in Melbourne or Sydney they would have to spend much more time on the design.

Why do so many South Australians have inferiority complexes that make them think we should be grateful for whatever turd a developer deigns to lay down in our city?

We need a robust design culture to make sure that when an opportunity presents itself we are able to fully capitalise on it and ensure our city evolves as a great city to live in. Unfortunately LMC do not appear to have the capacity to do this, instead they bend over to the will of the nearest developer and we all get #*@#%@.

What happens when the developers are gone and the advertising budget dries up? The same thing that happened to Elizabeth and Salisbury, after a brief boom period they became crime ridden centres.

how_good_is_he · #110 Post by **how_good_is_he** » Fri May 25, 2007 3:15 pm

I agree this will be no more than a new soulless estate...but my point throughout this is its all well and good in a perfect world to want this and that, but the cold hard reality is there was nobody else but Urban Construct/Baulderstone to choose from as no-one else wanted it.

No recognised Australian or international developer/architect even tendered for it, let alone offered a better design alternative!

So its all well and good to say the LMCs crap [which they are] and the govt. should have more robust design demands etc but if there is no developer who has the balls to actually put up the money to implement/build it, its all just more intellectual wank.

#111 Post by **Will** » Fri May 25, 2007 3:32 pm

I think people are seriously missing the point. The 'heart' or sould of Port Adelaide and what will eventually become its tourism drawcard is the city centre around Commercial and St. Vincent Streets. That is where the historic buildings are. These buildings are not going to be touched by the development. The development is being constructed on the other side of the port River. A site which is not currently a tourist precinct, and is covered in old tin sheds and contaminated land. Activity in Port Adelaide should be focussed around the historic city centre, and not the other bank of the Port River. That is why i think the current proposal is fine.

urban · #112 Post by **urban** » Fri May 25, 2007 3:40 pm

urban wrote: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.

Tendering it as one site severely restricts the potential developers which is why we are stuck with what we've got.

mooshie · #113 Post by **mooshie** » Fri May 25, 2007 4:17 pm

Will wrote:I think people are seriously missing the point. The 'heart' or sould of Port Adelaide and what will eventually become its tourism drawcard is the city centre around Commercial and St. Vincent Streets. That is where the historic buildings are. These buildings are not going to be touched by the development. The development is being constructed on the other side of the port River. A site which is not currently a tourist precinct, and is covered in old tin sheds and contaminated land. Activity in Port Adelaide should be focussed around the historic city centre, and not the other bank of the Port River. That is why i think the current proposal is fine.

Exactly. The area just needs more people, not another development that will draw poeople away from the centre of Port Adelaide.

alfer7_3 · #114 Post by **alfer7_3** » Fri May 25, 2007 8:07 pm

Pt. Adelaide is at the moment being gentrified which will bring in more higher income people to the area. This development with alot of it selling for around 1million will also bring in more higher income earners. when this development will be complete i predict that Commercial st and St. Vicent st will be the main vibrant areas of pt adelaide and the tourists will go to the areas around that. I dont see it as a negative thing that this development is predominantly residential.

stumpjumper · #115 Post by **stumpjumper** » Mon May 28, 2007 3:59 pm

I think the end result of all the building work will be fairly sterile. Considered as a piece of urban planning, the development commits a classic blunder: extremely limited customer parking therefore limits on visitor (ie tourist) activity. Add to this the lack in the development area of a boat launching area, public toilets, or even a taxi rank (PAE Council closed the last taxi stand in the Port except for a few in the COles supermarket a few weeks ago), and you get the picture.

I'm interested in the Port, btw Pants, because I worked there once. It gets into your system, like the gresae and grime of place.

I'm also an architect with an interest in urban planning and I hate seeing a site abused, let alone with government money.

#116 Post by **Pants** » Tue May 29, 2007 3:33 pm

Fair enough.

Nothing like a bit of passion... bordering on obsession.

I agree with a lot of what you say though - this is a missed opportunity, but unfortunately is one for the "something's better than nothing" file.

how_good_is_he · #117 Post by **how_good_is_he** » Wed May 30, 2007 1:50 am

Exactly right pants!

This vacant contaminated wasteland has been a massive blight on the landscape for decades and no-one really cared less [if people even knew it existed] yet someone tries to re-brand/re-name the area/improve it etc and there is OUTRAGE.

Why havent the same opponents been rallying to get something done about fixing the site or putting up an alternative, in say
THE PAST 50 YEARS!

I guess its a part of life that you will never make everybody happy ie stumpjumper- and even if the development was tendered in smaller stages as suggested, people would then complain the development wasnt properly master-planned etc...you cant win whatever you do.

toby1 · #118 Post by **toby1** » Thu May 31, 2007 9:29 am

lets rejuvenate the port by resurrecting the idea of putting the canal in up port rd to the city! imagine the drawcard of having popeye cruising all the way to the port and back (might be a slow ride!)

without looking at the details of this development - it can only be a good thing really, unless there is some significant damage to the site and surrounds as a result - like waste or overload.

shuza · #119 Post by **shuza** » Thu May 31, 2007 9:42 am

Welcome to the forums toby.
The canal idea was proposed in the mid/late 1800's. It wouldn't be viable now economically.

However, I do think a good tourist drawcard would be the establishment of a light rail line between the city and the port down Port Road, using those Resturant Trams.

#120 Post by **AtD** » Thu May 31, 2007 1:03 pm

toby1 wrote:lets rejuvenate the port by resurrecting the idea of putting the canal in up port rd to the city! imagine the drawcard of having popeye cruising all the way to the port and back (might be a slow ride!)

without looking at the details of this development - it can only be a good thing really, unless there is some significant damage to the site and surrounds as a result - like waste or overload.

The problem with the canal idea, as it was 100 years ago, is water supply. Every time a boat passes though a lock, it releases water downstream.

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

Re:

Who is online