News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

[rhino]

To hell with Krispy Kreme's. Their recipes taste like crap

Hear, Hear!

[stumpjumper]

That's hardly high rise, Doggo. Try living next to a 20 storey building, complete with micro-climatic effects.

[Dazzeland]

I don't know why everyone opposes high rise developments on one hand, but despises urban sprawl on the other. And there seems to be a trend that the 'residents groups' that oppose these developments are formed of bitchy, affluent people with too much time on their hands. I know they bought an expensive house but they can't cling on to that 'village feel' forever, especially if they want the city to progress,

Btw I'm absolutely NOT attacking any of your views on here, it's just that I was browsing the forum and saw a few sadvertiser articles about the residents groups.

[zippySA]

The main issue at stake here is clarity on the planning regime - it seems to me that Adelaide's planning system is under continuous review and changes. If people can be sure what rules apply to the area they are seeking to live in, then there can be no complaints if high or medium rise dwellings get constructed at a later date. We lack certainty currently - create a plan, and stick to it, yes, changes will be inevitable, but they should be the exception not the norm, and an overhaul should only happen every decade or more given the snail pace that our population is growing currently.

At the moment though, no-one can be certain. The best bet is to try and take an informed view on where you are buying - if it is inner city or rim, along major corridors - then it is more likely to be eventually developed to more density (higher) - whereas a true suburban dwelling is most unlikely to have any issues other than someone trying to construct a 2-story home.

Buyer beware.

[Nathan]

The problem is we have people moving to places where you can reasonably expect increased density, and then still complaining when something is proposed (see the protests about the development around Sturt St in the city).

I also think there needs to be some kind of break in the scaremongering about mid and high rise development. Many proposals face opposition from residents groups who repeat the boilerplate of overshadowing, reduced land value, increased crime, increased traffic, future slums, etc. Where do they get many of these unfounded fears, and what can be done to educate people? Many of those issues are not symptoms of high density living, but of poor design (both architecture and urban planning).

[monotonehell]

The problem is we have people moving to places where you can reasonably expect increased density, and then still complaining when something is proposed (see the protests about the development around Sturt St in the city).

I also think there needs to be some kind of break in the scaremongering about mid and high rise development. Many proposals face opposition from residents groups who repeat the boilerplate of overshadowing, reduced land value, increased crime, increased traffic, future slums, etc. Where do they get many of these unfounded fears, and what can be done to educate people? Many of those issues are not symptoms of high density living, but of poor design (both architecture and urban planning).

It's never a case of, "All of these things are bad, therefore we should not have xyz development." It's always a case of, "We don't want xyz development because <gut feeling>, therefore let's make a list of things that sound 'truthy' that we can say are bad."

[rev]

. Where do they get many of these unfounded fears, and what can be done to educate people?

Probably from the same place people who think a freeway = automatic ghetto...ie their backside.

[Nathan]

I figure this is the most appropriate place for this:

Up, up and away: 18,500 extra homes for inner city
DAVID WASHINGTON AND KEVIN NAUGHTON | 29 OCTOBER 2013
http://indaily.com.au/news/2013/10/29/stamp-duty/

he State Government has announced a sweeping rezoning of the inner city accompanied by stamp duty concessions in a bid to create up to 18,500 new homes in the heart of Adelaide.

Stamp duty concessions of up to $21,330 for off-the-plan apartment sales will be expanded to the rezoned areas – which surround the city – at a cost to the Government of up to $7 million.

The Government, in its just announced Housing in the City policy, has also moved to impose a design review process, similar to that already established in the city, on the rezoned inner-suburban areas. For buildings five storeys and over, a special committee of the Development Assessment Commission will oversee pre-lodgement, design review and assessment in the entire rezoned area. Councils will have one nominee on the committee.

The rezoning sets new minimum and maximum building heights in the rezoned areas, which cover Prospect, Norwood, Unley, West Torrens and a small section of the Burnside council area. Maximum building heights include 10 storeys on small sections of Greenhill Road and in Kent Town, seven storeys on other parts of Greenhill Road and the Parade, eight storeys on part of Port Road facing the parklands, and relatively lower heights around Prospect.

Premier Jay Weatherill said the changes were “about providing attractive new housing that is close to the city, where existing services such as schools, transport and healthcare are readily available”.

He said the Government would work with local councils to upgrade public spaces and streetscapes to provide “more attractive, safe and usable outdoor areas to support more people living in Adelaide’s inner city suburbs”.

The stamp duty relief – previously restricted to the CBD – was designed to stimulate the housing construction sector.

The concession builds on moves first announced in the May 2012 State Budget when the State Government moved to “prime” the market by giving first homebuyers a saving of more than $31,000. Other purchasers could save more than $21,000.

The 2012 concessions applied to the Adelaide City Council area, including North Adelaide. and were set to end in June 2014.

Weatherill stressed that good design would be incorporated into the new planning processes.

“To make this happen, we will be consulting on new design principles with the architecture industry and expanding the role of the design review process,” he said.

Planning Minister John Rau said the rezoning was in force from today, “allowing for increased density in these areas and allowing more people to live closer to the city”.

The Government is explicitly linking the rezoning to its public transport plan announced last week, in which tram routes would be re-established in areas covered by the rezoning, including the Parade, Unley Road and Prospect Road.

Policy document here: http://27j69335adx010zfi19irzch0z.wpeng ... Policy.pdf
http://27j69335adx010zfi19irzch0z.wpeng ... Policy.pdf

[Vee]

Burnside residents plan challenge to laws allowing high rise apartments
ABCNews

An Adelaide Mayor says a decision to allow higher density housing in inner suburbs is being unfairly imposed on residents. New zoning changes will encourage high-rise development along urban corridors, including buildings of up to seven storeys along Fullarton Road from the Britannia Roundabout to Greenhill Road.

The laws were gazetted yesterday and will strip councils of the power to approve developments over four storeys in height. Those decisions will instead go through a state-run design review and approval process.
The laws also pave the way for apartments of up to eight storeys along Port Road, and five storey buildings on Unley Road.

Burnside Mayor David Parkin says the State Government has ignored the council's submission showing that population growth targets could be met in other ways.

"The residents of these areas moved into them because they loved the old houses, they love the ambience that the areas provide," he said.
"Burnside demonstrated quite categorically it could meet the targets that the Government wished us to do in our own way but has not been listened to."

The Burnside Residents' Association says it will continue to fight against the decision. Spokeswoman Anna Sullivan says she has received advice that the move breaches Federal laws protecting views of the Adelaide Hills from the city.
She says the group will be asking the Parliamentary Environment, Resources and Development Committee not to approve the changes.

"We are going to be arguing that they take that into consideration, especially because the views are protected under Federal law," she said.

"I think it's very disrespectful for the Government to ignore that. They're telling us they have different advice. I'm not sure where they're looking from because our advice is that those heights will breach the protection."

Attorney-General John Rau says the State Government amended the laws to accommodate the views of residents and the Burnside council.
"The plans have been substantially modified," he said.
"I went out there and met with some of the residents.

"As a result of that meeting I modified the proposal by removing a section of land in Dulwich along Greenhill Road, immediately near that Fullarton Road corner, entirely from the rezone and I reduced the scale from seven to six storeys along Fullarton Road.

"It is not just Burnside where there has been a rezone. There has been a rezone in West Torrens, there has been a rezone in Unley, there has been a rezone in Prospect, there has been a rezone in Kent Town, there has been a rezone in Norwood."

Existing stamp duty relief of up to $21,000 for new city apartments will be extended to apartments in the rezoned suburbs at a cost of $7 million. Richard Angove from the Property Council welcomed that aspect of the changes.

"The stamp duty relief being continued forward and expanded is a very positive sign for the state," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-30/r ... an/5057170

Loudest voices...??!!??
5, 6, 7 storeys is hardly scary, high rise in the urban context.
The anti-any build over two storey brigade groan about ...

"a great wall of the Adelaide Parklands'"!!

Tweet by @CPR_SouthAust

Urban infill on main roads, adjacent public transport makes sense to me. It provides more choices for people who want to live close to the city and amenities and who can make use of accessible, more frequent public transport options. Local services gain additional viability and diversity. Others in the area benefit from improved services eg public transport and new facilities (plus arresting decline of existing) to cater for an increasing mix of population (bonus!)

Empty nesters, professionals, singles/couples, groups/students, young people ... gain more options to live, buy/rent in a mix of affordable to more upmarket accommodation types in the inner suburbs.

BTW Has anyone heard of ..."Federal Laws protecting views of the Adelaide Hills from the city" ????

[Nathan]

I'm curious about this:

Burnside Mayor David Parkin says the State Government has ignored the council's submission showing that population growth targets could be met in other ways.

"The residents of these areas moved into them because they loved the old houses, they love the ambience that the areas provide," he said.
"Burnside demonstrated quite categorically it could meet the targets that the Government wished us to do in our own way but has not been listened to."

How do they propose meeting growth targets without increasing density?

[Vee]

I'm curious about this:

Burnside Mayor David Parkin says the State Government has ignored the council's submission showing that population growth targets could be met in other ways.

"The residents of these areas moved into them because they loved the old houses, they love the ambience that the areas provide," he said.
"Burnside demonstrated quite categorically it could meet the targets that the Government wished us to do in our own way but has not been listened to."

How do they propose meeting growth targets without increasing density?

Don't know but here's a copy of Burnside Council Development Plan 2013 - p 35 Obj 52+
http://www.sa.gov.au/upload/franchise/H ... t_Plan.pdf

Will be interested to see Mayor Parkin's more detailed response to Burnside meeting its population targets "in our own way"!

[SRW]

BTW Has anyone heard of ..."Federal Laws protecting views of the Adelaide Hills from the city" ????

I would assume that they're going to to try and argue that the National Heritage Listing of the Plan of Adelaide in some way protects such views... which is a long shot, to say the least. But they've already done their damage, really. Thanks to this sorry lot of NIMBYs, the rezoning along Fullarton Rd was quite significantly underdone, denying the maximum opportunity to allow others to enjoy its high amenity.

[Splashmo]

I live near Burnside and I'm amazed at the uproar this is creating. Hopefully it's just a vocal minority. The idea that this will destroy the area's character is ludicrous - especially when you look at the changes.



They're increasing heights along Greenhill and Fullarton Roads - in an area already dominated by a couple taller buildings and lots of smaller blocks, not to mention on some busy arterial roads. Why the council would try and argue it should build population up across the whole council area, when the easiest option seems to be confining it to this narrow stretch of road is beyond me.

All the changes the State Government is bringing in seem weak when you consider the whole picture.



It's hardly infilling the inner metropolitan areas, is it? Not that I'm arguing for multistorey buildings on every quiet suburban street... but the DPA amendment is not about to change Adelaide forever.

[Nathan]

Those are the old plans. The heights and areas covered have been modified following consultation, so really, it's a bit of a case of reaching a compromise and then still complaining about it.

This is the most recent zoning from the policy announcement:

burnside.png (285.76 KiB) Viewed 5780 times

[crawf]

Straight away, Pruszinski Architects have released plans for a 10-storey apartment complex on Dequetteville Terrace.