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

[Will]

There is no need for a commercial precinct around the first stage of the development. It is not warranted, due to the fact that the Port Adelaide CBD and Semaphore Road are within walking distance, and much more attractive than the area surrounding Causeway Road at Glanville.

[rhino]

I disagree, there wouldn't be enough people in Newport Quays. A Woolworths, for example, needs over 2000 customers per day to justify continued operations.

Who mentioned Woolworths? The sort of commercial tenancies that will work outside a train station are the shops that provide what someone will want to pick up on their way home after work or on their way to work, or a place they can drop something off in the morning and pick it up in the evening - like a service station (add a dry cleaner to that list). I mentioned a small supermarket, more like a local IGA, not a woolworths.

[Cruise]

I must say im surprised Mcdonalds havent opened a joint (sorry i refuse to call them restuarants) in or near port adelaide yet

[AtD]

As I said, have you been to Newport Quays and seen how quiet it is? Woolworths or IGA, it still needs more than a few hundred residents in the immediate area, considering the large retail precincts just up the road. You can’t just say ‘they should do it’ and it suddenly becomes commercially viable.

Cruise Control, there is one on Port Road I believe.

[rhino]

It's quiet now, but how many people are expected to be living there in the years ahead? We expect them to use public transport, and yet land has not even been set aside for a future appropriate commercial precinct. Of course there is no need for one there now, but if you expect a heap of people to move into an area, you should also expect that they will need some services.

[AtD]

As I said, the 'heaps of people' will be around Glanville, not Ethelton.

[AG]

I don't think rhino is referring to a commercial precinct as in many shops, but a small number of shops adjacent to the railway station, in a similar fashion to how many of the less busy railway stations (not neccessarily quiet) in Sydney have shops adjacent to them on the opposite side of the street. A number of stations on Sydney's Upper North Shore and in the Sutherland Shire are quite good examples where train stations and some small to medium sized developments have worked well with each other. Gordon and Pymble stations come to mind.

Glanville is busier than Ethelton, although in comparison to other stations on the network, Ethelton isn't exactly quiet either.

While we're on transport, how on earth does one drive into stage 1 of the new development from Causeway Road?

[AtD]

While we're on transport, how on earth does one drive into stage 1 of the new development from Causeway Road?

Over the bridge, left, left, right, left.

[urban]

As I said, have you been to Newport Quays and seen how quiet it is? Woolworths or IGA, it still needs more than a few hundred residents in the immediate area, considering the large retail precincts just up the road. You can’t just say ‘they should do it’ and it suddenly becomes commercially viable.

The IGA on Grote St has a much smaller catchment than this area. If there was enough catchment before this development to warrant a train station then there would certainly have been enough catchment for small shops had they built above the train tracks.

If the development adjacent the ethelton station had stretched across the railway tracks it would have connected the adjoining suburb to the waterfront. The suburb's house prices would have increased thus facilitating more development. More residents more people walking through the commercial precinct to get to the waterfront & public transport (assuming an upgrade of the train network) pretty soon you have more than enough pedestrians passing through to support a significant variety of small shops. The same development could have occurred at Glanville despite its proximity. Yes these developments take time but they need to be planned for up front. This is where the Govt should be providing leadership & assistance.

Public transport relies on patrons being able to do minor shopping between the station & home. All of Adelaide's developments since the 60's have turned their back on train & tram stations where other cities focus on them. If public transport is ever going to get a foothold in Adelaide then any new developments must take these opportunities at train & tram stations.

[jimmy_2486]

I really like the way the quays is turning out from those pics IMO.

Next high density development should be areas like Norwood, Marion/Brighton, Mitcham, Henley, then even maybe Modbury/TTP.

[Pistol]

Agree with Norwood. That place is just crying out for some mid rise apartments similar to Air.

[Shuz]

Leave Norwood the way it is, reserved as one of Adelaide's elitist suburbs, If anything should happen there, it can't be too dominating, like 5 floors for that area is more than enough. I wouldn't like to see 12 floor skyscrapers in Norwood. I'd like to see Port Adelaide really kick it up a notch in density terms, just as long as they maintain and preserve the heritage there. But I'm all for 80m skyscrapers at the Port, kind of like a mini CBD on its own. Glenelg can really only be what it is, just more density. Not more height. Only frustration with Glenelg is the clash of 1/2 storey cottage houses vs 12 floor Liberty Towers style apartments. Not a good mix and match from the streetscape. Marion seems like the best candidate thus far for a southern CBD representative. Anything to compliment that 8 floor office tower at Westfield, let alone the whole mall precient and Oaklands Interchange. Its serious prime location for a density hub. On the wish list would be Elizabeth and Noarlunga areas, but I don't see any real investment in medium density developments around these areas just yet. Mabye in 2030.

Back to the Port, aside from that 11 floor commercial tower that already exists there - are there any proposals for some larger scale medium density developments as part of this redevelopment?

[stumpjumper]

The last few posts have underlined both a specific and a general shortcoming of the whole Newport Quays development.

Specifically, the development appears to propose no commercial tenancy within what's now accepted as walking distance of the units built so far.

Generally, that the lack of a full suite of supporting amenities is not included in the development.

If the developers were averse to providing shops and so on, perhaps the govt was weak in not insisting on them. Maybe the market can still provide a little 7-11 store if there's room anywhere. Maybe the rail line isolates the units to the extent that the market won't find sufficient trade to do that. It will be interesting to watch, anyway. Perhaps there will just be a line of vending machines somewhere, their commissions owned in perpetuity by Multiplex/Urban Construct.

A slightly different situation faced West Lakes in its infancy. The development provided four local shopping points (like the old Housing Trust ones - mini-mart, butcher, haridresser, newsagent etc) scattered through the development. They also provided a church and from memory four service stations. As it turned out, the devlopers/authorities missed the mark with their guesses, and it took a long time for some of those buildings to rationalise themselves out and find uses that could be supported by the market.

I'd like to see a paper on 'The provision of desirable commercial amenities in compromised housing developments' (the compromise here, btw, being perhaps local geography for one).

Sometimes buildings have an in-use survey done soon after completion. It would be interesting to see such a survey for the first lot of Newport Quays buildings.

[Brando]

..... But I'm all for 80m skyscrapers at the Port, kind of like a mini CBD on its own.

We struggle to get 80m in the CBD...!

[pushbutton]

From what I understood the Port Adelaide waterfront development DOES (or will when complete) include some zones designated for cafes and small shops, as well as a couple of "tourism precints" (although the plans were very vague as to what tourist attractions would be incldued in these).