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

[crawf]

Hopefully it will include a aquarium or a interactive science centre, as this city badly needs one of them or both.

[jimmy_2486]

We need more high density developments here in Adelaide.

Because we only have 1 high density area out of the CBD (glenelg) with this one on the way, they are thought to be more like local tourist attractions for this city. If we had a few more coming our way we will start to think of them as places that we might want to move into one day and have a more positive attitude about the issue.

[Cruise]

We need more high density developments here in Adelaide.

Because we only have 1 high density area out of the CBD (glenelg) with this one on the way, they are thought to be more like local tourist attractions for this city. If we had a few more coming our way we will start to think of them as places that we might want to move into one day and have a more positive attitude about the issue.

I think due to adelaides geographical nature Elizabeth and Noarlunga would be great for outer cbds, mainly because there no heritage buildings to wory about and the people in these areas are always dying for something exicting to happen around them.

[pushbutton]

Hopefully it will include a aquarium or a interactive science centre, as this city badly needs one of them or both.

I couldn't agree more crawf, and Port Adelaide with its established Marine theme and history would certainly be the ideal place in Adelaide (apart from Glenelg) for such attractions.

Let's hope something like that does happen.

[pushbutton]

We need more high density developments here in Adelaide.

Because we only have 1 high density area out of the CBD (glenelg) with this one on the way, they are thought to be more like local tourist attractions for this city. If we had a few more coming our way we will start to think of them as places that we might want to move into one day and have a more positive attitude about the issue.

If high density housing (actually more like medium density really) is what Adelaide thinks of as "tourist attractions" then it's no wonder we're asking the worlds tourists where the bloody hell they are!!!

[jimmy_2486]

I think due to adelaides geographical nature Elizabeth and Noarlunga would be great for outer cbds, mainly because there no heritage buildings to wory about and the people in these areas are always dying for something exicting to happen around them.

Dont get too excited cruise control, lets worry about getting high density areas 15km out first, let alone 35km out!!

When you think about it, a CBD in Pt Adelaide would still be good for the far northern suburbs as there is very fast access into pt adelaide from the salisbury hwy/ pt river expressway.

One day though it should happen out Lizzie/Noarlunga way!! Wouldn't surprise me if it happens sooner rather than later.

[pushbutton]

Let's not forget the significant number of medium density apartments that are now very successfully established in the Northern suburbs (with still lots more to be built). I'm referring of course to Mawson Lakes, which has apartment buildings up to about 6 stories high.

[Cruise]

Drove past port adelaide today, damn these buildings look really bland or is it just me?

Anyway,
Council has agreed to name the area "New port", a loss for heritage i think since it only covers the tiny parcel of land east of causeway road, west of the port river, south of semaphore road and north of bower road.

When you think about it, a CBD in Pt Adelaide would still be good for the far northern suburbs as there is very fast access into pt adelaide from the salisbury hwy/ pt river expressway.

That means they have to drive their though

[Ben]

From The Messenger

Design experts to probe Quays plans

INTERNATIONAL design experts have been called in by Port Adelaide Enfield Council to critique the latest Stage 3 Newport Quays plans.

Fearing the Port culture threatens to be lost amongst 12-storey towers, the council called in four experts (see factfile) before the Newport Quays consortium presented concept plans for Stage 3 also known as Precinct 2B to the council last week.

In their preliminary advice, the experts told the council's environmental services director Fred Newman the concepts were significantly different to what was envisaged in the development plan. The concepts include three, 12-storey apartment blocks holding more than 100 apartments in each, with one of the towers proposed to be an ``iconic'' over-water development.

Council staff also have received concept plans for Stage 4 also within Precinct 2 which sets out a further three, 12-storey buildings bringing the total to six.
Stage 3 and 4 run along the Causeway Rd up to the intersection of Semaphore Rd and will be next to the soon-to-be constructed Marina Cove, north of the Jervois Bridge.

Mr Newman said he was worried the number and location of the 12-storey buildings threatened to ruin proposed public uses within the development. The experts will continue to advise the council as more detailed plans emerge, with a full report due soon.

Under the development plan, a public plaza leading onto a long pier was planned for within a ``view corridor'' running diagonally from the Semaphore and Causeway Rd intersection across the Port River and to historic Hart's Mill.

The idea was to avoid a ``Holdfast Shores'', where Anzac Hwy ends with a concrete curtain of multi-storey buildings rather than views of the ocean, Mr Newman said. He said the view corridor was to be framed by two, 12-storey towers either side. Instead, the consortium had produced concept plans with six, 12-storey buildings scattered across the precinct.

``This is the most crucial section of the development because it links into Semaphore Rd,'' Mr Newman said. ``This isn't just a residential development, this will become a tourist attraction in its own right.

``I'm not opposed to 12-storey buildings but it is vital they are in the right location so we can achieve what we want the Port to become.''
Newport Quays spokesman Todd Brown stressed the concepts were still changing. He last week demanded an apology from the Portside Messenger after it reported correctly that between four and six 12-storey buildings were proposed. He said that despite lodging those concept plans with the council, initial concepts for Stage 4 including three of the 12-storey apartments had now been scrapped and a new set of plans would be lodged at a later date.

``We will work within the confines of the development plan and recognise the intent of the development plan but also recognise this is a long term project,'' he said.

A development application for Stage 3 is due to be lodged with the State Government's Port Waterfront Redevelopment Committee mid August.

[AtD]

Nice find. So, potentially six high rises now?

[stumpjumper]

Momentkiller may be right - perhaps only an 80m tower or two would save the Port now. Pity about the substrate - I'm not a civil engineer byut I think the marshy stuff under the Port might be struggling to support anything really tall.

As to the science museum etc, quite a few people were pushing some years ago for the Port to have something like an AIr, Land Sea and Space Museum. This concept involved combining literally on 'one ticket' the existing, reasonably close Maritime Museum, the Aviation Museum, the Railway Museum, the Military Vehicles Museum, using a converted wharf shed to house the homeless Investigator Science Centre, adding a DSTO/Weapons Research Centre space museum as well as the Ships Graveyard etc to beomce the nucelus of the Port's tourism attraction.

The whole scheme worked against the interests of the developers, who instead of working to the brief of a govt which had done its planning with the interests of the local community and of SA in general in mind, were able to dictate a brief in their terms to the govt. Thus we had a demand that all riverfront land be for housing; that public spaces including paublilc parking be minimised and therefore the potential foo the Port to host the Southern Hemisphere's best collection of museum attractions and other attractions such as tall ships etc etc was gone in a moment. In fact, Tourism SA has now dropped Port Adelaide as a separate tourist destination.

Good thinking. Why not ignore examples like the Air, Land, Sea, History and Technology Park in Rhode Island, the Michigan Military Air Land and Sea Museum and the Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, not to mention Mystic Seaport in Connecticut, USA? They're all exciting growing, international destinations. They all started with far less than we had at the Port. And guess what? Housing is growing around these attractions. Organnically, as demanded and profitably. Just not profitably in the biog, fat, winner takes all right now and then we're outta here type of profitability favoured by smart, aggressive developers like Multiplex adn Urban Construct\, and allowed to happen by dumb, aggressive State Govt Ministers like.... (names withheld because they probably can't help themselves anyway)

Sadly, the news for the Port will only get worse. I had the pleasure of listening to a guy from Flinders Ports explain that they were not interested in seeing a pleasure boat armada grow in the Port, because their presence increased risk for commerical shipping in the Port River (Accolade, conatiner ships etc). I asked him if FP was putting pressure on the developer and govt to reduce small boat numbers in the area. 'We're doing what we can,' he said.

Welcome to the New Port - planned by profiteers and approved by idiots.

Next thing is they'll be wondering why there is a developing consumer resistance to their product. If I were going to live round those parts, I would far rather live in Marina Adelaide or North Haven, where boat ownership is practical and where I would have good access to shops and other facilities than in the Port.

[Redback20]

I'm no civil engineer either SJ but check out the 45 storey towers in london docklands, built literally on the thames never mind the mud. There's obviously ways & means to sink large stable concrete footings for such towers. In fact thinking on, never mind london... check out Dubai, 'scrapers built on sand

[AG]

Almost any type of soil can be made to support heavy structures if done correctly, the foundations and pilings are just designed differently to spread the load across a larger area to prevent heavy buildings from sinking or tilting. In Shanghai the soil conditions are so bad that some buildings there have some of the deepest foundations in the world, yet they still build some of the tallest and heaviest. (I am studying Civil and Structural Engineering )

[Ho Really]

...Welcome to the New Port - planned by profiteers and approved by idiots...

The idiots being the government...sad.

Cheers

[how_good_is_he]

Well Stumpjumper, why hasn't any other govt [or anybody else] put up an alternative for the site in say, THE LAST 50 YEARS?

And if there was so much PROFIT, why wasn't there a massive list of developers fighting to develop the site? In fact nobody wanted to touch it.

But as soon as someone has a go, you get the armchair experts who say we could have done better - so why didn't they when they had the chance?