[SWP] Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

[ml69]

If we want to build an iconic modern art gallery, I am of the belief that we should build it on an iconic site. I think the best site is the Government House lawns on the corner of KW St and North Tce. What's the point of view of building an icon of it's not highly visible?
The Festival Theatre and Adelaide Oval are icons of Adelaide and are perfectly located on highly visible sites.

[floplo]

If we want to build an iconic modern art gallery, I am of the belief that we should build it on an iconic site. I think the best site is the Government House lawns on the corner of KW St and North Tce. What's the point of view of building an icon of it's not highly visible?
The Festival Theatre and Adelaide Oval are icons of Adelaide and are perfectly located on highly visible sites.

Actually, I would prefer using Parade ground including taking out Victoria Drive to go all the way to the river. Would create a nice triangle with Oval and Convention / Festival centres. Additionally, turn the remaining Victoria drive between Kintore and Frome into something more pedestrian and interesting (maybe let the university move all the way down to the water), allowing a second link between the old RAH site and the main riverbank besides North Terrace

[Patrick_27]

If we want to build an iconic modern art gallery, I am of the belief that we should build it on an iconic site. I think the best site is the Government House lawns on the corner of KW St and North Tce. What's the point of view of building an icon of it's not highly visible?
The Festival Theatre and Adelaide Oval are icons of Adelaide and are perfectly located on highly visible sites.

Actually, I would prefer using Parade ground including taking out Victoria Drive to go all the way to the river. Would create a nice triangle with Oval and Convention / Festival centres. Additionally, turn the remaining Victoria drive between Kintore and Frome into something more pedestrian and interesting (maybe let the university move all the way down to the water), allowing a second link between the old RAH site and the main riverbank besides North Terrace

Good luck with those ideas, they're two SA's most historically significant buildings. The RAH site would be perfect and if it's located within view of Frome Road or North Terrace, there is no reason it can't stand out.

[Patrick_27]

I'm just going to say it... I'm completely against the idea of apartments and more offices in the parklands. First of all, our office occupancy rate in the city is still rubbish so I don't know where the government hope to pull tenants for these buildings from, and the apartments... Well, don't even get me started. There are a couple of buildings/sites that will sure enough be vacated on the east when the hospital moves, the site on the corner or Frome Street and North Terrace (immediately next to the Budget Car Hire) will be one of these sites, why can't these be used for the residential component? Traditionally I've supported Labor on in decision making but they seem to want to push buttons with concepts they have for the chunks of parkland that have been developed for PUBLIC use. There are so many different things this site could be used for, it genuinely fucks me off that this government are always trying to find commercial arrangements to soften the blow to their finances. If they weren't confident they could cough up the money to remediate this site, why did spend so much moving the RAH to a site that could have been remediated for a fraction of the cost and instead invest the money into a complete hospital upgrade on the current site? Don't get me wrong, I think the APPA are a bunch of Morons and I happily debate with them on this fact, but this is the kind of stuff I'd want to see become an election issue if they were serious about it...

[Algernon]

I'm just going to say it... I'm completely against the idea of apartments and more offices in the parklands. First of all, our office occupancy rate in the city is still rubbish so I don't know where the government hope to pull tenants for these buildings from, and the apartments... Well, don't even get me started. There are a couple of buildings/sites that will sure enough be vacated on the east when the hospital moves, the site on the corner or Frome Street and North Terrace (immediately next to the Budget Car Hire) will be one of these sites, why can't these be used for the residential component? Traditionally I've supported Labor on in decision making but they seem to want to push buttons with concepts they have for the chunks of parkland that have been developed for PUBLIC use. There are so many different things this site could be used for, it genuinely fucks me off that this government are always trying to find commercial arrangements to soften the blow to their finances. If they weren't confident they could cough up the money to remediate this site, why did spend so much moving the RAH to a site that could have been remediated for a fraction of the cost and instead invest the money into a complete hospital upgrade on the current site? Don't get me wrong, I think the APPA are a bunch of Morons and I happily debate with them on this fact, but this is the kind of stuff I'd want to see become an election issue if they were serious about it...

The glut in office space is always the C and D range for lil old Adelaide. Usually hovering around 18% vacancy in that market. Premium space is usaully much better, but at the moment 7% vacancy is nothing too flash either. But building a new premo building does nothing to the glut of C and D space. It can't. If you're in the market for premium then that's what you buy. If Adelaide wants to address its long term recession level vacancy rates in office space then it need proactive policies to convert the C and D stock in to residential uses.

[crawf]

What constitutes the grading of office stock?. Would for example, the ANZ building be an A-grade building?, and the GHD Building on Grenfell a D-grade building?

If Adelaide wants to address its long term recession level vacancy rates in office space then it need proactive policies to convert the C and D stock in to residential uses.

Or demolished. I would love to see the wrecking ball on half the buildings along Grenfell Street.

[ChillyPhilly]

ACC predictably arguing over the future of the site - meaninglessly.

http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/0 ... astrophic/

[crawf]

ACC predictably arguing over the future of the site - meaninglessly.

http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/0 ... astrophic/

And this motion got rejected.

As it should.

[Patrick_27]

ACC predictably arguing over the future of the site - meaninglessly.

http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/0 ... astrophic/

And this motion got rejected.

As it should.

Why? The motion was fair.

This site should have commercial uses but the sale of public land? Give me a fucking break. Pure laziness from our government who simply can't be bothered with upping commercial lease agreements. There is plenty of nearby opportunities for residential development, people do NOT need to be living on the parklands to give this site life.

[claybro]

ACC predictably arguing over the future of the site - meaninglessly.

http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/0 ... astrophic/

And this motion got rejected.

As it should.

Why? The motion was fair.

This site should have commercial uses but the sale of public land? Give me a fucking break. Pure laziness from our government who simply can't be bothered with upping commercial lease agreements. There is plenty of nearby opportunities for residential development, people do NOT need to be living on the parklands to give this site life.

Why shouldn't people live in the parklands, in buildings already there on the same site. Surely people paying handsomely to live there is a way to generate revenue for the refurbishment of the rest of the site. What is the difference between hundreds of residents in apartments built into the existing buildings and the hundreds of hospital patients, nurses, doctors etc that have slept on the site for the last hundred years or so? Is it that we resent rich folk being allowed to buy into a parklands lifestyle while the rest of us cant? Is their money not as good as a developer who will revamp the site and put some tacky commercial component in there. For the record, I would definitely be against new apartment towers on the site, but surely some tasteful apartments and hotel rooms into the existing heritage buildings would work. The alternative I fear is a derelict site for decades to come.

[Wayno]

Successful bidder announcement later this month. Shhh, it's a secret.

[how good is he]

Any update on this Wayno? My guess is Commercial & General but have heard the Govt may itself be involved to JV it? Anyway if there are apartments/hotels built here for sale would the forum agree this would be the best location/development out of all the other off the plan apartments now on the market? Curious to know what if any potential sites/locations would be superior?

[Wayno]

I'm hoping for a Magic Mountain replica, staffed by people with mullets.

[thecityguy]

I would agree, close to east end, along north terrace and the potential to have pretty nice apartment views looking back towards the city


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[floplo]

well, if you don't want to sell it off as private residences there is always the university-owned student housing option....
likely architectural disaster but at least it's a public one, not a private one...