I take your point about buyer demand but in my mind it is reflective of the immaturity of the apartment market in Adelaide which the city has finally been dragged into kicking and screaming years after it has taken hold in eastern state capitals and Perth (and decades after North East Asia). Cities which have been growing population wise and economically more so than Adelaide.how good is he wrote:I think the govt has kept back 12 hectares/30% of the development to still be decided upon. However this could still come to little.... I guess while I understand your points about high rise, I am unsure if there is enough buyer demand to support it. Many owners still are deep underwater from prices paid for apartments some 6 - 8 years ago.
The New Port Quays era developments were overpriced ... simple as that. The apartments inside and out (and I know both the 5 story inc. car park Breeze etc. apartments near Ethelton Station and the 7 story inc. car park apartments above Portobello near the Hart Street Bridge) are ok but nothing special. Despite the waterfront and marina berths, these are apartments that should have been priced (upper) mid-range IMO. They are a nice place to live but IMO the quality of Korean apartments is much better especially at the higher end. And let's face it ... these apartments are right next to vast tracts of vacant land and currently not far from air pollution emitting industry. No-one even thought to ensure a direct walking link to Glanville Station from the Hart Street end apartments ... this is typical of the Australian short-term-cash-in development style. There are no shops within close walking distance. There has been no momentum in play for full development of the total area so no wonder prices have fallen off. These are general living apartments that should have been sold as such - not spruiked as luxury high end. Back into Ethelton behind New Port there are some nice older era houses but it is no Subiaco or Manuka.
It's a question of whether there is demand for luxury priced apartments which are arguably not actually such except in the developer's marketing, or if there is demand in place for regular priced apartments for 'regular' people seeking a location close to the sea and importantly adjacent to a currently 20 minutes morning express train line to the CBD. It's a conceptual thing I don't think Adelaide has experience of yet whereby well located high-ish rise apartments can act as housing options for people below the 'high end' watermark. (City international student accommodation mini-units don't count as proper longer term housing options.)
In South Korea mid-range/higher-end apartments are constructed by Chaebol (such as Posco, Hyundai, Samsung, etc.) and such companies ensure that the entire scope of a project is completed fully and in minimal time. They then brand the apartments so everyone knows that these apartments are for example I-Park (Hyundai) and their quality will be reflective of the Hyundai company as a whole. This gives confidence to those looking to invest in the areas surrounding the core development. The NPQ debacle never provided that, but they still tried to charge high end prices for their product, maybe looking to catch Chinese parking money offshore, who knows? Demand for their apartments is generated by SK property development companies by constructing quality high rise which accounts for an internal community, that are priced realistically for owner occupiers first and foremost, and are known to be part of projects undertaken by trusted companies who have well established reputations for delivering in full and completing projects in minimal time.
On what really is one of the most important waterfront development sites in Australia (and one of the most important sites in Adelaide) which has the potential to help elevate the city into being more than a provincial center, instead of an impressive development process and outcome we got a 20+ year mess. I've spent many of those 20+ years walking/driving over the Birkenhead/Hart St Bridges observing it all play out to not much. My parents eventually moved from their 1900's workers cottage a wind assisted Stewart Dew drop punt from this project to the eastern suburbs (partly because of the air quality in Birkenhead).
The new bridge that cut the trucks from the Port CBD, Black Diamond corner, Harts Mill being revitalized, even the Golden Port Tavern closing down ... all needed happen quicker than it did, just like the Brighton Cement Works needs to be addressed and the fertiliser plant needs to be relocated. But with a modest underwhelming development coming up there'll be little incentive to transform Birkenhead and Ethelton. These surrounding areas changing adds to the demand for the more centrally located apartments, but without any critical mass of population there's not many people to feed into the surrounding areas to support anything non-residential there. It's like the chicken and the egg.
I have a long connection to the Port, my sister still lives in the area (she used to live in Alberton for a long while). I also have a connection to that wider part of the city including the Taperoo. etc areas further out and the Hanson Rd areas closer in. But by pushing so hard for low rise (even lower than Harts Mill) the 'local residents' have possibly ensured that the Port area will be an exclusive enclave for a limited population. A sort of West Lakes suburb for those who already have a hold on the near-ish by beach front areas. My own preference is for an actual city environment rather than another suburb - and I guess the demand would probably be there from many in Adelaide who are looking for a less traditional conservative option if it was done right. That's my position anyway ...
Having said all that .... as far as apartments in Adelaide go New Port is great, and the top floor apartments are a cut above the others. The whole area is great to live in. My over-all point is that this new development plan that reduces the mid-rise right down limits who and what kinds of people can live there. I can understand it for the Port itself but for the surrounding areas it comes across to me as excessive conservatism with a touch of selfishness on the part of some locals (and semi-locals) who think they 'own' the whole area, not just their individual part of it.
