I'm really in two minds about residential development on the site.zippySA wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:46 amThis really must go down as one of the greatest government mis-management fiasco's in SA history. This site was confirmed as being vacant in 2009 when they signed the new RAH contract - and they have even had an extra 18 months to prepare, and now, less than a month after moving out - we have nothing confirmed except that tax-payers will be footing an enormous bill to demolish and clear the site (I thought when announced that "tax-payers will not pay a cent for this magnificent development" or words to that effect).
My guess is nothing will happen now until after March 2018 when we figure out who is in power (Libs, Labour or Nick X) and then they can start planning something real.
I remain totally opposed to residential on this site though so am not overly disappointed to see 1200+ apartment deal fall over. We have an entire square mile of CBD including the entire S-W quadrant and more that could be developed for 100+ years for residential, without permanently creating apartments oddly placed outside of the square mile. Construct civic buildings by all means, but not residential.
I completely understand and agree with your argument about there being so much undeveloped land within the CBD proper that would be suitable for residential development in the future, therefore building residential outside of the square mile would be a mistake.
However, I'm also of a belief that for this redevelopment to be successful, it needs to create spaces that people want to spend time in. There's no point building fantastic public spaces if they turn into lifeless wastelands at 5pm when the art gallery/museum/whatever-happens-to-be-built closes (The same goes for night time focused activities if they're dead wastelands during the day). Whatever is developed on the site should be a catalyst for making this area a major drawcard for the city.
Numerous developments interstate and overseas have shown that incorporating residential into these kinds of developments is one of the best ways of ensuring that they don't turn into lifeless wastelands. People living on site by default means that there will be people around 24/7.
That's not to say that I support 1200 apartments being built on site. Personally, I think that it's the lazy way of ensuring 24/7 activity on site. Properly designed public spaces should incorporate things that will attract people throughout the day. Cafes for breakfast, attractions for the day, restaurants for dinner, attractions or events for the evening. These would help to ensure that there are always people around.
Private apartments would also help to subsidise the public spaces being developed, potentially allowing higher quality/better public spaces to be built.
I don't support building apartments on site, but at the same time I wouldn't be completely outraged if they do end up being built as I could understand the reasoning behind it.