[CAN] 51-57 Hutt Street | 49m | 13 Levels | Mixed

[wilkiebarkid]

So yeah, the next time someone wants to call me a NIMBY for believing that the loss of heritage and character buildings should be limited where possible, you can now perhaps understand where I am coming from with this...

These heritage cottages, bungalows, villas etc abound in the immediate suburban areas. Anyone who thinks that one level old buildings such as these should survive in a developing CBD are simply unrealistic when it comes to the commercial values of the real estate and their development potential and importance.

True Heritage buildings (by Australian standards) that will be preserved, are the likes of the grand buildings on North Terrace, GPO, Treasury etc.

This is not London, Paris, Rome etc. Get a grip.

[HiTouch]

So yeah, the next time someone wants to call me a NIMBY for believing that the loss of heritage and character buildings should be limited where possible, you can now perhaps understand where I am coming from with this...

These heritage cottages, bungalows, villas etc abound in the immediate suburban areas. Anyone who thinks that one level old buildings such as these should survive in a developing CBD are simply unrealistic when it comes to the commercial values of the real estate and their development potential and importance.

True Heritage buildings (by Australian standards) that will be preserved, are the likes of the grand buildings on North Terrace, GPO, Treasury etc.

This is not London, Paris, Rome etc. Get a grip.

You’re wrong though. Every CBD I know (yes, even in China) has an element of heritage niceties in their CBDs. I dont know who in their right mind would desire a carpark more then a cottage. There’s no “commercial value” in it.

[SouthAussie94]

But it comes down to assessing each development (and the demolition that occurs prior) on its own merits.

Demolish old stone cottages in the CBD to build a 13 story apartment building, probably not the worst thing to happen.

Demolish the same old stone cottages to build an open car park, definitely not okay.

[wilkiebarkid]

So yeah, the next time someone wants to call me a NIMBY for believing that the loss of heritage and character buildings should be limited where possible, you can now perhaps understand where I am coming from with this...

These heritage cottages, bungalows, villas etc abound in the immediate suburban areas. Anyone who thinks that one level old buildings such as these should survive in a developing CBD are simply unrealistic when it comes to the commercial values of the real estate and their development potential and importance.

True Heritage buildings (by Australian standards) that will be preserved, are the likes of the grand buildings on North Terrace, GPO, Treasury etc.

This is not London, Paris, Rome etc. Get a grip.

You’re wrong though. Every CBD I know (yes, even in China) has an element of heritage niceties in their CBDs. I dont know who in their right mind would desire a carpark more then a cottage. There’s no “commercial value” in it.

This result is not deliberate. No one demolishes buildings such as these to establish a f carpark. Something has happened which has obviously cost the original developer a fair bit of money.

[Patrick_27]

These heritage cottages, bungalows, villas etc abound in the immediate suburban areas. Anyone who thinks that one level old buildings such as these should survive in a developing CBD are simply unrealistic when it comes to the commercial values of the real estate and their development potential and importance.

True Heritage buildings (by Australian standards) that will be preserved, are the likes of the grand buildings on North Terrace, GPO, Treasury etc.

This is not London, Paris, Rome etc. Get a grip.

You’re wrong though. Every CBD I know (yes, even in China) has an element of heritage niceties in their CBDs. I dont know who in their right mind would desire a carpark more then a cottage. There’s no “commercial value” in it.

This result is not deliberate. No one demolishes buildings such as these to establish a f carpark. Something has happened which has obviously cost the original developer a fair bit of money.

Which comes down to the fact that demolition approval should never have been granted if the building wasn't ready to go in terms of sales and financing.

[Ser Noit of Loit]

So yeah, the next time someone wants to call me a NIMBY for believing that the loss of heritage and character buildings should be limited where possible, you can now perhaps understand where I am coming from with this...

These heritage cottages, bungalows, villas etc abound in the immediate suburban areas. Anyone who thinks that one level old buildings such as these should survive in a developing CBD are simply unrealistic when it comes to the commercial values of the real estate and their development potential and importance.

True Heritage buildings (by Australian standards) that will be preserved, are the likes of the grand buildings on North Terrace, GPO, Treasury etc.

This is not London, Paris, Rome etc. Get a grip.

So because we're not an older European city we shouldn't try to preserve our own history where we can? We can't protect heritage that isn't deemed true heritage? Why knock down heritage buildings at all when there are plenty of more modern ones that don't hold the same value? The west end has plenty of depressing sites that no-one would miss. Start with them. Adelaide has a lot of empty space for development. We're hardly a the point where we need to knock down heritage buildings because we're short for space.

[urban]

You’re wrong though. Every CBD I know (yes, even in China) has an element of heritage niceties in their CBDs. I dont know who in their right mind would desire a carpark more then a cottage. There’s no “commercial value” in it.

This result is not deliberate. No one demolishes buildings such as these to establish a f carpark. Something has happened which has obviously cost the original developer a fair bit of money.

Which comes down to the fact that demolition approval should never have been granted if the building wasn't ready to go in terms of sales and financing.

The houses would have been demolished at the earliest chance to minimise the opportunity for them to be listed or for community outrage to develop. Standard risk management procedure within the industry. (Not a good practice just a common one)

[Nort]

This result is not deliberate. No one demolishes buildings such as these to establish a f carpark. Something has happened which has obviously cost the original developer a fair bit of money.

Yeah, it's not like Adelaide has a history of buildings being knocked down for car parks.

[Nathan]

In bold, the council has only issued a meaningless $750 fine and are set to give development approval. Weak as shit.

CBD site of demolished cottages has been unlawfully used as a car park
https://outline.com/nUyEkV

A company headed by Adelaide’s notorious “carpark king” Damian Lester has been operating an open-air carpark, without approvals, on a CBD site where two historic cottages were demolished for an apartment development that was later abandoned.

The unlawful use of the Hutt St land has continued, despite warnings from Adelaide City Council.

The site on the corner of Hutt and Ifould streets was to be used for the $18 million, 41-apartment Opus development.

To make way for the construction, two 1880s bluestone cottages were razed, despite being in good condition.

In November, The Advertiser revealed that the Opus project had been shelved and Park Fast had lodged an application for a metered carpark, which will be assessed today.

A council spokeswoman said an enforcement notice was issued on January 24, directing the owner of the land, Proton Developments (SA), to “cease the unauthorised use and secure the land to prevent unauthorised use of operation”.

“This direction was to be complied with by COB 25 January 2019,” she said.

An inspection after that found the site was properly secured. But on Friday, it was “illegally occupied” again.

“The council will advise the owner that they have not complied with the direction in the notice and remind them of their obligation to prevent this breach from occurring,” the spokeswoman said.

The council will issue a fine of $750 to Proton Developments for the non-compliance.

However, the situation is likely to change today because the council’s assessment panel is set to give development approval for a private carpark.

The recommendation to the panel is to grant Park Fast a permit to operate a carpark for two years.

Company records show Park Fast’s sole shareholder, director and secretary is Damian Lester, once known as Adelaide’s “carpark king” for issuing bogus fines that mimicked official council ones.

A representative of Park Fast declined to comment on the application or the site.

Proton Developments director Dr Nikitas Vrodos said he was not well “informed” about the unauthorised carparking issue, as he had a project manager look after the site, but was aware of the assessment meeting today.

Councillor Alexander Hyde, who notified council staff of the unauthorised use, said: “If this ugly patch of asphalt is allowed to generate a revenue stream, it’ll sit like this for years. This behaviour needs to be stamped out.”

[[Shuz]]

Absolutely pathetic. They really need to make the planning laws stronger concerning demolition of heritage assets (Even if it is not state or local listed, but for buildings deemed to be of architectural or historical significance).

[noted]

Couldn't agree with you more. Don't know what it is about Hutt Street, but this and August Towers have both been farcical.

[Patrick_27]

Couldn't agree with you more. Don't know what it is about Hutt Street, but this and August Towers have both been farcical.

Probably because property along that strip is all that small-time, dodgy developers can afford.

THIS is why buildings shouldn't be bulldozed for development until there is sound reason for doing so. I recall so many comments on here of people excited to see these make way for the original development, completely disregarding the fact that the two cottages had far more street appeal and had a lot of history behind them. Had the developer had any credibility, then maybe it was justified, but had anyone on here bothered to check out the track record for the company behind this proposal?

[Nort]

Allowing them to profit from breaking the rules is an awful precedent. They should be charging them to keep the site neat and tidy under it's ready to be used.

[Allkai]

Carpark approval denied......

[YellowRoad]

Carpark approval denied......

Great result. Was the recommendation planning consent? If so pretty poor by whoever the assessing officer was..