News & Developments: Port Adelaide

[I Follow PAFC]

Over 80% of the first releases have now been sold!

We've been overwhelmed by the warmth, enthusiasm and support of the community since we launched in February. Our first purchasers include first home buyers, young families and mature couples, reflecting the diverse community that we’re aiming to create. We're looking forward to continuing on this journey with you all, and sharing in all of the exciting aspects of this extraordinary address.[

https://www.facebook.com/fletchersslip/
/quote]

[Honey of a City]

Last Friday the Heritage Council considered all submissions and recommended the permanent heritage listing of Shed 26, which would save it from demolition. The Minister responsible then required the Heritage Council to defer its listing while he considers matters of “public interest” outside of the Heritage Places Act. Will be Interesting to see which “public” he’s referring to.

[rev]

Screw the derelict shed. Knock it down.
Where were these people trying to "save it" all these years? Same with a lot of these types of things that pop up, they only seem to get attention from people who want to "save" them when there's plans to demolish and replace them. Till that happens they seem to be happy to sit back silently while things fall apart, and this so called "heritage" doesn't concern them.

[claybro]

Screw the derelict shed. Knock it down.
Where were these people trying to "save it" all these years? Same with a lot of these types of things that pop up, they only seem to get attention from people who want to "save" them when there's plans to demolish and replace them. Till that happens they seem to be happy to sit back silently while things fall apart, and this so called "heritage" doesn't concern them.

While I kind of understand your point, until something is earmarked for demolition, what action is there to protest about? Its hard to protest about genteel decay over decades. It is the demolition itself that they are protesting about, and if this only came to light with this development, then it is understandable that people suddenly arced up. Yes this is a fairly average shed appearance wise, but there is a tendency for developers to be really lazy about retaining existing buildings and infrastructure, which with a bit of thought can turn a bland little boxes development, into something a bit more interesting. I actually blame local councils. They should enact regulations that any unused property after say 5 years, the rates increase year on year until they are either occupied, restored or sold on.

[Honey of a City]

Screw the derelict shed. Knock it down.
Where were these people trying to "save it" all these years? Same with a lot of these types of things that pop up, they only seem to get attention from people who want to "save" them when there's plans to demolish and replace them. Till that happens they seem to be happy to sit back silently while things fall apart, and this so called "heritage" doesn't concern them.

The developer bought the shed from the SA Government, and up until December last year they were releasing copious promotional material which included the shed in situ. So why would anyone be campaigning to stop its demolition when it was never on the cards? Now the developer is using the cost of dealing with the asbestos roof as an excuse for demolition. They either didn’t do due diligence prior to purchase or they were deliberately concealing their plans to demolish. There were a record number of submissions to heritage list the site. Maybe you could read some of those to update your knowledge.

[Sephiroth_FF]

Aldi is open as of the 19th. It's the only shop open in the new part of the shopping centre so far (there are signs for new retailers due to open though). The counters where the staff place your groceries after scanning them are a lot longer at this one.

There's a new article (behind a paywall) stating most retailers won't reopen in the new shopping centre. Rite Price has been demolished and The Reject Shop is closed. There are no signs but they probably won't reopen. Star Fashion SA and National Pharmacies aren't reopening. The newsagent had 50% off so they're probably gone too. Bendigo Bank and the post office are moving to the new centre.

[Mpol03]

Honestly a lot of those retailers did not fit into the direction the new centre is taking so sad to see them go but onto bigger and better.

[rev]

Screw the derelict shed. Knock it down.
Where were these people trying to "save it" all these years? Same with a lot of these types of things that pop up, they only seem to get attention from people who want to "save" them when there's plans to demolish and replace them. Till that happens they seem to be happy to sit back silently while things fall apart, and this so called "heritage" doesn't concern them.

While I kind of understand your point, until something is earmarked for demolition, what action is there to protest about? Its hard to protest about genteel decay over decades. It is the demolition itself that they are protesting about, and if this only came to light with this development, then it is understandable that people suddenly arced up. Yes this is a fairly average shed appearance wise, but there is a tendency for developers to be really lazy about retaining existing buildings and infrastructure, which with a bit of thought can turn a bland little boxes development, into something a bit more interesting. I actually blame local councils. They should enact regulations that any unused property after say 5 years, the rates increase year on year until they are either occupied, restored or sold on.

What I was getting at was they didn't seem to want it heritage listed till this development arose and the intent to demolish it came to light.
If this shed meant so much to those people, they would have seen it's alleged heritage value before this development. Particularly since the redevelopment of the area around the harbor has been on the cards for well over a decade, and especially so when New Port happened.

[rev]

This is the shed in question yes? What heritage value does it add? What's so significant about this shed, as opposed to the Bianco sheds at Kilkenny that so many want demolished in favor of a TOD style development....?

[Nathan]

It's significant in size, and it's pretty much the last remaining evidence of the former dockyards (since so much of it was needlessly demolished). To me, one of the attractions of living in the Port should be its history as a working port. Remove all that, then what's the point? You may as well just go to West Lakes or similar.

Yes, it's incredibly run down as is, but retained and adapted, it can serve as an anchor to the community much like Plant 4 in Bowden. For the new developments in Port Adelaide to succeed, each area needs to retain something of the Port's identity.

[I Follow PAFC]

Why wasn't it demolish back in 2007 ?

[how good is he]

I think this whole argument comes down to money.
The Govt/Renewal SA sold this to the developer on the basis it wasn’t heritage/could be demolished (and was approved for such). Further, “the work involved in bringing the building up to a standard to meet current code requirements would cost an estimated $8 million”. So who should pay for this if it stays? I’m sure if the Govt/taxpayers pay the $8m, the developer would agree. To the forum/fellow taxpayers, would you agree to fund the $8m to keep/restore it/bring it to code?

[rev]

It's significant in size, and it's pretty much the last remaining evidence of the former dockyards (since so much of it was needlessly demolished). To me, one of the attractions of living in the Port should be its history as a working port. Remove all that, then what's the point? You may as well just go to West Lakes or similar.

Yes, it's incredibly run down as is, but retained and adapted, it can serve as an anchor to the community much like Plant 4 in Bowden. For the new developments in Port Adelaide to succeed, each area needs to retain something of the Port's identity.

The old warehouses near the police station where every second csr enthusiast has taken photos around should be retained amd adapted into other uses like apartments.

This though, I cant see the value in it.
I mean maybe at best you could create a marketplace there with some renovations and maybe some aditions(brickwork), but would it be suitable to the resi suburbia they are planning for the area?

And even with renovations and another use found, how extensive would they have to be, and how much of the original would be left.... and at what cost..would the cost be worth it.

[Llessur2002]

Opinion piece about Shed 26 from InDaily yesterday:

Saving Shed 26: why keeping this threatened building could rejuvenate the Port

With the future of another piece of Port Adelaide’s maritime heritage in the balance, historian Brian Samuels makes a case for the vast building to become the heart of a new precinct celebrating South Australian history.



Over my 50 years involvement in SA history circles I’ve watched enthusiasm for heritage tourism wax and wane. There’s been over-reliance on one-offs – think Jubilee 150, Australian Bicentenary, Centenary of Federation – to deliver significant funding.

What’s missing is a long-term commitment to funding and a blueprint to guide investment.

It is astonishing that after 183 years there is nowhere in the state that visitors – let alone our own citizens and students – can get an overview of our history. Such an overview that would excite interest and signpost heritage tourism attractions across the state. It would be a place where South Australia’s story could begin to be appreciated.

Much can be learnt from the state’s more than 350 museums and historical organisations, but the big picture is missing.

As I write, another opportunity to address this gap is threatened. The former main workshop of the Government Dockyard at Port Adelaide – the vast sawtooth-roofed Shed 26 – is the last surviving building of an enterprise that serviced ports across the state. It may be demolished for housing.

It and the adjacent Fletcher’s Dock sit next to a State Heritage Place, ‘The Fletcher’s Slip Precinct’. Managed as one, those sites represent the last chance to develop a ‘must-see’ Port attraction at a highly visible site in the Inner Harbour – a site where currently inaccessible, unique collections and significant vessels of the SA Maritime Museum and the clipper ship City of Adelaide could combine to form a lively and appealing precinct. Indeed, the entire Maritime Museum could relocate there and become the drawcard that old port cities like Fremantle, Liverpool and Glasgow have had the sense to create.

It could even become the Museum of South Australian History – a proposal going back to the 1930s – mentioned in the Government’s election platform.

If an Adelaide site proves too hard to find, where better than the Port?

Its history and heritage buildings encompass many major threads of the state’s story – commerce and industry, transport and communication, defence, and the wool and grain trade. Visitors could experience the Shed 26 precinct and cross the river to immerse themselves in streetscapes that are directly connected to that history, and aviation and railway museums that already have much to offer.

Waterfront housing is no tourist drawcard.

Much of the Port’s high-density redevelopment has performed poorly as an investment. An eye-catching, reborn maritime precinct with the right mix of commercial tenants and creative offerings could change all that. It could also put the state’s hidden heritage assets to work.

The author, Brian Samuels, was one of the founders of The Historical Society of SA in 1974 and had long careers with the History Trust of SA and more recently as Principal Heritage Officer, Heritage SA. In 2016 he received a South Australian Life-Long History Achievement Award.

From: https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2019/04/ ... -the-port/

[Honey of a City]

On Wednesday the Minister for Environment and Water, David Speirs, directed the Heritage Council to remove Shed 26 from the Heritage Register, clearing the way for its demolition, claiming that its listing and adaptive re-use would be “contrary to the public interest”. He asserts that listing on the Register would threaten the proposed housing development nearby. He also claims that the priority is to build housing in the Port for the future submarine and warships projects. Given that the developer recently trumpeted an astonishing uptake in pre-construction sales for their development adjacent the Shed, ie pre-sales to people who believed the Shed was to be retained for adaptive re-use, his decision is baffling. He has also set a very concerning precedent for heritage listing in the Port to be struck out using his interpretation of ‘public interest” as a ramrod. To date the developer hasn’t publicly released any concept plans or time frames for their proposed housing development on the Shed’s site once it’s demolished.