News & Discussion: Adelaide City Council

[Bob]

This latest thinking from ACC is plain wrong. Trying to bring up an old idea that is backwards.

As part of the City Access project for the O’Bahn, both East Terrace and Rundle Road were redeveloped in parts which allowed for an additional 50+ on street car parks in the area for a trade off in removing the majority of buses from these sections, improving pedestrian and cycling paths, improved greenery etc. Also allowing the correct width for a future tram extensions. The balance is about right around that area now.

Why then do we want to create a dangerous situation and start having parking in the middle of Rundle Road? Why, when Adelaide CBD already has the same amount of car parking spaces in car parking stations as Sydney & Melbourne combined?

The ACC & the State Govt need to work together to move ahead the Rail Loop, Inner City Tram extensions, finish the main Cycle routes and green the streets in the CBD, not start clogging up recently developed areas with more unnecessary cars.

I also think it's time to rethink the Adelaide Public Transport Fare structure.

Saturday should be changed to 'Off-Peak' away from the current 'Peak' – this would align all weekend & public holidays periods to 'Off Peak', making it easier for people to know they can travel to the city without being whacked top rate, this may help in increasing weekend shoppers & other visitors on Saturdays in the city centre, as Sunday is still a letdown in the city for some who don’t like the later opening hours of the bigger stores and don’t like the fact so many boutique retailers are closed for the day.

I wrote to both the Labor and Liberal leaders during last year’s election campaign re this, I got no response from one and got added to the propaganda email list for the guy who become Premier, but no response from him or his team either on the topic I raised.

[Bob]

Bring back the grand central hotel.

http://www.adelaideheritage.net.au/all- ... ral-hotel/

Maybe it’s time to consider a long term plan to make Rundle Street East a Mall, it could be done in two stages over a period of years, the first stage from Frome Street to East Terrace and the second stage from Pulteney Street to Frome Street.

North South traffic corridors of Pulteney Street, Frome Street and East Terrace would remain open at all times. Side lanes, although becoming no thru lanes would still be accessible from other streets (e.g. North Terrace, Grenfell Street), like Gawler Place is, in relation to Rundle Mall now.

As car access would no longer be possible on Rundle Street East itself, the Rundle Street ACC owned UPark car park would need to be closed, demolished and replaced with a suitable ‘statement’ building as others have eluded to on this forum, the Wilson Centrepoint Car Park (Target) would also need to be closed and replaced with more suitable retail / entertainment expansions.

The section between Frome Street and East Terrace has been tried many times over the years with temporary road closures going back to the days when the F1 GP was held in Adelaide up to as recently as last weekend for the Fringe Festival festivities, to make this permanent would open up all sorts of options. BTW these closures have always created a significant increase in people numbers in the area hanging around after the main event, and spending $$$ at local offerings. It creates a great party atmosphere where people want to go. That area could move up a notch as the real eating & dining centre of excellence in that configuration. It would become a significant attraction that would have a different feel than the the retail end of the existing Rundle Mall. Lots of trees, tables and food spaces for demos and spaces for pop up markets - all in the middle of what is now Rundle Street East, the options become limitless.

[Patrick_27]

Bring back the grand central hotel.

http://www.adelaideheritage.net.au/all- ... ral-hotel/

As car access would no longer be possible on Rundle Street East itself, the Rundle Street ACC owned UPark car park would need to be closed, demolished and replaced with a suitable ‘statement’ building as others have eluded to on this forum, the Wilson Centrepoint Car Park (Target) would also need to be closed and replaced with more suitable retail / entertainment expansions.

Yeah, because local government totally has the power to tell Target they need to close a revenue stream of their Rundle Street site...

I think closing Rundle Street would do more damage than good. The mall itself is still trying to fill itself out, and Rundle Street has established itself as a finish precinct, turning it into a mall would ruin that and only open up more shopfronts for retailers that simply aren't there.

[how good is he]

I agree. Plus with both their own U-park (plus Targets) they will never close it. The best outcome may be during summer/spring to do what they do over Fringe - close it from Frome St to East Tce only on Fri night, Sat & Sun.

[Llessur2002]

Access to and from the Wilson and, if necessary, UPark car parks could still be maintained off of Pulteney Street - it's only a 50m stretch of road which doesn't have any particular businesses crying out for on-street dining.

Pedestrianisation could just begin from Sushi King/Brunelli's westwards.

Both carparks already operate on a left-in, left-out basis so they shouldn't be hindered by a slightly different single route in and out. Alternatively, York Street looks like it could be a potential alternative access/exit point for the UPark with only minor alterations.

However, remove the UPark from the area and the traffic arrangements become very simple indeed...

[crawf]

Adelaide City Council proposal would discourage balconies above level 1 on new buildings
MARCH 18, 2019
The Advertiser
https://outline.com/N4fgH3

An Adelaide City Council proposal to discourage protruding balconies on new multistorey buildings will put a handbrake on the city and is “unjustified and bizarre” key property and development lobby groups claim.

The council is set to finalise changes to its encroachment policy, to “reinforce the retention of the city’s strong building edge”.

Council staff are recommending that protruding balconies beyond first floors on new buildings be discouraged to retain the city’s “ strong visual built form”.

Property Council SA executive director Daniel Gannon said if the change was accepted by councillors, it would effectively remove the opportunity to develop balconies above the first floor.


Property Council SA executive director Daniel Gannon said the discouragement of balconies was a “strange pitch”.

Lord Mayor Sandy Verschoor will gauge opinions on the proposed change on Tuesday night. Picture: AAP / Brenton Edwards
“At a time when the council is encouraging South Australians to trade-in their suburban backyards for inner-city balconies, it is seeking to remove balconies above the first floor,” he said.

“It’s a strange pitch to future residents given the Lord Mayor’s positive and welcomed plan this week to target Millennials to call the Adelaide CBD home.

“Balconies can, when designed with sensitivity to their streetscape, enhance the public realm and strengthen the character and identity of Adelaide, as the council’s draft policy seeks to achieve. If the council proceeds down this unjustified and bizarre pathway, it will apply a handbrake to its own ambition to increase the residential population living in the city.”

UDIA SA boss Pat Gerace said it could have impacts such as reducing the number of apartment developments in the city.

“It will reduce the floor size, which then reduces the ability of what the developer can offer which ultimately affects the viability of the project,” he said.

“This seems to be a blanket view on encroachment where they don’t want it.

“It doesn’t make sense to me why they are going down this path.”

Developments that have taken advantage of the current policy to have encroaching balconies include Kodo on Angas St and Bohem on Wright St.

Lord Mayor Sandy Verschoor said she wanted to gauge the views of other councillors at a Tuesday night meeting on the proposed change.

[SRW]

I can imagine there may be some situations where protrusions may be undesirable. For instance, I don't like the metallic thing that solely sticks out from the Bendigo & Adelaide Bank on Grenfell Street. But I'm not sure the aim of enforcing a 'city wall' effect throughout the whole of the city is itself well-reasoned. Seems that we might be missing out on more interesting architecture in a misguided attempt to reflect the city's grid plan. I'd rather the council put in place a stronger setback/stepback policy so that we don't end up with so many boxes for buildings with blank walls to boot. As far as balconies go, given we want to encourage not only residential construction but construction of liveable residences, I hope council pays mind to unintended consequences.

For example of the protruded balconies on the street grid, reposting Ben's photo of Kodo:

[floplo]

? What's wrong with this idea? Sure, it might bring more cars into the city, but until private vehicles are matched with adequate/reliable public transport, I don't think we can expect people to go without. And this is coming from someone who rides a bike, rides on PT and wants to see an expansion of our train/tram network in favour of a low-dependancy on car CBD.

No one is "going without". If they encourage the idea of free parking in the city, they're going to have a hell of a time getting people away from it in the future.

This is also a council that is debating whether it's worth spending money on the aquatic centre, but then willing to forgo a major income stream in an effort to offset the local rags insistence that there's an ACC led "war on cars".

Isn't Target already validating the first hour of parking in the Wilson parking one?

[SBD]

I can imagine there may be some situations where protrusions may be undesirable. For instance, I don't like the metallic thing that solely sticks out from the Bendigo & Adelaide Bank on Grenfell Street. But I'm not sure the aim of enforcing a 'city wall' effect throughout the whole of the city is itself well-reasoned. Seems that we might be missing out on more interesting architecture in a misguided attempt to reflect the city's grid plan. I'd rather the council put in place a stronger setback/stepback policy so that we don't end up with so many boxes for buildings with blank walls to boot. As far as balconies go, given we want to encourage not only residential construction but construction of liveable residences, I hope council pays mind to unintended consequences.

For example of the protruded balconies on the street grid, reposting Ben's photo of Kodo:

Do all of Kodo's balconies protrude into the street space, or only the bottom three?

[SRW]

I can imagine there may be some situations where protrusions may be undesirable. For instance, I don't like the metallic thing that solely sticks out from the Bendigo & Adelaide Bank on Grenfell Street. But I'm not sure the aim of enforcing a 'city wall' effect throughout the whole of the city is itself well-reasoned. Seems that we might be missing out on more interesting architecture in a misguided attempt to reflect the city's grid plan. I'd rather the council put in place a stronger setback/stepback policy so that we don't end up with so many boxes for buildings with blank walls to boot. As far as balconies go, given we want to encourage not only residential construction but construction of liveable residences, I hope council pays mind to unintended consequences.

For example of the protruded balconies on the street grid, reposting Ben's photo of Kodo:

Do all of Kodo's balconies protrude into the street space, or only the bottom three?

Tbh, I'm unsure but giving this example from the article the benefit of the doubt as I can't recall Bohem's balconies being past the boundary.

[[Shuz]]

I wasn't aware that there was such a glaring loophole that allowed a developer to build balconies into the airspace of what is council land. Stick within the property boundaries.

And I agree, there needs to be some stricter rules around shadowing over park lands, building setbacks and plot ratios.

[Llessur2002]

How does this work? I thought the Council didn't have any say in the planning process for $10M+ developments any more. Or do they still have some sway over design, setback etc?

[SRW]

How does this work? I thought the Council didn't have any say in the planning process for $10M+ developments any more. Or do they still have some sway over design, setback etc?

IIRC, except for when the minister intervenes, the city council is still responsible for the development plan and policies which the SCAP assesses proposals against. They're just now excluded from conducting the assessments themselves (over $10m).

[Algernon]

I can imagine there may be some situations where protrusions may be undesirable. For instance, I don't like the metallic thing that solely sticks out from the Bendigo & Adelaide Bank on Grenfell Street. But I'm not sure the aim of enforcing a 'city wall' effect throughout the whole of the city is itself well-reasoned. Seems that we might be missing out on more interesting architecture in a misguided attempt to reflect the city's grid plan. I'd rather the council put in place a stronger setback/stepback policy so that we don't end up with so many boxes for buildings with blank walls to boot. As far as balconies go, given we want to encourage not only residential construction but construction of liveable residences, I hope council pays mind to unintended consequences.

For example of the protruded balconies on the street grid, reposting Ben's photo of Kodo:

Do all of Kodo's balconies protrude into the street space, or only the bottom three?

Tbh, I'm unsure but giving this example from the article the benefit of the doubt as I can't recall Bohem's balconies being past the boundary.

Don't know about these 2 buildings, but the balconies on the student building on the corner of Austin St and North Terrace certainly hang over the street.

[ChillyPhilly]

I feel this proposed ACC measure is to curtail greedy developers who overstep their boundaries (literally and metaphorically).