[CAN] 51 Pirie Street | 94m | 21 Levels | Hyatt

[matthawke]

Demolition of existing building approved you mean?

From the minutes @ 2.1.1:

RESOLVED

1. That the proposed development is NOT seriously at variance with the policies in the Development Plan.
2. That the State Commission Assessment Panel is satisfied that the proposal generally accords with the related Objectives and Principles of Development Control of the Adelaide (City) Development Plan consolidated 30 April 2020.
3. To grant Development Plan Consent to the proposal by CEL Development Pty Ltd, for the demolition of all buildings on site, including a Local Heritage (Townscape) Place and construction of a twenty-one (21) storey hotel building.
4. To delegate the approval of Reserved Matters to the administration including, but not limited to, the imposition of any additional Conditions which may be required.

[TheCrown1]

How is it that other cities are able to have and other developers & architects are able to create tall buildings clad entirely in glass, but we can't do that here?

Isn't the Adelaide City Council notorious for keeping Adelaide in the 70's?
Here in Melbourne we have the opposite problem, we are getting shocking things erected that don't even
resemble buildings.

[Algernon]

How is it that other cities are able to have and other developers & architects are able to create tall buildings clad entirely in glass, but we can't do that here?

Isn't the Adelaide City Council notorious for keeping Adelaide in the 70's?
Here in Melbourne we have the opposite problem, we are getting shocking things erected that don't even
resemble buildings.

50s actually. They're excited by this thing called the automobile

[SRW]

How is it that other cities are able to have and other developers & architects are able to create tall buildings clad entirely in glass, but we can't do that here?

Isn't the Adelaide City Council notorious for keeping Adelaide in the 70's?
Here in Melbourne we have the opposite problem, we are getting shocking things erected that don't even
resemble buildings.

The city council hasn't had power over developments of this scale for many years. They're assessed by an 'independent' state commission.

[Spurdo]

How is it that other cities are able to have and other developers & architects are able to create tall buildings clad entirely in glass, but we can't do that here?

Isn't the Adelaide City Council notorious for keeping Adelaide in the 70's?
Here in Melbourne we have the opposite problem, we are getting shocking things erected that don't even
resemble buildings.

50s actually. They're excited by this thing called the automobile

No offence meant here, but why do you people harp on about “the 50’s” being so bad? I mean, the 1940s were worse, and the 1960’s weren't much better plus the post war years (50’s though 70’s) were kind of the peak of South Australia’s relevancy. Anyways, no offence meant but I just think the 50’s kind of get a bad rap when there were many worse time periods.

[cmet]

Isn't the Adelaide City Council notorious for keeping Adelaide in the 70's?
Here in Melbourne we have the opposite problem, we are getting shocking things erected that don't even
resemble buildings.

50s actually. They're excited by this thing called the automobile

No offence meant here, but why do you people harp on about “the 50’s” being so bad? I mean, the 1940s were worse, and the 1960’s weren't much better plus the post war years (50’s though 70’s) were kind of the peak of South Australia’s relevancy. Anyways, no offence meant but I just think the 50’s kind of get a bad rap when there were many worse time periods.

He brought it up because that’s when cars become the norm...

[MR_T]

Anyone know when this will start???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheCrown1]

How is it that other cities are able to have and other developers & architects are able to create tall buildings clad entirely in glass, but we can't do that here?

Isn't the Adelaide City Council notorious for keeping Adelaide in the 70's?
Here in Melbourne we have the opposite problem, we are getting shocking things erected that don't even
resemble buildings.

The city council hasn't had power over developments of this scale for many years. They're assessed by an 'independent' state commission.

Ah I see, excuse my Victorian ignorance here. To further my ignorance here, has this body been a difficult road block in the way of larger developments? As an interstate observer, it surprises me the degree of scrutiny placed on developments such as this one. As well as the general hesitation for developments in the Adelaide CBD.

[Norman]

As well as the general hesitation for developments in the Adelaide CBD.

What makes you say that? Most developments that are proposed seem to be approved by SCAP. There is no harm in applying good scrutiny on projects if they don't meet the guidelines, which are already very relaxed. The main issue, in my opinion, is the large number of local families that own property in the city, but don't have the capital or marketing to attract the big players that are necessary to make great projects happen.

[Algernon]

Isn't the Adelaide City Council notorious for keeping Adelaide in the 70's?
Here in Melbourne we have the opposite problem, we are getting shocking things erected that don't even
resemble buildings.

The city council hasn't had power over developments of this scale for many years. They're assessed by an 'independent' state commission.

Ah I see, excuse my Victorian ignorance here. To further my ignorance here, has this body been a difficult road block in the way of larger developments? As an interstate observer, it surprises me the degree of scrutiny placed on developments such as this one. As well as the general hesitation for developments in the Adelaide CBD.

The exact opposite. The independent commission was introduced to take the power away from the Adelaide City council which blocked everything. Unfortunately I can't produce the old documents I have from 10 computers ago, but we're talking city wide development plans where 3/4 of the square mile had a 4-8 storey height limit and you were allowed a generous 18 storeys if you conformed to some pathetic triangle shaped height limit scheme that preserved the Santos (or whatever it's called now) building as the tallest building of all eternity. It was absolutely fucking pathetic. The independent commission was introduced with a trigger based on development value - once over that value, it automatically was assessed by the new body. To translate into Victorian, the commission is more akin to Matt Guy and the old council regime made John Wynn look like Matt Guy. The commission essentially approves everything - the reason why everything isn't built in Adelaide is because everything aint being proposed for various reasons - airport runway and huge land supply in the CBD area.

[SRW]

The city council hasn't had power over developments of this scale for many years. They're assessed by an 'independent' state commission.

Ah I see, excuse my Victorian ignorance here. To further my ignorance here, has this body been a difficult road block in the way of larger developments? As an interstate observer, it surprises me the degree of scrutiny placed on developments such as this one. As well as the general hesitation for developments in the Adelaide CBD.

The exact opposite. The independent commission was introduced to take the power away from the Adelaide City council which blocked everything. Unfortunately I can't produce the old documents I have from 10 computers ago, but we're talking city wide development plans where 3/4 of the square mile had a 4-8 storey height limit and you were allowed a generous 18 storeys if you conformed to some pathetic triangle shaped height limit scheme that preserved the Santos (or whatever it's called now) building as the tallest building of all eternity. It was absolutely fucking pathetic. The independent commission was introduced with a trigger based on development value - once over that value, it automatically was assessed by the new body. To translate into Victorian, the commission is more akin to Matt Guy and the old council regime made John Wynn look like Matt Guy. The commission essentially approves everything - the reason why everything isn't built in Adelaide is because everything aint being proposed for various reasons - airport runway and huge land supply in the CBD area.

The assessment commission and development plans are separate things. Even the SCAP assesses all applications against the city development plan. It just doesn't have the elected members of council to interpret things with a particular bent for this or that constituency. The real change for Adelaide came with the development plan amendments pushed through by the previous government (following the 30 year plan) to which metro councils were largely forced to acquiesce. Of course, the new planning system is due to come into force at some point (after several delays) that pretty much flattens individual area plans with a single set of rules for the state, more aligned with what you describe.

[MR_T]

You think this will start early next year?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Algernon]

Ah I see, excuse my Victorian ignorance here. To further my ignorance here, has this body been a difficult road block in the way of larger developments? As an interstate observer, it surprises me the degree of scrutiny placed on developments such as this one. As well as the general hesitation for developments in the Adelaide CBD.

The exact opposite. The independent commission was introduced to take the power away from the Adelaide City council which blocked everything. Unfortunately I can't produce the old documents I have from 10 computers ago, but we're talking city wide development plans where 3/4 of the square mile had a 4-8 storey height limit and you were allowed a generous 18 storeys if you conformed to some pathetic triangle shaped height limit scheme that preserved the Santos (or whatever it's called now) building as the tallest building of all eternity. It was absolutely fucking pathetic. The independent commission was introduced with a trigger based on development value - once over that value, it automatically was assessed by the new body. To translate into Victorian, the commission is more akin to Matt Guy and the old council regime made John Wynn look like Matt Guy. The commission essentially approves everything - the reason why everything isn't built in Adelaide is because everything aint being proposed for various reasons - airport runway and huge land supply in the CBD area.

The assessment commission and development plans are separate things. Even the SCAP assesses all applications against the city development plan. It just doesn't have the elected members of council to interpret things with a particular bent for this or that constituency. The real change for Adelaide came with the development plan amendments pushed through by the previous government (following the 30 year plan) to which metro councils were largely forced to acquiesce. Of course, the new planning system is due to come into force at some point (after several delays) that pretty much flattens individual area plans with a single set of rules for the state, more aligned with what you describe.

Points taken, however the changes were both introduced at the same time for the same reason, and actually, the DAC came in before any development plans were changed and was not strictly bound to local development controls - projects of 'state significance' and some such (which was the whole point of it at the time).

[TheCrown1]

As well as the general hesitation for developments in the Adelaide CBD.

What makes you say that? Most developments that are proposed seem to be approved by SCAP. There is no harm in applying good scrutiny on projects if they don't meet the guidelines, which are already very relaxed. The main issue, in my opinion, is the large number of local families that own property in the city, but don't have the capital or marketing to attract the big players that are necessary to make great projects happen.

I mean more so public hesitation.

I know internet articles are not definite sources at times, but I always come across articles discussing (for the lack of better terms) keeping Adelaide the way it is. I remember recently reading an article about a Councilor that wanted North Terrace to be free of further developments. Something about it being the Australian equivalent of an avenue in Paris. Even on this forum I see similar sentiments, often to do with developments in the East End. The Monument development to be exact.

This is just the impression I get, and I gather for the most part its true. Form my perspective there is notable hesitation for the changing face of Adelaide.

[Norman]

As well as the general hesitation for developments in the Adelaide CBD.

What makes you say that? Most developments that are proposed seem to be approved by SCAP. There is no harm in applying good scrutiny on projects if they don't meet the guidelines, which are already very relaxed. The main issue, in my opinion, is the large number of local families that own property in the city, but don't have the capital or marketing to attract the big players that are necessary to make great projects happen.

I mean more so public hesitation.

I know internet articles are not definite sources at times, but I always come across articles discussing (for the lack of better terms) keeping Adelaide the way it is. I remember recently reading an article about a Councilor that wanted North Terrace to be free of further developments. Something about it being the Australian equivalent of an avenue in Paris. Even on this forum I see similar sentiments, often to do with developments in the East End. The Monument development to be exact.

This is just the impression I get, and I gather for the most part its true. Form my perspective there is notable hesitation for the changing face of Adelaide.

Changing the face is one thing, by demolishing buildings that have little or no heritage value and replacing them with buildings that add to the vibrancy and design of our city. However, us people of Adelaide also really value our heritage, so places with those values we think should be retained, such as heritage buildings and neighbourhoods with cultural and architectural significance should be protected from being needlessly demolished. It's about improving the city we already have, not forging a completely new identity.

Obviously quite a few developments have not done this well in the past, but buildings such as the replacement for the Southern Cross Arcade are a great example of building on our heritage for a better city, architecturally and economically. You can also find some other good examples in the East End that re-use our heritage buildings and facades but provide accommodation and retail to keep the area alive.