News & Discussion: General CBD Development

[dbl96]

I can't remember where I read it but I am fairly sure I read an article recently that said in just SA alone, there are around 1 million homes just sitting vacant for various reasons. What is Champion talking about? Of course empty houses are important to the current issues.

There's no way there would be 1 million homes sitting vacant in SA alone. Nationwide probably, but not just in SA.

There are so many vacant blocks in the CBD that are waiting to be developed. Balfours way on Franklin St and that block on the western section of Gouger St are a couple that spring to mind. Why are we just allowing prime real estate spots like these to sit idle in the middle of a housing crisis?

private property

The government can compulsorily acquire land, so long as they provide just compensation - just like they do for major infrastructure projects like South Road.

I would say that at this point, there is a good argument for wiping the slate clean on some of these blocks which have sat around vacant (or as open air carparks) for decades. The current owners clearly don't want to do anything with them, and in such prime locations, that is absolutely not in the best interests of the city and the state as a whole. Large vacant blocks like the one on Gouger St are a drag on the precinct as a whole, and thereby on the vibrancy of the whole city.

The owners have had their chance and they have squandered it. The government should step in and acquire them and then either develop them directly through RenewalSA, or on-sell them (with conditions requiring prompt development) to other private developers.

The government doesn't have to have reasons. But it might help to develop a policy to guide how decisions about which properties are to be acquired should be made. I think anything over about 2000m2 within the square mile which has been vacant land or open air carpark for a decade or more should be a prime target. That would include:

• Gouger St west vacant block

• Former New Mayfield site on Sturt St

• Angas/Pultney St open air car park

I previously would have added to the list the open air carpark next to the Franklin St bus terminal and the Australia Post site in Grote St, but it looks like something might finally be being done with these sites. There should be close supervision to make sure action is taken promptly to achieve a good outcome here. I find it particularly objectionable, especially given the immediate housing crisis, that the government has struck a deal with the Council for no development to commence next to the bus terminal until the Market Plaza redevelopment is finished. We need more housing now, not in a decade's time. That is a much more important goal than saving a handful of carparks.

[abc]

There's no way there would be 1 million homes sitting vacant in SA alone. Nationwide probably, but not just in SA.

There are so many vacant blocks in the CBD that are waiting to be developed. Balfours way on Franklin St and that block on the western section of Gouger St are a couple that spring to mind. Why are we just allowing prime real estate spots like these to sit idle in the middle of a housing crisis?

private property

The government can compulsorily acquire land, so long as they provide just compensation - just like they do for major infrastructure projects like South Road.

I would say that at this point, there is a good argument for wiping the slate clean on some of these blocks which have sat around vacant (or as open air carparks) for decades. The current owners clearly don't want to do anything with them, and in such prime locations, that is absolutely not in the best interests of the city and the state as a whole. Large vacant blocks like the one on Gouger St are a drag on the precinct as a whole, and thereby on the vibrancy of the whole city.

The owners have had their chance and they have squandered it. The government should step in and acquire them and then either develop them directly through RenewalSA, or on-sell them (with conditions requiring prompt development) to other private developers.

The government doesn't have to have reasons. But it might help to develop a policy to guide how decisions about which properties are to be acquired should be made. I think anything over about 2000m2 within the square mile which has been vacant land or open air carpark for a decade or more should be a prime target. That would include:

• Gouger St west vacant block

• Former New Mayfield site on Sturt St

• Angas/Pultney St open air car park

I previously would have added to the list the open air carpark next to the Franklin St bus terminal and the Australia Post site in Grote St, but it looks like something might finally be being done with these sites. There should be close supervision to make sure action is taken promptly to achieve a good outcome here. I find it particularly objectionable, especially given the immediate housing crisis, that the government has struck a deal with the Council for no development to commence next to the bus terminal until the Market Plaza redevelopment is finished. We need more housing now, not in a decade's time. That is a much more important goal than saving a handful of carparks.

omg

[rev]

There's no way there would be 1 million homes sitting vacant in SA alone. Nationwide probably, but not just in SA.

There are so many vacant blocks in the CBD that are waiting to be developed. Balfours way on Franklin St and that block on the western section of Gouger St are a couple that spring to mind. Why are we just allowing prime real estate spots like these to sit idle in the middle of a housing crisis?

private property

The government can compulsorily acquire land, so long as they provide just compensation - just like they do for major infrastructure projects like South Road.

I would say that at this point, there is a good argument for wiping the slate clean on some of these blocks which have sat around vacant (or as open air carparks) for decades. The current owners clearly don't want to do anything with them, and in such prime locations, that is absolutely not in the best interests of the city and the state as a whole. Large vacant blocks like the one on Gouger St are a drag on the precinct as a whole, and thereby on the vibrancy of the whole city.

The owners have had their chance and they have squandered it. The government should step in and acquire them and then either develop them directly through RenewalSA, or on-sell them (with conditions requiring prompt development) to other private developers.

The government doesn't have to have reasons. But it might help to develop a policy to guide how decisions about which properties are to be acquired should be made. I think anything over about 2000m2 within the square mile which has been vacant land or open air carpark for a decade or more should be a prime target. That would include:

• Gouger St west vacant block

• Former New Mayfield site on Sturt St

• Angas/Pultney St open air car park

I previously would have added to the list the open air carpark next to the Franklin St bus terminal and the Australia Post site in Grote St, but it looks like something might finally be being done with these sites. There should be close supervision to make sure action is taken promptly to achieve a good outcome here. I find it particularly objectionable, especially given the immediate housing crisis, that the government has struck a deal with the Council for no development to commence next to the bus terminal until the Market Plaza redevelopment is finished. We need more housing now, not in a decade's time. That is a much more important goal than saving a handful of carparks.

The government absolutely should not use our taxes for land grabs against private property owners to build houses for other people.
We firstly don't need the millions of people coming in at the record rate they are migrating to Australia.
Why don't we need them? because our services can't cope. our housing stock is too low, which is well documented. (unless you actually believe there's a million+ houses sitting empty)
And besides the fact this is Australia, not North Korea or China (although in the last 5 years who'd know the difference).

What the government should do, and even councils, for prime allotments like the ones you've highlighted, is 'incentivise' property owners to develop those parcels of land or move them on to someone who will.
This should not be applied though to mum and dad property owners who can least afford to. There's nothing wrong with someone holding on to an old house or block of residential land in suburbia to leave to their kids or grand kids as an inheritance.
It should be targeted at the big end of town who can afford to do something with blocks of land, who can afford to pay higher rates and taxes for sitting on those blocks of land.

[gnrc_louis]

Genuinely comparing Australia to North Korea, very normal behaviour - super rational too.

Anyway, back to the real world, landbanking in the CBD has long been an issue. We’ve seen it with the Gawler Chambers, the former Planet site, as well as a host of others. It’s unfortunate and it would be nice to see some sort of policy change to discourage it.

[Norman]

I have to agree with Rev here, compulsory acquisition for no reason is borderline authoritarian, even if we don't like the outcome. This isn't SimCity. In a market economy, sticks and carrots are the answer, so maybe vacant blocks need to be taxed differently.

[Nort]

I have to agree with Rev here, compulsory acquisition for no reason is borderline authoritarian, even if we don't like the outcome. This isn't SimCity. In a market economy, sticks and carrots are the answer, so maybe vacant blocks need to be taxed differently.

Yeah, a ramping tax the longer a site is left vacant seems reasonable, with a decent lead up time before it kicks in.

[Saltwater]

Not just the city either, walk around most suburbs and there are plenty of empty blocks too. There are also instances of houses that have been purchased for land banking that sit empty for years.

Government acquiring these sites is very authoritarian. A better approach would be a progressive tax, but would need to consider spurring additional construction when there's already a shortage of skilled workers to develop these sites. Otherwise maybe councils could charge rates as if the site was developed, which might motivate some holders to either sell, or at least build on the site.

[SouthAussie94]

In a suburban context, what constitutes an empty block?

A small house on a large block?

A backyard tennis court could fit a house. Is this land empty? Or is its use as a tennis court enough to not be taxed?

Or is it 1 house per certificate of title? There's plenty of houses that sit across 2 or more titles. Are subsequent titles deemed to be vacant because they technically don't have houses on them?

Any legislation would need to account for these and more. Add too many exceptions however and the law could be toothless and not achieve the desired aim.

[dbl96]

I have to agree with Rev here, compulsory acquisition for no reason is borderline authoritarian, even if we don't like the outcome. This isn't SimCity. In a market economy, sticks and carrots are the answer, so maybe vacant blocks need to be taxed differently.

The point is that the government has the power to do it. I don't see why it is more any more objectionable for the government to compulsorily acquire derelict, vacant eysores in the CBD, owned by good-for-nothing land-bankers, than it is for them to compulsorily acquire and demolish hundreds of nice family homes in the South Road corridor.

Its not "for no reason" - it is to provide housing, which is essential infrastructure for the population.

This should not be applied though to mum and dad property owners who can least afford to. There's nothing wrong with someone holding on to an old house or block of residential land in suburbia to leave to their kids or grand kids as an inheritance.

I'm not talking about suburban house blocks. What I have proposed is directed specifically at dealing with the problem of large (eg. 2000m+) vacant lots in the CBD.

[Saltwater]

In a suburban context, what constitutes an empty block?

A small house on a large block?

A backyard tennis court could fit a house. Is this land empty? Or is its use as a tennis court enough to not be taxed?

Or is it 1 house per certificate of title? There's plenty of houses that sit across 2 or more titles. Are subsequent titles deemed to be vacant because they technically don't have houses on them?

Any legislation would need to account for these and more. Add too many exceptions however and the law could be toothless and not achieve the desired aim.

An empty block with nothing on it. There are plenty of examples all around Adelaide. I don't mean short term - there are properties that haven't had any housing on them for many years, and in some cases decades.

[SouthAussie94]

In a suburban context, what constitutes an empty block?

A small house on a large block?

A backyard tennis court could fit a house. Is this land empty? Or is its use as a tennis court enough to not be taxed?

Or is it 1 house per certificate of title? There's plenty of houses that sit across 2 or more titles. Are subsequent titles deemed to be vacant because they technically don't have houses on them?

Any legislation would need to account for these and more. Add too many exceptions however and the law could be toothless and not achieve the desired aim.

An empty block with nothing on it. There are plenty of examples all around Adelaide. I don't mean short term - there are properties that haven't had any housing on them for many years, and in some cases decades.

But how is an empty block defined?

The overgrown block full of weeds and dumped mattresses is the obvious example.

But what about this random block in a random suburb?
https://imgur.com/a/iYb6wP5

1x House, 2x Land Titles, presumably 1x owner.

Is the second piece of land vacant? It's literally just a garden. It doesn't have a house on it so the only difference to the block full of weeds and mattresses is that it's manicured garden.

Still vacant though.

Does this person need to merge their Land Titles together to avoid the vacant land penalty? Are they exempt because the vacant land is manicured?

In the CBD context, is an open-air carpark vacant land? It's being used (an inefficient use is still a use) and presumably generating an income for the owner. Again, just because the land doesn't have a structure on it, doesn't mean it is strictly vacant.

294 Pulteney is the first example of this in the CBD that comes to mind.

It's not just as simple as saying vacant land should be penalised without having a definitive definition of what vacant land is.

[Alyx]

Hilton Adelaide hits market as global chain considers future at Victoria Square

Adelaide’s largest hotel, the Hilton Adelaide, has hit the market for the first time in 30 years as the global hotel chain weighs up its future at the landmark tower on Victoria Square.

The sale campaign comes ahead of the looming expiry of a management agreement between the building’s owners, 233 Victoria Square Hotel Pty Ltd, and Hilton Hotels.

The tower is being offered with vacant possession from July 2026, meaning an incoming purchaser would have the option to renegotiate an extension with Hilton or bring in another operator at that time.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business ... 1bf747f903

[Patrick_27]

Hilton Adelaide hits market as global chain considers future at Victoria Square

Adelaide’s largest hotel, the Hilton Adelaide, has hit the market for the first time in 30 years as the global hotel chain weighs up its future at the landmark tower on Victoria Square.

The sale campaign comes ahead of the looming expiry of a management agreement between the building’s owners, 233 Victoria Square Hotel Pty Ltd, and Hilton Hotels.

The tower is being offered with vacant possession from July 2026, meaning an incoming purchaser would have the option to renegotiate an extension with Hilton or bring in another operator at that time.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business ... 1bf747f903

Darn. I always said that this site along with a repurposed Sir Samuel Way building would have made for an excellent Adelaide Casino facility.

[VinyTapestry849]

Good, demolish the Hilton. Such a miserable ugly building

Rebuild is something much more beautiful

[abc]

It was originally built by the government, hence its uninspiring design, as it was the first 'international' hotel in little old Adelaide which had previously been bypassed by the major chains.

There's an argument for it to be heritage listed though as its held so many events in this town that no other venue was suitable for, for a good couple of decades. A lot of history in that place.