ONH: [Port Adelaide] Newport Quays | $1.2b

[Omicron]

When the new marinas fill up with boats and construction is complete, it's going to be a very nice area. I never thought I'd be able to say that about Port Adelaide and its environs, so thank goodness progress is being made.

[stumpjumper]

I hear it's fairly well-accepted in government planning cirlces that the wrong developer ended up with the project, in the sense that the Newport Quays consortium is probably more focussed on maximising their profit than some of the losing consortiums might have been.

[Will]

As customary in Adelaide, there is an article in the Sunday mail today stating that the third stage of the project will be 're-designed', which we all know, means that it will be dumbed down. The developers have caved in to pressure from the local council, the National Trust and the NIMBY brigade, and it now appears that the 3, 12 level towers will be scrapped, and replaced with more 'traditional' structures that reflect the heritage of the area. However, what this probabaly means, is rows of 'Tuscan' boxes.

Sometimes it is so frustrating living here in Adelaide; surrounded by so much negative and conservative people.

[stumpjumper]

Will

Have a look at the latest revision of the Port Adelaide Enfield Development Plan. You'll find it at http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/edp/pdf/pade.pdf

The planning options and guidelines in council development plans are the result of the combined planning expertise of Planning SA, the Port Adelaide Enfield's own planners and the input, via our democratic local government system, of the community through its elected Council representatives.

Look at page 186 of the PAE Development Act and you will see the concept plan for Area 34B. The area discussed in the Sunday Mail article is the south western part of Area 34B, about half of it.

Let's talk about both halves, as they are roughly symmetrical and Newport Quays proposes about the same level of overbuilding in each.

The concept plan in the PAE Development Plan suggests two thin 12 storey towers in the area, with other construction no higher than 7 stories.

Newport Quays responds with a proposal for six 14 storey slabs (12 stories sitting on a two storey plinth of carparks which covers almost the whole site). If this is an ambit claim, to be reduced with many crocodile tears on the part of the developer to something like only 50% over to limits suggested in the Development Act, then so be it. What a wasteful way to do business. I'm assuming here that the developers mean approximately what they say when they speak or write, and that their current proposal is serious.

In their application (which is on the PAE site for anyone to read) Newport Quays talks about new marinas between the slabs which can be seen as 'water rooms', with the slabs being the 'walls' of those rooms. Never mind the height and the bulk, concentrate on the diverting metaphor of 'water rooms'.

The developer tries to dismiss the restrictions proposed in the concept plan partly on the basis that the word concept may be very freely interpreted (there's a lawyer's letter about the interpretation of the word to back up that assertion), and that six slabs is a fair interpretation of two thin towers.

My question, WIll, is that if the developer is always right, why don't we just get rid of Planning SA, the council's planning departments, and deny a community any say in what gets built in their location?

Where were you brought up? Ceaucescu's Romania?? Why shouldn't a local community ahve a say in what is built in that community? Why shouldn't the state as a whole regulate the basic qualities of development via state planning legislation?

Your uncritical backing of any proposal by any large developer is indicative of only one future - one where 90% of people in the Port, or in Glenelg or in the City of Adelaide will soon live permanently in the shadow of the luxury high rises of the rich, which will stand shoulder to shoulder on the shorelines, or the park frontages, to give those that have the most clout the best views and fcuk the rest of us, we should have made more money.

Extrapolate that to the rest of society, and I don't think even the Mr Rices of Urban Construct would like to have too much to do with places like that. Not in their back yards, you might say.

[AG]

I hear it's fairly well-accepted in government planning cirlces that the wrong developer ended up with the project, in the sense that the Newport Quays consortium is probably more focussed on maximising their profit than some of the losing consortiums might have been.

How many consortiums would tender for such a project if there were no such benefit to the firms themselves? How many bids were made for the Port Adelaide redevelopment?

By the arguments that the PAE Council bring up, a viable solution would be to simply do nothing with the current site, I'm sure a lot of people would be happy with that. Not to say that the developer shouldn't be made to improve on the current design, I certainly believe there needs to be a bit of a greater focus on bringing some retail and ground level activities to the area rather than just residences.

[stumpjumper]

Old channel 7 transcript re management of Urban Construct removed by poster. The arguments should stand or fall on the quality of the development, not the quality of the developers.

[stumpjumper]

AG, what I have heard is that, if you like, the lady PAE has ended up dancing with does not seem to be quite like the one they asked to the ball.

Some fairly unexpected demands are being made on PAE and the community, to do with density, basic planning, heights etc.

I agree with you 100% about retail etc.

[Will]

Will

Have a look at the latest revision of the Port Adelaide Enfield Development Plan. You'll find it at http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/edp/pdf/pade.pdf

The planning options and guidelines in council development plans are the result of the combined planning expertise of Planning SA, the Port Adelaide Enfield's own planners and the input, via our democratic local government system, of the community through its elected Council representatives.

Look at page 186 of the PAE Development Act and you will see the concept plan for Area 34B. The area discussed in the Sunday Mail article is the south western part of Area 34B, about half of it.

Let's talk about both halves, as they are roughly symmetrical and Newport Quays proposes about the same level of overbuilding in each.

The concept plan in the PAE Development Plan suggests two thin 12 storey towers in the area, with other construction no higher than 7 stories.

Newport Quays responds with a proposal for six 14 storey slabs (12 stories sitting on a two storey plinth of carparks which covers almost the whole site). If this is an ambit claim, to be reduced with many crocodile tears on the part of the developer to something like only 50% over to limits suggested in the Development Act, then so be it. What a wasteful way to do business. I'm assuming here that the developers mean approximately what they say when they speak or write, and that their current proposal is serious.

In their application (which is on the PAE site for anyone to read) Newport Quays talks about new marinas between the slabs which can be seen as 'water rooms', with the slabs being the 'walls' of those rooms. Never mind the height and the bulk, concentrate on the diverting metaphor of 'water rooms'.

The developer tries to dismiss the restrictions proposed in the concept plan partly on the basis that the word concept may be very freely interpreted (there's a lawyer's letter about the interpretation of the word to back up that assertion), and that six slabs is a fair interpretation of two thin towers.

My question, WIll, is that if the developer is always right, why don't we just get rid of Planning SA, the council's planning departments, and deny a community any say in what gets built in their location?

Where were you brought up? Ceaucescu's Romania?? Why shouldn't a local community ahve a say in what is built in that community? Why shouldn't the state as a whole regulate the basic qualities of development via state planning legislation?

Your uncritical backing of any proposal by any large developer is indicative of only one future - one where 90% of people in the Port, or in Glenelg or in the City of Adelaide will soon live permanently in the shadow of the luxury high rises of the rich, which will stand shoulder to shoulder on the shorelines, or the park frontages, to give those that have the most clout the best views and fcuk the rest of us, we should have made more money.

Extrapolate that to the rest of society, and I don't think even the Mr Rices of Urban Construct would like to have too much to do with places like that. Not in their back yards, you might say.

I find it ironic that you mentioned Ceausescu's Romania. Your constant anti-business rhetoric would be welcome in the iron curtain.

And yes, I believe that local communities should at best have only limited input in major developments. Because as we all know, NIMBY groups hijack such public consultations to forward their anti-change agenda. If we had left all important decisions to local community groups, Adelaide would never change. And whilst people like you may relish the thought of preserving things like they were, 'back in the good ol' days', such an attitude reeks of selfishness as you are deliberately denying aspirational people a future in Adelaide, as they are forced to move to positive places.

[Edgar]

As customary in Adelaide, there is an article in the Sunday mail today stating that the third stage of the project will be 're-designed', which we all know, means that it will be dumbed down. The developers have caved in to pressure from the local council, the National Trust and the NIMBY brigade, and it now appears that the 3, 12 level towers will be scrapped, and replaced with more 'traditional' structures that reflect the heritage of the area. However, what this probabaly means, is rows of 'Tuscan' boxes.

Sometimes it is so frustrating living here in Adelaide; surrounded by so much negative and conservative people.

That is real disappointing. It is becoming like the next case of the Victoria Park redevelopments.

I don't bloody care if they (being Urban Construct) breach the agreement of the concept plan, all I care is, bring on what the port deserves, not the state it has been 2 years ago, and 30-40 years ago, it is a shame.

At least, according to the community:

to fish in a more pleasant environment...

to sail with a more pleasant sight...

to not be owned, but be owned by some bodies that are willing to clean the fck up of the area.

[stumpjumper]

Will wrote:

Your constant anti-business rhetoric would be welcome in the iron curtain. And yes, I believe that local communities should at best have only limited input in major developments.

Edgar wrote:

I don't bloody care if they (being Urban Construct) breach the agreement of the concept plan, all I care is, bring on what the port deserves

For a start, I'm employed in the property industry. I'm 100% in favour of appropriate development. That's not solar powered adobe villages for tree huggers, but development which delivers the best benefit at a reasonable cost. The cost includes an adequate profit for the developer and the benefits include enhancing community amenities. How can you support development which leaves the community worse off??

Supply and demand in the marketplace, brilliant and automatic mechanism though it is, does not always guarantee the best outcome. In the case of the Port redevlopment, market failure is probably too strong a phrase. What is happening there is more likely to be a combionation of: the eagerness of the government to see income generated leading to it tilting the scales regarding entry conditions (eg notional land price) for the developer; the fact that once through the selection gate the developer has a monopoly and is able to vary the original proposal; and lastly the government's closeness to the developer, which leads to a weakening of the operation of normal planning controls for this development.

As for the idea that local communites should at best have only limited input into what is built in their community, and for the idea that it doesn't matter if Urban Construct do breach the local Development Plan, well, you don't have to think too far to see where that leads.

"Romanian developer to build concrete tenements on Adelaide's publicly owned and vacant industrial sites. Government sources said today that they would not act to stop international developer Shitehouse Developments from constructing whatever they wanted on vacant government land. Handing the Eastern European consortium carte blanche today, Mr Rann said "Don't worry about our planning laws, guys, we'll look after that. Just go for it. Stack 'em tight and high." (Apologies to anyone from Romania)

Without joking, though, I don't know how you would sustain your arguments for 'at best, only limited community imput' and dismissing severe breaches of planning constraints in any informed forum (like this one...). Implementing those two principles would be to promote the developers profit above all else, and by dismantling the unnecessary planning system, to deny the community a real voice in what is built in their locality. As I said, in the real world, the market cannot always be relied on to deliver what is best. That's why we have a planning system, and it's why people have a democratic right to be heard.

You blokes argue robustly, but you have qa narrow view. I don't think you'd find much support for your version of Utopia.

[Cruise]

To be honest i don't like the current design.

Ground level carparks are an absolute sin, How are they supposed to attract more people into this "living, working port" we are all after?

In the end i can see "Newport" being completely isolated from the old port and detract from the area.

[AG]

I don't think restricting community input into the planning process would be a smart idea. It completely goes against what we stand for in a democracy. Yes, sometimes the community doesn't know what is good for it and shoots itself in the foot after it influences some bad decision making, but they also stop a lot of bad projects from proceeding, or force the improvement of an existing plan or design. In order to understand what the community wants, there still has to be input from the public regardless of whether you take their viewpoint or not.

On the issue of ground level carparks, as I mentioned earlier this may be related to a few engineering issues. The soil conditions around a lot of the inner harbour are not well suited for heavy structures and underground structures, though it can certainly be done at a cost. This same issue exists in some parts of Melbourne's Docklands area.

[AtD]

On the issue of ground level carparks, as I mentioned earlier this may be related to a few engineering issues. The soil conditions around a lot of the inner harbour are not well suited for heavy structures and underground structures, though it can certainly be done at a cost. This same issue exists in some parts of Melbourne's Docklands area.

First floor car park, then. I've seen it done.

[Will]

I don't think restricting community input into the planning process would be a smart idea. It completely goes against what we stand for in a democracy. Yes, sometimes the community doesn't know what is good for it and shoots itself in the foot after it influences some bad decision making, but they also stop a lot of bad projects from proceeding, or force the improvement of an existing plan or design. In order to understand what the community wants, there still has to be input from the public regardless of whether you take their viewpoint or not.

On the issue of ground level carparks, as I mentioned earlier this may be related to a few engineering issues. The soil conditions around a lot of the inner harbour are not well suited for heavy structures and underground structures, though it can certainly be done at a cost. This same issue exists in some parts of Melbourne's Docklands area.

If we had a genuinely democratic process whereby the community could place its input, then I would not be against that. However as it currently stands, we have people elected by a few hundred votes deciding upon important projects which ultimately affect everyone in the city. Furthermore, public consultations are always hijacked by NIMBY groups. There has yet to be one public consultation which hasn't been hijacked by special interest groups.

[Edgar]

And the NIMBY groups get to the most power to decide on a development than the rest of the people, is that democratic?