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

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in areas other than the CBD and North Adelaide. Includes Port Adelaide and Glenelg.
Message
Author
User avatar
Cruise
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Bay 115, Football Park

Re: #Redevelopment - Port Adelaide Waterfront $1.2billion

#376 Post by Cruise » Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:57 am

I think i might turn into a NIMBY,
I want to be on the winning side for once.......

frank1
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 439
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:54 pm

Re: #Redevelopment - Port Adelaide Waterfront $1.2billion

#377 Post by frank1 » Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:40 pm

Will wrote: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.
Same old attitude everytime. Another nail in the coffin for the title 'city of churches'. So, So, So angry and disappointed. :evil:

User avatar
The Proboscis Monkey
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:59 pm

Re: #Redevelopment - Port Adelaide Waterfront $1.2billion

#378 Post by The Proboscis Monkey » Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:17 pm

Read in this week's Portside Messenger the re-designed stage 3 plans will be released for public consultation in February.

User avatar
Cruise
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Bay 115, Football Park

Re: #Redevelopment - Port Adelaide Waterfront $1.2billion

#379 Post by Cruise » Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:07 pm

Southern crane is gone now. I took some photos but i have lost my cable to link my phone to my computer. :cry:

User avatar
Xaragmata
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1613
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:08 pm
Location: Adelaide / West
Contact:

Re: #Redevelopment - Port Adelaide Waterfront $1.2billion

#380 Post by Xaragmata » Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:50 pm

Cruise wrote:Southern crane is gone now. I took some photos but i have lost my cable to link my phone to my computer. :cry:
I missed this post, and was there today & noticed it had gone. Northern crane was idle, with just the Eureka flag flying, but still a bit
more work for it yet.

User avatar
The Proboscis Monkey
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:59 pm

Re: #Redevelopment - Port Adelaide Waterfront $1.2billion

#381 Post by The Proboscis Monkey » Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:28 am

Could there be another delay to Newport Quays on the horizon...
http://www.messengerwest.com.au/article ... _news.html

User avatar
ynotsfables
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 296
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:15 am

Re: #Redevelopment - Port Adelaide Waterfront $1.2billion

#382 Post by ynotsfables » Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:21 pm

stumpjumper wrote: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.
Stumpjumper please do n't take offence,
It seems to me you r'e too obssesed with " appropriate development " when realistically there is nothing inappropriate with this developement appart from your amazing powers of creating bearaucratic red tape jargon.
Take on an arts coarse of some sort learn to improvise a bit.
There are flaws to everything if you really want to find them.

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5860
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: #Redevelopment - Port Adelaide Waterfront $1.2billion

#383 Post by Will » Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:45 pm

The Proboscis Monkey wrote:Could there be another delay to Newport Quays on the horizon...
http://www.messengerwest.com.au/article ... _news.html
This reminds me of how the NIMBY's tried to heritage list some 1960s toilet block at Glenelg to stop the Holdfast Shores development.

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: #Redevelopment - Port Adelaide Waterfront $1.2billion

#384 Post by AtD » Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:36 pm

Sigh.

Port Adelaide is full of fantastic colonial structures. I fail to see what this shed has to add to that.

User avatar
Xaragmata
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1613
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:08 pm
Location: Adelaide / West
Contact:

Re: #Redevelopment - Port Adelaide Waterfront $1.2billion

#385 Post by Xaragmata » Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:17 pm

I don't particularly care for the sheds on the Glanville side - the interesting stuff like the CSR sugar mill & the GM / Vauxhall / Oldsmobile
warehouse went years ago, but I hope the 6 km of promenades & boardwalks includes a path under the Birkenhead bridge to the tavern.

User avatar
Cruise
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Bay 115, Football Park

Re: #Redevelopment - Port Adelaide Waterfront $1.2billion

#386 Post by Cruise » Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:38 am

Will wrote:
The Proboscis Monkey wrote:Could there be another delay to Newport Quays on the horizon...
http://www.messengerwest.com.au/article ... _news.html
This reminds me of how the NIMBY's tried to heritage list some 1960s toilet block at Glenelg to stop the Holdfast Shores development.
wasn't it also the car park?

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5860
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: #Redevelopment - Port Adelaide Waterfront $1.2billion

#387 Post by Will » Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:47 pm

Cruise wrote:
Will wrote:
The Proboscis Monkey wrote:Could there be another delay to Newport Quays on the horizon...
http://www.messengerwest.com.au/article ... _news.html
This reminds me of how the NIMBY's tried to heritage list some 1960s toilet block at Glenelg to stop the Holdfast Shores development.
wasn't it also the car park?
It wouldn't surprise me. The extreme nostalgists are capable of anything.

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: #Redevelopment - Port Adelaide Waterfront $1.2billion

#388 Post by AtD » Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:02 pm

So how's Marina Cove going guys? Photos would be appreciated.

User avatar
Cruise
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Bay 115, Football Park

Re: #Redevelopment - Port Adelaide Waterfront $1.2billion

#389 Post by Cruise » Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:36 am

heres a video

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=v3g4mDFUf6A

question, how do i embed videos?

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: #Redevelopment - Port Adelaide Waterfront $1.2billion

#390 Post by Norman » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:01 am

Use the YouTube tags with the code between them:

Code: Select all

[youtube]v3g4mDFUf6A[/youtube]

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Patrick_27 and 4 guests