[U/C] 88 O'Connell Street | 63m | 13, 13 and 15 Levels | Mixed Use

[ynotsfables]

Actually i love it it looks fantastic if only we could have such splendour in this city, but we can't seem to get our act together unfortunately.

[monotonehell]

Actually i love it it looks fantastic if only we could have such splendour in this city, but we can't seem to get our act together unfortunately.

It's all personal opinion, but I really don't like that old CUB render. It just doesn't have any aesthetic value on it's face. Its all very 'samey' right across, the spires don't add much in terms of contrast which makes the whole thing look very homogeneous. Add to that, it looks like a load of syringes on their ends

I quite like the aesthetics of one of the proposals I've seen for the 88 site, but there's been so many I'm not even sure if it's the one before the Ministry at the moment. If it's the one near the start of this thread (from 2005!) then okay.

But as I've said above, let's see what the ministry says to it, and if you feel strongly enough about it READ everything you can get on the matter and submit an informed opinion to the "royal commission"

[silverscreen]

Monotonehell wrote:

"But as I've said above, let's see what the ministry says to it, and if you feel strongly enough about it READ everything you can get on the matter and submit an informed opinion to the "royal commission"


Unfortunately its too late. The submissions closed on March 5

[monotonehell]

Monotonehell wrote:

"But as I've said above, let's see what the ministry says to it, and if you feel strongly enough about it READ everything you can get on the matter and submit an informed opinion to the "royal commission"


Unfortunately its too late. The submissions closed on March 5

Oh goody, then we can look forward to another round of complaints from whichever group "loses" when the decision is handed down.

[stumpjumper]

Round and round we go.

However, there are a few facts that haven't changed, and which are relevant to 88 O'Connell St.

The planning legislation for the City of Adelaide currently allows 3 level development on the site. Since the site was cleared, 4 separate developments, all in line with the planning rules, have been approved for the site. Local residents have been quite happy with these proposals. The residents have consistently objected to proposals which are grossly outside the planning rules.

SA has a planning system which provides a pathway for development application and approval. Makris has done his best to avoid this system, trying to gain approval by other means for his proposals, all of which have been aimed at getting approval for a proposal which is grossly outside the planning regulations.

There is no shortage of shopping in North Adelaide. The 6,500 locals are well served by the two existing supermarkets. No planning over the last 30 years has considered North Adelaide to be a good site for a regional shopping centre. Such a centre in North Adelaide would take business from the CBD and would cause unnecessary congestion in North Adelaide.

The design by Ignite Architects for the current proposal is a pastiche rubber stamped from other designs from the same office, notably the Chancery development in Auckland. Try googling: Ignite Chancery Auckland

The argument that planning rules can be ignored if the site is 'iconic', and the design for the site is outstanding, fails in this case. The site is not really 'iconic' - Makris only makes that claim to bolster his arguments. I respectfully suggest that no-one who knows much about design would agree that Ignite's generic copies of standard international Dubaiesque productions are great architecture.

Obviously, Makris's motivation is to maximise his financial return. A good way of doing this is to buy a site for a price based on a certain level of development, then to strong arm the council and/or government into rezoning the site to carry a greater level of development. It's called spot rezoning, and is a standard practice for the Makris group, whether in NZ, Adelaide or Victor Harbor.

In the case of 88 O'Connell St, Makris has achieved the developer's South Australian holy grail - Major Development status.

I've asked this question before, but never received an answer:

What exactly are the criteria which if satisfied allow a developer to ignore the planning system and to develop a site to a far higher density than the site allowed on purchase?

[Brando]

Stumpjumper, why do you constantly feel the need to post such long pointless posts time and again?
I think you have made your opinions loud and clear on this board and we have been going round and round on this opinionated merry go round. You have made your point and voiced your opposition many times, now please just let it rest for further arguements sake.

I have respected your view, now I think you should respect ours and stop complaining on this thread...

[Wayno]

i think stumpjumpers question is pertinent and to the point. Problem being, noone on S-A can possibly answer it. Instead he needs to pose the question direct to Mike Rann, but should not expect an answer

[how_good_is_he]

Fasten your seatbelts, here we go again... [Carl Williams, Underbelly]

Stumpjumper, from the Planning SA website -

The policies and zoning in Development Plans need to be changed and updated over time.
The Development Act 1993 provides the legislative framework for undertaking amendments to a Development Plan. Amendments can be instigated by either the relevant Council or the Minister for Urban Development and Planning.

So even planning laws are meant to be fluid and not stuck in stone for eternity.

Have you ever thought it maybe isnt just the developer who wants to challenge/change the current planning guidelines but the government itself - which it is entitled to.

With time, things change and with change comes progress.

[silverscreen]

How Good is He
- of course the Development Plan changes - it has to. But surely you understand its done in consultation with everyone - property owners, Councils, govt. agencies & even the likes of you & me if we care to put in submissions when a PAR is declared. Councils will also judge developments "on merit" when the "rules" can be bent a bit.
But beware of govt cowboys who decide they'll single-handedly change the Planning Laws just to suit a rich developer - not good democracy and a precedent for other nasties!
Stumpjumper is right ( as nearly always) it's not up to a developer or a government to completely overturn a development plan just to achieve their own ends. And the reason Stumpjumper & others have to keep writing about this is because some people either can't, or don't want, to "get it".

[Wayno]

How Good is He
- of course the Development Plan changes - it has to. But surely you understand its done in consultation with everyone - property owners, Councils, govt. agencies & even the likes of you & me if we care to put in submissions when a PAR is declared. Councils will also judge developments "on merit" when the "rules" can be bent a bit.
But beware of govt cowboys who decide they'll single-handedly change the Planning Laws just to suit a rich developer - not good democracy and a precedent for other nasties!
Stumpjumper is right ( as nearly always) it's not up to a developer or a government to completely overturn a development plan just to achieve their own ends. And the reason Stumpjumper & others have to keep writing about this is because some people either can't, or don't want, to "get it".

silverscreen, it would be good if we could put some of the issues in this thread to bed Do you agree with any of these 3 points below?

1) The inherent problem with todays PAR process is it does not involve everyone and is hence biased towards the vocal minority (who mostly take a conservative, not in my backyard, let's keep the world as it is, attitude)

2) I agree the silent majority should get off their collective arses, but this will never happen for many reasons. So, that being the case, should the Govt & Council ignore the many varied and valuable opinions held by the other 90+% of the population?

3) Should the Govt & Councils use a truly unbiased approach to researching public opinion for a PAR (similar to a census)? I say yes, because only then can they say they are truly representing their constituency. What is your opinion?

[monotonehell]

1) The inherent problem with todays PAR process is it does not involve everyone and is hence biased towards the vocal minority (who mostly take a conservative, not in my backyard, let's keep the world as it is, attitude)

2) I agree the silent majority should get off their collective arses, but this will never happen for many reasons. So, that being the case, should the Govt & Council ignore the many varied and valuable opinions held by the other 90+% of the population?

3) Should the Govt & Councils use a truly unbiased approach to researching public opinion for a PAR (similar to a census)? I say yes, because only then can they say they are truly representing their constituency. What is your opinion?

A) The problem with any broad based survey of opinion is just that, you'll only get uneducated opinion. The reason such things aren't voted on is that the majority of people, no matter what their desires are, don't understand the big picture, the limitations and requirements of development. All these things need to be addressed by a suitable organisation of professionals with all the facts before them. Trial by media, vigilante or public opinion never works.

B) If the current arrangements aren't working, then we must change them. Not make exceptions to them, which leads to accusations of nepotism and corruption.

C) However, Major Development Status is part of the current arrangements. And so long as the requirements to meet it are open fair and equitable then okay. If not go back to step B.

[silverscreen]

How Good is He
- of course the Development Plan changes - it has to. But surely you understand its done in consultation with everyone - property owners, Councils, govt. agencies & even the likes of you & me if we care to put in submissions when a PAR is declared. Councils will also judge developments "on merit" when the "rules" can be bent a bit.
But beware of govt cowboys who decide they'll single-handedly change the Planning Laws just to suit a rich developer - not good democracy and a precedent for other nasties!
Stumpjumper is right ( as nearly always) it's not up to a developer or a government to completely overturn a development plan just to achieve their own ends. And the reason Stumpjumper & others have to keep writing about this is because some people either can't, or don't want, to "get it".

silverscreen, it would be good if we could put some of the issues in this thread to bed Do you agree with any of these 3 points below?

1) The inherent problem with todays PAR process is it does not involve everyone and is hence biased towards the vocal minority (who mostly take a conservative, not in my backyard, let's keep the world as it is, attitude)

2) I agree the silent majority should get off their collective arses, but this will never happen for many reasons. So, that being the case, should the Govt & Council ignore the many varied and valuable opinions held by the other 90+% of the population?

3) Should the Govt & Councils use a truly unbiased approach to researching public opinion for a PAR (similar to a census)? I say yes, because only then can they say they are truly representing their constituency. What is your opinion?

Wayno have you really thought this through?
How does anybody know what the "silent majority" are thinking if they dont tell anybody?
How can you guarantee the "silent majority" wouldn't resist change anyway? After all, in most communities, silence is assumed to be "tacit approval" of anything, particularly the status quo, so they could be real stick-in-muds.
Dont see how you can claim a PAR doesn't involve everyone. When you've responded to PARs, haven't you seen that you're just one of many respondents - from real power-brokers to modest citizenry. The common factor though is that ( as monotonehell implies) they have to do a bit of homework, otherwise they end up talking drivel .
Why dont you suggest the census idea to Planning SA for the next PAR? They could do a cost benefit analysis, or a door-knock or some other survey, to see if it would work.

[how_good_is_he]

Silverscreen, its great to say that with a new PAR there is consultation etc but what happens when you get a council that doesnt even allow the option of change ie any chance of a new PAR even getting put up.

The North Adelaide planning laws have been the same for decades and have been held hostage by a dictatorial minority. There has been no opportunity for change to even be considered.

Sure you can argue that the councillors that get voted in have a mandate for keeping the staus quo [from the locals who vote them in].

However the same arguement can then be used that the state government also has a mandate from the wider public of SA which is for the greater good and therfore have every right to challenge and change the planning laws.

[Omicron]

I really think I've stopped caring about this current plan. It bores me. I'm not repulsed by the open land that's there now; I'm not in love with the proposed design; and I'm far more interested by other proposals in the CBD and suburbs.

I'm indifferent. What a shame.

[Ho Really]

I really think I've stopped caring about this current plan. It bores me. I'm not repulsed by the open land that's there now; I'm not in love with the proposed design; and I'm far more interested by other proposals in the CBD and suburbs.

I'm indifferent. What a shame.

An honest sentiment. I don't understand why many here want to see the current proposal go ahead? Let's be honest, it is crap! I don't care about those living in North Adelaide, the ACC, the state government, the laws and processes that go with it, etc... I'm interested in one thing only, that we see something special, functional, well designed, and whatever else. Something that makes everyone happy, the locals, the passing through, and the so-called silent majority. If we can't achieve that, then we might as well plant trees and have a bloody park! I guess I don't make sense...

Cheers