CAN: [Glenelg] Latitude | 42m | 12lvls | Residential

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in areas other than the CBD and North Adelaide. Includes Port Adelaide and Glenelg.
Message
Author
aussie2000
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:12 pm
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Contact:

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#106 Post by aussie2000 » Tue May 27, 2008 11:00 pm

NIMBY23 wrote:We are all determined to ensure that glenelg does not turn into the gold coast.
HAHAHA OMG thats just such a stupid thing to say, how old are you? Glenelg is for the people of Adelaide NOT for people in nursing homes that only see the outside through a window, I think you should call the nurse, someones dangerously over-reacting. the GOLD COAST?? hahaha :D

aussie2000
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:12 pm
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Contact:

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#107 Post by aussie2000 » Tue May 27, 2008 11:04 pm

NIMBY23 wrote: NOT IN MY BACKYARD !!!

It's an ugly coastline. The buildings block all the sunlight in the afternoon.
AGAIN!!! ITS NOT YOUR BACKYARD. your just a selfish old person that only cares about yourself.

User avatar
Queen Anne
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:32 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#108 Post by Queen Anne » Wed May 28, 2008 6:58 am

Oh Goodness.

Many people do seem to be ill informed about higher density development. Shuz, your points concerning the environmental issues associated with lower-density development were well-put. I just heard a show on the radio, here, where they were saying that the city with the lowest carbon footprint in the US (per head of population, I guess) is NYC.

It's a bit hard for me to judge what is going on from over here - is Latitude really in danger of being protested? That would be a shame. Why do people hate the development of Glenelg, and yet seem to ignore suburbia's continued spread along the coastline? It doesn't make environmental sense!

The incorrect idea that cities are environmentally unsound, somehow, is becoming out of date. I wonder if it is time for an organised
alternative to the NIMBY brigade. Developments which encourage density and the 'life' of the city deserve support. I know it has come up on the forum before..

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#109 Post by Wayno » Wed May 28, 2008 9:17 am

Shuz wrote: How do you justify your opinion that low-scale density (eg: suburbia) is a sustainable lifestyle measure, considering the impacts of accelerated population growth, global warming and commuter travel issues? Surely you must be conscious of your children and grandchildren's future, and I would hope that you want them to be brought up in a sustainable world. I think people like you, and your 5000 like-minded friends need to be conscious of others and how this affects them. This development is merely adressing these concerns, by reducing the need for extra infrastructure to be built (at your expense, keep in mind!), by reducing carbon footprints with environmentally friendly measures, by increasing the concentration of people in a location for public transport to be utilised to their maximal potential, I could go on and on.

Again, this is 42m, the Gold Coast's tallest tower is 323m. You have absolutely nothing to worry about when it comes to 'hi-rise living' (this is considered medium density development by the way) and I'm sure buildings can't even be built higher then they already are because of airspace limations with the flight path in close proximity. And as for sunlight concerns in the afternoon - it sets in the west, unless your smoking something and hallucinating otherwise...

Tell this to your friends, and be honest, tell us then how many still agree with your perspective.
Well put shuz, and it's worth noting that NIMBY's are a major reason why we must now rapidly boost SA's population. The NIMBY attitude has caused (through a variety of mechanisms) a mass exodus of young people from SA for too many years. Rebalancing our age demographic to ensure ongoing prosperity is of paramount importance. And yes, this population growth must be done in a sustainable way via increasing urban density.

You reap what you sow.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
Pikey
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Sitting Down

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#110 Post by Pikey » Wed May 28, 2008 9:57 am

Guys,

He's obviously here to take this piss and stir us up a bit. Looks like it's worked with some of us.

Ignore it.

It's been granted approval, it will be built. Happy days!
Walking on over....

| Sensational-Adelaide.com Moderator |

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5869
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#111 Post by Will » Wed May 28, 2008 10:05 am

From the Messenger:
College anger

Kym Morgan

27May08
An artist's impression of the College St development.

An artist's impression of the College St development.

BAY residents have lost a four-year battle to block controversial plans to build a 12-storey apartment complex in place of an historic Glenelg house.

The State Development Assessment Commission (DAC) gave the $110 million, 170-apartment Urban Construct project on College St the green light last Thursday (May 22), despite registered opposition from 53 parties and personal deputations from nine people.

The development approval is subject to amendments, but the DAC and Urban Construct refused to disclose them when contacted by the Guardian Messenger last week.

An 1870s College St house and a car park used by residents of the adjacent Manson Towers retirement village will be lost to make way for the development.

During the two-hour DAC hearing at the Holiday Inn, Hindley St, last Thursday:

Seven surrounding residents, the Stamford Grand Hotel and Holdfast Bay Council opposed the project.

Manson Towers resident Kathleen Job argued it would lead to loss of privacy, sea breezes and afternoon sun.

Stamford Grand Hotel lawyer Graham Black said the development could negatively impact on his client's business if some of the project's apartments were purchased by private operators and leased "legally or illegally" as hotel rooms.

Bell Planning spokeswoman Donna Ferretti opposed the development on behalf of Holdfast Bay Council and argued it could jeopardise council plans to build a multi-deck car park on a nearby Elizabeth St property.

Urban Construct chief executive Todd Brown said the development was a "stand out" because of its environmental features and would ease housing affordability pressure in Glenelg with some apartments expected to be sold for less than $200,000.

After the hearing, Mr Brown refused to field questions from the Guardian Messenger. He instead issued a written statement applauding the decision and said Urban Construct had already received 800 expressions of interest from potential buyers.

Ms Job said she was amazed and disappointed the DAC took just one day to approve the decision.

"To find it was all decided in one day, we wonder why we bothered to attend the hearing," she said.

Holdfast Bay Mayor Ken Rollond, who was elected on an anti-development ticket, said the council needed to decide quickly if it would appeal the decision through the courts. The council refused a previous application by Urban Construct for the same site, in 2004, saying it would change the use of the site and spoil College St's character.

That decision was upheld on appeals in the Environment Resources and Development Court and the Supreme Court.

On that occasion the developer wanted to demolish half the 1870s house, split between 3 and 5 College St, because it could not acquire number 5.

The company has since done a deal to buy 5 College St from Dr Pamela Ryan later this year, and plans to demolish the entire Victorian house.

User avatar
Mants
Legendary Member!
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:40 am
Location: City of Burnside

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#112 Post by Mants » Wed May 28, 2008 10:30 am

does anybody actually have a picture of this house?
i mean, it must be bloody worth all this fuss.

i think it's excellent that we're seeing more medium density housing in the suburbs. i would rather live in a glenelg apartment than on a 1/4 acre block down out at seaford anyday.

btw, what a ridiculous and selfish argument put up by the Stamford manager. he can't have a monopoly on hotel rooms in glenelg.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#113 Post by Wayno » Wed May 28, 2008 10:32 am

Pikey wrote:Guys,

He's obviously here to take this piss and stir us up a bit. Looks like it's worked with some of us.

Ignore it.

It's been granted approval, it will be built. Happy days!
yeah, i thought the same thing - but decided to post a reply anyway. There's lots of very new S-A members who should see why we continue to argue for increased urban density.

and it's therapeutic to vent your frustrations!
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
bm7500
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 901
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:04 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#114 Post by bm7500 » Wed May 28, 2008 10:49 am

Wayno wrote:
Pikey wrote:Guys,

He's obviously here to take this piss and stir us up a bit. Looks like it's worked with some of us.

Ignore it.

It's been granted approval, it will be built. Happy days!
yeah, i thought the same thing - but decided to post a reply anyway. There's lots of very new S-A members who should see why we continue to argue for increased urban density.

and it's therapeutic to vent your frustrations!
Exactly!.... Suffer in ya jocks NIMBY23

:lol:

(I feel much better now) :wink:
ADELAIDE SINGAPORE LONDON BERLIN AMSTERDAM PARIS TOKYO AUCKLAND DOHA DUBLIN HONG KONG BANGKOK REYKJAVIK ROME MADRID BUDAPEST COPENHAGEN ZURICH BRUSSELS VIENNA PRAGUE STOCKHOLM LUXEMBOURG BRATISLAVA NASSAU DUBAI BAHRAIN KUALA LUMPUR HELSINKI GENEVA

User avatar
Queen Anne
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:32 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#115 Post by Queen Anne » Wed May 28, 2008 12:19 pm

Pikey wrote:Guys,

He's obviously here to take this piss and stir us up a bit. Looks like it's worked with some of us.

Ignore it.

It's been granted approval, it will be built. Happy days!
Lol, 'gullible' is my middle name :roll:

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5869
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#116 Post by Will » Wed May 28, 2008 12:34 pm

Mants wrote:does anybody actually have a picture of this house?
i mean, it must be bloody worth all this fuss.

i think it's excellent that we're seeing more medium density housing in the suburbs. i would rather live in a glenelg apartment than on a 1/4 acre block down out at seaford anyday.

btw, what a ridiculous and selfish argument put up by the Stamford manager. he can't have a monopoly on hotel rooms in glenelg.
The house is very nondescript. Sure it is old but there is honestly nothing interesting about its history or appearance to warrant heritage protection.

NIMBY's use heritage as a way to legitimise their ridiculous and selfish arguments. The real reason why these people are opposed is because they think they own things like sea breezes, afternoon sunlight, sea views...

User avatar
Queen Anne
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:32 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#117 Post by Queen Anne » Wed May 28, 2008 12:50 pm

Will wrote:
Mants wrote:does anybody actually have a picture of this house?
i mean, it must be bloody worth all this fuss.

i think it's excellent that we're seeing more medium density housing in the suburbs. i would rather live in a glenelg apartment than on a 1/4 acre block down out at seaford anyday.

btw, what a ridiculous and selfish argument put up by the Stamford manager. he can't have a monopoly on hotel rooms in glenelg.
The house is very nondescript. Sure it is old but there is honestly nothing interesting about its history or appearance to warrant heritage protection.

NIMBY's use heritage as a way to legitimise their ridiculous and selfish arguments. The real reason why these people are opposed is because they think they own things like sea breezes, afternoon sunlight, sea views...
Thank you for that Will. I have to admit I get a twinge of regret when any old building is knocked over. But old and new have to co-exist, and at some point we do have to lose some old buildings. Glad to hear this one is not a gem we are about to lose, though. Yes, heritage issues do seem to have often been appropriated by the no-development brigade, for less than noble purposes. It's all a bit of a mess, really - no wonder Adelaide struggles to advance :(

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 6490
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#118 Post by Norman » Wed May 28, 2008 12:55 pm

I'm going down to Glenelg now to take a few pics. If I see any NIMBYs around you know what I'll do... ;)

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5521
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#119 Post by crawf » Wed May 28, 2008 1:15 pm

Look forward to your photos, its a nice day to take photos :)

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#120 Post by Wayno » Wed May 28, 2008 2:33 pm

Norman wrote:I'm going down to Glenelg now to take a few pics. If I see any NIMBYs around you know what I'll do... ;)
"it's nimby season - hhehehehe" (said like elmer fudd)
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests