[COM] 74-80 Light Square | 31m | 8lvls | Office

[Pistol]

You have got to be kidding me...

It's 44 metres ffs!

[AtD]

It seems like the ACC is hell-bent on rejecting everything that is in the scope of the new state government's powers, ignoring it's own advice. It might be that they're playing politics, but either way, it's vindication for the state to do what it did.

Clr Wilkinson is enjoying himself. He is every negative stereotype of the ACC personified.

Thank god for the DAC.

[joshzxzx]

This bullshit from the Adelaide city council is starting to get funny.

Lucky Media Mike removed their powers, and now the application will be assessed under the new DAC. There has got to be a way so these incompetent councilors never get voted into council again. We need gen X & Y in there... And then watch he progress!

[Will]

Having had the night to reflect on this decision, my mind came up with many adjectives to describe the ACC's decision. However one word was prominent and that word is hypocrisy.

I wonder whether the council would still think this development were too tall, if it owned the land at 74-80 Light Square, and it stood to profit from allowing the land to be developed to its maximum potential? I say this, because if a 45m building is too tall for Light Square, then how do they reconcile a 58m building on the south-west corner of Light Square?


Last night, I also searched for Cnr Sandy Wilkinson's website, so that I could find his email in order to send an email expressing my outrage at his anti-development stance. What I found on his website links back to the word hypocrisy.

Some of us are already aware of it, but for those who do not know, Cnr Wilkinson is an architect and town planner. He owns a small architecture form called Alexander Wilkinson Design Pty Ltd.

http://www.alexanderwilkinson.com.au/

I had a look at the website and expected to find information regarding restorations of old buildings. However, I was indeed surprised to find that heritage crusader Cnr Wilkinson was responsible for this design:



For those who do not remember the above project was proposed for the site at 25 Colley Terrace at Glenelg. It was proposed by Blackfords Project Marketing Systems, and designed by Sandy Wilkinson. What makes Councillor Wilkinson's recent opposition to developments in the CBD difficult to understand is how he can design such a building and be against similar buildings in the CBD.

One of the reasons why the project at 74-80 Light Square was rejected was because the colour scheme was considered to be against the desired character of Light Square. Yet, the colour scheme of 25 Colley Terrace makes 74-80 Light Square look pale. Consider that the colour scheme for 25 Colley Terrace consisted of the following colours: blue, yellow, green and white (very appropriate for Glenelg?).

Cnr Wilkinson frequently uses the reason that he opposes development because it involves destroying Adelaide's heritage. Yet he had no qualms about destroying Glenelg's heritage when he designed 25 Colley Terrace. The development at 25 Colley Terrace involved the demolition of a 136 year old mansion known as Westward Ho. Westward Ho was built in 1864 for Thomas Magarey of Enfield. Indeed, Cnr Wilkinson justifies the decision to demolish Westward Ho on the basis that it was not possible to incorporate the existing house into the design because it would have limited the number of car-parks for the complex (and despite this Cnr Wilkinson wants other developers to incorporate old buildings into their designs? One law for him and another for others?)

Luckily I cut out newspaper articles regarding development. Because if it was not written I would not have believed it. Cnr Wilkinson, a man who opposes so much development on heritage grounds nevertheless makes the following quotes:

"we have inspected the site and it's in very poor condition"

"it is a doss house, which has not been listed on the State Heritage List"

"it's always understandable there be a certain amount of concern about change of a major scale and 12-storey buildings are obviously considerable change"

"the overshadowing issue is one where a certain amount is inevitable. A certain amount of disruption during construction is always inevitable"



The building was also 44m

[Ben]

Thanks very much for your insight WIll. I would VERY much love to know what his response is!!!

[joshzxzx]

Thanks Will, Very enlightening whilst quite amazing.

[bm7500]

Once again the ACC proves just how irrelevant they have become...

[Shuz]

Great insight Will. One does wonder if that's enough precedent to call for his removal from the ACC development board?

I have good faith though that the State Government DAC will see beyond the dysfunctional nature of the ACC and grant approval.

[Professor]

the same old suspects...

At least the Government has control of the process. Why would any developer bother to submit anything to the council? Now that they do not have the fnal say, just bypass them and save the public embarrassment of having these people block Adelaide's development

[Howie]

Just an update... Paul Pruszinski had a chat to Channel 10 news, would someone be able to youtube tonight's segment on this. I don't think this is one we want to miss.

[wilkiebarkid]

Light Square proposal "too tall"
HANNAH SILVERMAN, DANIEL WILLS
June 23, 2009 02:10pm

BUSINESS leaders have hammered Adelaide City Council after it rejected another CBD development last night on the grounds it would be too tall.

The council's Development Assessment Panel voted against plans submitted by Pruszinski Architects for the 13-storey Light Square proposal, ignoring advice from its own planners and declaring the proposed building to be "too tall".
Business leaders today have joined AdelaideNow readers to launch an attack against a council they say has a "lack of interest in the growth and development of the CBD" .
Business SA chief executive officer Peter Vaughan said business and city workers had suffered from "minority residential interests" that conflicted with the growth of the CBD.
"It is damaging to the state if our CBD is perceived as being reluctant to embrace growth and new investment," he said.
"Opportunities have been lost and we've been critical of the lack of development across the CBD for a number of years.
"We are losing many young professionals across the border, as they search for a vibrant city to work and live in."

Prominent Adelaide property developer Theo Maris called for Government intervention after slamming the council for failing to review its city plan.
"Adelaide is very outdated in terms of development and there's where the danger lies in the fact that we don't want to be part of an outdated city," he said.
"I am saying very clearly that things shouldn't be knocked back and there should be a policy and a framework in place that picks all this up very adequately.
"I think the Adelaide City Council has failed to review its City of Adelaide plan which should be running parallel to the economic and social requirements of the State Government.
"After all, the City of Adelaide plan and the growth of the city of Adelaide is something that is owned by the whole of the state and not just by a few stakeholders who happen to have a particular view.
"Therefore, the Government should be intervening and forcing the City of Adelaide to update its plan in order for it to comply with the current expectations and requirements."

Property Council of Australia SA executive director Nathan Paine said the latest rejection justified the shift of power away from the Development Assessment Panel to th State Government's Development Assessment Commission last year.
"This just goes to show the government shift of power away from the DAP to DAC was the right move to make," he said.
"Had the power still rested with DAP they would have clearly rejected it, now it will go to Development Assessment Commission.
"It's not the first time the DAP have gone against staff advice and that is somewhat a problem, but it is once again only advice," he said.
"What we do need in Adelaide is more activity, we know the population is growing, we know people on the east and west coast are looking at Adelaide as the next state of opportunity and we need to ensure we have the office space for them to move into."

Mr Paine stressed the need to revisit the structure of council and its Development Assessment Panel.
"We need to as a state look at what the appropriate governance method is," he said.
"Currently we've got a situation where some councillors are appointed on between 200 and 300 votes and to some degree it's not fair to ask those people to look to represent the CBD on behalf of all SA so maybe we need to revisit that."
"I'm not overly surprised (it was rejected) for the same reason they rejected Tower 8 and they've rejected numerous other developments, it's the way the DAP seems to be going."

Last night, Councillor Sandy Wilkinson said the building did not meet the "desired character" for Light Square and would clash with existing smaller buildings.
"Such a high development, with no strong relationship to the historic scale ... would create an incongruous element rather that a cohesive perimeter of medium-scale buildings," he said.

The final power of approval rests with the State Government's Development Assessment Commission, which is expected to examine the plans later this year.

Councillor Michael Henningsen said the "height, bulk and scale" of the building was "too much".
"It is an exciting and different building, but I think it is a few stories too high," he said.
"We have a desired character that speaks to medium scale." Councillor Anne Moran agreed.
"It's totally out of scale with the other new buildings in the street," she said.
"This is a tiny little site too, it's going to stick out like a very tall sore thumb," she said.

The proposed building is 45.1 metres tall and exceeds the 40m desired maximum outlined in the council's development plan.
In a report tabled last night, council planners said the height was "considered acceptable" because of "the presence of similar built form setbacks within the locality".
The report also said future developments in the CBD were likely to "form a backdrop of taller buildings transitioning down" Light Square.

AdelaideNow readers have reacted with a mix of surprise and embarrassment at the decision and a reader poll had by 2pm shown that 87 per cent of almost 2000 respondents disagree.

And more than 350 people have commented on the story since the decision last night, most expressing disappointment with the council.

"By the philosophy of this we should all be still living in the original tents they used when the first settlers arrived. You can't have it because you don't have it is no way to progress," wrote Martin of Adelaide.

William Barton asked: "Isn't the outdated view of Adelaide held by our councl at odds with the views of the State Govt and Opposition who seem to think we will increase our population beyond 1.5 million?? How will we sustain a higher population without developent?"

"What is wrong with 13? I think we need new people on that committee and quickly," wrote Not too sure of Adelaide, while Reader of Adelaide said that "this is a joke. 13 stories too high arent we meant to be a city not a country town. Adelaide is so far behind it is not funny."



It would seem that 99% of South Australians are up in arms over this decision. What really stands out is the ridiculous comments made by some of the councillors in their efforts to explain the rejection of this development.

Sandy Wilkinson says that the building will be out of sync with smaller surrounding buildings!!!! Mr Wilkinson. Based on that screwed up logic and if it applied to planning and development 100 years ago, Adelaide would never have gone much higher than 3 stories within the CBD.

That end of the city is slowly rising with the 19 story Precinct building farther west and perhaps the catalyst for more height toward West Terrace.

Steam released from aural chambers!!!

[Brando]

Brilliant work Will...

Judging by the comments Nathan Paine, Peter Vaughan and Theo Maris have said, i would expect some hostile outcomes in the coming months.

This rejection just dignifies the many negative comments about certain members of the ACC.

[Howie]

We also advocated for higher height limits around the city squares in the S-A submission to the ACC Development Plan review.
http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... m.php?f=20

They would've seen this coming i'd say.

[adam_stuckey]

And the council wonders why they're getting the powers taken away!

What a joke!

[jk1237]

Look I dont like ACC bashing anymore, but that decision is nonsense so no wonder why we get so fustrated by them. We are a large city, not a village, and a 13 level building is not that tall. That height should not even be argued about for that area, its a piddly height compared to what is being built in the suburbs of other cities