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

[Aidan]

(2) The Trust shall not acquire by compulsory process—
(a) any dwellinghouse that is occupied by the owner as his principal place of residence;
(b) any factory, workshop, warehouse, shop or other premises used for industrial or
commercial purposes;
(c) any premises used as an office or rooms for the conduct of a business or profession;

That wouldn't have prevented acquiring them on the open market.

[Prince George]

(2) The Trust shall not acquire by compulsory process—
(a) any dwellinghouse that is occupied by the owner as his principal place of residence;
(b) any factory, workshop, warehouse, shop or other premises used for industrial or
commercial purposes;
(c) any premises used as an office or rooms for the conduct of a business or profession;

That wouldn't have prevented acquiring them on the open market.

Can they purchase properties from regular sales? I would have thought that was too close to a government body directly affecting the market prices.

[Aidan]

(2) The Trust shall not acquire by compulsory process—
(a) any dwellinghouse that is occupied by the owner as his principal place of residence;
(b) any factory, workshop, warehouse, shop or other premises used for industrial or
commercial purposes;
(c) any premises used as an office or rooms for the conduct of a business or profession;

That wouldn't have prevented acquiring them on the open market.

Can they purchase properties from regular sales? I would have thought that was too close to a government body directly affecting the market prices.

I know governments are not exactly renowned for their decision making, but they'd have to be absolutely insane to prevent them from acquiring land by normal means, as that's likely to be significantly cheaper than by compulsory process.

Besides, government bodies aren't averse to directly affecting market prices - the Housing Trust used to do it all the time.

[stumpjumper]

The LMC seems to be less constrained than the organisations it replaced.

There is no Act establishing the LMC. It was established by the PUBLIC CORPORATIONS (LAND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1997.

The power of 'the subsidiary' (the LMC) to acquire land seems to be very wide (bold emphases mine):

13—Functions of subsidiary

(1) The subsidiary's functions are limited to the following:

(aa) to carry out the functions formerly carried out by the South Australian Urban Projects Authority and the Industrial and Commercial Premises Corporation under the Industrial Premises Development Scheme;

(a) to acquire, hold, manage, lease and dispose of surplus land, improvements and other property previously held by the MFP Development Corporation or other agencies or instrumentalities of the Crown;

(b) to acquire, hold, manage, lease and dispose of other land, improvements and property, particularly with a view to—

(i) managing the release of large areas of undeveloped (or under developed) land; and

(ii) holding land and other property to be made available, as appropriate, for commercial, industrial, residential or other purposes; and

(iii) ensuring the orderly development of areas through the management and release of land, as appropriate;

(c) to manage the Crown's interests in various joint ventures and land development projects identified by the Minister for the purposes of this regulation;

(d) to manage, develop, lease and, where appropriate, dispose of land and improvements at Science Park at Bedford Park;

(e) to manage, develop, lease and, where appropriate, dispose of land and improvements at Technology Park at Mawson Lakes with specific emphasis on using the assets to facilitate economic development;

(f) to manage the sale of surplus government land on behalf of other agencies or instrumentalities of the Crown;

(g) to manage urban projects (on its own behalf or on behalf of other agencies or instrumentalities of the Crown) to achieve urban regeneration or other government policy outcomes;

(h) to carry out other functions conferred on the subsidiary by the Minister.

(2) The subsidiary must obtain the approval of the Minister before it makes a material change to its policy direction or budget.

From the above, it is clear that the LMC is a very powerful tool in the hands of the Minister, and it looks as though the LMC can acquire any land it wants, including the Jenkins St land.

Developers and other companies are encouraged to make 'donations' to the Rann government (through SA Progressive Business, managed by Nick Bolkus who also operates a private lobbying firm called Bespoke Approach) in order to gain direct access to ministers, so there is a need for transparency and accountability in this area.

The SAJC, which wanted to develop its Cheltenham property, is said to have paid $136,500 to smooth the path. Among numerous other developer donors, the Newport Quays consortium supposedly paid $660,000, while the Makris group paid $186,000.

Minister Holloway's office told me that it is entirely normal for developers to pay large cash sums to the government, and they don't expect anything in return. When I asked why then do developers complain about land tax and employ expensive consultants to minimise taxes and fees they pay to the government, I was told that I would have to put my questions in writing and wait for an answer at some future time.

[Wayno]

stumpjumper, do you know if the South Australian LMC operates in a similar manner to other australian states (i'm presuming they have similar LMC organisations). Would also be interesting to know how the US & UK operate since they are similar western cultures with similar 'property rights' to ourselves...

[Brando]

Fair's fair guys, look how much this thread has been chewed by the politics of this development.

Maybe a thread should be made in the pub forum.

[stumpjumper]

Don't know, Wayno. It's an interesting question.

Brando, the development itself is unexceptional and would hardly support a discussion. The defining feature of the development is its politics, hence the amount of space on the thread about that aspect. My view, anyway.

[rogue]

The request for tender was released today for the McLaren Wharf and Cruickshank's Corner precincts.

For more info see: http://www.lmc.sa.gov.au/theport/home/i ... &mainID=22

[Hooligan]

Now i am exicted about this, Seeing as McLaren Wharf is actually in the heart of Port Adelaide hopefully it will reinvigorate it. There are many beautiful historic buildings in that area.

chances are though it will be a half arsed job though.

[rhino]

from the LMC:

The McLaren Wharf precinct provides opportunities for medium and high density mix of uses including residential, commercial, office, visitor accommodation and retail.

Across the river, the Cruickshank’s Corner precinct provides opportunities for a mixture of non-residential uses creating an iconic public waterfront area celebrating the Port’s maritime and cultural heritage.


Looks like they've decided to turn the old industrial area of the port (McLaren Wharf) into med-hi density resi + visitor accommodation + retail + some commercial, then they've thought, "Hang about, we've got rid of the Port aspect - I know - let's make the area across the river look like it was the port!"

In other words, let's take a port and make it a trendy residential area, and then make another area look like what we're going to lose by doing that. Duh.

[monotonehell]

That's a bit like bulldozing an orange grove for a housing estate and then calling it "The Grove".

[Hooligan]

Looks like they've decided to turn the old industrial area of the port (McLaren Wharf) into med-hi density resi + visitor accommodation + retail + some commercial, then they've thought, "Hang about, we've got rid of the Port aspect - I know - let's make the area across the river look like it was the port!"

In other words, let's take a port and make it a trendy residential area, and then make another area look like what we're going to lose by doing that. Duh.

It may be for the best, Port Adelaide needs people living in it's centre to hopefully make all those empty shops viable once more.

It's a bit sad when they make up displays to put in the windows so they don't look empty.

[stumpjumper]

It should be noted that Treasurer Foley's announcement is not a request for tenders to design or to construct the projects. It is a request for ideas from all quarters, and an announcement that the LMC is seeking tenderers, presumably by some other means - not quite the same thing. A phone call revealed that the actual tenderer is likely to be selected from a limited panel. I asked who was on the panel, and was told that the information was commercial-in-confidence. I'm trying at least to get hold of the tender documents - scope, guidelines etc, which I'm not sure even exist yet or will exist.

Let's hope that the successful tenderer (if the process is competitive) is selected on the merit of its proposal and that political alignment has nothing to do with it. After all, the fact that the financing partner of what now appears to be the failed Newport Quays development was the government-friendly building unions' C+Bus superannuation fund probably did the Multiplex/Urban Construct/C+Bus consortium no harm at all under the present government when they were up against the likes of Kinsmen/BaulderstoneHornibrook.

Politics and political associations should have nothing to do with the design of the two developments. It should be about the fit of the design to the place, which in the case of the McLaren's Wharf area is in world terms an extremely rare and almost intact Victorian-era port precinct (plus a few ugly pre-cast panel buildings which a purist would buy back and demolish). It will do the Port, and South Australia, no favours at all if the deals-with-mates, Queensland-clone model which has failed to deliver at Newport Quays is followed once more.

It's bad enough that there is likely to be an issue with the Labor Party owned Colac Hotel objecting to any new or extended liquor licenses in the development area.

To date, the signs are not particularly reassuring. LMC is very strong on community consultation this time, but they were last time too. Newport Quays is like a morgue during the day, a result which an LMC employee told me that 'no-one expected', although with a housing-only development including no public destination I'm not sure what else you could expect, especially when public meeting after meeting warned of exactly that outcome.

In fact, both the LMC and the development consortium ignored the community responses they received over the Newport Quays development and went to extreme lengths (injunctions, threats of police actions, intimidating phone calls etc) to silence the concerns of individuals and community groups who objected to aspects of the Newport Quays proposal, or demanded more public space and facilities in the development.

It seems that LMC is very concerned this time to ensure a good level of daytime activity at both sites.

I am involved in a proposal to incorporate working boatyards and boating activity at and around Cruikshanks' Corner. The infrastructure, including the PIRSA buildings is good and adaptable. The response from boatbuilders and marina tenants has been excellent, but less encouraging from LMC.

Politics again, the bane of development in South Australia.

On we go.

[how_good_is_he]

I think its admirable to have all these dreams for Pt Adelaide but I think the commercial reality is the only way it will work is if the taxpayer is footing the bill. If you disagree, the question I pose is what specifically can financially support itself [and not become another wine centre on a peppercorn rent of $1 a year for the sake of tourism etc]?

Can any of these ideas generate enough money to pay fair market rent/value for there property [which is ours as taxpayers]?

I also doubt in the current economic climate there will be any developers/tenderers having any real interest for many years .

[stumpjumper]

I repost in blue below my first post of August 2005.

Not to say I told you so - others were saying the same thing.

I wrote an article along the same lines in the SA magazine of the National Trust - no-one else would publish it. I was accused at public and private meetings by Kevin Foley (who swore at me) and by Gary Johanson, Mayor of Port Adelaide who said I had no right to say what I wqs saying.

Remember that the LMC was squarely behind the failed Port redevelopment. They listened to only one voice - that of the Newport Quays consortium, who were assiduously wining and dining all parties.

Kevin Foley advised me, calling me a f*ckwit, and a four letter c word into the bargain, I might add, that 'when I had made millions out of developments like the directors of Multiplex I would have the right to speak'. He then said 'I have put together over $1 billion of development - what have you done?'

Later in that particular meeting, I suggested that the LMC/Multiplex proposal ignored the chance to leverage the Port's best assets, the same sort of assets that had made other port redevelopments work around the world - its history and particularly its old buildings. Foley replied that the old buildings in the Port were 'sh*t and not worth keeping'.

Despite dozens of exemplars of how to do it properly all around the world including in Australia, Rann, Foley and Conlon have made a pig's breakfast out of the Port. Now Foley and the government are talking about the need to safeguard the Port's history, while if you ring Foley's office you will now be told that 'The Treasurer had very little to do with the project', although he was seen on the Multiplex barge at the official opening basking in the glory of having delivered a $1.8 billion project.

I spoke to Gary Johanson about the Museum of Air Land Sea and Space in Savannah, Georgia, which I had visited, and the work being done at Darling Harbour. Johanson told me that the Port was different, that its future was in housing, not tourism or some fancy m ix of uses.

Here's my 2005 post. If you don't want to read it, a precis is that the LMC/Multiplex proposal is fatally unbalanced, and ignores the Port's best chance for success.

As a matter of interest, my qualifications are in architecture and urban design, and I also have 15 years' experience in property development. I worked for the Gloucester City Council in the UK on the successful revitalisation of the Gloucester Docks area. Consider that in that project, the first project was not a block of generic housing, but the renovation of an old pub. People began to go the area from the start.

The government's management of the disposal of its Port land has been a disaster. It's an outrage in project management terms that the master plan was signed off without important areas like the former boatyards, Cruikshank's Corner and the old mill buildings being planned.

The final flourish from the government was Kevin Foley's wholly personal and vicious destruction of the completely viable Port Adelaide timber boat-building industry - three going concerns with their slipways employing 12 people full time - purely because one of the proprietors stood up to him. It's a measure of the government that such a petty mind as Kevin Foley's is given the power he has in this state. The boatyards were duly demolished and the businesses destroyed. The land now stands vacant, with no use proposed. But Foley got his man.

Foley's personality is part of the reason the Rann government doesn't know whether it's a government or a development outfit.My general thesis is that this government has positioned itself inappropriately in relation to development. Instead of being an enabler of good development, the government is suffering a kind of Stockholm Effect and is allowing itself to take the side of the developer, in some cases to the disadvantage of the people. The presence of people like Foley close to the top only makes the government more susceptible to this malaise.

Anyway, here's my 2005 post:


by stumpjumper » Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:52 pm

It's a pity that there is no serious accommodation for the development of the historic inner harbour as a tourism precinct.

All over the world, the fast growing phenomenon of cultural tourism is being catered for to the the long-term benefit of the communities which with assets such as Port Adelaide with its historic infrastructure and adjacent land.

Check out http://www.mysticseaport.org as an example of what could have been.

That place started out with one boat, one book and one shed, and is now a huge generator of jobs and income for a region on the US east coast that didn't think it had much going for it. I know for a fact that one of their managers had a look around Port Adelaide recently and couldn't believe his eyes. He was flabbergasted at the tourism potential of the Port. What are you going to do with all this stuff, he asked. Sell it for housing, he was told, and couldn't believe it.

Check out 24th St Pier in New York, the historic docks in London, look at The Rocks in Sydney, Salamanca Place in Hobart - everywhere these old Port precincts are being developed to attract visitors, not just homeowners.

In Tasmania, the state government took away from the Hobart city council planning control for Sullivan's Cove (ie Salamanca Place, Battery Point etc) because it felt that the local council was too likely to sell out to residential developers who want to build, sell and scoot with the profit, and who aren't interested in providing the infrastructure for the longer term development of tourism in order to gain attendant benefits such as continuing local employment etc.

Look around - anywhere else in the world, residential development like Newport Quays would include a sizeable element of tourism infrastructure.

But at Port Adelaide, the developers will build a monoculture of housing.

Where are the bus and public car parks? Where is the short term accommodation for tourists? Where are the additions to the Port's existing historic attractions, which are close enough for people to explore on foot? The Port has a maritime college, 12 amazing old pubs, a railway museum, old boats, a maritime musuem, aviation museum, old cars, military vehicles etc etc etc. How does the Newport Quays development leverage these assets to increase visitations and visitor spending?

It doesn't. They're developers, and want to build the houses, sell them and get out. In fact, at the request of the developers, the declared state heritage area in the Port has been reduced in size to allow more housing to complement the lovely tilt-up concrete dwellings going up on the wharfs. The 'thousands of jobs' the government has been boasting about will evaporate once the last house and marina berth are built. There's no new retail development planned, so the lucky owners will still shop at Westfield Kilkenny, the city or West Lakes.

The Newport Quays development is not bad per se, it is simply one-sided. With years of practice, the developers danced their way through the public consultation process with their original plan largely intact, despite objections like the ones I'm putting forward now. In fact, the amount of housing has increased since the early days of the development. Land set aside in the early plans for 'community use' at the east end of Semaphore Rd will now be used for housing. The waterfront will be fringed with hundreds of strata- titled and saleable moorings - not in the early plans considered at the consultations.

So my point is simple. The surplus land at the Port was not a gift to be given by Rann, Foley et al to the developer who flashed the most money - it was land owned by all South Australians which should have been put to the best advantage for all South Australians.

In numerous other similar sites around the world, the long term public benefits of developing disused port precincts for cultural tourism have been balanced with the development for private profit of the land.

Why isn't that the case here? Once the houses are built, the jobs will stop. There will be no tourism down at the Port, because there will be no facilities and no parking. Alone, of all the world's old inner city ports, Adelaide, with one of the world's most intact and historic port precincts, has decided to flog the lot for housing. It's very hard for anyone to stand up against the likes of Multiplex and Urban Construct, especially when the people's representative, the state government, is more or less in partnership with the developers.

Or maybe we're the world's last soft touch.

Bon voyage, a Port Adelaide full of activity and generating jobs and wealth as a tourist mecca, just like similar areas in other capital cities in Australia, the UK, US, Europe, South Africa etc etc.

Hello to a generic waterfront residential development enclave deserted during the day and just as quiet at night.

Thanks Mike, Kevin and Pat, I hope those real estate guys buy you the big drink they owe you, and please do enjoy the opening parties, on our behalf.