Property Council's Adelaide 2036: Building on Light's Vision

[stumpjumper]

Inner Adelaide transport solutions really aren't the issue here, I agree.

As to the PC's 2036 proposal, for my part I acknowledge problems with the present system, but to hand over planning power to a new, unelected authority to the PC's prescription is not the answer, although the PC's proposal may be a good start for a serious and informed debate with the aim of acting on resolutions.

My general concern with the PC proposal is the proposed mechanism. Not only does it deny property owners the rights they now have, but it is vague about the make-up and longevity of the proposed authority.

Who are the five board members? Is there any appeal from their decisions, or opportunity to put a case to it?

As for 12 storeys around the Park Lands frontages, does that include the city terraces and the North Adelaide park frontages? If so, how will the proposal avoid a 'pie crust' as a result - a rim of 12 storeys on every park frontage and a sudden transition to one, two or three storeys within - surely a no-no in terms of urban design?

If the PC proposal is accepted, the development industry will have a free hand to fashion the future form of the city in its own image, getting exactly what it wants, while no-one else will even have representation. We will have to trust whoever is on the five person board to know what is best for us and to deliver it.

I have looked at the history of the existing models mentioned by Nathan Paine in the 2036 report, as far as Google allows. The majority of the Australian models have become involved in corruption on a greater or lesser scale, even in states with ICACs. What safeguards against this does the PC propose?

[BenJ]

My general concern with the PC proposal is the proposed mechanism. Not only does it deny property owners the rights they now have, but it is vague about the make-up and longevity of the proposed authority.

That is exactly the question. Should a relatively small number of property owners in the CBD get to dictate how the CBD functions and how it is developed for everyone else in the state? That seems inherently unfair to all the South Australians who don't get to vote for Adelaide city councillors. Not only would a government run authority be subjected to the outcome of state elections but it would also stand up for all South Australians instead of a minority of CBD residents.

If those CBD residents feel that they need an inordinate degree of influence over how the city is run, perhaps they would be better suited to living in an area that doesn't contain 1.1 million stakeholders.

[stumpjumper]

The first point is that the interests of the 1.1 million are supposedly represented and protected by the Planning Act, the council's Development Act and the approval process itself.

That this regulatory structure is failing is hardly the fault of the 1.1 million - it's the development industry which tries to push the regulations aside.

To your argument - you want to replace the tyranny of the council's electorate, the councillors it elects and the council's planning staff with just five people, and you're not concerned who they are. There's an irony there.

I can see that city is different from other council areas, and that there is a wider number of stakeholders. But is that an argument to allow the government to choose just five people to run development in the place?

Remember too that the PC has flagged the desire to have the five people run a much bigger city - from Gepps Cross to Darlington, in Nathan Paine's own words.

Not revolutionary? In world planning terms, there's nothing like it.

As I said, it's a provocative start for a debate, but the idea of replacing the tyranny of a supposed upper class (and denying every property owner - residential, commercial, resident or landlord - in Adelaide, and incidentally the 1.1 million as well, of any say in their city's development, is a wild and crazy idea that would only benefit one group - the relatively tiny number of developers who would laufgh all the way to the bank.

To start the debate, Nathan needs to say more about how his model works. Who are the five? On what criteria does 'the government' select them? What is the process for anyone to put their view to them? What rules will guide them, or will there be no more planning legislation, just the views of the Five?

[BenJ]

The first point is that the interests of the 1.1 million are supposedly represented and protected by the Planning Act, the council's Development Act and the approval process itself.

Supposedly yes, but when Adelaide constantly debates its future, seems to desire change, incapsulating a more vibrant and progressive city but with next to no action, we have to question the efficacy of the mechanisms currently in place.

That this regulatory structure is failing is hardly the fault of the 1.1 million - it's the development industry which tries to push the regulations aside.

No one is saying that the inaction and lack of progress in the CBD is the fault of 1.1 million South Australians. If the regulatory body and developers are unable to negotiate effectively or come to a consensus without months and years of submissions, rejections and debate, could it be that the regulatory structure in place is overly conservative and the very thing holding us back? Developers can always go else where.

To your argument - you want to replace the tyranny of the council's electorate, the councillors it elects and the council's planning staff with just five people, and you're not concerned who they are. There's an irony there.

Tyranny is a pretty strong word and much to Machiavellian for my taste. Of course we would need close examination of any new authority to take the place of the existing structures. However, the mechanism has to change if we are serious about development in our city at anywhere near the pace of other Australian capitals. The irony exists rather, in a city that constantly talks about development yet is unable to put together the conditions for it to occur.

The problem seems to be that the ACC is unable to show the vision and flexibility required. It neither speaks for nor represents the interests of the majority of South Australians and as such should no longer be responsible for the future development of our city.

[Will]

The first point is that the interests of the 1.1 million are supposedly represented and protected by the Planning Act, the council's Development Act and the approval process itself.

That this regulatory structure is failing is hardly the fault of the 1.1 million - it's the development industry which tries to push the regulations aside.

To your argument - you want to replace the tyranny of the council's electorate, the councillors it elects and the council's planning staff with just five people, and you're not concerned who they are. There's an irony there.

I can see that city is different from other council areas, and that there is a wider number of stakeholders. But is that an argument to allow the government to choose just five people to run development in the place?

Remember too that the PC has flagged the desire to have the five people run a much bigger city - from Gepps Cross to Darlington, in Nathan Paine's own words.

Not revolutionary? In world planning terms, there's nothing like it.

As I said, it's a provocative start for a debate, but the idea of replacing the tyranny of a supposed upper class (and denying every property owner - residential, commercial, resident or landlord - in Adelaide, and incidentally the 1.1 million as well, of any say in their city's development, is a wild and crazy idea that would only benefit one group - the relatively tiny number of developers who would laufgh all the way to the bank.

To start the debate, Nathan needs to say more about how his model works. Who are the five? On what criteria does 'the government' select them? What is the process for anyone to put their view to them? What rules will guide them, or will there be no more planning legislation, just the views of the Five?

Although you are right in saying that the public wont elect this new 5 member panel, in reality this is a technicality as such a panel would assumedly be chosen by the state government, which is elected by the majority of South Australian.s Surely such a mechanism is superior to the current system, where we have people elected by 200 or so people with vested interests making choices which affect all of us. Or are you suggesting that every government appointment be subject to a referendum?

[PropertyozSA]

Dear S-A Community

Thanks to all who have contributed for what seems to be an interesting debate - exactly what we were aiming to achieve with our Report. For the record, we are not suggesting that we have all the answers, and indeed in a city like Adelaide where we have been discussing the CBD's design ad nauseum over the last 100 years, there is little new and innovative. We have specifically released this report as part of our election advocacy campaign and expect to get responses back from the Government and Opposition by the end of November on what each agrees to deliver (these will be made public the week after). This is about getting real action occurring rather than simply another contribution to an already bogged down debate.

I won't respond to each of the comments posted previously as there will always be areas that we agree and areas that we don't - what I am pleased about is that everyone seems to agree that we need to move forward and deliver a better CBD. The time is over for more discussion, we need to move forward, recognise that we will all make mistakes but as long as we all agree that we want a city that attracts rather than repels and one that we can all be proud of then we are starting off on the right foot.

Finally, I have uploaded some videos from our launch event on 27 October - specifically the presentations by Minister Patrick Conlon, Lord Mayor Michael Harbison, Richard Marshall from Woods Bagot, Stuart Moseley from Connor Holmes and former Adelaide City Council Chief Executive Officer and myself. If your interested the videos are here http://www.propertyoz.com.au/sa/Article ... 16&id=2237.

But let's keep the debate going and work hard to deliver a better Adelaide.

Cheers

Nathan Paine
Executive Director
Property Council of Australia (SA Division)
http://twitter.com/PropertyozSA
http://www.propertyoz.com.au