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

[stumpjumper]

Makris CEO, Wed 7th July 2010: "We never said it was happening, we just demolished the buildings. We hope building work will occur within three years, but we're not giving any guarantees. The project is not required to start within any fixed period of time and I don't think the Major Projects development approval has an expiry date. We've commenced work as required under the approval because we have done the demolition, but the major projects legislation is a bit different to a normal council approval program."

Me, yesterday: I don't think demolition (ie a start) is required under the Major Project approval, and if it were, you'd think Makris' heavy donations top the ALP would protect him from any pressure about starting.

Well well. Holloway has announced that construction will start on the Le Cornu site by September this year.

First, not every developer has his project starts announced by the Minister. Second, it's a bit of a backflip on the 'maybe not for three years' announced this week by Makris CEO John Blunt.

[Will]

Whatever the reasons, the outcome (an unused site with an ugly fence) is not good.

I wonder why Makris demolished the reasonably sound, rent-paying buildings on the NW corner? I don't think demolition (ie a start) is required under the Major Project approval, and if it were, you'd think Makris' heavy donations top the ALP would protect him from any pressure about starting.

The reason why those building were demolished was because they were on the secret ACC list of buildings to be added to the heritage list.

Furthermore, do you know how much the makris group donated to the Liberal party? (it's funny you have never mentioned this!)

[monotonehell]

Whatever the reasons, the outcome (an unused site with an ugly fence) is not good.

I wonder why Makris demolished the reasonably sound, rent-paying buildings on the NW corner? I don't think demolition (ie a start) is required under the Major Project approval, and if it were, you'd think Makris' heavy donations top the ALP would protect him from any pressure about starting.

The reason why those building were demolished was because they were on the secret ACC list of buildings to be added to the heritage list.

Furthermore, do you know how much the makris group donated to the Liberal party? (it's funny you have never mentioned this!)

That's the thing I don't understand, Makris and its subsidiaries donate roughly the same to both parties.

[stumpjumper]

Furthermore, do you know how much the makris group donated to the Liberal party? (it's funny you have never mentioned this!)

For sure Will - it's about 250K each over the last hear or so. I haven't mentioned the Lib donations because the don't really help my argument, but I bet the ALP is grateful for its $250K despite the Libs getting almost as much. I won't mislead by omission next time.

The role of any back-handing or other corruption in this saga is less important than the community and the government finding a means to induce one of the uglier faces of capitalism to act in the general interest.

The question concerning the Le Cornu site is not now one of whether the development ids appropriate or should be built. The people fighting against approving the project lost their battle long ago. The question is now to get the site used.

Our law endows property owners with a lot of rights, including generally the right for an owner to keep his property vacant. It's not usually possible to force a developer to spend his money, either.

The government did Makris a huge favour in approving his final plans. You would expect that the government drones had found a way of enforcing the return favour - build it or use the site!

It could all be academic if work really does start in September.

[rev]

It's getting annoying seeing threads on developments have new posts, opening those threads, and not seeing anything relevant.. maybe it's just me.

[silverscreen]

I agree with rev - it's annoying that new nothing new or relevant is posted in this thread. But more annoying to me (and the reason I'm unable to resist responding) is the number of posts continuing with the same old, same old myths & untruths about how Makris has been wronged by the ACC and residents.
The truth is the hedge was planted after the junk-yard fence was erected- a costly attempt by the ACC to try to remedy an unsightly city gate-way site left vacant by a string of developers.
Previously , the ACC planted a line of trees on the O'Connell St side - also in an attempt to soften the landscape. These were felled early one Sunday morning by the Makris Group and the fence erected. It's hard to love someone who, while professing to love Adelaide so much & promising to create something magnificent on the site, inflicts an ugly, second-hand fence on the whole community. IMO, only very small-minded people behave like this if they cant get their own way.
It's an eye-sore for every visitor let alone residents, and if the govt had any sense of style or even a decent set of teeth, they'd get rid of it.

[stumpjumper]

silverscreen, the sad fact is that in the Le Cornu development, as in many other developments around SA, the developer calls the shots, largely because of the cash donated by developers to the ALP. Adelaide City Council, of course, is pretty well out of the picture as far as what happens to large developments in its area is concerned.

[how_good_is_he]

To balance the argument a bit...Makris has recently sold the Avenues and Northgate [$40m] and is selling the Optus building [$50m+]. So hopefully the funds may go here [if the banks dont keep it]. Do people understand in this environment its not the developer calling the shots or not wanting to start but the banks. Without the money how are things going to get started? Having the council involved wouldnt change anything ie has Walkerville council been able to do anything at the hole? Further, if there isnt significant pre-commitment why would the banks lend the money anyway?
Silverscreen, not to re-hash this crap but council actually planted trees on Makris' land [illegal] and a small hedge, he then removed the trees/hedge [legal] and put up a fence to de-lineate his boundary [legal] and then council surrounded it with a bigger hedge [illegal]. Anyway my prediction - it needs a catalyst before it will start ie a jv partner or major commitment for apartments/retail. So once again its up to others.

[stumpjumper]

What's going on? Having got ministerial approval and special project status for a non-complying development, which then lapsed, Makris now expects to be given not only an extension but approval for a different project.

It will be interesting to see the process used to take this forward. Will the incoming planning minister just sign off on the changes Makris wants? If that happens, what is the new status of the Development Act? Is it 'advisory only'? And if that is the case, what sort of a legal precedent will be set?

[iTouch]

Makris sounds like the biggest dickhead.

[stumpjumper]

I'm sure that there are bigger, but Makris' limited development track record (outside shopping centres) isn't very inspiring.

[crawf]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6000773056

Meanwhile, the Makris Group is also in negotiations with high-end hotel chains, including the Hyatt and Hilton, to add a boutique hotel to the development of the former Le Cornu site in North Adelaide.

A spokesman for Planning Minister Paul Holloway confirmed last week the government was still considering an extension to the permit, which lapsed in September last year, for the $170 million apartment and retail precinct.

In 2007, the latest plan for 88 O'Connell St was fast-tracked by the State Government, after it took planning control from the Adelaide City Council and claimed it under major development status.

Mr Makris said the size and number of retail spaces and apartments would be altered to accommodate the boutique hotel.

There are no plans to increase the height of the development.

"We went to the market to see how to attract quality shops and we needed a drawcard to help," he said.

"You're not going to get the fashion designers if you don't have the high-end hotel."

Mr Makris said he did not believe the government would reject the proposed changes.

"Why would they knock back the Hyatt?" he said.

[stumpjumper]

From Makris Group’s development application for the Le Cornu site in 2005:

Plans: A mixed-use development, including a seven-star boutique hotel, upmarket retail…

Are we now seeing a version of the development industry's proven tactic of asking again and again for the desired outcome, despite repeated refusals, on the basis that eventually the approval panel will agree?

[Will]

From Makris Group’s development application for the Le Cornu site in 2005:

Plans: A mixed-use development, including a seven-star boutique hotel, upmarket retail…

Are we now seeing a version of the development industry's proven tactic of asking again and again for the desired outcome, despite repeated refusals, on the basis that eventually the approval panel will agree?

What is your actual objection to a boutique hotel? Surely, such a venture would be a welcome addition to the available range of accomodation offered in Adelaide.

[Waewick]

quite frankly I think this site should be turned into a Tram/Buss transfer zone for the extended tramline to North Adelaide.

Win for the city = less buses (and hopefully cars)

and would make the North Adelaide residents happy because it would stop this development