News & Developments: Port Adelaide

[stumpjumper]

Let's hope the Ehmann development is handled a bit better than the now comatose if not dead Newport Quays development. Does anyone know if 2a of Newport Quays will ever be built - let alone the rest of it?

As to the City of Adelaide ship, I think a good site for it would be in Commercial Road between the river and St Vincent Street. The road there is very wide because it used to be a dock. The dock could be dug out again and used as a dry dock for the City of Adelaide and a fantastic centrepiece for the Port.

With any luck, it would drive the refurbishment of the huge adjacent Customs House and the re-iopening of the Port Admiral, as well as give the whole place an increase in tourist visits.

btw, I recently wrote elsewhere that Foley was pushing Newport Quays from the start. I have a letter in response from Foley's office warning me to shut up and stating that Foley's interest in Newport Quays was limited to his role as local member, and that he remains 'concerned with and committed to the retention of the precinct's historic values in any further development.'

So no worries on that score.

[Waewick]

I believe a tram down Port Road (to semaphore)

would help Port Adelaide, as long as the developments suit.

The problem is the people that Port Adelaide need to fix it up aren't the ones who currently call it home, its the same as every suburb that "becomes trendy"

[Omicron]

If I hear one scrap of bickering amongst various groups as to where at Port Adelaide the vessel should be located, I shall personally smack them all in the mouth. Get it here and get it restored - wherever it goes at the Port would be a fantastic place.

[stumpjumper]

Gentrification, or at least new residents, is inevitable in the development process. Not too many locals would complain about the increase in value of their properties.

[RayRichards]

Bloody excellent news for the Port Lets hope the yuppies dont winge in the apartments about it ruining their "trendy and chic" views of the Port.
And I'm ready for a rumble Omricon! Place it right near the lighthouse, so you can see it when you drive North on Commercial Road!

The Port is slowly beginning to look like a Port again!

Ray.

[stumpjumper]

Peter Roberts of the City of Adelaide clipper ship organisation is keen to put the ship on Cruikshanks Corner, where he says that the best we can hope for is a fake historic 19th century port to be constructed around it. Unfortunately Kevin Jones, the director of the Port Adelaide Maritime Museum, is dead against the clipper ship project. The dispute seems to be over who gets the dwindling heritage dollar in SA. It makes you proud to be South Australian.

[Will]

From the Messenger:

Port marine village could rival Sovereign Hill

Local News15 Sep 10 @ 11:00am by Tim Williams


PORT residents would play a key role in a major tourist attraction under plans to transform Cruickshank’s Corner into a maritime version of Victoria’s Sovereign Hill.

The City of Adelaide Preservation Trust has been pitching the idea of a historic seaport village to the State Government’s Land Management Corporation, as part of a public consultation for a mooted heritage maritime precinct.

Trust director Peter Roberts said the Port had the potential for a tourist attraction every bit as popular as the mock goldrush town of Sovereign Hill, in Ballarat.

A 19th century-style seaport village could be built gradually and cheaply, through private sponsors and iconic SA businesses, such as Haigh’s (chocolate), setting up shop there, he said.

“We’re talking about film props basically, not expensive buildings,” he said. “Obviously the flagship would be the City of AdelaideM, and the Nelcebee.”

Tourists would pay an entrance fee to the village while Port Adelaide Enfield residents would get in for free, ideally to bring visitors and tell their own stories of life in the Port a system Mr Roberts said worked well in Warrnambool’s Flagstaff Hill maritime precinct.

The village could include: shipwrights working on heritage boats; actors in 19th century costume telling stories in migrant cabins; an Aboriginal camp detailing the impact of white settlement; a horse-drawn tram to Glanville Station; heritage steampaddlers; and a large scale model of the Port.

A key goal would be to link to other tourist attractions in the Port and around SA, such as old railway carriages pointing to the Railway Museum, a mock fort with a naval gun tied to the Fort Glanville Museum, a cooperage linking to the wine and beer industries, and a church detailing the history of Mary MacKillop around the state.

The Preservation Trust spearheaded a campaign which last month won the right to bring home the 146-year-old City of Adelaide clipper.

An LMC spokesman said the idea of a heritage maritime precinct was “definitely under consideration”.

[Waewick]

good luck to them

would be a fantaistic idea if they could pull it off

[stumpjumper]

Heritage stuff that is not in itsa original location loses a bit, but it's better to have interesting things to do and see in the Port than not have them. I hope they get the thing going, and that it's as accessible as possible.

Anyone interested in a serious analysis of what went wrong at Newport Quays should read a paper on the subject, given to a conference in 2009:

http://www.tasa.org.au/conferences/conf ... onomic.htm

The paper is called 'Urban redevelopment and regulation: the case of Newport Quays'.

Its basic thesis is that the government let itself be led by the development industry in the design of the project.

"The planning of the Newport Quays redevelopment at Port
Adelaide is a case in point. It is argued that planning for the redevelopment has
placed the interests of the South Australian Government and the developers in tension
with Local Government, heritage groups, sections of the community and with new
Commonwealth policy concerns. We question whether a State regulatory regime
significantly at odds with other levels of government and the community is
sustainable in the long term."

It's an interesting article, and it shows how bullet-proof some politicians who make bad decisions can become. Local member on a 27% make Kevin Foley drove much of the government involvement in the failed Newport Quays project, yet he now denies he had much to do with it. What's more, Foley's publicly-funded superannuation will accrue a lot faster than capital gains for the punters who believed Foley when he was spruiking the project.

[stumpjumper]

The central point of the article noted above is that it is not usually in the public interest for the state to align too closely with the developer. The result of the state aligning its interests too closely with the developer is a poorly balanced, even failed development.

The suggestion is that if the project does falter, losses will be socialised while the developer's profit is guaranteed by a subsidised land price component. This subsidy is usually hidden. In addition to cheap land, the developer is sometimes offered other benefits, such as exclusive appointment with no or limited tender, rezoning to advantage or other planning benefits such as fast tracked approvals or major project status.

On top of these potential advantages for the developer, the government may assist in controlling the flow of information about the project.

If things are as skewed as suggested, it's not much of a return to the public who are effectively underwriting the project. Not only is the community locked out (except for often spurious and cynical 'public consultation' processes), but so are its local representatives, the councils, both elected members and administration. The excuse of 'commercial in confidence ' is drawn over vital information. Such a situation would not be tolerated in a public company; shareholders and the ACCC would have a lot to say.

Transparency may be uncomfortable for the government and its developer partners, but it is essential in order to let the market, rather than politicians and developers, drive the project.

[Port Adelaide Fan]

Trucks forced into Port Adelaide heart bypass

MORE than three quarters of trucks - about 1100 a day - will be diverted away from the heart of the Port in what traders are hailing as a crucial victory in the fight to revitalise the town centre.

The Transport Department will next January erect signs diverting trucks travelling north along Port Rd right onto Grand Junction Rd, then left onto Eastern Pde and Hanson Rd.

Southbound trucks will also be prevented from turning right from Perkins Drive onto St Vincent St.

In the wake of the Portside Messenger’s Time to Act campaign, only trucks delivering to local businesses will be allowed to use Commercial Rd and St Vincent St, with drivers breaking the rules to be slapped with $249 fines.

Read the full story and post your comment at the Portside Messenger.
http://portside-messenger.whereilive.co ... truck-out/

[Wayno]

Trucks forced into Port Adelaide heart bypass

great news...

[Xaragmata]

Trucks forced into Port Adelaide heart bypass

The Transport Department will next January erect signs diverting trucks travelling north along Port Rd right onto Grand Junction Rd, then left onto Eastern Pde and Hanson Rd.

I'm not sure that diverting semis onto Grand Junction Road is much of an improvement.

A better solution (IMO) was the Eastern Bypass, supposedly under construction between Commercial Road & PRExy, avoiding both Grand Junction Road
and the Port heart as shown in the Port Adelaide 2030 vision ...

http://www.the-port.com.au/pccg/downloa ... Vision.pdf

[City Masterplan]

[The Scooter Guy]

Trucks forced into Port Adelaide heart bypass

great news...

That's because trucks are noisier & more pollutant than cars.

[rhino]

I wonder if this is a temporary measure until the Eastern Bypass is completed? It seems that the northern section is already under construction. I assume this would include a freeway-type interchange on to the PREXY?