News & Discussion: Adelaide City Council

[stumpjumper]

No, I wouldn't class 10 levels as 'mid-rise' - not in relation to Adelaide, anyway. It's a matter of choice, I suppose. I'd say 2-3 levels is 'low-rise', four to six is mid and over about 6 is high-rise - for Adelaide, as I said.

Whatever you want to call it, I think that it's worth thinking about a level of about 4 or 5 levels across Adelaide, with street level shops and commercial in suitable precincts with a few corner businesses even in residential precincts. Similar to the development on East Tce to the north of Halifax St.

That pretty reactionary planning, I know - corner shops and street level businesses with residences above, even a few walkways through to other streets. It works a reat elsewhere - human scale, interactive communities etc. The total accommodation would be comparable to a few towers among existing one and two level development, as is the case now. What's not to like, even from a developer's point of view?

[AtD]

Wow stumpjumper is agreeing with the years old status quo. How progressive of you!

Seriously though, 'low-rise,' as far as I'm aware, is anything over the 4-5 mark. This is basically the highest that was leaseable before lifts were invented. Back before the days of disabled access, it was almost the benchmark for requiring a lift in a residential building. 4 levels is almost suburban in your "buzzing" Sydney and is very common in dozens of rural centres across the east cost.

I think a reasonable drinking age is important. But I would say reasonable is about 14 or so... for Adelaide.

[Nathan]

It's disappointing that after agreeing with Yarwood and Clarke not to use posters, Wong has now plastered Adelaide with them. If they are made of organic corflute and vegetable dyes, the disadvantaged could always eat them, I suppose.

I was unaware there was such an agreement. If indeed that's true, then that's quite sneaky of Cr Wong and a bad reflection on his campaign.

[Omicron]

Yes, well. While some advocate the removal of state Upper Houses, I'm far more inclined to give councils the boot. Far, far too much power placed in the hands of people with such limited scope and empirically unrepresentative 'mandates', and far too many councillors with frighteningly over-inflated views of themselves and their severely overstated importance in the world. To hell with such self-serving idiocy.

[stumpjumper]

Wow stumpjumper is agreeing with the years old status quo. How progressive of you!

Yeah well. We all mellow. I don't mind the 2006 limits. As to what is low, mid or high rise, it's semantics. Perhaps Howie could post local definitions for this board...

4 - 5 levels was the maximum in pre-lift days, it's true, but it also happens to be a good height for the non-core or flat-out historic areas of Adelaide too, I think. That level works for carparking, environmental and general traffic issues, as discussed. It's also quite a good height aesthetically - a matter of opinion again - but it allows a plinth course of shops etc, with the cornices or attic storeys within normal view. It's of human scale, which is an important factor in making a city feel comfortable.

Nathan - Ralph Clarke told me that when I was offering to help his campaign (ooh what a giveaway!). I believed him.

Omicron - I feel the same about councils, with the reservation that state governments would have to be very good at service and program delivery to replace councils. We saw what happened when federal Environment Minister Garrett asked his federal department to deliver on ground the insulation program. The feds had absolutely no idea of how to do it properly, whereas state and local government generally deliver services quite efficiently - even our lot. Perhaps four mega-councils might work for Adelaide. North, Central, South and Hills, all focussed on service and program delivery, with state government (meaning an empowered, expert Planning SA as much as the elected government calling the shots) making the policy and planning decisions. The main concern then would be to have an effective avenue for the average punter to be heard. Oh, and life imprisonment reading Hansard for any government official or party hack or MP or staffer who behaved corruptly, eg took 'donations' in return for favourable treatment for the donor.

[david]

I think the summary of Wong's 'policies' is pretty well on the mark.

Anyone who is considering voting for Wong needs to take a look at his achievments in his 3 years as a Councillor (it won't take long). This is the same man who recently claimed that he was 'embarrassed' by the Council; presumably the same Council of which he has been a member. So what was he doing all that time???

If you scrape away the venneer of flam and social flittering and try to find some substance you will be sorely disappointed! I have sat beside this man at Council meetings for the last 3 years and I have seen nothing of what is now being written up by his media organisation.

His interest is business - his business - and the insatiable desire to 're-brand' Adelaide and swan around selling his wares to the world. Surely that is not the primary function of a Lord Mayor.

And isn't Bespoke the same group that sold Cheltenham and almost got its way in Victoria Park?

And by the way, Corflute posters might be edible but they are a blight on the visual environment and almost as tacky as the T-shirts.

Adelaide needs a mature and seasoned performer as its next Lord Mayor NOT a social butterfly!

David

[stumpjumper]

We await your candidacy, David. (When you've got a few more years of life experience under your belt, of course! )

[david]

If there is one thing that 'years of life experience' gives you, it is an understanding of your limitations!

I am campaigning to be elected to continue to serve as a Councillor and to contribute to all the facets of the good governance of the city.

David

[Isiskii]

Agree with sentiments regarding Wong. All spin, no substance.

[Will]

In defence of councillor Wong, at-least he is pro-growth and pro-change.

It is a shame that the same cannot be said of other members in the ACC.

Furthermore I would rather his policies as oppossed to concrete and detailed policies from others that involve things like: "no more high-rise", "no development in the parklands", "the parklands should not be used for festivals", "let's shut down pubs at 11", "no dedicated bike-lanes"

[stumpjumper]

One good thing that can be said about Wong is that the Shoppies knocked on his door, not he on theirs. Apparently the Shoppies hate Ralph Clarke so much for what he did to 'their' government that they will support anyone who runs against him.

Otherwise, though, there are better choices. 'No policy' does not equal 'good policy'.

[JamesXander]

I like business. Business is good.
Retail is good. I like retail.
I like Adelaide, living in Adelaide is good.


(80% of rates are paid by business) x2


Vote Wong

[david]

In defence of councillor Wong, at-least he is pro-growth and pro-change.

It is a shame that the same cannot be said of other members in the ACC.

Furthermore I would rather his policies as oppossed to concrete and detailed policies from others that involve things like: "no more high-rise", "no development in the parklands", "the parklands should not be used for festivals", "let's shut down pubs at 11", "no dedicated bike-lanes"

I think Will spends too much time conjuring up phanto councillors with phantom policies!

In my 3 years on this Council I can't recall any Councillor saying things like: "no more high-rise", "no development in the parklands" (apart from one horrendous building proposed for Victoria Park) "the parklands should not be used for festivals", "let's shut down pubs at 11", "no dedicated bike-lanes"[/quote]

Criticism is good provided it is constructive and FACTUAL!

David
VOTE 1 FOR DAVID PLUMRIDGE for Area Councillor.
(By the way, did I actually see someone advocating a vote for WONG for Lord Mayor?)

[iTouch]

"no more high-rise",

- Sandy Wilkinson
- Anne Moran

"no development in the parklands"

- Kelly Henderson

[SRW]

Criticism is good provided it is constructive and FACTUAL!

+1