News & Discussion: Heritage Buildings

[SRW]

The timing of Nathan Paine's comments suggest that he is trying to frame the current ACC elections as heritage versus development.

Probably. Though this exact same article pops up every few months.

There is still the problem of old, low level buildings on sites zoned for multi-storey. Many must, and should go, but there are strategies for retaining some too, from offsets like transferrable floor area schemes to subsidies.

I'm curious about what your ideas are here? Do you mean something like developers, by restoring low-rise heritage properties, being merited additional height in a development elsewhere?

[stumpjumper]

There is still the problem of old, low level buildings on sites zoned for multi-storey. Many must, and should go, but there are strategies for retaining some too, from offsets like transferrable floor area schemes to subsidies.

SRW asked:
I'm curious about what your ideas are here? Do you mean something like developers, by restoring low-rise heritage properties, being merited additional height in a development elsewhere?

That is one strategy. There was for a time a transferrable floor area scheme in central Adelaide. If a site had development potential which could not be used because of heritage listing, then that unused potential could be sold. A good example is Observatory House in Flinders Street, a three storey building which is on a site of say 500sqm which at the time was zoned for 6 stories (for argument's sake). The owners of OH had a notional 3000sqm to sell which could be added to another site in the CBD to allow an increase in floor area on that site of no more than 20% (say) above what might otherwise be allowed.

The TFA scheme requires, of course, strict adherence to zoning with no overbuilding allowed except by purchase of TFA. The system worked well for a while but came undone when a developer was granted excess floor area without having to buy TFA. The scheme could be resuscitated but would require strict zoning. That may not happen.

A workable variation could be to provide other cost saving incentives for a developer - eg rate discounts or tax or stamp duty relief sufficient to make renovation of older buildings attractive. There could be a combination of council, state and federal incentives.

Another example, out of interest, could have been Fernilee Lodge in the eastern suburbs. A locally listed building was demolished because it would have prevented enough home units being built on the site to reach the allowed density. The solution could have been similar to TFA - after building say 8 instead of 12 units on the site (and restoring the old building as strata units or whatever), the developer could have sold the 4 'unbuilt units' to other developers in the area to overbuild by say 20%.

In other words, the community accepts a degree of overbuilding on unlisted sites in return for retention and adaptive reuse of listed buildings.

[stumpjumper]

One thinks he had a big ego and was overtly optimistic.

It's an interesting question. Light was quite tightly controlled by the Commissioners for Colonisation. Remember that he was an employee - a military surveyor hired to produce as quickly as possible a survey of the city of Adelaide and enough country sections to make possible Wakefield's model of settlement which involved auctions of 80 acre country sections to each of which were attached one of 1042 city acres.

I think everyone involved was optimistic. No-one knew how successful the colony would be, and my guess is that they decided 'better too large than too small'.

As to Light's character: When Light was hired, he was on the Nile in the yacht 'Gulnare' which belonged to his second wife, an heiress from whom he had separated during a cruise of the Mediterranean. Between 1830 and 1835 Light was working for Muhammad Ali, the ruler of Egypt, remodelling the Egyptian navy, when he was asked to go to London. Also in Egypt, working under Light, was Captain John Hindmarsh, who also went to London. There was some argument among the people trying to organise the new colony about whether Light or Hindmarsh should be the first governor. Hindmarsh, who disliked Light, won.

Light spent some weeks being 'schooled up' on the requirements for the new colony by the organisers, including being advised about the ideas of the philosopher Jeremy Bentham and others about the form of the ideal city.

Light managed the survey of the town acres very quickly, doing it on foot because there were no horses in the colony. He developed a method, innovative at the time, for surveying the country sections by triangulation from trig points, meaning he didn't have to physically traverse the entire landscape.

Light was by all accounts an extremely thorough and efficient engineer and surveyor. He was also good company, it seems. He was an aide-de-camp to the Duke of Wellington, who defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, and was valuable in that job not just for his efficiency but for his ability to play the guitar and dance. Light kept Wellington's HQ full of girls and generally ensured everyone had a good time.

By the time he arrived in Australia, Light had his new mistress with him - Maria Gandy, who had sailed with her brothers to Australia on Light's ship Rapid.

By all accounts, Light was a good bloke - friendly but firm about what he thought was right, as indicated in his 'epitaph':

'The reasons that led me to fix Adelaide where it is I do not expect to be generally understood or calmly judged of at present. My enemies however, by disputing their validity in every particular, have done me the good service of fixing the whole of the responsibility upon me. I am perfectly willing to bear it, and I leave it to posterity and not to them, to decide whether I am entitled to praise or to blame.'

The above should give you some idea of his character as I have found it at least, in reading the history of SA. Here's a picture of Light when he was on Wellington's staff.

[monotonehell]

All I got from that was that Light was a pimp.

[Nathan]

All I got from that was that Light was a pimp.

Is that why Light Square is the closest square to Hindley St?

[stumpjumper]

Maybe you would have lined up with some of the Adelaide 'gentry' at the time who thought that Light living in sin while married was such a scandal they wouldn't give anything for his memorial when he died in 1838.

I'd give Light a break. He was at the end of the earth, and a man is not a camel, as they say.

[monotonehell]

Maybe you would have lined up with some of the Adelaide 'gentry' at the time who thought that Light living in sin while married was such a scandal they wouldn't give anything for his memorial when he died in 1838.

I'd give Light a break. He was at the end of the earth, and a man is not a camel, as they say.

"Living in sin" I have no problem with. Pimping women... that's a concern.

[stumpjumper]

!! Who's pimping women?? I re-read what I wrote - I didn't get that at all...

[monotonehell]

!! Who's pimping women?? I re-read what I wrote - I didn't get that at all...

Light was by all accounts an extremely thorough and efficient engineer and surveyor. He was also good company, it seems. He was an aide-de-camp to the Duke of Wellington, who defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, and was valuable in that job not just for his efficiency but for his ability to play the guitar and dance. Light kept Wellington's HQ full of girls and generally ensured everyone had a good time.

Ahem. I know there's far more important content in your post, but that was all I came away with. (My problem, not yours)

[ricecrackers]

apart from whats on North Tce and a couple of streets in North Adelaide, there is very little in the greater Adelaide area that is worth preserving for heritage reasons
just because something is old, doesnt mean it should be preserved. and old here isnt really old in any event.

[crawf]

Hawt

[stumpjumper]

Light kept Wellington's HQ full of girls

Ah. According to 'Wellington: The Years Of The Sword" by Elizabeth Longford, Light's relative youth, vitality and guitar-strumming attracted the wives of Wellington's entourage of military officers to what might otherwise have been dull, port-passing dinners. Wellington liked having the women around - at least they wouldn't have smelled like horses and sworn continually. 'Full of girls' probably wasn't the best translation.

Hawt

? Too subtle, crawf.

[stumpjumper]

just because something is old, doesnt mean it should be preserved

No-one sane is arguing that, rc, but there's a lot of value in the city created by streetscape, for example (eg Ada St), and that's only one aspect of heritage conservation and adaptive re-use. There are numerous other buildings which add to the texture of the city. Have a good look above the awning level in Rundle mall, or visit a few of our dozens of well-preserved pubs.

Try going for a walk around the city - it's often the interestingly articulated older buildings with different setbacks that make the walk enjoyable. Endless street level facades of full height glazing between brushed aluminium mullions isn't my idea of interesting. Who would even cross the road to experience that, let alone the state or the planet?

There are some good modern buildings and facades too. The grey building with bluish louvred windows next to the tyre place in Pulteney St is a good example, and I personally think the new Advertiser building is pretty good..

[iTouch]

For my year 12 supervised task for English Communications, I decided to write an on-the-spot speech to the Adelaide city council on why the height restrictions should be eased, heritage listing should be smart, business should be promoted in the Adelaide CBD it's all I think about. Just warning you, it's very biased and I had to write like an Adelaidenow commentator but this is what I wrote:

The conservative mind of the Adelaide City Council has held Adelaide’s commercial development back for decades. The excessive amount of commercial demand has gone to waste with in central business district due to the Adelaide City Council’s ultra-conservative mind of keeping buildings of “historical” reference standing when really the vast majority of them are old and dilapidated. The Adelaide city council needs to realise that Adelaide isn’t a country town but a city, in fact, the fifth largest city in Australia, with a population of almost 1.3 million people.
Adelaide has the population size of Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand and also the city with the tallest structure in the southern hemisphere yet we are unable to do this with the old slow mind of the Adelaide City Council.
The argument that they have for this is that if Adelaide had tall buildings, then they would obstruct the emergency flight paths for the airport. This is proves invalid due to the fact that the vast edge of the emergency flightpath clips the corner of North and West Terrace. This should be no excuse as Westpac house (the former state bank building) exceeds the height limit by 30m being 135m, the highest building in South Australia. If Westpac house can do it, why can’t other structures?
Now I’m not saying that the Adelaide council should destroy all old buildings. That would destroy the character of Adelaide including the splendid architecture of the late 1800’s built by the wealthy settlers. I’m saying that there needs to be a balance between heritage and development. Too much heritage and our city will be held back and keep static. If development outweighed heritage, then Adelaide will lose its character and become just like every other city in the world.
However, the Adelaide city council has heritage listed over 500 buildings within the square mile. This is unacceptable.
Another benefit of highrise in the CBD is that encourages city living. With the population of Adelaide due to raise 50% in the span of 30 years, the urban sprawl it will create will invade and destroy a lot of Adelaide’s valuable, limited and precious agricultural land. Encouraging people to live in the city will reduce the sprawl. Build up not out. Simple as that.
Therefore I call the council to stand up to the people and repeal the height restrictions that holds back our wonderful Adelaide.
People talk about how if tall buildings were built, the pollution that comes with it will put pressure on our precious parklands. I say to them that they are incorrect. New York’s central park, is a third of the size of our parklands, yet it still serves as the lungs of Manhattan. Why can’t our parkland belt do what its intended to do instead of being a belt of dust in the summer time?
Interstate, there is a saying that states that “when you cross into South Australia you turn you clocks back half an hour and your calendar 30 years” this mind is changing though. Adelaide is finally growing up with recent proposals of the Harris Scarfe tower (102m), Spire (107m) and 22 Currie St (122m). I urge the council to plead the developers to execute these buildings as soon as possible as the last thing we need is a hole in the ground.
Back in 2001 before the Western Australia mining boom, Perth was our size in population, yet they had a 150m tower this is because their council was willing to step out of the country town mind into the 21st century.
Lately, there has been a lack of demand in the business commerce sector. However, it is expected that due to the expansion of the Olympic Dam, and other booms, the demand for Adelaide will increase dramatically. South Australia has so much potential to be a place of key investment but contractors and businesses are reluctant or unable to do this with the Adelaide City Council holding them back.
The population of Australia, judges a city on their skyline. An example of this is on Sunrise when they’re reading out the weather. Each city has their own skyline. But each city has an everchanging skyline, Adelaide’s skyline has seemed to remain stagnant over the past 20 years. It’s starting to look old as concrete “lego” structures aren’t the go these days. When I encourage an everchanging skyline for Adelaide, I also encourage some decent unique architecture to go with it.
I call the Adelaide city council to encourage highrise development, promote Adelaide as a financial centre not just nationally but internationally, to ease the height restrictions within the CBD but also to encourage smart growth and development to keep Adelaide environmentally friendly, but also to keep it looking attractive. I don’t want tall buildings for the sake of tall buildings, I, among the vast majority; of Adelaide want beautiful unique tall buildings for the sake of Adelaide’s identity.

scuse the amount of spelling errors, it was an on-the-spot essay, I had no chance to look over it. Keep in mind, I don't think a lot of the "name calling" to the Adelaide City Council is true. It was just to evoke some emotion. I actually believe there that the future Adelaide City Council will be of much improvement compared to the ones in the past.

[stumpjumper]

That's a pretty good effort, IMHO iTouch, well thought out and expressed.

There are a few points to be made (yours in bold):

The conservative mind of the Adelaide City Council has held Adelaide’s commercial development back for decades.

Along with the move east of many head and substantial branch offices mainly due to advances in comunications and changes in the style of servicing clients.

The excessive amount of commercial demand has gone to waste with in central business district due to the Adelaide City Council’s ultra-conservative mind of keeping buildings of “historical” reference standing when really the vast majority of them are old and dilapidated.

More relevanyt in the 70's when apparent blindness to rate differentials encouraged low level commercial development on Dequetteville Tce, Fullarton Rd and Greenhill Rd - while ACC notably owned acres of open air carparks in the square mile!

Adelaide has the population size of Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand and also the city with the tallest structure in the southern hemisphere yet we are unable to do this with the old slow mind of the Adelaide City Council.

Note the solid sandstone basement geology under Auckland (Greywacke rocks to be specific) compared with the crap under Adelaide. Even the Myer Centre need extensive ground anchors slanting under adjacent buildings to hold the sheetpiling up.

The argument that they have for this is that if Adelaide had tall buildings, then they would obstruct the emergency flight paths for the airport. This is proves invalid due to the fact that the vast edge of the emergency flightpath clips the corner of North and West Terrace. This should be no excuse as Westpac house (the former state bank building) exceeds the height limit by 30m being 135m, the highest building in South Australia. If Westpac house can do it, why can’t other structures?

True. The airport argument is a bit of an old wives tale.

Now I’m not saying that the Adelaide council should destroy all old buildings. That would destroy the character of Adelaide including the splendid architecture of the late 1800’s built by the wealthy settlers.

The 'tall' stuff was built more by British-backed banks and insurance companies than local wealthy settlers.

I’m saying that there needs to be a balance between heritage and development. Too much heritage and our city will be held back and keep static. If development outweighed heritage, then Adelaide will lose its character and become just like every other city in the world.

Agreed. Balance is the crux of the problem.

However, the Adelaide city council has heritage listed over 500 buildings within the square mile. This is unacceptable.

A lot of the listings are streetscape, open to new buildings of the right form. We have a square mile, remember.

Another benefit of highrise in the CBD is that encourages city living. With the population of Adelaide due to raise 50% in the span of 30 years, the urban sprawl it will create will invade and destroy a lot of Adelaide’s valuable, limited and precious agricultural land. Encouraging people to live in the city will reduce the sprawl. Build up not out. Simple as that.

Hear hear. I wish someone would tell Holloway so that he would stop repeating the mistakes of the 70's with his (developer-influenced?) policy of approving residential towers in fringe suburbs - Gilberton and Kent Town for example.

Therefore I call the council to stand up to the people and repeal the height restrictions that holds back our wonderful Adelaide.

See above. I'd like to see NO height restrictions in the core district.

People talk about how if tall buildings were built, the pollution that comes with it will put pressure on our precious parklands.

Whoever they are must be ill-informed. That argument is not supportable.

I say to them that they are incorrect. New York’s central park, is a third of the size of our parklands, yet it still serves as the lungs of Manhattan. Why can’t our parkland belt do what its intended to do instead of being a belt of dust in the summer time?

Quite so. See above.

Interstate, there is a saying that states that “when you cross into South Australia you turn you clocks back half an hour and your calendar 30 years” this mind is changing though.

Inter-city rivalry combined with Adelaide cringe. Means nothing.

Adelaide is finally growing up with recent proposals of the Harris Scarfe tower (102m), Spire (107m) and 22 Currie St (122m). I urge the council to plead the developers to execute these buildings as soon as possible as the last thing we need is a hole in the ground.

Yep.

Back in 2001 before the Western Australia mining boom, Perth was our size in population, yet they had a 150m tower this is because their council was willing to step out of the country town mind into the 21st century.

Perth geology: mainly sand and sedimentary rock kilometres thick - otherwise granite. Like Chicago after the fire, Perth's mining boom meant huge demand for commercial accommodation in a small area. They built up because they could, and the pressure and money were there.

Lately, there has been a lack of demand in the business commerce sector.

True.

However, it is expected that due to the expansion of the Olympic Dam, and other booms, the demand for Adelaide will increase dramatically. South Australia has so much potential to be a place of key investment

Probably true. Let's hope so, and gear ourselves up for it.

but contractors and businesses are reluctant or unable to do this with the Adelaide City Council holding them back.

Debatable. Probably partly true, but there are other factors.

The population of Australia, judges a city on their skyline. An example of this is on Sunrise when they’re reading out the weather. Each city has their own skyline. But each city has an everchanging skyline, Adelaide’s skyline has seemed to remain stagnant over the past 20 years. It’s starting to look old as concrete “lego” structures aren’t the go these days. When I encourage an everchanging skyline for Adelaide, I also encourage some decent unique architecture to go with it.

You're drawing a bit of a long bow here - that 'evidence' is anecdotal at best. God forbid Mel and Kochie design our city, although they might do a better job than Holloway and his staffers under pressure from lobbyists.

I call the Adelaide city council to encourage highrise development, promote Adelaide as a financial centre not just nationally but internationally,

Last bit easier said than done.

to ease the height restrictions within the CBD but also to encourage smart growth and development to keep Adelaide environmentally friendly, but also to keep it looking attractive.

(Applause) We could become an example of environmentally efficient dry zone development.

I don’t want tall buildings for the sake of tall buildings, I, among the vast majority; of Adelaide want beautiful unique tall buildings for the sake of Adelaide’s identity.

In the CBD. Well said.

See note about a planning debate/seminar in separate new thread.