ONH: [Gilberton] 45 Park | 35m | 10lvls | Residential

[baytram366]

Any photos before the demolition? I never took much notice of the site as I drove past it every morning on the way to work until it was too late...

[flat04]

Any photos before the demolition? I never took much notice of the site as I drove past it every morning on the way to work until it was too late...

BT, I found an interesting website the other day. It has aerial images like Google Maps but not just from over head but also at an angle. You might find it interesting to have a look at the development sites with it and the best thing, it stores its old images so you can go back on the time line. http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-34.908108,1 ... d=20091201

Just click on the 'Multi View' button and then choose the aspect you're after.

Flatty.

[rhino]

Gilberton 10-storey housing development gets nod
SHERADYN HOLDERHEAD From: The Advertiser October 27, 2010 12:01AM

HOUSING up to 10 storeys high can now be built on the former Channel Seven studio site at Gilberton.
Urban Development and Planning Minister Paul Holloway revealed restrictions on the site would be altered to allow "more appropriate" housing to replace what he described as an eyesore.
"So close to the city and the parklands, this long-derelict studio site has the potential to become a showcase for the aspirations of the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide," he said. Mr Holloway said the move would "unlock the site's economic potential".
"Allowing for a more appropriate housing density of up to 10 storeys overlooking the parklands will unlock the site's economic potential and provide a scale of development that is attractive to residents wishing to live near the city and along a major transport corridor."
He said Walkerville Council's initial rezoning of the Park Tce land was too low in density and scale.
"We need councils throughout Greater Adelaide to embrace polices that are consistent with the plan if we are to achieve our objectives of curbing urban sprawl by attracting more investment into the inner suburbs," he said.
"This Government won't hesitate to step into the planning process if local councils are unwilling to make the changes to their Development Plans required to achieve the principles and objectives of the 30-Year Plan."
A spokesman for the site owners, Watersun Asset Pty Ltd, said the decision would allow the company to maximise the community and economic benefits arising from the development of the site where there was an opportunity to create a "first-class" residential community.
He said Watersun had explored a range of options for the site's development and would release a proposed plan in due course.
Walkerville Council mayoral candidates Tony Reade and Heather Wright said while they were opposed 10-storey building heights in Gilberton, they realised there was little that could be done about the government's decision.
Mr Reade said: "The greatest fear residents have is being overlooked, privacy and over shadowing - I don't think it's fair to all of a sudden have a huge building right next to us."
The government's decision on the Gilberton site follows an announcement earlier this week that four councils would support the government, allowing units to be built above shopfronts and up to five-storeys along major road, rail and tram routes in a 2.5km radius of the city including Port, Prospect and Unley roads.

[AtD]

To be clear: this is just a rezone not an actual proposal. Correct?

[Benski81]

Hahahaha Reade and Wright.

[stumpjumper]

And the Mayor has been Whiting for years.

Apart from the peppering of the suburbs, inner or not, with 10 storey buildings being unsupported by any planning theory on the planet, even in this location the 'TOD theory', there are two other problems with this decision.

First, a problem of equity: The price paid by Watersun Asset Pty Ltd for the land was based on its development potential of two or three levels. That Watersun has been able, by some serious and expensive lobbying, been able to have just their site rezoned to ten levels delivers to Watersun a significant boost in the value of their site. To put it another way, the land value in each apartment will be a lot lower than it would have been without the rezoning. This discount will not be passed on to apartment buyers, though. The vendor of the land might be a little miffed too.

Second, a problem of consistency: Why shouldn't the Hackney Hotel now apply for ten stories, or someone put together four bungalows on Rose Terrace and go for ten stories? What about a big site on Edwin Terrace? A ten storey building there would be good business. Unless there is a very specific argument for the Watersun site, it will create a very difficult precedent.

Planning minister Holloway, Advertiser 27th Oct 2010: "Allowing for a more appropriate housing density of up to 10 storeys overlooking the parklands will unlock the site's economic potential."

Advertiser 27th Oct 2009: "Property Council of Australia executive director [and former Holloway staffer] Nathan Paine wants 12-storey residential buildings looking over the parklands."

We should all be putting together parcels on the park frontages of North and South Adelaide, Hazelwood Park, Beaumont Common, etc. Don't worry about the zoning or the council.

[Aidan]

And the Mayor has been Whiting for years.

You had me floundered for a while!

Apart from the peppering of the suburbs, inner or not, with 10 storey buildings being unsupported by any planning theory on the planet,

When I saw ABC news interview an urban planning expert from the University of Adelaide who opposed it, I was very surprised - partly because I didn't know Adelaide University even had that department, but mainly because I'd expect the experts at UniSA to come to the opposite conclusion!

We've got fairly high population growth, it has to go somewhere, and there's a general consensus that ever more sprawl isn't the best solution. Putting flats where there's a demand for them is a better way to accommodate more people than replacing existing houses with smaller ones. And a few high rise blocks of flats are preferable to lots of low rise ones, providing they don't adversely affect the area's existing residents.

In the past, the building of an eleven storey building in Walkerville may have been regarded as peppering (though the government had their reasons). But this certainly isn't. It's on a major road, and there are plans to build more multi storey buildings along major roads. Though this usually involves them being up to 5 storeys high, taller ones will be permitted facing the parklands. And not only does this face the parklands, it also has the Torrens Linear park on two sides.

It also has good bus services and is within walking distance of a lot of facilities. Walkscore rates it as 85%, or Very Walkable.

even in this location the 'TOD theory', there are two other problems with this decision.

First, a problem of equity: The price paid by Watersun Asset Pty Ltd for the land was based on its development potential of two or three levels. That Watersun has been able, by some serious and expensive lobbying, been able to have just their site rezoned to ten levels delivers to Watersun a significant boost in the value of their site. To put it another way, the land value in each apartment will be a lot lower than it would have been without the rezoning. This discount will not be passed on to apartment buyers, though. The vendor of the land might be a little miffed too.

Watersun win because they're allowed to make better use of the land they own. The council win because the value of the land rises so they get more revenue from rates. The buyers may even benefit a bit, as flats in such a good location won't be in such short supply. The vendor might be miffed, but that's business.

Second, a problem of consistency: Why shouldn't the Hackney Hotel now apply for ten stories,

If it wants to it should. That doesn't mean the application should be successful, but going against the wishes and interests of the owners is something that should only be done where there are good grounds to do so.

or someone put together four bungalows on Rose Terrace and go for ten stories?

Why not? It seems to be mixed use already, and it wouldn't overshadow any residential area.

What about a big site on Edwin Terrace? A ten storey building there would be good business.

Now you're just being silly. Edwin Terrace is in a fairly quiet residential area, the character of which would be ruined by a ten storey building.

Unless there is a very specific argument for the Watersun site, it will create a very difficult precedent.

There is, but even if there wasn't, I don't see what's at all difficult about it.

Planning minister Holloway, Advertiser 27th Oct 2010: "Allowing for a more appropriate housing density of up to 10 storeys overlooking the parklands will unlock the site's economic potential."
Advertiser 27th Oct 2009: "Property Council of Australia executive director [and former Holloway staffer] Nathan Paine wants 12-storey residential buildings looking over the parklands."
We should all be putting together parcels on the park frontages of North and South Adelaide, Hazelwood Park, Beaumont Common, etc. Don't worry about the zoning or the council.

Suburban parks like that are not on major roads - so quit your scaremongering!

[Mants]

We should all be putting together parcels on the park frontages of North and South Adelaide, Hazelwood Park, Beaumont Common, etc. Don't worry about the zoning or the council.

Suburban parks like that are not on major roads - so quit your scaremongering!

In his defence, Beaumont Common is a suburban park, but the park frontages of North and South Adelaide are on major roads, as is Hazelwood Park.

I support increased density on main roads around the city. Especially around the Greenhill, Fullarton, Deq'ville Terrace border.
Robe Terrace should be kept as it is, as it is an area of significant character and heritage value.

As for the Eastern suburbs debate, I believe the other compass points are better equipped to cope with an increased density of people, due to the trains/trams which service these suburbs. However, it is silly under this plan that Unley will build apartments along their side of Glen Osmond Road, whilst Burnside, on the other side will not. Glen Osmond Road is a perfect example of why cohesion between neighbouring councils is important.

The Gilberton site is perfect for this kind of development, close to the city and positioned on a rapid transport corridor (o-bahn). There is a lack of services such as shops in the area, but I'm sure these would open up if development went ahead in the area.

[stumpjumper]

Here's a render of the superceded 5 storey version of the project. Note that this is a view from the east.



The relevant parts of the development plan are:

Gilberton South Policy Area 3

2 Dwellings should have an average site area per dwelling of not less than 250 square metres.

4 Buildings should be of no greater than three-storeys in height above mean natural ground surface level with the lower floor level no more than one metre above mean natural ground surface level.

6 The roofed building area (excluding pergola or garden structures) of any residential development should cover no more than 50 percent of the site of the development.

7 Residential development should have an open space ratio of not less than 1.2.

[rhino]

Dwellings should have an average site area per dwelling of not less than 250 square metres.

Wow! That's big! Not your average flat, then.

[stumpjumper]

stumpjumper wrote:
Dwellings should have an average site area per dwelling of not less than 250 square metres.

Wow! That's big! Not your average flat, then.

It is big, but that average site area/dwelling and the other constraints, although supported by Walkerville Council, were over-ridden by Minister Holloway on application from Watersun Pty Ltd.

That's one of my complaints - not about the product but the process. We seem to have two parallel planning systems - one planning system is regulated by the Development Act and administered by councils with their Development Assessment Panels and the 'independent, expert' Development Assessment Commission, with all documents on the public record.

The other system requires lodgement at council, but after that any negotiation takes place in the Minister's office with all records 'commercial-in-confidence'.

The two methods are not compatible.

[AtD]

^^ It's a valid point but do you have to talk about it in every single thread?

[iTouch]

I'm not sure about this sort of thing but if there is multiple 10 storey housing developments, shouldn't there be a bus interchange here for the future busway extension to west terrace?
I hope aidan answers this because he seems smart.

[monotonehell]

I'm not sure about this sort of thing but if there is multiple 10 storey housing developments, shouldn't there be a bus interchange here for the future busway extension to west terrace?
I hope aidan answers this because he seems smart.

Nope, the Obahn serves the North Eastern suburbs as a quick link corridor from there to the CBD. This development is right at the edge of the CBD and doesn't require a link to the OBahn, and indeed if any such thing was added it would slow down the services from the NE.

Gilberton is well serviced with buses already.

[metro]

Gilberton is well serviced with buses already.

there is only the 281 bus which is just an every 30min service off peak, i wouldnt exactly call that well serviced. Most who will live in this site, if public transport isnt improved, will drive.