News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

[rhino]

A Lady from The Park Lands Preservation Association spoke about seven storey apartments along Greenhill Road, "Ruining our way of life"..

Does she live in the parklands?

[Vee]

The roads opposite the Park Lands are ideal for multi storey apartments with views, open space for recreation, proximity to the CBD, increasing the opportunities for walking and cycling and reducing the need for endless sprawl. I would prefer more residential use on the valuable Park Lands perimeter than the plethora of offices (many low rise) and other daytime businesses with no nightime population. This would add to the vibrancy of the city and inner suburbs.

A mix of higher density residential and other current use is a much better solution to prime locations including Greenhill Rd. Rezoning with higher densities for residential use might see the conversion of some of the existing low rise office use.

I would also like to see the tram extended along Greenhill Rd and more use of the recycled water to add some green gardens and accessible (not restricted eg to schools sporting groups etc) leisure spaces to sections of the dusty Park Lands along the perimeter.

[Wayno]

Thanks Queen Anne.

For other Unley residents, the page is: http://www.unley.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=773&c=17283

Thanks QA & SRW, i don't live in Unley, but completed the survey anyway (it's not just targeted at local residents). My input focused on the need for upfront & ongoing education. I'm concerned that many people object to hi-rise because they equate apartments to slums.

[Voice of the People]

I can't find my copy of a report on the usage of the Parklands at the moment, but since the Parklands were first in place, about 20% have been lost to construction - just look along North Terrace for most of that. The report also showed that, from memory, about 12% was under lease to private schools and out of bounds to ordinary folk at some time. Some land is permanently leased to private schools - tennis courts to Wilderness and Annesley amongst others.
The elite of Adelaide looking after their alma maters and their sons' and daughters' schools. Oh, and before someone mentions Adelaide High, the area they have under control is less than that of Pulteney Grammar.
Even better, if you wish to use one of their playing fields when they are not, you must pay the school for the privilege!
I have no issue with local schools using the grounds for games on the weekends and a bit, but to fence off chunks of it for private schools is a disgrace.

Now, back to development, yes, some high rise residential around the perimeter would be awesome - like the old ETSA HQ.

[Nathan]

but since the Parklands were first in place, about 20% have been lost to construction - just look along North Terrace for most of that.

It would be interesting to see when most of that 20% was "lost". Give the majority of it is along North Tce, most of it would have been built (or at least originally taken by since replaced buildings) not long after the original plan.

[mattblack]

Also in regards to North Terrace Have we 'lost' parklands or gained a cultural boulevard? Its this sort of misleading retoric that gets people most upset, especially with groups like the PPS.

[Queen Anne]

Thanks Queen Anne.

For other Unley residents, the page is: http://www.unley.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=773&c=17283

Thanks QA & SRW, i don't live in Unley, but completed the survey anyway (it's not just targeted at local residents). My input focused on the need for upfront & ongoing education. I'm concerned that many people object to hi-rise because they equate apartments to slums.

Yes, thanks SRW, that's really helpful.

Wayno, I wanted to complete the survey too, but sort of got the impression that the council was looking for input from its own local community. Maybe I should go ahead and offer my thoughts after all.

[Wayno]

Wayno, I wanted to complete the survey too, but sort of got the impression that the council was looking for input from its own local community. Maybe I should go ahead and offer my thoughts after all.

Agree - do it, do it now!!

[Voice of the People]

Nathan,

http://www.idealcity.org.au

The above has Light's original plan. I agree that the cultural boulevard of North Terrace is brilliant and more uplifting than some more patches of weeds but Light also mentioned (I am too tired to find it now, you can try) of a such a cultural (one sided) boulevard along the Terraces - I think he mentioned West Terrace but I am doing that from memory having not read his diaries since the 1980s.

Also look at where he placed the hospital, school and markets. The reason for the the placement of the hospital and markets was to keep them away from residential areas for reasons of disease. The school was never built there - a well was discovered on the site and that site is now part of the golf course.

I am certainly not suggesting the Parklands be wrapped in cotton wool, but that as an alternative would still be better than turning what is left into more concrete as the 'develop at any cost lobby' desire. Without the Parklands, Adelaide would be a much less desirable city.

[Voice of the People]

Does anyone know what is happening to the water tower in Norwood?
Thanks (in advance).

[mattblack]

,

I am certainly not suggesting the Parklands be wrapped in cotton wool, but that as an alternative would still be better than turning what is left into more concrete as the 'develop at any cost lobby' desire. Without the Parklands, Adelaide would be a much less desirable city.

I think that everybody agrees that the parklands are an asset to the city. Its the vocal minority on both sides of the argument that get the attention and inhibits well planned and designed development from occuring. This, in my opinion makes Adelaide poorer. When discussion over the removal of a few trees here or there over rides everything, completly disregarding the fact that millions of trees and plants have been planted in the last 5 years, we really do have problems.

[stumpjumper]

This is speculation, but it's a possibility given the track record of the Rann government where land is concerned.

The govt tends to cash in on real estate wherever it can, either by selling publicly owned land (Newport Quays, Glenside, Islington etc), leasing it to developers (Casino, Hyatt) or allowing rezoning for denser, higher redevelopment. Often, the reuse of an existing site drives new govt construction somewhere else.

I'm wondering if the rezoning option is a significant driver for the Film Hub development at Glenside. It will free up at least one piece of land at the former factory site at Hendon, with many other old buildings on the site occupied by reasonably 'low' uses compared with housing. The Hendon site was a commonwealth government aircraft factory. I don't know what the government still owns there.

[dsriggs]

This is speculation.

[Omicron]

There is government-owned land/buildings at Hendon?

Makes sense, really. Hendon is a tiny pocket of industry surrounded by residential areas and a stone's throw away from the Woodville West revamp. Not far from the train, either.

[AG]

It would make sense if a TOD was planned here since the tram line extension to West Lakes will pass through Hendon. There used to be a train line through Hendon as well, but that's another story.