News & Developments: Port Adelaide

[Hooligan]

I want to see all other areas of the state wither up and die and the CBD flourish

Fair enough.

dont know where that quote came from, ive never ever said that, someone has come up with some clever typing i think

Why yes, I do work for the advertiser.

[PeFe]

Port Adelaide upgrade founders Port Adelaide Enfield Mayor and independent by-election candidate Gary Johanson.
A COSTING dispute between the State Government and Port Adelaide Enfield council on a waterfront boulevard is set to stop a deal before the February 11 by-election.
Council and Land Management Corporation officials met on Monday to discuss the $7.2 million plan, three weeks after it was announced by Premier Jay Weatherill.

The State Government offered $3.6 million and called on the council to match it. The plan includes new pavement, public art, seating and lighting for an area near the Port lighthouse at the northern end of Commercial Rd.

Port Adelaide Enfield mayor - and independent by-election candidate - Gary Johanson yesterday said delays in receiving an official proposal and council budget talks made a deal before the vote "not possible".

He said the council was supportive in principle but the Government's costing appeared inflated compared with similar planned precinct upgrades.

"There can't be (a resolution before February 11) because due process has to be followed. We have to do costings and everything else," Mr Johanson told The Advertiser. "We have been pushing this with the Government since 2007 and six weeks before an election they announce something."

The Government offer was widely interpreted at the time as a political wedge allowing Labor to take credit for the plan's success but blame Mr Johanson if it failed.

Mr Johanson said he wasn't invited to Monday's meeting and the project was in danger of becoming a "pipe dream".

Housing and Urban Development Minister Pat Conlon said government money could be released as soon as the council agreed to deliver its half of the funding.

"He's got to be clear on whether he's dealing with us as a local mayor in the interests of the Port or candidate in his own political interests," Mr Conlon said. "The real problem is the mayor can't disentangle his interests."

Mr Conlon said the Government calculations were updated estimates based on council costings for a similar upgrade proposed in 2006.

Mr Johanson refused to stand down as mayor for the rest of the campaign.

"I'm working very hard for our community. I'm the one with the knowledge on the ground," he said.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6242996245

[skyliner]

As someone else said, get the clipper there (refurbished), rather than a bland, and probably empty, pedestrian area. However, the big factor is getting people in Pt Adelaide again - he ship will help.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[rev]

The question is what sort of people and how many people do you want to attract to the Port(or any destination)?

For me personally, some ship wreck isn't going to entice me to go down to the Port. It simply doesn't interest me, and I'd bet the majority of people feel the same.
That's not to say don't bring the restored clipper here as a tourist display.

Now I'll probably be abused endlessly for this but.....

Why shouldn't there be a second casino in this city down at the Port?
Why shouldn't there be night clubs, bars, restaurants, and all the old pubs revamped?

By creating a happening, alive, fresh entertainment precinct, that is part of how you will retain young people in this state and attract more to move here.
Because it gives the image, the impression, that Adelaide is a "happening" place. A city that is alive, not some boring deadwood floating at sea.
It creates positive buzz and a positive impression and view of our city.

What we have at the Port now is a disgrace. I'm sure we all agree.
A giant shed.
Some shitty prefab town houses.
A bunch of pubs most of which sit mostly empty.
Empty buildings decaying.
And lets not forget that big empty space with a fence around it sitting right on the water front.

The Port at night is literally void of all life.


The state government needs to open it's imagination.
Town houses, some crappy apartment buildings, some marina berths, aren't going to cut it.
Unless the Port is meant to become another ordinary suburb with ridiculous property prices.


Even second world developing countries have more foresight and imagination then we do.

[[Shuz]]

We should get the clipper back, but then turn it into a nightclub!

[crawf]

The question is what sort of people and how many people do you want to attract to the Port(or any destination)?

For me personally, some ship wreck isn't going to entice me to go down to the Port. It simply doesn't interest me, and I'd bet the majority of people feel the same.
That's not to say don't bring the restored clipper here as a tourist display.

I do agree with Rev here. Though if the clipper is going come here then it should form part of a new modern maritime museum built along the water edge, possibly along one of the disused docks or Harts Mill Precinct, which could form part of a larger plan including cafes and apartments. The current maritime museum is okay, but it's small and restrictive in expanding.

This would become a major attraction for Port Adelaide and another tourist attraction for the state. The vacant plot next to the markets could be transformed into a community square. And again the under-grounding of ugly high-voltage powerlines and more street trees would help the Port, some of Rev's ideas would help aswell.

[stumpjumper]

Here's one answer:

Explore this site to see what the Port could have become, and still could with proper management.

http://www.mysticseaport.org

I visited Mystic Seaport a few years ago, and discovered that the place began with one small boat, a few books and a shed. In 1994 an economic study evaluated the worth of Mystic Seaport to the economy of the state of Connecticut.

http://ccea.uconn.edu/studies/Mystic%20 ... Report.PDF

As it is, 9 years of mismanagement of the Port by Kevin Foley and friends has done a great deal to destroy the potential of the precinct, from pointlessly removing the Jenkins St boatyards to failing to manage the Port's heritage buildings to advantage.

It would be hard to beat the government for abysmal project management of the whole area. Consider this:

"It is expected that 2,000 jobs in new commercial enterprises and existing businesses will be created, with a further 4,000 jobs created during the 10 year construction phase." - Newport Quays brochure 2003.

Ho ho ho. We should be looking at successful development of former waterfront precincts around the world - Mystic Seaport, 26th St Pier in New York, St Katherine Docks and Gloucester Docks in the UK, the docks in Hobart, Cape Town, and similar cities around the world, and see how it's done.

Instead, what we did is left it to the geniuses in the Land Management Corporation to succumb to the rosy offers of the first developer who painted an attractive picture. The result has been a failed development and endless law suits. Well done, Kevin and Mike.

[[Shuz]]

Trust Stumpy to get up at 5:41am in the morning to have another Mike & Kev rant.

Don't get me wrong, I usually like your posts, but it kind of smacks of insanity.

[Will]

From the Messenger:

I am always wary of these community meetings, because judging from some of the comments reported, it appears that the local community doesn't want anything of significance to happen down at the Port, which is a shame.

I don't think I will ever understand why in Adelaide, development and heritage cannot co-exist?

New Port pleas

Local News25 Jan 12 @ 09:08am by Lisa Bachmayer


MORE than 30 years after debate to redevelop the Port first ignited, the community is again demanding its maritime history, arts scene and historic buildings be preserved.

More than 400 people, including Premier Jay Weatherill, packed the Waterside Workers Hall for a public meeting about the creation of a new Port Adelaide master plan on Monday night (January 23).

Turning the shipyards into a tourism precinct and creating an arts hub at Hart’s Mill were on residents’ list of priorities - the same demands issued almost three decades earlier.

Speaking at the public meeting, Emma Webb from Port Adelaide-based theatre company Vitalstatistix called for the preservation of historical buildings and more arts spaces.

“We would like to see Hart’s Mill become a public centre for all of the arts community ... not surrounded by housing,” she said to loud cheers from the crowd.

The meeting came in the wake of the State Government’s decision to axe the Newport Quays $1.2 billion waterfront contract and take over planning responsibility for the waterfront and town centre last October.

Newport Quays was awarded a contract in 2002 to develop 51 ha of waterfront land and attract up to 4000 people to the Port.

The Portside Messenger began reporting on plans for the Port Adelaide waterfront development in the 1990s, when work to clear the harbour for a major housing development began.

The redevelopment included shops, cafes, restaurants and 2000 townhouses an apartments.

Boat builder Kingsley Haskett said Newport Quays had been “thrust down” residents’ “bloody throats”.

“(Port Adelaide) is not about high-rise development,” Mr Haskett said.

“I want to see the shipyard turned into a heritage precinct.”

Port Adelaide resident Diana Carroll wanted public spaces, such as the Port Adelaide railway station, to be more welcoming.

“That has to be the worst railway station in the world,” Ms Carroll said at the meeting.

“It looks like a prison. It is unfriendly and inhospitable. I would like to see that looked at.”

Residents such as Annie Hanson, of Semaphore, hoped the government’s promise of redeveloping Port Adelaide was “not a cynical pre-election exercise” ahead of the February 11 by-election.

Mr Weatherill said rejuvenating the precinct was “much bigger than the seat of Port Adelaide”.

“This is my community. I live just up the road,” Mr Weatherill said at the meeting.

“It is not just a matter of public politics for me.

“I wanted to come here, speak directly to the community and demonstrate we are serious about making this work.”

A steering committee made up of community and council representatives and tourism, maritime heritage and business experts will be formed to help create Port Adelaide master plan over the next 12 months.

[Wayno]

Agree Will, there's certainly plenty of space for both new & old to co-exist.

and this is soooo true:

“That has to be the worst railway station in the world,” Ms Carroll said at the meeting. “It looks like a prison. It is unfriendly and inhospitable."

[metro]

pffffffft Port Adelaide is not the worst railway station in the world..

no, that title belongs to Islington

[crawf]

It was mentioned sometime ago by DTEI that Port Adelaide Station will undergo further renovations worth $9-10 million, once electrification is complete.

[stumpjumper]

why in Adelaide, development and heritage cannot co-exist

Nail on head, Will. I've recently been to NZ, the UK and to Belgium of all places. Sure, there are 'issues' between development and heritage, but nothing like the complete dissing of heritage by developers as happens here, nor is there anything like the attitude of the government to heritage as there is here.

Heritage conservation in the places I visited seems respected as a potential source of income, and it is taken for granted that heritage conservation is a social good and is worth spending money on. If anything, in the places I visited, heritage conservation is more like a competing developer than a kiss of death to be avoided at any cost.

Yet in SA, the Weatherill government, like the Rann government, is continuing the degrading of heritage management. The 'Heritage Branch' has been further emasculated and defunded to become the 'Heritage Policy Unit', and under the present head the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (formerly Department of Environment and Heritage) will continue to downgrade anything without leaves on it or that has to do with human culture (except indigenous culture).

The State Heritage Authority has become the State Heritage Council - the word Authority being a little strong, and the former Minister for Environment and Heritage has become the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation.

The government has never really articulated the reasons for hits apparent paranoia where heritage is concerned, but it seems pretty clear that it equates heritage conservation with stagnation and loss to the development industry.

An answer to that would be to compare the desolate and deserted Newport Quays with any of the buzzing former harbour precincts around Australia - Darling Harbour, Fremantle, Salamanca Place etc - where the best land has not simply been handed to residential developers, as happened at our Port.

[Will]

why in Adelaide, development and heritage cannot co-exist

Nail on head, Will. I've recently been to NZ, the UK and to Belgium of all places. Sure, there are 'issues' between development and heritage, but nothing like the complete dissing of heritage by developers as happens here, nor is there anything like the attitude of the government to heritage as there is here.

Heritage conservation in the places I visited seems respected as a potential source of income, and it is taken for granted that heritage conservation is a social good and is worth spending money on. If anything, in the places I visited, heritage conservation is more like a competing developer than a kiss of death to be avoided at any cost.

Yet in SA, the Weatherill government, like the Rann government, is continuing the degrading of heritage management. The 'Heritage Branch' has been further emasculated and defunded to become the 'Heritage Policy Unit', and under the present head the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (formerly Department of Environment and Heritage) will continue to downgrade anything without leaves on it or that has to do with human culture (except indigenous culture).

The State Heritage Authority has become the State Heritage Council - the word Authority being a little strong, and the former Minister for Environment and Heritage has become the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation.

The government has never really articulated the reasons for hits apparent paranoia where heritage is concerned, but it seems pretty clear that it equates heritage conservation with stagnation and loss to the development industry.

An answer to that would be to compare the desolate and deserted Newport Quays with any of the buzzing former harbour precincts around Australia - Darling Harbour, Fremantle, Salamanca Place etc - where the best land has not simply been handed to residential developers, as happened at our Port.

I think the problem is that here in SA is that our population is polarised on the issue. On one hand, we have local residents who are heritage zealots and whom do not want anything to change. Whereas on the other hand, we have those who based on our inferiority complex, do not value heritage and see it as a barrier to progress, even if that progress is substandard, but as long as it puts a crane on the skyline....

What we need to realise is that both heritage and development can co-exist. The places you have mentioned are succesful, not because they were mummified into a timecapsule like many local councils and residents would like to do to our CBD, Glenelg and the Port. But rather, because those places embraced the best of the past, they were not scared of getting rid of things from the past that had become obsolete, and they allowed sensible development to be built.

[MessiahAndrw]

I think there is a line between what is worth saving for heritage purposes and what should be redeveloped. In my opinion, something should be saved based on it's own merit (is it a good building? nostalgia?) not just because it's old.

For example, I love neo-classical and Art Deco architecture. Not because it's old, but because I like that style. I wouldn't be hesitant in knocking down some crummy ugly 1920s era plain brick box to replace it with a modern neo-classical bank. But, I would fight if they wanted to knock down the State Library for example.

Sadly, we don't see anything built in the style I enjoy the most (neo-classical) because stonemasonary has fallen out of fashion these days.