[COM] 122 Grenfell Street | 59m | 17lvls | Ibis Hotel

[rhino]

Is there a market for a 5-star hi-rise grunge hotel?

[Zills]

Hard rock cafe Adelaide!

[Envirosociocapital]

I still don't get who the club's supporters are actually angry with. The ACC? The DAC? I'm guessing it's the (probably very happy) ex-owner of the property who sold it to the developer? Or the developer?

I guess the (pre-emptive) anger should be directed towards the ACC and DAC. Property owners are free to exchange property as they wish, but that doesn't mean changes in usage should go unrestricted within a capital city.

It seems straightforward why a developer would buy a small neighbouring property so he doesn't have to spend a small fortune on extra soundproofing to reduce the noise from it's part time music venue late at night. A venue that could very well choose to close it's doors or relocate at the next opportunity anyway.

It does seem straighforward, but most of the posters here haven't been debating the developer's motivations. The developers are motivated by profit alone, which is totally fine, but the difference between a 8 or 9% profit margin should not preclude the ACC or DAC from requiring them to re-jig their plans so the hotel is adequately noiseproofed, (or perhaps the cheaper option of the developer paying to noiseproof the Jade).

When governments wish to build highways near residential developments, they are required to reimburse nearby residents for amenity loss or pay for noiseproofing. When factories are contructed near residential developments in the burbs they are commonly required to pay for noiseproofing or to confine noisy production processes to daylight hours. Pre-existing development - especially when not overtly noisy or disruptive (such as the Jade) - should have at least some "first-mover" advantage.

Secondly, if the hotel really does represent the start of a more vibrant, cosmopolitan vision for Twin street (wouldn't it be great to have cafes and outdoor dining all along the street), then SURELY, a stylish live music venue on the street would form part of that. I can't imagine that noiseproofing the Jade would cost the developer much more than 100k, which in a 59m, 17 storey development is not a huge sum. The ACC or DAC should consider this when deciding whether to prioritise the city, or the additional returns to international shareholders when setting conditions for this project. This is not an either/or situation, but developers would love to have everyone think that it is.

but seriously, for every one person who will pack up and move to Melbourne because of the loss of the JM I'm sure they'll be two (or ten) people directly or indirectly employed by the hotel who won't mind a bit. If the loss of one venue (and possibly only in it's current location) is enough for someone to jump ship to Melbourne then just go already and stop crying wolf, go see if the grass really is greener

This is where you get offensive and a little bit narrow-minded. I love that the token response to any claims that we need to retain live music venues in adelaide is always something along the lines of "well just bugger off then if you don't like it here". It shares similarities with the xenophobic "love it or leave it" mantra adopted by the flag-toting cronulla rioters. I'm actually passionate about Adelaide being a great city. Your comments imply I shouldn't even try and I should just leave. May I suggest a possible relocation to Dubai if the pace of development isn't sufficient here for you?

Finally, I know economists, budget forecasters and developers/planners like to think they can quantify the exact effect of one development on things like emigration, but this is impossible (to accurately quantify) in the case of a city. A city has a living, breathing pulse, and for creatives, is not considered to be "good" or "bad" because one particular venue is present or not. Perhaps no-one would leave as a direct result of the Jade closing, perhaps a few would leave after the next venue got closed down by big development, then perhaps a flood would leave after the next. Perhaps then this flood of creatives would equal the number of employees and daily business travellers (Yay for shiny foodcourts and after-work bars with pokies). It's the cumulative effect that is important and in this case, most difficult to quantify. In assessing all aspects to this debate, please try to consider more than just the short-term economic interests of yet another large developer seeking to make huge profits then move on elsewhere.

[Waewick]

seriously - did you read that post before you clicked submit?

[SRW]

seriously - did you read that post before you clicked submit?

Did you read it? Everything he or she wrote was well-enough reasoned. How about you try the same?

[Pants]

seriously - did you read that post before you clicked submit?

?

[Waewick]

there was a few paragrpahs after that.

it appears the website is censoring my ramblings

[Burger]

MAybe the reason for the 'safe' (some would say "Boring") facade is that the Devleoper saw the BS that went down with 123 Flinders Street. Make it simple and acceptable to Council and they have nothing to smack you with.

[crawf]

Though the council's decision is irrelevant.... I personally like the design

[serca]

I think the facade looks great . And is the same architect as 123 flinders ....... It's interesting to see the points of difference in relation to the Jade, they are valid points unlike most raised by nymbi's and council ... Unfortunately for the Jade the developer 'Hines' seem to get approvals and the ball rolling..

[Envirosociocapital]

Is there a market for a 5-star hi-rise grunge hotel?

http://www.carltonarms.com/ Perhaps not five star - but booked solid for four months when I tried to get a room there! (ok I know NYC isn't Adelaide, but there are people out there who want something different and colourful for their accommodation experience!)

And Waewick, I did read my last post quite carefully - to ensure I hadn't made any sweeping, derogatory statements. I think this is an important issue that needs balanced debate. Let me know what you disagree with or where there is something I wrote that needs elaboration and I'd be happy to do so. Cheers.

[Nathan]

The Jade Monkey has just announced their goodbyes on Facebook.

Ok my friends here is the biz: After 10 years of much loved service to the wonderful and diverse Adelaide (and beyond) musical community at Twin St, the end is nigh. Our wonderful 131 year old bluestone walled building at 29 & 29a Twin Street, Adelaide will be no more. Because even though we aren't on the exact spot, it seems that the owners don't want a live music venue next to their shiny new Hotel, something I'm sure this city needs.....BUT! Despite the sadness and turmoil this will bring, we still have till early October to send the Jade buidling out in style! So if you have ever played/celebrated or simply been at the Jade (or Two Ships) in the last Ten years then we invite all of you to come and do it one last time. This is the last dance at Twin Street chums and we'd love to fill the dance card with you! Please tell everyone you think would care and Contact Zac at [email protected] before it's too late! Lots of love and kisses, Zac, Naomi & The Jade Crew oxoxo

[FancyPants]

Maybe the suits can enjoy their Adelaide CBD experience at KFC, because that's all that will be left soon

[Will]

Maybe the suits can enjoy their Adelaide CBD experience at KFC, because that's all that will be left soon

There's nothing stopping the Jade Monkey moving into another locale. If Tuxedo Cat can do it, why can't they?

[cruel_world00]

I still can't understand why a lot of forumers seem to be nonchalant about the loss of the Jade. It's all well and good if it moves. But what is wrong with the current location? It's not being demolished to make way for this hotel. It's being demolished just because.

These are the exact types of venues Adelaide needs to maintain. Why can't they both exist?

This is the first time I have been genuinely ashamed of the reaction from Sensational Adelaide.