[COM] 11 Frome Street | 138m | 37 Levels | Crowne Plaza / Adelaidean | New tallest

[Blimp]

Does Adelaide have room for all of these proposed hotels? Will be interesting to see which applications end up getting up. Disappointing that the rhino room hasn't been incorporated into this, they could have gone as far as expanding on it and making it a true stronghold for standup comedy and the like.

[Algernon]

I used to walk through those markets and have a blast, that went for an Imax.

Eh? The Imax opened a full 10 years after the markets closed.

The Elephant & Wheelbarrow hardly defines the East End (there's a lot of better, and far more authentic, pubs in the area), and the precinct definitely isn't dead. It's become the main drag for fashion boutiques, become home to some of the best restaurants in the state, and the Ebenezer Pl and Vardon Ave lanes have flourished with shops, cafes and small bars.

The Imax was built in 1998. The market occupying that site was not closed 10 years before that, not even close. I'm not talking about the market that Garden East was built on.

[Nathan]

The Imax was built in 1998. The market occupying that site was not closed 10 years before that, not even close. I'm not talking about the market that Garden East was built on.

Both the old and new markets closed in 1988, and moved to Pooraka.

[Patrick_27]

There's a million other buildings the Rhino Room can move to. It's not a specialised building like a stadium or hospital. It is sad to see it go but shit happens when cities grow.

Spoken like someone who doesn't know what is required for an entertainment venue (this mentality is why the Jade Monkey had one hell of a time trying to relocate to where they are now, what replaced their last premises? A car park). Besides, there are million other sites this building could go... But let's not talk about that because that doesn't meet your agenda.

Agenda? I like the proposal. Boohoo.

My idea of an agenda would be, I dunno, not liking a proposal and feeding the local newspaper an obviously exaggerated height and fear mongering. That sounds a bit more agenda driven than me posting on a forum that I like it.

Do you want to know the reason why the building is proposed on this site and not others?

(drumroll please)

Because the owner owns it.

It's funny, that wasn't my intention when I was asked the about height. I received a text message from a reporter whom I had met at the committee meeting (where I had suggested it could be as tall as 140m), he asked me if I had any fixed idea on what 36 levels would be in meterage and I told him I didn't really know but to perhaps compare it with the the level/meterage of the Westpac House (which is what I had done when I guessed it could be 140m) and that might give a rough indication. I don't see how my providing that could be classed as 'fear mongering' when the piece that was written didn't so much as mention my own personal agenda regarding the preservation of the Rhino Room. Now, the In-Daily article about the Rhino Room published two days ago, I take full credit for that coming to surface, note also, how the author of that article requested statements from all applicable parties involved in this? Rather than just talking about the loss of the Rhino Room.

And do you know why the developer really owns the site? Beyond the fact that he obviously purchased it...

Because the University of Adelaide refused to negotiate or even consider the sale of the Rhino Room building (and the small parcel of land it sits on) to its operator and this was well before the developer purchased the site too. So tell me, where in this process has the Rhino Room been given a fair go? And now that the site belongs to the developer, state planning and development laws will allow him to bulldoze a live entertainment venus without any kind of roadblocks, our state heritage laws (which no longer have any integrity) will allow for the demolition of a building built in 1854. I don't know about you, but this entire process seems incredibly one-sided to me, I wonder why someone such as myself would have a problem with it...

[SRW]

Unfortunately, I really can't see a reprieve for Rhino Room and they should start planning for relocation now. I'm sad to see it go, but even though the proposed building is averagely designed, this development is rehabilitating laneways and housing residents the East End desperately needs. Can't pass up that opportunity.

At whose expense? The Rhino Room's? It's not as simple as ripping everything off the walls and ceiling and moving it to another location, it comes at a high price and I can't see the developer shelling out the dough for this even though it's because of his development that the Rhino Room's future is questionable. Furthermore, I love the fact that despite the history of the Rhino Room and the demand for such venue within proximity of the Fringe, that people are willing to say: 'the design is average, but hey... fuck the awesome space that's already there, we'll just replace it with a pile of shit anyway.' It's where being pro-development enthusiasts lose their integrity to the sad state of desperation to see change no matter what the cost and what is actually provided. There's no point saying: 'it'll be sad to see it go' if you're actually in favour of this development because such statements mean nothing if you're not even willing to brainstorm and endorse the idea of both this development and the Rhino Room sharing this block of land.
And in regards to this development rehabilitating the surrounding laneways, you realise that this is exactly what this same developer said about his development over the road? And look how that turned out, the only real pedestrian activity he's provided is people coming to and from the carpark facility, almost half of the retail spaces in that development are empty. Regardless, altering this proposal to retain the Rhino Room wouldn't change any of the developers plans to activate Tavistock Lane.

It should also be pointed out that this is a hotel building not an apartment complex, it's highly likely that this building will sit at quarter to half capacity for 10 months of the year.

Yeah, I'm sad to see it go in the nostalgic sense that I had some fun times there and appreciated the venue's offering. But I'm not naïve enough to think that it was in any way unique to that space or that the space was inherently special. If that's your opinion, fine, but I and others will disagree that it's immovable or irreplaceable.

Hell, I'm in Montréal right now for another Just for Laughs festival and the diversity of venues here shows the possibility of nearly anywhere to successfully accomodate comedy. As for live music, IMO the Rhino Room was always a compromised space. Again, you may disagree, but its absence will not create an unfillable void in the scene.

I also think you draw a false equivalence between Rhino Room and Adelaide's former grand buildings and even the Jade Monkey. I've not seen any case made for heritage value of this building (being old isn't qualification) and the case of the Jade Monkey was more egregious because despite its heritage it was, as you mentioned, demolished for a car park. That's not the case here (in fact the wasted space around a car park is being made productive).

I run a business in the East End and the closure of the RAH is a legitimate risk to the daytime economy of the area, which is already challenged by competiting precincts. I can't help but look openly towards any investment that stands to build up the local population again once the RAH's thousands evacuate westward. This proposal, despite some aesthetic quibbles, will benefit the East End.

I'd like to think the land owner has a moral responsibility to do right by their tenants, but that's not the real world. The writing has been on the wall for a while and I hope a well-run business like Rhino Room has been planning for it. I do agree culture providers occupy a special field and to that extent I think government assistance could be warranted. But as far as challenging the land owner to change their fully planned proposal to develop their land as entitled - that seems incredibly unlikely.

[mshagg]

Furthermore, I love the fact that despite the history of the Rhino Room and the demand for such venue within proximity of the Fringe, that people are willing to say: 'the design is average, but hey... fuck the awesome space that's already there, we'll just replace it with a pile of shit anyway.' It's where being pro-development enthusiasts lose their integrity to the sad state of desperation to see change no matter what the cost and what is actually provided.

I would respectfully suggest you need to pull your head in a little. I get that you have an attachment to an existing business and all the power to you in your efforts to preserve it. FWIW I like the idea of retaining it as part of the site. This is something other cities do well and, for a period I think Adelaide did reasonably well, but it seems to be a scorched earth policy in recent developments - I assume because it's more expensive building around an established structure.

But I think most people here have shared a pretty objective view - that the development as a whole is solid, that it provides a much needed boost to the east end (which has been pushing shit up hill for some time and is going to be severely challenged by the relocation of the RAH) and that the problems this poses for the rhino room are not insurmountable. No one is dancing on the venue's grave and I dont think anyone is 'happy' to see it go. Indeed, most people have been flagged the possibility of renew Adelaide assisting in a relocation, which reflects people's willingness for public money to be spent on preserving aspects of our social fabric.

Let's also keep the discussion factual. Your assertions about hotel occupancy are completely baseless and it's that kind of over reach that gets people branded as NIMBYs. Your argument about preservation of culture has plenty of merit on its own without spinning bullshit or feeding half truths to our easily-influenced local shit rag newspapers.

It still boggles my mind that they're keeping the car park. Not only is it an insult to supporters of venues like rhino, but it makes it borderline impossible to properly activate the frome street frontage. Someone mentioned the idea of a traffic light controlled interaction? Ugh. STOP TINY HUMAN - MAKE WAY FOR THE VERY IMPORTANT VEHICLE EXITING THE VERY IMPORTANT CARPARK. I still cant believe they stop pedestrians on Grenfell st whilst cars alight from the HS carpark.

[noted]

Didn't realise the Rhino Room/Urban Cow building was that old. Although I suppose judging by the stone wall on the northern side its not that surprising. There is probably a pretty impressive heritage building buried deep below all that ugly purple paint. I doubt it will ever be restored to anything significant worth keeping from an architectural perspective, but still interesting.

[Nathan]

Didn't realise the Rhino Room/Urban Cow building was that old. Although I suppose judging by the stone wall on the northern side its not that surprising. There is probably a pretty impressive heritage building buried deep below all that ugly purple paint. I doubt it will ever be restored to anything significant worth keeping from an architectural perspective, but still interesting.

I think the heritage building reference was for the Gerard & Goodman building.

[noted]

Yeah the G&G I suppose is the obvious standout from a heritage perspective on the site. Was more referring to the age and history of the Rhino Room building which I found surprising.

[Algernon]

The Imax was built in 1998. The market occupying that site was not closed 10 years before that, not even close. I'm not talking about the market that Garden East was built on.

Both the old and new markets closed in 1988, and moved to Pooraka.

And you're wrong. There was a market operating on the site of the Imax well in to the 90s.

I remember crying in to a gelati in the food court watching the Cows get done by 130 points at Subiaco and that was 1995. There was also a stall with this fat Italian chick that collected nothing but Kinder Surprise toys.... and to my memory these weren't a craze, and possibly not distributed widely in Australia until the 90s. At one of the Rundle St entrances you had a guy that sold kick ass belt buckles. I could go on and on. The stall that sold friendship bracelets, and then those bracelets with the metal insert that snap curled around your wrist when you tapped it (although us kids would just rip the fabric off the outside and sap them on a mate's wrist, it cut their skin like hell...)

[Algernon]

And do you know why the developer really owns the site? Beyond the fact that he obviously purchased it...

Because the University of Adelaide refused to negotiate or even consider the sale of the Rhino Room building (and the small parcel of land it sits on) to its operator and this was well before the developer purchased the site too. So tell me, where in this process has the Rhino Room been given a fair go? And now that the site belongs to the developer, state planning and development laws will allow him to bulldoze a live entertainment venus without any kind of roadblocks, our state heritage laws (which no longer have any integrity) will allow for the demolition of a building built in 1854. I don't know about you, but this entire process seems incredibly one-sided to me, I wonder why someone such as myself would have a problem with it...

In inner city areas a small parcel of land will fetch a lower price per square metre on its own that it would either as a larger site, because it lacks high rise development potential as a stand alone. This is the basis the Adelaide Uni would have not to sell off one parcel to an individual owner - because if another buyer had the intention to buy all the parcels on the block and amalgamate them in to one then they would pay a higher price for the land. So unless the Rhino Room operators were prepared to buy the whole block they were not going to outbid the developer, and the Adelaide Uni has a right to achieve the highest price for the sale.

[Cranjer]

And do you know why the developer really owns the site? Beyond the fact that he obviously purchased it...

Because the University of Adelaide refused to negotiate or even consider the sale of the Rhino Room building (and the small parcel of land it sits on) to its operator and this was well before the developer purchased the site too. So tell me, where in this process has the Rhino Room been given a fair go? And now that the site belongs to the developer, state planning and development laws will allow him to bulldoze a live entertainment venus without any kind of roadblocks, our state heritage laws (which no longer have any integrity) will allow for the demolition of a building built in 1854. I don't know about you, but this entire process seems incredibly one-sided to me, I wonder why someone such as myself would have a problem with it...

In inner city areas a small parcel of land will fetch a lower price per square metre on its own that it would either as a larger site, because it lacks high rise development potential as a stand alone. This is the basis the Adelaide Uni would have not to sell off one parcel to an individual owner - because if another buyer had the intention to buy all the parcels on the block and amalgamate them in to one then they would pay a higher price for the land. So unless the Rhino Room operators were prepared to buy the whole block they were not going to outbid the developer, and the Adelaide Uni has a right to achieve the highest price for the sale.

Agreed. Pretty silly to suggest Adelaide University should accept a significantly lower price for their land due to some romantic vision about the importance of the Rhino Room to Adelaide. I actually really don't know what the attachment is? Sure, it's a cool place and somewhat unique I guess - but is it really that hard to replicate elsewhere?

I also don't think the new development has any responsibility to try and incorporate it. It would be much harder for a high end hotel to sell rooms with a late night venue operating underneath. The opportunity to put in a decent restaurant is much more of a selling point.

Finally, to compare the building itself to some of the other great heritage buildings lost to the city is ridiculous. I actually can't see where any heritage value lies in its current form. The ACC does a very good job of preservation these days - I really don't think we've lost anything majorly significant since the 80's.

[Algernon]

Agreed. Pretty silly to suggest Adelaide University should accept a significantly lower price for their land due to some romantic vision about the importance of the Rhino Room to Adelaide. I actually really don't know what the attachment is? Sure, it's a cool place and somewhat unique I guess - but is it really that hard to replicate elsewhere?

I also don't think the new development has any responsibility to try and incorporate it. It would be much harder for a high end hotel to sell rooms with a late night venue operating underneath. The opportunity to put in a decent restaurant is much more of a selling point.

Finally, to compare the building itself to some of the other great heritage buildings lost to the city is ridiculous. I actually can't see where any heritage value lies in its current form. The ACC does a very good job of preservation these days - I really don't think we've lost anything majorly significant since the 80's.

Well let's address the heritage question with this. Would they let you paint the Art Gallery, Old Parliament House, or the Old Gum Tree bright purple?

My comments from earlier still stand - it is sad that the built form becomes homogenised over time with new developments, and losing this type of building - irrespective of its individual merit - does detract from the overall diversity of the built environment. But I along with many here are weighing up the pros and cons, and the cons - losing a tidy venue - are not insurmountable. If it was impossible to find a suitable venue to have the Rhino Room... there would never have been a Rhino Room in the first place. And the misplaced nostalgia for the East End just isn't productive here. When I grew up the place positively thumped - you didn't just have the Fringe every couple of years, you had the Grand Prix, markets, weird French naked artists walking around in nothing but body paint and getting arrested, everything. This place doesn't exist anymore, it's a boutique cinema, apartment buildings, car parks and noise complaints. Oppose the utter crap apartments and precast concrete cinema built next to Ayres House 10-20 years ago, don't take it out on a developer in 2016 after the race has long been lost.

The RAH is for sale, paint one of those thing purple. They could have themed rooms. ICU, The Operating Table, Emergency. Fly Peter Hellier in on the helipad.

[monotonehell]

...And the misplaced nostalgia for the East End just isn't productive here. When I grew up the place positively thumped - you didn't just have the Fringe every couple of years, you had the Grand Prix, markets, weird French naked artists walking around in nothing but body paint and getting arrested, everything. This place doesn't exist anymore, it's a boutique cinema, apartment buildings, car parks and noise complaints. Oppose the utter crap apartments and precast concrete cinema built next to Ayres House 10-20 years ago, don't take it out on a developer in 2016 after the race has long been lost...

While it's true that the East End isn't the same as it was in the early to late nineties (I too remember the funky weekend markets that opened after the market gardeners moved out). And that during the naughties it suffered a bit of a lull after a load of retailers and restaurants shifted out to places like Hyde Park when the landlords put the rents up. But it's not true that the East End is dead now.

The new life is a load of small bars (two more opening soon) during the night, and an eclectic mix of cafes and retailers during the day. There's always people out and about - even on the weeknights. (IKR Adelaide has a night life during the week now, who'da'thunkit?) The closure of the RAH and the resultant loss of day trade is a concern. But there's also been a LOT of apartments thrown up in the past decade. Loads of people live here permanently now. And it's a nice mix of uni students, working people and retirees. I even know a few families with school age kids who live around here.

So far from the dead end you keep promulgating - just a different kind of lively to how it was.

[madelaide]

There is a business case to suggest that there would be greater financial benefit in retaining the Rhino Room/Howling Owl/Urban Cow alongside this development. Narrowing the podium to allow this to happen would increase the price of the hotel rooms during Fringe Season (good for the hotel operator), would lessen rate un-occupancy during the off-season and would provide a guaranteed long-term tenant that has demonstrated his ability to activate the area from the morning right through until the late evening. To avoid having a blank wall wedged right up against the Rhino Room site, because there are no such privacy concerns with the Rhino Room site, they could have windows facing out over this site. I'm not an engineer or architect but from the fly-through I've see of the building, this could easily be achieved and would really balance this proposal out nicely with what's already in the area.

I agree with you Patrick_27... The Rhino Room epitomises the Fringe. The Fringe epitomises Adelaide. These new hotels will rely on festival season visitors to justify their means. If the head is sacrificed for the tail, the whole body dies. Disrespecting a long-serving piece of Adelaide's music/comedy/festival identity, to develop an empty hotel, which could easily be designed to accommodate the success of both, side by side, sends a message that there's no plan to preserve the uniqueness of Adelaide, but to replace it.

It's easy to believe, during a winter such as this, why many Adelaideans would prefer to retain the carpark. But come summer time, we'll recall our common sense and be grateful once again for the pop-ups and the bricks and mortar venues like these. Build around The Rhino Room/Howling Owl/Urban Cow and maintain artistic integrity, or else turn the old RAH into Festival City, relocate all venues there, or whatever, who cares. Successful festivals and venues can easily be moved interstate. Or taken offshore, as the Royal Croquet Club has now done, after being pushed like this. If they hadn't been shafted in Adelaide, maybe their full potential wouldn't have been realised. Kudos to the pushing and to the pushers. I'm sure their success abroad was NIMBY Adelaide's intention.



.