Sensational-Adelaide.com

Clr Yarwood: It’s a long sordid and twisted tale and I am not the best person to tell the story – keep in mind with a $190 Mill budget and lots always going on we cannot immerse ourselves in much detail.

Thanks Wayno for pointing out the history – the short version is cross over between building issues (federal legislation) and licensing issues (state legislation) and how council enforces/interprets them.

We are doing some work on streamlining these matters now…should take 12 months or so I would expect.

Cheers

No worries, thanks for the reply Councillor.

Clr Yarwood wrote:I agree that $400k is not “affordable” – but to build something that is pretty sustainable (including solar panels), in the city, overlooking open space for $400 is good. Factor in less car use, less power and water costs and you are competing with something in Andrews’s farm for $300k.

You should also check out the VAMPIRE Index (Vulnerability Assessment for Mortgage, Petroleum and Inflation Risks and Expenses) which identifies the relative degree of socio-economic stress in suburbs:

Low vulnerability:
Central Adelaide, North Adelaide, Hyde Park, Beaumont.

Very high vulnerability:
Wingfield, Seaford, Parafield Gardens, Elizabeth.

It’s a good investment…

Keep in mind our CEO was the Deputy CEO from State Government Housing so we do have some good expertise in this area.

I understand $400k is not cheap, but we have a small budget (compared to State Government) and we are pretty much selling them for what at it cost us to build - its city land and that is expensive!

Thanks for the reply Councillor.

I share the opinion presented by Prince George, that although these apartments may save the occupants money once they are living in them, the problem remains that with a $400 000 price, the intended occupants wont be able to afford them in the first place.

I read the limitations that the council has and understand them.

However, after much thought, it occured to me that the ACC is trying to do too many things at the same time. For example, even though these apartments on Whitmore SQ, were supposed to be 'affordable accomodation', the inclusion of so much energy efficient measures have inflated the price of these apartments, as the ACC is selling these apartments at cost.

In other words, what is the aim of the project? Does the ACC want to build 'affordable accomodation'? or does it want to build 'environmentally firendly'? accomodation. Because at the moment, it cannot be both.

Why doesn't the ACC build an apartment complex with 'affordability' being the overwhelming objective? Get rid of all these environmental features and see the price come down.

Will wrote:

Why doesn't the ACC build an apartment complex with 'affordability' being the overwhelming objective? Get rid of all these environmental features and see the price come down.

A city apartment complex's location is an environmental feature in itself. I think you're on to something Will.

Councillor- are you aware of the reasons behind no parklands parking space being allowed for Soundwave this year? It had been available for the past two years, and since there was no mention of this change assumed that it would be the same this year, and (like many other people) still took the car.

Will wrote:
In other words, what is the aim of the project? Does the ACC want to build 'affordable accomodation'? or does it want to build 'environmentally firendly'? accomodation. Because at the moment, it cannot be both.

Why doesn't the ACC build an apartment complex with 'affordability' being the overwhelming objective? Get rid of all these environmental features and see the price come down.

There is no reason why it cannot be both affordable AND sustainable. Alot of features are just different ways of design, ie solar passive aspects, placement of windows, eaves, materials. Its not all solar panels and greywater systems.

peas_and_corn wrote:Councillor- are you aware of the reasons behind no parklands parking space being allowed for Soundwave this year? It had been available for the past two years, and since there was no mention of this change assumed that it would be the same this year, and (like many other people) still took the car.

Please don't take the following personally peas_and_corn...FYI on where parking should go in my opinion...we should have done more to advise soundwave ticket holders.

Re Parking – I was not aware of this specifically. We are moving away from making parking on the parklands the “norm” however; soil compression, burn outs (not you I am sure but hey do happen – a lot!) and significant wear and tear suggests the parklands where never mean to be a parking lot.

I know that does not suit many people but the reality is this is what governments and cities the entire world over are moving towards – just saying we must have limitless car parking for all is 20th C stuff I’m afraid.

We are the 349th biggest city in the world but the 3rd highest (per capita) for provision of parking spaces in the developed world! It’s also unfortunate when we assume that green public open space should be used for cars when 1/3 of urban environments are taken up by bitumen already.

Your state government is spending buckets of $ on upgrading the public transport infrastructure and we are helping by slowly changing the way people think about driving into the city.

People that want to be here for 2-3 hours will get affordable parking spaces but if you plan to come in for 7 or more hours public transport must be priced as more attractive. If it’s not we should stop public transport all together and live with congestion and car dependency.

Sorry for the rant – but we need to think beyond the car soon as Australian’s lose more economic productivity to sitting in cars that any country in the world. TRUE!

Will wrote:Why doesn't the ACC build an apartment complex with 'affordability' being the overwhelming objective? Get rid of all these environmental features and see the price come down.

Re affordable apartments – if we give up on building sustainable houses we set an example for the private industry that says it’s OK – we cannot be hypocritical when moving towards carbon neutral communities is essential.

Anyway affordable in the short term is not necessarily affordable in the long term - do you want governments thinking long or short term? Long term I hope!

omada wrote:

Will wrote:
In other words, what is the aim of the project? Does the ACC want to build 'affordable accomodation'? or does it want to build 'environmentally firendly'? accomodation. Because at the moment, it cannot be both.

Why doesn't the ACC build an apartment complex with 'affordability' being the overwhelming objective? Get rid of all these environmental features and see the price come down.

There is no reason why it cannot be both affordable AND sustainable. Alot of features are just different ways of design, ie solar passive aspects, placement of windows, eaves, materials. Its not all solar panels and greywater systems.

I am not talking about the environmental features that you mentioned, Indeed, by all means, buildings should incorporate them.

I am refering to things such as low E glazing, waterless urinals, wind turbines, those special airconditioners which only circulate air once, hypoallergenic carpet etc...

Clr Yarwood wrote:

Re Parking – I was not aware of this specifically. We are moving away from making parking on the parklands the “norm” however; soil compression, burn outs (not you I am sure but hey do happen – a lot!) and significant wear and tear suggests the parklands where never mean to be a parking lot.

I know that does not suit many people but the reality is this is what governments and cities the entire world over are moving towards – just saying we must have limitless car parking for all is 20th C stuff I’m afraid.

We are the 349th biggest city in the world but the 3rd highest (per capita) for provision of parking spaces in the developed world! It’s also unfortunate when we assume that green public open space should be used for cars when 1/3 of urban environments are taken up by bitumen already.

Your state government is spending buckets of $ on upgrading the public transport infrastructure and we are helping by slowly changing the way people think about driving into the city.

People that want to be here for 2-3 hours will get affordable parking spaces but if you plan to come in for 7 or more hours public transport must be priced as more attractive. If it’s not we should stop public transport all together and live with congestion and car dependency.

Sorry for the rant – but we need to think beyond the car soon as Australian’s lose more economic productivity to sitting in cars that any country in the world. TRUE!

please rant this post, word for word to your fellow councillors. This is what we want to hear, especially from a city councillor. Please put forward proposals to cap car parking provisions for new office developments, not set huge minimum amounts like what appears to be the case now. We are a city of multi-storey car parks, and Ive always argued this has been the cause of the ACC planning car ratio requirements. We have so much supply that car parking is so cheap, that even the most lowest paid workers in the city can park their car all day so cheap that they dont bother with PT anymore

Clr Yarwood wrote: ... the reality is this is what governments and cities the entire world over are moving towards – just saying we must have limitless car parking for all is 20th C stuff I’m afraid.

Your state government is spending buckets of $ on upgrading the public transport infrastructure and we are helping by slowly changing the way people think about driving into the city.

Yeay! I love the improving public transport such as the tram extension, new trams and increased frequency. Look at the increased patronage! I look forward to the extension and electrification of the train network. Clean, modern, safe, affordable and frequent and interconnected services will persuade more folk to catch public transport.

Kudos to the current state government for what they are doing in this area and hope it continues, whatever the result of the upcoming state election. The tram network has a vital role in regeneration of parts of the city and surrounding suburbs, facilitating higher densities closer to amenities and limiting urban sprawl.

Your thinking is refreshing and much appreciated but I'm dismayed to see more carparks being built in the city eg. Wakefield St.
I would love to see dedicated bus (and cycle) only lanes in major public transport corridors such as Grenfell St., Currie St. and North Terrace, less on-street parking and more cycling lanes.

On another note, is it possible to improve the streetscapes of Adelaide by planting more shade trees? Too many city streets are devoid of trees.
I'd rather see trees and wider footpaths in Rundle St. East than parked cars.

Clr Yarwood wrote:

Will wrote:Why doesn't the ACC build an apartment complex with 'affordability' being the overwhelming objective? Get rid of all these environmental features and see the price come down.

Re affordable apartments – if we give up on building sustainable houses we set an example for the private industry that says it’s OK – we cannot be hypocritical when moving towards carbon neutral communities is essential.

Anyway affordable in the short term is not necessarily affordable in the long term - do you want governments thinking long or short term? Long term I hope!

Actually, I like the direction that Will is suggesting here. Density is a sustainable technology (or at least it can be, providing we get some other pieces of the puzzle right). If we can make places in the city that people working in the city can live in, so they do not need to travel long distances to and from work, we are taking a big chunk out of their energy use and emissions. Even NASA reported just a few days ago that motor transport is the key driver of climate change. I don't have the link handy, but the densest US cities (Chicago, New York) have significantly lower per-capita energy use than the majority of the country, and that's not because the population are living in hi-tech ecologically designed buildings (quite the opposite). It correlates much more strongly with their low rates of car ownership.

While the population of the inner city areas is creeping up slowly, Buckland Park will get built, Two Wells, Mt Barker, Murray Bridge, Lewiston, Kapunda will all expand, even Concordia may get built. Too much of the talk on sustainability turns into greenwashing - too much focus on CFL globes and high R-value insulation, but every time they get in their cars the benefits are more than gone.

I agree with ALL the comments here – thats great.

Re Density – the world’s most liveable city Vancouver calls it ECO-Density. That is what I am pushing for and being a city dweller I hope I can be the “pin up” guy living the dream – city living is great fun. And I have a family of 4…

Re car parking and public transport – there needs to be a continuing dialogue around this with the community and I hope I have the professional expertise, street cred and communication skills to shift the understanding and set new goals.

I’m working pretty hard at this stuff…it’s why I am here.

In a lighter note don’t call me tomorrow; I will not be able to hear after might of AC/DC belting tunes out this eve!

Clr Yarwood wrote:

peas_and_corn wrote:Councillor- are you aware of the reasons behind no parklands parking space being allowed for Soundwave this year? It had been available for the past two years, and since there was no mention of this change assumed that it would be the same this year, and (like many other people) still took the car.

Please don't take the following personally peas_and_corn...FYI on where parking should go in my opinion...we should have done more to advise soundwave ticket holders.

Re Parking – I was not aware of this specifically. We are moving away from making parking on the parklands the “norm” however; soil compression, burn outs (not you I am sure but hey do happen – a lot!) and significant wear and tear suggests the parklands where never mean to be a parking lot.

I know that does not suit many people but the reality is this is what governments and cities the entire world over are moving towards – just saying we must have limitless car parking for all is 20th C stuff I’m afraid.

We are the 349th biggest city in the world but the 3rd highest (per capita) for provision of parking spaces in the developed world! It’s also unfortunate when we assume that green public open space should be used for cars when 1/3 of urban environments are taken up by bitumen already.

Your state government is spending buckets of $ on upgrading the public transport infrastructure and we are helping by slowly changing the way people think about driving into the city.

People that want to be here for 2-3 hours will get affordable parking spaces but if you plan to come in for 7 or more hours public transport must be priced as more attractive. If it’s not we should stop public transport all together and live with congestion and car dependency.

Sorry for the rant – but we need to think beyond the car soon as Australian’s lose more economic productivity to sitting in cars that any country in the world. TRUE!

I certainly agree with your sentiments regarding public transport, it's just that people expect that if something is available one year, it will be so the next. I'm not blaming you for nobody knowing this (I didn't spot it on the Soundwave website...), it's not your job to make this known.

Clr Yarwood:

I agree with ALL the comments here – thats great.

Re Density – the world’s most liveable city Vancouver calls it ECO-Density. That is what I am pushing for and being a city dweller I hope I can be the “pin up” guy living the dream – city living is great fun. And I have a family of 4…

Re car parking and public transport – there needs to be a continuing dialogue around this with the community and I hope I have the professional expertise, street cred and communication skills to shift the understanding and set new goals.

I’m working pretty hard at this stuff…it’s why I am here.

In a lighter note don’t call me tomorrow; I will not be able to hear after might of AC/DC belting tunes out this eve!

I wish I lived in the City of Adelaide Council area, then you'd get my vote Councillor, ever thought of State Politics?

More younger folk should get into politics to try and make a difference, although politics is eating up a certain former Aussie Band frontman.

I shall only reinstate here my desire for development that is able to stand on its own two feet without endless subsidies from various government bodies. The catalyst for increased volumes of cheaper housing is absolutely within the redesign and relaxation of the regulatory framework - we simply cannot throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at relatively small developments in an attempt to make them 'affordable' for a select group of people who meet a very strict criteria if we continue to demand a building is no more than X height with at least X number of carparks with X amount of bricks and X plants with no more than X leaves on each stem.

No wonder there aren't any developers wanting to build cheaper apartments. Only a homogenous business plan is able to achieve any sort of return under such a strictly-defined model, which is why we see so many developments of more or less the same size, with similar prices for similar apartments - that is, when you have no choice but to build a ten-storey apartment block with 100 carparks, fifty windows, seventeen plants and four inches of setback because that's what you and the eight blocks around you are limited to, why on earth would you price them more cheaply than the same block next door, unless the Council or state government threw a few hundred thousand at you to do otherwise? I'm sorry, but that's not a financially sustainable model at all.