Sensational-Adelaide.com

Posted: **Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:41 pm**

Random fact- Ethiopia currently has two buildings over 150m under construction, well that puts us in further shame...

Posted: **Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:00 am**

Wouldn't like to go above level 3 of either one of em, though.

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:21 am**

Judicial review on the agenda
http://city-messenger.whereilive.com.au ... he-agenda/

MEMBERS of Town Hall’s Development Assessment Panel are threatening to push for a judicial review if the state’s peak planning body approves plans for a 22-level residential tower.

They say a proposal to build Adelaide’s tallest residential tower, at the corner of Flinders and Pulteney streets, is at serious variance with the development plan.

The group says if the application is given the green light, it would prove the state’s Development Assessment Commission (DAC) had no regard for the development plan and the power to rule on $10 million plus developments should be returned to the Development Assessment Panel (DAP).

DAP member Cr Anne Moran said the decision would bring a long-running dispute between the two planning bodies to a head.

“This development, if it is approved in its current form and current height, really blows the (development) plan apart,” Cr Moran said.

“The State DAC may as well have announced to all developers `we are not adhering to the plan in any way’.”

The City Messenger last month reported the DAP had unanimously rejected plans for the 22-level building, worth $120 million, because it exceeded the 40m-maximum building height for the area by 34m.

The Pruszinski Architects proposal, which includes ground floor retail, four levels of car parking, four levels of office space and 151 apartments, is expected to go before the DAC in early 2012.

The two planning bodies have been at loggerheads since 2008, when the DAC was handed power to rule on developments worth $10 million plus after the DAP refused the Tower 8 development on Franklin St.

The DAP now assesses development applications worth $10 million plus and forwards its recommendation to the DAC.

A judicial review would entail making an application to a court to determine if the decision, and the process undertaken to reach the decision, was fair and just.

The decision could be upheld or quashed and the applicant could be forced to lodge an amended proposal.

Fellow DAP member Cr Sandy Wilkinson would support a judicial review if the proposal was approved in its current form.

“It would completely undermine the planning system to the point where you may as well not have a planning system,” Cr Wilkinson said.

Cr Michael Henningsen, also a DAP member, said he would support a judicial review.

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:58 am**

perhaps rather than the building being bad - the plan is bad?

perhaps a review into the development plan would better serve the cities prospects?

edit - futher to that, any change that gets Sandy and Anne out of the decision making for this city would be a step in the right direction.

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:38 am**

For the record - these are the members of the council's DAP

Shanti Ditter (Presiding Member)
Iris Iwanicki (Deputy Presiding Member)
Prof. Mads Gaardboe (Specialist Member)
Tim Mellor (Specialist Member)
Ruan Perera (Specialist Member)
Councillor Michael Henningsen
Councillor Anne Moran
Councillor Alexander (Sandy) Wilkinson
Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:44 am**

Waewick wrote:perhaps rather than the building being bad - the plan is bad?

perhaps a review into the development plan would better serve the cities prospects?

edit - futher to that, any change that gets Sandy and Anne out of the decision making for this city would be a step in the right direction.

Completely agree.

There is nothing wrong with this building.

The only thing rotten is the current development plan, which allows for boring, beige boxes, vast featureless concrete facades to face streets, bland roof lines, massive car-parks....oh, and certain councillors who seem to forget they are living in a capital city, and not in some sleepy village.

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:14 am**

maybe it is time we have the North Adelaide City Council and the Adelaide City Council

that way Moran and Wilkinson can keep North Adealide the nice little village they want and the CBD can progress.

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:19 am**

Waewick wrote:maybe it is time we have the North Adelaide City Council and the Adelaide City Council

that way Moran and Wilkinson can keep North Adealide the nice little village they want and the CBD can progress.

Off-topic;
Waewick, no, that would be the worst outcome! We need less governance, not more. I sincerely hope that many of the LGA's across the Greater Adelaide region are merged into preferably one, but if not, at least 3 super-councils.

Back on-topic;
This is exactly the kind of attitude presented by the Adelaide City Council which justified the need to remove the right to assessing developments over $10m. Until many of those councillors and aspiring councillors-to-be, learn to grow up and realise that the City of Adelaide holds a special place as the CBD of Greater Adelaide and as the capital of South Australia, not some 'small village', then I will continue to support the State Government's right to removing (and to remove further) planning powers away from them.

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:25 am**

I was only joking shuz!

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:11 pm**

This council is again sending out mixed messages, on one hand they are doing great things with projects such as Gawler Place. But on the other hand they making themselves and this entire state look like an embarrassment by whinging again about a 75m building INSIDE the CBD core of a major city!. How are we ever going to experience growth like other cities, when we have a council more concerned of keeping the 1950s alive?. This just confirms once again they incapaptal of handling capital city growth, and the State Government should undertake a review of the dev plan and the ACC

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:20 pm**

they just don't like high rise - I'm sure this is in the mix rather than just the development plan. Look at the history for bldgs (with associated reasons) in the CBD - littered all over this site - we ARE a city and the CBD needs more high rise allowed - on the east side especially - not so affected by airline paths.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:31 pm**

So the city council (DAP) is thinking about using my money for a judicial review to stop a development? Do they really believe that is how most people in this city want their rates to be used? I know one thing; the council members don't want to be reminded that they have been elected by a small - but active - group of the eligible voters (a few hundred votes out of several thousand potential). We can blame lack of interest among the ordinary voters for that, but I think one reason is that lots of people get seriously turned off the whole debate about city development because of the way their 'representatives' act. Seems to me that these people (I won't mention any names as that might upset Sandy & Anne & Michael etc.) are so comfortable living in their never-changing little world that anything new or unusual is a threat to them. But the main reason for this situation, where the anti-development mob can pretend that they are acting in our interest, is that hundreds of thousands of the people living in metro Adelaide never have a chance to vote them out. Let's have city wide elections about city wide matters (and allow on-line voting too).

Until then we can enjoy the wonderful and lively atmosphere around the Flinders & Pulteney St intersection without any 'out of character' 'eyesores' that will upset our sensibilities.
(btw; when was the last time you heard any of these councilors say anything about amending the development plan that they always quote as a reason for doing nothing?)

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:55 pm**

Those two are unbearable.

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:04 pm**

I'd love to know what the DAP's agenda's are ??? Where are their heads at to knock back a secure investment from China in the current economic times ? This would obviously be of a huge economic advantage to Adelaide! I know Stephen Yarwood travelled around Europe to get idea's on city culture , and from memory he compared his vision of Adelaide to Paris, Saying its not "Skyscrapers" that make the city appealing but their street art, cafe's, gardens, food n wine etc. I agree somewhat and like what they are doing re - street cafe's, lane ways and their street art like Morphett Bridge. But turn it up ya knob Australia let alone Adelaide doesn't have the raw history those European countries have. We are a growing city that needs investment especially appealing ones like this. It's even pathetic I'm comparing this building to a skyscraper at 75m , soon if not careful the chinese like other developers will put Adelaide in the too hard basket.

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:25 pm**

Cottages and townhouses do not belong in the CBD. Low-rise office and apartment buildings, warehouses and other one and two level commercial buildings are also relics of the past. Obviously a tall building proposed in an area where these building types abound is going to stick out or dwarf its surrounds, but the future over the next 10+ years will be up. Eventually the very low-rise buildings will disappear. At some point we have to allow this type of proposal as a catalyst for the future development of the CBD. Previous Councils did it (Optus, Grand Chifley).

Sensational-Adelaide.com

123 Flinders Street | 135m | 39lvls | Mixed Use

[CAN] Re: PRO: 123 Flinders Street| 75m | 22Lvl | Mixed-Use

[CAN] PRO: 123 Flinders Street| 75m | 22Lvl | Mixed-Use

[CAN] Re: PRO: 123 Flinders Street| 75m | 22Lvl | Mixed-Use

[CAN] Re: PRO: 123 Flinders Street| 75m | 22Lvl | Mixed-Use

[CAN] Re: PRO: 123 Flinders Street| 75m | 22Lvl | Mixed-Use

[CAN] Re: PRO: 123 Flinders Street| 75m | 22Lvl | Mixed-Use

[CAN] Re: PRO: 123 Flinders Street| 75m | 22Lvl | Mixed-Use

[CAN] Re: PRO: 123 Flinders Street| 75m | 22Lvl | Mixed-Use

[CAN] Re: PRO: 123 Flinders Street| 75m | 22Lvl | Mixed-Use

[CAN] Re: PRO: 123 Flinders Street| 75m | 22Lvl | Mixed-Useh

[CAN] Re: PRO: 123 Flinders Street| 75m | 22Lvl | Mixed-Use

[CAN] Re: PRO: 123 Flinders Street| 75m | 22Lvl | Mixed-Use

[CAN] PRO: 123 Flinders Street| 75m | 22Lvl | Mixed-Use

[CAN] Re: PRO: 123 Flinders Street| 75m | 22Lvl | Mixed-Use

[CAN] Re: PRO: 123 Flinders Street| 75m | 22Lvl | Mixed-Use