Sensational-Adelaide.com

i love the creativity behind this concept!

great work mate

I agree with the sage Wayno that the Parklands are an obvious candidate for a landmark.

They're a unique, truly 'world class' feature right under our noses, yet we overlook them (no pun intended) or treat them as a building site.

Alternatively, after looking at images of the Spire in Dublin, Ireland (worth a google), I wondered if a truly representative icon for Adelaide could be a 100 metre tall metallic pile of planning applications, objections and reapplications, public consultations, specialists reports, more objections and reapplications etc for an icon. The application would actually become the icon.

Think of it! A huge spike of A4 one-sided dog-eared paperwork reaching ever upwards, to be covered in time with a rich patina of seagull shit!

Eat your heart out, Paris!

The new landmark would say to everyone - 'You are now in South Australia, land of the infinite planning dispute'.

To get even more existential, the proposed spire of paperwork would never actually be built, as the project would become bogged down in its own planning dispute. The 100m of paperwork would be real, but horizontal and in council shelves!

How post-modern is that!!

I'm going to spend the weekend doing the groundwork for a draft of a preliminary statement of planning intent towards an initial application!

^^ I love it. Don't forget the shadow diagrams!

Of course, of course! Must have shadow diagrams...

And extensive consultation with all stakeholders...must have consultations...

stumpjumper wrote:I agree with the sage Wayno that the Parklands are an obvious candidate for a landmark.

They're a unique, truly 'world class' feature right under our noses, yet we overlook them (no pun intended) or treat them as a building site.

Alternatively, after looking at images of the Spire in Dublin, Ireland (worth a google), I wondered if a truly representative icon for Adelaide could be a 100 metre tall metallic pile of planning applications, objections and reapplications, public consultations, specialists reports, more objections and reapplications etc for an icon. The application would actually become the icon.

Think of it! A huge spike of A4 one-sided dog-eared paperwork reaching ever upwards, to be covered in time with a rich patina of seagull shit!

Eat your heart out, Paris!

The new landmark would say to everyone - 'You are now in South Australia, land of the infinite planning dispute'.

To get even more existential, the proposed spire of paperwork would never actually be built, as the project would become bogged down in its own planning dispute. The 100m of paperwork would be real, but horizontal and in council shelves!

How post-modern is that!!

I'm going to spend the weekend doing the groundwork for a draft of a preliminary statement of planning intent towards an initial application!

I know this is a light-hearted post, but seriously judging from your posts, we are in such a position because of ideas which people like you promote.

We need to get over this idea that every development must get the approval of every Harold and Ethel.

Perhaps I shouldn't have emphasised 'public consultations'.

I was actually ridiculing them, as such documents are usually not worth much because their producers are not well informed.

My problem is that in Adelaide there is a lack of balance in planning decisions. Imho, the views of property development industry or some other player are regularly over-represented to the detriment of the broader interests which the 'system' is ultimately supposed to protect.

That is not the same as saying that we need more public input from Harold and Ethel, who usually don't know much about urban design, construction or economics.

What I mean is that if Grocon can make a big profit out of building a 30 storey office building on a couple of allotments on say East Tce, that is not reason enough for the project to proceed, however keen the developer is to do so.

Humanity has had several thousand years' experience of urban design, with the results plain for all to see in cities all over the world.

Universities and the school of experience churn out highly qualified planners and designers.

Yet too often, in my view, developments get up which benefit the developer but disadvantage other parties, including the public at large, and including the city itself. The city, I believe, can almost be treated as an 'interested party', with the potential to be healthy or unhealthy, pleasant to be in or not, attractive to tourists or not, valued and appreciated or not by its future citizens and visitors.

It's a matter of balance, and I think that too often the power of the property industry swings the scales too far the developers' way.

So supporting balance is not the same as supporting Harold and Ethel, who have a voice, but only in balance too. Property ownership confers significant rights, but in development of property owned, in an urban environment, those significant rights are constrained by other legitimate interests: the effect on the present and future use and amenity of the city - in other words good planning; good environmental practice; good building design and construction practice; and, to the extent that the amenity of existing and future human users of the city is affected, the views of Harold and Ethel.

So I'm far from putting them at the top of the tree.

The default should be freedom by the owner to do as he she or it wants - subject to a mix of legitimate possibly competing interests described above, in which the input of Harold and Ethel are but one element, and one that should not normally be decisive.


The best outcomes come from the best balance of all the interests.