[APP] 1-25 South Esplanade, Glenelg | 42m | 12 Levels | Apartments

[how good is he]

The proposed development site (the area marked) was sold in one sale & didn't include those 2 other buildings ie they weren’t part of the Seawall apartments. I guess they could have tried to buy them separately but as they aren’t facing the water, I dont think it was really needed.

[Ben]

Plans are online here.

46m High

https://plan.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pd ... _Holdf.pdf

[AndyWelsh]

I’ll just paste this here as a FYI as it’s doing the rounds on some of the community groups I’m part of on social media:

Rally and Petition-SOS Save Our Seawall apartments-21-25 South Esplanade Glenelg

PUBLIC RALLY this Sunday 21st February at 11am on the foreshore at the end of Pier St, Glenelg.

The SOS Save Our Seawall apartments Community Group has organised a Rally to oppose the Demolition of the entire site of historic sea front buildings; incl Local Heritage listed mansions, destroying almost an acre of Glenelg’s history. And further, to oppose a development application lodged with the State Planning Commission (SPC) to erect a 13 storey unit block in an area zoned 5 storeys!

The history of the Seawall Apartments dates from 1882 when the two original mansions were built and from 1912 housed the Holdfast Bay Preparatory College, attended by the sons of Adelaide’s great and good. Along with the Victorian Terrace buildings is an original stable and a fisherman’s cottage which represent a part of Adelaide’s city beach history.

Seawall is not just a group of historic buildings, it forms part of the heart and soul of the southern end of the Esplanade. This is a major risk to some of Glenelg’s oldest buildings as well as an internationally known, awarded and much-loved quality beachfront accommodation complex.

Comments close on 23/2/21 at SPC.
SOS Save our Seawall apartments
Community Group
Email : [email protected]
Fb: SOS Save Our Seawall apartments
Change.org https://www.change.org/p/premier-steven ... evelopment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rev]

Glenelg Seawall: Residents oppose Chasecrown apartment complex

A $165m, 13-storey luxury apartment building on the Glenelg foreshore has drawn the ire of locals with beachside residents planning to fight back.
Kaysee Miller
@KayseeMill
2 min read
February 19, 2021 - 4:48PM
The Messenger

Glenelg residents are fighting back against $165m plans to build a 13-storey luxury apartment building on the foreshore.

Developer Chasecrown’s proposal for the 93-apartment complex on the Seawall Apartments site would see all seven buildings currently on the site demolished.

SOS Save Our Seawall Apartments founding member Karen DeCean said the development would destroy local history in the area.

“It’s completely razing an almost one acre site on the beachfront of Glenelg’s history including two 1882 built mansions which in 1912 became the Holdfast Bay Preparatory College,” Mrs DeCean said.

“The mansions are some of the earliest builds on the foreshore at Glenelg.

“It’s done across the city and the world where developments are able to integrate the history into the development and you don’t just wipe it out.”

Mrs DeCean said the size of the development was completely inappropriate for the area.

“The current zoning for the site is for five levels and it’s absolutely horrendous that this absolute monster has just been thrust upon us,” she said.

“The size of the development is something that should be on an arterial road with public transport and the infrastructure that can cope with that amount of people.

“We don’t have the transport here, we don’t have the road system because the road behind it is a tiny little street and we have drainage problems where the streets surrounding already flood in a heavy raining event.”

SOS Save Our Seawall Apartments has launched a petition against the plan which has already attracted more than 800 signatures.

The group is holding a rally at the beach end of Pier Street at 11am on Sunday, February 21.

“We believe that at least the local heritage listed buildings should be retained and the development should be kept to the five storey limit which is currently in place in the zone,” Mrs DeCean said.

A Chasecrown spokesman said an independent heritage review had provided expert advice that the local heritage building in question had low historical authenticity.

“(The review) further concluded that the heritage assessments that led to the Local Heritage listing over-estimated the extent of the surviving historic fabric and residual heritage values of the building,” he said.

“In addition, the building has undergone significant alteration with any attempt to recover its

original historic form requiring approximate reproduction which would add no heritage

value.”

“Chasecrown has received strong community support for these plans as it did for the

award-winning 8 South Esplanade which has been widely recognised for enhancing the built-form and public amenity along the Glenelg foreshore.”

Pending approval, construction of the project is expected to create 400 local jobs.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... afdb58ec08

Shit..get a life people.
If you don't like living among or in high-rises, feel free to move to any of the almost endless spots along the roughly 170km of coastline from Port Wakefield down to Myponga. Plenty of areas that will never have apartment buildings of this scale.

[Ben]

Did anyone notice who is organizing this? Karen....

[Mpol02]

Fuck off Karen.

Glenelg residents are so backward.

[Patrick_27]

I'm sorry, but I didn't realise that Glenelg was no longer a metropolitan suburb? I'm not sure why it's so frowned upon by members of this forum that locals feel so inclined to oppose a development that not only (as stated) would destroy some stunningly grand 19th-century mansions but also just contributes further to this strip of exclusive apartment buildings that literally block any buildings behind from having a sea view or even a sea breeze for that matter (unless of course one day these sites are developed and go even taller behind this 'sea-wall' of buildings, which for the area is completely inappropriate). I think the people who really need to get a grip are some of the members of this forum who seem to have no problem with the notion of sticking a med-rise building in any old part of Adelaide only to then brand it as 'progressive' town planning. Meanwhile I'll bet none of those harping on in the above comments have ever had an apartment building built on their boundary otherwise they might not be so cut-throat in their criticism.

[Jaymz]

I'm sorry, but I didn't realise that Glenelg was no longer a metropolitan suburb? I'm not sure why it's so frowned upon by members of this forum that locals feel so inclined to oppose a development that not only (as stated) would destroy some stunningly grand 19th-century mansions but also just contributes further to this strip of exclusive apartment buildings that literally block any buildings behind from having a sea view or even a sea breeze for that matter (unless of course one day these sites are developed and go even taller behind this 'sea-wall' of buildings, which for the area is completely inappropriate). I think the people who really need to get a grip are some of the members of this forum who seem to have no problem with the notion of sticking a med-rise building in any old part of Adelaide only to then brand it as 'progressive' town planning. Meanwhile I'll bet none of those harping on in the above comments have ever had an apartment building built on their boundary otherwise they might not be so cut-throat in their criticism.

I tend to disagree, Glenelg has been the one place outside of the CBD that high-rises have been built since the 60's.

[rev]

I'm sorry, but I didn't realise that Glenelg was no longer a metropolitan suburb? I'm not sure why it's so frowned upon by members of this forum that locals feel so inclined to oppose a development that not only (as stated) would destroy some stunningly grand 19th-century mansions but also just contributes further to this strip of exclusive apartment buildings that literally block any buildings behind from having a sea view or even a sea breeze for that matter (unless of course one day these sites are developed and go even taller behind this 'sea-wall' of buildings, which for the area is completely inappropriate). I think the people who really need to get a grip are some of the members of this forum who seem to have no problem with the notion of sticking a med-rise building in any old part of Adelaide only to then brand it as 'progressive' town planning. Meanwhile I'll bet none of those harping on in the above comments have ever had an apartment building built on their boundary otherwise they might not be so cut-throat in their criticism.

You're right I haven't had an apartment building built next door, but that's because I chose to buy a house in an area that was 100% unlikely to ever have an apartment building go up in the backstreets of suburbia. I didn't choose to live in Adelaide's main tourist destination that already has had apartment buildings standing for decades.

I don't think apartments should be popping up all over the metro area. I think certain locations are more suited to that outside of the City, such as Port Adelaide, Glenelg, and the inner suburbs around the City as is happening with Bowden and along Churchill and Prospect Roads.
Over time as the population grows to support more developments, what you'll probably see happening is the area between Anzac Highway, Brighton Road and Jetty Road, and along the esplanade will fill up with more "high rise".
There's actually a development that will be going up on Colley Terrace a couple doors south of Liberty Towers.
How long do you think before the Buffalo Motor Inn behind Liberty Towers is redeveloped? Or the Oaks on Sussex is redeveloped from a 2 level backwater into a 6+ level 4 star hotel?
Wont be long before Adelphi Terrace facing the Marina is full of 5+ level buildings.

There's plenty of coastline, roughly 170km of it, where people like Karen can go and live their peaceful tranquil lifestyle near the beach.

That is..after all..what they want, isn't it? Right?

They've actually started a group called Save Our Seawall (apartments).....wait, since when is it THEIRS?
The Karen has even gone out of her way to read planning documents to find out the max height allowed for the area, obviously doesn't have anything better to do with her life/time besides complain.

The reality is they are simply using the "historic building" card when what they're actually unhappy about is another tall building in Glenelg.

If they get their way, then they will turn their attention to the facade and style of the new building, and they'll argue it doesn't fit in with the existing character of the area and they'll want it stopped.

Is Glenelg our main tourist destination in Adelaide? Do we want it to continue to be? Do we want it to grow and improve as a location and destination?
Then the nimby karens need to be ignored and pushed aside.

A $165 million development adds significant economic activity to the local economy.
All the local Karens couldn't add that much economic activity to the area combined in ten life times.

“We don’t have the transport here, we don’t have the road system because the road behind it is a tiny little street and we have drainage problems where the streets surrounding already flood in a heavy raining event.”

A normal person would want these things upgraded. But not Karen, not in this instance anyway. She uses them as a reason why this development shouldn't go ahead.
But you can bet your last dollar that on the other hand she's breaking the councils balls about these issues every other day.

On top of that, the so called heritage buildings they're "fighting for" have been molested over the years and aren't in their original form as stated in the article.
Why wasn't Karen complaining then? Puts her whole heritage argument into perspective doesn't it.


32 Esplanade Glenelg South, 100% that's something worth preserving. Not the garbage that's going to be demolished for this development.

[how good is he]

While I think a development should definitely go ahead I think it needs a complete re~design. The current proposal looks like the back end of a cruise ship. I am wondering if they could incorporate the facades of the existing buildings if they have any architectural merit (but not sure they do). Thinking also of 2 separate buildings, one at 13 storeys and a separate one at 5 storeys maybe linked with a sky bridge/shared communal area ie infinity pool, gym etc. The other alternative is to make it far less bulkier by allowing the developers to go higher than 13 stories in exchange for them reducing the buildings footprint to allow more open space around it.. unlikely I know.

[rev]

A bit of info from the latest article from the Advertiser.
I'll post the whole thing if anyone really wants to read it and they don't have access..

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... dd73ba45a2

She said the area had been endorsed as a five-storey zone in 2016 after extensive public consultation by the then Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) and community input.

“A community should not be forced to mobilise against the absurdity of a 13-storey building in a five-storey zone, particularly when that same community was provided with a legislative commitment as recently as 2016 regarding maximum building heights in their neighbourhood,” the letter said.

“A community information sheet was also produced by DPTI at the time, reassuring residents that 12-storey buildings would only occur on the section of the Esplanade “ … south of Jetty Road up to the alignment of Saltram Road”.

“This was then reinforced by the gazettal of zoning changes that capped building heights to five storeys for the allotments south of the Saltram Road alignment (being the site of the current 13-storey proposal).

“It is therefore difficult to reconcile DPTI’s reassurances and the community’s expectations at the time with the scale of development that is before the SCAP now.”

I can see why they're pissed to a degree, still don't agree.

[gnrc_louis]

InDaily article about this development: https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2021/ ... foreshore/

[Ben]

Lots of objections but looks like it is expected to be passed.

https://www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov ... hments.pdf

[crawf]

Rejected.

To refuse Development Plan Consent to the proposal by 21-25 South Esplanade Pty
Ltd, comprised in Development Application 110/M019/21, on the land 21-25 South
Esplanade, Glenelg, for the following reasons:
a) The proposal significantly departs from the intent of the Desired Character
Statements within Urban Glenelg Policy Area 15 and Precinct 4 Five Storey,
Precinct; Precinct PDC 20(b) and (c), and General Section - Design and
Appearance PDC 1 for the following reasons:
i. The proposal does not achieve a sufficient transition in scale; and
ii. The proposal presents excessive massing, is insufficiently modulated and
does not adequately acknowledge and respect the existing context.
b) It has not been adequately demonstrated that the Local Heritage Place cannot
be conserved in accordance with General Section - Heritage Places Objective 1
and Objective 2.

https://www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov ... inutes.pdf

[Nathan]