Sensational-Adelaide.com

Urban, do you understand planning laws? A Development Plan does has provisions relating to amenity and design but they are only a small part of the Plan. A development has to be assessed against all relevant provisions. Therefore a development cannot simply be refused because it 'doesn't look good'. The developer would most likely take the Council straight to the ERD Court and win an appeal. Maybe you should be questioning the basis of planning laws because at the present time what you are suggesting is not actually a significant purpose of planning laws, something most people don't realise.

To say it does not have anything to do with capitalism is crazy. It has everything to do with it, maximise profits, as does almost everything in this country and abroad.

Don't say I am lacking in respect for my city. That is far from the truth. I prefer not to go around in an 'idealistic bubble' and get let down when an odd poorly designed building eventuates.

I am familiar with the planning laws. That 'small part' of the plan is usually the Desired Future Character and Townscape Context which are the fundamental basis of the Development Plans. Unfortunately unlike most other countries our planners do not have any design training and are unable to effectively assess designs against these requirements preferring those elements of the development plan which can be measured, ie carparks, site coverage and heights.

If the council's planning lawyers can not defend the rejection of this project by some of the following provisions then they should be sacked.

- Desired Future Character
The Precinct's colourful and cohesive character and intimate, human scale will be complemented by
the refurbishment of its many nineteenth century buildings and by sensitive new development,
combined with the continued improvement of the street environment.
Townscape Context
5 Development should conserve and enhance the colourful and visually rich townscape character
of the Precinct established by late Victorian and Edwardian buildings which give evidence of the
former intensive commercial and retail character of Hindley and Leigh Streets and Gilbert Place.
These townscapes are predominantly two and three storeys in height with buildings forming a
continuous edge along the street frontage interrupted by intersections with minor streets and lane
ways. Buildings generally occupy a narrow frontage, or where more horizontally massed their
composition is broken into smaller facade elements. Above street level, fenestration, balconies,
parapets, architectural detailing and ornamentation, all contribute to the rich visual texture.
6 Along Hindley Street verandahs, balconies, awnings and parapets should be designed to
complement those existing.
7 Building facades should be strongly modelled and incorporate a vertical composition which
reflects the proportions of existing frontages.
8 Development should ensure that architectural detailing extends around corners andalong
laneways in a manner complementing the established townscape character.

Urban, a lot of that is really subjective and open to all kinds of interpretation. Lawyers would have a field day.

Exactly monotonehell!

Plus urban you have missed the other 100+ provisions that may be relevant in The Plan and which the project would probably satisfy. A lawyer would definately have a field day and the project would most likely be approved by the ERD Court. Therefore wasting more rate payers money on legal fees.

The whole system needs to change if you want to focus more on design and asthetics. That is my point.

Part of my job is to assess projects on exactly these kinds of provisions. This is not idealistic wank. Most of the projects that are rejected fail primarily on these provisions. Of the several hundred applications that my firm has assessed on these types of provisions not one has been successfully challenged.

These are fundamentals of the Development Plan and any planner who is not making sure they are adhered to is failing to do their job. It does not matter if a proposal meets every other requirement, if it does not meet these provisions it does not comply with the Development Plan.

Yes officer I know I was doing 100 in a 60 zone but I complied with all the other rules.

Monotonehell, I disagree. These are things which can be quite easily assessed. An ERD court would laugh at any lawyer who tried to argue that this building has a vertical composition and is strongly modelled or that the fenestration, balconies,
parapets, architectural detailing and ornamentation, all contribute to the rich visual texture.

urban wrote:Monotonehell, I disagree. These are things which can be quite easily assessed. An ERD court would laugh at any lawyer who tried to argue that this building has a vertical composition and is strongly modelled or that the fenestration, balconies,
parapets, architectural detailing and ornamentation, all contribute to the rich visual texture.

While I agree that this building is not looking good according to my opinion, are you seriously suggesting that terms like "strongly modelled" and "rich visual texture" are not subjective? Could you point me to the precedents in case law that allow us to rigidly define such things?

It is not defined by case law but the development plan and the existing buildings in the streetscape. The rich visual texture is defined differently depending on the streetscape which is referred to in that specific section of the Development Plan. In this case it is defined by the
late Victorian and Edwardian buildings which give evidence of the former intensive commercial and retail character of Hindley and Leigh Streets and Gilbert Place.
Under Planning Law it is up to the applicant to prove that they have met the requirements. Normally you would expect the applicant to provide a streetscape elevation incorporating the nearby buildings which give the area the desired character. Assessment is done by comparing the proportions and articulation of the proposed building with the existing streetscape buildings. If you wanted to get to absolute objectivity you could measure the ratios of solid to void, height to width, areas of blank wall etc but normally as soon as the applicant produces the streetscape drawing it becomes abundantly clear to all involved (including the applicant) whether a proposal meets such requirements.

It amazes me that councils don't require streetscape elevations for all new building applications. I understand that it is a requirement in some other states.

The Desired Future Character and Townscape Context are not just put in Development Plans as a bit of padding. They are required to be complied with. They are not hard to comply with, assess or enforce.

ive had a cold and have taken a couple of sickies, but I got so bored resting at home that I rode into town today.
Guys this building is not the end of Adelaide, its ok

It'll just blend into the background once it's done.

It's there for bulk, like a thickening agent.

Cheers

Ho Really wrote:It's there for bulk, like a thickening agent.

Cheers

Corn Flour Apartments!

There are much worse buildings than this around.

I think it looks OK in a soviet sort of way. It's all subjective but at least this one changes the skyline and brings people into the CBD to live.

Professor wrote:There are much worse buildings than this around.

I think it looks OK in a soviet sort of way. It's all subjective but at least this one changes the skyline and brings people into the CBD to live.

Oh.....goody?

Professor wrote:There are much worse buildings than this around.

I think it looks OK in a soviet sort of way. It's all subjective but at least this one changes the skyline and brings people into the CBD to live.

Yes, sovietism ROCKS!!!

It sorta looks like a giant ginger bread house