News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in areas other than the CBD and North Adelaide. Includes Port Adelaide and Glenelg.
Message
Author
User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

Re: $3.5m city tower

#166 Post by Wayno » Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:40 pm

The Murder House is gone!!!
murder-house.jpg
murder-house.jpg (97.81 KiB) Viewed 4003 times
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 82,00.html
ADELAIDE'S most recognised murder house and the home of the infamous body-in-the-freezer case was demolished yesterday, almost 30 years after it dominated headlines.

The house at 189 Greenhill Rd, Parkside, was the site of one the state's most bizarre and shocking murders.
The partly clothed body of lawyer Derrance Stevenson was found wrapped in two garbage bags hidden inside his freezer on June 4, 1979.

Mr Stevenson, 44, had been shot through the back of the head with a .22 calibre rifle.

The highly regarded lawyer was living in the house with his homosexual lover, David Szach, then 19, who was convicted of the killing and sentenced to a non-parole period of 18 years and three months. He was released on parole 14 years later but has maintained his innocence.

The Parkside house has been one of the city's most recognised murder sites because of its distinctive architecture and the bizarre circumstances of the killing.

Until last month, the infamous property was owned by lawyer and former friend of Mr Stevenson, Diane Myers. She sold it to the Transcendental Meditation Movement for $1 million.

It has been reported the new owners plan to build a $3.5 million, 12-storey tower on the site but they have remained tight-lipped about the plans. An Unley Council spokeswoman said an application for demolition was approved on April 8 but no building development applications had been lodged.

One neighbour, who did not want to be named, said he was sad to see the property go.

"That house holds a lot of secrets, that's for sure," he said. "At the time, we as neighbours didn't hear anything about it really and we were kept in the dark a lot. I think it has a lot of historical significance to Adelaide and it is an amazing design.

"It is a shame it is being knocked down."
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

Edgar
Legendary Member!
Posts: 985
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:20 pm
Location: Adelaide
Contact:

Re: $3.5m city tower

#167 Post by Edgar » Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:08 pm

so it really is going ahead?
Visit my website at http://www.edgarchieng.com for more photos of Adelaide and South Australia.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6423
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: $3.5m city tower

#168 Post by rev » Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:09 pm

Howie wrote:Sounds like this group has a bit of money to splash around. Having a re-think about it, i don't see a problem with it... you see multi-million dollar churches, temples and mosques around the city that probably costs much more than this... they should be afforded with the same rights as any other religious group.
Is it actually a religion though, or some movement as their name suggests?

User avatar
Shuz
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2538
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Glandore

Re: $3.5m city tower

#169 Post by Shuz » Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:32 pm

This has got to be one of the most confusing projects around...
Is it a 'building' as such or is it going to be like Bell tower (Perth)or Big Ben (London) sort of tower?

User avatar
Joely
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: Adelaide & Brisbane

Re: $3.5m city tower

#170 Post by Joely » Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:42 pm

Is anyone else really annoyed the murder house has been knocked down besides me? Aside from what happened there a long time ago I thought it was an awesome looking place. I think it had great architecural merit and was so unique I dont reckon you would find anything like it anywhere in the world. It was kinda an Adelaide landmark too. Everyone knew it as 'that' house. I find it annoying because I think local councils (especially Uney!) shouldn't be basing heritage values of architecture simply on age and 'ornateness' as there are many periods and styles of architecture which should be preserved aswell as the typical victorian or edwardian styles.

And if they get approval for the leaning tower of Pisa design on the first page I will scream.
Last edited by Joely on Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

bva
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:32 pm

Re: $3.5m city tower

#171 Post by bva » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:11 pm

listing either state or local heritage places is based on a potential range of factors

Listing State Heritage Places
In response to nominations from the public and heritage surveys, and acting on advice from the Heritage Branch, State Heritage Places are entered in the Register by the Register Committee of the South Australian Heritage Council. The Council and the Committee are bodies established under the provisions of the Heritage Places Act 1993. Places are first provisionally entered, to allow a period for any representations, and subsequently either confirmed or removed. To be entered in the Register a State Heritage Place must satisfy one or more of the following criteria, which can be found in Section 16 of the Act.

state
  • It demonstrates important aspects of the evolution or pattern of the State's history.
    It has rare, uncommon or endangered qualities that are of cultural significance.
    It may yield information that will contribute to an understanding of the State's history, including its natural history.
    It is an outstanding representative of a particular class of places of cultural significance.
    It demonstrates a high degree of creative, aesthetic or technical accomplishment or is an outstanding representative of particular construction techniques or design characteristics.
    It has strong cultural or spiritual associations for the community or a group within it.
    It has a special association with the life or work of a person or organisation or an event of historical importance.
    it
local
  • displays historical, economic or social themes that are of importance to the local area.
    It represents customs or ways of life that are characteristic of the local area.
    It has played an important part in the lives of local residents.
    It displays aesthetic merit, design characteristics or construction techniques of significance to the local area.
    It is associated with a notable local personality or event.
    It is a notable landmark in the area.
    In the case of a tree (without limiting a preceding paragraph) - it is of special historical or social significance or importance within the local area.
It is not just design, but, I doubt that either state or local government would consisder that

User avatar
Joely
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: Adelaide & Brisbane

Re: $3.5m city tower

#172 Post by Joely » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:26 pm

bva wrote:It is not just design, but, I doubt that either state or local government would consisder that
Are you saying that you doubt either the state or local government would have considered this as a heritage property? Because after reading those lists it seems the house fits into a number of those categories.

Particulary:

It demonstrates a high degree of creative, aesthetic or technical accomplishment or is an outstanding representative of particular construction techniques or design characteristics.
It has played an important part in the lives of local residents.
It displays aesthetic merit, design characteristics or construction techniques of significance to the local area.
It is associated with a notable local personality or event.
It is a notable landmark in the area.
Last edited by Joely on Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:44 am, edited 2 times in total.

Professor
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Solomon Islands

Re: $3.5m city tower

#173 Post by Professor » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:55 pm

Gave me the shivers...

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

Re: Parcels of undeveloped land?!

#174 Post by Wayno » Thu May 01, 2008 6:27 pm

there's a few large-ish parcels of what appears to be undeveloped land within 10km of Adelaide CBD. The northen most one also has a rail line nearby. Who owns the land, and how best could it be used? opportunity for density housing?
parcel.JPG
parcel.JPG (127.44 KiB) Viewed 3508 times
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

Cirocz
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:29 pm

Re: Parcels of undeveloped land?!

#175 Post by Cirocz » Thu May 01, 2008 7:01 pm

*first post* :D been lurking for a while decided to finally post something.

im pretty sure that the star on the top right above the words Grand Junction Road is where a couple of prisons are. I think Yatala and Women's prison or something. The star on the bottom left underneath the word Gordon is where Enfield cemetery is located, so I don't think anything would happen there for a while. Not sure what the other locations are

pushbutton
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:01 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Parcels of undeveloped land?!

#176 Post by pushbutton » Thu May 01, 2008 7:06 pm

The MFP did eventually go ahead, on its original site. It's now better known as Mawson Lakes.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

Re: Parcels of undeveloped land?!

#177 Post by Wayno » Thu May 01, 2008 7:53 pm

Cirocz wrote:*first post* :D been lurking for a while decided to finally post something.

im pretty sure that the star on the top right above the words Grand Junction Road is where a couple of prisons are. I think Yatala and Women's prison or something. The star on the bottom left underneath the word Gordon is where Enfield cemetery is located, so I don't think anything would happen there for a while. Not sure what the other locations are
thanks Cirocz, and welcome.
So my desire for high density living has already been achieved in one of the locations! sick joke i know...
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 6485
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: Parcels of undeveloped land?!

#178 Post by Norman » Thu May 01, 2008 8:03 pm

OK, Wayno, here's the rundown from what I know...
  • The land inbetween Main North Road and Briens Road is The Pines area. It has a forest and hockey grounds
  • Above Grand Junction Road is the Yatla Woments Prison, which will be relocated with the new prisons planned for SA.
  • The area below Folland Avenue is being developed as we speak

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

Re: Parcels of undeveloped land?!

#179 Post by Wayno » Thu May 01, 2008 10:14 pm

Norman wrote:OK, Wayno, here's the rundown from what I know...
  • The land inbetween Main North Road and Briens Road is The Pines area. It has a forest and hockey grounds
  • Above Grand Junction Road is the Yatla Woments Prison, which will be relocated with the new prisons planned for SA.
  • The area below Folland Avenue is being developed as we speak
thanks. do we know what's happening at folland ave? and has anything been proposed for the prison site?
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 6485
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: Parcels of undeveloped land?!

#180 Post by Norman » Thu May 01, 2008 10:17 pm

Well, at Folland Avenue they're starting to build the infrastructure there, such as roads, pipes, drains, etc, but nothing yet on Yatla.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests