Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2877
I'M SURE the developers wouldn't have spent A SHITLOAD OF MONEY during design/construction in trying to accommodate the tree if all they wanted to do was MAXIMISE SPACE FOR TENANCIES at the expense of the tree's LIKELY DEATH. The fact that they've called the new area THE TREE MALL also suggests that when told they had to retain it, they looked to do so with THE BEST INTENTIONS.Mr Smith wrote:This saga has been a fiasco from go to whoa.
Assuming that at the outset of the planned redevelopment there was a genuine concern for the welfare of the tree, the original plan whereby the tree canopy penetrated the roof would have been far more appropriate, and likely cheaper to construct.
The real issue as always was MONEY, and this was the final arbiter. The area directly under the tree now occupied by an enormous Cibo cafe would simply not have been viable in it's present form due to the vagaries of the elements = LESS RENTAL INCOME FOR THE OWNER.
Therefore, the ultimate solution was an exercise in appeasement of concerned citizens BY WAY OF A PANTOMIME EXERCISE, viz everyone loves the tree and it's welfare is front and centre, when, as always when dealing with 'developers', the only issue of real concern is MONEY.
I don't hold myself out to be much of an arborist mate, but I suspect the chance of dead branches falling and doing someone unmentionable harm would make that not the best idea.Will wrote:Considering the likely demise of the tree, I would like to entertain the idea of removing all the dead foliage and leaving the trunk and limbs in situ, as an eerie 'sculpture'.
Yes no doubt they did spend a SHITLOAD OF MONEY, however retaining the tree under an enclosed roof had far less impact on ACTUAL LETTABLE space, therefore PROFIT, than Plan A, which had the tree protruding the roof, ergo leaving the substantial area under it subject to the vagaries of the elements and unsuitable for leasing.I'M SURE the developers wouldn't have spent A SHITLOAD OF MONEY during design/construction in trying to accommodate the tree if all they wanted to do was MAXIMISE SPACE FOR TENANCIES at the expense of the tree's LIKELY DEATH. The fact that they've called the new area THE TREE MALL also suggests that when told they had to retain it, they looked to do so with THE BEST INTENTIONS.
Of course. Because there's no such thing as outdoor dining. I mean, no-one would even think of having the kitchen/shop front of a cafe undercover and the substantial portion of its let-able dining area exposed to the elements or under canopies/umbrellas.Mr Smith wrote:...ergo leaving the substantial area under it subject to the vagaries of the elements and unsuitable for leasing.
The fact that the tree was there first, and has been around longer than settlement in not only the Burnside area, but Adelaide in-general. Typical view of shoppers at an upper class shopping precinct; its just a tree, it's not as important as our shopping mall.pushbutton wrote:I saw this in the Advertiser, but can't see what the fuss is about. It's just a tree for goodness sake! If it's dead, get rid of it and put a new one in (preferably one that looks good) or else use the space for something other than a tree.
ahh bullshit, that would be the opinion on 95% of the population regardless of where they live and if it is near a mall.Patrick_27 wrote:The fact that the tree was there first, and has been around longer than settlement in not only the Burnside area, but Adelaide in-general. Typical view of shoppers at an upper class shopping precinct; its just a tree, it's not as important as our shopping mall.pushbutton wrote:I saw this in the Advertiser, but can't see what the fuss is about. It's just a tree for goodness sake! If it's dead, get rid of it and put a new one in (preferably one that looks good) or else use the space for something other than a tree.
Sorry, but thats a very weak argument, im sure you have been in a building that at one stage had a tree on its site that had to be cut down..... unless you have never been near a city, or a suburb for that matter.Patrick_27 wrote:The fact that the tree was there first, and has been around longer than settlement in not only the Burnside area, but Adelaide in-general. Typical view of shoppers at an upper class shopping precinct; its just a tree, it's not as important as our shopping mall.pushbutton wrote:I saw this in the Advertiser, but can't see what the fuss is about. It's just a tree for goodness sake! If it's dead, get rid of it and put a new one in (preferably one that looks good) or else use the space for something other than a tree.