News & Discussion: General CBD Development

[Ben]

That is heritage listed. She has a history for not having any idea what is going on and shooting out uninformed information.

[monotonehell]

That is heritage listed. She has a history for not having any idea what is going on and shooting out uninformed information.

She was the one who sent out a survey before the last election asking you to tick your "most important issue" from a list of dog whistling, scare mongering items. What she was doing was so disgustingly transparent.

[noted]

Thanks for the info. Thought it sounded pretty far-fetched.

[Waewick]

Does anybody know anything about this? Just popped up on my fb feed- doesn't seem right...

https://twitter.com/adelaidemp/status/7 ... 6998900740

that looks like the Whitmore hotel - would be just renovations I would say

The Hotel was meant to be part of the development of that eco hotel which was proposed by Troppo (well not part of, but some kind of mutual upgrade)

[Llessur2002]

Definitely the Wright Street Hotel - compare the image on the Twitter thingy against street view. Looks very different given the renovations etc but it's definitely the same building...

[Patrick_27]

Gotta love it when your local Liberal member happily plays along with the anti-development crowd for a few votes.

Whilst I agree that Rachel is an opportunist; it's not an 'anti-development' crowd, it's a pro-heritage crowd. Rightfully so might I add, this city needs to tighten it's heritage protection laws so that anything pre-1930s can't be touched. This building may not have any merit to you or anyone else on this forum, but the people here on S.A. are simply a pro-development minority and don't represent the views of so many others who would like to see building's such a this retained. There are so many useless pockets of land within the CBD, SO MANY. Just look at the old bus depot, or anywhere along Franklin Street, Flinders Street even... Why the f**k do developers keep targeting these kinds of significant sites in the south of the CBD?

[Norman]

Gotta love it when your local Liberal member happily plays along with the anti-development crowd for a few votes.

Whilst I agree that Rachel is an opportunist; it's not an 'anti-development' crowd, it's a pro-heritage crowd. Rightfully so might I add, this city needs to tighten it's heritage protection laws so that anything pre-1930s can't be touched. This building may not have any merit to you or anyone else on this forum, but the people here on S.A. are simply a pro-development minority and don't represent the views of so many others who would like to see building's such a this retained. There are so many useless pockets of land within the CBD, SO MANY. Just look at the old bus depot, or anywhere along Franklin Street, Flinders Street even... Why the f**k do developers keep targeting these kinds of significant sites in the south of the CBD?

I don't think many members on this forum are anti-heritage. There are a lot of examples where heritage properties are well integrated into new developments, including August Towers.

I don't think heritage-listing everything from pre-1930 would be a good idea. There are some dilapidated houses around Adelaide, and others are not worth saving because they have no architectural merit.

Regarding comments about the local MP, I believe that it's her general stance on development regarding not just heritage properties, but also Adelaide Oval, the footbridge, etc is what many people are frustrated with.

[noted]

I don't think heritage-listing everything from pre-1930 would be a good idea. There are some dilapidated houses around Adelaide, and others are not worth saving because they have no architectural merit.

Would definitely agree with that. There are also some pretty average looking older buildings sitting on prime real estate.

Having said that though, if you are going to pull down something with a bit of history to it, I'd like to think what is replacing it is at least on par (preferably a significant improvement). There are a growing number of examples of cheap and nasty looking things being allowed to take over much nicer older blocks. Beggars belief that councils allow it when they are so obstructive in other ways.

[Waewick]

Definitely the Wright Street Hotel - compare the image on the Twitter thingy against street view. Looks very different given the renovations etc but it's definitely the same building...

finnily enought, both hotels look similar, given the Writght street hotel was done up in 2011 I went with the Whitmore

but still, seems like Rachael was being a bit quick on trigger.

[Llessur2002]

finnily enought, both hotels look similar, given the Writght street hotel was done up in 2011 I went with the Whitmore

but still, seems like Rachael was being a bit quick on trigger.

I actually thought it was the Whitmore when I first saw the black and white photo...

[phenom]

Gotta love it when your local Liberal member happily plays along with the anti-development crowd for a few votes.

Whilst I agree that Rachel is an opportunist; it's not an 'anti-development' crowd, it's a pro-heritage crowd. Rightfully so might I add, this city needs to tighten it's heritage protection laws so that anything pre-1930s can't be touched. This building may not have any merit to you or anyone else on this forum, but the people here on S.A. are simply a pro-development minority and don't represent the views of so many others who would like to see building's such a this retained. There are so many useless pockets of land within the CBD, SO MANY. Just look at the old bus depot, or anywhere along Franklin Street, Flinders Street even... Why the f**k do developers keep targeting these kinds of significant sites in the south of the CBD?

Hi Patrick. Just to clarify, I wouldn't like to see that building demolished either but at the same time there's got to be a happy middle ground where we don't simply exempt anything old from being modified/added to. Sure, using terms like 'anti-development' is simplistic but conveys the message. We could all sit here dissecting the complex interests of residents, landholders, governments and developers in the city but it's a bit much to include in every comment. I get enough leaflets in my mail from various groups around this city to know there are people who - for all intents and purposes - must be summarised as 'anti-development'. They're not all Sandy Wilkinson, no and many are well intentioned. It doesn't change the fact there is a sizeable cosntituency of people who see any change at all as not on.

There's no public proposal that I'm aware of for that site so I wasn't supporting the idea of a building (unseen) replacing it but rather the insanity of Rachel's endless letterboxing (in real life and on the internet) with material that simply doesn't gel with the general Liberal party platform. At least some of these people she co-opts are genuinely anti-development because I've seen their names around for years.

But just quickly - while I agree there are endless warehouses and such that should be developed - we probably should remember there isn't one single entity who owns everything and decides everything. People are like "why not build that there" or "combine the sites". Well, plenty of people sit on land in this city for generations and have particular reasons for selling/not selling/developing/not developing.

[Cranjer]

The Wright St. Hotel may well be heritage listed, but Rachel Sanderson is correct in that there are plans for apartments. A colleague knows the (former) owners well. The building was fairly recently sold and will cease to operate as a hotel towards the end of the year. I would assume the vacant block next to the hotel will be part of the plans.

I was under the impression that the ACC favoured Sturt St. for major developments in the area so it will be interesting to see how they go with planning (unless it goes straight to DAC of course). Will be a shame to lose a decent pub!

[Llessur2002]

And another heritage (at least on the outside) pub bites the dust

[Brucetiki]

That is heritage listed. She has a history for not having any idea what is going on and shooting out uninformed information.

She was the one who sent out a survey before the last election asking you to tick your "most important issue" from a list of dog whistling, scare mongering items. What she was doing was so disgustingly transparent.

Wasn't she one of the biggest opponents of the Riverbank Bridge as well.

Don't think I've heard her say anything constructive before.

[Xaragmata]

Anyone got some photos of the new Anzac walk on Kintore Ave? Media, and the state government / council social media have been pretty slack on it.

Some pics from 2 weeks ago:









The new fence is solid, but allows views to North Tce and the West - the murals shield the swimming pool, apparently.



# Should look even better at night.