Re: News & Discussion: General CBD Development
Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 11:41 am
That is heritage listed. She has a history for not having any idea what is going on and shooting out uninformed information.
Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=739
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.Ben wrote:That is heritage listed. She has a history for not having any idea what is going on and shooting out uninformed information.
that looks like the Whitmore hotel - would be just renovations I would saynoted wrote:Does anybody know anything about this? Just popped up on my fb feed- doesn't seem right...
https://twitter.com/adelaidemp/status/7 ... 6998900740
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?phenom wrote:Gotta love it when your local Liberal member happily plays along with the anti-development crowd for a few votes.
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.Patrick_27 wrote: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?phenom wrote:Gotta love it when your local Liberal member happily plays along with the anti-development crowd for a few votes.
Would definitely agree with that. There are also some pretty average looking older buildings sitting on prime real estate.Norman wrote: 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.
finnily enought, both hotels look similar, given the Writght street hotel was done up in 2011 I went with the WhitmoreLlessur2002 wrote: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...
I actually thought it was the Whitmore when I first saw the black and white photo...Waewick wrote: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.
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.Patrick_27 wrote: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?phenom wrote:Gotta love it when your local Liberal member happily plays along with the anti-development crowd for a few votes.
Wasn't she one of the biggest opponents of the Riverbank Bridge as well.monotonehell wrote: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.Ben wrote:That is heritage listed. She has a history for not having any idea what is going on and shooting out uninformed information.
Some pics from 2 weeks ago:Nathan wrote: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.