Sensational-Adelaide.com

Professor wrote:...And I have been to New York and do not consider anywhere in Adelaide, with average heights of 18 levels, constitutes a canyon

Pirie Street is a canyon.

Cheers

Ummmmm...

Pirie Street? A canyon? More like the Torrens valley.

And I thought we were talking about the proposed building in Franklin street, with a square almost opposite.

I don't understand this argument. Most people on this site want to increase height and number of buildings in Adelaide, with the parallel increase in population and activity levels. Foley this morning supported an increase in the (in my opinion) silly height limits in Adelaide. Yet when a building with some merit comes along there is talk of canyons.

The closest it gets in Australia to canyons is part of Collins street in Melbourne (when the icy wind races up the street from the south) and maybe around Martin place in Sydney. The shopping main mall in Chongqing in SW China, with dozens of 40-50+ level buildings along each side of a 2 km stretch of pedestrian mall, that's a canyon.

I am personally glad now that this building was rejected. The resultant action by the Government will bring in major development changes that have the potential to simplify the approval process, raise the height limits in Adelaide and provide more certainty.

The council is politically divided and moribund in terms of planning approvals. They are voted in by a handfull of residents (not my vote though!) and the decision last week seems to be the "final straw". This latest refusal, with the subsequent stripping of the DAC approval powers, could be a positive turning point for Adelaide's ongoing development.

Professor wrote:Pirie Street? A canyon? More like the Torrens valley.

Pirie Street is the closest we have currently and it could get deeper if heights limits are loosened. So look at it that way.

Cheers

Waymouth St is also a canyon. I love driving down there at night. It gives me the false sense that I'm in Sydney or Melbourne.

This is what I think Kevin Foley is talking about. Waymouth St looking east by the next election.

Oh woow!! *drools* Awesome view! The street really does resemble Waymouth St. One step at a time and we may end up with something like this in ooh say another...50 years?

Btw which city is this? Looks like Gotham City from The Dark Knight.

Note: I've just realised this is NYC. I can see the Empire State building peeking through on the right and the W Hotel left of centre.

Yep, well spotted. I thought it had a Waymouth vibe to it too.

The real life Gotham City....and Superman's Metropolis. Amazing isn't it. But now I'm way off topic.....

Well, let's get back to the subject. The ACC made the right decision on this one (design-wise), though they could have been a little more subtle. Interesting to see what the next move is going to be. Any ideas?

Cheers

It was interesting to see Property Council state director Nathan Paine, a former employee of state Urban Development Minister Paul Holloway, calling for ‘certainty’ in the ACC‘s planning requirements.

There is already absolute certainty. Harness your greed, comply with the council’s Development Plan (signed off by Holloway, incidentally), and it is absolutely certain that the council’s DAP will approve your project. Even exceed the guidelines by, say, 25%, and you’ll still get it through provided the overall design is reasonable.

The above is clearly demonstrated by DAP’s history, most recently by its approval of the Hills Industries development in King William Street, five floors above the guidelines, and by DAP approving no less than five proposals for the Lecornu site in North Adelaide, all of them well outside the guidelines (but not sweet enough to satisfy the greed of the Makris Group).

On the ABC Stateline program, an angry Nathan Paine described his actions after ACC’s DAP had refused the Tower 8 proposal – a fairly ordinary design by most standards and with numerous severe breaches of the guidelines:

‘As soon as I heard the result, I got straight on the phone to the government and demanded some action…’

(Sub text: F*ck the democratic process – this is the big end of town talking; democracy is for kids. We deal direct.)

Well, the Property Council speaks, the government jumps. Or it should. No wonder Nathan Paine was cross. However, once the Rann/FoleyConlon/Atkinson Gang of Four was alerted the council was quickly and formally stripped of planning powers for developments in excess of $10 million by a gazetted regulatory change. Compare this speed with the various applications for heritage listing of Adelaide’s Park Lands. The first of many applications was made in 1984 – latest word from Minister for Environment and Conservation Gago, 24 years on with the Park Lands still unlisted, is that ‘there has not been enough time to make an assessment’. The government does move, but only if it’s politically expedient.

But back to the topic at hand – the Tower 8 refusal. There was a public outcry, but not from the Advertiser, housed in part of the same development as Tower 8, which applauded the move for a couple of days and then shut up, publishing no more letters or articles on the subject, despite the continuing debate in the street and on television and talkback radio.

It will also be interesting to see how many planning staff are sacked at the Adelaide City Council, given that almost a billion dollars worth of proposals which it assessed in the last year would not now have to be handled by its staff.

It will be interesting too, to see how many of the Property Council/State Government cheer squad which has been applauding the current decision would be happy to see a hypothetical, parallel change:

The Commonwealth Government takes over, on the flimsiest of pretexts, all planning and approval power in South Australia for projects over, say, $100 million on the basis that the State approval system is not competent.

Would the same people now celebrating the ‘Holloway Decision’s removal of the democratic right of the residents of the City of Adelaide to any say in the $100 mill + major developments, which so define their city and affect their lives, be cheering a comparable decision by Canberra to take over, say all developments of $100 million or over in SA? No consultation, just like it or lump it.

We would have no say or representation whatsoever in projects like Newport Quays, the Gawler expansion, the Pelican Point power station, Roxby Downs and Olympic Dam, the Port Stanvac redevelopment, which would all be decided in Canberra, our state government.

Good idea, eh? In fact, why do we need self-determination at all? Why don’t we give up all representation in our own futures and let the Property Council and big government take ocver our lives completely.

‘Tea or coffee with your breakfast?’

Hang on, I’ll have to ring Nathan Paine, or Kevin Rudd. Hang on…

Tried to delete repeat post...

Bring on a new application for this site. Taller and better, 30 levels minimum.

Would be great!

Bye Bye ACC. Get back to collecting the garbage and putting parking ticktes on cars. As a city resident, God only knows what you do with my $1500 rates every year but it's not decent public speces (Victoria Square) or facilities or decent footpaths.

Even the acc major wants to pack all the councils together to reduce the number of robber barron CEO etc etc etc. Great idea, will not happen.

Back to City Central: Taller, better, more imposing and higher quality. That's what we need in the CBD.

Yes this is a really great site; I probably rejected the application not because of its impact but rather its lack off. A spectacular 30 -50 storey tower with stand alone building with architectural merit is what this site and our square deserves.

Jim wrote:Yes this is a really great site; I probably rejected the application not because of its impact but rather its lack off. A spectacular 30 -50 storey tower with stand alone building with architectural merit is what this site and our square deserves.

I know I sound like a broken record but City Central One should have been the major tower of this precinct, maybe around the 30-35 storey bracket (like Westpac). If CC8 goes taller because of a redesign I would think something in the region of 25-30 storeys max. Any higher it would through too much shadow onto Victoria Square in the winter months. I know we all like well designed towers, but they need to go in locations where they don't impact squares too much. Tall towers would be OK if they were set back or positioned half a block away or a whole block should they be taller still.

Cheers

Professor wrote:Bring on a new application for this site. Taller and better, 30 levels minimum.

Would be great!

Bye Bye ACC. Get back to collecting the garbage and putting parking ticktes on cars. As a city resident, God only knows what you do with my $1500 rates every year but it's not decent public speces (Victoria Square) or facilities or decent footpaths.

Even the acc major wants to pack all the councils together to reduce the number of robber barron CEO etc etc etc. Great idea, will not happen.

Back to City Central: Taller, better, more imposing and higher quality. That's what we need in the CBD.

Your arguments are a little confused Professor. You want a taller and better building. ACC wanted a taller and better building. ACC got downgraded for their stance. You should be angry as hell but you're happy.

However to take the alternative view; Given much of your rates are spent on providing services for people who pay no ACC rates and the govt has taken away some of your rights as a resident saying it is not fair that a council elected by so few has so much say about development which affects the whole state, maybe the govt should pay your rates for you.

Weird. People celebrating the removal without consultation of some of their democratic rights.

How would you feel if the federal government without consultation announced that they would take from SA the responsibility for all developments above $100 million. Still cheering?