Re: Channel 7 site Gilberton
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:51 pm
Any photos before the demolition? I never took much notice of the site as I drove past it every morning on the way to work until it was too late...
Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1410
BT, I found an interesting website the other day. It has aerial images like Google Maps but not just from over head but also at an angle. You might find it interesting to have a look at the development sites with it and the best thing, it stores its old images so you can go back on the time line. http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-34.908108,1 ... d=20091201baytram366 wrote:Any photos before the demolition? I never took much notice of the site as I drove past it every morning on the way to work until it was too late...
You had me floundered for a while!stumpjumper wrote:And the Mayor has been Whiting for years.
When I saw ABC news interview an urban planning expert from the University of Adelaide who opposed it, I was very surprised - partly because I didn't know Adelaide University even had that department, but mainly because I'd expect the experts at UniSA to come to the opposite conclusion!Apart from the peppering of the suburbs, inner or not, with 10 storey buildings being unsupported by any planning theory on the planet,
Watersun win because they're allowed to make better use of the land they own. The council win because the value of the land rises so they get more revenue from rates. The buyers may even benefit a bit, as flats in such a good location won't be in such short supply. The vendor might be miffed, but that's business.even in this location the 'TOD theory', there are two other problems with this decision.
First, a problem of equity: The price paid by Watersun Asset Pty Ltd for the land was based on its development potential of two or three levels. That Watersun has been able, by some serious and expensive lobbying, been able to have just their site rezoned to ten levels delivers to Watersun a significant boost in the value of their site. To put it another way, the land value in each apartment will be a lot lower than it would have been without the rezoning. This discount will not be passed on to apartment buyers, though. The vendor of the land might be a little miffed too.
If it wants to it should. That doesn't mean the application should be successful, but going against the wishes and interests of the owners is something that should only be done where there are good grounds to do so.Second, a problem of consistency: Why shouldn't the Hackney Hotel now apply for ten stories,
Why not? It seems to be mixed use already, and it wouldn't overshadow any residential area.or someone put together four bungalows on Rose Terrace and go for ten stories?
Now you're just being silly. Edwin Terrace is in a fairly quiet residential area, the character of which would be ruined by a ten storey building.What about a big site on Edwin Terrace? A ten storey building there would be good business.
There is, but even if there wasn't, I don't see what's at all difficult about it.Unless there is a very specific argument for the Watersun site, it will create a very difficult precedent.
Suburban parks like that are not on major roads - so quit your scaremongering!Planning minister Holloway, Advertiser 27th Oct 2010: "Allowing for a more appropriate housing density of up to 10 storeys overlooking the parklands will unlock the site's economic potential."
Advertiser 27th Oct 2009: "Property Council of Australia executive director [and former Holloway staffer] Nathan Paine wants 12-storey residential buildings looking over the parklands."
We should all be putting together parcels on the park frontages of North and South Adelaide, Hazelwood Park, Beaumont Common, etc. Don't worry about the zoning or the council.
In his defence, Beaumont Common is a suburban park, but the park frontages of North and South Adelaide are on major roads, as is Hazelwood Park.stumpjumper wrote: We should all be putting together parcels on the park frontages of North and South Adelaide, Hazelwood Park, Beaumont Common, etc. Don't worry about the zoning or the council.Aidan wrote:Suburban parks like that are not on major roads - so quit your scaremongering!
Wow! That's big! Not your average flat, then.stumpjumper wrote:Dwellings should have an average site area per dwelling of not less than 250 square metres.
It is big, but that average site area/dwelling and the other constraints, although supported by Walkerville Council, were over-ridden by Minister Holloway on application from Watersun Pty Ltd.stumpjumper wrote:
Dwellings should have an average site area per dwelling of not less than 250 square metres.
Wow! That's big! Not your average flat, then.
Nope, the Obahn serves the North Eastern suburbs as a quick link corridor from there to the CBD. This development is right at the edge of the CBD and doesn't require a link to the OBahn, and indeed if any such thing was added it would slow down the services from the NE.iTouch(myself) wrote:I'm not sure about this sort of thing but if there is multiple 10 storey housing developments, shouldn't there be a bus interchange here for the future busway extension to west terrace?
I hope aidan answers this because he seems smart.
there is only the 281 bus which is just an every 30min service off peak, i wouldnt exactly call that well serviced. Most who will live in this site, if public transport isnt improved, will drive.monotonehell wrote:Gilberton is well serviced with buses already.