Sensational-Adelaide.com

crawf wrote:Food, Drinks, Elegant Buildings and Festivals

Hence the Brilliant Blend campaign.

Now that's a vision, I love you Crawf.

monotonehell wrote: What's Adelaide famous for?

The fact that:

• It has the smallest amount of freeways for any capital city in Australia with a population of more than 1 million

• It doesn't have any great waterfront developments (other than the Hyatt Buildding/ Convention Centre picture which is made to look good in tourist books, however when they come here, it's just an exagerrated image

• It has the shortest CBD building height restrictions out of all the cities in Australia that have a population of over 1 million

MHS is stating that if elected, some of the things that he'll do includes: 1. build freeway(s); 2. build waterfront develpoments at our beaches and will build a retail/ sports precinct at the railway yards on North Terrace; 3. Take control of the building restrictions, designs, etc within the CBD; 4. Take control of the Parklands.
If you ask me, this is a man with vision.

yeah and by the sounds of it he also doesn't have a budget.

The Carabinieri wrote:I find this to be a massive problem.

It it what holds our city back

I think that the area which is affected worse by this, is Norwood

Your spot on, how many extra people (especially young professionals or singles who love the cosmopolitan lifestyle that comes with living in Norwood) would move into the area and purchase these high rise apartments. They would make extremely good investments and attract investment from interstate aswel as local investors. Norwood is restricted by the amount of land space and 2-3 storey zonings when there is plenty of areas where you could build up without upsetting the aesthetics. This would increase the population to an already popular area and ad so much more to the exciting commercial precinct, restaurants, pubs etc. Im all for high rise for Norwood. It seems we are to hesitant to really make the most of our popular areas. If 'Norwood' was in Melbourne, Perth or Sydney my belief was they would have rezoned to high rise.

Cruise wrote:yeah and by the sounds of it he also doesn't have a budget.

Hehe yep.

eKwatee wrote:

The Carabinieri wrote:I find this to be a massive problem.

It it what holds our city back

I think that the area which is affected worse by this, is Norwood

Your spot on, how many extra people (especially young professionals or singles who love the cosmopolitan lifestyle that comes with living in Norwood) would move into the area and purchase these high rise apartments. They would make extremely good investments and attract investment from interstate aswel as local investors. Norwood is restricted by the amount of land space and 2-3 storey zonings when there is plenty of areas where you could build up without upsetting the aesthetics. This would increase the population to an already popular area and ad so much more to the exciting commercial precinct, restaurants, pubs etc. Im all for high rise for Norwood. It seems we are to hesitant to really make the most of our popular areas. If 'Norwood' was in Melbourne, Perth or Sydney my belief was they would have rezoned to high rise.

Hmm, high-rise in Norwood - not a battle that can be easily won i think...However, what about Kent Town? it's adjacent to Norwood and is perfect for high-rise. It's a mix of office blocks, light-industry, & residential and would respond well to 10-20 high rise apartment blocks. The Parade's a short stroll away - as is the city (i walked it today and only took 10-15mins).

Kent Town also has many quaint little corner deli's and federation-style shop fronts that should be retained - and in fact i'm sure they would become increasingly popular with each new high-rise in the area. I also love the Tapp Inn - such a cool place!

I would say that part of the resistance to suburban high-rise is the prevalence of awful examples from the '60s and '70s. Think Atlantic/Saltram/Holdfast/St. Vincent Towers at Glenelg, the underwhelming and dated buildings along Anzac Highway between Marion and South Roads, or the towers in North Adelaide (along Strangways Tce, I think, but I could be wrong). These past abominations have, unfortunately, been constructed in the strangest of places, often without concern for the surrounding area, and have not aged well. If such buldings were a person's only experience with suburban development, I don't necessarily blame them for being tentative about such plans.

And, as much as developers would love to think otherwise, many of the new apartment developments these days are remarkably cheap-looking - using the excuse of 'modern minimalism' to justify exposed downpipes and flat walls everywhere, without the true elegance and proportion of a proper Bauhaus-esque minimalist design.

I'll admit to preferring more traditional-style apartment developments for the suburbs - the Malthouse Building in the Brewery Apartments, the Light's Landing, Marina West and Marina East buildings of Holdfast Shores, Liberty Towers or the Stamford Grand at Glenelg. I think these are the sorts of buildings that are best-suited to suburban areas.

Omicron wrote:I would say that part of the resistance to suburban high-rise is the prevalence of awful examples from the '60s and '70s. Think Atlantic/Saltram/Holdfast/St. Vincent Towers at Glenelg, the underwhelming and dated buildings along Anzac Highway between Marion and South Roads, or the towers in North Adelaide (along Strangways Tce, I think, but I could be wrong). These past abominations have, unfortunately, been constructed in the strangest of places, often without concern for the surrounding area, and have not aged well. If such buldings were a person's only experience with suburban development, I don't necessarily blame them for being tentative about such plans.

I think you're on to something there, but we shouldn't generalise. There's probably those who view all new developments through the lens of past atrocities, and others who just don't want to be in the shadow of something tall, as well as those who just fear change completely.

Omicron wrote:And, as much as developers would love to think otherwise, many of the new apartment developments these days are remarkably cheap-looking - using the excuse of 'modern minimalism' to justify exposed downpipes and flat walls everywhere, without the true elegance and proportion of a proper Bauhaus-esque minimalist design.

Oh yeah, you said the 'B word'. Give it to me baby! Why do we end up with all those Tuscan-wanabe bland nothings everywhere? There's been a few gone up in Norwood, North Adelaide and elsewhere, they are neither inspiring design taken on their own, nor harmonious with their neighbours. They just look cheap. Why can't a few people hire real architects now and then?

This issue of heights goes back to the cultural fabric of Adelaide way back beyond the 60's. In such a fabric, a concept is passed on by word of mouth, often unquestioned, and so grows in solidarity of belief over time. This concept happens everywhere, but is particularly evident in small towns, where certain ideas can be unjustifiably and unreasonably entrenched for decades.

In general In Adelaide, unusually for it's size, a similar thing has occurred concerning the abovementioned concept. The problem is often enhanced by igorance bolstered into real substance through dominant personalities and the agendas they carry. Yes, much as I hate to, I have to recognise the height issue as it resurfaces with a vengeance all too frequently for a city of 1.14m. (ABS figures mid 2006).

With all that, Adelaide is the place i like most of the lot, despite the height issues'

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE.

What might create some areas of concentrated residential towers? Some innovative and efficient transport corridors. Maybe trams, maybe busways, probably not heavy rail, definitely grade separated across major roads. Draw a few lines across the suburbs and legislate human friendly high density along their corridors. Watch the developers salivate and put up a few vertical communities. Something along the lines of Mawson Lakes (but less ghetto*).


(Nb in the old sense of the word, less isolated, cloistered - not dissin' as in the new sense)

monotonehell wrote:

Omicron wrote:I would say that part of the resistance to suburban high-rise is the prevalence of awful examples from the '60s and '70s. Think Atlantic/Saltram/Holdfast/St. Vincent Towers at Glenelg, the underwhelming and dated buildings along Anzac Highway between Marion and South Roads, or the towers in North Adelaide (along Strangways Tce, I think, but I could be wrong). These past abominations have, unfortunately, been constructed in the strangest of places, often without concern for the surrounding area, and have not aged well. If such buldings were a person's only experience with suburban development, I don't necessarily blame them for being tentative about such plans.

I think you're on to something there, but we shouldn't generalise. There's probably those who view all new developments through the lens of past atrocities, and others who just don't want to be in the shadow of something tall, as well as those who just fear change completely.

In the back of my head, the thought of having to make a naked, dripping run across the backyard for my towel on the washing line as my elevated neighbours look on is somewhat off-putting. Of course, why should development be limited by the scope of my stupidity?

Omicron wrote:And, as much as developers would love to think otherwise, many of the new apartment developments these days are remarkably cheap-looking - using the excuse of 'modern minimalism' to justify exposed downpipes and flat walls everywhere, without the true elegance and proportion of a proper Bauhaus-esque minimalist design.

Oh yeah, you said the 'B word'. Give it to me baby! Why do we end up with all those Tuscan-wanabe bland nothings everywhere? There's been a few gone up in Norwood, North Adelaide and elsewhere, they are neither inspiring design taken on their own, nor harmonious with their neighbours. They just look cheap. Why can't a few people hire real architects now and then?

Judging by CC8, even when an architect is hired, the results are not necessarily outstanding.....

I think what you'll often find what happens in the design of a building is that the most economical design takes preference, usually in the form of a boxy structure. The requirements and needs of the developers, clients and engineers usually come before the architect, even though the work of the architect is usually the only aspect seen by most people.

Kent Town is in a brilliant location. Between one of our city's greatest cafe, restaurant prcints and our CBD. It can be developed into a gateway from the suburbs to the city. Put some big apartments and attractive office buildings there, throw in a recreation park, refurbish the Parade West-Rundle Road route which connects to Rundle Street and Kent Town (and Norwood) will become recognisable and attractive places.

adam73837 wrote:Kent Town is in a brilliant location. Between one of our city's greatest cafe, restaurant prcints and our CBD. It can be developed into a gateway from the suburbs to the city. Put some big apartments and attractive office buildings there, throw in a recreation park, refurbish the Parade West-Rundle Road route which connects to Rundle Street and Kent Town (and Norwood) will become recognisable and attractive places.

agree 100%

adam73837 wrote:Kent Town is in a brilliant location. Between one of our city's greatest cafe, restaurant prcints and our CBD. It can be developed into a gateway from the suburbs to the city. Put some big apartments and attractive office buildings there, throw in a recreation park, refurbish the Parade West-Rundle Road route which connects to Rundle Street and Kent Town (and Norwood) will become recognisable and attractive places.

The biggest problem with Kent Town is its dumb street orientation. I'm just starting up the bulldozer to demonstrate why...

We don't need that little college there do we?