ONH: [Port Adelaide] Newport Quays | $1.2b

[how_good_is_he]

Urban Construct [the developer] has come out fighting saying the brochures being distributed are factually incorrect ie the development plan does allow for iconic 12 storey towers. They go on and say they are going beyond the stated requirements by turning more contaminated industrial land which currently has no access back to the public via public jetties, squares etc they have a $2 million public art/heritage fund, have 2 view corridors not 1 as required etc, etc.

It will be interetsing if they will go for defamation against those responsible or at least begin legal action to get an apology/retraction. It would be good to have the NIMBYs having to put there hands in there pockets to defend what they are saying and be interesting to see who is infact right.

[MGR]

interesting article in todays Tiser! edit (PAGE 13)

[Shuz]

What does it say!?

[Dave_The_Planner]

You can read it on AdelaideNow...

A PROPOSED stage of the $1.5 billion Newport Quays development at Port Adelaide will be uninviting and potentially dangerous, a new report claims.

An assessment, commissioned by the Port Adelaide Enfield Council, found 40 problems with the design of stage 2B of the project estimated to be worth more than $200 million.

The proposal includes three 12-storey residential buildings, plus several smaller residential and commercial developments.

Council environmental services director Fred Newman said the development was not environmentally-friendly, was not sympathetic to the local heritage and did not meet public safety standards.

"This should not be approved," he said. "It is high risk and I think it would be a brave person who would approve this."

The report will be formally presented to council's development assessment panel on Wednesday.

A final decision will be made by an independent board set up by the State Government. Included in the report are claims private marina berths will limit public access to the waterfront and public spaces will be "uninviting to visitors".

It also says the area could be potentially dangerous because of its design.

Urban Construct chief executive Todd Brown, who is responsible for the project, said he had been negotiating with the council for months over its concerns.

"Over a number of months we have been working through their concerns," he said.

"Obviously, we beg to differ on a number of things regarding development but we will continue to work with the council to try and resolve any outstanding issues," he said.

"We believe the development application has enormous merit and we think it is good for Port Adelaide and good for the state."

Planning Minister Paul Holloway did not comment on the issue yesterday because the independent commission had been set up to decide the outcome of the proposal.

[JamesXander]

I read the first few lines of this article in the paper, sighed, and turned the page

If this developement is halted or downsized I will molotov whoever is responsible, haha.

[Cruise]

The messenger launched this video onto youtube citing the problems the council has with this development.

stage 2B and 2C:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mLH3H3QfwwY

[Edgar]

That is simply lame and not acceptable.

What's with these people? Would they claim that the construction of buildings in the city are potentially dangerous because of, narrow and over-shadowed, in-active street, problems with carpark entry/exit, and windy?

You gotta be kidding me, windy.

[Will]

The proposed development looks spectacular. We have to remember that the development is going to occur at the oppositte bank of the Port River, and not in the historic Port Adelaide town centre. I don't understand all the fuss surrounding Hart's Mill. The equivalent in the CBD, would be like saying that there can be no tall building's in Adelaide, because they will block views of St. Peter's Cathedral from South Terrace!

The NIBY attitudes are an embarrassment to this city. This is a further example of hysteria and extreme nostalgia getting in the way of reason.

[AtD]

Fantastic development and all, but I don't like the look of those prison-bar car parks. They ruin stage one, imo. A facade, please!

[AG]

The overshadowing and potential windy claims are rediculous. Tell me a building that has been constructed that doesn't affect the flow of air around it or a building that doesn't cast any shadow, I'm pretty sure there weren't any the last time I checked.

[Edgar]

And as a matter of fact, the Waterfront location is towards inland, not by the coast, even so, there has never been reported any problems with 'Windy' at Glenelg.

A tree branch could broke, dropped, hit and killed a pedestrian, due to windy condition. So is that dangerous?

There are so many carparks around the CBD that is so potentially dangerous, walk along Gawler Place @ Rundle Mall, and you should be aware that the entry/exit to most carparks are right on the pedestrian pathway, I don't see it as a hazard at all? If you have eyes to see, there shouldn't be a problem.

Should I also say the entire CBD is over-shadowed?

[Cruise]

Fantastic development and all, but I don't like the look of those prison-bar car parks. They ruin stage one, imo. A facade, please!

The only problem i can find with these buildings is the carparks.

even putting them underground and reducing the height of the buildings would be more pleasing

[how_good_is_he]

Problem is it costs a lot more to go underground and they also need the height to create views above the 2 storey villas in front of the apartments.

[Edgar]

Watch out the NIMBY's are coming out in force.

From the Messenger:

Hart's attack

http://www.messengerwest.com.au/images/ ... /HART3.JPG

Tanya Westthorp

04Dec07

MORE than 20,000 flyers designed to rally the community over the $2billion Newport Quays development are being distributed by a team of community groups.

The ``The Port - Our Harbour, Their Dream'' flyer contains artwork depicting by how much the proposed Stage Three 12-storey buildings would tower over historic Hart's Mill.

Several community groups, including the Port Adelaide Residents Environment Protection Group (PAREPG) and the Port of Adelaide National Trust, are behind the campaign along with local businesses and concerned residents.

The flyer - also offering a version of ``What we deserve'' and ``What we could be getting'' - will be dropped in local letterboxes and handed out at community events including last weekend's Art @ the Hart.

The campaign claims Newport Quays will overwhelm the Port with a ``massive enclave development forming a visual and physical barrier between Port Adelaide and the Peninsula''.

``Will this be a lost opportunity? With your help, we hope it won't be,'' the flyer says.

PAREPG co-secretary Liz Millington said many people were unaware of the size and scale of the Stage Three plans, including three 12-storey towers and another three earmarked for Stage Four.

``We are not saying there should be no development at all, but we didn't think people were aware of the variations from the original concept plans,'' she said.

``The reaction from people at our Semaphore Street Fair stall confirmed that ... people were quite shocked and surprised.

``A lot of people are not even particularly comfortable with the size of what's already there (in Stage 1) the fact we will be getting substantially larger buildings is quite alarming.''

Port of Adelaide National Trust chairman Tony Kearney said one of the main concerns was the developers' ``apparent disregard'' for the Development Plan, which lays out acceptable building heights for each waterfront precinct.

Port Adelaide Enfield Council has argued the proposed 12-storey towers in Stage 3 breach the development plan.

``The plan is something the community fought hard for and which was a compromise in the first place,'' Mr Kearney said.

``We are all in favour of the redevelopment, but we'd like a redevelopment that doesn't overwhelm the surrounding suburbs and the Port's heritage.''

Newport Quays released a whole page of the advantages of these development in that same Portside Messenger paper

GOOD FOR HERITAGE
- Returning a degraded and inaccessible part of the foreshore to The Port people
- Creating a new marina inlet at the site of the historic Hawker Creek inlet
- Creating an additional view corridor to The Port's heritage heart, including Harts Mill
- Delivering far greater public amenities including a public plaza, new public jetties for fishing and viewing the Port River and beyond, and public marina berths, this is beyond the requirements of the Development Plan.
- A $2 million public art fund, with urban art reflecting The Port's maritime heritage and featuring recovered maritime artefacts
- An urban design which reinforces and compliments The Port's maritime history

GOOD URBAN PLANNING
- Buildings complaint with the Development Plan which calls for a development that is "bold and contemporary in design" with "landmark buildings of 12 storeys in height to create icon buildings visible from across the river..."
- Excellent urban design outcomes providing far greater public amenities, open space, boardwalks and waterfront facilities for the local community and visitors alike.
- Direct pedestrian and bicycle access from local suburbs to the Port River
- A design that provides opportunities for a Transit Oriented Development with a potential integration with the Glanville Railway Station.


GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
- Cleaning up polluted and degraded areas along the Port River
- Raising environmental standards for the future through incorporating innovative Environmentally Sustainable Design initiatives
- Creating strong links with public transport, including a landscaped pedestrian and bicycle broadwalk direct from the Glanville Railway Station to the waterfront


GOOD FOR THE LOCALS
- For the first time, direct access to the waterfront and the Port River
- Improved real estate values
- World-class public amenities and re-activation of boating activities along the Port River
- A cleaner environment and infrastructure upgrades
- Thousands of new jobs created directly by the development
- Significant capital investment ($100+ million) which will create a huge boost for local business
- A complete revitalisation of The Port Town Centre with more people visiting and moving back to The Port

[Edgar]

I have been following closely on stumpjumper's posting in regards to this development, while he may have made many interesting points worth considering and knowing, I will still be all in for this development, and the developer had made it quite clear which it is good for the port.

I know they could have done better, but this development is only at its early stage, we have yet to see what it will eventually turn the port into, without even touching the 'real' heritage side of the port.

Certainly, clearing up the wasted unused area is definitely a win over anything else, and to whinge about the heritage buildings/site is stupid, I don't even know Hart's Mill exists, let alone a heritage site, if without this development of the New Port, many people wouldn't even know or care at all. I don't even know where it was before, now that this New Port is being developed, at least I am starting to pay more attention to it.

Some people here had also made it quite clear that the New Port is better than nothing being developed, especially in one of the best location in South Australia with plenty of potential. Note that with potential existence, nobody had even care to touch it, not even the local council cared to do anything to it and let it rot. While the potential and opportunities came to light, there goes the anti-development-war-on-everything again, to save the Port.

What port? Empty, disgusting, eye-sore, wasted Port?

Do you want that Port or a freshly, more pleasant to-be-in Port?

I would choose the latter anytime.