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

[urban]

The development plan for the area was the result of years of work by different govt departments to provide a balance between potential developers needs and heritage and urban design principles. There was some scope for community involvement in shaping the plan. The resultant development plan whilst probably flawed should be obeyed by both sides. If the proposed development meets the development plan then the Nimby's should stop whinging and put their energy elsewhere. If the proposals don't meet the development plan then the developers should stop wasting energy designing things that shouldn't get approved.

The mistakes of Glenelg with car parks at gound level should not be repeated.

[Shuz]

The development looks great, but I would hope that the carparks can be put underground (may be above-ground because of the water-table) or they should just put ground-level amenities, and then have the carpark levels atop (2 ramps up) to alleviate the problem they have with the lucklastre environment.

[AG]

I'm not sure what the soil conditions around the site are, but from remembering what I studied a few years ago most of the land by the river sits on a weak layer of clay, which wouldn't be ideal for constructing underground pits and excavations so close to the river. It's certainly possible to excavate through weak soil, but it would add a lot to the construction costs.

[Omicron]

I too had no idea what on earth Hart's Mill was until this development came about.

[Ben]

From The Messenger:

Newport head blasts the council

Tanya Westthorp

11Dec07



BIG PLANS: The plans for Stage 2 of the Newport Quays development include 5 12 storey buildings.

THE depth of a bitter standoff between the Newport Quays consortium and Port Adelaide Enfield Council has finally surfaced with frustrated developer Todd Brown letting loose on his real feelings about the council this week.

Speaking to the Portside Messenger, Mr Brown said he was at his wit's end with both the council and community groups that constantly attacked Stage 3 of the Port redevelopment and released ``factually incorrect'' information.

Tensions between the council and the developer have been simmering behind the scenes for months but Mr Brown has previously insisted they had a good working relationship - until now.

``I suggest they haven't looked at this with independent eyes,'' Mr Brown said, in response to the council's critical assessment of the Stage 3 proposal.

``I don't think it's appropriate for the council or developer to play out their differences in the media. But the behaviour of the council is not conducive to a good working relationship.

``It becomes very difficult dealing with the council when they're making alarmist statements.

``We are frustrated but committed to achieving the best possible result for Port Adelaide.''

Mr Brown said the council's suggestion to scrap Stage 3 in its entirety and start again was ``farcical''.

``To suggest they (council's concerns) are major issues is ludicrous ... there's no acceptance of the amendments we've made in the past 10 months and there's no acceptance on the merit of this development.''

Mr Brown said the council had told the consortium there were not enough public amenities. Yet, when three public jetties and a public square were included into the plan and offered to the council to take ownership of them, the council declined.

``When we went down to the council, surprise, surprise, they weren't interested in taking ownership on those jetties,'' he said.

``They're tying one arm behind our back ... they request improvements then in another breath they say they don't want to take ownership of it.

``They are not being proactive in trying to find sensible compromises to ensure the project maintains momentum.

``That's summarising the frustrations we've had with council over the past few months ... it's so counter-productive.

``We are trying to make sensible compromises but when we do we are just not getting anywhere with Fred and his team.''

The council's environmental services director Fred Newman rejected Mr Brown's complaints, saying the council had engaged five independent experts to analyse the development.

``What he would appear to be alleging is that I engaged those people as hired guns to come up with a certain result, and that's not the case,'' he said.

Mr Newman said the proposed ``jetties'' were in fact floating pontoons that council had not requested for that area.

He said the council's major concerns, including 12-storey buildings that were never envisaged for the site, had not been addressed.

``They are not addressing the major issues, they are tinkering with the plans and making minor changes.'

[Ben]

Maybe we should let Todd Brown know about our petition intentions and get Urban Construct on board?

[Will]

I have just returned from a visit to Port Adelaide today, and any doubts I had about the development have been quashed. As it currently is, Port Adelaide is a depressing and miserable place. I am actually surprised that anyone would bother to spend more than $1 billion on the place. As such we should get behind the development, as Port Adelaide desperately needs to be improved and get new people living there. Maybe I had bad luck today, but I have never seen so many bogans and shady looking people in my life. In fact as I was parking, I probabaly took a few seconds longer than I should have, and I had a bikie looking man start to abuse me. Following this, a group of Wu-tang clad teenagers rode past so close and so fast next to an old lady, they almost knocked her over. It seriously looked as though all the characters from the Footy Show's 'street talk' had congregated in Port Adelaide today. No wonder they have such a huge Centrelink!

[Edgar]

As much as the developer's re-proposals isn't good enough for the council, in return, the council's rejection and reasons for their disapproval is not good enough for me, or the community as a whole.

Their concerns were not at all valid in today's society, in regards to the nature beyond one's capability of control, e.g. potential crime scene, potential blind spot, potential lighting disruption at the location?

All of their major concerns as illustrated in their imaginative world of 3D flying scenes are just purely, imagination, and I believe the true possibilities of such incidents to occur are rare, otherwise, the CBD of any cities in Australia would be a total chaos by now.

Both side are open for criticism, but lets be honest, in this case, the developer has a much more clearer vision than the council do, put the profit discussion aside, and still, the redevelopments are better than its current stage.

[AG]

The Port Adelaide Enfield Council is like a homeless person looking for food. They ask someone on the street to buy food for them, but when something gets offered to them they refuse to take it. It sounds like the council doesn't really know what it wants, and some of the demands it is asking to be met are quite unrealistic.

[AtD]

I'm starting to get confused by the numbering of this project. Is the above render of stage "2B" or Stage 3?

[crawf]

From The Messenger:

Newport head blasts the council

Tanya Westthorp

11Dec07

That doesn't look impressive as I first thought, very plain and boring for Port Adelaide.

[teflon fox]

Please - do you really know this area ? I am not antidevelopment at all but have some idea about this development?

[Edgar]

Please - do you really know this area ? I am not antidevelopment at all but have some idea about this development?

Don't know who you are referring this to, but as far as I am concerned you are not interested in this redevelopment because of the location and the fact that it is more attractive to people who are working around the surrounding suburbs, and has a berth with a boat, plus an ugly view and polluted air around.

Good points, but the whole purpose of this redevelopment is to 'clean up' the otherwise long-abandoned land around Port Adelaide. So much of the 'port' title but a truly wasted deserted location.

The redevelopments do not destroy the actual port heritage itself, just bringing the surrounding areas to life and to bring the actual port heritage zone a more attractive and catchy to the eyes of the people, otherwise, if you ask me how many times do I visit the port in a year, I would probably say not more than 3 times, perhaps this redevelopment would encourage me to spend more time in the port (when it is completed) than to visit Glenelg most of the time.

Well, at least that is what we hope for, from this redevelopments. And lastly, it is still better than non-developed wasteland.

Crawf, it may be a little plain and boring, but that view is from the back, a view from Causeway Rd, the entire front look from the water is different and more promising. People are more interested in what the front looks like than the back.

ATD, I think this should be Stage 2B & C, Stage 2 is currently under construction and I think is labelled as "Marina Cove" , the Stage 2B & C is an extension of Marina Cove (towards the corner) is still stuck under proposal stage due to council's rejection. The were worried that Hart's Mill was not visible from a certain standing point of view, when the true obvious viewing stand point were stupidly regarded as windy (because it faces the open water - how stupid is that!) and has pillars around which is subject to aiding crime because of the potential hiding spots.

I cannot understand how much more ridiculous can the council get.

[AtD]

Thanks Edgar.

[stumpjumper]

It's no news to say that the Newport Quays consortium redevelopment of the Port has some serious issues to deal with if it is to meet the expectations of the community as well as of the developers.

That must be the ideal result - a development which everyone likes, while also delivering profit to the developer.

The problems at Port Adelaide seem generally to be the result of a well-known process - the council and government planners propose a certain level and type of development; a dveloper accepts the proposition, then the war starts. The developer (in this case the consortium) starts chiselling away (or in some case hacking away) at the original planning constraints. It deploys its battalions of lawyers, PR spinners and a cocktail circuit schmooze brigade. Having got in the door and left the other contenders locked outside, it's aim is now to change the rules in order to maximise its profit. If it's at the expense of the community, who cares. What can the community do now? Vote the developers out? They mioght vote out the government if the government is silly enough to let itself be seen as part of the problem. That's why we have bodies like Land Management Corporation: to distance the elected government from the rapacious activities of the government's chosen development partners.

Let's look at Newport Quay's Stage 2B and 2C. These two stages involve Policy Area 34B of the Port Adelaide Enfield council's development plan. The concept plan for the area published in the DP is a result of the efforts of Planning SA, the council's planners with input from the development industry. I'll go out on a limb and say that most people would agree that the resulting 'concept plan' is a good compromise between ideal planning practice, responsible environmental design, the needs of the community (especially for maintaining physical links etc) and the legitimate requirement for profit on the part of the developer.

The previously mentioned battalions of lawyers are unleashed as soon as the competitive selection process is complete and the developer is confident they have no opposition but the community and its elected representatives?

Well, in they charge, together with the PR spinners, the cocktail party schmoozers and the plain old heavy hitters.

The lawyers contend that the words 'concpet plan' are so vague as to be useless, and that because there is no horizontal scale on the published concept plan then the vertical scale is also questionable. The heavy hitters remind the government of how much Multiplex and Urban Constrcut have done for the state.

At this point, anyone in the safe Labor seat of Port Adelaide should be worried if they are still going to have a corner shop, or even a view or a bit of sunlight in their garden when all is said and done.

Relentlessly, the developer grind away at the council, the government and the community. 'We need more profit,' they moan. 'We need higher buildings and more density. Our initial figures were out. Times have changed. We want more marina berths too.'

So it goes on. The developers present a new plan for Stages 2B and 2C. The two skinny 12 storey towers have gone, replaced by five huge fin like buildings which rise 12 stories above a vast two storey carpark podium, and whcih are oriented to catch the full heart of the afternoon western sun and to rob their neighbours of morning sunlight.

'Doesn't matter,' Ii was told by a sales rep. 'Just turn on the air con and enjoy the view.'

Two new marinas ahve been dug in the developers' latest version. Making marina's is like printing money. Just subdivide the sea floor, add a bit of infrastructure and take the money. If view corridors are spurious, then the developers' notion that instead of being environmental catastrophes, the five huge buildings are really 'walls of the new water rooms' is a worse joke. The 'water rooms' are of course the new marinas, cutely renamed to reduce their scale.

The developers put all tehir strength into reworking the original concept to maximise their profit regardless of the cost to the community. These people play harball. Unless you have spent time in the property development industry, I doubt you would appreciate how hard the game of harball can be played. People like our local hard man Kevin Foley becomes a soft, provincial target when lined up agaisnt these guys.

Policy are 34B envisages a development generally of 3 to 7 stories, with two tall spires of 12 stories framing a view of Harts Mill from the top of Semaphore Road. As I indicated, I'm no fan of view corridors. They tend to lok very convincing on a drawing board, but disappear when seen from a car travelling at 20 metres per second. However, the idea of two spires at the top of Semaphore Road surrounded by buildings grading down to 3 stories did look pretty good with respect to the planners intentions.

I believe we will end up with something quite different. As far as the Port is concerned, I think the Planning SA and the PAE council should immediately fire the planning staff responsible for 'guiding' the Port development. Until there is a seriosu effort by the state government to get out of bed with the developers and to promote as better result for the community, the lower echelons of the planning trade might as well go home.

LMC is being investigated basically for straying onto the wrong side and representing the developer rather than the community which owns the land at the Port and which will have to live with the result, although you wouldn't know there was any investigation. There is no information available about it. Try finding out yourself. Good luck.

The developers' websites crow that the develop will bring the Port alive! We'll see. A balanced development could bring the Port alive, for sure. But this development is heavily lopsided towards the short term profit interests of the developers, and it dramatically short-changes the community - both those who are already residents in the Port and the people who buy in.

Let's look at one negative, profit driven aspect of many. After the 'competition gate' had closed, the developers wailed that they needed marina berths to manke the project stand up at all, and that the government would have to build them whiel the developers would sell them. So we ahve 600 odd marina berths.

One corner of the site is occupied by boatyards - noisy, clanking boatyards full of activity etc. (Remember the Port coming alive? Boatyards are a part of the life of ports.) Apart from wanting to get rid of the boatyards in order to cover the land they stand on with housing, the developers want no marine service providers in the inner harbour at all. Not even a petrol or diesel bowser. However, if you need fuel, or your boat won't start, help is at hand. A mere 5 kilometres or so down the river is another project of the developers': 'Adelaide Marina'. There, you will find a fuel supply and marine mechanics to replace the ones the developers have banished from the inner harbour. How do you get there if your boat won't go? Well, a private boat can't tow another in the inner harbour waterway, but it is likely that a tow operator will be licensed to offer tows from the inner harbour to Adelaide Marina. Restraint of trade? Probably, but you won't hear any objections from the government.

Anyway, it looks as though the five huge buildings will eb built, in defiance of good planning practice and in defiance of community interests. These guys have done all this many times before, and they know the moves. From taking the Treasurer on a champagne cruise to acceptiong dodgy contracts from government ministers, the old hands at Multiplex/Urban Construct know how to skin cats like us. They have punched out these public private partnerships all over Australia and around the world.

There may still be time to affect events. If you're at all interested, look at some websites.

You'll wonder how it is that the poor old Port is getting done over.