Sensational-Adelaide.com

Will wrote:I have come across a street level render of Cr Wilkinson's own plan for the Le-Cornu site in the City Messenger.

Thankfully in the article that accompanies the picture, Cr Wilkinson states that this render is solely designed to give an impression of the scale of his idea. Thank God! because from ground level his design looks absolutely awful. It reminds me of a wool store or power station from the 1920s.

I can see what he's trying to do there, make a building that is an extension to the original building on the corner. But yes, the render does lack any kind of inspiration. It'd be nice to see something innovative AND useful built there. A combination of residential commercial would make sense.

Then again, why don't we build a soccer stadium on the site?

Just wonder who's bothered to look past Makris's pretty pictures to actually read the 330 page report on 88 O'Connell St?
As always, the devil's in the detail.It's full of hyperbole & contradictions. Makris himself admitted in the presentation at the public mtg that the site has lain empty because over the years "developers failed to develop" and not because of councils or local resos, so bang goes another childish urban myth.
Instead of whining (thanks Kev) about nimbys, just ask yourselves why the govt is being so good to this particular developer. He's very rich and he's being allowed to break the governments (not the Council's) own planning rules, here, at Victor Harbor & elsewhere. Is he building something for all of us, like a hospital, footie ground, or a transport hub? No, he's building a couple of shopping centres with apartments to make money for himself. Can someone tell me what the economic value of this is to a) the state b) adelaide?
I know that's what developers do, but how many are allowed to trample over the planning laws and have their pet projects fast-tracked by govt? Why is he being singled out for preferential treatment? Other developers and people like you and me have to jump thro hoops to get approvals. Do you get special treatment from the govt? Think about it. Aren't you all being a little bit conned?

silverscreen wrote:Just wonder who's bothered to look past Makris's pretty pictures to actually read the 330 page report on 88 O'Connell St?
As always, the devil's in the detail.It's full of hyperbole & contradictions. Makris himself admitted in the presentation at the public mtg that the site has lain empty because over the years "developers failed to develop" and not because of councils or local resos, so bang goes another childish urban myth.
Instead of whining (thanks Kev) about nimbys, just ask yourselves why the govt is being so good to this particular developer. He's very rich and he's being allowed to break the governments (not the Council's) own planning rules, here, at Victor Harbor & elsewhere. Is he building something for all of us, like a hospital, footie ground, or a transport hub? No, he's building a couple of shopping centres with apartments to make money for himself. Can someone tell me what the economic value of this is to a) the state b) adelaide?
I know that's what developers do, but how many are allowed to trample over the planning laws and have their pet projects fast-tracked by govt? Why is he being singled out for preferential treatment? Other developers and people like you and me have to jump thro hoops to get approvals. Do you get special treatment from the govt? Think about it. Aren't you all being a little bit conned?

Any successful facilities, whether they be public or private, have a benefit to the local economy. It's all about secondary and tertiary flow on effects and facilitating industry. But I do agree with you that rules shouldn't be bent or broken for commercial interests. Either the rules are wrong and need to be changed or there's nepotism going on.

Will wrote:I have come across a street level render of Cr Wilkinson's own plan for the Le-Cornu site in the City Messenger.




Thankfully in the article that accompanies the picture, Cr Wilkinson states that this render is solely designed to give an impression of the scale of his idea. Thank God! because from ground level his design looks absolutely awful. It reminds me of a wool store or power station from the 1920s.

That is just awful, the last thing we need is a Westfield style shopping centre in North Adelaide. I've never paid any attention to Cafe Paesano, is it worth keeping?

Anyone see the 7.30 report last night about developers in Wollongong giving money to the govt to make sure their oversize buildings got built? We're lucky that doesn't happen here.

silverscreen wrote:Anyone see the 7.30 report last night about developers in Wollongong giving money to the govt to make sure their oversize buildings got built? We're lucky that doesn't happen here.

Yes, I saw it. What makes you so sure it doesn't happen here?

urban wrote:It does not take balls to bend over for a developer.

Will, a confident city would have demanded a landmark modern building which was appropriate to the scale, pattern and density of the site. Has any one got pictures of the sculptural glass building on the Champs Elyssses a block away from the Arc de Triomphe?

Did you mean this one?



I was there about a week ago, and I remembered this having been mentioned as I was rushing past it to meet someone. The photo's a bit blurry on account of said rush, sorry.

As interesting as it looks, I don't think it contributes very much to street vibrancy, at least at ground level.

SRW wrote:

urban wrote:It does not take balls to bend over for a developer.

Will, a confident city would have demanded a landmark modern building which was appropriate to the scale, pattern and density of the site. Has any one got pictures of the sculptural glass building on the Champs Elyssses a block away from the Arc de Triomphe?

Did you mean this one?



I was there about a week ago, and I remembered this having been mentioned as I was rushing past it to meet someone. The photo's a bit blurry on account of said rush, sorry.

As interesting as it looks, I don't think it contributes very much to street vibrancy, at least at ground level.

It looks good , but in my opinion the makris project will look far more impacting on North Adelaide.

You like it - you take it! Not many other people want it. You're right about "impacting" tho. The whole place will be constipated with hundreds of cars trying to get into 256 measly public car parks. Three suggestions:
Read the report. Read the Report. Read the Report. Look past the pretty pictures and ask if this is really town planning at its best or another quick and dirty solution.

silverscreen wrote:You like it - you take it! Not many other people want it. You're right about "impacting" tho. The whole place will be constipated with hundreds of cars trying to get into 256 measly public car parks. Three suggestions:
Read the report. Read the Report. Read the Report. Look past the pretty pictures and ask if this is really town planning at its best or another quick and dirty solution.

Quite on the contrary a great many people want this to go ahead your either for it or against it.I myself am for it.
Sick of hearing all the nonsence of why it shouldn't be built.
It's all wearing a little thin now.

Yea I'm pretty bored with it all as well. But I really want to understand why your a supporter. Planning SA has to assess this on its economic, social & environmental value. Can you give me say 3 really good reasons why it should be built, apart from the usual stuff about it being nice to look at, the site's been empty too long, the nimbys are a pain, bigger is better etc. etc. Some people say there's 180,000 really good reasons why it shouldn't get approved. I'd like to hear 3 really good ones why it should so that I can put them in my submission.

Basically there seems to be pro's and cons to this project,However I can't see the problem of building a complex that houses a hotel, apartments and retail outlets.
i am biased i want to see the area grow.
I like tall skylines.
I like the facilities that this may have to offer.
I like the potential atmosphere this will create
I would also like to see the tram stop infront of it one day
The design is appealling.
I have a keen interest to watch Adelaide develope.
I equally want to see developements such as this in Port Adelaide, Kent Town, Mawson Lakes, West Lakes and all of our potential sattelite cites.
Higher density buildings look attractive as well as offering practicality and life style.
This to me is a project of great significance, North Adelaide has not seen a developement of this magnitude since the aquatic centre thats why its scary.
When it comes to town planning ideas are all subjective, ideas vary from one town planner to another. there is no right or wrong sure practicality must be taken into consideration as well as good design however there's more than one way to skin a cat.
To top it off i find this project extremely exciting and the renders look fantastic what a disapointment if this were not to go ahead.

Unless some one comes up with something better i fully endorse this project.

ah, we have our first North Adelaide nimby on here. Silverscreen, what do you propose for the site, a retirement village of 1 storey houses, all equipped with enough carparks for 3 cars per dwelling or person. This would be about the only thing the North Adelaide society will accept.

jk1237 wrote:ah, we have our first North Adelaide nimby on here. Silverscreen, what do you propose for the site, a retirement village of 1 storey houses, all equipped with enough carparks for 3 cars per dwelling or person. This would be about the only thing the North Adelaide society will accept.

*blows whistle*
Be nice now. What ever Silverscreen's motivations might be all they are asking for at this stage is for some concrete reasons why it might be a good idea to build. No need to throw names about. I understand your frustration, this things been going on EVER since I can remember. But if you can't present a rational case maybe you should consider having a cup of tea and a biscuit

i just dont understand why there has to be 3 good reasons why a building is to be built on a empty prime piece of land, on a busy thoroughfare in a inner suburb. Does this happen on every other site. Did the new SA water development have to provide 3 good reasons why they demolished a 2 storey tram barn with a nice 11 storey building.
Ive got 3 good reasons, caus it will bring more vitality, interesting architecture, and excitement to our city. O'Connell St is not a little village.
All developers are in it for money, whats new