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

[how_good_is_he]

What I actually find incredible is that there is enough demand from buyers to even propose 5 x 12 storey apartment blocks in Port Adelaide...and only in stage 3 and at massive prices probably on par to beachfront Glenelg! They win the David Copperfield award for magic trick of the century!

[Xaragmata]

What I actually find incredible is that there is enough demand from buyers to even propose 5 x 12 storey apartment blocks in Port Adelaide...and only in stage 3 and at massive prices probably on par to beachfront Glenelg! They win the David Copperfield award for magic trick of the century!

There may be some demand from the construction of the new navy ships & eventual submarine replacement program.

[stumpjumper]

There will always be demand - at a price the market is prepared to offer and over a period of time depending on market saturation. A lot of this is outside the developer's control. All the developer can do is try to time the project to avoid coming onto to market in a period of saturation, when the prices will have to drop to ensure sales.

Profitability depends on get the buildings built within a certain cost and sold within a certain time. Therefore costs are contained, or shifted to others, as much as possible, and extra benefits are sought at minimum cost from other interested parties (eg landowners, infrastructure providers etc).

This is one reason why the govt is so keen to talk up the community benefits of Newport Quays - it is justifying various discounts, waivers and gifts which the developer has negotiated.

[how_good_is_he]

Love or loathe the Newport Quays development [and I agree it is soul-less blah, blah, blah] Urban Construct must still be given enormous credit for creating demand for a product and a price which never existed before. If you had suggested a few years ago that you could achieve $1m - $1.5m for an apartment at Port Adelaide you would have been locked up. They have increased the values some 200% - 300% in the area from what it was before they came. My real issue is that for decades 50 hectares of contaminated wasteland sat there and no-one gave a shit or did anything about it yet when someone actually goes about trying to actually improve it there is criticism/opposition/outrage. Why werent the same people as vocal in the decades prior?

[stumpjumper]

The time had come when there was enough demand for land in the existing metro area that even the degraded land around the Port looked saleable. In the recent past, the saltbush covered mudflats behind the dunes between the Port and Grange began to looked good as both demand and prices rose. Before that, the same economic mechanism transformed 'The Reedbeds' around Lockleys into suburbs, and the dodgy C5 soil on the slopes above Burnside became Linden Park etc to meet demand for housing allotments from returning WW2 soldiers.

So Newport Quays is the result of a known phenomenon - high demand for land reasonably close to city or beach.

But just because someone has the ability, or the cash or the balls or whatever it takes at the time to commence building - the act of building alone doesn't make the builder such a hero that he should be applauded for whatever he builds - even low grade shit. (That's not to say that the Newport Quays designs are low grade shit. It's just a request to be a bit ctirical in your appreciation of development, even if it is an act of bravery etc to build at all.

Further, if you had a crystal ball and saw that (as a possibility) the long term redevelopment of the port precinct as a tourism destination (maritime musuem, museum of air land sea and space, tall ships etc) delivered far more $ and other benefits to the community in the long term than selling off the land for housing, what would be your view of the present development?

[Edgar]

This development is getting so messed up.

Ok, I see your point.

And yes, the developer made changes to the plan to throw in a couple more taller buildings later down the development to keep up with demand and to make profit.

But if you look at the overall development, and that is far as what I understand the council's stressing point, they should have thought and objected the entire development itself prior to the start of the redevelopments, if they see the inadequate benefits for the community according to the proposed completed plans.

If they could forsee what the disadvantages of the current Stage 2B and C, they could have forsee the problems they currently face, prior to the start of the developments? What they are constantly opposing at the moment is the lack for community spots, the newly-planned 5 12-storey apartments were part of the new problems, however, it all only started to rage after the released of the modified Stage 2B and C, and to include the arguements on the fact that it lacks public access, etc, generating computerised graphical fly-by of the current plan, but failed to generate such concerns before the starting of the redevelompent, is what confused me, and at the same time, worried about what the future holds of this redevelopments.

[how_good_is_he]

Unlike Grange, Lockleys, Linden Park etc the land at Port Adelaide actually had a negative value as it was heavily contaminated and the cost to remediate it was far in excess of its value. Further the demographics of Port Adelaide and comparable sales of land wouldn't have given developers much confidence either.
But most importantly, this site was put out for international tender for all to fight over it and no-one wanted it.
I would go as far as saying if it werent for Urban Construct [and I don't like them but respect them], that this would have never got off the ground and the land would have sat vacant for another 20+ years. So the question then becomes would you rather see what is there now or nothing at all?
Building infact is the easy part [done by Multiplex not Urbans].
But the really hard part is being the visionary and the ability to get the public to hand over their money [and big money as well]to actually get it off the ground.
So in my opinion, even if the the development is average [like most other new developments around Australia], Urbans have done the impossible in making shit shine.

[Edgar]

Couldn't agree more.

[stumpjumper]

Well said, HGIH.

UC and Multiplex together have got going something Kinsmen and a few others baulked at.

I was involved in selling real estate in the mid 70's (gasp) in places like Ethelton and Peterhead, and I remember laughing at people who paid six, seven or even eight thousand dollars for 'tin villas' in those suburbs. Now Newport Quays is advertising that you can get in to the project of a special price of $399,000.

A point on the decontaminated land. The land was brought up to zero value (if you like) by claimed decontamination work paid for by the SA taxpayer. No gongs should go to the developers for that effort.

I hear that the demolition guys visited Jenkins Street this morning, specifically the former sheds of M E Lawrie, the diving contractor. The precinct of sheds from the Port Sailing Club west, ie Lawrie's the old Port Adelaide Rowing Club, W G Porter's slip, Searle's Boatyard, the RANR facility, McFarlane and Sons, Central Slipping and the Adelaide Ship Construction facility, all backing on to Jenkions Street, are all hsitoric parts of the Port, at least as historic as the old pubs and shipping agents' offices on the other side of the river.

If they go and are replaced by more generic dormitory buildings, then where is the character of the old Port which the consortium keeps saying they will 'bring alive'? Just for once in thiws development, why can't the developers take a chance. Instead of drawing a straight line between here and the quickest, easiest profit (bulldoze and build dormitory flats) why not take a very slight commercial risk, like present partner Multiplex did at the Finger Wharf in Woolloomooloo. The risk paid off there - Russell Crowe and dozens of other plutocrats have forked out the millions the units command. Why not risk a retail/recreational hub on the north side fo the river? Keep the best of the old buildings and reuse them - let's have some activity other than snoring going on at night in the Port!

Another point - the reason the PAE council couldn't view the project as a whole is that the developers are very careful never to reveal all to anyone. The reasons are simple - being vague about the full extent encourages buyers to buy now - if they thought there was better coming later they may wait; and most importantly it preserves the developers flexibility to alter the scheme to maximise profit without having to go through too many hoops about it.

[JamesXander]

Drove past it the other day. What a terrible suburb. biggest hole ever. Heres hoping it rejunivates the WHOLE area. But with the ugly factories and warehouses...I just can't see it happening

[stumpjumper]

"It" ? What's "it"? Do you mean the shed area on Jenkins Street, or Peterhead/Ethel;ton? Or do you mean Adelaide as a whole??

[Edgar]

Some recent photos:

The construction of 'Marina Cove' , the 2 tall apartment buildings are very apparent, while the other 2 lots of townhouses at the waterfront has just started.

View of the back of the 2 apartments from Causeway Rd.










View of the front, including the construction of the townhouses (still putting up the metal frame structures), taken on the other side from Hart's Mill.





The currently proposed Stage B & C, which is towards the north of Marina Cove:







Front and waterfront shots of the recently completed 'Edgewater'

[AtD]

Cool, thanks for those. I was expecting the apartment blocks to shoot up a bit faster because it looked like it'll all be pre-fab.

[Edgar]

NIMBY's out again.

Our Port River is Being Privatised

From the time the Kaurna people lived in the area, the Port River has been in our custodial care.

No one owns the River. It has been there for us to enjoy, to fish in, to sail on and for us to look after.

At the time of settlement there were clear instructions to the planners to guarantee public access to the river.

Over time, the Port River has yielded great benefits to our communities as well as being abused and polluted.

No one owns the river.

In the past decade or so, our Port Adelaide community has demanded that the river environment be improved for the Port River dolphins, government bodies and the council have worked hard to redress the pollution damage and measures have been taken to preserve the river for future generations.

No one owns the river, but, wait, what is this? Marinas are appearing everywhere.

Parts of the river are being sold off. Our river being privatised!

People with money are coming in and taking control and ownership of our river.

Who gave authority to the developers to sell off our river?


PETER JOHNSTONE
Semaphore South

First Peter, I had tried many times before, to show my love for the port. But I failed, because it was such a disastrous place to be in. If not because of the new port re-developments, I would not have given any attention at all to the port as much as I do now, thanks to the new face-lifted Ethelton Port River waterfront from the recent Edgewater development.

Secondly, the council and government bodies have worked very hard, so hard indeed, they made the best decision ever, and let the developer to develop the place. Rejuvenate and revived the otherwise dead and contaminated, unaccessible fishing location (as claimed), Port River and its waterfront for future generation, that is, US.

Finally, if everyone is as selfish as you are, everybody would blame you, Peter, for cashing out on your current property in Semaphore South, which should have, long ago, designated for as a public reserved area for everyone to 'enjoy', 'to access to', etc, but, wait, what? Your House? The land where you current reside on are being sold off, being privatised, and being built with houses which currently houses you.

Or maybe Peter has not seen Glenelg or North Haven, marinas everywhere apparently, but, wait, what? Yes, part of the sea are being sold off, our sea is being privatised!!!



Another one:

Heritage, not high-rise

How on earth can these developers be allowed to get away with building 12-storey high apartments?

These developers just come into an area and build concrete jungles, without any regard for the people who live in the Port Adelaide area and without any regard to the heritage that local residents wish to preserve.

How can the council allow this to go through?

A short while ago I cycled from Semaphore to Glenelg along the bike track. It was really lovely, until the ugly high-rise buildings of Glenelg came into view and spoiled the langscape.

We can't allow this to happen in this area.

We already have one eyesore, which is Adelaide Brighton Cement, we certainly don't need any more.

Developer - keep your high-rise, concrete jungles in Glenelg, the port is about heritage not high-rise.


LISA CLARKE
Peterhead

Now Lisa confused herself even more. She confuses herself with Glenelg and Port Adelaide.

Glenelg is a beach, Port Adelaide is a port.

Port Adelaide has many heritage for sure, but they are on the other side of the developments site idiot. The site currently being developed were nothing worth to be preserved as heritage, and, like everyone else agreed, a shithole!

What was there to preserve? What was there to be a heritage? What needed to be preserved, is currently being preserved, such as Hart's Mill. What were once a dump, is being developed and polished to make a better landscape of Port Adelaide, not a shitscape of Port Adelaide.

Perhaps she could be more specific as to what 'the people who live in the Port Adelaide area' wish to preserve. I cannot see how a contaminated land is worth preserving.

[Edgar]

Cool, thanks for those. I was expecting the apartment blocks to shoot up a bit faster because it looked like it'll all be pre-fab.

Yeah, I was expecting to see the design more apparent, but I guess the end of the year break slowed things down a bit.