Sensational-Adelaide.com

Will wrote:As customary in Adelaide, there is an article in the Sunday mail today stating that the third stage of the project will be 're-designed', which we all know, means that it will be dumbed down. The developers have caved in to pressure from the local council, the National Trust and the NIMBY brigade, and it now appears that the 3, 12 level towers will be scrapped, and replaced with more 'traditional' structures that reflect the heritage of the area. However, what this probabaly means, is rows of 'Tuscan' boxes.

Cruise wrote:Southern crane is gone now. I took some photos but i have lost my cable to link my phone to my computer.

stumpjumper wrote:Will wrote:

Your constant anti-business rhetoric would be welcome in the iron curtain. And yes, I believe that local communities should at best have only limited input in major developments.

Edgar wrote:

I don't bloody care if they (being Urban Construct) breach the agreement of the concept plan, all I care is, bring on what the port deserves

For a start, I'm employed in the property industry. I'm 100% in favour of appropriate development. That's not solar powered adobe villages for tree huggers, but development which delivers the best benefit at a reasonable cost. The cost includes an adequate profit for the developer and the benefits include enhancing community amenities. How can you support development which leaves the community worse off??

Supply and demand in the marketplace, brilliant and automatic mechanism though it is, does not always guarantee the best outcome. In the case of the Port redevlopment, market failure is probably too strong a phrase. What is happening there is more likely to be a combionation of: the eagerness of the government to see income generated leading to it tilting the scales regarding entry conditions (eg notional land price) for the developer; the fact that once through the selection gate the developer has a monopoly and is able to vary the original proposal; and lastly the government's closeness to the developer, which leads to a weakening of the operation of normal planning controls for this development.

As for the idea that local communites should at best have only limited input into what is built in their community, and for the idea that it doesn't matter if Urban Construct do breach the local Development Plan, well, you don't have to think too far to see where that leads.

"Romanian developer to build concrete tenements on Adelaide's publicly owned and vacant industrial sites. Government sources said today that they would not act to stop international developer Shitehouse Developments from constructing whatever they wanted on vacant government land. Handing the Eastern European consortium carte blanche today, Mr Rann said "Don't worry about our planning laws, guys, we'll look after that. Just go for it. Stack 'em tight and high." (Apologies to anyone from Romania)

Without joking, though, I don't know how you would sustain your arguments for 'at best, only limited community imput' and dismissing severe breaches of planning constraints in any informed forum (like this one...). Implementing those two principles would be to promote the developers profit above all else, and by dismantling the unnecessary planning system, to deny the community a real voice in what is built in their locality. As I said, in the real world, the market cannot always be relied on to deliver what is best. That's why we have a planning system, and it's why people have a democratic right to be heard.

You blokes argue robustly, but you have qa narrow view. I don't think you'd find much support for your version of Utopia.

The Proboscis Monkey wrote:Could there be another delay to Newport Quays on the horizon...
http://www.messengerwest.com.au/article ... _news.html

Will wrote:

The Proboscis Monkey wrote:Could there be another delay to Newport Quays on the horizon...
http://www.messengerwest.com.au/article ... _news.html

This reminds me of how the NIMBY's tried to heritage list some 1960s toilet block at Glenelg to stop the Holdfast Shores development.

Cruise wrote:

Will wrote:

The Proboscis Monkey wrote:Could there be another delay to Newport Quays on the horizon...
http://www.messengerwest.com.au/article ... _news.html

This reminds me of how the NIMBY's tried to heritage list some 1960s toilet block at Glenelg to stop the Holdfast Shores development.

wasn't it also the car park?