Sensational-Adelaide.com

OK.

Can we play nicely now???

Pikey wrote:OK.

Can we play nicely now???

This thread needs more hugs!

Anyone other than Howie and me read Peter Goers column in the Sunday Mail? It was exactly the publicity needed for this ridiculous, farcical stand-off. It has put it back in the public arena again, maybe under the banner of 'The Village Idiots versus 1.1m other SA residents'.

North Adelaide's high society a vacant lot

THE old Le Cornu site in North Adelaide has been vacant so long it could be heritage listed.

It's tragically the main feature of the rather tired and boring O'Connell St.

Vacant for nearly 20 years it has become a symbol of reactionary Adelaide: of indecision, uselessness and frustration. Who does it help? Other cities develop and we do nothing, and when developers try to do something with nothing they are stymied and criticised.

The Adelaide City Council has provided a pittosporum hedge around the site so that the wealthy burghers of North Adelaide don't have to look at a galvanised iron fence.

So far the vacant lot has survived several developers, endless plans and is a monument to the intensely annoying North Adelaide Society that enjoys opposing progress except when it conforms with its narrow ideas.

I sat with North Adelaide Society chairman Ed Briedis, opposite the vacant lot outside the new Archer Hotel at 8am.

We watched the pittosporum grow, which Mr Briedis prefers to the current plan for the development for the site. After an hour we were moved off by an employee of the Archer because despite chairs and tables outside the hotel it was, apparently, closed.

Welcome to North Adelaide. Trucks rumbled past as I contemplated North Adelaide as a quaint little village full of quaint little millionaires who seem annoyed by other people who might come to North Adelaide.

The Le Cornu site is owned by the Makris Group and it has State Government major development status, which means that its development will happily circumvent the Adelaide City Council.

The current proposal is grand, jolly, attractive and useful. It would doubtless appeal to Alexander Downer who seeks an iconic building in Adelaide.

It promises six storeys of activity; 47 apartments, upmarket shops, cafes, restaurants and function centre. It has two cupolas. It will increase activity in North Adelaide and revive poor old down-at-heels O'Connell St.

It will eventually provide employment for 350 people. It will have 381 car parks that should please the North Adelaide Society, which eternally whinges about the lack of car parks in "their village".

The North Adelaide Society (with its 320 members, some of whom don't even live in North Adelaide) loathes the development. It has concocted a boring 49-page diatribe dripping with sarcasm, anger and superiority.

The society is even promoting a rival design for a huge bunker that looks like The Great Hall Of The Right People with a flat roof, which looks like a helipad.

They should stick to whingeing and leave classy design and progressive thought to Con Makris – one of Australia's most successful developers.

The North Adelaide Society report claims "the (Makris) proposal would destroy the character of this village precinct".

What character? O'Connell St has no character. North Adelaide is not a village. It's a conclave of privilege divided by a very busy road, which is architecturally and aesthetically a dog's breakfast.

It can only be improved by the attractive Makris palace of progress. If the members of the North Adelaide Society want to live in a quaint village I recommend they move to Marla, Maree, Kybunga, Gluepot, Pekina or Booleroo Centre where, as far as I know, the Makris Group has no plans, as yet. They could also go to hell.

The State Government will doubtless approve the splendid Makris development probably with one less storey and all of SA will benefit from a vision from a vacant lot. Bring it on.

Link: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 24,00.html

Norman wrote:North Adelaide's high society a vacant lot


The current proposal is grand, jolly, attractive and useful. It would doubtless appeal to Alexander Downer who seeks an iconic building in
They should stick to whingeing and leave classy design and progressive thought to Con Makris – one of Australia's most successful developers.

The North Adelaide Society report claims "the (Makris) proposal would destroy the character of this village precinct".

What character? O'Connell St has no character. North Adelaide is not a village. It's a conclave of privilege divided by a very busy road, which is architecturally and aesthetically a dog's breakfast.

[Peter Goers]

If I recall correctly, Peter Goers was quite scathing of the redevelopment on Norwood Parade with the Foodland etc, and often makes
comments on 891 about people who live in "apaaarrtmeentts" (or something like that). I'm not particularly for or against the Makris
proposal - I used to catch the bus outside the "longest nonreflecting curved glass window in the world" (Le Cornus) but anything he says
about Nth Adel could just as easily apply to Norwood - where he lives (and I've enjoyed living in both over the years).

I wouldn't put too much stock in what Peter Goers says, whether for or against the proposal - it's probably a bit rude to travel from
Norwood to bag Nth Adel, when both have their attractions and down sides. I was evicted from a rundown rental cottage in Archer
Street when the ACC compulsorily acquired it in the 1970s to build the Nth Adel Village & the flats in Archer St, & while I was
slightly inconvenienced, I had plenty of notice to vacate, & the resulting development was a vast improvement on the decaying
buildings it replaced.

Peter Goers is a an absolute f****** d***head. Seriously, how he deserves his own editorial, let alone being a journalist is beyond me.

Shuz wrote:Peter Goers is a an absolute f****** d***head. Seriously, how he deserves his own editorial, let alone being a journalist is beyond me.

You obviously don't understand the purpose of an editorial column.

He is a bit of a dick, but he's our dick and I love him for it. I often don't agree with what he writes, but on the other hand some of the things he's written have really struck me as well written. He's even managed to hit me emotionally in one or two pieces. He's a journalist, and as with all journos needs to be taken with a healthy pinch of salt.

Maybe you'd like to post constructive criticisms in future instead of outright insults? That would be nicer.

Truth be told, thats as constructive as my criticsm of Peter Goers could be said of.

Shuz wrote:Truth be told, thats as constructive as my criticsm of Peter Goers could be said of.

Fair enough. He's a very polarising force.
Most talk back radio announcers would receive similar vitriol from me. Most of them seem to just be trolling, if I can use a forum term and apply it to the radio.

Poor Peter Goers - wouldn't take too much notice of him - nobody else does. Wasn't he the same person crying (like me) into his mineral water over the loss of the Orange St markets to a development, and the ugly supermarket on Norwood Parade?
Can't work out whether he's a greenie or a nimby - but no just another paid hack trying to keep his spot by writing insulting one-sided drivel. As for Adelaide Now - try writing anything critical of the column as a few of us did. It wont get published. But write something offensive about N Adelaidians, or complimentary about developers & it gets up. Who/what are they afraid of & what happened to free press in this town?

Go Peter Goers! When I read that article I thought it was spot on.... and it echoed many of the posts found on this very forum.... although I don't agree with everything he has said - I recall that he bagged the tram extension at one stage..

harryjotter said:
Poor Peter Goers - wouldn't take too much notice of him - nobody else does. Wasn't he the same person crying (like me) into his mineral water over the loss of the Orange St markets to a development, and the ugly supermarket on Norwood Parade?

Ahh Orange Lane, now that brings back some memories, what a fabulous little place that was - now a Centrelink office - go figure..

Its a very easy call if you were the owner of the property... centrelink would pay far more a sqm than a stall trader...and on time.... with no vacancy issues...or tenant dramas... and increase the value of the property big time.

This isn't a debate about the dead & gone Orange Lane markets - I Just mentioned them to illustrate how nimbyish people like Goers can be when things are in their own back yard yet gung-ho when theyr're not directly affected. Pretty bloomin' selfish I call it.

I'm not a fan of Peter Goers at all but i thought that his column this week was spot on. I especially liked this paragraph;

If the members of the North Adelaide Society want to live in a quaint village I recommend they move to Marla, Maree, Kybunga, Gluepot, Pekina or Booleroo Centre where, as far as I know, the Makris Group has no plans, as yet. They could also go to hell.

Gold!

Now they just need to build the F#%&ing thing!

Right on - it is a f......ing thing. That's why they shouldn't build it.
Like to know if you've looked at the proposal in detail so that you know what you're pushing?
e.g. what's the overall height, how many swimming pools, how much over-shadowing, what's the tenancy mix, what about noise attenuation, is is car-park sufficient, how many storeys, what about waste management, traffic measures, water management, housing affordability etc etc.
Will anything do, or are you a bit choosy about aesthetics, sustainability or even social implications?
Does being a rich developer give you the right to build what you like, when you like, where you like and as high as you like and post a pretty not=to=scale drawing on a bill-board to fool us plebs? Or should developers proposals be held up to the same scrutiny that everybody else has to go thro just to build something like a car-port?