Sensational-Adelaide.com

harryjotter wrote: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?

NIMBY ALERT, NIMBY ALERT

harryjotter wrote: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?

hi harryjotter, the SensationalAdelaide group has dedicated 26 pages of discussion on this topic. Realise you are a new member but i'd like to know if you have reviewed in detail what we have discussed so that you know what you're pushing? In summary these questions have been deliberated over many times...

Thanks Wayno. Yes I've read all the postings plus those on Skyscraper City & that's why I want to contribute. Ive also read the full development report written by Makris, several of the response reports and examined all the detailed Makris plans - not just the artists impressions. Judging from many of the comments I dont think the majority of posters have boithered to do any real research -they seem to be riunning on hearsay & gut feelings and the primitive urge to build something, (anything) big. I'm not trying to be provocative because that's not where I want to go and I think this is a really graet site. Sadly tho, a lot of the postings are just bagging anyone who opposes this devt & I'm alraedy copping insults for trying to introduce rational debate. I cant believe that town planning and devt is just about one person's dream and that we shouldn't challenge it. And I dont see how any devt can be 100% ok. We shd be demanding a high standard from all new buildings but particularly those that dont go thro the usual planning processes. I want devt on this site. I've never opposed any devt application on this site before but this one bothers me.
If you all want to vote me off the site that's ok, but it would be a real shame.
PS I'm not a nimby tho' I'm told some are real cute.
PPS What's the opposite of a NIMBY?

harryjotter wrote:PPS What's the opposite of a NIMBY?

Anti-NIMBY. There's a few people on here that have become a bit too emotional over a subject and stood in the anti-NIMBY shoes for a while. It's easy to do when you're passionate about things. Welcome to the board harry, a lot of us like to see rational debate on here so don't let the knee jerk reaction above trouble you. It's just that this subject has been through the washing machine about 1,000,000 times in this thread. We even had it locked for a few days to let it cool off. So there's no sense in raking over old ground. The points you've made have been made before. A lot of people are just sick of looking at a 20 year old patch of dirt and want something, anything to happen there out of exasperation.

harryjotter wrote:Thanks Wayno. Yes I've read all the postings plus those on Skyscraper City & that's why I want to contribute. Ive also read the full development report written by Makris, several of the response reports and examined all the detailed Makris plans - not just the artists impressions. Judging from many of the comments I dont think the majority of posters have boithered to do any real research -they seem to be riunning on hearsay & gut feelings and the primitive urge to build something, (anything) big. I'm not trying to be provocative because that's not where I want to go and I think this is a really graet site. Sadly tho, a lot of the postings are just bagging anyone who opposes this devt & I'm alraedy copping insults for trying to introduce rational debate. I cant believe that town planning and devt is just about one person's dream and that we shouldn't challenge it. And I dont see how any devt can be 100% ok. We shd be demanding a high standard from all new buildings but particularly those that dont go thro the usual planning processes. I want devt on this site. I've never opposed any devt application on this site before but this one bothers me.
If you all want to vote me off the site that's ok, but it would be a real shame.
PS I'm not a nimby tho' I'm told some are real cute.
PPS What's the opposite of a NIMBY?

I suppose the opposite of a NIMBY is an "BISEBY" - Build In Someone Elses Back Yard or going to an extreme, a "BINBY" - Build In Nobody's Back Yard

In my opinion, the S-A community is a fantastic "ideas-engine". They are however very weary of new members who start by posting what appear to be inflammatory or overly negative posts. Your posting unfortunately gave this impression (perhaps make more use of emoticons as posts can too easily be misinterpreted). On a positive note, I do strongly believe that the passion shown by the majority of S-A members is reasonably representative of the greater Adelaide population, especially among the younger generations whom we too regularly lose interstate and overseas (but that's a topic for a separate thread - "How to attract people to SA")

This 88 O'Connell St discussion has been extremely polarising - and is almost too complex and emotional for rational discussion to occur in this forum.

Harryjotter, look forward to you becoming a long-term member...

Wayno wrote:I suppose the opposite of a NIMBY is an "BISEBY" - Build In Someone Elses Back Yard or going to an extreme, a "BINBY" - Build In Nobody's Back Yard

Your lack of logic disappoints Mr Spock. The opposite of a NIMBY would be a BIIMBY (Build It In My Back Yard).

I realise this is an old topic but with respect, everything written up to now has been purely speculative. Until Jan 2008 when the Makris Group released architects plans and a written proposal for the first time it was absolutely impossible for anyone to assess the proposal with any accuracy at all. Contributors will know there had never been a submission to Council, the Govt or any other body for any development on this site by the Makris Group - just artists (not to scale ) impressions and I think there's an old (discontinued) model knocking around somewhere.
It's a bit trite I know (and hope it doesn't sound sanctimonious because I,m not) but my personal philosophy is not to publicly bag or praise a book, film,play, or anything else until I've seen it read it or been a part of it. Otherwise its not fair to the creator. Likewise, I reserved judgemment on the Makris creation until now (that's why I'm new to the board) because there was nothing concrete to judge. Now, however, I've read the DAC Guidelines, the Makris Development Report, examined the plans and drawings, attended the Planning SA's Public Meeting, read the ACC's response report, and the North Adelaide Society's Report (whcih is not actually dripping with sarcasm as Goers claims) and read anything else relevant that I could get my hands on. I think that gives me as much right to an opinion as anyone and tho I want devet on this site as much as the next person I'm not prepared to accept anything in this war of attrition. I'm hanging out for quality, sustainability, good town planning, consideration for the environment , appropriateness, and a devt that the local infrastructure can support.
Happy to be convinced (with facts) that this proposal meets these criteria.(Dont know how to do the smilies bu one should go here!)

monotonehell wrote:

harryjotter wrote:PPS What's the opposite of a NIMBY?

Anti-NIMBY. There's a few people on here that have become a bit too emotional over a subject and stood in the anti-NIMBY shoes for a while. It's easy to do when you're passionate about things. Welcome to the board harry, a lot of us like to see rational debate on here so don't let the knee jerk reaction above trouble you. It's just that this subject has been through the washing machine about 1,000,000 times in this thread. We even had it locked for a few days to let it cool off. So there's no sense in raking over old ground. The points you've made have been made before. A lot of people are just sick of looking at a 20 year old patch of dirt and want something, anything to happen there out of exasperation.

It wasn't a 'knee jerk reaction' mono. But as you correctly state, i am as passionate for the development of this site as the as most others in this forum. I'm probably just getting a bit tired of how long this debate has been drawn out. So when harryjotter starts his post with

'Right on - it is a f......ing thing. That's why they shouldn't build it."

in direct relation to my last post, of course im going to react.

Just setting that one straight

Wayno wrote: [...]

On a positive note, I do strongly believe that the passion shown by the majority of S-A members is reasonably representative of the greater Adelaide population, especially among the younger generations whom we too regularly lose interstate and overseas (but that's a topic for a separate thread - "How to attract people to SA")

This 88 O'Connell St discussion has been extremely polarising - and is almost too complex and emotional for rational discussion to occur in this forum.

[...]

Yes, the younger ones on this forum seem to be a little exuberant. Since it is a complex issue those that have no idea (haven't read all the documentation) should keep quiet and listen, then maybe say something after you know a bit more. Of course, rational discussion can only occur when you keep your emotions to yourself. Just my worth.

Cheers

Makris' secret proposal?

Shuz wrote:Makris' secret proposal?

Where did that come from shuz

Ho Really wrote:
Yes, the younger ones on this forum seem to be a little exuberant. Since it is a complex issue those that have no idea (haven't read all the documentation) should keep quiet and listen, then maybe say something after you know a bit more. Of course, rational discussion can only occur when you keep your emotions to yourself. Just my worth.

Sorry, but I can still have an opinion even if I haven't read 10000 pages of reports and submissions, sure the issue is complex, but what on earth is complex about appropriate development - it's a concept that applies to every proposed development.. and quite simply I do not have the time to spend wading through "the DAC Guidelines, the Makris Development Report, the plans and drawings, attended the Planning SA's Public Meeting, read the ACC's response report, and the North Adelaide Society's Report" (like another person here, and I commend them for taking the time)... I have a job etc....

I agree about your comment about "rational discussion", but unfortunately we are human, not vulcan.

Shuz wrote:Makris' secret proposal?

That looks cool! I like it.

omada- who says this is "appropriate development"? Apart from anything else, it's still being assessed. BTW I have a job too, but I'm driven enough to make time to do some reading. I can recommend Appx J of the Makris Report - it's quite riveting with some really dodgy figures!

rhino wrote:That looks cool! I like it.

Are you sure? I can see phallic symbols, tits and syringes. Has Con Makris got some kind of fad?

Cheers