Sensational-Adelaide.com

there seems to be a lot of emphasis on building apartments on top of existing structures
do they even take into account how risky and expensive that is? look how long it took the apartments on top of that North Terrace car park to be constructed as a guide.

ricecrackers wrote:there seems to be a lot of emphasis on building apartments on top of existing structures
do they even take into account how risky and expensive that is? look how long it took the apartments on top of that North Terrace car park to be constructed as a guide.

This is nonsense. The example you refer to is about a large multi-level car park that had to be structurally strengthened to allow construction to proceed on top while remaining operational. There were also legal issues resulting in delays. This new plan mostly calls for building above ground level retail which will involve demolishing single level structures and constructing new buildings no more than about 6 levels high. There's less risk involved in this approach than for what was done for 223 North Terrace (on technical, legal and financing fronts). There's plenty of examples of new buildings with ground level retail and apartments constructed above on King William Road in Hyde Park.

And if we can keep some facades of existing buildings, we can have interesting streetscapes too, like in the pictures, and not everything looking the same.

Apart from family, friends and the events I go for, my main joy in visiting interstate cities is to walk around the interesting mix of heritage and new in the inner suburbs of Sydney, Perth, Melbourne, and the town centres of Fremantle, Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo etc.

One thing about Adelaide, is that we seem to love to knock anything over to build shite.

AG wrote:

ricecrackers wrote:there seems to be a lot of emphasis on building apartments on top of existing structures
do they even take into account how risky and expensive that is? look how long it took the apartments on top of that North Terrace car park to be constructed as a guide.

This is nonsense. The example you refer to is about a large multi-level car park that had to be structurally strengthened to allow construction to proceed on top while remaining operational. There were also legal issues resulting in delays. This new plan mostly calls for building above ground level retail which will involve demolishing single level structures and constructing new buildings no more than about 6 levels high. There's less risk involved in this approach than for what was done for 223 North Terrace (on technical, legal and financing fronts). There's plenty of examples of new buildings with ground level retail and apartments constructed above on King William Road in Hyde Park.

nonsense is it
you seem so certain none of those issues will be repeated here
i bow to your superior expertise on the subject of engineering and planning approvals

the examples you point to are new buildings from the ground up. if you going to join the chorus and label my posts nonsense then at least post something sensible yourself

This plan needs to be applauded and needs to be put into place to make Adelaide more attractive, more livable, more competitive etc.
Those that say it wont work and that high-rise are slums etc arent facing reality. Fact is land within 20 km of CBD is running scarce.
Cost of developing greenfield sites further away with no transport etc with spread out population does not make sense in the 21 century
and the introduction of carbon tax etc. I love this plan so much i hope to be able to buy an appartment on Unley road and travel
around on the trams.

One thing i do have to have a laugh at is the though of how much these planning guru's are getting paid as if you trawl
this site especially the forum on the trams etc you will read about many of us regulars proposing trams on the Parade, Unley Rd, Prospect Rd,
out to the airport etc with with high density housing along them etc. These bludgers are getting paid to copy idea's of forum members
of Sensational Adelaide and worse palm them off as there own without even mentioning the site etc.

ricecrackers wrote: nonsense is it
you seem so certain none of those issues will be repeated here

Please read what I wrote above more carefully.

AG wrote: There's less risk involved in this approach.

Nowhere in my previous post did I say that the issues with 223 North Terrace wouldn't reoccur on other developments.

ricecrackers wrote:the examples you point to are new buildings from the ground up.

Most of the new development will be new buildings from the ground up, if not completely with a new facade, at least structurally. It'd be extremely rare for a one or two level building to have been designed to support another 4 or 5 levels on top!

warning.....don't read Adelaidenow comments

capitalist wrote:warning.....don't read Adelaidenow comments

please.....don't copy them onto this site

ozisnowman wrote: One thing i do have to have a laugh at is the though of how much these planning guru's are getting paid as if you trawl
this site especially the forum on the trams etc you will read about many of us regulars proposing trams on the Parade, Unley Rd, Prospect Rd,
out to the airport etc with with high density housing along them etc. These bludgers are getting paid to copy idea's of forum members
of Sensational Adelaide and worse palm them off as there own without even mentioning the site etc.

Yes, because those ideas are property of the posters who put them here, and not obvious ones that would occur to anyone interested in building up Adelaides density.

Any proposal for change should be welcomed, but it should also be examined.

- I'd like to see the the brief for for the report. Were Hassells chosen competitively?

- Why is the CBD not dealt with? Whatever goes for the 'CBD Rim' must go fotr the city as well, with one big difference. City land is usually zoned for high density development and is more expensive and generally more tightly held than land on the city fringe. Is this report about rezoning readily available inner urban land to create building activity, profit, and a forest of pre-cast and glass around the city itself? A healthy CBD means a healthy metropolis. This report seems to ignore the city centre.

- Will there be any meaningful public participation in the process the report promotes?

Well, tip of the hat to the 'Tiser who produced an interactive map with links to sections of the draft plan for the various areas around the city rim. Only small, high-level documents in each case, but a starting point for seeing what is discussed in the full plan.

Stumpjumper I'm not sure that it bothers me at all that this plan doesn't refer to the CBD directly because:

1. In my opinion, the CBD commands too great a "mindshare" of Adelaide's thinking about development in the future and a process that addresses that balance is a welcome change. Too much of the planning (or at least the talk about planning) seems to devolve into high-density in the city, greenfield sites at the fringe - focussing some attention on the next-best-located parts of the city strikes me as a good thing.
2. It seems to me that while the fringe areas are all connected to each other, the city centre is rather cut off from them by the great green moat of the parklands. From that point of view, treating the two separately seems reasonable.
3. If the best area is tightly held and expensive, doesn't it make sense to look closely at the next-best, less-expensive areas (ie the low hanging fruit)? In fact, I have a hazy recollection that you have responded to another thread in just such a manner.

For my own part, I find myself in the sometimes complicated position of most certainly not wanting to see the Attack of the Generic Mixed-Use Medium-Density Clones, but very much wanting more density in the suburbs.

can the council introduce "minimum height" limits for areas adjacent to parklands? i.e residential has to be say 5 storey minimum? thinking it through it may be counterproductive because people may be less likely to develop over the short term.

I also think that any developments should also provide funds to a "parklands development fund" which provide the ability to completely overhaul the parklands to make it usable for those people intended to use it.

The only sad part about these plans is that it all but kills my dream of a tram down hutt street - given Unley road is talked about I assume that any tram extensions will go down the already congested Pultney street (not that Hutt Street is much better).

With the increase in density in and around the parklands it may be prudent to look at the way the city streets work to avoid the current conjestion - perhaps making certain streets one way to avoid the need of traffic lights at every single intersection.

Prince George wrote:Attack of the Generic Mixed-Use Medium-Density Clones

This, in my opinion, is the biggest risk of all...

If I don't misinterpret you through speeding through the threads - I have seen this mixed use medium density cloned over and over again in the eastern suburbs of Sydney - all 4 levels (so that lifts don't have to be installed), all the same colour, bidg material, shape, distance from the footpath, windows. Whole streets of them, unbroken. I hope this never happens to Adelaide. Appears like a modern day slum in the making.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

skyliner wrote:If I don't misinterpret you through speeding through the threads - I have seen this mixed use medium density cloned over and over again in the eastern suburbs of Sydney - all 4 levels (so that lifts don't have to be installed), all the same colour, bidg material, shape, distance from the footpath, windows. Whole streets of them, unbroken. I hope this never happens to Adelaide. Appears like a modern day slum in the making.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

That sounds more like a failure of the implementation of the planning regulations in the development plans and guidelines rather than a failure of the planning concept. Some developers in Sydney are avoiding developing in parts of the inner city and there are apartments planned right out in the middle of nowhere in some parts of the western suburbs (Meriton)! I must agree though, it would be shameful to lose the quality of our streets through some poorly thought out guidelines.