Sensational-Adelaide.com

peas_and_corn wrote:OK...

First, selling off of the Gepps land for high density apartments- who would want to live there??? It's near... well, nothing. However that said, I wondered why anyone would want to live in the old ETSA building.

Can someone explain what those orange things are supposed to be?

I'm guessing the grey building to the right is an expanded convention centre.

The eating areas feel a little isolated to me. It's kinda near the stadium, but is there a quick way to walk to and from there from North Terrace?

bm7500 wrote: Using the railyards site for a hospital is not the right answer.

mooshie wrote:so who is going to walk out to the far north west of the city to go to this 'riverside precinct' when there are no games on?

Howie wrote: Adelaide really has been asleep at the wheel.

And, if either parties don't come up with something soon, it looks like cities like Perth will have the jump on us soon as well.

Then how will we continue to retain our brightest ....
this needs to happen.. and what better way to show we're more than just a mining driven state.

Prince George wrote:"For too long Adelaide has been considered a backwater" drones the monotone voice, chanting that same trite line that's been heard I-don't-know-how-often before. But what they show us is a backwater plan. Stadiums, conference facilities, casinos, hotels, it's like a grab-bag of the ideas that desparate towns cling to.

Prince George wrote:Visions are so dispensable. Spend a weekend playing around with Google SketchUp, draw up a few shapes and *bingo* vision. What of any of these visions could you count on actually happening? Obviously nothing has actually gone beyond the random drawing stage and the voice-over in the video (which was only marginally more animated sounding than my doormat) is rife with coulds and shoulds. These are like serving suggestions on the cereal box; Kellogs don't promise strawberries in the Cornflakes, neither are we promised anything in these vision statements (beyond perhaps the stadium). Is there any point criticising any of it's contents, when none of it is likely to be real?

Mpol wrote:That waterfront for Perth is no longer going ahead. The Liberals got in and have said it won't go ahead... this is right yeah?

Either way I believe a waterfront of SOME sort will be put inplace. It is sad that one was dismissed. Would have put Perth on the MAP!

John Day
Minister for Planning; Culture and the Arts
Thu 02 April, 2009
Progress with Perth Waterfront project
Portfolio: Planning

The Perth Waterfront Taskforce reconvened this week to embark on a new direction for the redevelopment of the city’s foreshore.

Planning Minister John Day said the Perth Waterfront project provided a tremendous opportunity for Perth to become a city that is internationally recognised.

“Together with the Northbridge Link, this project is a key part of this State Government’s vision to enhance Perth’s cultural and landscape qualities to enrich experiences in the city for workers, residents and visitors,” Mr Day said.
A master plan for the Perth Waterfront project would be developed by the taskforce through a two-stage approach: Review and examine the objectives of the project; and prepare an updated concept plan and business case for the project.
The Minister had asked the taskforce, being chaired by Stuart Hicks, to present its review to him by mid-September.
Mr Day said he expected the concept plan and business case, as well as associated studies, to be delivered within 12 months.
“Contrary to some reports, the Liberal-National Government is committed to this project but it was clear that the plan presented by the former government had shortcomings,” he said. “The tall towers close to the river were inappropriate for our city. They would have required taxpayer-funded subsidies. The simplistic approach that ‘bigger is better’ would not have resulted in the best outcome for Perth.
“We need to integrate the waterfront amenity with recreational, entertainment, tourism, commercial and residential activities - and not be obsessed with high towers right on the river.”

The Minister said aspects of a waterfront redevelopment could include:
· a significant public building at the end of William Street to add to Perth’s historic, cultural and artistic attributes.
· better separation of vehicles and pedestrians.
· greater recreational use of the Swan River to restore the city’s connectivity with the river.
· better designed and integrated high-rise development, but closer to the city centre and the Perth Convention Exhibition Centre.

“In essence, we’re looking for a redevelopment that is exciting and builds on the beautiful city we already have,” he said.
Mr Day said that while there had been a change in economic circumstances which impacted on the development timeframes, staging of development could allow some earlier opportunities to start aspects of the project.

Lord Mayor Lisa Scaffidi said it was heartening that the State Government understood the need to move forward with planning for this very important city precinct renewal project.
“The waterfront project is much needed and highly desired so I am encouraged by this Government’s decision to progress with the project. I look forward to working with the taskforce,” Ms Scaffidi said.

The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) would contribute funding to the planning process by the taskforce.

Mpol wrote:That waterfront for Perth is no longer going ahead. The Liberals got in and have said it won't go ahead... this is right yeah?

Either way I believe a waterfront of SOME sort will be put inplace. It is sad that one was dismissed. Would have put Perth on the MAP!

AtD wrote:Adelaide is already in danger of having an oversupply of Hotels. That's why the Hindmarsh Square triangle thing wasn't built and the CML and Westpac refits are on hold.

paul wrote:Clearly there are many posters who dislike this proposal because of the political party involved and have made this quite clear either overtly or by finding excuses to denigrate it (putting aside genuine criticism). I don't believe this is in the spirit of sensational-adelaide (atleast in this particular forum) and it's incredibly irritating for those who want to engage in a genuine discussion and debate re this proposal.

I would have thought the 2010 state election thread is a far more appropriate forum for political debate and expressing ones admiration and devotion to Mike Rann.

paul wrote:Clearly there are many posters who dislike this proposal because of the political party involved and have made this quite clear either overtly or by finding excuses to denigrate it (putting aside genuine criticism). I don't believe this is in the spirit of sensational-adelaide (atleast in this particular forum) and it's incredibly irritating for those who want to engage in a genuine discussion and debate re this proposal.

I would have thought the 2010 state election thread is a far more appropriate forum for political debate and expressing ones admiration and devotion to Mike Rann.