News & Discussion: Adelaide Development Plan Amendment 2012

[skyliner]

Bldg heights in cities is in the cultural psyche - almost globally - as an indicator of the wealth, significance and importance of a place. I Believe it behooves us to consider higher bldgs to create that impression. To illustrate, this used to be done with ships (the transatlantic liners) - the bigger the better - as an indicator of the importance and wealth and power of a country. This got into the general psyche to begin with. As another illustration - about 2004 I came to Adelaide in a bus - on sighting the CBD the driver said, 'welcome to little Adelaide' - based on the impression of and height of the bldgs. it was in his general conscience from what was visible, that Adelaide was'nt much at all.

Bldg height and frequency IMO also indicate the confidence developers have in a place and how well it is doing economically. Bris. and Perth were both smaller than Adelaide in 1986 - what is it that make them seems bigger and more prosperous as soon as we see the CBD?

The developers have a point.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[monotonehell]

...Bldg height and frequency IMO also indicate the confidence developers have in a place and how well it is doing economically...[/b]

That's the point though isn't it? It's not the height that brings the money to town, it's the money that brings height to town.

People should stop looking to the Govt to bring us a big "erection". Other than making the way clear by removing red tape and so on, govt should have very little to do with it. If you try to force a change by building what you think will be a catalyst, all you get is one pin prick and no change in the people who bring the money. As well as a huge debt that usually balloons because of how developers love to milk govt backed projects.

If on the other hand you let it come naturally, and I'm quietly confident that it is coming, you'll end up with both height and density, and possibly some design to boot. There's developers out there trying to get projects up, it's just the economic environment at the moment.


It is coming. I feel it in me waters.

[Wayno]

It is coming. I feel it in me waters.

my big toe is aching too - can only mean good tidings...

[iTouch]

It is coming. I feel it in me waters.

my big toe is aching too - can only mean good tidings...

Same with my bunion... maybe I should get it checked out though just to be safe

[Port Adelaide Fan]

No review of building height limit

LORD Mayor Michael Harbison says there will be no review of height restrictions on buildings in central Adelaide despite calls for change from the public and industry leaders.

Eighty per cent of respondents to an AdelaideNow poll yesterday called for restrictions to be relaxed after The Advertiser reported warnings that population targets could not be met under present regulations.

Mr Harbison said it would "not be appropriate" to commit to such a review until the Government had completed its 30-year development plan.

However, he said he was supportive in principle of a taller skyline for Adelaide.

"I'd be very glad to see the city begin to reach upwards and challenge these heights," he said.

"There are currently many significantly underdeveloped areas in the city.

"Creating an iconic cityscape is about more than just height.

"Visionary, inspirational architecture does not have to be about competing to create the tallest building."

Developers yesterday said an aggressive heritage-listing campaign being pursued by Town Hall will limit sites for new development and increase demand for taller buildings.

Urban Development and Planning Minister Paul Holloway has also written to Mr Harbison warning granting heritage status every site on the 431-property "wish list" would threaten Adelaide's "resurgence".

Property Council of Australia SA executive director Nathan Paine said the ACC was sending "the completely wrong message" to investors.

"As we move into a period of economic expansion, we expect increased demand for office space to come from the mining and defence sectors," he said.

"There is no doubt that listing a significant number of additional properties will dampen development opportunity."

Urban Development Institute of Australia SA executive director Terry Walsh said the city already had a substantial register of heritage buildings and listing more "will simply hang up the closed for business sign on our capital city".

"Lets avoid Adelaide city remaining in a time warp, the planning restrictions need to be lifted and attention is needed on high quality contemporary design in buildings," he said.

Mr Harbison said the there would be "plenty" of opporunities for development despite the moves to heritage list.

"Council is working towards a final result that both protects our valuable heritage and actually exceeds projected development needs for the next 30 years," he said.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 82,00.html

[iTouch]

Adelaidenow approached that rather prematurely by attacking the mayor. They forget that its not just the mayors decision but a WHOLE council decision. You can't just shoot one branch and hope for the tree to fall down. We know Yarwood is fully pro developer but I have reason to believe that there are a few Councillors with a "Hobart" styled vision where Heritage dominates and development comes later. There needs to be a balance otherwise the city will either lose all its character or lose all its momentum.

[Omicron]

...Bldg height and frequency IMO also indicate the confidence developers have in a place and how well it is doing economically...[/b]

That's the point though isn't it? It's not the height that brings the money to town, it's the money that brings height to town.

People should stop looking to the Govt to bring us a big "erection". Other than making the way clear by removing red tape and so on, govt should have very little to do with it. If you try to force a change by building what you think will be a catalyst, all you get is one pin prick and no change in the people who bring the money. As well as a huge debt that usually balloons because of how developers love to milk govt backed projects.

If on the other hand you let it come naturally, and I'm quietly confident that it is coming, you'll end up with both height and density, and possibly some design to boot. There's developers out there trying to get projects up, it's just the economic environment at the moment.


It is coming. I feel it in me waters.

Yes, and a big thumbs up to a similar post you made in a similar thread. People need to drop this mindset that the Government has to ride in and save us from every possible situation - that the Government should fund and build this, that and everything else. Let there be tall buildings if only real demand exists for them - not artificially-induced demand, not demand that has to be funded indefinitely from the public purse, not demand that will dry up the instant Government funding is withdrawn. By all means adjust the rules to allow entrepreneurial organisations a bit of creative license, but leave the investment to the private sector.

[Will]

I don't think anyone has said that the government should build a new tallest building.

The closest comment that could be interpretted in such a manner was my call for the state government to tenant such a building.

What's wrong with this? If it wasn't for the state government leasing office space, we would most likely never have got CCT1.

Plus I would assume such a new building would be 5-6 star rated for energy efficiency. This would go in hand with the state government's commitment to tenanting environmentally friendly office buildings. Somehow I doubt the State Admin Centre, Wakefield House and the Education Department could be classified anywhere near a 5-star energy efficiency rating.

And let's be realistic, I cannot forsee a tenant in the foreseeable future requiring the office space to warrant the construction of a new tallest apart from the public service.

[rev]

Bldg heights in cities is in the cultural psyche - almost globally - as an indicator of the wealth, significance and importance of a place.

I'll use an example to I know of.
Istanbul is only a shadow of the importance(internationally) the city used to be in centuries gone by. It is of course an important city in Turkey, the heart of their economy in fact.
Today they have built skyscrapers and continue to build more. But I wouldn't say it's an indication of wealth, when beyond the shiny tall buildings there are slums.
In fact, many developing countries have skyscrapers.

Bldg height and frequency IMO also indicate the confidence developers have in a place and how well it is doing economically. Bris. and Perth were both smaller than Adelaide in 1986 - what is it that make them seems bigger and more prosperous as soon as we see the CBD?

In regards to how well a place is doing economically, at the start of the decade Turkey had an economic crisis which saw it change currencies. It's currently in it's worst crisis(which they reckon might be as bad) since then. Two major crisis' in the last ten years. As far as I'm aware, skyscrapers are still being built.
Over in Moscow however, with Russia having raked in hundreds of billions in revenue from gas and oil exports, construction on some of their skyscrapers had stalled.

As far as I know, the mining booms in Western Australia and Queensland is what has driven their growth and prosperity. At the same time they are seeing skyscrapers flourish. Coincidence? I don't know, I'm no expert on the matter and don't know what connection the two have.

The developers have a point.

Of course they do.
Everyone has a point, if you look at it from their pov.

[skyliner]

Note Rev, that my points (given the space used) were generalisations - there will ALWAYS be exceptions. The generalisations still 'hold water'.

Like Wayno, Touch and Mono said, I also have a feeling - in my 'gut' that the change is coming in Adelaide.

SA - STATE ON THE MOVE

[iTouch]

Note Rev, that my points (given the space used) were generalisations - there will ALWAYS be exceptions. The generalisations still 'hold water'.

Like Wayno, Touch and Mono said, I also have a feeling - in my 'gut' that the change is coming in Adelaide.

SA - STATE ON THE MOVE

The only reason why I said that is because the local media did have a view of doubt and depression which was held onto in the 80's, 90's and early 2000's. But now the media is looking optimistic towards Adelaide, pushing Adelaide to finally get back onto her horse so to speak. I know there will still be those people that liked the depressed and whiney Adelaide but there is a strong theory that changes do occur when the media backs something up.

A major example of Media influence would be during the early 1900's in America, the media supported racism with the Jim Crowe laws but during the 1960's when that Martin Luther King convinced the media that African Americans were equal, the vibe of America became much more tolerant towards the African American ethnic group. It didn't mean racism was gone, but the fact of the matter was the majority of Americans changed their views.

I could give so many more examples but it'd be completely off topic. I don't know why the media has decided to change their outlook on the future Adelaide, but something must've sparked them in the late 00's (maybe the unchanged skyline for 20 years I dont know )

[Cam]

Why not build the Tall Buildings at Port Adelaide ,, it will be ripe for that type of growth in the future.

[monotonehell]

...And let's be realistic, I cannot forsee a tenant in the foreseeable future requiring the office space to warrant the construction of a new tallest apart from the public service.

So you want the public service to move out of their current digs, into a newly build building, leaving all that old office space waving its dick in the wind, in a market where you "cannot foresee a tenant in the foreseeable future requiring the office space to warrant the construction of a new tallest."

Hrmmmmmmm?

The market has handled small to medium moves, like SA Water and DEH moving to Vic Sq, but as Omicron might say; 'patience child.' Don't force it. It will come, when the time is right.

[russo92]

I was just wondering what would be the reason Adelaide couldn't have the allocated zone (As shown in my terrible render) as a strict height restriction area, but leave the CBD alone? And what exactly are the ACC achieving by having certain restrictions, is it just conservitism? I think it's beyond ridiculous that we can't currently have a building built the same size and/or HIGHER than Westpac house. I understand the economic downturn has effected development and put projects like Spire and Currie Street Glass tower (which were examples we are sort of heading in the right direction) on hold, but still.

[Will]

...And let's be realistic, I cannot forsee a tenant in the foreseeable future requiring the office space to warrant the construction of a new tallest apart from the public service.

So you want the public service to move out of their current digs, into a newly build building, leaving all that old office space waving its dick in the wind, in a market where you "cannot foresee a tenant in the foreseeable future requiring the office space to warrant the construction of a new tallest."

Hrmmmmmmm?

The market has handled small to medium moves, like SA Water and DEH moving to Vic Sq, but as Omicron might say; 'patience child.' Don't force it. It will come, when the time is right.

I did say that the current state admin building, Wakefield House and the Education Department buildings should be converted into apartments. This would help solve the problem that is the dead heart of Adelaide which is Victoria Square.

And mate, you've met me before in person, so you can vouch that I'm not an old man, and despite how much I love this city I cannot honestly say that I can see a private sector tenant requiring 40 000sqm2 in the next few decades, so call me impatient, but I want to see a new tallest whilst I can still walk and see!