Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=451
Because development is about more than tall buildings and big screens.crawf wrote:Neuropolis wrote: I did say you CAN. There's no definitive in that.
All of the other examples you mention are of no interest to me whatsoever. They are simply structures of concrete and glass and hold no evolutionary value whatsoever. I don't equate tall buildings with human development, let alone a skyscraper reaching to the open skies like a crude phallus.
Skyline? Pfft...
Now, if you were talking about researching cutting edge independent rural arcologies centered around a highly decentralised administrative body, then I might be interested.
Skyscrapers? 'Times Square' giant screens? Marinas? Resorts that destroy peaceful coastlines? Real Estate opportunities that fill greedy pockets?
Been there, done that. It's for dinosaurs. Move on.
Sorry but why are you on a forum like S-A?
And maybe all of these ideas are not really very cutting edge or even especially innovative.Hippodamus wrote:Neuropolis... maybe open a Sensational-rural South Australia forum so you can focus on your forte of rural arcologies...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but we're a city here mate, like it or not there will be tall buildings. although tall buildings are not the be-all and end-all of a truly functional city, they are important features in any modern metropolis. most of these forums are about tall buildings and urban development.
maybe your the dinosaur that needs to move on...
Yes, well said! haha bins are also missing from Mawson Lakes interchange and many other stations too...guess SA governments and TA are suffering from Binphobia, what ever happened to Keep South Australia Beautiful!? or are we supposed to just toss our rubbish on the tracks, cause that's the message whoever is responsible is sending us.cleverick wrote:(On the bin issue: train station platforms and outside Parliament House are the only places in the world I litter, as a form of private protest. Normally I will walk up to 100m out of my way to get to a bin, or carry my rubbish indefinitely. In Germany every train platform has at least three groups of four bins- glass, paper, can and other. Why is a bombing more likely in Adelaide than in Bonn or Berlin?)
Yes, what exactly are rural arcologies, can you give us a brief explanation? I don't think that many of us here are up to speed on such academic terminology. You don't happen to work for a University or Public Institution do you?Neuropolis:Now, if you were talking about researching cutting edge independent rural arcologies centered around a highly decentralised administrative body, then I might be interested.
Please elaborate on this, sounds interesting, if a little naive.Cities like this are doomed mate. This is not the way of the future. It's time to embrace new ideas that are not some cookie cutter version of every other city. We're not here to play 'catch up' to the likes of Melbourne or Sydney. That's a mugs game and has no long term future.
I'll create a new thread later today.omada wrote:Yes, what exactly are rural arcologies, can you give us a brief explanation? I don't think that many of us here are up to speed on such academic terminology. You don't happen to work for a University or Public Institution do you?Neuropolis:Now, if you were talking about researching cutting edge independent rural arcologies centered around a highly decentralised administrative body, then I might be interested.
Please elaborate on this, sounds interesting, if a little naive.Cities like this are doomed mate. This is not the way of the future. It's time to embrace new ideas that are not some cookie cutter version of every other city. We're not here to play 'catch up' to the likes of Melbourne or Sydney. That's a mugs game and has no long term future.
Powers stripped
http://www.citymessenger.com.au/article ... _news.html
Chris Day
16Jul08
HOW TIMES CHANGE: Lord Mayor Michael Harbison outside the $600 million City Towers project in 2007. The council approved that project - something it will no longer have the power to do.
THE ceiling placed on Adelaide City Council's power to control major developments is a case of ``reaping... what we have sown'', Lord Mayor Michael Harbison says.
While a vote by a majority of councillors on Monday (July 14) to condemn the State Government's actions ``was not in the best interest of the community of South Australia'', he said.
The government this week stripped the council of its power to assess development applications above $10 million in the city and North Adelaide, to remove ``local politics'' from the planning approvals process.
Such applications will now be judged by the government-appointed Development Assessment Commission (DAC).
The action came despite the city council's Development Assessment Panel (DAP) approving more than $300 million in major developments since November.
It also came a week after the DAP rejected a 20-storey office tower planned next to the GPO, in Franklin St, on the grounds it did not complement a neighbouring heritage-listed building, known as the Darling Building.
The refusal went against the advice of council planning staff and was the only time the current DAP had rejected a project worth more than $10 million.
Mr Harbison, who supported the Franklin St development, told Monday night's council meeting he ``regretted'' the government's action but urged members not to support a motion by Cr Ralph Clarke condemning the government.
``We are reaping, with the best of intention, what we have sown,'' Mr Harbison told the meeting.
``It's important for the council to be careful of rejecting the recommendations of its staff. The actions of our (DAP) were genuine but the actions of the government are genuine too.''
Earlier in the meeting, Cr Clarke criticised the government for limiting the council's approval powers without warning or consultation. His motion was passed 8:3.
``It's a warning shot, a bullying exercise by the State Government to every council in this state,'' Cr Clarke said. ``Do we want to end up, as it appears Premier Rann wants, as a city of let rip, with development at all cost?''
In announcing the new planning controls on Monday, Infrastructure Minister Patrick Conlon said developers needed more certainty.
``It's terribly important that people engaging in major projects, in major construction work, are able to rely on the planning laws being applied completely fairly and non-politically,'' he said.
The Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) gave ``conditional'' support to the government's decision and called for a fresh review of the council's planning role, while the Property Council (SA) endorsed the decision.
City residents' groups, however, opposed the change.
``It's basically saying the big boys can do what they want and the rest of us can sod off,'' North Adelaide Society chairman Ed Briedis said.
``The concern is the $10 million cap clearly points to large-scale developments in places like North Adelaide that won't be appropriate.''
South-East City Residents' Association chairwoman Anne Melrose was concerned by the lack of elected members on the DAC: ``It will once again muffle the voice of residents.''
...Shuz wrote:Neuropolis wrote:Development needs to happen in every city, but once you open yourself up to the whims of international developers you can end up with an ugly city.What the f***?
One of the extremely possimistic things about shifting powers to the DAC is that international developers will be far more encouraged to invest and build in Adelaide, because they understand that they will be seeking a better quality of development to come into Adelaide, and if they present that quality, its much more highly likely to be approved and proceed. There has been very few architecturally exciting developments coming from local developers and architects of this city, and I think that opening ourselves to the international platform will bring ourselves to a whole new level of architectural quality and standard. You only need look to Melbourne and Sydney to look at the very elaborate designs that have come forth as a result of international investment. Sydney's council development policy forces any large-scale development to be resolved as a part of a design competition, with the best winning design built. This has altered and changed their skyline in ways that it simply is unrivalled. To make mention of World Tower, Eureka, Chifley, Deustche Bank, Citigroup, Ernst&Young, Fed Square, RMIT, CUB, Macquarie, Aurora - all architecturally stunning examples of international developments built in their respective cities. Adelaide is on the cusp of change, a very positive change, because we have had a century of skyscrapers built and experimented with in a number of designs and styles that has highlighted the positive and negative outcomes of each respective development. The standard is only going to get better, not worse.
And that's exactly what we want. Go back to your hole you puny NIMBY.``It's basically saying the big boys can do what they want and the rest of us can sod off,'' North Adelaide Society chairman Ed Briedis said.
Only someone who takes things on face-value would perceive the rejection of CC8 as a sure sign that the Adelaide CBD is 'closed for business'. Marvellous as a headline, but it's not exactly factual. If there had been a better-designed building proposed, I am sure that it would have been approved - to say 'closed for business' assumes that the CC8 proposal was the best outcome for the site, when it certainly wasn't, and that the problems with the design were not so fundamental to the design that they could be altered within a reasonable timeframe to warrant a deferral, whereas I think the opposite.Will wrote:Although I am not a fan of the current CCT8 design, I think it was a grave error to reject the building outright. It would have been a far more intelligent outcome, if the ACC had instead deferred this proposal. A deferral gives the message that on the whole the council supports development but has certain ussues that need to be addressed. An outright rejection gives the message that the CBD is closed for business.Omicron wrote:If the rejection of CC8 was the main catalyst for this decision, then I would be very worried indeed if it had been approved in its existing form by the new DAC.
I hope very much that this move has been made for the right reasons. Proposals ought to be approved not only because they meet basic development laws, but also because they seek unique and engaging solutions to environmental, aesthetic and streetscape concerns. Of course, the ACC hasn't necessarily been particularly strong in this area, but the recent rejections of Spire and CC8 suggest that there are still people with the sense of sight within the Town Hall's walls. In keeping with the Australian tradition, I shall reserve the right to be initially distrustful of a government decision until proven otherwise.
$1 billion's worth of development is indeed an impressive number, but for all any outsider knows, that could be a series of hideously expensive toaster ovens with obtuse crumpets poking out every which way. Those who pull out the Billion Dollar Super Awesome figure are just as bad as the Closed For Business types, taking everything at face-value.Will wrote:I know some of you will disagree with what I am saying, and bring out the figure that the council approved more than $1 billion worth of development last year. Sure this is true, but remember that the council approved this with the aid of the specialist and independent DAP members introduced 2 years ago. I wonder how much of that $1 billion worth of development would have been approved had the DAP still being staffed solely by councillors?
Surely someone responsible for the CC8 design looked over the 11-storey blank wall rising above Darling and spilled coffee all over themselves in response to its lack of innovation/attractiveness/uniqueness/relationship with the street and nearby buildings/differentiation from other CC buildings. It's not just an issue that requires tweaking here and there, as you would expect a deferral would entail - the entire western wall is a tribute to concrete driveways; the southern facade has the aforementioned obtuse crumpets poking out every which way, and so on. To borrow from Mr. World in another thread, not in my rear course, thank you.Will wrote:In fact the CCT8 decision gives an indication of what would have happened. For the vote on whether to approve CCT8, most of the independent specialist members did not take part. Without them to dilute the councillors, the councillors showed their true colours and rejected this development.
