ONH: [Port Adelaide] Newport Quays | $1.2b

[Paulns]

But the developer maintains that buyers need to hold on to their investment until infrastructure such as the tram/rail corridor and commercial properties are built.

"Like many other projects across the country . . . purchasers are encouraged to take a long-term view to their investment in order to realise any potential gains such as that already witnessed in popular waterfront locations around Australia," Newport Quays spokesman Todd Brown said.

Never the less I think this is true... This Newport Quays development is a long term, (10 year?) project in itself so I think investors need to be patient in order to make any sort of profit here. The Port Adelaide area in itself has never really been known to be pretty and glitzy like say Glenelg. Its going to take years to transform. What's begun now is only the beginning. Stage 1 and 2 of 6 or 7 I think??

If people are still losing money when its ALL completed then I think there's a major problem. Personally I look forward to it being completed because the concept plans will make the area look awesome and a new tram out to Semaphore will be good to if it ever goes ahead!

[muzzamo]

Never the less I think this is true... This Newport Quays development is a long term, (10 year?) project in itself so I think investors need to be patient in order to make any sort of profit here. The Port Adelaide area in itself has never really been known to be pretty and glitzy like say Glenelg. Its going to take years to transform. What's begun now is only the beginning. Stage 1 and 2 of 6 or 7 I think??

Not to mention we are already maxed out on debt and affordability so to see any gains we would have to see significant falls back to sanity first.

[Shuz]

Not to jump on the NIMBY bandwagon here, but the council actually has some reasonable concerns regarding this development (excepting the first two)

• * EXCEEDING height restrictions on the buildings which range from seven to 14 storeys.
  Height is something that should be promoted, encourages higher density and more sustainable living. Better for the environment right?
  
  * THE WATERFRONT will be blocked by a "wall of tall buildings".
  If they didn't have issues with height, maybe there wouldn't be as much of a wall 'effect' as is being proposed, due to the developer's forced decision to comply with such idiotic constraints. And if anyone wants to complain about walls of tall buildings, you only need to see the Admirality Towers on Brisbane's river waterfront.
  
  * WIND tunnel created by the positioning of the four buildings.
  That's fair enough - I hate walking through a public space being confronted by exacerbated winds as a result of poor building location. The original proposal with the curved tower(s) would have addressed this issue.
  
  * PUBLIC space too small for the size of the development.
  I'm pretty sure Glenelg has more public space per capita ratio than this would have to its respective surroundings. Again, this issue could be resolved easily if the council weren't so anti-height, that could remove one or more building's footprint and relocate it above another.
  
  * AT LEAST 127 apartments have bedrooms without windows.
  I'm morbidly horrified that its not a planning regulation that all bedrooms should have a window in them. Is this not a extremely dangerous fire hazard, let alone replication living conditions to that of a jail cell?
  
  * 123 APARTMENTS face south – with no direct sunlight, while other apartments exposed entirely to the western sun creating heat issues.
  At least they have windows! It comes down to lifestyle choice if people want their sea views, or they want to live in the shadows.
  
  * 263 BALCONIES undersized.

Simple - either have them, or you don't.

[teflon fox]

I agree with the Paulns - this is very long term investment. The fact that there is very little infrastructure
or facilities near this development at this stage was always going to make the initial stage unappealing.
There are vast areas of under-developed lands nearby which in the long term will probably be developed
to support this construction.

Investors probably snapped up the initial release believing the Defence boom and associated industry
in the Port precinct would provide a quick profit on their re-sale but again this is a long process
and will not happen significantly in the short term.

Speculative investment in apartments is difficult but still possible - you really have to
research a development, its location, the associated facilities and there needs to be
a growing market for it. There are many developments going on in the city - some
I personally believe will struggle but there are a few good ones. The hardest part is
getting in at the right time - whether it's off the plan or waiting for a re-sale .

[steveadl]

* AT LEAST 127 apartments have bedrooms without windows.
I'm morbidly horrified that its not a planning regulation that all bedrooms should have a window in them. Is this not a extremely dangerous fire hazard, let alone replication living conditions to that of a jail cell?

Agree with you about not having windows, although I doubt the window of an 8th story bedroom could be classified as a possible fire exit?!

Gotta be honest though, really disappointed with the look of the buildings down there so far. I think they try to make it look modern and artsy, but just looks awful to me - continaully jagged edges, jutting out walls, different colours etc.

[Cruise]

* THE WATERFRONT will be blocked by a "wall of tall buildings".
If they didn't have issues with height, maybe there wouldn't be as much of a wall 'effect' as is being proposed, due to the developer's forced decision to comply with such idiotic constraints. And if anyone wants to complain about walls of tall buildings, you only need to see the Admirality Towers on Brisbane's river waterfront.

Also, You can't even access the waterfront at present, So anything is better than nothing in this regard.

Even historically, public access to the waterfront was never possible

[jk1237]

ah haha. Remember when that large white apartment block on Colley Tce Glenelg (Im bad with names tonight), had heaps of the 'quick buck' investors loose a lot of money on their deposits when they pulled out, when they heard the apartment market was overpriced and over supplied down there (and it wasn't even beach front). However the people that stayed on would have now made quite an investment.

So Ive no problem with this going ons at the Port. It will all even out in the end. I personally think most of the units at Newport Quays are way overpriced for what you get, and the market will sort this out. I believe the demand will still be there for this project to continue, especially in interest rates fall again. They just need to be more reasonably priced.

[cruel_world00]

I don't have any link but I just saw on Channel 7 that the new stage of Newport Quays was knocked back by the council.

[Xaragmata]

I don't have any link but I just saw on Channel 7 that the new stage of Newport Quays was knocked back by the council.

I saw it too, & can't find it online. I thought it was a state body that rejected it, not the Council. Anyway, it will
turn up on Messenger tomorrow.

[Will]

The council's decision is only a recommendation. The final say will be made by thye state government DAC.

[crawf]

I'm pretty sure this has been rejected by the State Government aswell.

I'm not surprised in way, it was pretty poorly designed and bland. Lets hope the developers come up with a quality design around the same height.

[Will]

I'm pretty sure this has been rejected by the State Government aswell.

I'm not surprised in way, it was pretty poorly designed and bland. Lets hope the developers come up with a quality design around the same height.

This has NOT been rejected by the state government.

[Will]

I'm pretty sure this has been rejected by the State Government aswell.

I'm not surprised in way, it was pretty poorly designed and bland. Lets hope the developers come up with a quality design around the same height.

This has NOT been rejected by the state government.

Actually you were right Crawf. It has also been rejected by the state governemnt. I find this decision very surprising as the recommendation to the government appointed panel was for them to grant planning apporval to the project.

[Brando]

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 01,00.html

DEVELOPERS of the $2 billion Newport Quays have been forced back to the drawing board after plans for the third stage of the ambitious waterside project were rejected.

A Government-appointed committee knocked back plans by Urban Construct and Multiplex for the $300 million Stage 2B, which included apartment blocks up to 14 storeys high, but has yet to detail its reasons.

The plans were at the centre of the developers' long-running battle with Port Adelaide Enfield Council, the National Trust and dozens of community groups.

Among concerns were that the apartment blocks exceeded height restrictions, the tall buildings would create wind tunnels and 127 apartments would have bedrooms without windows.

Port of Adelaide National Trust chairman Tony Kearney said the decision was a surprise because some government agencies had supported the plans.

"It's a victory for people power," he said. "We don't want to gloat over it . . . but it's a win for common sense.

"The scale and bulk and mass of what they wanted to put in there was just so out of character with the place . . . that it was just totally incongruous."

Port Adelaide Enfield Mayor Gary Johanson said the Port Adelaide Redevelopment Committee had recognised the concerns. "It shows the independent body is truly independent and has acted in the best interest of the public, future residents, councils and the developers," he said.

A statement from developers Urban Construct and Multiplex late yesterday expressed disappointment but said they would not appeal against the refusal.

"While the development application was recommended by Planning SA for approval, we accept the independent umpire's decision," Newport Quays spokesman Todd Brown said.

The decision follows an Advertiser report revealing resale prices for homes in the development had plummeted.

[how_good_is_he]

This should be a blessing in disguise to the developers...too many apartments down there now....I think it is time for the waterfront dining, retail shopping, hotel, tourist attractions and maybe even a shopping centre and cinemas.