Sensational-Adelaide.com

CC8 is ordinary architecture, but the present situation has more to do with the arrogance, ego and greed and impatience of the Property Council/Foley/Conlon/Rann/Atkinson combine than anything else.

As Foley said when he declared re the dodgy EWS rate rise - acting ministers are only there to preserve the status quo. Foley went on to claim: 'I am here now. I am the government. So the rules will change.' What actually happened is that, as usual, the govt was ambushed by an unexpected negative public reaction so they changed the previous advice on which McEwen as acting minister for water security had acted.

Anyway...

It was interesting to see Property Council state director Nathan Paine, a former employee of state Urban Development Minister Paul Holloway, calling for ‘certainty’ in the ACC‘s planning requirements.

There is already absolute certainty. Harness your greed, comply with the council’s Development Plan (signed off by Holloway, incidentally), and it is absolutely certain that the council’s DAP will approve your project. Even exceed the guidelines by, say, 25%, and you’ll still get it through provided the overall design is reasonable.

The above is clearly demonstrated by DAP’s history, most recently by its approval of the Hills Industries development in King William Street, five floors above the guidelines, and by DAP approving no less than five proposals for the Lecornu site in North Adelaide, all of them well outside the guidelines (but not sweet enough to satisfy the greed of the Makris Group).

On the ABC Stateline program, an angry Nathan Paine described his actions after ACC’s DAP had refused the Tower 8 proposal – a fairly ordinary design by most standards and with numerous severe breaches of the guidelines:

‘As soon as I heard the result, I got straight on the phone to the government and demanded some action…’

(Sub text: F*ck the democratic process – this is the big end of town talking; democracy is for kids. We deal direct.)

Well, the Property Council speaks, the government jumps. Or it should. No wonder Nathan Paine was cross. However, once the Rann/FoleyConlon/Atkinson Gang of Four was alerted the council was quickly and formally stripped of planning powers for developments in excess of $10 million by a gazetted regulatory change. Compare this speed with the various applications for heritage listing of Adelaide’s Park Lands. The first of many applications was made in 1984 – latest word from Minister for Environment and Conservation Gago, 24 years on with the Park Lands still unlisted, is that ‘there has not been enough time to make an assessment’. The government does move, but only if it’s politically expedient.

But back to the topic at hand – the Tower 8 refusal. There was a public outcry, but not from the Advertiser, housed in part of the same development as Tower 8, which applauded the move for a couple of days and then shut up, publishing no more letters or articles on the subject, despite the continuing debate in the street and on television and talkback radio.

It will also be interesting to see how many planning staff are sacked at the Adelaide City Council, given that almost a billion dollars worth of proposals which it assessed in the last year would not now have to be handled by its staff.

It will be interesting too, to see how many of the Property Council/State Government cheer squad which has been applauding the current decision would be happy to see a hypothetical, parallel change:

The Commonwealth Government takes over, on the flimsiest of pretexts, all planning and approval power in South Australia for projects over, say, $100 million on the basis that the State approval system is not competent.

Would the same people now celebrating the ‘Holloway Decision’s removal of the democratic right of the residents of the City of Adelaide to any say in the $100 mill + major developments, which so define their city and affect their lives, be cheering a comparable decision by Canberra to take over, say all developments of $100 million or over in SA? No consultation, just like it or lump it.

We would have no say or representation whatsoever in projects like Newport Quays, the Gawler expansion, the Pelican Point power station, Roxby Downs and Olympic Dam, the Port Stanvac redevelopment, which would all be decided in Canberra, our state government.

Good idea, eh? In fact, why do we need self-determination at all? Why don’t we give up all representation in our own futures and let the Property Council and big government take ocver our lives completely.

‘Tea or coffee with your breakfast?’

Hang on, I’ll have to ring Nathan Paine, or Kevin Rudd. Hang on…
stumpjumper
High Rise Poster!

Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm

monotonehell wrote:

Hippodamus wrote:

Neuropolis wrote:And maybe all of these ideas are not really very cutting edge or even especially innovative.
Besides, cities are not defined by tall buildings. Development can mean all sorts of things and I hold our collective human future in high regard. It's just that, for me, a city means more than some notion of an outdated metropolis. 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.

no worries mate, keep reading those sci-fi mags.

Maybe we're all being a bit quick to dismiss what Neuropolis says. Whatever his intentions are aside, I can see merit in what he has said. To paraphrase:
In this day and age there are MANY boxes that a development needs to tick, being "tall" is way down the list. Near the top of the list are things like economic sustainability, environmental sustainability, Social sustainability and so on. Acrowatsits are probably the far end of such endevours, but there are experimental communities along these lines being set up around the world, and aspects of these concepts are being included in contemprary architectural design today. Things like included green pockets, energy saving ideas like glass curtains, and other concepts that reduce the work air/con has to do.

I'd rather see arcitecturally interesting buildings approved and built before tall for tall sake monstrosities. Too many cities in the US are just a hogepoge of towers built by accountants. The DAP needs to involved all of aesthetics, heritage, environment and economic concerns. I'd rather see a beurocracy set up to handle the DAP than a commitee. Beurocracies usually involve experts. While commitees usually involve NIMBYs.

(Sorry for the typos - I'm at work.. will edit for grammar later )

Indeed. I've said before that I'm not completely anti development. Arcologies, if I can do this briefly, are the vision of Paolo Soleri. They are, in fact, high density village structures that are both economically sustainable and ecologically friendly. The word 'arcology' is a compound of architecture/ecology. Research on this scale, to me, is far more interesting and vital to our future than a tall glass building that is the monument to power and ego that the Rann Government wants it to be.
When you knock down the past, you devalue the future.
To my way of thinking, no development can be divorced from political structure. So many of these plans smack to me of backroom deals with international investors for the sake of greed.
And, like I said in another thread...it's people like me who are currently raising the children that will one day replace your generation and want to fix your mistakes. You will make a mistake in assuming that this city is only for the needs of the young.
I too, have a stake in its future and now I'm saying my piece.

Neuropolis wrote:Arcologies, if I can do this briefly, are the vision of Paolo Soleri. They are, in fact, high density village structures that are both economically sustainable and ecologically friendly. The word 'arcology' is a compound of architecture/ecology. Research on this scale, to me, is far more interesting and vital to our future than a tall glass building that is the monument to power and ego that the Rann Government wants it to be.

please start a new thread on this in the Visions section and provide as much info as you can, i think it would be good for all to learn more...

Plans in council hands
Chris Day (http://www.messengernews.com.au)
22Jul08

NEARLY $400 million in seven developments will still be handled by the City Council's Development Assessment Panel (DAP).

The projects relate to applications lodged before July 17 when the State Government stripped the DAP of power to assess developments over $10 million. The seven amount to almost 40 percent of the $1 billion in applications lodged with the council last year. They are:

$150 million retail/office tower, in Rundle Mall;

$80 million student apartment block, in Rundle Mall;

$60 million apartment tower, on North Tce;

$50 million hotel, on Hindley St;

$15 million office tower, on King William St;

$13 million retail/office complex, on Waymouth St; and

$10 million office tower, on Flinders St.

Major applications lodged after July 17 will be assessed by the state's Development Assessment Commission (DAC) a seven-member panel appointed by Planning Minister Paul Holloway and Cabinet.

City Cr David Plumridge, of the council's DAP, said both panels would judge developments against The City of Adelaide Development Plan.

``If developers think there will be some difference in the rules applied by the DAP and the DAC, they're in for a shock we both have the same tools,'' Cr Plumridge said.

sorry but did we miss something here?
* $80 million student apartment block, in Rundle Mall;

Howie, I think the article is referring to the twin tower student apartments at Austin Street (behind the Ruthven Mansions).

Neuropolis wrote:[

Indeed. I've said before that I'm not completely anti development. Arcologies, if I can do this briefly, are the vision of Paolo Soleri. They are, in fact, high density village structures that are both economically sustainable and ecologically friendly. The word 'arcology' is a compound of architecture/ecology. Research on this scale, to me, is far more interesting and vital to our future than a tall glass building that is the monument to power and ego that the Rann Government wants it to be.
When you knock down the past, you devalue the future.
To my way of thinking, no development can be divorced from political structure. So many of these plans smack to me of backroom deals with international investors for the sake of greed.
And, like I said in another thread...it's people like me who are currently raising the children that will one day replace your generation and want to fix your mistakes. You will make a mistake in assuming that this city is only for the needs of the young.
I too, have a stake in its future and now I'm saying my piece.

Could it not be argued that these arcologies are also a monument to the egos of Green politicians?

I too would like to raise my children here in the future, but if we turn our back on traditional investments and focus on what sound like science fiction hippie communes, then I do not think there will be a future or jobs in this state.

Since you initially mentioned them, I have done a bit of research into what arcologies are, and to be honest I doubt many people would want to live in them. There are far more palatable ways to be environmentally friendly.

Will wrote:

Neuropolis wrote:[

Indeed. I've said before that I'm not completely anti development. Arcologies, if I can do this briefly, are the vision of Paolo Soleri. They are, in fact, high density village structures that are both economically sustainable and ecologically friendly. The word 'arcology' is a compound of architecture/ecology. Research on this scale, to me, is far more interesting and vital to our future than a tall glass building that is the monument to power and ego that the Rann Government wants it to be.
When you knock down the past, you devalue the future.
To my way of thinking, no development can be divorced from political structure. So many of these plans smack to me of backroom deals with international investors for the sake of greed.
And, like I said in another thread...it's people like me who are currently raising the children that will one day replace your generation and want to fix your mistakes. You will make a mistake in assuming that this city is only for the needs of the young.
I too, have a stake in its future and now I'm saying my piece.

Could it not be argued that these arcologies are also a monument to the egos of Green politicians?

I too would like to raise my children here in the future, but if we turn our back on traditional investments and focus on what sound like science fiction hippie communes, then I do not think there will be a future or jobs in this state.

Since you initially mentioned them, I have done a bit of research into what arcologies are, and to be honest I doubt many people would want to live in them. There are far more palatable ways to be environmentally friendly.

I present them only as examples of housing structures that are quite different and ideally superior to the way we live now. I'm not advocating that we all turn to them. They are mentioned by me only as a way to illustrate a point of view. I may not even be happy to live in them myself.
They are a monument to Paolo Soleri of course, but I doubt that he has political aspirations. The potential counter argument you present is not valid since Arcology is based on the great tradition of utopian visionaries and not on political grandstanding and developer greed. What is important, is what we can learn and what directions we should head in given the potential environmental crisis and the spectre of peak oil. Such a state of affairs will make the Buckland Park development unsustainable, as one example. But of course, when developers get their hands on cheap land north or south in this city, they only ever see the millions that they can make for their stakeholders. There is always a selfish interest in development and very little of it has to do with the people who live in those housing developments. The mere fact that there is no forward thinking plan to increase available public transport to areas in the North before the first sod is turned, is a prime indicator that developments such as this are based on either land grabbing greed, feeble planning by feeble minds or both.
There is science in some fiction and no doubt fiction in some science, however, my arguments are not based on any science fiction. Speculation perhaps, but fiction, no.

Neuropolis, no more Arcologies Now in this thread please. You keep baiting us to post off topic. Pretty pwease start a new thread with the hippie vision of Paolo, and then give examples of reasonable, practical structures that do exist. (They do, you need to search hehe tease). This is a whole branch of architecture that is mainstream in other countries but in Adelaide's conservative developers barely heard of.
Now let's hear no more of it. (Except in a new thread here )

Greens MLC Mark Parnell says the recent ban on ACC approving developments over $10 million was just payback for ACC knocking back Foley's baby, the Vic Park grandstand. What are his chances?

It may be foleys payback but so what? The ACC are an embarrassment to this state and most people are on the governments side with this.

He has buckleys.

It's $10m anyway.

Councillor Plumridge's latest newsletter: Including notes on:

• * The Govt DAC taking control away from the ACC
  * Super Councils - the way forward?
  * Parklands Visionary Plan (including Vic Park)
  * Community Events
  * Etc...

from the pdf.

Victoria Square is next on the list. Now that the Community Ideas distraction is almost behind us....

Distraction??

suck eggs Parnell, this is the game of politics you idiot.. :wank:

It's not even a ban! It's all legislative. Why would they go to the effort of introducing the bill to repeal it?

Considering I voted for them on a Federal scale, this is poor politics coming from them on State level. I would have believed they welcomed the move, considering it than in sync with higher architectural quality projects, there would be a raised environmental conciousness agenda to the DAC.