Sensational-Adelaide.com

I don't mind if the info re the Finks is removed. The post was made in the context of the site's leases. If the site is so crucial that its development requires the personal management of the Minister, why isn't there a bit of care taken about managing the leases until demolition?

As to the Finks' activities, every word is correct. These guys get away with a lot more than just enjoying their bikes because of a general reluctance to discuss them. Bringing their activities into the open reduces the danger, imho, and I do understand the other acronym.

And omada, it's a bit rich to hammer the North Adelaide elites for rejecting the development then criticise them for, according to you, being about to like the Disneyland biscuit tin style of the development which is to be forced on them. It's also very funny. Thanks for the laugh!

I enjoy a good argument, and I am sitting back, no longer a resident of exclusive North Adelaide, watching the architectural press and ready to enjoy whatever action can be stirred up, given the usually dull topics of architecture and urban planning. I might even do a bit of stirring meself. I'm not above that.

Here's something I found on google of The Chancery in NZ

Yeah, the successful (in that it gained approval) Makris design is just a massaged version of the New Zullund effort.

In fact I think they should ask Hullun Cluck over here to open it.

I was nearly going to add that she might be a chance if she tried out for the Finks while she was here, but I'm too much of a gentleman. The Blacks might kick her out of their haka line if she did, anyway.

Ao te a roa...

I honestly don't have a problem with this design. The Chancery and the Rodeo Drive pics look good. I'd be happy to have that on O'Connell St. I don't think any of our other buildings in the CBD actually set us apart from the rest of the world - I'm sure you could find very similar buildings elsewhere if you looked. If the building at 22 Currie St gets built, then we'd have something really iconic, but it's taking so long there'll probably be one in Lagos or Sao Paulo or Hong Kong by the time ours gets built.

cruel_world00 wrote:

Im in no doubt that some design elements were 'borrowed' from the above development, the similarities are obvious. However, its not the same and our development will look different. In particular it will have a more solid density about it. Anyway regardless if you love it or loathe it, just thank god we didnt end up with something like this ..

Stumpjumper: And omada, it's a bit rich to hammer the North Adelaide elites for rejecting the development then criticise them for, according to you, being about to like the Disneyland biscuit tin style of the development which is to be forced on them. It's also very funny. Thanks for the laugh!

Point taken Stumpjumper.. fair enough about the Disneyland comment, but yeah I take back what I said about the North Adelaide residents - but only within the context of this development!

stumpjumper wrote:In fact I think they should ask Hullun Cluck over here to open it.

Sweet as bro...

stumpjumper wrote:I don't mind if the info re the Finks is removed. The post was made in the context of the site's leases. If the site is so crucial that its development requires the personal management of the Minister, why isn't there a bit of care taken about managing the leases until demolition?

As to the Finks' activities, every word is correct. These guys get away with a lot more than just enjoying their bikes because of a general reluctance to discuss them. Bringing their activities into the open reduces the danger, imho, and I do understand the other acronym.

I enjoy a good argument, and I am sitting back, no longer a resident of exclusive North Adelaide, watching the architectural press and ready to enjoy whatever action can be stirred up, given the usually dull topics of architecture and urban planning. I might even do a bit of stirring meself. I'm not above that.

So your intention is to slander people?
I could accuse one of the regular photographers on this site(who do a brilliant job of covering all the developments), of taking indecent photographs of children, using this site and interest in architecture and development as a "cover". Someone said it, or someone heard it from someone who knows someone who saw something, so it must be true!!

You got proof in your possession that Makris pulled a gun on someone? Then go to the Police and report it. Otherwise, your just spreading rumours you have heard. And frankly I hope someone in Makris' company stumbles upon your post and brings it to his attention and he takes legal action against you for slander.
You got proof the Finks now own Paesanos? Present it then..since you don't care if your claim in the other post stays or not, you shouldn't have a problem providing us all with the details of the former owners affairs, or alleged affairs...in your own words "every word is correct" Or are you once again, just repeating rumours you have heard? Kind of like the rumour a few pages back that the new owner of Paesanos was killed... :wank:

I thought this was a thread on the development/future of the former LeCornu site, not a gossip session on the alleged affairs and dealings of the involved parties.

PM me, rev, and I will supply you with all you ask.

I've learnt something - the Ignite Chancery design is itself a knockoff of Rodeo Drive in Los Angeles. Well well. I wonder if they are charging full rates for pumping this stuff out?

I've edited my diatribe a few pages back. I have taken out some material that shouldn't be there and added some other relevant stuff.

I gather Stumpjumpers not happy with this developement ?

I've seen better, I think.

My real issue with what's happened at the Le Cornu site is the abuse of process (in my opinion) which it has introduced.

The lowering of the always vague lower limit for Major Project status and the introduction of DAC rather than DAP for $10 mill + development in the ACC area is a real concern. Apart from the $10 mill figure not being indexed and therefore increasingly catching cheaper developments, both the Major Project and $10 mill + status seriously lower community input.

The problem with that is not so much that every dickhead with a dollar and a tomato plant will have a say on the millionaire's development, although our planning system is supposed to consider the views of local businesses and residents.

The serious concern is that both processes, but particularly Major Project status, are not transparent. Pressure and bribery may go unnoticed, and that is no way to run a society. It is a recipe for trouble, as well as bad planning.

Developers can make money even with an open, clear and certain planning system. They just tell you they can't, because it makes life easier for them. I should know, I've worked for them.

stumpjumper wrote:
The lowering of the always vague lower limit for Major Project status and the introduction of DAC rather than DAP for $10 mill + development in the ACC area is a real concern. Apart from the $10 mill figure not being indexed and therefore increasingly catching cheaper developments, both the Major Project and $10 mill + status seriously lower community input.

I think in this case, with the government stepping in and granting major development status and going over the councils head, it was something that just had to be done, regardless of what was proposed to be built, because it was evidently clear the council would stand in the way of pretty much any proposal for the site bar a single story box or something that kept their nimby retirement village minority constituents happy.

Sorry rev, but you're really going to have to accept the facts & get over it. Stumpjumper's said it all in his recent excellent posts. The facts and truth speak for themselves & no amount of childish name-calling of people just because they dont agree with you, or revisionist nonsense will change them. You're wrong , but look, you're getting a nice big building, so relax!

harryjotter wrote:Sorry rev, but you're really going to have to accept the facts & get over it. Stumpjumper's said it all in his recent excellent posts. The facts and truth speak for themselves & no amount of childish name-calling of people just because they dont agree with you, or revisionist nonsense will change them. You're wrong , but look, you're getting a nice big building, so relax!

What's childish about the truth? Or are you one of the nimbys and are offended by my comments regarding such excuses for human beings? How's that, childish enough for you?
I have an opinion, you can either accept the FACT everyone is entitled to their own opinion, or screw off.

Guys can we just chill a bit and try and keep this on topic thanks..

Deep breaths all round