[U/C] 88 O'Connell Street | 63m | 13, 13 and 15 Levels | Mixed Use

[how_good_is_he]

When Makris says he has fought with council for the past 22 years he is correct - but he is referring to his North Adelaide Village re-development [across the road] - until 2009 with this site. I remember the council didnt allow him the semi enclosed alfresco dining areas on the footpath he wanted [the contentious part I think was he wanted it to encroach onto part of the street/parking spaces].

As for the $30m SJ it can be easily justified. The vacant Wallis site cost him some $7m, the Paesano site with 2 other shops $5m and the BankSA building some $2m. Thats approx $14m purchase price even forgetting stamp duty.
Then add interest at say 7% adds $1m per year or $9m, council/water rates & land tax adds $1m per year [$9m] and theres your $30+million [14+9+9 =$32m]!
Further if you allow all the costs to actually get the approvals ie architects, planners, quantity surveyors, consultants, engineers, lawyers, political donations etc allow another $5m+.

[iTouch]

These people have my respect

[stumpjumper]

Will, you can do some pretty interesting stuff within three levels above ground. Look up Hundertwasser and other creative designers.

I take the point about Rundle Mall. There will obviously be some effect - if Makris can get (and keep) the high end retailers he says he's after. As well as Rundle Mall, Theo Maras is chasing such tenants for his East End tenancies. The 'damage to Rundle Mall' objection is probably the weakest of the various credible objections to the Makris project.

Hgih you're right that Makris isn't claiming to have fought ACC over 88 O'Connell for 22 years. If you know Makris' modus operandi you'd know that he will fight any authority anywhere for as long as it takes in his efforts to increase the development potential of his holdings by demanding approval for non-complying development.

His argument with ACC about the dining area at the North Adelaide Village redevelopment was about firstly the need to keep the existing stone façade (Makris is not comfortable dealing with existing structures and prefers a clear site) and secondly his demand to use the full width of the footpath for balcony dining on the first floor, above the awnings (increasing his net lettable area without paying for the land beneath). I agree with Makris on this point. A usable balcony would have been good. In fact I think it should be made possible for a council to strata title its footpaths and sell airspace above them, within the limits of safety and allowing for trees.

[Howie]

Update, at 8am at least two guys on the demolition crew started removing windows off the old cafe on the corner.

My sentiments mirror harbo's this morning when he voiced concerns about congestion but it is good to see this going ahead.

[bm7500]

Update, at 8am at least two guys on the demolition crew started removing windows off the old cafe on the corner.

My sentiments mirror harbo's this morning when he voiced concerns about congestion but it is good to see this going ahead.

Would it be too much to ask that the mayor of our city actually have a positive word to say about this development?? His (and Anne Moron's) contempt for this development is disgusting.

Good on you Con, i hope 88 O'Connell Street becomes a great legacy for you in this city.

[stumpjumper]

Putting aside the actual project and looking objectively at the procurement process, bm7500, you can understand Harbison's position.

The job of the ACC is to administer the existing Development Plan under the Development Act. It also considers the views of its electors.

Over the years, ACC has done its best to see the Le Cornu site developed. It has allowed demolition of the buildings, approved four non-complying proposals and spent over $50,000 surveying its constituents on a Makris proposal even bigger than the four approved developments. The response btw to a comprehensive statistically meaningful survey was around 90% against the current proposal. The ACC had numerous meetings with Makris trying to find a way forward that was reasonable to all parties.

Makris' response was to donate large amounts to the ALP and to be given major project status, despite statements of the local MP and Minister for Adelaide, and the Planning Minister that the development was not vital to the economic future of the state and would not be given major project status.

Eventually, Makris was dealing direct with the Premier and Cabinet, bypassing ACC and the government's planning apparatus completely. This wasn't because the system further down had failed - it was working perfectly and was even flexible enough to give Makris around 40% over the complying floor area, with the approval of all concerned.

Yet Makris wanted more, and his persistence and donations were finally rewarded. He has achieved a result that neither the ACC nor the majority of its constituents want.

No wonder Harbison is pissed off. Wouldn't you be?

[Wayno]

Much of the angst eminating from S-A members about the LeCornu development approval saga is incorrectly positioned as Makris vs ACC. We are reacting to the visible symptoms only, of which donations to the Govt is simply a part. More appropriately we should focus our eyes on those archaic elements of the ACC Development Plan, at which Developers & Modern Society baulks. Now we're getting closer to the root cause.

The fact remains that height limitations are yet to be relaxed by the ACC (and may again be ignored in the current round of dev plan adjustments due to close later this year).

No change to the dev plan = continued fighting between Developers & the ACC for at least 4 more years.

[harryjotter]

It's not the ACC's Development Plan. Check the provenance. It's all controlled by the SA Development Act (1993).
It's pointless to keep blaming the ACC. Its hands are often tied leading to the frustration Stumpjumper so articulately highlights. Whichever side we're on in this debate we shd be able to accept the truth of the situation and not keep repeating myths and downright lies to make a point.
Anyway, I'm still sceptical about Makris starting his "big new building". Sure there's a bit of knocking down but I cant see any activity that suggests a $170m building is about to start.

[Ben]

Putting aside the actual project and looking objectively at the procurement process, bm7500, you can understand Harbison's position.

The job of the ACC is to administer the existing Development Plan under the Planning Act. It also considers the views of its electors.

Over the years, ACC has done its best to see the Le Cornu site developed. It has allowed demolition of the buildings, approved four non-complying proposals and spent over $50,000 surveying its constituents on a Makris proposal even bigger than the four approved developments. The response btw to a comprehensive statistically meaningful survey was around 90% against the current proposal. The ACC had numerous meetings with Makris trying to find a way forward that was reasonable to all parties.

Makris' response was to donate large amounts to the ALP and to be given major project status, despite statements of the local MP and Minister for Adelaide, and the Planning Minister that the development was not vital to the economic future of the state and would not be given major project status.

Eventually, Makris was dealing direct with the Premier and Cabinet, bypassing ACC and the government's planning apparatus completely. This wasn't because the system further down had failed - it was working perfectly and was even flexible enough to give Makris around 40% over the complying floor area, with the approval of all concerned.

Yet Makris wanted more, and his persistence and donations were finally rewarded. He has achieved a result that neither the ACC nor the majority of its constituents want.

No wonder Harbison is pissed off. Wouldn't you be?

Am I the only one that finds these rants usually irrelvant and annoying. Sorry SJ I just don't see the point in a lot of your posts... it's almost like your trying to prove something?

[harryjotter]

Sometimes the truth just keeps on hurting

[skyliner]

We are now stuck with what happens. It's a pity that an attractive three or four level mixed retail, commercial and residential development could not have been built here instead. That is what the community and the Council wanted and what the Development Plan envisaged.

Speak for yourself SJ! I doubt there is anyone under 50 who would have preferred some 'lil ol Adelaide' 3 level development that would have been 'nice' yet conservative, and which would have blended into the background over this exciting development.

I'm over 50 and DO NOT fit that mould Will. There's hope yet! Greatly looking for ward to the development. Might just make the Nth Adelaide tramline a feasable option too.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[Will]

Just watching 10 news, and within the next 10 minutes they'll have a story about this development including a construction timeline.

[stumpjumper]

Not trying to prove anything Ben or have a go at anyone here personally, or bore them sh*tless. I'm just trying to wave a flag for a bit of order in our urban planning system.

It's a complex subject with a lot of competing interests involved, but around the world the best compromise has been a strong system alterable by consensus. Periods of loose or corrupt planning nearly always cost the community a lot later on. Developers are a valuable and essential component of all this, but they shouldn't have the only say.

[AtD]

My sentiments mirror harbo's this morning when he voiced concerns about congestion but it is good to see this going ahead.

Is O'Connell St IMO should be less a transport corridor and more a destination in its own right.

[stumpjumper]

You may be optimistic there, Will. Demolition has started and will be completed but there is no immediate intention to start any work on the new project.