Sensational-Adelaide.com

I like the style too. Unfortunately though, modern building products will not give it the solid feel of a similar looking building that may have been built a century ago. For example, can you imagine the Myer building in Rundle Mall built of stone instead of plastic-looking panels? That's another building with a good style, but cheap materials.

rhino wrote:I like the style too. Unfortunately though, modern building products will not give it the solid feel of a similar looking building that may have been built a century ago. For example, can you imagine the Myer building in Rundle Mall built of stone instead of plastic-looking panels? That's another building with a good style, but cheap materials.

Given the final cost of the Myer Center they probably could have built it from stone.

Nort wrote:

rhino wrote:I like the style too. Unfortunately though, modern building products will not give it the solid feel of a similar looking building that may have been built a century ago. For example, can you imagine the Myer building in Rundle Mall built of stone instead of plastic-looking panels? That's another building with a good style, but cheap materials.

Given the final cost of the Myer Center they probably could have built it from stone.

OR EVEN GOLD PLATED IT

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

John Blunt, Makris CEO yesterday:

"We never said it was happening, we just demolished the buildings. We hope building work will occur within three years, but we're not giving any guarantees. The project is not required to start within any fixed period of time and I don't think the Major Projects development approval has an expiry date. We've commenced work as required under the approval because we have done the demolition, but the major projects legislation is a bit different to a normal council approval program."

PS - I'm not a lawyer but it appears that under ss 46-48 of the SA Development Act which are the sections dealing with Major Projects, Mr Blunt is quite right. When, or whether a start is required at any particular time is entirely up to the Minister (Holloway in this case).

PPS - Germany v Spain nil all after 66 minutes!

If it means anything Makris has put on the market his Optus building, Northgate & Avenues shopping centres, so maybe $100m if sold. But he has also bought the Endouvour Hills Centre Vic for about the same money. Confirming to me its far easier to buy a built shopping centre with little risk and income from day 1 than do a new development like this.
As I have said before the finance is the key and I think it needs a big partner/builder on board so come on Mirvac, Multiplex, Leighton .....

hgih, it could well be finance stopping this, but without inside knowledge I don't think you can be sure that finance is the problem. Whether or not Makris is waiting for finance, he is obviously losing money on the site to the extent of council rates, opportunity cost etc. He obviously prefers to hold, so he must see a realisable gain at some time.

However, if it's too much to say that Makris has a responsibility to the community to develop the site, the Minister certainly has a responsibility, you would think, to ensure that the community is not blighted by vacant sites for years on end.

When you say he "prefers" to hold it, it may also be because there is no viable alternative but to hold it.
If hypothetically you cant get finance for a development and if you were to sell it you would only get your money back [or infact loose money] what would you do [esp. knowing "one day" it will be profitable]?
I think to a degree its up to conditions changing before this site can be developed ie the planets need to align. I cant understand why people just assume its up to the developer.
PS In reply to some of the Adelaidenow comments saying "turn it into a park", I want to remind people that Wallis had the land for sale for over 6 months and the Adelaide City Council could quite easily have bought and done this. Further Anne Moran & co were in council then, so the question I pose is why didnt they buy the site and put there own conditions on it and re-sell it [as they did with the Samaras Alpha site etc] & then they could have got what they wanted and at no real financial cost?

I think a lot of the comments posted (esp in the last 12 hours) have a certain amount of truth to them - there are lots of reasons why it would not proceed immdediately. Keep in mind also that a project such as this will have a PC date somewhere around 2 years from commencement so they are trying to forecast a market that could either go nowhere or go crazy depending on the rest of the world.

And it wouldn't surprise me, if not a primary driver it's close to top of the pile of reasons, that Messers Makris, Blunt et al would be doing this to flip a dirty great big bird at the ACC. Think about it - What else could he do that would get up the nose of Moran and the Nth Adelaide collective than to doze everything and then leave it vacant, as much as this...?

Nice one, Con!

Agreed, Burger, about the necessary punt the state of the market at completion. That's the risk that earns you the profit.

North Adelaide is desperately short of parking. Even temporary use of the site as open air parking would be worth a significant amount to North Adelaide businesses.

In other situations, a clear demand and a source of supply co-existing without meeting is called a business failure. If we're going to have a vacant site. let's landscape the edges, cover the site in hardcore and sand and call it short term parking.

ACC has done this many times with its own sites - the 'Imax carpark' in Frome St etc. As mentioned, I think it's the bogeyman of public liability that is in the way (unless Burger's right about Makris wanting to stick it up the ACC. That would be an expensive indulgence by Makris. Open air carparks can mint money.

Makris has already given the ACC and the residents/users of North Adelaide 'the bird' by putting up that disgraceful perimeter fence. I mean exactly how hard would it have been to run with 1 colourbond colour - not hard at all. I don't think any resident would get away with that - council regs would certainly not permit it remaining for long. And as much as we would like to see this site developed, it is clearly not a construction zone ATM.

I agree 100% the fence is ugly but my re-collection is that this fence was put up more in protest by Makris.
Council first put hedging around Makris property without his approval.
Makris point is a valid one - where in the world can any authority just put up a hedge around your property without your or any approval?
Whats worse is the land is in individual titles and they should each be entitled to their own points of access.
If a council or any govt authority deems your house ugly could they just roll up and surround it with hedging [and at the same time block access to your own property]? Ah, Nooooooooooooooooo!
I know the property can be accessed from other parts but thats not the point - its seems totally illegal what the ACC did!!

Whatever the reasons, the outcome (an unused site with an ugly fence) is not good.

I wonder why Makris demolished the reasonably sound, rent-paying buildings on the NW corner? I don't think demolition (ie a start) is required under the Major Project approval, and if it were, you'd think Makris' heavy donations top the ALP would protect him from any pressure about starting.

how_good_is_he wrote:Makris point is a valid one - where in the world can any authority just put up a hedge around your property without your or any approval?

Regulations very close to this are commonplace in American (and elsewhere) subdivisions. When buying a house in them, you will sign a contract with their homeowners association that will mandate many of the aspects of your house. The plants in your garden, the size and style of your fence, the kinds of garden ornaments, even the colour of your house - all of these (and more) will be mandated to you and not be a matter of your free choice. They will be enforced by strong financial penalties and, in some cases, you may even find yourself being obliged to surrender your house. Take a look here and here

I wonder, should cities have some sort of "fish or cut bait" regulation? There are so many places in the city where property owners are simply sitting and waiting, either leaving buildings empty or leaving an empty lot. And in this case they were given special consideration, which to my mind is a two-way street.

I know this is going off the subject but ....Prince George an encumbrance [what you are referring to] is common and is more than fair as its in place before you buy in and is not the same as this whatsoever. My point is ACC have no encumbrances/rules in place or authority to do this - that is the point. They just make it up as they go.

how_good_is_he wrote:They just make it up as they go.

isn't that how everything is done at acc?