News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

[crawf]

Kudus to these guys thinking big, but lets focus on building up our under developed CBD before dreaming about 20 storey buildings in the burbs.

The problem with Adelaide is that there is far too much potential. It is good however that the potential is finally being untapped, the CBD at least.

[Waewick]

I wouldn't discount 10 storey apartments down the parade - it has the residential demand to support some IMO

If we ever get any money in this state and they send the tram down there, well then it would be a given.

[stumpjumper]

The conclusions of the Inner Urban Growth Study are flawed and the radical building program is unnecessary.

There is already a mechanism in operation which achieves the stated goals of the IUGS. While the mechanism is not operating at an intensity sufficient to iron out the present building slump for the mid-range developers who are driving the IUGS, the mechanism can easily be accelerated.

First, the current mechanism which can solve the problem:

Across the middle ring of suburbs, around 3% to 5% of housing stock per year is being demolished to be replaced by medium density housing. Cheaply built early 20th century bungalows are being replaced by duplexes or zero lot line housing of 2 to 3 bedrooms, two off stree car parks and an incremental effect on services. This process could be modified to produce a slightly higher density with inducements such as tax relief to attract more developers to the type.

Local shops will regenerate too, to serve the increased population in the locality. Transport will change too, but incrementally, keeping pace with development.

The likely results under the IUGS and the 'gradual replacement mechanism' are similar, but I'd say that the gradual replacement process will have far fewer of the drawbacks of the IUGS proposal.

The IUGS proposes mass demolition of small shops and the 2 or even 3 houses 'behind' them. There will be complaints from the neighbours to the new carparks about loss of value (compensation barred by statute) and amenity by overlooking, overshadowing and noise.

The new shops in the 4 to 6 storey tilt-slab pyramidal forms lining the roads will be much bigger - 200sqm to 500sqm at $500 to $1000 per week instead of the little old 75sqm shops with the outside dunny letting for $75 - $100 pw. These cheap shops have been a brilliant incubating ground for successful businesses.

At a steady 5% replacement of old stock in the inner urban area, it will only take ten years to replace the most developable half of the houses and add the same numbers of residents envisaged under the IUGS.

Gerry Karidis, a builder of flats over shops in Melbourne Sreet, says he doesn't 'do rats and mice' and wants multi-storey projects. But perhaps he should regear his operation.

Gradual infill throughout the 'second ring' of inner suburbs, especially at ground level, is far more in line with long-standing housing preferences than apartments over shops, which do not appeal nearly as strongly across the buying demographic. A community needs owner-occupiers as well as renters, families as well as singles and couples.

[Ben]

Height or flight: Airport fears increased building heights could affect flight paths

by:
Heather Kennett

From:
adelaidenow March 12, 2013

ADELAIDE Airport is opposing plans to increase building height limits and housing density across Adelaide's western suburbs, saying it could affect "established flight paths".
Adelaide Airport Limited has lodged a submission in response to the West Torrens Council's Development Plan Amendment (DPA), which it prepared in response to the State Government's 30-Year Plan.

The DPA would allow five storey buildings along Henley Beach Rd up from the existing three and higher housing density in suburbs adjacent the airport.
In the submission, managing director Mark Young said these changes would "potentially affect the established flight paths into Adelaide Airport".
"This (higher height limits) raises concerns for the ongoing operations of the airport due to the likely increase in structures that could penetrate the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS)," the submission said.

An OLS refers to airspaces around airports which aim to restrict types of development and land uses.
It is set out in accordance with International Civil Aviation Organisation.
Mr Young also said the DPA also did not "acknowledge the impact of noise generated by aircraft operations on future residential development" at Netley, West Richmond, and Brooklyn Park, which neighbour the north and north-eastern boundary of the airport.
"This DPA should have included planning policies which seek to limit any further intensification of residential development within an area which is affected by the ongoing operations of the airport," he said.

"We believe that this is a missed opportunity for the council to better highlight the impact of noise on future residents given the proximity of this area to the airport."
Mr Young will be among 50 business groups and residents to address a public meeting tonight at the councils' Hilton chambers.
West Torrens is changing its planning laws to take into account State Government estimates of population growth across the west, predicted to be 90,000 extra people within 30 years.

Residents will argue the proposed laws will cause overshadowing, traffic and parking problems and decrease property values.
West Torrens Council deputy chief executive Declan Moore said the proposals were still "very much" a draft and the council would consider all concerns raised.
The public meeting will be held at the council office on Brooker Tce, Hilton, at 7pm.

[claybro]

This should not really be an issue, I dont perceive the need for 10 story blocks along Marion Road or Sir Don in the next...well forever really. But as usual, AAL is being a bit vague by saying "future developement COULD affect established flight paths." It's easy AAL...just tell CWT what parts of what roads can have what height and leave it at that. But I suppose as usual as per the CBD, the developers will have to guess at what height AAL wants, submit a plan, and have it thrown around by various departments until they get sick of the process and pack up for anywhere else. Interestingly, the 16 story apartment tower, next to the flightpath in Glenelg North seems to raise no such concerns for AAL.

[stumpjumper]

It's really a pointless question on this forum, but what is the obsession with height?

Would you still support the same result - increase of population per square kilometre - if it were achieved by other means, such as accelerating the present process of demolition and redevelopment annually of about 3% of single allotments of, say, 600-800sqm into one or two level duplexes, or even 4 two level dwellings?

This incremental process, in the case of the inner metro area, does not overburden parking, transport or utilities because it allows an incremental response.

Not quite as exciting, but surely, better practice.

[monotonehell]

It's really a pointless question on this forum, but what is the obsession with height?..

Yes Stumpy some people are a bit obsessed for height for height's sake. They see it as needed to prove that Adelaide is grown up. We have a lot of space here, height will only come when demand drives it.

[MessiahAndrw]

Height is not a sign of maturity. The great cities of Europe, for example, chose and continue to choose ground-density over height.

A city with dense 3 story buildings, vibrant streets, and lots of retail at ground level is a lot more lively and livable than a city covered in skyscrapers, but each skyscraper is divided by a 10 lane expressway.

[Wayno]

I'll bite. We're a young western country, driven by economics. Tall buildings with global company names atop signifies success, prosperity, job opportunities, and imply more substance may exist at ground level. Simple, be it right or wrong. Come for the jobs - stay for the broader lifestyle.

Cities such as Paris have longevity on their side. We do not. It's an inequitable comparison.

[Waewick]

I'll bite. We're a young western country, driven by economics. Tall buildings with global company names atop signifies success, prosperity, job opportunities, and imply more substance may exist at ground level. Simple, be it right or wrong. Come for the jobs - stay for the broader lifestyle.

Cities such as Paris have longevity on their side. We do not. It's an inequitable comparison.

moreso, these cities were being constructed 2000 years ago (so vast swaths are no heritage listed for starters) and in addition there are high rise in Paris and London but they are big cities so it isn't everywhere.

Lets not forget what Paris went through to create the city we had today, they weren't adverse to making a few changes!

[monotonehell]

Lets not forget what Paris went through to create the city we had today, they weren't adverse to making a few changes!

I always imagine Haussmann at the controls of a huge bulldozer.

[Wayno]

Lets not forget what Paris went through to create the city we had today, they weren't adverse to making a few changes!

Nail on the head.

[mattblack]

Lets not forget what Paris went through to create the city we had today, they weren't adverse to making a few changes!

Nail on the head.

They also weren't adverse to socially dislocating entire communities in order to create the boulevards we rejoice at today

[stumpjumper]

Haussmann had the advantage of absolute authority when he carved the boulevards through Paris - for military reasons, incidentally. The older area of Paris has a general limit of five stories - for reasons of structure and lettability.There is plenty of high rise in Paris, mainly around La Defense. And the Eiffel Tower, of course.

High rise development is generally a function of land prices + vertical transport options + structural capacity. All three factors were present in Chicago after the CBD was gutted by fire: high demand for the land; Elisha Otis' mechanical lift and the possibility of steel frame construction. Result: high rise buildings.

[Hooligan]

So what yours saying is that someone needs to set most of Adelaide on fire?