News & Developments: Port Adelaide

[rogue]

A shed that no one saw value in for thirty years finally making way for progress. Hooray!

[Honey of a City]

A shed that no one saw value in for thirty years finally making way for progress. Hooray!

Yeh hooray! Come on down to the Port folks and dance in the wreckage!

If no-one saw value in it why wasn’t it bulldozed years ago with the rest of the Port waterfront? It was always meant to be retained for re-use and that suddenly changed in December last year.

Let’s be the vision-free laughing stock of the grown-up harbour cities all round the world, including Sydney, Freo and Hobart who’ve proved that adaptive re-use and progress as mutually inclusive, a win-win.

[ChillyPhilly]

Bowden is a good current local example of reusing buildings.

Shed 26 is now a missed opportunity. The development, for its own sake, has lost a unique marketing point.

[Patrick_27]

Bowden is a good current local example of reusing buildings.

Shed 26 is now a missed opportunity. The development, for its own sake, has lost a unique marketing point.

Apparently buildings made predominately out of metal don't hold as much historic merit as those made from bricks and mortar.

[rogue]

Yeah, metal and asbestos.

[JAKJ]

Yeah, metal and asbestos.

Can fix asbestos. Newport quays and now "dock one" both look like generic suburban density projects which will age terribly and our children will curse us for destroying the Port Heritage and building such crap, much as we lament the generations before us for ripping down the exhibition centre to build the Ligertwood building, the SA Hotel for the Stamford or many buildings of character for multi story car parks (this all to common practice is the most unforgivable).

If we were getting a spectacular architecturally designed public facility that paid homage to the Port and its' history, then sure - make the argument. We aren't however, we are getting generic vomit inducing townhouses crammed in as tight as possible using the same dull shitty designs that they use in lights view or whatever suburban future-ghetto they seem to be rolling out in abandon around Adelaide.

[rogue]

Im not sure a sawtooth shed is in the same league as your suggestions, but ok, whatever floats your boat.

Keep the shed or demolish it. I dont care. For me, it has no significant impact on the Port other than potentially blocking development of a site that has looked like the same desolate wasteland for over 30 years (88 OConnell St comes to mind). And yes, a little more design creativity wouldnt go astray.

Who should pay for remediation and refurbishment, do you suggest the taxpayer or people buying into the new development?

And dont think that Adelaide is special, the same shitty suburban future ghettos are happening all across this fine country

[Honey of a City]

Im not sure a sawtooth shed is in the same league as your suggestions, but ok, whatever floats your boat.

Keep the shed or demolish it. I dont care. For me, it has no significant impact on the Port other than potentially blocking development of a site that has looked like the same desolate wasteland for over 30 years (88 OConnell St comes to mind). And yes, a little more design creativity wouldnt go astray.

Who should pay for remediation and refurbishment, do you suggest the taxpayer or people buying into the new development?

And dont think that Adelaide is special, the same shitty suburban future ghettos are happening all across this fine country

Who paid for Plant 4? Who paid for Tonsley? Who paid for the Hobart Docks, Wooloomooloo Dock, Walsh Bay? Private enterprise and governments who respected heritage and had the vision to retain and adapt built symbols of our commercial, working and social history. Fast forward to current and recent SA Governments and a WA-based developer, whose joint so-called “public interest” is in making or saving a quick buck, and we’re all the poorer. And actually Adelaide is special, especially the Port, and could be even more so, but is in danger of slipping into the sludge of mediocrity if the prevailing attitudes refuse to grow up.

[rogue]

Or maybe we could remain in the same state of procrastination due to a debate over a shed.

Central Port Adelaide character remains. These sections of Glanville and Birkenhead remain fenced off and uninspiring.

What happens when residential development ultimately drives out Adelaide Brighton Cement? Do we protest again to save the leftover monstrosity because it has been an integral part of "The Port" since 1882?

[Honey of a City]

The branded fenced off sections around Fletcher’s Slip are almost all pre-sold according to the developer. And pre-sold with Shed 26 in situ and no concept plans announced for its replacement. The argument put by the Minister that the whole development is jeopardised by the adaptive redevelopment of the Shed 26 site is very hard to understand, given that purchasers will have lodged deposits and been given an indicative completion date. Re the cement works - the site wasn’t offloaded to them by the government for $2.00, it’s a successfully functioning industry and has announced it has no plans whatsoever for closing down or relocating. Also the centre of the Port is the inner harbour. That’s the whole point. Its waterside built heritage has been almost completely obliterated, and here’s one of the last opportunities to acknowledge that heritage and develop a unique symbol of continuity for the locals and an attraction for tourism.

[rogue]

This whole thing reminds me of an argument happening in many households:

And old piece of clothing sits in the wardrobe doing nothing for "x" amount of years because the owner either refuses to throw out or believes that it will come back into fashion.

The partner is cleaning out the wardrobe, comes across said article and confronts the owner about what to do next. Owner insists on keep clothing only to return in another 10 years to find the same piece, in the same place and with only moths getting any joy from it.

Keep fighting the fight JAKJ and HoaC. Hopefully in another 10 years we can all be enjoying the built form of this area, whatever that looks like (with or without shed).

[Honey of a City]

This whole thing reminds me of an argument happening in many households:

And old piece of clothing sits in the wardrobe doing nothing for "x" amount of years because the owner either refuses to throw out or believes that it will come back into fashion.

The partner is cleaning out the wardrobe, comes across said article and confronts the owner about what to do next. Owner insists on keep clothing only to return in another 10 years to find the same piece, in the same place and with only moths getting any joy from it.

Keep fighting the fight JAKJ and HoaC. Hopefully in another 10 years we can all be enjoying the built form of this area, whatever that looks like (with or without shed).

Cute analogy Rogue, but what an individual decides to do with their favourite old sweater isn’t of much consequence to future generations. It’s sad that the world-wide practice of adaptive re-use is such an alien concept to lazy governments and muscle-flexing developers and property councils. But as you say, the fight will go on. Come on down to the Port and enjoy it in 10 years by all means. Hopefully by then it won’t be re-named Westlakes 2.0, or more fittingly, Porpoise Spit. And if you look carefully between the townhouses you might even see the heritage icon Deidre Chambers.

[Patrick_27]

Rogue, do you mean to come across as condescending in your pov?

[rev]

lol, derelict tin sheds full of asbestos now count as heritage.

This whole argument revolves around keeping something old around for the sake of keeping it around because we've lost actual old buildings or structures that were worthy of being kept because of their architectural merit, and since this pile of crap full of hazardous materials doesn't represent any architectural merit, the focus is shifted to "oh it used to be used for local industry once".

Should we keep the abandoned industrial site at Kilkeny next to the train line and turn that into a tourist attraction too? Same logic/argument.


The Port could have been so much more, a real attraction and draw card for locals and tourists alike. But nope, you wanted suburbia. Now you're getting it.

[Honey of a City]

lol, derelict tin sheds full of asbestos now count as heritage.

This whole argument revolves around keeping something old around for the sake of keeping it around because we've lost actual old buildings or structures that were worthy of being kept because of their architectural merit, and since this pile of crap full of hazardous materials doesn't represent any architectural merit, the focus is shifted to "oh it used to be used for local industry once".

Should we keep the abandoned industrial site at Kilkeny next to the train line and turn that into a tourist attraction too? Same logic/argument.


The Port could have been so much more, a real attraction and draw card for locals and tourists alike. But nope, you wanted suburbia. Now you're getting it.

The whole argument is nothing of the sort. Architectural merit is only one of the seven categories which are used to list for the Heritage Register. If anyone would like to comment from a knowledge base rather than their own aesthetic they might go to the SA Heritage Council site and become informed of the heritage assessment process. Sadly though the Government, pressured by the developer and developer lobbyists are gung ho for the suburbia you lament Rev, and we’re all the poorer for it. Nobody, that is, nobody is advocating for the ‘pile of crap’ to be retained as is, but instead for the form to be retained and a development built within and around it which is of benefit to locals and a magnet for visitors. Instead we’re likely be getting a few ticky tacky dwellings on its footprint. Yes the Port could have been so much more, but this heritage-bashing precedent by our government in favour of ‘public interest’ (code for quick $) has the potential to obliterate the remaining symbols of this once proud gateway to our city and its prosperity.