Sensational-Adelaide.com

SBD wrote:

Dog wrote:I really don't know what naysayers expect, the development is basically a new surface, which by all accounts being granite will be far more serviceable than the old pavers and a fix of the potential drainage problem. Looks good to me and the new layout means that users now use the whole surface rather than the strip down both sides. The shop front Architecture and lack of after hours cafés is another matter.

The "new surface" at the western end appears to already have patches of asphalt where people dug holes in the new pavers and then did a cheap patch job instead of putting them back. Have I missed something? It looks more like it's due to be replaced soon than only just finished an upgrade.

Just throwing it out there.

But wouldn't you let them finish the job before nit picking like that?

I mean seriously

SBD wrote:The "new surface" at the western end appears to already have patches of asphalt where people dug holes in the new pavers and then did a cheap patch job instead of putting them back. Have I missed something? It looks more like it's due to be replaced soon than only just finished an upgrade.

You missed something. It's not finished. The asphalt patches are where camouflaged service covers will be placed.

Re: the removal of the last established trees in Rundle Mall, it's interesting how fiction when repeated often enough becomes "fact". The ficus tree outside Dymocks removed a few days ago has been widely reported as "40 years old"- that would mean the tree was standing there, in middle of traffic-fumed Rundle Street when it was a car thoroughfare, in 1974! In actual fact, the ficus tree (along with almost every other tree removed from the mall) was planted during the 1995-6 mall upgrade. The ficus did indeed provide a lot of shade, but it has also grown haphazardly, interrupting the pavement underneath and blocking the sightlines across the mall. The newly planted elms once mature will provide a much more consistent "tree-corridor" which will line up nicely with Rundle and Hindley Streets.

Joelmark wrote:Re: the removal of the last established trees in Rundle Mall, it's interesting how fiction when repeated often enough becomes "fact". The ficus tree outside Dymocks removed a few days ago has been widely reported as "40 years old"- that would mean the tree was standing there, in middle of traffic-fumed Rundle Street when it was a car thoroughfare, in 1974! In actual fact, the ficus tree (along with almost every other tree removed from the mall) was planted during the 1995-6 mall upgrade. The ficus did indeed provide a lot of shade, but it has also grown haphazardly, interrupting the pavement underneath and blocking the sightlines across the mall. The newly planted elms once mature will provide a much more consistent "tree-corridor" which will line up nicely with Rundle and Hindley Streets.

But... but... but... the council hates trees!

I love how it's become a conspiracy theory now that the council paid off an "arborist" to give them the report they wanted. Like Yarwood & co were sitting around the council chambers going "This tree in the mall is really popular, but we hate it, so how can we get rid of it? Oh, I know, let's do a multi-million dollar revamp of the mall, re-do all the underground services and make up some story about the roots being in the way. That'll totally be worth it"

Joelmark wrote:Re: the removal of the last established trees in Rundle Mall, it's interesting how fiction when repeated often enough becomes "fact". The ficus tree outside Dymocks removed a few days ago has been widely reported as "40 years old"- that would mean the tree was standing there, in middle of traffic-fumed Rundle Street when it was a car thoroughfare, in 1974! In actual fact, the ficus tree (along with almost every other tree removed from the mall) was planted during the 1995-6 mall upgrade. The ficus did indeed provide a lot of shade, but it has also grown haphazardly, interrupting the pavement underneath and blocking the sightlines across the mall. The newly planted elms once mature will provide a much more consistent "tree-corridor" which will line up nicely with Rundle and Hindley Streets.

I thought those trees had only been there since the last mall refurb. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so!

Nathan wrote:

Joelmark wrote:Re: the removal of the last established trees in Rundle Mall, it's interesting how fiction when repeated often enough becomes "fact". The ficus tree outside Dymocks removed a few days ago has been widely reported as "40 years old"- that would mean the tree was standing there, in middle of traffic-fumed Rundle Street when it was a car thoroughfare, in 1974! In actual fact, the ficus tree (along with almost every other tree removed from the mall) was planted during the 1995-6 mall upgrade. The ficus did indeed provide a lot of shade, but it has also grown haphazardly, interrupting the pavement underneath and blocking the sightlines across the mall. The newly planted elms once mature will provide a much more consistent "tree-corridor" which will line up nicely with Rundle and Hindley Streets.

But... but... but... the council hates trees!

I love how it's become a conspiracy theory now that the council paid off an "arborist" to give them the report they wanted. Like Yarwood & co were sitting around the council chambers going "This tree in the mall is really popular, but we hate it, so how can we get rid of it? Oh, I know, let's do a multi-million dollar revamp of the mall, re-do all the underground services and make up some story about the roots being in the way. That'll totally be worth it"

Lol!

pushbutton wrote:

[Shuz] wrote:I'm not sure if you're serious?

If you mean me, then yes of course I'm serious.

I have to agree with pushbutton. The Adelaide Airport forecourt surface is visually appealing and something a bit different to what we have seen in other paving jobs in recent years (North Terrace, Rundle Street, Rundle Mall and the Footbridge come to mind).
I'm not sure if this would have been entirely appropriate for Rundle Mall, but paving can actually become an attraction in itself...just look at Burle Marx's Copacabana promenade in Rio. Absolutely iconic.
I can see that a lot of thought did go into the paving of Rundle Mall, but I think they missed the mark with its execution.

I'm just glad the council didn't go on with their stupid native crusade and plant Eucalyptus Trees. IMO, those trees are not fit for the city nor the suburbs.

Eucalyptus trees would not have worked in the tight confines of the mall for numerous reasons, including adherence to a main chunk of the design ethos envisioned by the architect.... as to the idea that they do not belong else where in the city and the suburbs...?!?! They would've worked an absolute treat in Victoria Square.

Joelmark wrote:Re: the removal of the last established trees in Rundle Mall, it's interesting how fiction when repeated often enough becomes "fact". The ficus tree outside Dymocks removed a few days ago has been widely reported as "40 years old"- that would mean the tree was standing there, in middle of traffic-fumed Rundle Street when it was a car thoroughfare, in 1974!

No, it means it was standing somewhere in 1974. Trees can be moved.

Aidan wrote:

Joelmark wrote:Re: the removal of the last established trees in Rundle Mall, it's interesting how fiction when repeated often enough becomes "fact". The ficus tree outside Dymocks removed a few days ago has been widely reported as "40 years old"- that would mean the tree was standing there, in middle of traffic-fumed Rundle Street when it was a car thoroughfare, in 1974!

No, it means it was standing somewhere in 1974. Trees can be moved.

Stop trolling. What are the odds that they'd move an established tree into mall when it first opened.barely established.

Chalk up another Advertiser/Sunday Mail opinion piece against the mall redevelopment. I'm not even going to bother linking to it.
How many are we up to now?

Nathan wrote:Chalk up another Advertiser/Sunday Mail opinion piece against the mall redevelopment. I'm not even going to bother linking to it.
How many are we up to now?

What the hell could their motivation be? They are way past the quantity of articles pointing this out should be (less than one).

obituary resider wrote:Eucalyptus trees would not have worked in the tight confines of the mall for numerous reasons, including adherence to a main chunk of the design ethos envisioned by the architect.... as to the idea that they do not belong else where in the city and the suburbs...?!?! They would've worked an absolute treat in Victoria Square.

They did use them in Victoria Square, remember the big uproar? People, including members of the council, were complaining that Eucalyptus was not an ideal choice because they shed limbs and branches easily, causing mess and becoming a safety hazard. It's true they shouldn't be planted anywhere in a city. They are bush trees and they don't call them 'widow makers' for nothing.

Good progress being made but still lots of bitumen patches everywhere and no sight of the promised lighting