News & Discussion: Adelaide City Council

[Will]

It is great that the ACC welcomes international students. Maybe this should be passed on to Councillor Wilkinson who appeared on TV last week saying that he would oppose further student apartments in the city because he thinks they will become slums in the future.

Oh god... he didn't, did he? Here we have all three universities being swapped by a tsunami of new applications, and the benevolent Councilor Wilkinson tells them all to take their money and go to Sydney.

Broad sweeping statements shot from the hip like that do nothing to shake of Adelaide's backwards, anti-development image.

Yes it's sad isn't it? He was interviewed as part of a newstory done on Ten news last week reporting the record numbers of international arrivals.

[rhino]

As part of its agreement to leave the former racecourse, the South Australian Jockey Club (SAJC) agreed to pay for the demolition of the non-heritage grandstand, stables and the jockey and stewards rooms as well as the removal of track railings and judges tower

As you may know, Adelaide is stuggling to keep the Adelaide International Horse Trial (3-day event) because of a lack of sponsorship this year. This is one of only 6 Olympic-level horse trials in the world. One new problem they have is stabling. I was listenning to Gillian Rolton on the radio yesterday, and she mentioned that, while they used to use the old stables at Victoria Park, and get a return which helped to fund the event, they now have to hire temporary stables from interstate, so a money earner has become an additional cost. I have no idea about the standard or the quality of these old stables, but if they were good enough to be used for a competition of this standard last year, why are they being removed this year?

[david]

In defence of my colleague Sandy Wilkinson I must say that his (and my) concern is that we should not support the building of sub-standard accommodation for anyone, least of all students. Very small rooms, many without direct light and ventilation and others with nothing more that a view of another unit just a few metres away is not acceptable.

Multi-storied blocks of units need to have decent vertical transport systems, adequate open space and recreation areas clothed in architecture of a high standard. Surely anything less should have no place in a modern and progressive Adelaide. We want and need development but not at the price of good quality.

This is what I believe Cr Wilkinson was concerned about - it had nothing to do with the fact that the building was to house students.

David

[how_good_is_he]

The reason why this argument COMPLETELY falls apart is the councils own guidelines/policies!

The fact is larger apartments are required to have at least one if not two carparks each by council.

Therefore even if the developer wants to build bigger apartments he is forced to comply with this ridiculous requirement. So a development in the heart of the city where people can easily walk/ride/catch public transport is still tied to the car and the amount of carparks by COUNCIL.

So infact if a high rise site is limited in size it is almost forced to become student accom./hotel etc because of the council.

Or do you expect a developer to go down some 10-stories with carparking [which is economically unfeasible] so the development complies?

The developers are infact FORCED to make the apartments smaller and go down the path of student accommodation because THIS DOESNT REQUIRE CARPARKS AND THE APARTMENTS THEN ARE REQUIRED TO BE WELL UNDER THE NORMAL SQM SIZE to get council approval!

[AtD]

how_good_is_he - I have heard something similar before. Do you have any figures? I'm reasonably sure that there is a car park requirement for apartments (x parks per dwelling?) unless they're student apartments. I would say it'd be to stop residents leaving their cars on the street and taking parks away from visitors, something I can understand. However it does have the rather grave consequence as you stated. Sites such as 199 North Tce therefore have no choice but to be student apartments.

That being said, 199 North Terrace was a stunning design and it still was rejected.

[david]

As a member of the DAP I am constrianed from commenting on 199 North Terrace because it is still a current (deferred, not refused) DA.
However, in my time on the DAP quite a few developments for student accommodation which were of a very high standard have been approved - it can be done!

David

[AtD]

Fair enough. Thank you for your insights David.

[how_good_is_he]

David can you explain the reasoning [or your opinion] why one carpark is still a requirement for every apartment over 60 or 80 sqm [very small] and two carparks for all apartments over 120 sqm?

Why cant developments for larger apartments be allowed without these onerous carpark demands?

If the council wants to promote an environmentally friendly city etc shouldnt the ownership of a car be more frowned upon? Can you see the hypocrisy that sites which cant provide enough carparks are then forced to be designed towards small student accom. apartments and not because the developer neccessarily wants to but because of council policy?

So to Sandy, David and Co - have you ever thought you only have yourselves to blame for this?

[david]

David can you explain the reasoning [or your opinion] why one carpark is still a requirement for every apartment over 60 or 80 sqm [very small] and two carparks for all apartments over 120 sqm?

I have to say that you make a good point which I will have to think about and discuss with my colleagues. Incidentally Sandy and I "inherited" the current 2006 Development Plan and there are many aspects that I would like to see changed but alas that is not an easy process as I am sure you know.

Just to throw some light on the subject I will attach a part of the DP Table Adel2 which deals with parking space provisions; your figures were pretty close to the mark.[attachment=0]parking0148.JPG[/attachment]

David

[david]

Thank you Clr Plumridge,

I'm interested by your comments regarding Victoria Square - that great works of urban design are not built by popular opinion or committee, and that we need to "pay high regard to the skills of the designers we have chosen".

Queen Anne,

I apologise for using the royal WE but as a councillor it fell to my lot to be part of the group that had to make the choice.

Whilst I agree that the Community Ideas competition was of limited use, nonetheless those ideas helped us to formulate some high-level principles to create the brief and to guide those who registered to be the design team. We have an excellent team of professionals drawn from a wide range of disciplines and their work will be subject to critique by a panel of eminent persons, independent of the elected Council.

When their masterplan is complete it will be presented to Council for endorsement and will then be widely promoted for public consultation for 4 weeks (we hope in August) after which it will be reviewed in the light of the submissions and a final plan prepared.

I stick by my view that we have to let the designers work their creative magic without intervention by the likes of you and me. Just as a brain surgeon doesn't operate on advice from a committee of the patient's relatives so the architects and planners should be allowed to deploy their skills and produce a design for Victoria Square as they see fit; judgement comes at the end of the process.

David

[david]

At a Council meeting on Thursday night I successfully moved that Council should waive all of its fees
associated with DAs for solar installations on residential properties and for conservation works on heritage-listed residential properties.

At the same meeting it was also agreed to drop altogether, or substantially reduce, a range of other charges to business premises including A-frame signs and food inspections and bonds for outdoor dining tables.

David

[Queen Anne]

I stick by my view that we have to let the designers work their creative magic without intervention by the likes of you and me. Just as a brain surgeon doesn't operate on advice from a committee of the patient's relatives so the architects and planners should be allowed to deploy their skills and produce a design for Victoria Square as they see fit; judgement comes at the end of the process.

Thanks for your reply, Councillor, but I think that the above sentiments mean that I haven't explained my concerns clearly enough.

The design team should have better parameters to work within than the ones in the "Guiding Principles". That document contains some fine ideals, but they are nebulous. For example, it says that the square "will [become] a more recognisable place within the City of Adelaide and a major tourist destination within Australia" (p 13), and that it "will achieve a high quality and exemplary urban design outcome" (p 15). These could be describing any square in the world ..

So with this conventional way of working, the designers are expected to come up with something for the square; they present it to us all when they're almost finished; we look at it and say "well, it's not quite what I had in mind"..

By contrast, Bryant Park in NYC (the first photo in the Guiding Principles, on page 10) was made in a vastly different way. That very successful public space is the result of analysis done by William Whyte and Project for Public Spaces in 1981. They took the time to study the space, to find out what was not working, to talk to real people. Before the design, came a problem solving, vision-making process.

Bryant Park had a history of failed redesigns before Whyte and PPS stepped in with their new approach. History might be telling us that relying on design alone is not likely to deliver us a square as successful as Bryant Park. And yet, this park is featured in the Guiding Principles wishlist

Other Australian cities have cottoned on to the success of the PPS approach. I spoke to Ethan Kent of PPS last year and he told me he was going to Australia in early '09 to provide training in Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Melbourne and the Sunshine Coast. Adelaide is notable on this list by its absence.

Thanks again for taking the time,
Caroline

EDIT - Just thought I should clarify that I "spoke" to Ethan Kent via email.

[cruel_world00]

I don't mean to speak ill of the ACC but that seems kind of disgraceful that they aren't taking the time to investigate the PPS. So the PPS are coming to Australia yet we can't find the time to meet with them?? Maybe the ACC is taking the 'we don't want to be like everyone else approach'

But seriously, is there any reason for our omission?

[david]

I don't mean to speak ill of the ACC but that seems kind of disgraceful that they aren't taking the time to investigate the PPS. So the PPS are coming to Australia yet we can't find the time to meet with them?? Maybe the ACC is taking the 'we don't want to be like everyone else approach'

But seriously, is there any reason for our omission?

Hi Cruel World,

I must admit that I had scant knowledge of the good work that PPS do. I an sure that had we known they were in Australia we would have tried to get them across to Adelaide. I'm sorry about that.

I keep a regular eye on the stuff being put out by CABE in the UK relative to the public realm and other design issues.

ACC staff have been talking to David Sim of Jan Gehl's office and I am hoping that I might be able to persuade my council colleagues to bring Gehl back to review his report of 2002 which has largely gathrered dust on a Town Hall bookshelf, at least until the present Council was elected in 2007.

I have managed to put $200k on the draft Busines Plan and Budget for 'Gehl Initiatives' - lets hope it survives the final budget process on 15 June.

If you want to look at the Gehl Report it can now be found on the ACC website at <http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/adcc ... c_life.pdf>

David

[Omicron]

You are most welcome, Councillor, to place $200k in my account if you are in need of directions towards which to allocate funds.