SWP: Former LeCornu Redevelopment | 20m | 6lvls | Mixed Use

[Ben]

I look forward to the day when I return to this thread and the content is actually relating to the development at this location and not a political debate.

[bmw boy]

stumpjumper:

The 'iconic site' argument is being pushed by Makris and by politicians to justify the decision.

What makes a site 'iconic'?

Whatever this iconic debate is about... this site should be developed with something that isn't boring, it is the only vacant peice of land in the cbd/north adelaide with such size (excluding the parklands). Why waste the location which is 2 mins drive from the cbd on a somethign thats a boring uninspiring ordinary developement.

Considering that the developer (in the Le Cornu case) has simultaneously picked up around $10,000,000 in the value of his asset, should the priovate adjacent opwner be compensated, and if so by whom? Markis is only a beneficiary of the changeable planning system which has altered teh values of the various pieces of land.

are you saying that property's around the area will decrease in value when the upmarket proposal is finished, than if it still remains an ugly lot of dirt, surrounded by ugly fencing???

So, should the govt be listening to the developer, or to the public? What rights does owning the land give Makris over a mere landless citizen? And what if the citizen owns an adjacent house?

correct me if i am wrong, but didnt the opinion polls and public response to the latest proposal suggest the vast majority of people were actually for this developement??

just had a look at the Adelaide Now website and the public opinion letters and emails which are displayed, show 13 extatcic individuals and a meer 2 who oppose thier views.

the following poll on the page, also suggests this notion....


"Do you approve of the new Le Cornu site design?

Yes 82% (10162 votes)
No 0% (50 votes)
Don't care 16% (2036 votes)
Total votes Total of 12248 votes "

.... as u can see theres sumthng wrong with the % there, but the votes say it all..... 10,162 vs 50 ..... speaks for itself

[how_good_is_he]

Well said bmw boy.....

stumpjumper THEN THE CONVERSE SHOULD ALSO BE TRUE and the neighbouring residents SHOULD SEND MONEY to Planning SA or Makris when their properties go up in value after this development .... as most sane people would expect it to.

Stumpjumper, can you let us know a major development that has REDUCED the prices of surrounding properties?

There are few [if any] remaining un-developed sites of this size and location that have the same potential to build something special.

Further can you logically explain how this site can go from a nine storey approved development 20 years ago to a three storey zone today...is this progress?

[urban]

Was demolition of the exhibition building for a carpark progress?

Was demolition of Hotel Adelaide for the Hungry Jacks carpark progress?

The planning process is still a democratic process but in this instance that process was not followed. Neighbouring properties would have benefited more from a 3-4 storey development than from a 6 or 9 storey development. Remember North Adelaide is intended as a low to medium density counterpoint to South Adelaide.

The lack of process is more of a concern in Victor Harbor where developers working to the current PAR are going to be left with unfeasible projects due to the Makris proposal.

Changes to planning rules should be made by the PAR process not by political donations.

[stumpjumper]

beamer85 and bmw boy, you make me feel like an old fogey, which I'm not, and thanks urban, we need due process in real property development jsut as we need due process in banking and taxation etc.

Hotel Adelaide demolished for Hungry Jack's? Where was that.

As to developments diminishing the value of adjacent properties, I'd point you to places like Cator St, Glenside. Proximity to the traffic points of Burnside Village affect value there.

While some of the comments on this thread aren't specific to 88 O'Connell St, they are still important in getting people to think rationally about their position. Isn't that what many of you guys are begging the nimbies etc to do anyway?

I reckon I've said all I want to on this thread, but I'd like to leave a thought or two -

2. That a high degree of certainty in development legislation is good, and fairest, for everyone.

3. The mechanism of change for zoning should start with planners (the assumption is that they know what they're doing) either in response to community demand or as part of an ongoing master plan (as in zoning grading from Rural to Rural Living to Township blocks at the metropolitan fringes). Politicians reacting in response to pressure from either powerful developers or from narrowly based but noisy residential pressure groups are not likely to make good planning policy.

[bmw boy]

hahah, not having a go at you stumpjumper, i just dont agree with you on some points. Some issues you raise are valid, although with some of them i beg to differ... such as the public approval.

This proposal is 6 story's at it's highest and not 9 stories, i think if it got to that levle then yes maybe properties dircetly next to the developement may feel some negative impacts.

[urban]

Apologies Grand Central Hotel not Hotel Adelaide cnr Rundle St and Pulteney St.

See Adelaides Greatest Losses

http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... 47&start=0

[Ho Really]

Your theory that most Greeks vote Labor all the time, is bogus. Here is an example. The federal seat of Hindmarsh. A Labor MP, Greek background, contested that seat three elections in a row, before he won it. And Hindmarsh has a large Greek population. If your theory had any substance, he would have won it on the first attempt.

Still doesn't mean the majority of Greeks didn't vote for him in the first two elections. And why would he candidate himself three times? Maybe the best way to find out is to query him. He would have a fair idea of how his community votes.

Getting back on topic. Did anyone read the recent Advertiser ‘Heritage Matters’ article written by Tim Lloyd?

Cheers

[bmw boy]

earlier on in this thread there was speculation abou whether Makris is SA's richest man... last night on the news about BRW rich list, it confrimed Makris is with about $883 Million i believe.

Also saw in the city cross food court today, he has put up large renders of the Le Cornu site on some of the walls (the same ones posted in this thread).

[bmw boy]

I thought you worked for the DTEI chapsman?

not sure if this is correct, but from what i've gathered, doesn't it just mean instead of the council scrutinising the proposal, the government now has this job

[Brando]

I work for the Land Services Group

According to the Golden Grove development thread mate he's not at DTEI.

[bmw boy]

lol thnks brando, I'm getting confused with someone else on here... but i rembered he worked somewhere in the industry

[Will]

I thought you worked for the DTEI chapsman?

not sure if this is correct, but from what i've gathered, doesn't it just mean instead of the council scrutinising the proposal, the government now has this job

Yes that is essentially correct. The big difference is that the state government is less disposed to being influenced by vocal NIMBY groups that the local council. This means that the proposal can be judged according to the positive economic benefits that it will create, instead of whether it will cast shadows over someones rose garden.

[bva]

do not quite agree
planners in the state govt will consider any overshadowing as a material consideration in deciding the merits of a planning application, however, where the big difference lies is that the decision making committee will be less swayed by objector's passion than local authority councillors - plus they know that the dev plan should be read as a whole and in general terms a single non-compliance does not automatically lead to refusal

[bmw boy]

sorry about the confusion chapsman

i just rembered someone on here who worked for the DTEI and had a pretty good insight into the developement scene and system and thought that was you, i mustve got mixed up because i remember you saying you worked somewhere like that.