[APP] Former LeCornu Redevelopment | Mixed Use

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Message
Author
stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

[APP]

#16 Post by stumpjumper » Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:47 pm

The Makris group has removed a planting of young plane trees from the O'Connell St frontage of its development site.

Doing so allegedly breaks a 'gentleman's agreement' between Makris and the Adelaide City Council under which the trees would remain until develolpment began on the site.

Makris has said that the reason for removing the trees is to allow parking and storage for the redeveopment of its North Adelaide Village shops over the road.

Removal of the trees also makes the site look even more of an eyesore than it already was, and may help the groups case during the pre-application consultation process now going on.

It could be said that since there is no access to the site across the boundary where the trees were planted, that removal of the trees is not a necessary step in providing for the redevelopment of the North Adelaide Village shopping centre.

shuzstar
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: Adelaide, Australia

[APP]

#17 Post by shuzstar » Sun Aug 21, 2005 3:40 pm

i give full support for this project as it will prove to be a great addition to north adelaides skyline. will this be the tallest in N.A? or is the brougham taller?
- Sensational Glenelg - The City By The Beach.

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

[APP]

#18 Post by stumpjumper » Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:46 am

Shuzstar, before giving your full support to the Makris project as Makris would like to build it, there are a few issues to contend with.

Unlike the Glenelg development, the Makris site is closely surrounded by residential and small commercial uses.

'Option 3', the full development as envisaged by Makris, may not impact much on the small businesses, but its impact on the local residents will be large. Here are some: parking (despite the onsite parking - add up the spaces needed by the 1000 seat auditorium, shopping centre, cinemas, apartments, hotel, patrons, staff); traffic volumes and types (deliveries to the businesses, garbage pickups, much of which will use narrow Centenary St. The traffic impact is still being assessed by Transport SA and council); noise levels (human, machinery and heavy vehicles); shading etc.

The results of the recent survey are in - 90% of 700 respondents are for Option 1 - development within the current Development Act constraints, ie 3 storey.

Remember that at the price Markis paid, an appropriate profit can be made with a 3 level, mixed residential and retail development.

And also consider simple demand: is there demand for new cinemas, an auditorium, more shops and a supermarket in North Adelaide? Cinemas are dropping their prices, North Adelaide has ample supermarket space as it is, and we have a lot of hotel accommodation in this town.

There are a lot of factors to be considered in assessing this proposal - don't overlook important ones.

User avatar
Pants
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1253
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Back Home
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 26 times

[APP]

#19 Post by Pants » Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:41 pm

The supermarkets, cinemas and auditorium, North Adelaide can clearly do without, but it would be a shame if the Hotel proposal never eventuated, because it was of a kind that Adelaide has obviously not had before.

As to whether there would be demand for it is for Makris and the unlitmate operator to worry about, but solely from a point of view of such diverse development being good for the city, I would hate to see it axed in favour of an unremarkable 3 level residential complex.

User avatar
Algernon
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Moravia
Has thanked: 334 times
Been thanked: 151 times

[APP]

#20 Post by Algernon » Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:48 pm

One of my pet hates is sprawling low rise developments - not for the lack of height, but the lack of deversity along the streetscape. My initial reaction to this development was that it didn't do enough to break up the monotonous frontage, hence why i've been luke warm on the proposal. The Centenary St frontage is particularly uninspiring. It's nowhere near as bad as Holdfast Shores and Liberty Tower in this regard, but I still think North Adelaide deserves a little better.

Mind you, it beats an empty paddock. I'd sure hope though that a development doesn't get up purely because it's better than nothing. We should set the bar a little higher than that.

User avatar
Howie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4792
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 41 times

[APP]

#21 Post by Howie » Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:51 pm

In the City Messenger today

Image

User avatar
Pikey
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Sitting Down
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 344 times

[APP]

#22 Post by Pikey » Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:44 pm

^ :roll:
Walking on over....

| Sensational-Adelaide.com Moderator |

User avatar
Howie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4792
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 41 times

[APP]

#23 Post by Howie » Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:48 pm

Yes, poor andy :roll:

User avatar
Pikey
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Sitting Down
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 344 times

[APP]

#24 Post by Pikey » Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:12 pm

All I can say is that NASA must be thrilling the tits off of him if he has time to whinge about this.
Walking on over....

| Sensational-Adelaide.com Moderator |

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

[APP]

#25 Post by stumpjumper » Thu Aug 25, 2005 8:38 pm

Pants wrote:The supermarkets, cinemas and auditorium, North Adelaide can clearly do without, but it would be a shame if the Hotel proposal never eventuated, because it was of a kind that Adelaide has obviously not had before.

As to whether there would be demand for it is for Makris and the unlitmate operator to worry about, but solely from a point of view of such diverse development being good for the city, I would hate to see it axed in favour of an unremarkable 3 level residential complex.
As the proposal 'matures' through the approval process, we may indeed find that the supermarket, the cinemas and the auditorium are dispensed with (see 'sacrificial elements' above) and the proposal may morph into a hotel/rental apartment/residential development.

If that is the scenario, then I agree that an 'unremarkable 3 level residential complex' should be avoided.

The Garden East development in the city's east end was a lost opportunity to create something remarkable, perhaps on the lines of the Vienna apartments by the artsit/architect Hundertwasser, which grew from a situation very similar to the old fruit and vegetable markets in Adelaide's east end. Try googling Hundertwasser Vienna

The Vienna development attracts around a million visitors per year - not bad for a housing development.

Let's hope we can have something as exciting, without blighting the suburb.

User avatar
AG
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:44 am
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 20 times

[APP]

#26 Post by AG » Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:47 pm

Minus the towers, the largest proposal actually looks and has a rather similar style to Chevron Renaissance on the Gold Coast, minus some of the tacky look.

I was lucky to stay at Tacky Central when I was up there late last year:
Image

Image

If it was only a residential site, it would be an absolute waste of benefit to other residents of North Adelaide. This has to involve some form of retail, like Chevron Renaissance has.

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

[APP]

#27 Post by stumpjumper » Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:36 pm

There would definitely have to be retail on O'Connell St. There are around a dozen empty shops in O'C St at present. Perhaps parking is the problem. What about a big carpark hidden behind a facade of shops? :?

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

[APP]

#28 Post by AtD » Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:40 pm

Wouldn't the fact that there are already empty shops be a reason not to build more? But yes, I can see the reason why you would want retail at least on the ground floor street frontage.

User avatar
Al
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: Wild Wild West
Been thanked: 1 time

[APP]

#29 Post by Al » Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:32 pm

Not looking good.... (from today's Advertiser)


North Adelaide site faces same old story
10oct05

ADELAIDE's most blighted development site could be vacant for another generation if the city council throws out changes to planning laws.

Tonight, Adelaide City Council will consider limiting maximum heights on O'Connell St to five storeys - two higher than currently allowed.

The new proposal replaces earlier guidelines that could have allowed maximum heights of seven storeys.

Ken Cooney, the general manager of Makris Group, which owns the former Le Cornu site in North Adelaide, said the development would not work under the proposed rules.

Makris Group plans seven-storey apartments, a hotel, cinema complex and shops, plus underground car parking.

Adelarch
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:34 pm
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 75 times

[APP]

#30 Post by Adelarch » Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:15 pm

Yup...


Adelaide retains building height cap
from abc.net.au

Adelaide City Council has unanimously voted to retain its development plan which limits to three, the number of storeys allowed for buildings in North Adelaide.

Council had been considering increasing the number of storeys to five or even seven after a proposal put forward by the Makris Group.

The company wanted to build seven storey apartments, a hotel, cinema complex and shops on the former Le Cornu site in O'Connell Street.

Councillor Sue Clearihan says it was decided the status quo should remain.

"The feedback from the community consultation and the consultants indicated that the character of North Adelaide needed to be protected, that any development needed to be sensitive to the existing streetscape character and also the impacts of the amenity of nearby residential areas," she said.

The council says it is not worried that a failure to amend its development plans could further stall redevelopment of the former Le Cornu site.

"The developer knew the planning policies when they bought the site and basically there had been no change to those planning policies and the rules," Cr Clearihan said.

The general manager of the Makris Group, Ken Cooney, says it has been a long and frustrating process trying to get approval to build on the former Le Cornu site in North Adelaide.

Mr Cooney says the proposal was designed to adapt to the council's draft planning amendment report.

He says a seven storey complex was the most economically viable option for the $100 million project.

"The council knocked it back because they've said three storeys is all we can do. Now previous developers have had three storey approvals and what's happened nothing, it's been vacant for 15 years," he said.

"We can't make it work with three storeys. So council if they want to hold out for three storeys it's just going to remain vacant."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mpol03 and 9 guests