Sensational-Adelaide.com

If there is any god news to come from this, is that the project will de assessed by the state governemnt DAC. As such the development has a higher chance of being approved, compared to if it was before the extreme nostalgic Holdfast Bay council.

Manson Towers is just hideous. The arguments that this new proposal will destroy local character doesn't wash with me at all when the complainants reside in one of the most underwhelming, out-of-place monstrosities in the area.

Its very apt that the building is called Manson Towers...after Charles Manson I assume.

If I had the choice of the Watermark twin towers and Latitude, I'd drop the latter.

Cheers

Ben wrote:College St clash

PROTEST GROUP: The Manson Towers resident's Association is opposed.

HOLDFAST Bay Council has sought specialist planning advice in its long-running battle to stop an historic Glenelg building being demolished for a 12-storey apartment complex.

I find it frustrating. We have a clear and obvious housing shortage. These people clearly want to force Rudd's 'working families' into living on the outskirts, an hour away from the city and at mercy of fuel prices.

The solution to the housing crises is to build more apartments. Increase supply, lower price. The DINKS move into the apartments, attracted by the lifestyle, selling their homes to working families.

The solution to our transport problems is to build more apartments. Higher density means more cost effective public transport and shorter distances between residents and the services and jobs they travel to every day.

These selfish agenda driven action groups need to realise that these urban problems are their fault.

AtD wrote:The solution to the housing crises is to build more apartments. Increase supply, lower price. The DINKS move into the apartments, attracted by the lifestyle, selling their homes to working families.

Not all apartments are necessarily going to be cheap. Many will be bought as investments and rented out at high prices.

The solution to our transport problems is to build more apartments. Higher density means more cost effective public transport and shorter distances between residents and the services and jobs they travel to every day.

That I agree.

These selfish agenda driven action groups need to realise that these urban problems are their fault.

I wouldn't say these people are selfish and it's not all their fault if we've got urban sprawl. Old people in general want respect. One day we'll be the same (if we ever get there), and we'd want the same. Urban has already explained the rest, see above.

Cheers

Ho Really wrote:

AtD wrote:The solution to the housing crises is to build more apartments. Increase supply, lower price. The DINKS move into the apartments, attracted by the lifestyle, selling their homes to working families.

Not all apartments are necessarily going to be cheap. Many will be bought as investments and rented out at high prices.

Regardless of the selling or renting price of the apartments, they will still increase dwelling supply; therefore ease upward pressure on prices.

AtD wrote:Regardless of the selling or renting price of the apartments, they will still increase dwelling supply; therefore ease upward pressure on prices.

In general yes, but we're talking about Urban Construct and Glenelg.

Cheers

people interstate would die to be able to buy apartments in places like glenelg for the prices they sell for.. You pay 500,000 for an apartment in the sticks in sydney (although probably close to a train station)

It's disheartening that some advocates of this proposal feel it appropriate to launch disgusting ad hominem on those who oppose it. Legitimacy comes from critiquing opponents on the merits of their argument, not of their age, presumed mental health or whatever other irrelevant circumstances you care to grab for in the absence of evidence.

SRW wrote:It's disheartening that some advocates of this proposal feel it appropriate to launch disgusting ad hominem on those who oppose it. Legitimacy comes from critiquing opponents on the merits of their argument, not of their age, presumed mental health or whatever other irrelevant circumstances you care to grab for in the absence of evidence.

Prejudice is the best form of argument!

Incidentally, the little break-out next to this story mentioned that despite the green claims for the Latitude development, there were no plans for double-glazed windows. Even ignoring the obvious energy consumption benefits, with all the recent complaints about drunken youthful riff-raff skipping merrily through Glenelg streets making all sorts of noise, you'd think this would be a very sensible idea - one that really ought to be included.

What does ad hominem mean. It always embarrased me reading uni text books, due to the amount of latin words in them and me thinking - what the hell does that word mean

Wikipedia is your friend:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Norman wrote:Wikipedia is your friend:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

A good definition, but for jk1237 two words would have sufficed: personal attacks.

Cheers

AtD wrote:I find it frustrating. We have a clear and obvious housing shortage. These people clearly want to force Rudd's 'working families' into living on the outskirts, an hour away from the city and at mercy of fuel prices.

The solution to the housing crises is to build more apartments. Increase supply, lower price. The DINKS move into the apartments, attracted by the lifestyle, selling their homes to working families.

The solution to our transport problems is to build more apartments. Higher density means more cost effective public transport and shorter distances between residents and the services and jobs they travel to every day.

These selfish agenda driven action groups need to realise that these urban problems are their fault.

I think you need to be a little bit more cautious when you say the solution. It isn't so much of an issue at Glenelg, but with the building of apartments around the place the infrastructure and services required to support a significant increase in the population should be in place before such a significant change takes place otherwise the areas would be plagued with new issues, notably increased traffic, and the game of catch up that we see all too often with infrastructure will occur.

There's also a lot of subdivision going on in the inner city areas that is increasing population density at a gradual rate as well as urban infill near the city at Northgate. Releasing more land on the outskirts is the easy way out of the housing shortage and the one that the current Rann Government seems to be using, but it is also the most costly option of the lot in the long run.