[REJ] Hackney Sanitarium Site Redevelopment

[Wayno]

Street View of Hackney Sanitarium Site

From news.com.au

HACKNEY residents say a development proposed for the Sanitarium site on Hackney Rd will turn the area into a “ghetto” and a “slum”.

A group of residents has come together to oppose a $6 million 42-home development on the block bordered by Hackney Rd, Cambridge St and Hatswell St, next to St Peter’s College.

Cambridge St resident Andrew Vander-Sluys, whose property neighbours the site, said the development would create a “concrete ghetto” that was only attractive for renters.

“It’s all concrete — the amount of green vegetation and green space is absolutely minimal,” Mr Vander-Sluys said. “It will be a heat sink, basically.”

Another neighbour, Ralph Bleechmore, said the local sewerage system would not cope with the extra houses and Cambridge St could not cope with the traffic.

St Peter’s College parents, students and teachers use the street to get to the school.

“It’s just greedy,” Mr Bleechmore said. “It’s a modern slum — they’re new slums.”

Cambridge St resident Chris Harding said construction on such a large project could damage houses on the street, some of which were more than 150 years old.

“The vibrations of heavier vehicles moving in and out would put an end to the workers’ cottages,” Mr Harding said.

Sanitarium produced Weet-Bix at the 8250sq m site until 2010 and it put it up for sale in 2013.

Medindie doctor Zachariasz Baran, through his business Anavic Pty Ltd, has signed a contract to buy the property for more than $7 million, according to Blackmore Property principal Mark Evans, who said the sale should settle in the next week or two.

Mr Evans said the development would be at the “upper echelon” of Adelaide’s real estate market.

Norwood, Payneham & St Peters Council has endorsed new zoning for Hackney which does not include a minimum land size for row houses or units but only allows one-storey houses on Cambridge St.

It has been submitted to the office of Planning Minister John Rau for approval but he has yet to sign off on it.

Under the existing plan, which the development will be assessed against, the minimum lot size in the area is 200sqm.

Only one of the plots for the proposed two-storey townhouses is larger than 200sqm.

The smallest unit would take up 110sqm, with most between 113 and 118 sqm.

Only four properties sold in Hackney last year — at an average of just over $1 million.

Dr Baran could not be contacted.

[Nathan]

I can't tell if this is real, or a parody of NIMBY's. Poe's Law?

[Waewick]

Seriously hate uninformed people and comments like slum and Ghetto, I bet they've never seen either of those two things in real life

Simply put those houses will go to well off people who want to live near the city.

[mshagg]

"Only attractive to renters"? I didnt realise we were so looked down upon by the mortgaged elite.

[phenom]

"Only attractive to renters"? I didnt realise we were so looked down upon by the mortgaged elite.

Haha... yeah there was something peculiarly offensive about the quotes of the locals in this article. That and just plain ridiculous.

As it is, I suspect the Australian obsession with looking down on 'scum' renters reflects an era when house prices (relative to income) meant that anyone with a decent income could easily buy and therefore only 'ghetto' (lol) types of people were renters. That's no longer the case but old attitudes, especially amongst the sorts of demographic represented in the quoted article, die very hard (and slowly). If they want the amenity of an empty (or in fact, disused factory) next door then they should have banded together and jointly purchased the land. Otherwise, they need to be quiet.

As far as urban infill goes what they are facing is pretty good... very low density, presumably expensive houses which only the 'right' type of people will be able to afford. In fact given the pricing I suspect most of the new residents would consider the pre-existing residents to be the ghetto dwellers...

[Torrens_5022]

What I got from the article was the houses facing Cambridge street have to be one story and the sites are only are 115sq metres, sounds like two bedroom properties with basement parking, probably property sizes of 80sq metres facing Cambridge street and larger two story properties behind.
Also if the site is 8250sq metres and the average block is 115sqm and you have 42 properties that adds up to 5000sqm leaving 3000sqm.
The concrete ghetto claim doesn't add up at all.
Also after some Googling 3 Cambridge street has a land size of 296sqm and number 7 is 277sqm, just for perspective.

[Ben]

Why wouldn't the developer propose something similar to East Park. I hear the pre sales have been very successful.

[monotonehell]

Headline: Rich conservatives fear imagined change.

The same happened recently in that other little pocket village; Dulwich. I wonder if the Cambridge Street residents will roll out their children. Won't someone think of the children?!

[Ben]

Rejected

http://www.news.com.au/national/south-a ... 7266321418

[Patrick_27]

Rejected

http://www.news.com.au/national/south-a ... 7266321418

Based on what statistical evidence are the council making the statement that this kind of development would encourage crime? This style of housing is currently being built on the former Channel Seven site across the Torrens and is already present along that strip of road. These are baseless comments in an attempt to justify the rant being made by the snob residents who inhabit the area. I don't merit the proposal's appearance, but the style of housing should be no grounds to reject this proposal.

[crawf]

The panel decided the development, at the old Weet-bix site at 71-77 Hackney Rd, could encourage crime, lacked architectural merit, had too much paved area and not enough open space.

It's right opposite the flipping parklands!

[Alyx]

In fairness to these residents, I didn't approve of the developer's proposal either:

[Waewick]

wow, that is hilarious, could encourage crime, if I was the developer i'd be taking that further.

I'm getting tired of people trying to link infill developments and slums and ghettos.

if someone could point me to a slum or ghetto in this state I'd be mightly suprised, and so close to the city with all the ameneties and quite simply the cost of the place means it simply isn't even remotely possible.

[Vee]

After the original plan for redevelopment of the ex-Sanitarium site was heavily criticized by some local residents and rejected by Council, it looks set to be approved after a period of community consultation and a modified plan.

Changes include 42 townhouses reduced to 37, realignment of aspect for some rowhouses, more diversity in design, some bigger blocks with more outdoor space and access from Hackney Road and Hatswell St.

The new design has five fewer units than a previous proposal rejected by Norwood, Payneham & St Peters’ development panel in March because of concerns about a lack of open space and the similar design of each house.

Designer Elvio Ferrara said the new plan “addressed everything the panel criticised”.

Eastern Messenger:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenger ... 7478682626

[Goodsy]

After the original plan for redevelopment of the ex-Sanitarium site was heavily criticized by some local residents and rejected by Council, it looks set to be approved after a period of community consultation and a modified plan.

Changes include 42 townhouses reduced to 37, realignment of aspect for some rowhouses, more diversity in design, some bigger blocks with more outdoor space and access from Hackney Road and Hatswell St.

The new design has five fewer units than a previous proposal rejected by Norwood, Payneham & St Peters’ development panel in March because of concerns about a lack of open space and the similar design of each house.

Designer Elvio Ferrara said the new plan “addressed everything the panel criticised”.

Eastern Messenger:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenger ... 7478682626

Always smile at the developers designs with all the greenery. Trouble is once built then where is the greenery?

Definitely agree, where are the back yards for any children?

Gotta love the Advertiser's readers