News & Discussion: Adelaide City Council

[Will]

Another thing. I hope the state government decides to extend this decision to all local councils. The Holdfast Bay Council is a far worse example than the ACC ever was. The Holdfast Bay Council is an obstacle to progress, and the sooner those ultra-conservative nostalgists are removed from making decisions which impact on Glenelg the better. Like the CBD, Glenelg belongs to ALL South Australians not just the (mainly) retirees who vote in local council elections.

[cleverick]

Clr Yarwood and Raulduke, can you both be right?
Of course it's a governance issue- but do you really think the State Government is any better at transparent, consultative government than the ACC? And it is a civil rights issue- you may not like it, but the people who live in the city have a right to have their voices heard, however inconvenient it might be for developers who want to build office blocks in the parklands.

The real problem lies with the ACC, and not even specifically with the ACC but with local government generally. Our councils have far less power than their American and European counterparts, not more. Accordingly, more people care and more people vote. Thus they are not as easily held to ransom by their various equivalents of the North Adelaide Residents' Association (which does not even have an e-mail!) and the Parklands Preservation Society.

The real need is for younger, better candidates- students in colleges, yuppies from urban warehouse apartments and other stakeholders- to step forward and represent the people who are currently disenfranchised by the system. David Campbell tried last year, and I intend to try again in 2010. I hope the council will still have enough power to make it worth my while.

(On the bin issue: train station platforms and outside Parliament House are the only places in the world I litter, as a form of private protest. Normally I will walk up to 100m out of my way to get to a bin, or carry my rubbish indefinitely. In Germany every train platform has at least three groups of four bins- glass, paper, can and other. Why is a bombing more likely in Adelaide than in Bonn or Berlin?)

[SRW]

If the rejection of CC8 was the main catalyst for this decision, then I would be very worried indeed if it had been approved in its existing form by the new DAC.
I hope very much that this move has been made for the right reasons. Proposals ought to be approved not only because they meet basic development laws, but also because they seek unique and engaging solutions to environmental, aesthetic and streetscape concerns. Of course, the ACC hasn't necessarily been particularly strong in this area, but the recent rejections of Spire and CC8 suggest that there are still people with the sense of sight within the Town Hall's walls. In keeping with the Australian tradition, I shall reserve the right to be initially distrustful of a government decision until proven otherwise.

Wholeheartedly agree.

I think many here have an ingrained negativity towards the ACC. This was surely justified in the past, but since the last election I have personally observed an overall improvement in the quality of its actions. For sure, there is a long way to go; however, I think it's a nonsense to say that the council is anti-development, and I was quite heartened by the decision to reject the Aspen proposal. I think it showed a council which realises that the pace of development in the city has reached a point where we don't have to just accept whatever a developer throws at us, but that we can demand the type of quality Adelaide deserves. Or at least, that's the direction I was hoping we were headed; I guess we'll never know now, courtesy the influence of developers on the Government. The last thing we need is a free-for-all — and although I'm not suggesting this will necessarily occur under the forthcoming arrangement, there's sure as hell more chance of it happening.

Also, is it incorrect to assume that the ACC's development plan will still apply to the independent DAP's decisions? Some here seem to think not, and that the height limits will no longer apply — while that would be welcome, it does seem curious.

[Will]

If the rejection of CC8 was the main catalyst for this decision, then I would be very worried indeed if it had been approved in its existing form by the new DAC.
I hope very much that this move has been made for the right reasons. Proposals ought to be approved not only because they meet basic development laws, but also because they seek unique and engaging solutions to environmental, aesthetic and streetscape concerns. Of course, the ACC hasn't necessarily been particularly strong in this area, but the recent rejections of Spire and CC8 suggest that there are still people with the sense of sight within the Town Hall's walls. In keeping with the Australian tradition, I shall reserve the right to be initially distrustful of a government decision until proven otherwise.

Wholeheartedly agree.

I think many here have an ingrained negativity towards the ACC. This was surely justified in the past, but since the last election I have personally observed an overall improvement in the quality of its actions. For sure, there is a long way to go; however, I think it's a nonsense to say that the council is anti-development, and I was quite heartened by the decision to reject the Aspen proposal. I think it showed a council which realises that the pace of development in the city has reached a point where we don't have to just accept whatever a developer throws at us, but that we can demand the type of quality Adelaide deserves. Or at least, that's the direction I was hoping we were headed; I guess we'll never know now, courtesy the influence of developers on the Government. The last thing we need is a free-for-all — and although I'm not suggesting this will necessarily occur under the forthcoming arrangement, there's sure as hell more chance of it happening.

Also, is it incorrect to assume that the ACC's development plan will still apply to the independent DAP's decisions? Some here seem to think not, and that the height limits will no longer apply — while that would be welcome, it does seem curious.

The state government's decision was I think not made based on the performance of the current council. The current council is generally pro-development. The state government's decision was made to protect us from future council's which may not be so positive towards development. We have had NIMBY-dominated councils in the past and could possibly have them in the future. Because for as long as ACC elections are limited to ACC residents there is always a high chance of getting a majority NIMBY council elected.

[Will]

If the rejection of CC8 was the main catalyst for this decision, then I would be very worried indeed if it had been approved in its existing form by the new DAC.
I hope very much that this move has been made for the right reasons. Proposals ought to be approved not only because they meet basic development laws, but also because they seek unique and engaging solutions to environmental, aesthetic and streetscape concerns. Of course, the ACC hasn't necessarily been particularly strong in this area, but the recent rejections of Spire and CC8 suggest that there are still people with the sense of sight within the Town Hall's walls. In keeping with the Australian tradition, I shall reserve the right to be initially distrustful of a government decision until proven otherwise.

Although I am not a fan of the current CCT8 design, I think it was a grave error to reject the building outright. It would have been a far more intelligent outcome, if the ACC had instead deferred this proposal. A deferral gives the message that on the whole the council supports development but has certain ussues that need to be addressed. An outright rejection gives the message that the CBD is closed for business.

I know some of you will disagree with what I am saying, and bring out the figure that the council approved more than $1 billion worth of development last year. Sure this is true, but remember that the council approved this with the aid of the specialist and independent DAP members introduced 2 years ago. I wonder how much of that $1 billion worth of development would have been approved had the DAP still being staffed solely by councillors? In fact the CCT8 decision gives an indication of what would have happened. For the vote on whether to approve CCT8, most of the independent specialist members did not take part. Without them to dilute the councillors, the councillors showed their true colours and rejected this development.

[Benski81]

I'm so happy I could cry

Let's face it they brought this on themselves....

[cruel_world00]

Now we just need to extend this to the councils in Port Adelaide and Glenelg.

[Neuropolis]

Be careful what you wish for here. Development needs to happen in every city, but once you open yourself up to the whims of international developers you can end up with an ugly city.
Do you really want Adelaide to become like every other big city?
One of the significant defining characteristics of Adelaide is the Parklands in the city and the green space in surrounding suburbs. That is part of our heritage and someone does need to protect the open green space in this city.
Tall buildings are all well and good, but we're just talking about glass and concrete here. There's nothing special about massive skyscrapers and if people link their self esteem to such developments in this city, then we have more problems than just rising fuel prices.

[cruel_world00]

Be careful what you wish for here. Development needs to happen in every city, but once you open yourself up to the whims of international developers you can end up with an ugly city.
Do you really want Adelaide to become like every other big city?
One of the significant defining characteristics of Adelaide is the Parklands in the city and the green space in surrounding suburbs. That is part of our heritage and someone does need to protect the open green space in this city.
Tall buildings are all well and good, but we're just talking about glass and concrete here. There's nothing special about massive skyscrapers and if people link their self esteem to such developments in this city, then we have more problems than just rising fuel prices.

Sorry to sound patronising, but have you actually read this forum? Most of the forumers here are pro-development, but not just for developments sake. When a development comes up, yes height and impact on the skyline are obviously discussed, but so to are the impact of the building on the surrounding area, the need, accessibility, environmental, street level and visual impacts. It's not just a forum for us to say "BUILD BUILD BUILD not matter what the proposal is." I think people around here are happy to see the ACC taken out of the equation due to a lot of their short comings, even though they did approve a lot too. I think we should just wait and see how this new system works before championing it or attacking it.

[mattblack]

Although I agree with many of the views that the Clr has is reference to the development of the city I can only see positives in relation to this move. A Large city that is restricted in any way to its futher development by a local council seems crazy. A city council will be enacting its powers to please its constituants first without having to take into account the concerns of the population of greater Adelaide. It is far more likley to be influenced by smaller community groups such as the PPS (parklands preservation society) to gain votes in local elections than a state run body.

Its not like we are giving the powers to Rann to make desecions on building approvals, it will be highly experience people with the whole of Adelaide in mind not just the ACC catchment.

Lets just hope that VISION will finally become part of the vocabulary.

Cheers

[Neuropolis]

Be careful what you wish for here. Development needs to happen in every city, but once you open yourself up to the whims of international developers you can end up with an ugly city.
Do you really want Adelaide to become like every other big city?
One of the significant defining characteristics of Adelaide is the Parklands in the city and the green space in surrounding suburbs. That is part of our heritage and someone does need to protect the open green space in this city.
Tall buildings are all well and good, but we're just talking about glass and concrete here. There's nothing special about massive skyscrapers and if people link their self esteem to such developments in this city, then we have more problems than just rising fuel prices.

Sorry to sound patronising, but have you actually read this forum? Most of the forumers here are pro-development, but not just for developments sake. When a development comes up, yes height and impact on the skyline are obviously discussed, but so to are the impact of the building on the surrounding area, the need, accessibility, environmental, street level and visual impacts. It's not just a forum for us to say "BUILD BUILD BUILD not matter what the proposal is." I think people around here are happy to see the ACC taken out of the equation due to a lot of their short comings, even though they did approve a lot too. I think we should just wait and see how this new system works before championing it or attacking it.

I'm stating an opinion. There have been some posts here that are quite naive in thinking that the ACC never do anything good and that Adelaide would do well to gain height.
If you find that my post does not agree with your viewpoint, you are free to address it.
I just find it amusing that, seemingly, so many people here think that a tall building is somehow indicative of progress when the two concepts are anything but mutually dependent.

[Shuz]

Development needs to happen in every city, but once you open yourself up to the whims of international developers you can end up with an ugly city.

What the f***?

One of the extremely possimistic things about shifting powers to the DAC is that international developers will be far more encouraged to invest and build in Adelaide, because they understand that they will be seeking a better quality of development to come into Adelaide, and if they present that quality, its much more highly likely to be approved and proceed. There has been very few architecturally exciting developments coming from local developers and architects of this city, and I think that opening ourselves to the international platform will bring ourselves to a whole new level of architectural quality and standard. You only need look to Melbourne and Sydney to look at the very elaborate designs that have come forth as a result of international investment. Sydney's council development policy forces any large-scale development to be resolved as a part of a design competition, with the best winning design built. This has altered and changed their skyline in ways that it simply is unrivalled. To make mention of World Tower, Eureka, Chifley, Deustche Bank, Citigroup, Ernst&Young, Fed Square, RMIT, CUB, Macquarie, Aurora - all architecturally stunning examples of international developments built in their respective cities. Adelaide is on the cusp of change, a very positive change, because we have had a century of skyscrapers built and experimented with in a number of designs and styles that has highlighted the positive and negative outcomes of each respective development. The standard is only going to get better, not worse.

[Neuropolis]

Development needs to happen in every city, but once you open yourself up to the whims of international developers you can end up with an ugly city.

What the f***?

One of the extremely possimistic things about shifting powers to the DAC is that international developers will be far more encouraged to invest and build in Adelaide, because they understand that they will be seeking a better quality of development to come into Adelaide, and if they present that quality, its much more highly likely to be approved and proceed. There has been very few architecturally exciting developments coming from local developers and architects of this city, and I think that opening ourselves to the international platform will bring ourselves to a whole new level of architectural quality and standard. You only need look to Melbourne and Sydney to look at the very elaborate designs that have come forth as a result of international investment. Sydney's council development policy forces any large-scale development to be resolved as a part of a design competition, with the best winning design built. This has altered and changed their skyline in ways that it simply is unrivalled. To make mention of World Tower, Eureka, Chifley, Deustche Bank, Citigroup, Ernst&Young, Fed Square, RMIT, CUB, Macquarie, Aurora - all architecturally stunning examples of international developments built in their respective cities. Adelaide is on the cusp of change, a very positive change, because we have had a century of skyscrapers built and experimented with in a number of designs and styles that has highlighted the positive and negative outcomes of each respective development. The standard is only going to get better, not worse.

I did say you CAN. There's no definitive in that.
All of the other examples you mention are of no interest to me whatsoever. They are simply structures of concrete and glass and hold no evolutionary value whatsoever. I don't equate tall buildings with human development, let alone a skyscraper reaching to the open skies like a crude phallus.
Skyline? Pfft...
Now, if you were talking about researching cutting edge independent rural arcologies centered around a highly decentralised administrative body, then I might be interested.
Skyscrapers? 'Times Square' giant screens? Marinas? Resorts that destroy peaceful coastlines? Real Estate opportunities that fill greedy pockets?
Been there, done that. It's for dinosaurs. Move on.

[Wayno]

Now, if you were talking about researching cutting edge independent rural arcologies centered around a highly decentralised administrative body, then I might be interested.

can you please start another topic focused on "cutting edge independent rural arcologies". i'd be interested to learn more about this...

[crawf]

I did say you CAN. There's no definitive in that.
All of the other examples you mention are of no interest to me whatsoever. They are simply structures of concrete and glass and hold no evolutionary value whatsoever. I don't equate tall buildings with human development, let alone a skyscraper reaching to the open skies like a crude phallus.
Skyline? Pfft...
Now, if you were talking about researching cutting edge independent rural arcologies centered around a highly decentralised administrative body, then I might be interested.
Skyscrapers? 'Times Square' giant screens? Marinas? Resorts that destroy peaceful coastlines? Real Estate opportunities that fill greedy pockets?
Been there, done that. It's for dinosaurs. Move on.

Sorry but why are you on a forum like S-A?