News & Discussion: Adelaide City Council

[how_good_is_he]

Councillor with respect to height restrictions, if developers use the assessed on merit approach to submit higher plans than the current guidelines allow, don't you see them having more chance of success with the DAC vs the ACC?

[Neuropolis]

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?

Because development is about more than tall buildings and big screens.

[Hippodamus]

Neuropolis... maybe open a Sensational-rural South Australia forum so you can focus on your forte of rural arcologies...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we're a city here mate, like it or not there will be tall buildings. although tall buildings are not the be-all and end-all of a truly functional city, they are important features in any modern metropolis. most of these forums are about tall buildings and urban development.

maybe your the dinosaur that needs to move on...

[Neuropolis]

Neuropolis... maybe open a Sensational-rural South Australia forum so you can focus on your forte of rural arcologies...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we're a city here mate, like it or not there will be tall buildings. although tall buildings are not the be-all and end-all of a truly functional city, they are important features in any modern metropolis. most of these forums are about tall buildings and urban development.

maybe your the dinosaur that needs to move on...

And maybe all of these ideas are not really very cutting edge or even especially innovative.
Besides, cities are not defined by tall buildings. Development can mean all sorts of things and I hold our collective human future in high regard. It's just that, for me, a city means more than some notion of an outdated metropolis. Cities like this are doomed mate. This is not the way of the future. It's time to embrace new ideas that are not some cookie cutter version of every other city. We're not here to play 'catch up' to the likes of Melbourne or Sydney. That's a mugs game and has no long term future.

[Norman]

Ten News clip from yesterday...


And today.

[bva]

i have not looked into the full details of this but me thinks that quite a few schemes in the $8-9.5m range will be miraculously be $10m now
looks like ACC will need to get some cost consultants in to validate the submitted development costs

[Düsseldorfer]

(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?)

Yes, well said! haha bins are also missing from Mawson Lakes interchange and many other stations too...guess SA governments and TA are suffering from Binphobia, what ever happened to Keep South Australia Beautiful!? or are we supposed to just toss our rubbish on the tracks, cause that's the message whoever is responsible is sending us.

[Howie]

Great work Norman. Thanks for your excellent youtubing recently.

Neuropolis I think you've made your point already.

[omada]

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

Yes, what exactly are rural arcologies, can you give us a brief explanation? I don't think that many of us here are up to speed on such academic terminology. You don't happen to work for a University or Public Institution do you?

Cities like this are doomed mate. This is not the way of the future. It's time to embrace new ideas that are not some cookie cutter version of every other city. We're not here to play 'catch up' to the likes of Melbourne or Sydney. That's a mugs game and has no long term future.

Please elaborate on this, sounds interesting, if a little naive.

[Neuropolis]

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

Yes, what exactly are rural arcologies, can you give us a brief explanation? I don't think that many of us here are up to speed on such academic terminology. You don't happen to work for a University or Public Institution do you?

Cities like this are doomed mate. This is not the way of the future. It's time to embrace new ideas that are not some cookie cutter version of every other city. We're not here to play 'catch up' to the likes of Melbourne or Sydney. That's a mugs game and has no long term future.

Please elaborate on this, sounds interesting, if a little naive.

I'll create a new thread later today.

[Howie]

Powers stripped
http://www.citymessenger.com.au/article ... _news.html
Chris Day

16Jul08
HOW TIMES CHANGE: Lord Mayor Michael Harbison outside the $600 million City Towers project in 2007. The council approved that project - something it will no longer have the power to do.

THE ceiling placed on Adelaide City Council's power to control major developments is a case of ``reaping... what we have sown'', Lord Mayor Michael Harbison says.

While a vote by a majority of councillors on Monday (July 14) to condemn the State Government's actions ``was not in the best interest of the community of South Australia'', he said.

The government this week stripped the council of its power to assess development applications above $10 million in the city and North Adelaide, to remove ``local politics'' from the planning approvals process.

Such applications will now be judged by the government-appointed Development Assessment Commission (DAC).

The action came despite the city council's Development Assessment Panel (DAP) approving more than $300 million in major developments since November.

It also came a week after the DAP rejected a 20-storey office tower planned next to the GPO, in Franklin St, on the grounds it did not complement a neighbouring heritage-listed building, known as the Darling Building.

The refusal went against the advice of council planning staff and was the only time the current DAP had rejected a project worth more than $10 million.

Mr Harbison, who supported the Franklin St development, told Monday night's council meeting he ``regretted'' the government's action but urged members not to support a motion by Cr Ralph Clarke condemning the government.

``We are reaping, with the best of intention, what we have sown,'' Mr Harbison told the meeting.

``It's important for the council to be careful of rejecting the recommendations of its staff. The actions of our (DAP) were genuine but the actions of the government are genuine too.''

Earlier in the meeting, Cr Clarke criticised the government for limiting the council's approval powers without warning or consultation. His motion was passed 8:3.

``It's a warning shot, a bullying exercise by the State Government to every council in this state,'' Cr Clarke said. ``Do we want to end up, as it appears Premier Rann wants, as a city of let rip, with development at all cost?''

In announcing the new planning controls on Monday, Infrastructure Minister Patrick Conlon said developers needed more certainty.

``It's terribly important that people engaging in major projects, in major construction work, are able to rely on the planning laws being applied completely fairly and non-politically,'' he said.

The Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) gave ``conditional'' support to the government's decision and called for a fresh review of the council's planning role, while the Property Council (SA) endorsed the decision.

City residents' groups, however, opposed the change.

``It's basically saying the big boys can do what they want and the rest of us can sod off,'' North Adelaide Society chairman Ed Briedis said.

``The concern is the $10 million cap clearly points to large-scale developments in places like North Adelaide that won't be appropriate.''

South-East City Residents' Association chairwoman Anne Melrose was concerned by the lack of elected members on the DAC: ``It will once again muffle the voice of residents.''

[loud]

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 think it is a little naiive to think that just because the powers have been shifted, there is automatically going to be an automatic influx of innovative new buildings and soaring towers on our skyline built by international developers!

The council still has complete control over creating the development plans for the city, so all the DAC can do is interpret and enforce its guidelines in an objective manner. It doesn't make it any more likely/unlikely that proposed developments will be granted and it doesn't make it any more likely that height restrictions will be lifted. All it is doing, is ensuring that planning decisions are made (based on the council's development plan) by a completely objective group of professionals who have a clear mandate and no vested interest.

If we want to be like an east coast city we still have a fair way to go! Off the top of my mind, it would be something like this:

1) Complete overhaul of development plan for city (this has not happened yet)
2) Stronger demand from tenants (this hasn't happened yet, we are not experiencing a high enough level of pre-commitment from tenants to even get something like 20-22 Currie St off the ground)
3) Adelaide needs to become the centre of something (when you look at Sydney - it is the business capital of Oz, and Melbourne is not far behind, arguably being the finance capital... perhaps in 5-10 years time, we can be the mining & defence capital?)
4) Stronger economy - the cost of borrowing is just too damn high at the moment!!!

The list could go on, but I need to do some real work...

[Norman]

``It's basically saying the big boys can do what they want and the rest of us can sod off,'' North Adelaide Society chairman Ed Briedis said.

And that's exactly what we want. Go back to your hole you puny NIMBY.

[Omicron]

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.

Only someone who takes things on face-value would perceive the rejection of CC8 as a sure sign that the Adelaide CBD is 'closed for business'. Marvellous as a headline, but it's not exactly factual. If there had been a better-designed building proposed, I am sure that it would have been approved - to say 'closed for business' assumes that the CC8 proposal was the best outcome for the site, when it certainly wasn't, and that the problems with the design were not so fundamental to the design that they could be altered within a reasonable timeframe to warrant a deferral, whereas I think the opposite.

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?

$1 billion's worth of development is indeed an impressive number, but for all any outsider knows, that could be a series of hideously expensive toaster ovens with obtuse crumpets poking out every which way. Those who pull out the Billion Dollar Super Awesome figure are just as bad as the Closed For Business types, taking everything at face-value.

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.

Surely someone responsible for the CC8 design looked over the 11-storey blank wall rising above Darling and spilled coffee all over themselves in response to its lack of innovation/attractiveness/uniqueness/relationship with the street and nearby buildings/differentiation from other CC buildings. It's not just an issue that requires tweaking here and there, as you would expect a deferral would entail - the entire western wall is a tribute to concrete driveways; the southern facade has the aforementioned obtuse crumpets poking out every which way, and so on. To borrow from Mr. World in another thread, not in my rear course, thank you.

In any case, despite my best efforts to derail the thread (*cough*), there is much more to this issue than merely CC8; praise be. We shall only truly know the appropriateness of this Government decision until we see the DAC in action. I for one look forward to seeing what architects and developers come up with now that the parameters have altered somewhat.

[cleverick]

Further to the bin issue, they are made of stainless steel in Germany, not see-through perspex. Who wants to see the inside of a bin at a major tourist destination/through-point?

Continuing on the issue of the ACC's loss of power- I wonder why the four of the five independent panellists on the Development Assessment Panel didn't rock up to the meeting. If they don't feel Tower 8 is important enough to turn up and support, who's to blame the councillors for high-jacking the meeting and turning it down? (The only development worth more than $10mil to be turned down by the panel this year.) Also, the CBD is not a zone set aside for purely commercial purposes, to be ruthlessly and economically regimented for maximum profit. It is a living space, a place where people live, where some people spend up to 10 hours a day and more, a place where people shop and come to cafes and restaurants, etc., etc.. There is more at stake than some developer's profits. This move essentially removes the right of the people of Adelaide to have a say in stuff that may very well affect them. We do not live in China, where whole neighbourhoods are routinely bulldozed.

Of course this is a governance issue, and of course Adelaide has an image of being somewhat backward. But it is also an issue of civil rights. Suddenly people who live in the area have as much say in the matters affecting them as people from Noarlunga. Is that really fair? Perhaps the council has been stacked by small groups in the past- that is not the council's fault, but the fault of the poorer and yuppie residents who don't care enough to vote them out or stand for change themselves. I intend to stand at the next election, and my platform is not a range of No's, it's a vision for what Adelaide and North Adelaide can become. http://www.cleverick.blogspot.com for more information.

Clr Yarwood, expect an email from me tomorrow regarding your posts specifically.