News & Discussion: Adelaide Development Plan Amendment 2012

[phenom]

Although AdelaideNow is doing it's bit to stir the pot (in a bad way) by having this story on the front page of the website today with what looks like the Chrysler Building or something, I was very happy to see this.

Firstly, I think the benefit would be the certainty for developers who aren't aiming to necessarily go 'tall' but - as already mentioned in previous comments - but simply to propose reasonable height buildings that fit well but currently would be classified as 10, 20 or 30+m 'too tall' when it's clear to everyone those limits are entirely arbitrary in many places (particularly outside of the residential parts of the city).

Also, as foreshadowed above, and as I originally said, I think this is a step in the right direction. I don't expect in this uncertain economic climate that we'll suddenly be inundated with new proposals, but the point is (as I think the Property Council notes) that a lot of marginal projects can be made viable if you can add a few storeys to the mix.

It's an interesting thought experiment to think about what we might already have today had a bit more reasonableness on the part of the ACC been evident a decade or two ago. For me, the saga over 74-80 Light Square being 'way too tall' at 13 levels... and now being built at 8 levels... was the straw that broke the camel's back in taking the protestations of some ACC members seriously.

[crawf]

The comments in Adelaide Now haven't been to bad surprisingly, my response

This overhaul of the development plan seriously needs to happen so Adelaide can take full advantage of the interest that is being sparked by key city projects and the resources boom. I applaud the State Government and City Council (excluding a few members) at the amount of money and resources they are pouring into revitalizing our city at the moment. The rustbelt days are long gone

Current Poll
Yes - 85.18% (615 votes)
No - 14.82% (107 votes)


BTW couldn't the Advertiser find a better skyline photo, it looks nearly a decade old.

[AdelaideAlive]

anybody think maybe this will be just in time to coincide with a multi storey tower at the new riverbank precint

[ml69]

Sounds really promising and just what the CBD needs. But will wait for the details to be released and a timetable for implementation before I get genuinely excited!

The planning overhaul covers 2 of the 6 key changes that I believe will drive a massive revitalization of the CBD. In my opinion, these changes should be:

1. Increase building height limits in key zones north of Gouger/Angas St. Addressed in proposed height limit reforms, so big tick.

2. Design Review Panel for all projects greater than $10M. Need to improve design quality of CBD projects, to demonstrate to sceptical and ignorant public that high density living can be attractive.
Appears to be addressed in proposed planning reforms, another tick.

3. State govt to make new multi-storey apartments less than $500k exempt from stamp duty, even after building completion. This would stimulate demand for new high-density living, potentially saving a purchaser tens of thousands of dollars. Enough incentive for many to consider high-density living. Such a scheme would also benefit the TODs.

4. City tram loop linking eastern and western precincts in the CBD. Would be fantastic for CBD residents, workers, shoppers and tourists. Importantly, this is likely to stimulate hundreds of millions of dollars in further investment along the route.

5. Strategic avenue/street tree planting to create beautiful tree-lined streets in the CBD. Need to have a long-term perspective here. I'm talking about the entire street lined with the same type of tree species, even if it mean ripping out an existing mature but ugly tree. Will create future value and desirability for CBD living. Hutt St and North Tce are two great examples of this visionary approach.

6. Enlivening our streets and laneways. Nothing new here, but vitally important. ACC are to be commended on projects like Splash Adelaide and the proposal to drop outdoor seating fees. Already moving in the right direction here. What's happening with the legislation to allow small bar licences?

[Omicron]

Although AdelaideNow is doing it's bit to stir the pot (in a bad way) by having this story on the front page of the website today with what looks like the Chrysler Building or something, I was very happy to see this.

Firstly, I think the benefit would be the certainty for developers who aren't aiming to necessarily go 'tall' but - as already mentioned in previous comments - but simply to propose reasonable height buildings that fit well but currently would be classified as 10, 20 or 30+m 'too tall' when it's clear to everyone those limits are entirely arbitrary in many places (particularly outside of the residential parts of the city).

Also, as foreshadowed above, and as I originally said, I think this is a step in the right direction. I don't expect in this uncertain economic climate that we'll suddenly be inundated with new proposals, but the point is (as I think the Property Council notes) that a lot of marginal projects can be made viable if you can add a few storeys to the mix.

It's an interesting thought experiment to think about what we might already have today had a bit more reasonableness on the part of the ACC been evident a decade or two ago. For me, the saga over 74-80 Light Square being 'way too tall' at 13 levels... and now being built at 8 levels... was the straw that broke the camel's back in taking the protestations of some ACC members seriously.

I agree completely. Good post.

[Will]

6. Enlivening our streets and laneways. Nothing new here, but vitally important. ACC are to be commended on projects like Splash Adelaide and the proposal to drop outdoor seating fees. Already moving in the right direction here. What's happening with the legislation to allow small bar licences?

As an extension of your post, I would like to know whether we even have a 'small bar licence'?

And if we dont, are there any moves in place to allow them?

[skyliner]

For what it's worth, Brisbane is pushing 90 floors (for 2m pop.) and developers obviously think it will be financial. Just by proportions we should be able to take 45 - 50 floors. (and several bldgs at that).

Adelaide has the mining boom coming up - an appropriate time to raise bldg heights. The limits MUST lift to allow a more vibrant CBD as well as many developments that would occur if limits were lifted.( The confidence is there to do it).

The sections proposed for lifing heights are great for this - I often imagine KWS as a great boulevard of flanking high rise block for it's full length - with the plane trees. The proposed departure from the 'pyramid' is long overdue. I hope it all goes through.

I believe that holding limits as they are will stymy the CBD more and more.

Great news that even a thought has come out on this.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[AG]

For what it's worth, Brisbane is pushing 90 floors (for 2m pop.) and developers obviously think it will be financial. Just by proportions we should be able to take 45 - 50 floors. (and several bldgs at that).

Adelaide has the mining boom coming up - an appropriate time to raise bldg heights. The limits MUST lift to allow a more vibrant CBD as well as many developments that would occur if limits were lifted.( The confidence is there to do it).

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

Brisbane is a little different though, it has the smallest CBD by area of the major centres and as a result has few sites that it can develop into the required amount of space. Adelaide by comparison has the largest and a lot of underdeveloped or undeveloped sites, so while there should be taller buildings on the horizon I don't think we will be seeing buildings on quite the same scale as Brisbane just yet. The rest of what you say I agree with.

[Waewick]

for you more educated ones.

If the ACC allowed an increase in heights, could it also request/demand an increase is the widgth/depth of the buildings to allow for larger living spaces?

or would the economic benefit of going higher up be reduced by the expanded size (i am assuming yes).

[bm7500]

Even John Cleese seems to think our CBD is a little flat chested!

JOHN Cleese has brought a new character to Adelaide - himself. But he's not impressed with our skyline.

Famous for his role as Basil Fawlty in Fawlty Towers, the Monty Python characters and having taken over the role of Q in the James Bond films The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day, Cleese is finally happy to talk about himself.

"I'm perfectly comfortable with being myself and I absolutely wasn't when I started out," a quietly spoken Cleese said.

He's previously been to Adelaide and was keen to return to his favourite spots.

"It seems to have a really nice atmosphere about it," he said.

"I love being able to look out at all that greenery ... I think it's very beautiful."

But some of the skyscrapers "look pretty unimaginative - what I call breakfast cereal skyscrapers," he said.

"Gouger St is absolutely wonderful because I love Asian cuisine."

At 72, Cleese is not about to stop working.

"I have a film in the back of my mind. It's a very funny plot," he said.

Cleese performs An Evening With John Cleese at Her Majesty's Theatre until February 14.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au

[Wayno]

Yarwood & Pruszinski have a few words to say:

LORD Mayor Stephen Yarwood says a review of CBD planning rules must send a strong message that Adelaide wants progress and growth.

Mr Yarwood said the city council agreed there was a need for change and the new system had to balance clearing development red tape with promoting high design standards.

The Advertiser on Saturday revealed the State Government was considering raising maximum building heights in key CBD precincts as part of a zoning review that will also examine density and design.

Mr Yarwood said delivering the review would be the council's top priority in 2012.

"There is a chance for reform and it would be disappointing if we just tinkered around the edges when we can actually send a message," he said yesterday.

"There are parts of the city where I know for a fact that the vast majority of councillors are not afraid to have a discussion on building heights.

"The city wants development, the city wants progress and we want to make it easier."

However, there are sections of the 12-person council expected to resist "over development" of the city.

Planning Minister John Rau claims hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment is in "deep freeze" as developers struggle with an outdated and overly restrictive regime.

Urban Development Institute of Australia executive director Terry Walsh said many city developers only needed permission to add a few extra stories to make proposed buildings financially viable.

"If we're trying to get more residents in the city, we need to update our policy so at least we can cater for the 30-year plan."

Adelaide architect Paul Pruszinski's ultra-modern plans for a residential building on Flinders St and a Light Square office block have both been opposed by the council's Development Assessment Panel.

"Adelaide is not a museum it is a city that must be permitted to continue to improve," he said. "Developers have walked away from the Adelaide CBD because of its antiquated development restrictions."

The Government is expected to finalise a new CBD development "rule book" by mid year.

The current regime has a mix of recommended maximum building heights, ranging from two storeys to 103m in precincts north of Victoria Square.

Most new development is capped at 60m. The Government argues change is needed to deliver 15,040 new dwellings for 27,300 more people by 2040.

[skyliner]

For what it's worth, Brisbane is pushing 90 floors (for 2m pop.) and developers obviously think it will be financial. Just by proportions we should be able to take 45 - 50 floors. (and several bldgs at that).

Adelaide has the mining boom coming up - an appropriate time to raise bldg heights. The limits MUST lift to allow a more vibrant CBD as well as many developments that would occur if limits were lifted.( The confidence is there to do it).

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

Brisbane is a little different though, it has the smallest CBD by area of the major centres and as a result has few sites that it can develop into the required amount of space. Adelaide by comparison has the largest and a lot of underdeveloped or undeveloped sites, so while there should be taller buildings on the horizon I don't think we will be seeing buildings on quite the same scale as Brisbane just yet. The rest of what you say I agree with.

Ag. Adelaide may have the largest 'official' CBD area (the square mile), but the zone of high rise bldgs that constitute a CBD for both cities are are similar. I have been in both cities often and note that the high rise is somewhat denser and much higher over the same given area - hence my comparison and my comments above.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[Wayno]

Ag. Adelaide may have the largest 'official' CBD area (the square mile), but the zone of high rise bldgs that constitute a CBD for both cities are are similar. I have been in both cities often and note that the high rise is somewhat denser and much higher over the same given area - hence my comparison and my comments above.

Will stated over here that the Adelaide core is:

Core refers to the area bounded by North Terrace, Morphett Street, Pulteney Street and Wakefield Street. Frame are the CBD areas outside of this. Hence, buildings such as CCT1 and the new Santos HQ are considered core, whereas 400KWS, Edge and Wave are Frame.

Fringe-1, refers to areas outside of the CBD but which are close to it regardless, such as Greenhill Road. Fringe-2 refers to areas even further from the CBD, such as Mawson lakes.

[AdelaideAlive]

087330-adelaide-skyscrapers.jpg (57.23 KiB) Viewed 803 times

anyone remember this proposal cause sure as hell i dont

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/real-esta ... 6264074285

[monotonehell]

Yuck, no thank you.

Reminds me of this...