[COM] COM/CAN: Aurora on Pirie | 54/57m | 14/15lvls | Office

[AtD]

urban: I think it's apples and oranges. You're talking about small scale projects in a suburban residential area, primarily owner-occupiers and carbon copy designs without an artichtect. We're talking about large scale projects of high density commercial tennancies in the CBD.

Adelaide is not a suburb, and my biggest gripe with the ACC is how they treat it as one. Unless you want all of the office buildings to look the same...

[Will]

I also suspect that the decision from the council was politically driven. There will be a council election later this year. In addition the extreme nostalgia lobby is very strong in the city, particularly in North Adelaide and around East Terrace. I suspect the councillors want to beef up their NIMBY credentials in time for the election. This is what dissapoints me. A group of NIMBYS are holding ransom the future of our city. It is time to open up ACC elections to the entire electorate in the suburbs, or get rid of the ACC.

Think again Will

2 of the 3 who voted against it are NOT councillors!

Politics are not that simple. The DA panel is composed of 7 members. Four of them are specialist members, and 3 of them are councillors. Despite this fact, very few people know about this, and therefore attribute the decisions of the DAP as being entirely influenced by the council.

A few weeks ago, the council approved the Wave and Edge developments. Their approval caused widespread resentment amongst the NIMBY lobby groups. Keep in mind that there will be a council election later this year. As a result the councillors realized that they could lose the votes of the NIMBY lobby if they continued to appear to support progress above nostalgia.

As a result, even though only 2 councillors were present in the meeting, the actions of the DAP will generate publicity which will all be directed against the council. For example in the articles written in the Advertiser, the blame for this shameful decision is labelled directly at the ACC, not at the specialist members. I believe that this is the intended result. The council beefs up its NIMBY credentials in time for the election.

In addition I would like to know whether the vote undertaken by the DAP was legal or not. The panel is composed of 7 members, yet only 4 of them voted. Is this a sufficient quorum?

[Edgar]

"...If we think height restrictions are holding back development in the city, then we will review it but all the figures tell me it's not..."

the lamest excuse ever.

[urban]

AtD

I am actually amazed that people pay extra so that they can jump through extra hoops. When you read the rules it will be a miracle if anything interesting is produced.

Agreed that these prescriptive rules if applied to the city would be devastating.

Rules are needed to protect the public spaces but they should be results based rather than prescriptive, ie active street frontages, % of sunlight access to footpaths on South side of street, shelter for pedestrians from rain, Energy and water usage as % of average office block etc. This way the architects can come up with a specific solution for the site instead of being restricted to a building envelope and type of materials.

Maybe a star system could be produced where you get points for achieving different goals ie providing active frontage, mixed usage, energy efficient, architecturally distinguished building doesn't need to meet overshadowing or carparking requirements. A building with a poor relationship to the site, bland design and poor energy efficiency could be restricted to 4 storeys & required to provide additional carparking.

Or we go down the Sydney path where every building over 4 storeys requires an architectural competition but with a council representative on the jury and the winning design automatically gets planning approval.

[urban]

As a result, even though only 2 councillors were present in the meeting, the actions of the DAP will generate publicity which will all be directed against the council. For example in the articles written in the Advertiser, the blame for this shameful decision is labelled directly at the ACC, not at the specialist members. I believe that this is the intended result. The council beefs up its NIMBY credentials in time for the election.

In addition I would like to know whether the vote undertaken by the DAP was legal or not. The panel is composed of 7 members, yet only 4 of them voted. Is this a sufficient quorum?

The Aurora refusal was not the result of politics BUT the fallout will actually even up the ledger. I think this will actually be detrimental to the Nimby movement. This will prompt the members of the ACC electorate who might not ordinarily bother to vote to care & vote for new pro-development councillors. The Wave decision was a boost for NIMBY's, this one is a boost for pro-development councillors (or wannabes). Maybe Rob Cheesman was using Aurora as a tool to get more pro-development councillors on board. This might just be a political manouvre of the highest order. A sneaky piece of decision making and double bluff that even our favourite weasel John Howard would be proud.

[Will]

As a result, even though only 2 councillors were present in the meeting, the actions of the DAP will generate publicity which will all be directed against the council. For example in the articles written in the Advertiser, the blame for this shameful decision is labelled directly at the ACC, not at the specialist members. I believe that this is the intended result. The council beefs up its NIMBY credentials in time for the election.

In addition I would like to know whether the vote undertaken by the DAP was legal or not. The panel is composed of 7 members, yet only 4 of them voted. Is this a sufficient quorum?

The Aurora refusal was not the result of politics BUT the fallout will actually even up the ledger. I think this will actually be detrimental to the Nimby movement. This will prompt the members of the ACC electorate who might not ordinarily bother to vote to care & vote for new pro-development councillors. The Wave decision was a boost for NIMBY's, this one is a boost for pro-development councillors (or wannabes). Maybe Rob Cheesman was using Aurora as a tool to get more pro-development councillors on board. This might just be a political manouvre of the highest order. A sneaky piece of decision making and double bluff that even our favourite weasel John Howard would be proud.

That is a very interesting interpretation Urban. I have read your post, and it also does appear credible. Hopefully the scenario you have mentioned is the correct one. The council's decision has indeed fired up a lot of people, which can only be a good thing.

[Shuz]

So what are we speculating out of this? A reform of height limits hopefully.

Some interesting points have been made about the DAP and the regulations, so I guess we'll wait and see what the outcome of the city elections.
Does anyone know yet who the contenders are and what history is behind each person, in regards to development opinion?

[crawf]

Hopefully this council will see that it was a dumb decision to reject a building because of 13 metres above the 40m height restriction or that the Urban Construct appeal the decision or even go for major project status because of merit and green star rating.

We need some serious change in our skyline, this would be a boast to the Hindmarsh Square Precinct.

Though the project is not dead, Conservatory on Hindmarsh was rejected by the ACC but awarded major project status from the State Government.

Lets just hope they still go for 53 mark.

[rhino]

As BVA mentioned ealier, this proposal is within the guidelines, being a transition from the area where taller buildings are allowed, to the 40-metre limit zone. Aurora is right on the edge of the 40-metre zone - across Hyde St, taller buildings are allowed, so there's no way you can say that Aurora is not within the transition zone.

[Snorkie]

Without even entering into a discussion about the merits of the design, or the urabn design model it is supposed to fit into, what is going on at Aurora on Pirie illustrates a serious failing in the way built form is delivered in Adelaide.

Think about the process. Forget the qualities of the building. So:

1. Using world best practice informed by planning outcomes everywhere, our elected representatives and their staffs produce planning legislation which is meant to ensure that the city develops along lines that are best for the city, not necesarily only to suit the particular needs of a developer. (Otherwise, we could for example subdivide Elder Park or the city's squares and build very exclusive residences there, or dot dwellings around the North Adelaide golf courses. We could fence off and build on the suburban beaches etc. You get the picture.)

2. Developers ignore the palnning legislation, and propose buildings which seriosuly breach regulations for height, density etc. These breaches are significant simply in that they are breaches, and they have further impacts via traffic density, overshadowing, load on infrastucture etc which the planners may have been trying to avoid by producing the rules as they did.

3. The developers use every advantage available to them to get tehir way - to ignore the planning rules and build in breach of the regualtions. They argue that their case is a special case; that they are doing the right thing by SA and that they might leave the state if they aren't given what they demand; that even while breaching the limits thye are barely profitable; and on it goes.

What if the speed limits were like that? They can be changed, but only with due consideration by all concerned for the balance of safety and amenity. What if a developer, say, drove at 150kmh in a 110 zone and tried to claim that the extra speed was ok because the limits should not apply to him - he was a hard-workign citizen who was putting a lot into this state, he created employment etc.

OK, maybe council Development Assessment Panels or even the government's Development Assessment Commission meeting under direct pressure from developers and deciding on a case by case are not the best mechanism of altering the planning legislation or achieving the best results.

relying on that system encourages ambit claims and is unfair to an individual, say, who wants to build a home extension to a 6m setback when the legislation requires 8m, and who has paid several thousand dollars in assorted council charges and design fees, but who cannot sustain endless court action, nor has the profit at the end of the day to make continued action worthwhile.

Put simply, what's the best way to put the community's interest first in considering non-complying development applications?

Overwhelming and continuing attacks on the system by developers after profit alone do not seem to me to be the answer.

Ok stumpjumper, so what your trying to say is that the developers are wrong in trying to maximise their profits by trying to build as high as possible? This is how an economy works unfortunatelly. Maybe in a communist world, things would be different...
While i agree with much of what you have to say, put yourselves in the shoes of the developer. There is obviously a lot of demand for such a building, otherwise they would not be aiming for such a tall building, but the restrictions in place are simply laughable. I dont understand your argument about big business getting advantages. you have made this claim numerous times. Why is this such a bad thing? No one does anything for free, maybe in your make believe world things get done for free, but this is reality...seriously.
Following on from your example, your right people should not be able to break the law when they please, but how would you feel if the speed limit everywhere in Australia was 110km, and in Adelaide 3 people decided to set the speed limit at 10km/ph for the entire state, you would be pissed, right?
I dont see what the issues are with this building. 1) Aesthetically a great building, which will look great in our city 2) There is huge demand, will create jobs and ambience in the city. 3) Minimal (if any) overshadowing effects onto hindmarsh square 4) Its on bloody pirie street, one of our best street in terms of high rise buildings, and 53m is too high?....wtf
All this as compared to what negative effects? I cant think of one... People dont want Adelaide to change, thats all i can think of. Just because there is a law, you dont have a right to break it, but you certainly have a right to challenge it Stumpjumper, and I feel this is what the developers are doing.
The regulations we have in place are laughable, and despite your negativity on this forum, i think even you cant disagree with that.
With decisions like this, its not difficult to see why Adelaide is laughed at by the rest of Australia, cause i too am laughing...absolute disgrace...rant over.

[urban]

Snorkie,

Before I go any further let me state I would love to see this project go ahead in its current form
BUT
Under the current development plan the panel had no choice but to refuse the application. Whilst the building is in a transition zone, no real attempt was made to set back the portion above the 40m mark.

Aesthetics is only 1 aspect of planning laws.

The laws also have to take into account:
-the provision of infrastructure such as transport, electricity, water;
-the quality of ground level spaces;
-provision of sunlight to other buildings;
-the creation of views and vistas.

Rightly or wrongly when the DP was reviewed the current height was set to encourage development in other parts of the city. The planners obviously thought that there was currently too much concentration in the pirie/waymouth section.

Interestingly cities such as Paris and Barcelona restrict development to 4 or 5 storeys. At up to 5 levels people still feel connected to the street. Perhaps this is why these cities are so vibrant. The even distribution of activity means activity flows throughout all sections of the city.

The development plan is reviewed every few years with the help of community consultation. How many people whingeing about this decision contributed to the last review? If you're not happy get involved.

[Snorkie]

Snorkie,

Before I go any further let me state I would love to see this project go ahead in its current form
BUT
Under the current development plan the panel had no choice but to refuse the application. Whilst the building is in a transition zone, no real attempt was made to set back the portion above the 40m mark.

Aesthetics is only 1 aspect of planning laws.

The laws also have to take into account:
-the provision of infrastructure such as transport, electricity, water;
-the quality of ground level spaces;
-provision of sunlight to other buildings;
-the creation of views and vistas.

Rightly or wrongly when the DP was reviewed the current height was set to encourage development in other parts of the city. The planners obviously thought that there was currently too much concentration in the pirie/waymouth section.

Interestingly cities such as Paris and Barcelona restrict development to 4 or 5 storeys. At up to 5 levels people still feel connected to the street. Perhaps this is why these cities are so vibrant. The even distribution of activity means activity flows throughout all sections of the city.

The development plan is reviewed every few years with the help of community consultation. How many people whingeing about this decision contributed to the last review? If you're not happy get involved.

Yeah urban the point I was trying to make was not that the decision was wrong, because you are right, based on the height limits for that area, it should not have been approved. My argument was based more so on the fact that it is sad to see great developments, such as this, not getting approved because of the stupis ass laws that exist in this city, which hold back projects that really have minimal detrimental effects to our city. Snorkie sad

[Will]

Snorkie,

Before I go any further let me state I would love to see this project go ahead in its current form
BUT
Under the current development plan the panel had no choice but to refuse the application. Whilst the building is in a transition zone, no real attempt was made to set back the portion above the 40m mark.

Aesthetics is only 1 aspect of planning laws.

The laws also have to take into account:
-the provision of infrastructure such as transport, electricity, water;
-the quality of ground level spaces;
-provision of sunlight to other buildings;
-the creation of views and vistas.

Rightly or wrongly when the DP was reviewed the current height was set to encourage development in other parts of the city. The planners obviously thought that there was currently too much concentration in the pirie/waymouth section.

Interestingly cities such as Paris and Barcelona restrict development to 4 or 5 storeys. At up to 5 levels people still feel connected to the street. Perhaps this is why these cities are so vibrant. The even distribution of activity means activity flows throughout all sections of the city.

The development plan is reviewed every few years with the help of community consultation. How many people whingeing about this decision contributed to the last review? If you're not happy get involved.

Urban, the reason why I mentioned that the decision of the DA panel is political, is because of the way developments are approved by the council. The DA panel essentially is just a rubber stamp. The actual decision is made by development officers which analyse each development, and based on its merits make a reccomendation to the DA panel as to whether to approve it or not. Although the developemnt exceeded the height restriction for that part of the city by 13m, the development officers nevertheless had recommended to the DA panel to APPROVE Aurora in its current form, because its other features were seen to overcome its extra height. 99% of the time the council follows the reccomendation of the developemnt officers. This time they did not. And it can't be because of height, because it would be inconsistent with the council's previous decsions. For example when Admiral House, next door was approved, Hindmarsh Square only had a 28m height limit, nevertheless Admiral at 35m was approved. Why?

[bva]

will

i have been a planner for ten years in adelaide and london and i would love for DAP/committees to be a rubber stamp. in some places i have worked officers recommendations were accepted less than 50% of the time! ( i wont mention names but you know them) Obviously the DAP (with professionals on board) has dramatically improved consistently with regard to this but there is still scope for DAP to depart from officer's recommendations.

[how_good_is_he]

I may be wrong, but Urbans [read James Rice] is notorious for a very aggressive, confrontational approach in trying to get his own way. Could it be the way they went about it, rather than the actual development, has got up the councillors noses?

The gung-ho approach of starting a multi-million advertising campaign, trumpeting sales while failing to mention in any ads etc that this project is still subject to development approval may be interpreted as bullying or showing contempt for the council or at the very least, is provactive and challenges the council to go against public opinion.

PS. I actually dont care and hope it gets approved.