News & Discussion: General CBD Development

[iTouch]

can I have your autograph

[iTouch]

I'm a bit bummed that they didn't mention my name in this article

[Justincase]

5776209,1305526164,ImageA.jpg (91.8 KiB) Viewed 4511 times

SAPOL currently occupy the Nelson St vehicle compound and are getting ready to vacate in the next month or so.

[Ben]

Adelaide CBD's $700m building revival surge

Daniel Wills

From: The Advertiser August 15, 2011

DEVELOPMENT interest in the CBD has surged, as private investors lodge $700 million in building plans.

Figures show Adelaide City Council was bombarded with 1135 development applications in the past financial year, the most since 2007-08.

The total estimated value of planned projects reached $1.7 billion, including $1 billion for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, which was not fully costed when assessed.

When the hospital project is excluded, private investment is the strongest since $800 million of CBD projects were proposed in 2007-08.

The council's Development Assessment Panel no longer has power to approve or block developments priced over $10 million but still receives and processes all CBD building plans.

Based on legal advice, the council is deferring fewer applications for consultation with builders and instead rejecting them outright.

Industry leaders say confidence is returning to the sector after it was devastated by the 2008 credit crunch. However, they warn many projects may struggle to get off the ground given the jitters in global financial markets and downturns in the US and European economies.

Urban Development Institute of Australia SA executive director Terry Walsh said the value of prospective projects was surprisingly strong.

"A lot of key entrepreneurs are looking at this opportunity at this moment in time," he said. "The difficulty has been in the delivery. There is a degree of caution and difficulty with bank finance."

Property Council of Australia SA executive director Nathan Paine said development guidelines in the CBD needed to be widened to allow greater investment.

Many council-mandated height restrictions were not "realistic and reasonable in this day and age", he said. "We need a development plan that facilitates development rather than making it harder and more uncertain," Mr Paine said yesterday.

Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood said he was willing to revisit building height limits to promote CBD living.

"We need to look at heights ... but it's not the be-all and end-all," he said. "Some of the really good, sustainable, attractive city-living models are four to six storeys."

[[Shuz]]

A good news story from the Advertiser is a rarity, but surely they could have been a bit more optimistic and really incited some positivity and wellbeing about the healthy state of construction activity that has been proposed, commencing or under construction in the City.

While still $300m short of the $1b private sector investment we saw pre-GFC, if you factor in the cost of Government funded projects - $2.1b NRAH, $200m SAHMRI, $450m Adelaide Oval, $380m Convention Centre that adds up to $4.13b in government investment in development. Combine $4.13b with $700m is $4.8b, give or take.

$4.8b is a prettier headline that $700m, is it not? I am sure that if the Advertiser's 100,000 daily readership saw those figures, the change in mentality from those thinking "nothing happens in Adelaide" to "things are happening in Adelaide" would have been overwhelmingly signifcant. It's a conversation starter, and its exactly the kind of positive injection we (as South Australians) should have been exposed to to further shake off the 90's rustbelt mentality, which unfortunately still echoes in the minds of many.

[Wayno]

do we have a thread on this Union St development?

A MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR tourist accommodation facility in the East End has been rejected again.

It is the second time in two years the Adelaide City Council has blocked the development.

The council's Development Assessment Panel decided last night not to support the new proposal by the Rundle East Company for a six-storey, 19m-high accommodation on Union St.

The final decision rests with the independent Development Assessment Commission.

The building featured residential rooms on the ground floor and 15 rooms for tourists on the upper levels.

The panel said the building would have exceeded the maximum building height limit of its East End Policy, which is set at 13m, and did not satisfy the desired character of the East End.

This is despite the proposal receiving support from the State Heritage Branch because the site is adjacent to a state heritage-listed former Adelaide Fruit and Produce Exchange building.

In July 2009, the panel rejected a proposal for the building on the intersection of Rundle and Union streets because it involved demolishing a distinctive building.

It was then accepted by the development commission, but lapsed after no action was taken in the next 12 months by the applicant.

Councillor Anthony Williamson said accepting the proposal would have been "grossly unfair" on people living nearby.

"The people who bought the apartments in city - and I encourage city living - would have bought the apartments in the knowledge that this was limited to 13 metres in this area so they would have views over the top of perimeter buildings," he said.

Councillor Michael Henningsen said the panel rejected the proposal to maintain consistency because the height, external appearance and architectural design had not changed from the original proposal.

Councillor Anne Moran, the only member to support the proposal, said the building was well-designed and would have been well-used.

"I thought the building, although tall, was complementary ... it fitted within the sunlight rules and the overlooking rules," she said.

Rundle East Company owner and property developer Theo Maras said he was disappointed with the council's decision.

[contractor]

Hi All,

Does anyone know whether a carbon neutral building has ever been submitted for approval within the cbd or suburbs of Adelaide?

Cheers.

[Omicron]

A good news story from the Advertiser is a rarity, but surely they could have been a bit more optimistic and really incited some positivity and wellbeing about the healthy state of construction activity that has been proposed, commencing or under construction in the City.

While still $300m short of the $1b private sector investment we saw pre-GFC, if you factor in the cost of Government funded projects - $2.1b NRAH, $200m SAHMRI, $450m Adelaide Oval, $380m Convention Centre that adds up to $4.13b in government investment in development. Combine $4.13b with $700m is $4.8b, give or take.

$4.8b is a prettier headline that $700m, is it not? I am sure that if the Advertiser's 100,000 daily readership saw those figures, the change in mentality from those thinking "nothing happens in Adelaide" to "things are happening in Adelaide" would have been overwhelmingly signifcant. It's a conversation starter, and its exactly the kind of positive injection we (as South Australians) should have been exposed to to further shake off the 90's rustbelt mentality, which unfortunately still echoes in the minds of many.

RIghtly or wrongly, you know very well that that headline would have read 'Taxpayers' $4.1b development binge'.

Actually, that's rather good. I should submit that!

[Splashmo]

Hi All,

Does anyone know whether a carbon neutral building has ever been submitted for approval within the cbd or suburbs of Adelaide?

Cheers.

I'm sure there are carbon neutral houses, but I doubt there's a carbon neutral building in the sense you might be thinking. I'm not even sure it's possible for an office building to generate all its energy needs on site. Some might be carbon neutral through offsetting (possibly the Advertiser like the rest of News Limited?)

[UrbanSG]

In today's paper - Building Tenders Section, there are a number of companies requesting expressions of interest for '30 Flinders Street Redevelopment' (the old Police headquarters).

There haven't been any applications yet as far as I know. It will be interesting to see what is proposed. Could be as simple as office fitouts. Although I seem to remember the building structural had problems. A change to apartments would be good in that location but I'm guessing not as likely .

[crawf]

Quick job on the computer...

Excludes residential and office developments

[mokeystyley]

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but an interesting article in "In Daily" on Adelaide and the future....
Does this all sound familiar?


Thursday, 6 October 2011
Affection for Adelaide not enough

Returning home after five years working overseas, architect Greg Bond and his wife Leisha have reignited their affection for the wide, well-planned streets of Adelaide. But something is not quite right, as Bond writes:

I HAVE lived away from my hometown more than once and each time I’ve returned, I’ve experienced the joy of landing in a city which has such potential – if only it was actually fulfilled.

Adelaide is indeed the very model of a modern major capital – a “new world” city. There are many cities like ours – functional, organised and palatable to the masses.

However, the new world has also brought us things like Starbucks and Ikea which are also successful and organised, but unabashedly bland.

A well-coined phrase bandied about many a design studio is that society gets the architecture it deserves … so it begs the question: what does this city actually deserve?

Surely it’s time for a more evolved version than Light’s original vision?

The problem is Adelaideans notoriously indulge in a “not in my backyard mentality”, rather than embracing the idea that striking, modern, green design can not only radically enhance the aesthetic make-up of a city but also its cultural heartbeat.

Bilbao’s Guggenheim, the British Museum in London and The High Line Park in New York are all notable examples of this and yet still manage to successfully interplay with character heritage buildings.

We also suffer from too much talk and not a lot of action.

During my four-year stint in Dubai, I
watched an entire metropolis emerge from the dust, only to discover
upon my homecoming our city STILL bickering over plans for Victoria
Square.

In the past year, I’ve been working in San Francisco (coincidentally a city with many Starbucks stores, but no Ikea). I observed a phenomenon that Adelaide, with its 30-Year Plan for Urban Growth, seems to be on the verge of striving to achieve — a built environment that’s dynamic in its diversity.

In terms of pure numbers, Adelaide is larger than San Francisco. We have more than one million people and they have just three quarters of that. However, beyond the tourist traps, San-Fran is globally recognised as a vibrant city.

The key difference is not those hills or sea lions – it’s that all 750,000 residents are nestled into the city’s seven square miles, living in apartments and townhouses, taking advantage of, and supporting, the many parks and high streets to create alluring social hubs.

This is what gives San Francisco its buoyant air. By comparison, the population of Adelaide “proper” is about 20,000. The rest of the million-plus are dreaming of their own quarter acre and stretching out further and further and … you get the point.

There are many problems resulting from this resource-draining expansion and I would argue the biggest is the missing critical mass that helps to build vivacious communities.

I’m not arguing that every one of us should live in apartments like we’ve been dropped into Mexico City or Shanghai. Rather, more people in and around and above our existing villages — Hutt St, O’Connell St, The Parade, Unley Rd, Prospect Rd – would make them a more engaged place to live.

One other notable difference between the two cities which should not be overlooked is that San Francisco activates its open spaces.

Their parks and squares encourage public engagement — Golden Gate Park with the De Young Museum, Academy of Sciences, swing dancing classes and fly fishing ponds –- is filled to capacity on the weekend. Its central destination, Union Square, offers underground parking, a bustling retail district and an arena for Friday open-air art galleries, Latin dancing and movie nights.

In other words, atmosphere — something our policy planners should strive to achieve, rather than conceding to a minority of campaigners who want to keep the Parklands a shrink-wrapped time capsule.

Now we’re home again, I want to stay and enjoy a city with great things like Lucia’s coffee, Rockford’s Basket Press and Khai Liew’s furniture.

More importantly, I want to stay and enjoy a city that deserves things like Lucias, Rockfords and Khai Liew.

Greg Bond is a senior architect with the Brown Falconer Group

[bm7500]

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but an interesting article in "In Daily" on Adelaide and the future....
Does this all sound familiar?


Thursday, 6 October 2011
Affection for Adelaide not enough

Returning home after five years working overseas, architect Greg Bond and his wife Leisha have reignited their affection for the wide, well-planned streets of Adelaide. But something is not quite right, as Bond writes:

I HAVE lived away from my hometown more than once and each time I’ve returned, I’ve experienced the joy of landing in a city which has such potential – if only it was actually fulfilled.

Adelaide is indeed the very model of a modern major capital – a “new world” city. There are many cities like ours – functional, organised and palatable to the masses.

However, the new world has also brought us things like Starbucks and Ikea which are also successful and organised, but unabashedly bland.

A well-coined phrase bandied about many a design studio is that society gets the architecture it deserves … so it begs the question: what does this city actually deserve?

Surely it’s time for a more evolved version than Light’s original vision?

The problem is Adelaideans notoriously indulge in a “not in my backyard mentality”, rather than embracing the idea that striking, modern, green design can not only radically enhance the aesthetic make-up of a city but also its cultural heartbeat.

Bilbao’s Guggenheim, the British Museum in London and The High Line Park in New York are all notable examples of this and yet still manage to successfully interplay with character heritage buildings.

We also suffer from too much talk and not a lot of action.

During my four-year stint in Dubai, I
watched an entire metropolis emerge from the dust, only to discover
upon my homecoming our city STILL bickering over plans for Victoria
Square.

In the past year, I’ve been working in San Francisco (coincidentally a city with many Starbucks stores, but no Ikea). I observed a phenomenon that Adelaide, with its 30-Year Plan for Urban Growth, seems to be on the verge of striving to achieve — a built environment that’s dynamic in its diversity.

In terms of pure numbers, Adelaide is larger than San Francisco. We have more than one million people and they have just three quarters of that. However, beyond the tourist traps, San-Fran is globally recognised as a vibrant city.

The key difference is not those hills or sea lions – it’s that all 750,000 residents are nestled into the city’s seven square miles, living in apartments and townhouses, taking advantage of, and supporting, the many parks and high streets to create alluring social hubs.

This is what gives San Francisco its buoyant air. By comparison, the population of Adelaide “proper” is about 20,000. The rest of the million-plus are dreaming of their own quarter acre and stretching out further and further and … you get the point.

There are many problems resulting from this resource-draining expansion and I would argue the biggest is the missing critical mass that helps to build vivacious communities.

I’m not arguing that every one of us should live in apartments like we’ve been dropped into Mexico City or Shanghai. Rather, more people in and around and above our existing villages — Hutt St, O’Connell St, The Parade, Unley Rd, Prospect Rd – would make them a more engaged place to live.

One other notable difference between the two cities which should not be overlooked is that San Francisco activates its open spaces.

Their parks and squares encourage public engagement — Golden Gate Park with the De Young Museum, Academy of Sciences, swing dancing classes and fly fishing ponds –- is filled to capacity on the weekend. Its central destination, Union Square, offers underground parking, a bustling retail district and an arena for Friday open-air art galleries, Latin dancing and movie nights.

In other words, atmosphere — something our policy planners should strive to achieve, rather than conceding to a minority of campaigners who want to keep the Parklands a shrink-wrapped time capsule.

Now we’re home again, I want to stay and enjoy a city with great things like Lucia’s coffee, Rockford’s Basket Press and Khai Liew’s furniture.

More importantly, I want to stay and enjoy a city that deserves things like Lucias, Rockfords and Khai Liew.

Greg Bond is a senior architect with the Brown Falconer Group

Greg Bond for Premier!

[Wayno]

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but an interesting article in "In Daily" on Adelaide and the future....
Does this all sound familiar?

I'd love a dollar for every time someone spouts a variant to this story. He's basically saying "I lived somewhere else for a while and they have money and widgets so why can't we have them?!?"

Well Greg, it's mostly an issue of cash, which SA has not historically had. Comparisons to Dubai are ludicrous.

Nothing to be seen here - move along.

[Will]

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but an interesting article in "In Daily" on Adelaide and the future....
Does this all sound familiar?

I'd love a dollar for every time someone spouts a variant to this story. He's basically saying "I lived somewhere else for a while and they have money and widgets so why can't we have them?!?"

Well Greg, it's mostly an issue of cash, which SA has not historically had. Comparisons to Dubai are ludicrous.

Nothing to be seen here - move along.

I completely agree.

Such articles are no longer relevant.

Sure, we may still not have started work on Victoria Square, but when we have so many other projects on the go, I don't really understand why it is important to emphasise the little that is negative. Our city is going places, and if people can't see that, well then I am sad that they still haven't removed their poo-coloured glasses.

p.s. San Francisco actually has 7.5 million inhabitants. You forgot 1 zero Greg.