Sensational-Adelaide.com

also, previous attempts to revitalise victoria square have all worked in isolation and seperately, not as an overall masterplan. any future progress of victoria square must be dealt with hollistically and strategically.

i have looked at some of the proposals of victoria square, but they all in my opinion; fail to engage what is happening around the square. who will enter into an urban space that large, which does not have any activities or attractions within?

my idea for Victoria square is simple. close off traffic through the wakefield / grote street and make it pedestrianised. leave vehicles only to pass around the edges, but treat surrounding roads so they are engaging for pedestrians to use and cross. then, take advantage of the underground tunnels apparently already under the square (i've heard there are many tunnels under the square from the days Adelaide was first beginning) and create a new South Australian museum, with a Lourve like entrance at the new pedestrianised area that was formerly grote / wakefield streets.

then strategically place a european style cafe piazza in the open space in front of Xaviers Cathedral, as a backdrop. light it at night, fill with chairs and surrounding cafe's, and see the swarm of people that will follow.

Hippodamus wrote:also, previous attempts to revitalise victoria square have all worked in isolation and seperately, not as an overall masterplan. any future progress of victoria square must be dealt with hollistically and strategically.

i have looked at some of the proposals of victoria square, but they all in my opinion; fail to engage what is happening around the square. who will enter into an urban space that large, which does not have any activities or attractions within?

my idea for Victoria square is simple. close off traffic through the wakefield / grote street and make it pedestrianised. leave vehicles only to pass around the edges, but treat surrounding roads so they are engaging for pedestrians to use and cross. then, take advantage of the underground tunnels apparently already under the square (i've heard there are many tunnels under the square from the days Adelaide was first beginning) and create a new South Australian museum, with a Lourve like entrance at the new pedestrianised area that was formerly grote / wakefield streets.

then strategically place a european style cafe piazza in the open space in front of Xaviers Cathedral, as a backdrop. light it at night, fill with chairs and surrounding cafe's, and see the swarm of people that will follow.

As an aside: The only tunnels under Vic Square were the bomb shelters built during the World Wars, other than the bits and bobs of the Treasury building that approach the Square at its Northern end. From what I understand the shelters have been long filled in.

Please keep Victoria Square ideas in the Victoria Squares spam-your-ideas thread

http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... =17&t=1429

Thanks

omada wrote:This is funny, most of us, to varying degrees, were bagging this development, now I can tell the ACC is going cop it for rejecting the development - we can't have it both ways....

You are quite correct! I can see about 16 posts in this thread supporting the ACC decision to reject this (with 5 opposed), and yet it is
about 6 for and 1 against the SA Govt limiting the ACC's powers in the "News from the ACC" discussion ... people do seem to want it both
ways. People put forward intelligent & thoughtful reasons for ACC to reject this, and now appear happy for the ACC to be nobbled for
doing it.

Xaragmata wrote:

omada wrote:This is funny, most of us, to varying degrees, were bagging this development, now I can tell the ACC is going cop it for rejecting the development - we can't have it both ways....

You are quite correct! I can see about 16 posts in this thread supporting the ACC decision to reject this (with 5 opposed), and yet it is
about 6 for and 1 against the SA Govt limiting the ACC's powers in the "News from the ACC" discussion ... people do seem to want it both
ways. People put forward intelligent & thoughtful reasons for ACC to reject this, and now appear happy for the ACC to be nobbled for
doing it.

I dare say this was simply a convenient time for the govt to act. Most of the public would not have a clue about the reasons for rejection of CCT8, and are happy for the ACC tall poppy to be felled.

Why do comments to the thread keep disappearing or are not published if the opinion is not mainstream for that subject?

The existing council is divided and politicised. I think that the mayor tries hard but a hard core of the members continue to stymie development - remember the Victoria Park debacle and Le Cornu?

This is not about bringing down a tall poppy - this is about breathing life into Adelaide and removing a council committee, replacing it by one that represents adelaide and the state, not o'connel street only

Professor wrote:Why do comments to the thread keep disappearing or are not published if the opinion is not mainstream for that subject?

To this thread? I haven't been deleting any, and afaik neither have the moderators.

I personally think this project should have been deferred, not rejected.

From the city Messenger:

DAP ruling hurt by void

Chris Day

16Jul08

A 20-storey office tower, planned for Franklin St, may not have been rejected if more independent members of the City's Development Assessment Panel (DAP) had voted.


Only one of the five independent experts, architect David Grieve, attended the July 7 meeting at which the Aspen Group's proposal was rejected, in a 3:2 vote.

Architect Rob Chessman, planner Brenton Burman and UniSA Professor Mads Gaardboe were overseas or interstate, while the remaining independent expert, businesswoman Deb Lavis, was away for family reasons.

The independents, who receive a $200 per hour sitting fee, have a strong record in supporting new developments.

The narrow vote on July 7 sparked the State Government's decision this week to take planning assessment powers away from the council for projects above $10 million.

``Possibly the absence of many independent members produced a result that would have been different if they attended,'' Lord Mayor Michael Harbison, who sits on the DAP, said this week.

He defended the DAP's record, saying it had approved more than $300 million in major developments since November.

``By in large, it's working well and it's a pity (the government) concentrate on individual hiccups,'' he said.

Cr Sandy Wilkinson, who voted against the development, said the government was wrong to sidestep the council.

``The government has been happy for the City Council to be the decision maker... as long as it says yes to everything proposed,'' he said.

``The council should not be expected to prostitute our development plan, and our city, for the windfall developments of a few.''

I too am pleased that Tower 8 wasn't approved in its present form by DAP, although I think that deferral rather than rejection may have been a wiser course for DAP.

A member of DAP has told me that it was the number and complexity of the failures to comply with the Development Plan that impelled DAP to refuse rather than defer.

In my opinion, deferral would have bben better for two reasons:

Firstly, although DAP was quorate (just), the magnitude of the development probably warranted a full or nearly full attendance of DAP members.

Secondly, it seems obvious, with the benefit of hindsight, that refusal would have been seen as a highly inflammatory response by the Property Council and its friends in the government, especially given the history (Vic Park etc) of relations between ACC and the government/development industry combine.

If you think talk of a 'government/development industry combine' is too harsh, consider the close relationships that have developed between people like Treasurer Foley and the big end of town developers. Have a look at page 45 of the Advertiser 16/7/08.

Colliers is selling the 11 odd hectare Clipsal site at Bowden with the quote, in bold " 'Australia's best TOD development site' - Kevin Foley." So Foley is certainly talkin' the talk.

Back to Tower 8 - the same DAP member also told me that DAP would be happy to allow more floors if the design included a podium and a setback. That way they could still have their 34,000sqm metres (against the 21,000 allowed by the Development Plan. Of course, building higher costs more than building sideways.

The shrieks of 'no certainty' from Nathan Payne of the Property Council and his friends in the government are misplaced. The only certainty about DAP is that they have proved very flexible over the life of the present council. Look at the Hills development around the corner - DAP approved 5 floors more than the Plan allows. Beyond that sort of flexibility, there has to be a limit to the game of buying land at a price that reflects its potential under the Development Plan, then demanding an outrageous breach of the Development Paln to gain a windfall profit. That's just greed, and, giving the authors of the Development Plan some credit for knowing what they were doing, does not lead to a well designed and liveable city. If the game is played too long, the city will become a mess, and everyone's property values will suffer.

The solution to this? Rather than the brutality of 'slicing up the ACC' as Holloway is supposed to have told a function thick with property developers, then using its regulatory powers to take planning power form the council (before he nicked off to Darwin and left thick-skinnned Conlon to take the flak), Holloway could have called an urgent summit of interested parties with a view to perhaps expanding DAP where large developments were concerned. The heavy handed action the govt has taken so far only undermines local government, which if appropriately equipped is a very efficient tool for managing development.


Stumpjumper - always in favour of good design

No mucking around:

Here's an extract from today's government gazette -

Part 2—Variation of Development Regulations 1993
4—Variation of Schedule 10—Decisions by Development Assessment
Commission
Schedule 10—after clause 4A insert:
4B—City of Adelaide—developments over $10m
Development in the area of The Corporation of the City of Adelaide
where the total amount to be applied to any work, when all stages of the development are completed, exceeds $10 000 000.
Note—
As required by section 10AA(2) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978, the Minister has certified that, in the Minister's opinion, it is necessary or appropriate that these regulations come into operation as set out in these regulations.
Made by the Governor
with the advice and consent of the Executive Council
on 17 July 2008
No 212 of 2008

Great.

Good that the government followed through and made the decision to take away the power of those few, unrepresentative and elitist members of the adelaide council DAC that are the cause of this week's unexplained and intellectually weak planning debacle.

No good whinging about it now girls and boys of the DAC - you asked for this eventuality - you received it!

It's ironic, Professor, that you don't like the 'unrepresentative Council DAC' (I think you mean Council DAP) which is representative to the extent that it is chosen by a council which is elected by the people of the area concerned, yet you are in avour of a completely unrepresentative DAC which need not have any connection to the City of Adelaide whatsoever.

As for the unexplained and intellectually weak planning debacle, please explain how the decision was 'unexplained' or 'intellectually weak' in its application o the planning regulations signed off by Paul Holloway himself two years ago.

DAP allowed a 25% overbuild in floor area, but was concerned that the building set a precedent for abandoning the concept of podiums. Go and stand in the darkest, most canyonesque area of New York and see what the lack of podiums does to the feel of the place. There were many other concerns as well.

I you want to shriek irrationally about the phantom elite that controls planning in Adelaide, go and see Treasurer Kevin Foley, the master of irrationality. Only months ago his response to the imagined elites who were keeping the riff-raff out o Victoria Park was to propose a huge building accessible only to Foley and his friends, replacing Foley's imagined elite with his own very real elite of freeloading political apparatchiks.

yah!!! stumpjumper's back!!!

And I don't shriek.

And I live in the CBD so have a right to a point of view as a resident and a ratepayer.

And I have been to New York and do not consider anywhere in Adelaide, with average heights of 18 levels, constitutes a canyon