News & Discussion: Adelaide City Council

[monotonehell]

Let 'em put forward 100 level builds along the parklands. The economic reality will see them scale back to 4 levels soon enough.

[Maximus]

As for under-utilised Park Lands - this is another bone of contention. When you take into account all the numerous sporting activities that are located in the parks including the large areas taken over by private, profitable groups like of PAC, CBC and Pulteney, there isn't much left for just passive use, a place to escape, a place to get away from the sights and sounds of urban spaces.

Taken over??? We should be thankful that these organisations actually use the Parklands for the exact reason they were created -- recreation. Not to mention that their use is generally limited to weekday lunchtimes, after-school and Saturdays. Most of the rest of the time you could fire a cannon across these areas... There's certainly more than enough time for the general public to enjoy passive use, etc. Not that you actually see many people taking advantage of this opportunity.

[claybro]

I actually think the parklands are a barrier to development in the city. They create a zone of little/no activity between the city and surrounding inner suburbs. They are desolate/scary at night and little used during the day. The parklands have created dead zones not only on the fringe of the CBD, but also along the parkland fringes of the inner suburbs. there is no inter connectivity between the two. I say some residential towers around the perimeter would be beneficial to both the CBD and the inner suburbs.

[shaun]

Council, just stick to collecting garbage and quirky ideas for Splash Adelaide. Leave the development side to the State Government.

Taken over??? We should be thankful that these organisations actually use the Parklands for the exact reason they were created -- recreation. Not to mention that their use is generally limited to weekday lunchtimes, after-school and Saturdays. Most of the rest of the time you could fire a cannon across these areas... There's certainly more than enough time for the general public to enjoy passive use, etc. Not that you actually see many people taking advantage of this opportunity.

Exactly, spot on.

[monotonehell]

I'm going to be controversial here and sit on the fence. People who say that the parklands are not utilised are wrong. Almost every park sees some use. Several see a lot of use. Those people are probably just not amongst those who do use the parklands. I walk through the "dead" southern parklands to and from work every weekday and I see people using the parklands. I live near the eastern parklands and I see those used regularly.

However those who are calling for reduced heights surrounding the parklands are also wrong. Attempts to preserve views of the hills are a folly, if you look down any of our streets you can see the hills as an unexciting blue-green smear at the horizon. This is not something that's worthy of "preservation." Views of the hills are only good from about 10 stories and upward.

So please stop rushing to the extremes of this argument because you're all wrong.

[Ben]

If we were Hobart and had a significant mountain behind the Cbd that looked spectacular, agree 100% that is unique, special and looks great. The Adelaide hills are just that, hills. Barely visable from most places in the metro area. They are nothing special to look at and should definitely not be the reason behind limiting development that could enliven what is for most part a dead space. The Adelaide City Councilors that are hell bent on preserving the views of these hill are doing us citizens a disservice. I really hope the Rundle mall development is not a disappointment and upon completion irrelevant because they have focused on one point- clearing the centre so when I'm looking at the shops I can also look at the small bump 20 Kms away. I really couldn't care less. I don't go to the city to look at the hills...

[david]

Today Victoria Park was humming with a few thousand young people having a ball with the Colour Run and in a couple of week's time there will be crowds of enthusiastic Pedal Prix enthusiasts enjoying the Park together with the usual mix of dog-walkers, joggers, fitness fanatics and cyclists. To say that the Park Lands are wastelands is a nonsense.

The reality is that this Park is used for as much of the year as the Clipsal event allows. This 6-month occupation of the Park should be made to account for its ever-lengthening bump-in, bump-out times and its ever-widening footprint which seriously curtails the public use and enjoyment of this space.

As for building heights, as someone posted recently, it is unlikely that we will ever get wall-to-wall 10-storey+ development of the Park Lands frontages. 4 to 6 storey is generally acceptable so why make provision in the DPAs for the greater heights?

People who have comitted themselves to a certain chosen lifestyle and quality of life in where they live are entitled to a reasonable degree of protection from changes to the planning system, without being subjected to excessive criticism, especially given that that the pressure for change is coming mainly from rapacious developers who seldom make a long-term contribution to community improvement and who often do no more than obtain and then promptly on-sell the development approval that they have screwed out of a bemused government.

David

[Waewick]

buy putting it in writing it makes the council look anti-development - largely due to the reasoning, I'd be curious to know if 10 stories would actually block out the view of the hills?

also, I'm a huge fan of the parklands, use them all the time, on most weekends there are people in areas which are people friendly.

Vic Park is great, and it is a fantastic motor sport location - perhaps we need some permanent stand there to reduce the time take to build and take down stands?

[Waewick]

Just another thought, has the council thought about trying to get other councils to agree to a one of levy for building high rise of the perimeter? (Paid on approval...) It would be paid by residential developers and the money used to up keep the parklands.

Really why should the other council benefit fort the ACC hard work?

[mattblack]

4 to 6 storey is generally acceptable so why make provision in the DPAs for the greater heights?

People who have comitted themselves to a certain chosen lifestyle and quality of life in where they live are entitled to a reasonable degree of protection from changes to the planning system.

David

Council should not be in the business of picking winners, it is up to developers to decide if the economic feasability of a project is there and if 10 stories is considered by them to be viable they should not be constrained by 4-6 storeys that the Council has decided on. Yes, there needs to be limits set but these should not inhibit development. As for protection of current residents, there is plenty of protection under the Development Plan with set-backs, over looking and over shadowing (amongst other provisions) that all need to be taken into consideration. This assessment is all undertaken by, guess what? the relevant Council who will be advocates for their residents. They can be as hard as they want when assessing developments accoring to regulations, as long as they can justify their decision making process and for developments that are referred to DAC the Council decision is taken into account when making their rulling. The last thing DAC wants is endless scope for appeal by residents, Council or developers.

[claybro]

Just another thought, has the council thought about trying to get other councils to agree to a one of levy for building high rise of the perimeter? (Paid on approval...) It would be paid by residential developers and the money used to up keep the parklands.

Really why should the other council benefit fort the ACC hard work?

I agree with this. The suburban councils bordering the park lands stand to benefit from the parklands by the desire of developers to build overlooking the green open space. The park lands are seen as a defacto backyard for highrise dwellers where the local council would otherwise have had to provide additional open space. We had a ridiculous situation back in the drought when the ACC and Unley councils went to war over who was going to water the Greenhill Road median. Suffice to say...most of the trees died, the grass died, and this strip has never recovered. What a terrible state of affairs. If the inner suburban councils cant be forced to contribute to the park lands, then the developers should be. Perhaps another approach could be to increase the ACC to cover all immediate inner suburbs, so that it would provide a consistent approach to maintenance, landscaping and funding.

[Maximus]

I'm going to be controversial here...

I don't think you're being controversial at all. On the contrary, I think you've summed it up pretty well. I don't think many people here actually think the parklands are 'dead', but when you're feeling very frustrated, it can be easy to revert to a bit of hyperbole. Also, there are different yardsticks -- e.g. you might consider the parklands 'dead' in comparison to Central Park, but not dead in comparison to a bog-standard suburban park or oval. Despite what my previous post may have portrayed, I do think the parklands are well-used, but I certainly don't think they're used to anywhere near their full potential. Residential development on the city fringe would certainly help to realise this potential.

As for the view of the Hills, I think it depends on where you are. In the eastern suburbs, for example, the Hills are quite prominent and add to the ambience of these older, well-established areas. In the CBD, on the other hand, I don't give much thought to the (somewhat limited) view of the Hills. So I don't think we're going to lose much with 4, 6 or even 10 stories on the city fringe.

[Nathan]

I'm going to be controversial here...

I don't think you're being controversial at all. On the contrary, I think you've summed it up pretty well. I don't think many people here actually think the parklands are 'dead', but when you're feeling very frustrated, it can be easy to revert to a bit of hyperbole. Also, there are different yardsticks -- e.g. you might consider the parklands 'dead' in comparison to Central Park, but not dead in comparison to a bog-standard suburban park or oval. Despite what my previous post may have portrayed, I do think the parklands are well-used, but I certainly don't think they're used to anywhere near their full potential. Residential development on the city fringe would certainly help to realise this potential.

Good response. I think you're right that the frustration comes from the untapped potential. We've been very lucky to have such a large expanse of park surrounding the city, something which is very unique. It has the potential to really be one of the world's great urban parks, but instead it's just decent.

[metro]

Finally! The Lord Mayor Yarwood and the ACC turned this area on Pirie st into a zebra crossing!!

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/zebra-cro ... 6647029358

[Waewick]

Finally! The Lord Mayor Yarwood and the ACC turned this area on Pirie st into a zebra crossing!!

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/zebra-cro ... 6647029358

bravo