Sensational-Adelaide.com

metro wrote: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

Good move, us pedestrians pretty much treated this like a zebra crossing anyway.

metro wrote: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

Great move! Well done, Stephen Yarwood.
More of these please in high pedestrian traffic areas in the city - with narrow streets and lower speed limits for added safety.
Examples: Gouger St and Rundle Street East.

parking restrictions around north Adelaide for Adelaide oval

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6648106865

AdelaideAlive wrote:parking restrictions around north Adelaide for Adelaide oval

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6648106865

A smart move IMO. Agree with the logic of why they're doing this.

david wrote:Well I have obviously hit a nerve here.

Certainly not anti-development but anti over-development. A more consistent height of 5 or 6 storeys is what we are talking about rather than 10-12 storey sore thumbs such as the old Queen Vic. (Central Park notwithstanding!)

There was a concerted campaign some years ago to establish a Hills Face Zone which was to be devoid of buildings and that has been largely successful in preserving the Hills as seen from the plains, which many people think was worthwhile.

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. Th

This is what Light built into his city plan and what we need to preserve. Please, just let us have some plain open space with some longer vistas and yes, a view to the Hills!

David

The Hills Face Zone effort was indeed worth the fight. Imagine if not done - not only because it prevented excessive housing development, but also prevented a few open cut quarries (scars) being visually inflicted on us all for the long term. I don't think this effort is widely known about or appreciated. Names of those involved should be written into folklore

Maybe i'm in the minority of this forum, but i like & appreciate distant hills views from within the CBD, and want to retain. I find my eye often being drawn from the nearby CBD amenity to the distant hills - it just seems to work. The practical reality however, is parkland trees block most of this view, unless you're in a tall building, or at ground level gazing eastward up a CBD road, or standing in a few small pockets of the east parklands where tree plantings are more sparse (counter intuitively including the clipsal track area of vic park). It's worth noting that Victoria Park itself has many new juvenile trees, with still more to come, that will over time further block the hills views. In another thread many moons ago i talked about the need for creating 'distant lines of sight' across & through the parklands via a planned approach to plantings - rather than what appears to be a random 'oooh look - there's a gap, better jam in another tree' approach - but that's an aside.

Personally I could accept lower height on the fullarton/greenhill side of the parklands if it encouraged developers to buy up and build more height in the city. It's about driving & rewarding behavior that creates the ends we want, rather than imposing rules that appear as being backward - a subtle but important difference. Building higher in the square mile is more important in my mind than the surrounding suburbs. Further, increased height in the city won't block much in the way of existing views (as most views are up city & cross-parkland roads), and will instead offer remarkable views for new city residents fortunate enough to live 'en haut' in a city tower.

Lastly, passive parklands as a place to escape, a place to get away from the sights and sounds of urban spaces, is definitely worthwhile. It's evident many areas of the parklands are regularly used, much more than commonly perceived, but i would question whether the 'get away from it all' parts are used as much as we desire - personally I stay away from such areas - they scare me due to their lack of human amenity. This neatly ties back to my previous post here.

Adelaide restaurant owners are using powers they don't have to stop non-paying public from sitting down/using outdoor tables used to extend dining beyond the premises.

The ACC says footpaths are for everyone and, having bought permits for outdoor tables, businesses have no exclusive rights. They are not allowed to display signs on the tables which indicate they are for exclusive use of customers of the restaurant/café/hotel.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6649566224

The cafés/restaurants pay for a Council permit to have these outdoor tables and they have to keep the tables, chairs and surrounds clean and hygienic. I can't see why they should not have exclusive use of the outdoor area they have a permit for.

Imagine - a person buys a pastie and coke from a lunch bar, walks 100m, sits down at a table (some have tablecloths), eats, drinks, leaves rubbish behind, walks away. Another sits and reads his/her newspaper/book or uses his/her laptop to check e-mail/write up an assignment etc while having a smoke or munching an apple.

This not only deprives the businessperson of a table for a paying customer, it adds to the frustration of paying to clean up and of having to deal with the odd drunk, loud or objectionable individual/group scaring away potential paying customers.

Commonsense would dictate these tables are for the use of the permit owner and his/her paying customers and they should be able to control who uses them ie for the purpose of outdoor drinking/dining from the premises with the permit.
There should be other street furniture for the general public to use.

what a ridiculous by law. If that the case then they shouldn't have to pay a permit.

I would hope (but not assume) common sense would prevail and it is amended to allow the businesses to control their chairs and tables.

Is this really an issue? how many people actually sit out the front of a cafe and don't buy anything? Slow news day?

Ben wrote:Is this really an issue? how many people actually sit out the front of a cafe and don't buy anything? Slow news day?

It wouldn't surprise me if it was quite often.

Ben wrote:Is this really an issue? how many people actually sit out the front of a cafe and don't buy anything? Slow news day?

It happens a lot. A few permit holders regularly "do the rounds", asking each group if they'd like to place an order and then if they don't asking them to leave.

Looks like it has become more of an issue since advent of mobile food vendors.
ABC item on challenge to outdoor dining bylaw.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-24/c ... section=sa

Vee wrote:Looks like it has become more of an issue since advent of mobile food vendors.
ABC item on challenge to outdoor dining bylaw.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-24/c ... section=sa

I'd like to see some evidence that that is the case. Not only have I not seen a food van parked outside someone elses alfresco dining (in fact, the bylaws for food vans prevent it - remember the arguments about the minimum distance), but I've also never seen anyone take said food and then go for a walk to find a random free table.

That's not to say I don't agree with the cafe owners on this, I think they absolutely have the right to move people along who aren't dining given the licence fee they have to pay, but to blame food trucks is a bit out there.

I think the food trucks excuse is just another log on a different fire. For example I often see people eating Gelatismo on the tables outside Celcius on Gouger Street.

Ignoring that, we do have a conflict here with alfresco permits. The law needs to be updated to clarify if the restaurants are leasing the space and therefore have some claim over it. Or whether they are just being allowed to put their furniture there, which opens a whole can of worms about what's going on and who gets to use the furniture.

Considering that most alfresco setups involve permanent tables and barriers, I'd say that the permit system needs to be changed to reflect that they are in fact leasing the footpath space from the public.

Business owners must be turning a profit from outdoor dining (prominent patrons/signage/advertising and increased floor-space) otherwise they wouldn't extend their permits. I can see both sides of the argument in extreme circumstances but they're turning public space to their advantage. Surely those considered a nuisance have to abide laws which apply to any other public space - littering, loitering, drunk in public etc.

The ACC is looking to clone Brisbane's live music program, presumably for our own Rundle Mall and surrounds.

http://www.northweststar.com.au/story/1 ... ram/?cs=12

Southern capitals to emulate Brisbane live music program

A ratepayer-funded live music program in Brisbane's Queen Street Mall could be replicated in Adelaide and Sydney.

But the success of The City Sounds also indicates a shift in how and where locals engage with live music.

The $300,000 program, which is funded by Brisbane City Council through Brisbane Marketing, provides for 750 shows and 2300 performances over 155 days across nine locations in the CBD.

Acts are paid award rates to perform, and receive industry-standard sound and tech support, promotion through the program's digital platforms and exposure to the mall's 26 million annual visitors.

Meanwhile Brisbane's designated entertainment precinct is grappling with heavy residential development, the dominance of nightclubs, the rise of suburban venues and a planning shake-up that could alter the shape of Brunswick Street Mall for good.

And now other councils across Australia are seeking to emulate Brisbane's success.

Brisbane Marketing's director of CBD retail and strategic development, Megan Barron, said representatives from Adelaide City Council's Rundle Mall Management Authority and the City of Sydney have been in touch with a view to replicate the scheme.

Ms Barron said she was also in negotiations to wrap The City Sounds into the annual QMusic and Brisbane Festival programs.

Doing so would help achieve some of the city's economic development agency's key performance goals, she said, such as boosting footfall in the central shopping strip by adding value to a local's experience and luring in the tourist dollar.

“There have been studies done throughout Australia about the benefit of live music to a city's economy and society,” she said.

“Generally over the space of Wednesday to Sunday, we would be programming a minimum of 25 to 30 acts that are all music acts.”