Sensational-Adelaide.com

AtD wrote:The minister made the right decision in approving this. This site is well suited to high density development.

I agree. But the problem is that the minister can't always be trusted to make the right decision. Sure, we can embrace this development, but we should acknowledge that the increasing looseness of major project status could (and will) make it harder to oppose bad developments.

Is this the same site in kent town for the proposed 7 level apartment building called 'the deq'?

frank1 wrote:Is this the same site in kent town for the proposed 7 level apartment building called 'the deq'?

No, it's up the road a little bit.

What is the difference between a 5 and 6 star hotel?

crawf wrote:What is the difference between a 5 and 6 star hotel?

About $500 a night

And one star.

crawf wrote:What is the difference between a 5 and 6 star hotel?

Most travel ratings systems only go up to five stars. So those hotels are calling themselves six stars. It means nothing. It's like that Dubai hotel who have decided that they are a seven star hotel.

My bedroom is a hundred stars.

AtD wrote:My bedroom is a hundred stars.

Pfft, I can't see many stars from my gutter with all the smog.

AtD wrote:The minister made the right decision in approving this. This site is well suited to high density development.

+1

A good-looking building on a good site, with the decision taken away from obnoxious councillors with hideous delusions of grandeur and importance. Good.

stumpjumper wrote: Yeah, but a bad week for due process.

Both the Gilberton and Kent Town decisions have been made by Ministerial intervention, overturning council decisions, and from which there is no appeal.

In the Gilberton case, the Minister has awarded Major Project Status, for reasons which he is not obliged to reveal.

If the development approval system is in such a bad way that the Minister must constantly intervene, then there should be a major and urgent review.

+1

If a positive outcome can only exist when the system is put in a basket and sent up the river, then throw it away and start again.

This project has been around in various forms for about ten years. It's been rejigged and rejected several times including on appeal to the ERD court:

ttp://www.courts.sa.gov.au/courts/environment ... rwood.html

I'm wondering why there aren't more inducements (tax breaks etc) to site developments like this in the city square mile (along with the 15,000 people being 'sent' to Mt Barker)? Each development like this on the city fringe, like the commercial developments on Greenhill and Fullarton Roads in the seventies, robs the city (ie the square mile) of potential vitality. The '350 permanent jobs' (35 staff per floor - there's 6 stars for you) available to locals would be snapped up by city dwellers including students. A virtuous circle.

If a positive outcome can only exist when the system is put in a basket and sent up the river, then throw it away and start again.

Agreed, Omicron, but for the sake of the integrity of the planning system, why not change the system first then put the project up for approval? They've already waited ten years (at least Marshall & Brougham have).

stumpjumper wrote:I'm wondering why there aren't more inducements (tax breaks etc) to site developments like this in the city square mile (along with the 15,000 people being 'sent' to Mt Barker)? Each development like this on the city fringe, like the commercial developments on Greenhill and Fullarton Roads in the seventies, robs the city (ie the square mile) of potential vitality. The '350 permanent jobs' (35 staff per floor - there's 6 stars for you) available to locals would be snapped up by city dwellers including students. A virtuous circle.

The problem is the logical conclusion to that argument is don't let anything be built anywhere in SA other than in the square mile.

Besides, this is effectively at the end of Rundle Street. You would get many of the guests scurrying across the Parklands for meals and such.

stumpjumper wrote:
I'm wondering why there aren't more inducements (tax breaks etc) to site developments like this in the city square mile (along with the 15,000 people being 'sent' to Mt Barker)? Each development like this on the city fringe, like the commercial developments on Greenhill and Fullarton Roads in the seventies, robs the city (ie the square mile) of potential vitality. The '350 permanent jobs' (35 staff per floor - there's 6 stars for you) available to locals would be snapped up by city dwellers including students. A virtuous circle.

I wouldn't say 15,000 people are being 'sent' to Mt Barker, thousands of people have already been 'choosing' to move to the Adelaide Hills in the past decade.

monotonehell wrote:

crawf wrote:What is the difference between a 5 and 6 star hotel?

Most travel ratings systems only go up to five stars. So those hotels are calling themselves six stars. It means nothing. It's like that Dubai hotel who have decided that they are a seven star hotel.

its like guitar amps that go up to 11

crawf wrote:I wouldn't say 15,000 people are being 'sent' to Mt Barker, thousands of people have already been 'choosing' to move to the Adelaide Hills in the past decade.

You could argue that people are being 'sent' to Mt Barker because of obstruction of high-density living in the inner city. Every DINK that moves into an apartment frees up a house for a family.