News & Discussion: Low/Mid-Rise CBD Development

[gnrc_louis]

Can someone please post this: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscrib ... our=append

[Llessur2002]

Adelaide City Council plans go-ahead for nine-storey tower

A 26-apartment, nine-storey tower will be the subject of a North Adelaide residents protest at Adelaide City Council tonight.

The project, proposed by the Walter Partnership, is for the current run down 1972 office site at 12-16 Walter Street off the southern end of O’Connell St.

The zoning for the area is “City Main Street” and the building would fit within height limits at 30 metres.

The City of Adelaide Council Assessment Panel meets at 5.30pm today to assess the project, and will hear from residents who say the tower is too big for the narrow street.


Proposed residential tower for Walter St, North Adelaide. Picture: Supplied

Council administration has recommended the project be accepted because it; “proposes a building height that will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts not contemplated to occur within the zone”.

The council report also reveals opposition has weakened since 15 per cent of the project was dedicated to low cost housing, and car parks were cut from 34 to 30.

It states, following the amendment: “A total of 33 representations were received with the second round of public notification. Of these, 16 representations are in support and 17 are opposed to the proposal”.


Proposed residential tower site in Walter St, North Adelaide. Picture: Supplied


Should a tower go here?

Speaking tonight will be nearby residents Marie Sexton, Adam Durham, Kimberly Iremonger, Deborah Hamilton.

North Adelaide Society chair Elbert Brooks will speak on behalf of other neighbours and the society.

In total ten groups and people will speak or be represented, and the panel will also hear from the developers.

Mr Brooks said he did not want to pre-empt the discussions of the panel, but residents had a number of objections to the “huge” development.

“The basic issues from the residents are about grossly excessive height, and mass, it being totally inconsistent with this being a very narrow and small side street,’’ he said.

“This is a huge proposed development. It comprises such a large number of residents flats as to increase traffic unacceptably along that very small street.”

From: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... e8ee9960ec

[gnrc_louis]

Adelaide City Council plans go-ahead for nine-storey tower

A 26-apartment, nine-storey tower will be the subject of a North Adelaide residents protest at Adelaide City Council tonight.

The project, proposed by the Walter Partnership, is for the current run down 1972 office site at 12-16 Walter Street off the southern end of O’Connell St.

The zoning for the area is “City Main Street” and the building would fit within height limits at 30 metres.

The City of Adelaide Council Assessment Panel meets at 5.30pm today to assess the project, and will hear from residents who say the tower is too big for the narrow street.


Proposed residential tower for Walter St, North Adelaide. Picture: Supplied

Council administration has recommended the project be accepted because it; “proposes a building height that will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts not contemplated to occur within the zone”.

The council report also reveals opposition has weakened since 15 per cent of the project was dedicated to low cost housing, and car parks were cut from 34 to 30.

It states, following the amendment: “A total of 33 representations were received with the second round of public notification. Of these, 16 representations are in support and 17 are opposed to the proposal”.


Proposed residential tower site in Walter St, North Adelaide. Picture: Supplied


Should a tower go here?

Speaking tonight will be nearby residents Marie Sexton, Adam Durham, Kimberly Iremonger, Deborah Hamilton.

North Adelaide Society chair Elbert Brooks will speak on behalf of other neighbours and the society.

In total ten groups and people will speak or be represented, and the panel will also hear from the developers.

Mr Brooks said he did not want to pre-empt the discussions of the panel, but residents had a number of objections to the “huge” development.

“The basic issues from the residents are about grossly excessive height, and mass, it being totally inconsistent with this being a very narrow and small side street,’’ he said.

“This is a huge proposed development. It comprises such a large number of residents flats as to increase traffic unacceptably along that very small street.”

From: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... e8ee9960ec

Thanks - looks good. For much too long the elite, largely geriatric NIMBY residents of North Adelaide have turned what should be a bustling inner-city suburb, into what feels like more of a quiet "village." Also lmao at Elbert Brooks calling them "flats" rather than "apartments" - no doubt done on purpose to give them a lower socio-economic connotation. Hopefully projects like this continue to happen, the area is perfect for greater density.

[SRW]

Looks good. Hope it can get underway without the North Adelaide NIMBYs dragging it through the ERD court.

[A-Town]

Thanks - looks good. For much too long the elite, largely geriatric NIMBY residents of North Adelaide have turned what should be a bustling inner-city suburb, into what feels like more of a quiet "village." Also lmao at Elbert Brooks calling them "flats" rather than "apartments" - no doubt done on purpose to give them a lower socio-economic connotation. Hopefully projects like this continue to happen, the area is perfect for greater density.

Agreed. A tram down O'Connell St is sorely needed as well.

[abc]

Thanks - looks good. For much too long the elite, largely geriatric NIMBY residents of North Adelaide have turned what should be a bustling inner-city suburb, into what feels like more of a quiet "village." Also lmao at Elbert Brooks calling them "flats" rather than "apartments" - no doubt done on purpose to give them a lower socio-economic connotation. Hopefully projects like this continue to happen, the area is perfect for greater density.

such a bad take

this development is inappropriate for the area and is all about maximising dollars for a developer rather than enhancing the built environment

how would you like a 9 level apartment building put up right next to your quiet suburban 4BR house?

[gnrc_louis]

Thanks - looks good. For much too long the elite, largely geriatric NIMBY residents of North Adelaide have turned what should be a bustling inner-city suburb, into what feels like more of a quiet "village." Also lmao at Elbert Brooks calling them "flats" rather than "apartments" - no doubt done on purpose to give them a lower socio-economic connotation. Hopefully projects like this continue to happen, the area is perfect for greater density.

Agreed. A tram down O'Connell St is sorely needed as well.

Would be great - especially if it went right through to Prospect.

[Llessur2002]

how would you like a 9 level apartment building put up right next to your quiet suburban 4BR house?

North Adelaide is hardly the definition of suburbia.

[timtam20292]

Thanks - looks good. For much too long the elite, largely geriatric NIMBY residents of North Adelaide have turned what should be a bustling inner-city suburb, into what feels like more of a quiet "village." Also lmao at Elbert Brooks calling them "flats" rather than "apartments" - no doubt done on purpose to give them a lower socio-economic connotation. Hopefully projects like this continue to happen, the area is perfect for greater density.

such a bad take

this development is inappropriate for the area and is all about maximising dollars for a developer rather than enhancing the built environment

how would you like a 9 level apartment building put up right next to your quiet suburban 4BR house?

Boo hoo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SRW]

Walter Street is predominantly commercial and this site is adjacent two major inner city streets. If you can’t support (affordable!) low rise here, your motivations are suspect.

[JAKJ]

Adelaide City Council plans go-ahead for nine-storey tower

A 26-apartment, nine-storey tower will be the subject of a North Adelaide residents protest at Adelaide City Council tonight.

The project, proposed by the Walter Partnership, is for the current run down 1972 office site at 12-16 Walter Street off the southern end of O’Connell St.

The zoning for the area is “City Main Street” and the building would fit within height limits at 30 metres.

The City of Adelaide Council Assessment Panel meets at 5.30pm today to assess the project, and will hear from residents who say the tower is too big for the narrow street.


Proposed residential tower for Walter St, North Adelaide. Picture: Supplied

Council administration has recommended the project be accepted because it; “proposes a building height that will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts not contemplated to occur within the zone”.

The council report also reveals opposition has weakened since 15 per cent of the project was dedicated to low cost housing, and car parks were cut from 34 to 30.

It states, following the amendment: “A total of 33 representations were received with the second round of public notification. Of these, 16 representations are in support and 17 are opposed to the proposal”.


Proposed residential tower site in Walter St, North Adelaide. Picture: Supplied


Should a tower go here?

Speaking tonight will be nearby residents Marie Sexton, Adam Durham, Kimberly Iremonger, Deborah Hamilton.

North Adelaide Society chair Elbert Brooks will speak on behalf of other neighbours and the society.

In total ten groups and people will speak or be represented, and the panel will also hear from the developers.

Mr Brooks said he did not want to pre-empt the discussions of the panel, but residents had a number of objections to the “huge” development.

“The basic issues from the residents are about grossly excessive height, and mass, it being totally inconsistent with this being a very narrow and small side street,’’ he said.

“This is a huge proposed development. It comprises such a large number of residents flats as to increase traffic unacceptably along that very small street.”

From: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... e8ee9960ec

Thanks - looks good. For much too long the elite, largely geriatric NIMBY residents of North Adelaide have turned what should be a bustling inner-city suburb, into what feels like more of a quiet "village." Also lmao at Elbert Brooks calling them "flats" rather than "apartments" - no doubt done on purpose to give them a lower socio-economic connotation. Hopefully projects like this continue to happen, the area is perfect for greater density.

This is a ridiculous take. This building does not have O'Connell Street/ main road frontage and is down a small laneway. Completely inappropriate site to develop to this size (take a drive and you can see what I mean). As for turning the O'Connell Street corridor into a mid rise canyon it does endanger the look and feel of North Adelaide which is unique. We have huge urban development infill sites in Bowden and Thebarton which have proper public transport connections (rail/ tram) for this type of development - start with that before destroying our heritage inner suburbs.

Also given who is behind this development I can guarantee that the already questionable aesthetics will be degraded further and approval was obtained more on their connections than any kind of merit. This is Adelaide corruption at its finest.

[rev]

Whats unique about it?

[gnrc_louis]

From: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... e8ee9960ec

Thanks - looks good. For much too long the elite, largely geriatric NIMBY residents of North Adelaide have turned what should be a bustling inner-city suburb, into what feels like more of a quiet "village." Also lmao at Elbert Brooks calling them "flats" rather than "apartments" - no doubt done on purpose to give them a lower socio-economic connotation. Hopefully projects like this continue to happen, the area is perfect for greater density.

This is a ridiculous take. This building does not have O'Connell Street/ main road frontage and is down a small laneway. Completely inappropriate site to develop to this size (take a drive and you can see what I mean). As for turning the O'Connell Street corridor into a mid rise canyon it does endanger the look and feel of North Adelaide which is unique. We have huge urban development infill sites in Bowden and Thebarton which have proper public transport connections (rail/ tram) for this type of development - start with that before destroying our heritage inner suburbs.

Also given who is behind this development I can guarantee that the already questionable aesthetics will be degraded further and approval was obtained more on their connections than any kind of merit. This is Adelaide corruption at its finest.

There’s examples of development of this size on similarly small CBD streets and they seem to function just fine (shocking I know!). We can develop those infill sites and North Adelaide, simultaneously, with each likely to appeal to different demographics. Also density doesn’t by default “destroy” heritage - they can exist alongside one another. As a resident of north Adelaide I welcome this and hopefully there’s more to come.

[gnrc_louis]

1.3 million missing homes blamed on councils and NIMBYS
John Kehoe
Economics editor
May 29, 2023 – 5.00am
Save
Share
Australia could have built an extra 1.3 million homes over the past 20 years, but costly zoning, planning and building red tape imposed by local councils is chiefly to blame for a huge housing undersupply, according to analysis by former Reserve Bank of Australia economist Tony Richards.
In new research published today by The Australian Financial Review to kickstart a series on housing supply, Dr Richards said building more medium-density homes may require taking powers off local councils to stop caving in to “NIMBY” (Not in My Backyard) agitators.

Dr Richards said the federal government’s target for 1 million new homes over five years was “not that ambitious”, and a much bigger expansion was required to make up for past undersupply and future population growth. Home building has slowed significantly over the past two decades, largely due to prime residential real estate being restricted to single homes, developers facing long and expensive applications, and legal disputes with existing residents.

The case for medium-density housing in our large cities, calculates that housing supply has expanded at just 4.5 per cent ahead of population growth over the 20 years to 2021, much slower than the 17 per cent above the population increase in the previous 20 years.
Maintaining the earlier pace would have increased the housing stock by 220,000 homes a year, instead of the actual growth of 153,000 a year.

The slower building of homes implies a 20-year shortfall of 383,107 homes in NSW, 352,292 in Queensland, 282,694 in Victoria, 160,397 in Western Australia, 102,321 in South Australia, 34,146 in Tasmania, 14,385 in Canberra and 8504 in the Northern Territory.

Medium-density required
Dr Richards said as the population expanded and cities grew, more townhouses and apartment buildings of about four storeys were required in inner and middle suburbs, not necessarily more “high-rise” towers which the system has “arguably over-delivered”. He said medium-density homes could be approved by making better use of land that is already zoned residential, not taking over parkland or recreation areas. “Our current arrangements introduce barriers to entry into home building and add significantly to the cost of home building,” he said. “If we care about housing affordability and having a city that better meets the housing needs of its population ... we need a planning and approvals system that is easier for home builders to interact with, rather than one that is complex, expensive and corruption-prone.”However, the message is still to get through to some policymakers, especially at the local government level.”
Housing All Australians founder Robert Pradolin said local councils were “knocking back” planning permits and adding development costs because of “local politics”.
“My concern is the intergenerational economic time bomb and future generations won’t be able to afford a home,” said Mr Pradolin, a former property developer now campaigning to fix the chronic shortage of affordable housing for those on low incomes. “Local councils always ‘talk the talk’ about more social housing, but they don’t recognise that the whole housing continuum needs to be increased to make homes more affordable.
“I’ve never met a federal minister, a state minister or local government elected politician that really understands how their decisions impact housing affordability.” The federal budget forecasts new home building will plunge to a 10-year low and collide with the arrival of a record 1.5 million migrants, a clash that property executives warn will worsen housing shortages, drive up rents and inflate real estate prices.
There are about 640,000 Australian households whose housing needs are not being met due to homelessness, overcrowded homes or spending more than 30 per cent of their income on rent, according to the University of NSW’s City Futures Research Centre.RBA research finds that a 1 per cent increase in the national housing stock reduces the cost of housing by about 2.5 per cent.

State planning ministers and the Australian Local Government Association are developing a proposal for national cabinet to increase housing supply and affordability, and to better plan for services and infrastructure to cope with immigration. Australian Local Government Association president Linda Scott said the nation’s 537 councils had an obligation to plan for the most livable areas for “existing” and “future” residents.“We must, however, invest in the physical and social infrastructure necessary to build vibrant communities, not just homes,” said Ms Scott, a Labor councillor on the City of Sydney Council, one of the nation’s highest-density areas. Ms Scott called for the federal government to set up a $100 million fund to help councils facilitate more affordable and social housing, to assist with land audits and housing assessments, and develop business models for housing projects.
Extra funding would also help councils overcome skilled worker shortages and limited resources to streamline housing supply, she said.“There is much more local government could do if funded to overcome the workforce shortages of town planners, engineers and other skilled construction workers.”

The Productivity Commission’s 2022 review of the federal-state housing and homelessness agreement recommended state governments commit to “firm targets” for new housing supply, “facilitated by planning reforms and better co-ordination of infrastructure”.Dr Richards’ 4200-word essay exposes how builders have to navigate 150-page state local environment plans, in addition to council development control plans that exceed 750 pages in his local council of Willoughby in Sydney. Moreover, local home builder zoning maps confined “large swaths” of land for single-family homes and there was “much less land zoned for medium-density”, he said.

Big rezoning updates occurred only about once a decade, and the process for spot rezoning was long, expensive and had uncertain outcomes for applicants.“It involves application fees, commissioning costly reports from various subject-matter consultants to support the application and the likely rejection of the application by council,” he said. “The applicant will then have to decide whether to attempt a costly appeals process that may bring in city-wide or state-level bodies.“If a rezoning is eventually achieved, there will then be a lengthy process of negotiation with council to get a development approval for a particular building design. “So when you see a somewhat run-down house and garden in a well-located area that is close to transport, it is likely that it has been secured by a developer who is working on getting a rezoning and then a development approval.” The bureaucratic red tape led to developers and “speculators” trying to anticipate what rezonings may be feasible in a decade or more and incentivised land banking. “They will then buy up this land, or enter into options to buy the land, and then begin to try to influence the council planning process to include their land in a spot rezoning or in rezonings in future LEPs [local environmental plans],” Dr Richards said. The current arbitrary process made local councils more prone to “corruption”, rent-seeking and special favours.
“The upshot of the current arrangements is that the important tasks of home building and modernising our cities have become heavily reliant on individuals and firms whose main skill is navigating the development approval process and influencing local and state government officials to try to ease constraints on what can be built.”

Councils reject takeover of powers
Ms Scott rejected calls for state governments to take over more powers from councils. “Local governments do object to having planning powers removed that result in poor planning decisions being made by centralised, fast-track planning processes such as allowing development in flood plains and in areas with rich fertile soil,” she said. But Dr Richards said it might be necessary to take some decision-making powers off councils if they failed to streamline approvals. “Building more medium-density housing may require taking some powers out of the hands of local councils and having decision-making that looks beyond the preferences of current local residents, including NIMBYs, and more to the needs of the broader city and of future generations of potential residents.” Ms Scott blamed “property developers shelving projects because of soaring costs and lacklustre property prices”. She pointed to a KPMG report showing a 30 per cent surge in residential construction costs over the past two years had prompted developers to shelve projects. Almost 16,400 dwellings in NSW were approved but not yet begun by the end of March. In Victoria, almost 10,500 dwellings were approved but construction had not yet started.

Lindsay Partridge, the chief executive of Australia’s biggest brick making company, Brickworks, said more needed to be done on the policy front to ensure more houses were built, particularly with a big influx of migrants. “My estimate is we [the country] are 250,000 houses short today,” he said. Dr Richards calculates if the historic relationship between population and housing stock was maintained to 2021, Australia would have built about 1.33 million extra dwellings than the 10.85 million homes reported in the 2021 census. “The slowdown in the growth of the housing stock over the past two decades is surprising given that those earlier trends in demographics and preferences have surely persisted – and the pandemic will be adding to these” Dr Richards said. “More broadly, there has been strong demand for housing, with financial liberalisation and lower interest rates significantly increasing household borrowing capacity, along with factors such as demand for housing for new short-stay rental models.“Tax policies are generally considered to have favoured ownership of housing.“And state and federal governments have continued to periodically provide assistance programs for first home buyers. “Yet with all these factors boosting demand for housing, the past two decades did not see a continuation of the strong growth in the supply of housing that was seen in the four previous decades.“What we have seen instead is a significant increase in the price of housing, relative to household incomes. “It is hard to escape a conclusion that the run-up in the price of housing over the past two decades must be related to inflexibilities in housing supply. “The combination of strong demand and inflexible supply has been at much higher prices, with adverse effects on much of the population, both homebuyers and renters.”

[ChillyPhilly]

The Internode building: