Why are Adl people so scared of high rise?

[wll6568]

Why are people in SA get so sensitive whenever there's mention of lifting height restriction to current zones, where most of the times 3, 4 storeys are not even considered high rise!

One thing I found here is... whenever people talk about skyscrapers, they'd give a yucky face as if there are already too many here. Why? Why? Why?

[Shahkar]

It's not just in Adelaide. It's in a lot of places.

[Waewick]

people are scared of change and are in general stupid.

it is easy to convince them of more crime reduced values et al

[Nathan]

Years of TV crime dramas set in NY and London have somehow made people equate apartments = future slums. Which is utter nonsense of course. There's also this weird mentality that nothing can co-exist, and that any rise in heights will immediately result in "greed developers" taking away their current 5 bedroom Mc-Mansion and massive backyard. Not to mention the usual protest arguments of increased traffic, crime and reduced property values. I'd like to know where those arguments originated from, as they're constantly parroted.

What really gets me though is when people refer to 3–4 story apartments as "high rise".

[Norman]

I don't think Adelaide in general is scared of high-rises, mosre just the small minority interest groups that make it to the front page of the local Messenger.

[Reb-L]

Maybe tall buildings make some people feel smaller and less important? I don't know, am not a psychologist, but I've thought about this ground hugging mentality here too especially when coming back to Adelaide after being to some place with real skyscrapers. To me, buildings soaring towards the sky are inspiring and puts me into a different mood than when I'm in some little 2-story country town (which is nice to visit too). To my mind a healthy city should be like a tree; when it stops growing upwards it does not have much of a future.

[Aidan]

Years of TV crime dramas set in NY and London have somehow made people equate apartments = future slums. Which is utter nonsense of course. There's also this weird mentality that nothing can co-exist, and that any rise in heights will immediately result in "greed developers" taking away their current 5 bedroom Mc-Mansion and massive backyard. Not to mention the usual protest arguments of increased traffic, crime and reduced property values. I'd like to know where those arguments originated from, as they're constantly parroted.

I don't think they're worried about their house and backyard; they're more likely to be worried about it being overlooked, or worse still, overshadowed. This really could reduce the value - but more immediately they're likely to find it annoying.

What really gets me though is when people refer to 3–4 story apartments as "high rise".

Who refers to those as high rise? I've not heard anyone do so. Taller buildings may be regarded as high rise when internationally they'd be regarded as medium rise, but AFAIK everyone agrees 4 storey apartments are low rise.

[Nathan]

Who refers to those as high rise? I've not heard anyone do so. Taller buildings may be regarded as high rise when internationally they'd be regarded as medium rise, but AFAIK everyone agrees 4 storey apartments are low rise.

Listen to every protest group that springs up about the height limit changes, or look in the *cough* comments *cough* on any article regarding height on AdelaideNow. Consistently, people refer to anything above 2 stories as "high-rise", as ridiculous as that is. (Case in point, the height changes along the Torrens in NPSP, where it'll be mostly increased to 3 stories, with 4 stories allowed if the lot is over a certain area. Plenty of crowing on about high-rise and how it will ruin everything.)

[Reb-L]

What really gets me though is when people refer to 3–4 story apartments as "high rise".

Who refers to those as high rise? I've not heard anyone do so. Taller buildings may be regarded as high rise when internationally they'd be regarded as medium rise, but AFAIK everyone agrees 4 storey apartments are low rise.

Not sure everyone agrees with that classification; I seem to recall a recent debate about some proposed 4-story buildings near the Torrens and there were several 'concerned citizens' who wrote to the Norwood & St P. wanting to stop these 'high rises' from being built. Makes you wonder how these people describe Melbourne's skyline. Stratosphere-scrapers?

[Waewick]

What really gets me though is when people refer to 3–4 story apartments as "high rise".

Who refers to those as high rise? I've not heard anyone do so. Taller buildings may be regarded as high rise when internationally they'd be regarded as medium rise, but AFAIK everyone agrees 4 storey apartments are low rise.

Not sure everyone agrees with that classification; I seem to recall a recent debate about some proposed 4-story buildings near the Torrens and there were several 'concerned citizens' who wrote to the Norwood & St P. wanting to stop these 'high rises' from being built. Makes you wonder how these people describe Melbourne's skyline. Stratosphere-scrapers?

yep, the same in Unley

worse still, they were labelled Eastern European as well.

[claybro]

Unfortunatley developers have not helped the cause. Those complexes at Newport Quys are..( to be polite ) quite uninspiring, and I would not be thrilled if one of these popped in my street either.Also some of Mawson Lakes is starting to look....well, just bland. Councils should be less concerned with height and more concerned with asthetics and quality. Some finishes other than concrete would be nice, ie red brick, stone, iron balaustrades, some curves and arches... instead of always glass stainless steel and cement boxes. The Newport and Mawson buildings are unfortunately what poeple have in mind when they think of appartment complexes, and it doesnt need to be so.

[Nathan]

Unfortunatley developers have not helped the cause. Those complexes at Newport Quys are..( to be polite ) quite uninspiring, and I would not be thrilled if one of these popped in my street either.Also some of Mawson Lakes is starting to look....well, just bland. Councils should be less concerned with height and more concerned with asthetics and quality. Some finishes other than concrete would be nice, ie red brick, stone, iron balaustrades, some curves and arches... instead of always glass stainless steel and cement boxes. The Newport and Mawson buildings are unfortunately what poeple have in mind when they think of appartment complexes, and it doesnt need to be so.

Whoa there on the concrete. It can be an incredibly beautiful material, it's just that in most housing here it's used in a completely uninspiring way and then painted - removing whatever nice textures and patina the concrete has.

Otherwise, yes, I agree with you. Perhaps there needs to a system in place where various concessions can be made (height, encroachment, etc.) if commitment is made for some level of architectural merit. Otherwise you get the current situation that even if the architect is capable of more interesting work, pressure comes from the developer to water it down (I know that happens to an extent everywhere, but if my own industry is anything to go by, it's a trait very common in Adelaide businesses).