[U/C] 42-56 Franklin Street | ~78m | 17lvls | Office

[jk1237]

More and cheaper parking attracts more people

Brisbane and Sydney have some of the lowest supply and thus some of the highest carparking costs in the world. You saying that these 2 cities aren't booming CBD's with a massive amounts of people entering it other than in a driver only SUV. Come on Mr Derwent, we need to shake off this large country town mentality, caus it hasn't got us very far compared to the other capitals

With more carparks, we better start to widen some roads to accomodate the more cars, get rid of bike lanes and ban cycles all together, and shorten the width of footpaths to fit in an extra lane of cars, and end all bus and tram public transport at the parklands so to free up road space for cars. We're in the year 1981 are we not?

[Wayno]

congratulations Adelaide, we have officially become the city of carparks!!

Officially more car parking spaces per capita than any other Australian capital city. now that's something to be proud of everyone

A contributing factor to our No #1 position is the prevalence of on-street parking. This new car park will now make on-street parking a bit easier too...

[iTouch]

This carpark will only be useful if it has a drive-thru maccas included... I know im a fatty

[Vee]

Title updated.

How true! Big, ugly car park.

This is a prime CBD position and this will just add to the traffic congestion, do nothing for the streetscape and reduce numbers using public transport.
A retrograde decision.

[AtD]

I've got to be honest here people, I don't see any problem. More and cheaper parking attracts more people, high end consumers don't generally use PT no matter what, and offering the developer a way to get some sort of return after purchasing a big block right before a downturn sounds better than arbitrarily denying anything other than a rolls royce development. At least then they might have more capital to invest somewhere else.

And whether there is currently enough demand for car parks is not the business of the ACC - who I might add currently own and operate a whole bunch of car parks, including topham mall right nearby. If a private developer can compete and undercut the ACC, then good for consumers and good for the company. If they can't outcompete the ACC, there's more car parks at the same price. If nobody wants the car parks at all, then the developer loses money and it's nobody elses business.

I agree with your second paragraph but disagree with your first. As you say in the second paragraph, commercial considerations should be out of scope of DAC/DAP considerations, their role is the community's advocate. The return you mention in your first paragraph is likewise also beyond scope of the planning decision.

One of the main reasons I think we're all against this (besides the fact it's ugly) is cars in the CBD should be discouraged for a wide variety of reasons. The streets belong to people, not to cars. One reasons is cars are horribly inefficient users of space, which in the CBD is obviously at a premium, and we've just devoted more space to them. This car park would bring in about the same number of people per day as just one train.

Oh, and cheaper parking doesn't attract high end consumers - they wouldn't be high end if they were turned away by paying for parking!

[flavze]

Oh, and cheaper parking doesn't attract high end consumers - they wouldn't be high end if they were turned away by paying for parking!

i would say it does tbh, high end consumers don't travel places on public transport as they have there overpriced SUV to get around in or their beemer which they didn't buy just so they could take the train or tram. But you will find most don't like to shell out money for things like parking anymore than the most povo consumer.
With the abundance of parking at suburban malls and large range of shopping/cafes available there they will take the cheaper easy option.
What we need is the majority of people coming into the CBD for work to be using PT and leaving the car spaces for those coming in for shopping/entertainment and encouraging the fact that there's abundant parking for those who want to do so.

In saying that i don't neccesarily support more parking being constructed in the CBD if there's enough there already.

[Prince George]

The most effective way to ensure there are parking spaces available is to raise the price. Our hypothetical "high-end" consumers don't choose where to shop by which offers cheaper parking, they shop at the places that offer the products that they want to buy. That is the definition of that group of shoppers, that they are shopping for high-end products. If you want Linn components, you simply can't shop at JB HiFi, no matter how cheap their parking is.

[omada]

haha gotta say I LOVE the new thread title.

Prince George: If you want Linn components, you simply can't shop at JB HiFi, no matter how cheap their parking is.

Are you a vinyl record fan Prince George?

[Prince George]

haha gotta say I LOVE the new thread title.

Prince George: If you want Linn components, you simply can't shop at JB HiFi, no matter how cheap their parking is.

Are you a vinyl record fan Prince George?

I only wish I could afford to be I used to get Stereophile and wonder what is was like to debate with yourself about which $30k amplifier or speaker you would get.

Not that those prices are anything like a requirement for vinyl joy, but if you're shopping for a Linn platter, or Quad electrostats, or Krell amps, you'd better have plenty of headroom on that card. That said, if anyone has a Sondek that needs a good home, I would gladly be the recipient of your charity, if you can bear the thought of it being plugged into some Rotel electronics.

[phenom]

I welcome this development. Even if the ratio of public transport use to total transport in the city area is increasing, if the overall numbers of people in the city are also increasing, you need additional car parking.

Yes, we can argue all day about what is aesthetically better or how we might prefer a nice big tower (or not) in that spot but commercial reality has to take precedence. It's also better than run-down old derelict buildings or empty space.

Does it preclude building something better in the future? Yes, but so does every other building being built in Adelaide - car park or not - that is much lower or less attractive than it could have been. Again, commercial reality.

I don't agree with the ACC's resistance to car parks, both because they happen to own car parks themselves (vested interests) and also because many of them seem able to park in special parks right outside the Town Hall. So I'm sure they have a great grasp on what its like trying to park in the city. An abundance of car parks? Most 'early bird' rates have risen from around $9 to $10 per day in 2005 to $13 to 17 in 2010. Doesn't sound like a massive surplus to me.

For what it's worth, I see this as simply 'evening up' the car parking ratio to total city visits - it's a good thing, it means our city is growing. I doubt a few hundred extra cars a day will congest the city much more than currently given the existing volumes of traffic.

Also I live in the city and work in the city so have absolutely no need for public transport or a car during peak hour - but economic development has to be considered over pure idealism about architectural purity.

[rubegoldbergdevice]

I'm hoping this is what people say it is and is just a the precursor to a magnificent multi-storey development for actual people. That's right PEOPLE.

Adelaide has the highest amount of carparks per capita in Australia, which is ridiculous. How many more do you need????? Anyone who thinks this is justified on an "it brings people to the CBD" argument can step into the Pub or outside with me. Bullshit. Adelaide is becoming the LA of Australia. Get over your cars. If you don't, you can forget anything awesome happening in Victoria Square. And also if you don't, welcome to another thirty years of catching up to other cities who have overcome this problem all over the world. Is this what Adelaide is doomed to? The City of Thirty Years Ago? Looking at it's history and a lot of people's thinking here, more than likely.

Have you ever tried life without a car? I did ten years in Adelaide without one. You too can do it. Whilst the public transport isn't excellent, it's one of the better systems in Australia (eg. try getting around in Sydney).

Christ Adelaideans are lazy! Off your arses people!!

[iTouch]

I've come up with plan that may cause the development to be demolished if it ever gets built.
We should talk to our local MP's about a bill that instructs that pedestrians and drivers shall cover their eyes when, parking, walking past, walking into and driving near this development. If the bill is passed in both houses it shall be called the "abstaining the Abomination" act. This will cause chaos and may result in a few fatalities but it will be for the greater good of the community and due to these fatalities, the people who enforce the OH & S will have to intervene. They still have to abide by this law which will mean that they may get injured which will mean that they either will take this to court as a civil dispute or... grant the demolition of this building. I'm thinking the latter due to court costs being a lot.

[Will]

It appears that the original proposal is not dead. These images are from the renovated Hames Sharley website.

The proposed 17 storey office building is articulated as two separate towers employing different curtain wall systems and varying glass colour, transparency, opacity and reflectivity. Glass is the signature of this development and is used to reflect and reinterpret the context within which the building is placed. Concrete on the east and west facades will be form lined to catch the changing shadow patterns created by the sun. Projecting light shelves on all but the south sides of the proposal and vertical sunscreen on the east and west facades will provide appropriate shade and shadow modelling

[stumpjumper]

Nice renders.

'More car parks' only looks like a solution to the question of how to get more people into the city.

In other places around the world, probably starting with Norwich in the UK, planners have tried to get cars out of city centres and use public transport to get people in.

Why fill the city with racks of huge metal objects that are inert from arrival to departure when park and ride, collector buses, shuttles, trams and light rail are at our disposal. We have a lightly trafficked, radial city with good arterial roads where buses can maintain timetables and good rail and O-Bahn corridors.

If we want people living in, working in and visiting the city, let's not make it easy for them to drive in (which is a waste on about five counts) - lets make it easy for them to get in by any other way!

What's more, once the centre of a city is cleared of cars, it will attract people. People don't really like mixing it with traffic.

The problems are more engineering and transport related than anything else. The city is a through route - K W St, North Tce and Wakefield Sts could not reasonably be closed, but getting cars out of Grenfell St in the daytime could be possible and might work, perhaps with some form of shuttle around the place.

It's worked quite well in London (where there's a car levy) and most other places where cars have taken second place to people.

A good start would be to review the parking requirements for buildings in the city. Perhaps developers could be asked to co-develop a certain number of park and ride carparks in the suburbs.

Another point to be made is to push Adelaide City as a tourist destination. The government is unwilling to do that as a matter of policy, but if we got someone with some balls and some imagination in the tourism portfolio, it might happen.

[Uncle Monty]

Looks like some action on this site at last. An electrical substation thingy that was left here after the main building was demolished has now been removed, and it appears as though a site office was being trucked in this morning (in two halves) and placed on site.