[COM] Burnside Village (Extension)

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in areas other than the CBD and North Adelaide. Includes Port Adelaide and Glenelg.
Message
Author
crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5412
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 319 times

[COM] Re: #COM: Burnside Village Redevelopment - $107 million

#181 Post by crawf » Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:46 pm

Interesting day over at Burnside today..
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6458401914

That Breakfast show is by far the biggest pile of rubbish on TV, I'm surprised it's still going.

User avatar
Vee
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1105
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Eastern Suburbs
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 39 times

[COM] Re: #COM: Burnside Village Redevelopment - $107 million

#182 Post by Vee » Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:51 am

Latest news about the River Red Gum tree at Burnside is a story in Adelaide Now that the 'wrong glass' was used in the construction - a claim made by the arborist.

The photo accompanying the story shows a tree that looks As good as dead. Sad.
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/20 ... -cohen.jpg
Image

Full story:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6476351144

User avatar
Mr Smith
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:41 pm
Location: Parkside Lunatic Asylum
Been thanked: 17 times

[COM] Re: #COM: Burnside Village Redevelopment - $107 million

#183 Post by Mr Smith » Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:18 pm

This saga has been a fiasco from go to whoa.

Assuming that at the outset of the planned redevelopment there was a genuine concern for the welfare of the tree, the original plan whereby the tree canopy penetrated the roof would have been far more appropriate, and likely cheaper to construct.

The real issue as always was MONEY, and this was the final arbiter. The area directly under the tree now occupied by an enormous Cibo cafe would simply not have been viable in it's present form due to the vagaries of the elements = LESS RENTAL INCOME FOR THE OWNER.

Therefore, the ultimate solution was an exercise in appeasement of concerned citizens BY WAY OF A PANTOMIME EXERCISE, viz everyone loves the tree and it's welfare is front and centre, when, as always when dealing with 'developers', the only issue of real concern is MONEY.

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5510
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 474 times
Been thanked: 144 times

[COM] Re: #COM: Burnside Village Redevelopment - $107 million

#184 Post by Will » Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:37 pm

Considering the likely demise of the tree, I would like to entertain the idea of removing all the dead foliage and leaving the trunk and limbs in situ, as an eerie 'sculpture'.

User avatar
Pants
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1246
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Back Home
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 21 times

[COM] Re: #COM: Burnside Village Redevelopment - $107 million

#185 Post by Pants » Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:57 pm

Mr Smith wrote:This saga has been a fiasco from go to whoa.

Assuming that at the outset of the planned redevelopment there was a genuine concern for the welfare of the tree, the original plan whereby the tree canopy penetrated the roof would have been far more appropriate, and likely cheaper to construct.

The real issue as always was MONEY, and this was the final arbiter. The area directly under the tree now occupied by an enormous Cibo cafe would simply not have been viable in it's present form due to the vagaries of the elements = LESS RENTAL INCOME FOR THE OWNER.

Therefore, the ultimate solution was an exercise in appeasement of concerned citizens BY WAY OF A PANTOMIME EXERCISE, viz everyone loves the tree and it's welfare is front and centre, when, as always when dealing with 'developers', the only issue of real concern is MONEY.
I'M SURE the developers wouldn't have spent A SHITLOAD OF MONEY during design/construction in trying to accommodate the tree if all they wanted to do was MAXIMISE SPACE FOR TENANCIES at the expense of the tree's LIKELY DEATH. The fact that they've called the new area THE TREE MALL also suggests that when told they had to retain it, they looked to do so with THE BEST INTENTIONS.

User avatar
Pants
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1246
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Back Home
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 21 times

[COM] Re: #COM: Burnside Village Redevelopment - $107 million

#186 Post by Pants » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:01 pm

Will wrote:Considering the likely demise of the tree, I would like to entertain the idea of removing all the dead foliage and leaving the trunk and limbs in situ, as an eerie 'sculpture'.
I don't hold myself out to be much of an arborist mate, but I suspect the chance of dead branches falling and doing someone unmentionable harm would make that not the best idea.

User avatar
Mr Smith
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:41 pm
Location: Parkside Lunatic Asylum
Been thanked: 17 times

[COM] Re: #COM: Burnside Village Redevelopment - $107 million

#187 Post by Mr Smith » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:18 pm

I'M SURE the developers wouldn't have spent A SHITLOAD OF MONEY during design/construction in trying to accommodate the tree if all they wanted to do was MAXIMISE SPACE FOR TENANCIES at the expense of the tree's LIKELY DEATH. The fact that they've called the new area THE TREE MALL also suggests that when told they had to retain it, they looked to do so with THE BEST INTENTIONS.
Yes no doubt they did spend a SHITLOAD OF MONEY, however retaining the tree under an enclosed roof had far less impact on ACTUAL LETTABLE space, therefore PROFIT, than Plan A, which had the tree protruding the roof, ergo leaving the substantial area under it subject to the vagaries of the elements and unsuitable for leasing.

If they had THE BEST INTENTIONS, as you assert, they would have gone with Plan A, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ARBORIST

User avatar
Pants
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1246
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Back Home
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 21 times

[COM] Re: #COM: Burnside Village Redevelopment - $107 million

#188 Post by Pants » Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:49 pm

Mr Smith wrote:...ergo leaving the substantial area under it subject to the vagaries of the elements and unsuitable for leasing.
Of course. Because there's no such thing as outdoor dining. I mean, no-one would even think of having the kitchen/shop front of a cafe undercover and the substantial portion of its let-able dining area exposed to the elements or under canopies/umbrellas.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1893
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 191 times

[COM] Re: #COM: Burnside Village Redevelopment - $107 million

#189 Post by claybro » Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:18 pm

I do believe the developers did intend for the tree to survive. Naturally they would have preferred not to deal with the problem, which was left to them by the councils insistance on it's staying. Given these eucalypts regularly shed large limbs in dry weather, it would have been interesting to know,(had the developement not included that area) and the tree been left in the middle of the carpark, and it came crashing down on a car and killing some unfortunate, who would be liable, the centre, or the council. Large eucalypts have no place in crowded urban settings. Note to councils...either allow the removal of encroaching trees for developement, or refuse all developement within a safe distance of the trees ,you cant have it both ways.

User avatar
Vee
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1105
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Eastern Suburbs
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 39 times

[COM] Re: COM: Burnside Village Redevelopment | $107m

#190 Post by Vee » Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:43 am

End is nigh.
18 months at best?

Latest update on the River Red Gum at Burnside Village.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6628232232

pushbutton
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1416
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:01 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 17 times

[COM] Re: COM: Burnside Village Redevelopment | $107m

#191 Post by pushbutton » Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:35 pm

I saw this in the Advertiser, but can't see what the fuss is about. It's just a tree for goodness sake! If it's dead, get rid of it and put a new one in (preferably one that looks good) or else use the space for something other than a tree.

Patrick_27
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:41 pm
Location: Adelaide CBD, SA
Been thanked: 183 times

[COM] Re: COM: Burnside Village Redevelopment | $107m

#192 Post by Patrick_27 » Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:54 pm

pushbutton wrote:I saw this in the Advertiser, but can't see what the fuss is about. It's just a tree for goodness sake! If it's dead, get rid of it and put a new one in (preferably one that looks good) or else use the space for something other than a tree.
The fact that the tree was there first, and has been around longer than settlement in not only the Burnside area, but Adelaide in-general. Typical view of shoppers at an upper class shopping precinct; its just a tree, it's not as important as our shopping mall.

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 109 times

[COM] Re: COM: Burnside Village Redevelopment | $107m

#193 Post by Waewick » Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:56 pm

Patrick_27 wrote:
pushbutton wrote:I saw this in the Advertiser, but can't see what the fuss is about. It's just a tree for goodness sake! If it's dead, get rid of it and put a new one in (preferably one that looks good) or else use the space for something other than a tree.
The fact that the tree was there first, and has been around longer than settlement in not only the Burnside area, but Adelaide in-general. Typical view of shoppers at an upper class shopping precinct; its just a tree, it's not as important as our shopping mall.
ahh bullshit, that would be the opinion on 95% of the population regardless of where they live and if it is near a mall.

build 'em smarter
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:06 pm

[COM] Re: COM: Burnside Village Redevelopment | $107m

#194 Post by build 'em smarter » Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:38 pm

Patrick_27 wrote:
pushbutton wrote:I saw this in the Advertiser, but can't see what the fuss is about. It's just a tree for goodness sake! If it's dead, get rid of it and put a new one in (preferably one that looks good) or else use the space for something other than a tree.
The fact that the tree was there first, and has been around longer than settlement in not only the Burnside area, but Adelaide in-general. Typical view of shoppers at an upper class shopping precinct; its just a tree, it's not as important as our shopping mall.
Sorry, but thats a very weak argument, im sure you have been in a building that at one stage had a tree on its site that had to be cut down..... unless you have never been near a city, or a suburb for that matter.

It has nothing to do with class or demographics and is little of you to try and play that card. Im sure there were trees on the site of marion or ttp shopping centres but amazingly they were built, even though the tree would have been there first.

To be honest, i dont think it was ever a particularly nice tree anyway.

neoballmon
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:54 am
Location: Morphett Vale
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 2 times

[COM] Re: COM: Burnside Village Redevelopment | $107m

#195 Post by neoballmon » Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:49 pm

How bad is the tree actually looking these days anyway? Seeing as the AdelaideNow photo dates August last year, and I haven't been there for longer than that. Is there even any green left on the leaves?
Looking forward to a free-flowing Adelaide!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests