News & Discussion: Never Builts

[Prince George]

One of the things that I think gave people the strong negative reaction to Holdfast Shores was the feeling that they were taking away a view of the sea that had previously been available to anybody, that this view could now be bought and sold. Prior to the development, as you travelled down Anzac Highway and turned after Morphetville, you had glimpses of the sea (possibly just an optical illusion, but that was the impression). Now you just had a view of the back of Holdfast Shores. Had more sight-lines been included in the design, I wonder if the reaction would be less impassioned.

This brought home the idea that sea-views were valuable enough to drive development and then people could imagine (rightly or wrongly) the foreshore being lined with this new-model sea wall. IIRC there was even a story that the Holdfast Shores developers had wanted the section of beach in front of the towers to become a private beach for the residents (and I don't recall anything specific about that story, it was almost 15 years ago, but it may have been in the Messenger); now that may have been completely baseless, but those are the kind of messages that get spawned when people are feeling paranoid and they tend to stick.

And when you look at it, there's not really been that much other development following these blocks. Apart from Moseley Square, what else has happened in the last decade that the locals would get excited about? Glenelg's not the first place people think of for practically anything other than going to the beach, and that's got nothing to do with these developments, the beach was always there. Considering all the talk of development, hardly any restaurants, or shops, or other services have opened there; the cinema closed and the new shopping centre is ghastly - it hasn't been a transformational time.

So now you've got a bunch of people feeling like they're being asked to accept a bunch of changes they didn't ask for and aren't getting much in return. They're at home listening intently to their Joni Mitchell albums:

and after a glass or two of vino, they say to themselves "No, no, that won't be me - I won't let them put my trees in a tree museum, I'll fight that big yellow tractor". And before you know it, there's a total moratorium on high-rise in Glenelg. Of course, the irony is that no towers in Glenelg means more parking lots in Mount Barker and Buckland Park, but the big picture's always hard to spot.

[Will]

Prince George, I passioantely disagree with your post. The Holdfast Shores project HAS not only increased property values in the area it has spawned other developments, contrary to your post. Liberty Towers for example, which at 46 000sqm2 of residential space is the largest residential building in SA by a long way is the result of Holdfast Shores, to mention just 1. Other developments have included 3 5-6 level apartment blocks on Colley terrace, two 5 level buildings on the Southern Esplanade, a 5 level building on the northern esplanade, and three 4 level buildings along the patawolonga.

Also, as I said, I have lived in the area for 19 years, and your assertion that few new restaurants have opened if incredibly wrong. The number of restaurants and cafes in Glenelg has doubled since Holdfast Shores opened. Indeed, many people now come down to Gleenlg to party, as well as to wine and dine.

Also I doubt Moseley Square would have been renovated if no development had occured in Glenelg.

And no-one owns views. I know you can't see the sea anymore from Anzac HWY. But really, progress loving people should not care about this. Glenelg is not some quaint seaside village.

[AtD]

You can also add to that list the apartment block on Durham St

[Prince George]

I think you're mistaking what I wrote - the question was "how anyone can say Glenelg has been ruined by developments of recent years" and I put forward one of the ways that people reached that opinion. My own family has lived in Somerton Park for more than 22 years, so I'm not unfamiliar with the area. And it's quite a straightforward complaint, they feel like they're giving up more than they're getting.

Further apartments aren't interesting to the people who didn't want the first lot. Rising property values are meaningless - every part of Adelaide has gained value; it even costs $200k to buy in Elizabeth now. I'd be interested to see a list of the actually new dining in the area that isn't a replacement for an existing restaurant or cafe. The principle new area would be that faux alley at Moseley Square, which I daresay few people will get excited about. And is there anybody that's prepared to defend The Beach House?

And views are bought and sold every day - that's one of the reasons that they put the expensive penthouse at the top of a tower rather than the bottom. Ask anybody from Sydney what difference having a view of the harbour would have on their house price. You might recall the story (from a few years back) of the Sydney-sider who was selling his house and cut down his neighbour's tree when he was on vacation, for the difference that it made to the sale. It's commonplace for someone to be recompensed for the loss of a view due to a new construction.

I've said it before, the tipping point is going to be when we can start bringing potential opponents on-board by producing examples that are genuinely compelling. Give people things that they can point to and say "I'd be happy for that to get repeated again and again".

[Will]

I think you're mistaking what I wrote - the question was "how anyone can say Glenelg has been ruined by developments of recent years" and I put forward one of the ways that people reached that opinion. My own family has lived in Somerton Park for more than 22 years, so I'm not unfamiliar with the area. And it's quite a straightforward complaint, they feel like they're giving up more than they're getting.

Further apartments aren't interesting to the people who didn't want the first lot. Rising property values are meaningless - every part of Adelaide has gained value; it even costs $200k to buy in Elizabeth now. I'd be interested to see a list of the actually new dining in the area that isn't a replacement for an existing restaurant or cafe. The principle new area would be that faux alley at Moseley Square, which I daresay few people will get excited about. And is there anybody that's prepared to defend The Beach House?

And views are bought and sold every day - that's one of the reasons that they put the expensive penthouse at the top of a tower rather than the bottom. Ask anybody from Sydney what difference having a view of the harbour would have on their house price. You might recall the story (from a few years back) of the Sydney-sider who was selling his house and cut down his neighbour's tree when he was on vacation, for the difference that it made to the sale. It's commonplace for someone to be recompensed for the loss of a view due to a new construction.

I've said it before, the tipping point is going to be when we can start bringing potential opponents on-board by producing examples that are genuinely compelling. Give people things that they can point to and say "I'd be happy for that to get repeated again and again".

Sadly those oppossed to Holdfast Shores are also oppossed to anything new, as well as oppossed to people having fun past 8:00pm. I remember that I attended one of the community meetings back in 2002 when the final stage was up for public comment. I remember one of the developers asked the audience if they redesigned the building, if that would change their opposition to the project. Someone representing the 'community' stood up and said something of the sorts of "don't you get it, we don't want more high-rise at the bay; enough is enough!"

With this in mind, you could build the most avantgarde building and yet the NIMBYs would still hate it, because it clashes with their nostalgic dreams of how Glenelg was back in the 'good ol' days'

[ghs]

Liberty towers is the largest residential building in SA.

What about all the apartment buildings on North Tce such as the Embassy ?

[Nort]

I think you're mistaking what I wrote - the question was "how anyone can say Glenelg has been ruined by developments of recent years" and I put forward one of the ways that people reached that opinion. My own family has lived in Somerton Park for more than 22 years, so I'm not unfamiliar with the area. And it's quite a straightforward complaint, they feel like they're giving up more than they're getting.

Further apartments aren't interesting to the people who didn't want the first lot. Rising property values are meaningless - every part of Adelaide has gained value; it even costs $200k to buy in Elizabeth now. I'd be interested to see a list of the actually new dining in the area that isn't a replacement for an existing restaurant or cafe. The principle new area would be that faux alley at Moseley Square, which I daresay few people will get excited about. And is there anybody that's prepared to defend The Beach House?

And views are bought and sold every day - that's one of the reasons that they put the expensive penthouse at the top of a tower rather than the bottom. Ask anybody from Sydney what difference having a view of the harbour would have on their house price. You might recall the story (from a few years back) of the Sydney-sider who was selling his house and cut down his neighbour's tree when he was on vacation, for the difference that it made to the sale. It's commonplace for someone to be recompensed for the loss of a view due to a new construction.

I've said it before, the tipping point is going to be when we can start bringing potential opponents on-board by producing examples that are genuinely compelling. Give people things that they can point to and say "I'd be happy for that to get repeated again and again".

Sadly those oppossed to Holdfast Shores are also oppossed to anything new, as well as oppossed to people having fun past 8:00pm. I remember that I attended one of the community meetings back in 2002 when the final stage was up for public comment. I remember one of the developers asked the audience if they redesigned the building, if that would change their opposition to the project. Someone representing the 'community' stood up and said something of the sorts of "don't you get it, we don't want more high-rise at the bay; enough is enough!"

With this in mind, you could build the most avantgarde building and yet the NIMBYs would still hate it, because it clashes with their nostalgic dreams of how Glenelg was back in the 'good ol' days'

I love development in general and wouldn't have prevented it from going forward, however I do think that Holdfast Shores has some major problems. Too many people think that just because you support development you have to like everything that goes up.

[Mants]

I have to agree with Will on this one.
Holdfast Shores has seen numerous restaurants and bars open, improving the life of the area dramaticly.
Moseley Square looks great now, the surrounding businesses are much better linked to the square and all connect with the tram very well.

Glenelg isn't just about the beach. I can say amoungst my group of friends, whenever people feel like ice-cream or fish and chips, Glenelg has both and is usually the first place that comes to mind.
Also provides an alternative destination to the nightlife in town. The Bay goes off on a Sunday night, especially when there is a Monday public holiday.

[Will]

Liberty towers is the largest residential building in SA.

What about all the apartment buildings on North Tce such as the Embassy ?

By largest I mean in terms of GFA. Liberty Towers has 46 000sqm2 whereas the Embassy and Horizon both have around 25 000sqm2.

[Will]

[

I love development in general and wouldn't have prevented it from going forward, however I do think that Holdfast Shores has some major problems. Too many people think that just because you support development you have to like everything that goes up.

I don't think anyone is saying Holdfast Shores is perfect. In fact many of its problems are the result of the NIMBYs forcing the developers to get rid of some of the most exciting plans for the development. Did you know that Platinum should have been 15 levels, there should have been a 6 level hotel built where the current Glenelg Community Centre is and where the 2 level arcade is there should have been a cinema and casino? Thanks to the NIMBYs, the original plans got watered down.

[Will]

On the topic of Glenelg, this is another project, which although eventuated, it is different from its original plan.

The project I talk of, is the Oaks pier Hotel.

Originally, the building was to have been called 'The Promenade', and it was planned to have been a 6-level $50 million, 5 star hotel.

it would have, had 180 rooms, a 2-level ballroom, function room, gaming room, swimming pool and gymnasium. It would also have had a 213 space carpark.

The biggest difference is the architecture of the building. Although somewhat simialr to what we eventually got, the Promenade would have had a rectangular footprint as opposed to the 'n' style footprint of the current hotel. Furthermore it would have been 1 level shorter and had less rooms.

The original plans were for The Promenade to have opened for business in December 2001.

The plans were delayed however, resulting in the original plans being scrapped and the current Pier Hotel emerging.

The current Pier Hotel is one level taller and contains 216 apartments (as opposed to hotel rooms). The name 'Pier Hotel' is in homage to the original pier Hotel, which was demolished in 1988 to make way for the Stamford.

Here is the original plans for the promenade:

[Will]

Further on the topic of Glenelg, it is interesting to discuss the history of Liberty Towers.

prior to its construction, that side of Jetty Road was home to five 2-3 level residential buildings.

In 2000, inspired by the success of the first stages of Holdfast Shores, the development company Blackfords Project Marketing Systems (the same company behind the conversion of the former office building at the corner of Rundel mall and Pulteney St into student apartments) bought the site at 25 Colley terrace, and proposed the erection of a 12 level residential apartment building:



This building was designed by ACC councillor Sandy Wilkinson. The building was to have risen to a height of 42m.

The building was as the above picture shows meant to ahve been painted to blue, green, white, yellow and red.

The council of that era was more progress-loving than the current one, and hence such plans actually received APPROVAL. However on the condition that the number of apartments be reduced from 49 to 46, and the building be painted in less bright colours (pale orange, mid-grey, dark blue and maroon).

This building would have involved the demolition of a 136 year old former mansion called Westward Ho. Westward Ho was built in 1864 for Thomas Magarey of Enfield. However, since that time, the former elegant mansion had been converted into flats for destitute people. furthermroe the building had been modified and was not heritage listed. It was also in a very poor condition.




Jumping on the boom at Glenelg was Urban Construct. UC, brought the 2 properties closest to the roundabout, and proposed the erection of a 13 level 4.5 star hotel which would have been called "Horizon All-Suites Hotel". The building would have risen to 44.25m. The hotel would ahve had 152 suites and 64 underground carparks. Furthermore, the hotel would have featured a cafe on the ground floor. The building was designed by Hassell.



This is how those propsoals would have looked on Colley terrace:






By 2001, Urban Construct became involved with the Holdfast Shores development. UC, decided to postpone their plans for the Horizon All-Suites Hotel, as they decided to instead invest their energy into the Pier Hotel.

Also, Urban Construct was busy buying the site at 25 Colley Terrace from Blackfords as well as the remaining 2 properties in between the 2 sites.

With UC now in position of all 5 sites, they decided to instead propsoe a 'universal' solution, as opposed to building 2-3 individual buildings.

And this is how Liberty Towers was born.

However, the original plans for Liberty Towers was for it to have been a 300+ room 4 star motel.

The local councils blocked such plans, forcing UC to come up with the current use of Liberty Towers as a private residential complex.

[Will]

I am currently reading a book titled 'Sculptors in Space' which was commissioned by the RAIA SA Chapter in 1986 to celebrate the 150th birthday of SA. The book is about the architectural history of SA from 1836-1986.

In the final chapter which deals with the 1980s, they discuss the new trend of retaining the facades of old buildings instead of demolishing them as had occured in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

As an example they use a project of that era which was to convert the former Repco Building at 374-400 KWS into residential accomodation.

We now know the site at 374-400 KWS to be the site for this sexy behemoth:



However, it is interesting to report on the sites history as it was the site of many failed developments.

The former Repco factory (which at one stage made car bodies for Holden) became a victim of the trend to move industry from the CBD into the suburbs. By the 1980s, the Repco building was abandoned and derelict.

Here is an image from 2000:



As just discussed above, in 1984, the site was purchased by develoeprs with the intention of converting the former factory into 'warehouse' style aaprtments. The book does not say why that project failed, but I beleive that in the 1980s there was little demand for apartment living here in Adelaide.

With the subsequent economic maladies which afflicted our state in the 90s, the site remained derelict.

It was only until the year 2000, when SA was beggining to wake up, that developers once again began to see the potential of the site.

In 2000, a development was launched for a $65 million conversion of the former Repco site into a 'New York' style complex to be called Watermans, and which would ahve featured 60 residential apartments as well as a 124 suite 4.5 star hotel.

The development would ahve preserved the former Repco building, as it was beleived that the old building's red brick facade, thick walls and lofty ceilings would be attractive to investors.

Construction was mooted to begin in late 2001 and be completed by mid-2003.

However, the develoeprs did not foresee that the former Repco building was in reality quite derelict, and the cost of maintaining it would ahve ade the development unviable. Hence that is why the watermans project failed.

Watermans:




Hence, the site was sold to Adabco developments, who in 2003, presented a new proposal for the site.

The new plans involved the demolition of the old repco building, and the erection of a 6 level office building, two, 6 level apartment buildings, an 8 level caraprk and 22, 3-level townhouses. The development would ahve included retail outlets, cafes and restaurants on the ground floor.

The proposal was designed by JPE Architets.

Construction was mooted to begin in 2004 and be completed in early 2005.




However, by that stage, talk was rife that the ACC was going to lift its height restrictions for the southern part of KWS from the then 21m and 28m to the current 40m. Hence, such plans were shelved and the current plans for the site eventuated.

However, it is interesting to note that the first plans for the 374-400KWS tower were eactually for a 10 level, 40m building.

However, with the boom conditions of 2007, it was decided to increase the building by 1 level and to the current 47m.

[AtD]

Thanks for that Will, very interesting. Despite its lack of height, I like the Watermans proposal best! It looks quite classy.

[Nort]

Painful as it is, I think it's getting close to pass by the mourning stage and take that sexy beast out of the Sensational Adelaide banner and memorialize it in this thread.