[PRO] 188 Grenfell Street | 64m | 19 Levels | Student Accom

[HiTouch]

Although rev has a pretty bad take, he's a radical pro-development so I'm not surprised.

I attended the protest. Why? Well my first beer was had there... it was a coopers pale... yes I was under-age but still it has a beautiful place in my heart. Also, when I went through my emo phase, plenty of bands I watched play there. Also under-age, but a great time.

Secondly, Adelaide is a unesco city of music. We need to protect that brand. Its our identity. Developers can and should accommodate this. These guys should have done more research before buying up the joint. A coffee shop is not good enough. The casino was able to create "The District" with their expansion, so why can't these guys do something similar with the cranker?

Thirdly, I just got back from Wellington last week. That place is a hub of activity. It felt more lively than auckland. Last year I went to New Orleans and it had a similar feel, it is waaaay more lively than LA. Adelaide should be going for this style. The protest is not just about protecting the cranker but we really need a wakeup call and significant investment in our arts scene. The fringe is only one piece of the puzzle. We need significantly more dollars for this space to attract tourists 365 days a year. It's gotta be more then defence and wine.

The thing is, I'm not actually in favor of this proposed student tower.
My take is that who are we, as private citizens, to tell a land/building owner, what they can and cant do with their land/building, and using nostalgic emotions to dictate that a pub should remain?
I see peoples point, but at the end of the day is it actually something worth protesting about, making banners and placards?

Where is the line drawn? If the proposal meets all guidelines, it shouldn't be built because people are upset a venue will be lost?
Oh because I used to drink here, or play in a band there, then the owner of that building has no right to redevelop it?

I get that people are attached to it, but seriously...

Why doesn't someone within the industry buy it and save it then? If it means that much?
Or do people think that the owner should maintain it for them?

But I agree, they should be able to do something with it and retain it in some form as I said earlier in the thread.

Apologies for misconstruing your view. I agree that development policies should not be dictated on how people feel. However, the problem is there doesnt seem to be an exception clause. There is a massive disconnect between genuine heritage policy with development.
Heritage policy should not be dictated by the "old guard" of Jane Lomax Smith, Anne Moran and their pretentious class of the North Adelaide NIMBYs, etc but determined by a myriad of stakeholders including longstanding local businesses, commuters, etc. I genuinely think that heritage should be determined by its future utilisation in development policy. This is how New Orleans approaches heritage and it works. If a heritage site not being utilised, funds should be used to restore or upkeep the site for utilisation, otherwise it should be removed.
The problem is that in the 1990s and 2000s, heritage laws were focused merely on preservation and not reintegration. It was so bad that an IT business could not function in a heritage building because they would be fined for drilling a hole in the wall to thread through a cord. However, now the problem is the other side of the pendulum. The cranker is being utilised yet they want to remove it for development sake.

[Nort]

One good thing to come out of this is push back on façadism as a way of maintaining heritage. Wearing the old building as a skin, and gutting everything past 30cm deep has always felt like such a minimum effort approach, and implies that heritage is about what something looks like on the surface and not why a particular building is significant.

100%.

Keeping a facade can have its place in terms of keeping some nods to the past and improving the streetscape quality, but it should be a nice sometimes extra, not a replacement for genuine preservation/adaptation.

[dbl96]

One good thing to come out of this is push back on façadism as a way of maintaining heritage. Wearing the old building as a skin, and gutting everything past 30cm deep has always felt like such a minimum effort approach, and implies that heritage is about what something looks like on the surface and not why a particular building is significant.

100%.

Keeping a facade can have its place in terms of keeping some nods to the past and improving the streetscape quality, but it should be a nice sometimes extra, not a replacement for genuine preservation/adaptation.

Its still way better option than complete demolition. At least the bit of the building that the average person sees is still there.

I know a few people who have gone there to hang out and have found the clientele who frequent there to be extremely cliquey and standoffish to the point where one was pretty much shunned out of the venue by the people inside for so much as ordering the “wrong type” of drink and looking too different. I have also heard of many other people having similar experiences to this, so I think it is rather misleading when people act like it’s some kind of open minded, welcoming establishment where regular people can hang out.

Have to say I agree with this. Not everyone who goes there is like this, but there is definitely a decent number who will look down their noses at you, outright ignore you, or generally make you feel unwelcome if you aren't wearing whatever cool alternative fashion is the latest trend in that community. I actually find it hilarious, because they are the same kind of people who pride themselves on their "unique" self-expression, yet if you don't conform with their groupthink in any way, you are shunned. The irony.

[NTRabbit]

The South Australian Heritage Council has provisionally entered the Crown and Anchor Hotel (Grenfell Street, Adelaide), in the South Australian Heritage Register and is seeking submissions. Anyone may make a submission on the form, which can be found here: https://www.environment.sa.gov.au/topic ... firmations The period for making a submission closes 3 August 2024.

ie currently attempting to bump it up one notch on the heritage ladder, if successful I assume that developers would be forced to build around it and maintain it, same as the Newmarket Hotel?

[mshagg]

The "shitty run down pub" is a home for so many people, students, the LGBTQ community, older generations who have been going there decades, it's a home for local talent and emerging live music acts. It's one of the few, if not only venue in the East End which quite literally brings the community together. A cohesive social ecosystem.

Have to say I personally disagree with this. I know a few people who have gone there to hang out and have found the clientele who frequent there to be extremely cliquey and standoffish to the point where one was pretty much shunned out of the venue by the people inside for so much as ordering the “wrong type” of drink and looking too different. I have also heard of many other people having similar experiences to this, so I think it is rather misleading when people act like it’s some kind of open minded, welcoming establishment where regular people can hang out.

I showed up wearing a suit once and someone threw a chair at my head.

The 'save the cranker' movement has pretty rapidly migrated to an anti development/NIMBY movement complete with hints of casual racism. The leadership is eloquent and constructive, but the rank and file will make their job harder than it needs to be

I hope the dev does put it in the too hard basket and finds somewhere else, it's a good pub, but the calls on Mali and other ministers to 'fix' it are ignorant. He has no more power to block a DA than I do.

[Zills]

Come on guys.. every pub has its bad eggs..

[WGG]

The South Australian Heritage Council has provisionally entered the Crown and Anchor Hotel (Grenfell Street, Adelaide), in the South Australian Heritage Register and is seeking submissions. Anyone may make a submission on the form, which can be found here: https://www.environment.sa.gov.au/topic ... firmations The period for making a submission closes 3 August 2024.

ie currently attempting to bump it up one notch on the heritage ladder, if successful I assume that developers would be forced to build around it and maintain it, same as the Newmarket Hotel?

The same process the Sands & McDougall building went through at 60KWS.

[SRW]

The South Australian Heritage Council has provisionally entered the Crown and Anchor Hotel (Grenfell Street, Adelaide), in the South Australian Heritage Register and is seeking submissions. Anyone may make a submission on the form, which can be found here: https://www.environment.sa.gov.au/topic ... firmations The period for making a submission closes 3 August 2024.

ie currently attempting to bump it up one notch on the heritage ladder, if successful I assume that developers would be forced to build around it and maintain it, same as the Newmarket Hotel?

The same process the Sands & McDougall building went through at 60KWS.

In a way but that only resulted in the retention of the facade which is already what's proposed here.

[NTRabbit]

The entire building is already local heritage listed, they're pushing for the entire building to move up to state heritage listed. They set a new record for public submissions, so we'll see how long it takes to go through it all

[abc]

This should've been done before the building was sold. This sets a dangerous precedent for commerce in this state.

If the pub business was doing so well then it wouldn't have sold up for a redevelopment. Obviously the former patrons didn't attend the venue when it mattered in enough numbers to keep it viable.

[Norman]

The people that run the pub don't own it. They lease the space from the current landlord. They could be running a profit for all we know, but the landlord can choose not to extend the lease if they want to develop it.

[Nort]

The people that run the pub don't own it. They lease the space from the current landlord. They could be running a profit for all we know, but the landlord can choose not to extend the lease if they want to develop it.

The Cranker (and the other venues they run on the site) are very successful and well patronized.

[Algernon]

The people that run the pub don't own it. They lease the space from the current landlord. They could be running a profit for all we know, but the landlord can choose not to extend the lease if they want to develop it.

The Cranker (and the other venues they run on the site) are very successful and well patronized.

Strictly in terms of ROI, it doesn't matter how well run and patronised you are if you don't have pokies.

[Nort]

The people that run the pub don't own it. They lease the space from the current landlord. They could be running a profit for all we know, but the landlord can choose not to extend the lease if they want to develop it.

The Cranker (and the other venues they run on the site) are very successful and well patronized.

Strictly in terms of ROI, it doesn't matter how well run and patronised you are if you don't have pokies.

Doesn't mean they aren't profitable (and by all reports they are). Can still run a successful hospo venue without pokies, you just lose the business cheat codes. The Golden Wattle removed theirs entirely a couple of years ago

[gnrc_louis]

The Cranker (and the other venues they run on the site) are very successful and well patronized.

Strictly in terms of ROI, it doesn't matter how well run and patronised you are if you don't have pokies.

Doesn't mean they aren't profitable (and by all reports they are). Can still run a successful hospo venue without pokies, you just lose the business cheat codes. The Golden Wattle removed theirs entirely a couple of years ago

Exeter does alright without them too.