Talking about this board around the office today, after reading about it in the Advertiser.
Some typical comments:
- probably the creation of Media Mike's spin team to talk up development in SA.
- must be a govt website - how else would Aust Major Events let them get away with using 'sensational-adelaide'?
- can't be Premier's Dept - the server's too slow...
Well, Howie, who are you? Are my mates all paranoid about Big Brother Mike, or what?
Who are you, Howie?
I guess I'll start.
This website was created by a person who is interested in urban development, for people like myself who are interested in urban development. It has nothing to do with the government.
If you read around the place, you'll notice that we'll sometimes criticise some of the developments or aspects of them, particularly government-funded infrastructure ones. If this was a government-related site, all you would see is continuous praise and no criticism of these sort of projects.
Many of us do the same here at a much larger Australian forum:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=65
This website was created by a person who is interested in urban development, for people like myself who are interested in urban development. It has nothing to do with the government.
If you read around the place, you'll notice that we'll sometimes criticise some of the developments or aspects of them, particularly government-funded infrastructure ones. If this was a government-related site, all you would see is continuous praise and no criticism of these sort of projects.
Many of us do the same here at a much larger Australian forum:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=65
-
stumpjumper
- Legendary Member!
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Interesting.
Genuine debate in any forum about urban design issues is a good thing. It seems to me that most people either consider development and redevelopment activity to somehow be part of the background of life over which they have no control, or they think that it is a process which occurs at government/corporate/plutocrat level and which the man in the street can't influence.
As most readers here will be aware, this is far from the truth. Organised, focussed public action and expression of views can dramatically influence development, whether private, public/private or public.
A precursor to this action or whatever is debate and education.
So well done for this contribution to public debate and education. I still think a little explanation of who runs this site and what it is intended to do wouldn't go astray.
Genuine debate in any forum about urban design issues is a good thing. It seems to me that most people either consider development and redevelopment activity to somehow be part of the background of life over which they have no control, or they think that it is a process which occurs at government/corporate/plutocrat level and which the man in the street can't influence.
As most readers here will be aware, this is far from the truth. Organised, focussed public action and expression of views can dramatically influence development, whether private, public/private or public.
A precursor to this action or whatever is debate and education.
So well done for this contribution to public debate and education. I still think a little explanation of who runs this site and what it is intended to do wouldn't go astray.
Re: Who are you, Howie?
Talk's always a good thingstumpjumper wrote:Talking about this board around the office today, after reading about it in the Advertiser.
I'm sure i'll get a few questions about it at work on Monday.This site's built by myself, contributed by ordinary people who have a love for construction and architecture, and this great city of ours.Some typical comments:
- probably the creation of Media Mike's spin team to talk up development in SA.
- must be a govt website - how else would Aust Major Events let them get away with using 'sensational-adelaide'?
- can't be Premier's Dept - the server's too slow...
The reason I chose sensational-adelaide.com as the domain name was because
1) it was available!
2) no one owns the phrase sensational-adelaide (you can't trademark generic words and place names).
3) i don't know what the premier's department server's like, but this one's no speed demon, it's hosted by an aussie company on an american server.. well because, it was the cheapest way to go about. Everything's run on a shoe string budget here
Exactly what AG wrote. This site was brought about because of the great discussions that would take place over on skyscrapercity.com forums. Still a very great website they run over there, but by having our own site, we get more flexibility and less "noise" from members who just happen to troll into our South Aussie section on Skyscraper city. It's grown to become more than that nowadays, but every site has it's beginnings. Put simply sites like this would not exist without great members like AG, Pikey, Al, PeterMaloney, ATD, and countless other people.AG wrote:I guess I'll start.
This website was created by a person who is interested in urban development, for people like myself who are interested in urban development. It has nothing to do with the government.
Exactly... and boy do we bag some developments that go on hereIf you read around the place, you'll notice that we'll sometimes criticise some of the developments or aspects of them..
That's an excellent way of putting it.As most readers here will be aware, this is far from the truth. Organised, focussed public action and expression of views can dramatically influence development, whether private, public/private or public.
A precursor to this action or whatever is debate and education.
We hope that's the case, and it would be excellent if we could have our say on developments in Adelaide. As the advertiser article wrote, "power to the people".
It's a free society and we should be free to say what we like about issues affecting us.
Okay that's fair enough, well a little about myself. I'm a programmer by day, and in my spare time i design websites, write programs and hang around on forums. Most of the stuff I do is free for the community, a quick google on my name will probably reveal most of the stuff that I do.So well done for this contribution to public debate and education. I still think a little explanation of who runs this site and what it is intended to do wouldn't go astray.
Really? I would think that many people are fully aware of how to influence development and are quite successful in doing so.stumpjumper wrote:Interesting.
It seems to me that most people either consider development and redevelopment activity to somehow be part of the background of life over which they have no control, or they think that it is a process which occurs at government/corporate/plutocrat level and which the man in the street can't influence.
A lot of people would go as far as saying that Adelaide is full of anti-development pressure groups that stand in the way of progress for little more reason than to preserve a status quo that they're comfortable with.
I wouldn't go that far, as I generally feel that those that speak out against development here have a vested interest in what they're opposing, however, I do believe that there is an overly-prominent reluctance towards change in Adelaide, which is a mindset that needs changing if the city's going to realise its full potential.
Last edited by Pants on Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
petermaloney
- High Rise Poster!
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:18 pm
- Location: Sydney
- Contact:
-
stumpjumper
- Legendary Member!
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Pants
You almost imply I am one of those anti-development Luddites. I'm not - in fact I design buildings for a living.
I agree with you that Adelaide has an overly conservative mindset when it comes to development. THis mindset may be the result of our relative isolation, our history and so on. However, to reject that mindset is not to indulge in the cargo cult that all development is good development, and that we should just lie back and take it.
To me, there is good and bad development. Good development is a matter of balance, among other things. Ultimately, the community which lives in or with a development should at the very least not be disadvantaged by the development.
That's one of my concerns with Newport Quays - whether the scales aren't swung too much in favour of the consortium and not enough in favour of local residents and businesses, who are stakeholders too. It's just possible that an area which has a better, far more productive future as a maritime tourism precinct of international quality is being taken down a side-route to a much more limited future (as far as broad benefits are concerned) as a pure residential development.
My other concern about Newport Quays is that because the govt, and to a lesser extent the Port Adelaide Enfield council, are joint venturers with the development consortium, they have a conflict in standing up for the interests of 'the people', yet it is 'the people' who ultimately own the land which the govt via LMC has put up as part of the govt's share of the deal. It's also, by the way, an additional $17.5 mill of taxpayers' money which is to be spent to provide marina berths for the development (berths which were not a part of the original PAR for the development).
Some years ago, I had bit to do with the Holdfast Shores development. Among the good things which have come from that development, there are some distinctly anti-social elements as well. For example, dredging the marina and its approach (not the approach to the Patawalonga basin) costs SA taxpayers several hundred thousand $ each year. Yet any capital gain on the properties which benefit from the upkeep of the marina accrue to the private owners. Hence, anti-social.
Similarly, the Garden East development has not delivered much benefit to the area that 'hosts' it. For a start (and this is sadly a fairly common occurnece) the quality of the new buildings was watered down after the consortium got the go-ahead. Most people have forgotten the Minister for Industry and Manufacturing at the time (John Olsen) announcing that the whole development would be geothermally heated etc etc. 'The Garden East development will be closely monitored, serving as a grand demonstration of great things to come.' - John Olsen, 1994. Geothermal heating was dropped after the first building had been built, along with a lot of other things that were originally promised by the developers but which were found to eat into profit without contributing to saleability.
The developers, the Liberman Group, then spent tens of thousands of $ successfully fighting local businesses and public demand to restrict entertainment licensing in the East End. The developers stopped new licensed premises from opening, fought to restrict the hours of existing ones and did their best to stop live music being performed in the East End. So much for a vibrant city.
The result is that the East End is neither one thing nor the other, and suffers in various ways as a consequence.
Rather than being cheap and cheerful student accommodation, the Garden East development is expensive, upmarket accommodation, housing a demographic which is a poor fit with the likes of the Exeter and the Crown and Anchor.
Nor has the development done much for retailing in the area - trade is down, vacancy and turnover rates for premises are high. The retail tenancies built by the Liberman Group are an afterthought, and a failure as commercial tenancies. Have a look at Union St - a wasted opportunity to create an excellent retail enclave on the likes of Flinders Lane in Melbourne.
Yet the Liberman Group did very well out of Garden East - they've sold everything and have returned to Sydney with their profits.
That's what I mean about balance. A development should not be to the detriment of existing stakeholders in the area. This is especially the case when the govt ('the people's friend', you might think) is a partner in the development.
So I'm not anti-development, not am I one of those people who is simply anti-change, nor am I a NIMBY or a rabid greenie.
I am a proponent of quality development that delivers balanced benefits.
You almost imply I am one of those anti-development Luddites. I'm not - in fact I design buildings for a living.
I agree with you that Adelaide has an overly conservative mindset when it comes to development. THis mindset may be the result of our relative isolation, our history and so on. However, to reject that mindset is not to indulge in the cargo cult that all development is good development, and that we should just lie back and take it.
To me, there is good and bad development. Good development is a matter of balance, among other things. Ultimately, the community which lives in or with a development should at the very least not be disadvantaged by the development.
That's one of my concerns with Newport Quays - whether the scales aren't swung too much in favour of the consortium and not enough in favour of local residents and businesses, who are stakeholders too. It's just possible that an area which has a better, far more productive future as a maritime tourism precinct of international quality is being taken down a side-route to a much more limited future (as far as broad benefits are concerned) as a pure residential development.
My other concern about Newport Quays is that because the govt, and to a lesser extent the Port Adelaide Enfield council, are joint venturers with the development consortium, they have a conflict in standing up for the interests of 'the people', yet it is 'the people' who ultimately own the land which the govt via LMC has put up as part of the govt's share of the deal. It's also, by the way, an additional $17.5 mill of taxpayers' money which is to be spent to provide marina berths for the development (berths which were not a part of the original PAR for the development).
Some years ago, I had bit to do with the Holdfast Shores development. Among the good things which have come from that development, there are some distinctly anti-social elements as well. For example, dredging the marina and its approach (not the approach to the Patawalonga basin) costs SA taxpayers several hundred thousand $ each year. Yet any capital gain on the properties which benefit from the upkeep of the marina accrue to the private owners. Hence, anti-social.
Similarly, the Garden East development has not delivered much benefit to the area that 'hosts' it. For a start (and this is sadly a fairly common occurnece) the quality of the new buildings was watered down after the consortium got the go-ahead. Most people have forgotten the Minister for Industry and Manufacturing at the time (John Olsen) announcing that the whole development would be geothermally heated etc etc. 'The Garden East development will be closely monitored, serving as a grand demonstration of great things to come.' - John Olsen, 1994. Geothermal heating was dropped after the first building had been built, along with a lot of other things that were originally promised by the developers but which were found to eat into profit without contributing to saleability.
The developers, the Liberman Group, then spent tens of thousands of $ successfully fighting local businesses and public demand to restrict entertainment licensing in the East End. The developers stopped new licensed premises from opening, fought to restrict the hours of existing ones and did their best to stop live music being performed in the East End. So much for a vibrant city.
The result is that the East End is neither one thing nor the other, and suffers in various ways as a consequence.
Rather than being cheap and cheerful student accommodation, the Garden East development is expensive, upmarket accommodation, housing a demographic which is a poor fit with the likes of the Exeter and the Crown and Anchor.
Nor has the development done much for retailing in the area - trade is down, vacancy and turnover rates for premises are high. The retail tenancies built by the Liberman Group are an afterthought, and a failure as commercial tenancies. Have a look at Union St - a wasted opportunity to create an excellent retail enclave on the likes of Flinders Lane in Melbourne.
Yet the Liberman Group did very well out of Garden East - they've sold everything and have returned to Sydney with their profits.
That's what I mean about balance. A development should not be to the detriment of existing stakeholders in the area. This is especially the case when the govt ('the people's friend', you might think) is a partner in the development.
So I'm not anti-development, not am I one of those people who is simply anti-change, nor am I a NIMBY or a rabid greenie.
I am a proponent of quality development that delivers balanced benefits.
-
stumpjumper
- Legendary Member!
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Howie - re 'sensational Adelaide'
Don't believe they can't try to own generic phrases.
Back when we had the Australian Grand Prix here, I was part of a group which put on a show called the "Grand Prixamble" as a prelude to the grand prix.
We received a very threatening letter from the lawyers for Australian Major Events pointing out that AME had exclusive rights in South Australia to the words 'Grand Prix' and to any permutation thereof, and that they would get an injunction against us and sue us if we used the words again.
We were a party committee with no funds to speak of, so we backed down and for the next year called our show the "Grand Preamble". We got an other letter from the lawyers saying we were acting against the spirit of AME's rights or something, but we dropped the whole idea anyway when we discovered that AME had 'cancelled' our booking of Edmund Wright House for that year in a particularly dastardly way and taken it over themselves for their pre Grand Prix party.
We had sent two tickets to AME as a gesture after all the fuss over the name, and they must have liked the venue. The page with our booking was torn out of the venue's booking book, but no-one knew anything about it.
I'm not about to tell whoever it is that might hold the 'rights' to the phrase sensational-adelaide, but be warned by the tale above. I wouldn't be surprised if you got a threratening letter from the some government lawyer about it. Good luck.
Don't believe they can't try to own generic phrases.
Back when we had the Australian Grand Prix here, I was part of a group which put on a show called the "Grand Prixamble" as a prelude to the grand prix.
We received a very threatening letter from the lawyers for Australian Major Events pointing out that AME had exclusive rights in South Australia to the words 'Grand Prix' and to any permutation thereof, and that they would get an injunction against us and sue us if we used the words again.
We were a party committee with no funds to speak of, so we backed down and for the next year called our show the "Grand Preamble". We got an other letter from the lawyers saying we were acting against the spirit of AME's rights or something, but we dropped the whole idea anyway when we discovered that AME had 'cancelled' our booking of Edmund Wright House for that year in a particularly dastardly way and taken it over themselves for their pre Grand Prix party.
We had sent two tickets to AME as a gesture after all the fuss over the name, and they must have liked the venue. The page with our booking was torn out of the venue's booking book, but no-one knew anything about it.
I'm not about to tell whoever it is that might hold the 'rights' to the phrase sensational-adelaide, but be warned by the tale above. I wouldn't be surprised if you got a threratening letter from the some government lawyer about it. Good luck.
Sorry for any confusion mate, I wasn't suggesting that you were anti-development at all. I'd imagine that you wouldn't be here if you were.stumpjumper wrote:Pants
You almost imply I am one of those anti-development Luddites. I'm not - in fact I design buildings for a living.
I agree with you that Adelaide has an overly conservative mindset when it comes to development. THis mindset may be the result of our relative isolation, our history and so on. However, to reject that mindset is not to indulge in the cargo cult that all development is good development, and that we should just lie back and take it.
To me, there is good and bad development. Good development is a matter of balance, among other things. Ultimately, the community which lives in or with a development should at the very least not be disadvantaged by the development.
That's one of my concerns with Newport Quays - whether the scales aren't swung too much in favour of the consortium and not enough in favour of local residents and businesses, who are stakeholders too. It's just possible that an area which has a better, far more productive future as a maritime tourism precinct of international quality is being taken down a side-route to a much more limited future (as far as broad benefits are concerned) as a pure residential development.
My other concern about Newport Quays is that because the govt, and to a lesser extent the Port Adelaide Enfield council, are joint venturers with the development consortium, they have a conflict in standing up for the interests of 'the people', yet it is 'the people' who ultimately own the land which the govt via LMC has put up as part of the govt's share of the deal. It's also, by the way, an additional $17.5 mill of taxpayers' money which is to be spent to provide marina berths for the development (berths which were not a part of the original PAR for the development).
Some years ago, I had bit to do with the Holdfast Shores development. Among the good things which have come from that development, there are some distinctly anti-social elements as well. For example, dredging the marina and its approach (not the approach to the Patawalonga basin) costs SA taxpayers several hundred thousand $ each year. Yet any capital gain on the properties which benefit from the upkeep of the marina accrue to the private owners. Hence, anti-social.
Similarly, the Garden East development has not delivered much benefit to the area that 'hosts' it. For a start (and this is sadly a fairly common occurnece) the quality of the new buildings was watered down after the consortium got the go-ahead. Most people have forgotten the Minister for Industry and Manufacturing at the time (John Olsen) announcing that the whole development would be geothermally heated etc etc. 'The Garden East development will be closely monitored, serving as a grand demonstration of great things to come.' - John Olsen, 1994. Geothermal heating was dropped after the first building had been built, along with a lot of other things that were originally promised by the developers but which were found to eat into profit without contributing to saleability.
The developers, the Liberman Group, then spent tens of thousands of $ successfully fighting local businesses and public demand to restrict entertainment licensing in the East End. The developers stopped new licensed premises from opening, fought to restrict the hours of existing ones and did their best to stop live music being performed in the East End. So much for a vibrant city.
The result is that the East End is neither one thing nor the other, and suffers in various ways as a consequence.
Rather than being cheap and cheerful student accommodation, the Garden East development is expensive, upmarket accommodation, housing a demographic which is a poor fit with the likes of the Exeter and the Crown and Anchor.
Nor has the development done much for retailing in the area - trade is down, vacancy and turnover rates for premises are high. The retail tenancies built by the Liberman Group are an afterthought, and a failure as commercial tenancies. Have a look at Union St - a wasted opportunity to create an excellent retail enclave on the likes of Flinders Lane in Melbourne.
Yet the Liberman Group did very well out of Garden East - they've sold everything and have returned to Sydney with their profits.
That's what I mean about balance. A development should not be to the detriment of existing stakeholders in the area. This is especially the case when the govt ('the people's friend', you might think) is a partner in the development.
So I'm not anti-development, not am I one of those people who is simply anti-change, nor am I a NIMBY or a rabid greenie.
I am a proponent of quality development that delivers balanced benefits.
I haven't got the time at the minute to address everything you wrote in what was an excellent post, but I can say that I entirely agree that not all development is good development.
Welcome to the forum by the way. I look forward to reading more from you.
True, nothing would stop whoever it is, from owning the phrase sensational-adelaide. But we've had a grand prix called that, and we've also had a few other events taking that phrase also. I'm sure prior to the grand prix that phrase was used widely as well.stumpjumper wrote:Howie - re 'sensational Adelaide'
Don't believe they can't try to own generic phrases.
Back when we had the Australian Grand Prix here, I was part of a group which put on a show called the "Grand Prixamble" as a prelude to the grand prix.
I choose the phrase because it represented everything I wanted in the site and it also reflects the majority of our member's opinion about adelaide now and into the future.
btw, thanks for your posts lately stumpjumper... big welcome to the site
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests