[SWP] Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Ben
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 7117
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Adelaide

[SWP] Re: Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

Post by Ben »

User avatar
Algernon
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1303
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Moravia

[SWP] Re: Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

Post by Algernon »

how good is he wrote:
Sun Feb 14, 2021 9:50 pm
Ok generally thats fair but this is Govt/Crown land. I know Govt could give land leases (ie 99 years) but I expect financing is far harder and private companies more reluctant.
Financing shouldn't be an issue (or at least not for this reason). Whole of ACT is 99 year leases.
Patrick_27
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2159
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:41 pm
Location: Adelaide CBD, SA

[SWP] Re: Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

Post by Patrick_27 »

Behind the Innovation Centre, it has a 'Central Park' with what looks like potential for further development. I would love to see this portion of the site turned into a events amphitheatre, similar to Sidney Myer Music Bowl in Melbourne (although perhaps not quite as big). Would allow for regular activation in that area, give Adelaide a suitable alternative to Elder Park (which I suspect will see a significant decrease in usable space once a concert hall ends up part of the Festival Theatre complex) and if managed by the Botanic Garden it could prove a nice little income stream for them to be more self sufficient. Also wouldn't necessarily have to cost the government all that much more than what they already will be investing into site remediation for that area.
User avatar
AndyWelsh
Legendary Member!
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:44 pm

[SWP] Re: Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

Post by AndyWelsh »

Thanks for sharing that Ben. I’m a bit confused now as to the planned scale of the building as this page of the report shows it spanning two heritage buildings and sitting quite low down, while the other render shows it looking taller and spanning three?

Image
Image

Also loved the inclusion of this old photo of the hospital from 1946.

Image

And render of the stack from below.

Image


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mpol02
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:06 am

[SWP] Re: Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

Post by Mpol02 »

I see what you’re saying but I think the perspective is off in the image where it spans across two buildings. If you follow the line of perspective it should hit the width of the third building.
User avatar
AndyWelsh
Legendary Member!
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:44 pm

[SWP] Re: Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

Post by AndyWelsh »

Mpol02 wrote:I see what you’re saying but I think the perspective is off in the image where it spans across two buildings. If you follow the line of perspective it should hit the width of the third building.
I think you’re probably right. I took this today from one of the heritage buildings (Allied Health Building) and they’ve cleared the land all the way across now:

Image


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bob
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:16 pm

[SWP] Re: Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

Post by Bob »

The Innovation Centre proposal has the tree lined footpath of the North Terrace Boulevard through to the Botanic Garden Entrance, however the Aboriginal Centre proposal does not as I pointed out previously, so one is contradicting the other. I know they are artists impressions but this needs to be cleared up by the ACC.

I fear the ACC might be bullied (in the same way as the EW bikeway debacle) for political correctness on allowing the Aboriginal Gallery to get their way. I really hope this time they hold firm and insist the tree lined boulevard be consistent.
User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 6102
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

[SWP] Re: Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

Post by Norman »

I don't think the Adelaide City Council is involved in either of the proposals, I believe Renewal SA is the key proponent here.
Bob
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:16 pm

[SWP] Re: Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

Post by Bob »

Norman wrote:
Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:35 am
I don't think the Adelaide City Council is involved in either of the proposals, I believe Renewal SA is the key proponent here.
Agree ACC is not involved in the actual proposals but the ACC is responsible for the footpath, (the boulevard) - that was my concern raised, to ensure the continuation of the tree lined boulevard and to note there is a conflict in the artists impressions between the two proposals as to what vegetation is on the footpath. We must avoid a native vegetation theme encroachment onto the boulevard - it would be out of place for the reasons I posted about previously in this thread on Feb 4.
Patrick_27
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2159
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:41 pm
Location: Adelaide CBD, SA

[SWP] Re: Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

Post by Patrick_27 »

Bob wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:03 am
Norman wrote:
Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:35 am
I don't think the Adelaide City Council is involved in either of the proposals, I believe Renewal SA is the key proponent here.
We must avoid a native vegetation theme encroachment onto the boulevard - it would be out of place for the reasons I posted about previously in this thread on Feb 4.
Whatever your reasons for thinking it out of place, let's not forget that this area is the frontage of the Australian Indigenous Gallery, regardless of whether or not it fits everyone else's expectations of this boulevard, I think it makes a much more powerful design statement to have an interruption in the overall design specification that considers the indigenous history of this country and Adelaide plain. Besides, the further east you go along North Terrace, this design spec is not continued, nor is it continued along the portion of North Terrace west of KWS. Besides, I for one am happy to not see the use of Plane Trees along an Adelaide CBD median for a change, they're horrible allergenic and they are monotonous comparatively to other options for street trees.
Bob
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:16 pm

[SWP] Re: Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

Post by Bob »

Patrick_27 wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:24 pm
Bob wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:03 am
Norman wrote:
Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:35 am
I don't think the Adelaide City Council is involved in either of the proposals, I believe Renewal SA is the key proponent here.
We must avoid a native vegetation theme encroachment onto the boulevard - it would be out of place for the reasons I posted about previously in this thread on Feb 4.
Whatever your reasons for thinking it out of place, let's not forget that this area is the frontage of the Australian Indigenous Gallery, regardless of whether or not it fits everyone else's expectations of this boulevard, I think it makes a much more powerful design statement to have an interruption in the overall design specification that considers the indigenous history of this country and Adelaide plain. Besides, the further east you go along North Terrace, this design spec is not continued, nor is it continued along the portion of North Terrace west of KWS. Besides, I for one am happy to not see the use of Plane Trees along an Adelaide CBD median for a change, they're horrible allergenic and they are monotonous comparatively to other options for street trees.
Patrick_27 wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:24 pm
Bob wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:03 am
Norman wrote:
Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:35 am
I don't think the Adelaide City Council is involved in either of the proposals, I believe Renewal SA is the key proponent here.
We must avoid a native vegetation theme encroachment onto the boulevard - it would be out of place for the reasons I posted about previously in this thread on Feb 4.
Whatever your reasons for thinking it out of place, let's not forget that this area is the frontage of the Australian Indigenous Gallery, regardless of whether or not it fits everyone else's expectations of this boulevard, I think it makes a much more powerful design statement to have an interruption in the overall design specification that considers the indigenous history of this country and Adelaide plain. Besides, the further east you go along North Terrace, this design spec is not continued, nor is it continued along the portion of North Terrace west of KWS. Besides, I for one am happy to not see the use of Plane Trees along an Adelaide CBD median for a change, they're horrible allergenic and they are monotonous comparatively to other options for street trees.
One can only hope that your viewpoint is in the minority of the decision makers.
Patrick_27
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2159
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:41 pm
Location: Adelaide CBD, SA

[SWP] Re: Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

Post by Patrick_27 »

Bob wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 4:40 pm
Patrick_27 wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:24 pm
Bob wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:03 am


We must avoid a native vegetation theme encroachment onto the boulevard - it would be out of place for the reasons I posted about previously in this thread on Feb 4.
Whatever your reasons for thinking it out of place, let's not forget that this area is the frontage of the Australian Indigenous Gallery, regardless of whether or not it fits everyone else's expectations of this boulevard, I think it makes a much more powerful design statement to have an interruption in the overall design specification that considers the indigenous history of this country and Adelaide plain. Besides, the further east you go along North Terrace, this design spec is not continued, nor is it continued along the portion of North Terrace west of KWS. Besides, I for one am happy to not see the use of Plane Trees along an Adelaide CBD median for a change, they're horrible allergenic and they are monotonous comparatively to other options for street trees.
Patrick_27 wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:24 pm
Bob wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:03 am


We must avoid a native vegetation theme encroachment onto the boulevard - it would be out of place for the reasons I posted about previously in this thread on Feb 4.
Whatever your reasons for thinking it out of place, let's not forget that this area is the frontage of the Australian Indigenous Gallery, regardless of whether or not it fits everyone else's expectations of this boulevard, I think it makes a much more powerful design statement to have an interruption in the overall design specification that considers the indigenous history of this country and Adelaide plain. Besides, the further east you go along North Terrace, this design spec is not continued, nor is it continued along the portion of North Terrace west of KWS. Besides, I for one am happy to not see the use of Plane Trees along an Adelaide CBD median for a change, they're horrible allergenic and they are monotonous comparatively to other options for street trees.
One can only hope that your viewpoint is in the minority of the decision makers.
What, because I actually have some cultural sensitivity and don't want to see a heap of trees from European origin planted in front of a gallery aimed at educating people on Indigenous Australia? Wow, how short-sighted of me! So many of you preach Adelaide's need for originality and progressive-thinking and yet you also cry in instances where banality is not adhered to in the form of bad town planning. Mpol02 is right in his reasoning for being critical of certain developments, and it's becoming ever-present how absolutely clueless some people here are.
Mpol02
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:06 am

[SWP] Re: Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

Post by Mpol02 »

Patrick_27 wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 5:47 pm
Bob wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 4:40 pm
Patrick_27 wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:24 pm


Whatever your reasons for thinking it out of place, let's not forget that this area is the frontage of the Australian Indigenous Gallery, regardless of whether or not it fits everyone else's expectations of this boulevard, I think it makes a much more powerful design statement to have an interruption in the overall design specification that considers the indigenous history of this country and Adelaide plain. Besides, the further east you go along North Terrace, this design spec is not continued, nor is it continued along the portion of North Terrace west of KWS. Besides, I for one am happy to not see the use of Plane Trees along an Adelaide CBD median for a change, they're horrible allergenic and they are monotonous comparatively to other options for street trees.
Patrick_27 wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:24 pm


Whatever your reasons for thinking it out of place, let's not forget that this area is the frontage of the Australian Indigenous Gallery, regardless of whether or not it fits everyone else's expectations of this boulevard, I think it makes a much more powerful design statement to have an interruption in the overall design specification that considers the indigenous history of this country and Adelaide plain. Besides, the further east you go along North Terrace, this design spec is not continued, nor is it continued along the portion of North Terrace west of KWS. Besides, I for one am happy to not see the use of Plane Trees along an Adelaide CBD median for a change, they're horrible allergenic and they are monotonous comparatively to other options for street trees.
One can only hope that your viewpoint is in the minority of the decision makers.
What, because I actually have some cultural sensitivity and don't want to see a heap of trees from European origin planted in front of a gallery aimed at educating people on Indigenous Australia? Wow, how short-sighted of me! So many of you preach Adelaide's need for originality and progressive-thinking and yet you also cry in instances where banality is not adhered to in the form of bad town planning. Mpol02 is right in his reasoning for being critical of certain developments, and it's becoming ever-present how absolutely clueless some people here are.
Thank you.
Just because it’s been proposed does not mean it needs to be built. For most other cities, you know a bad development will get washed out by a lot of good.
This isn’t the case for us. These blights on our skyline will remain for many decades. Those approving these developments need to hold the developers accountable and aspire for a certain standard, otherwise it can’t get built.

If that puts some developers off, so be it.
Bob
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:16 pm

[SWP] Re: Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

Post by Bob »

Patrick_27 wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 5:47 pm
Bob wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 4:40 pm
Patrick_27 wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:24 pm


Whatever your reasons for thinking it out of place, let's not forget that this area is the frontage of the Australian Indigenous Gallery, regardless of whether or not it fits everyone else's expectations of this boulevard, I think it makes a much more powerful design statement to have an interruption in the overall design specification that considers the indigenous history of this country and Adelaide plain. Besides, the further east you go along North Terrace, this design spec is not continued, nor is it continued along the portion of North Terrace west of KWS. Besides, I for one am happy to not see the use of Plane Trees along an Adelaide CBD median for a change, they're horrible allergenic and they are monotonous comparatively to other options for street trees.
Patrick_27 wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:24 pm


Whatever your reasons for thinking it out of place, let's not forget that this area is the frontage of the Australian Indigenous Gallery, regardless of whether or not it fits everyone else's expectations of this boulevard, I think it makes a much more powerful design statement to have an interruption in the overall design specification that considers the indigenous history of this country and Adelaide plain. Besides, the further east you go along North Terrace, this design spec is not continued, nor is it continued along the portion of North Terrace west of KWS. Besides, I for one am happy to not see the use of Plane Trees along an Adelaide CBD median for a change, they're horrible allergenic and they are monotonous comparatively to other options for street trees.
One can only hope that your viewpoint is in the minority of the decision makers.
What, because I actually have some cultural sensitivity and don't want to see a heap of trees from European origin planted in front of a gallery aimed at educating people on Indigenous Australia? Wow, how short-sighted of me! So many of you preach Adelaide's need for originality and progressive-thinking and yet you also cry in instances where banality is not adhered to in the form of bad town planning. Mpol02 is right in his reasoning for being critical of certain developments, and it's becoming ever-present how absolutely clueless some people here are.
North Terrace Boulevard can continue like the photo attached or be completely ruined by introducing the look in the other photo attached which is the native vegetation theme outside the East Gate of the Botanic Gardens on Hackney Road.

As I posted on Feb 4, move the proposed building back from the footpath if they want to add a native theme between the footpath and the project, or move the native theme to the proposed courtyard, or move the native theme to the rear of the project, but don't block the footpath from the continual consistent tree planted boulevard theme. You can have both but don't ruin the footpath - that was my point.
Attachments
BG EG.PNG
J150W-ab-2017.jpg
Nort
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1535
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm

[SWP] Re: Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

Post by Nort »

Bob wrote:
Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:16 pm
Patrick_27 wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 5:47 pm
Bob wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 4:40 pm


One can only hope that your viewpoint is in the minority of the decision makers.
What, because I actually have some cultural sensitivity and don't want to see a heap of trees from European origin planted in front of a gallery aimed at educating people on Indigenous Australia? Wow, how short-sighted of me! So many of you preach Adelaide's need for originality and progressive-thinking and yet you also cry in instances where banality is not adhered to in the form of bad town planning. Mpol02 is right in his reasoning for being critical of certain developments, and it's becoming ever-present how absolutely clueless some people here are.
North Terrace Boulevard can continue like the photo attached or be completely ruined by introducing the look in the other photo attached which is the native vegetation theme outside the East Gate of the Botanic Gardens on Hackney Road.

As I posted on Feb 4, move the proposed building back from the footpath if they want to add a native theme between the footpath and the project, or move the native theme to the proposed courtyard, or move the native theme to the rear of the project, but don't block the footpath from the continual consistent tree planted boulevard theme. You can have both but don't ruin the footpath - that was my point.
You say ruined, I think that well maintained native plantings like that could look amazing.
Post Reply