Sensational-Adelaide.com

What an odd statement. It's the council's own requirements that mean this residential building has parking.

At the risk of being the subject of much ire, how about we all target the real problem here, which is not the ACC as such - it's the Development Plan.

If the plan said the height limit was 100m (for arguments sake), then on what real and factual basis could they oppose it? Don't ask the umpire to ignore the rules, change them to achieve a more desired outcome. It's a bit simplistic..well okay, really simplistic, but if you want to prevent good development being hindered by stupid rules, change the rules.

Burger, the ACC own the dev plan. It's wholey within their power to lift building heights. Back in 2006 they even reviewed the plan and recognized the need for change - but no visible action to date.

Given the size of this building, how many car spaces could fit on 4 levels? maybe the design includes paid parking for joe public?

Wayno, totally agree about Council owning the plan and being able to change it. What I'm getting at is that there are a lot of suggestions that ACC should ignore the DP and allow greater height/density/whatever, when I'm sure that we would all be equally as jacked-off if they broke the rules and allowed something we didn't want. Rather than asking them to ignore the rules, get the rules changed and there can be no argument.

Burger wrote:Wayno, totally agree about Council owning the plan and being able to change it. What I'm getting at is that there are a lot of suggestions that ACC should ignore the DP and allow greater height/density/whatever, when I'm sure that we would all be equally as jacked-off if they broke the rules and allowed something we didn't want. Rather than asking them to ignore the rules, get the rules changed and there can be no argument.

Agreed in general, but as Cr Wilkinson suggests this particular issue is not purely about height but also quality and character. Even if it were purely about height there are, as Cr Wilkinson points out, already provisions for overheight buildings in the development guidelines, and these seem to have been taken full advantage of in Council's own Precinct development. Hypocritical no?

council are very conservative and are becoming redundant anyway, but the big issue is the plan. the heights need to be raised, absolutely, what we don't want though is huge, complying boring buildings.
the plan needs to enable applications to be assessed on merit, if it's exceptional and a positive contribution to the area, let it through, if it's not, don't. make the developers accountable, if they want additional area, give us something special, if the plan allows this flexibility, things will change pretty quick, and architects will actually be able to 'design' something rather than just making an efficient floor plans look palatable.

Adelarch wrote:Agreed in general, but as Cr Wilkinson suggests this particular issue is not purely about height but also quality and character. Even if it were purely about height there are, as Cr Wilkinson points out, already provisions for overheight buildings in the development guidelines, and these seem to have been taken full advantage of in Council's own Precinct development. Hypocritical no?

The quality and character argument is rendered moot when you look at the site's existing neighbours. There's other buildings in the immediate vicinity that approach 'interesting' architecturally speaking. This is just an extension of that.

google street view

The countless major city projects and resources boom will be the state's biggest wasted opportunity in history, unless height restrictions are relaxed and the council stop acting like an embarrassing pathetic town council. The TV news report hit the nail on the head with - "if Adelaide wants to be taken seriously as a major State Capital, it needs to get over it's conservative roots and grow up". Harsh but 100% true.

The council might not have any power, but they have a strong voice and that voice is doing alot damage to Adelaide's already damaged reputation. God knows what people at home or potential investors are thinking. And to think, they believe they were unfairly treated at losing control of major developments..

Maybe it's time the council were completely removed from assessing projects worth over $10 million.

Considering they have no powers over such proposals, I don't see the point of the council being allowed to give a free kick to all the Adelaide-bashers every time a high-rise proposal comes before it.

Will wrote:Maybe it's time the council were completely removed from assessing projects worth over $10 million.

Considering they have no powers over such proposals, I don't see the point of the council being allowed to give a free kick to all the Adelaide-bashers every time a high-rise proposal comes before it.

Agreed. It's a waste of time, money and resources having city councilors assessing projects that they effectively have no control over.

some food for thought...

Adelarch wrote:

Burger wrote:Wayno, totally agree about Council owning the plan and being able to change it. What I'm getting at is that there are a lot of suggestions that ACC should ignore the DP and allow greater height/density/whatever, when I'm sure that we would all be equally as jacked-off if they broke the rules and allowed something we didn't want. Rather than asking them to ignore the rules, get the rules changed and there can be no argument.

Agreed in general, but as Cr Wilkinson suggests this particular issue is not purely about height but also quality and character. Even if it were purely about height there are, as Cr Wilkinson points out, already provisions for overheight buildings in the development guidelines, and these seem to have been taken full advantage of in Council's own Precinct development. Hypocritical no?

And so we come back to the ACC - where rules can be changed and/or development stopped. I wonder where the mayor is in all this?

Very interesting relative comparisons jatsa.

ADELAIDE TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

Jatza wrote:some food for thought...

you need to put in 2001AD Adelaide unable to built

but otherwise pure gold

Jatza wrote:some food for thought...

Tehehehe

Jatza wrote:some food for thought...

This needs to be sent to the ACC. They are such an embarrassment to this City.