Melbourne & Australian Architecture Topics

A place to talk about Australian Architecture, Heritage & Planning Issues
It is currently 25 Apr 2017, 13:47




All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2010, 14:05 
Offline
Elite Member
Elite Member

Joined: 10 Oct 2010, 17:57
Posts: 636
The following article appeared in today's online newspapers Indaily.....

Adelaide Heritage an "Obsession"

ADELAIDE needs a complete overhaul of its heritage protection, including a critical review of all currently listed buildings, the Property Council of SA says.

Council president Nathan Paine said the existing rules encouraged a “hoarding” approach to heritage, valuing quantity over quality, and were restricting the city’s development.

“It is a unique Adelaide obsession,” he told Indaily.

“[We] don’t want to throw anything away, but if you take that approach, the only thing we do throw away is our future.”

The Property Council will tonight unveil a series of recommendations for a new approach to heritage, including a possible cap on the number of listed properties, in a move which has already outraged heritage protection groups.

There are currently 1800 heritage listed buildings in the CBD and North Adelaide area, with the State Government and Adelaide City Council looking to add more to the list.

Mr Paine said this meant 50 per cent of CBD properties were already heritage constrained – either listed or next door to a listed site – which worked against other plans for the city, including the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

“If South Australia continues on its current course, our ability to provide affordable and desirable accommodation for our growing population and work spaces for our strengthening economy will fail,” Mr Paine will tell tonight’s forum.

National Trust of SA president David Beaumont said he was “very concerned” by the proposals and considered some recommendations “irresponsible”.

“Our heritage rules have stood the test of time,” he said.

“They are well known and understood.

“Adelaide has a history from 1836; developers come and go. Their commitment to this city has got to be proven.”

Mr Beaumont said the National Trust were not anti-progress or anti-development, but wanted to preserve what made the city unique.

Tonight’s heritage forum is not about removing protections, Mr Paine said, but modifying them to suit the city’s future needs.

Mr Paine will argue current heritage rules allow “sweeping decisions to list certain buildings of dubious heritage” in a way that devalues building with real value.

“In most cases, preserving a single example of a building type [would] more than meet the community’s needs.”

He will also hit out at the “highly subjective, politically coloured” selection process, but expects the majority of the recommendations will receive broad support.

The National Trust of SA is planning its own seminar for the New Year on the importance of heritage protection to celebrate the city’s 175th birthday.


Nathan Paine is a young guy with a BA in Politics and he runs the Property Council of SA as a avocate body for property developers so of course they would want to demolish every building which stands in their way of a profit.

I think that the National Trust of SA president David Beaumont was quite restrained calling these recommendations "irresponsible".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2010, 16:35 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2002, 00:36
Posts: 3940
Thanks Edwardian for pointing this article out. Its quite disturbing. Particularly:

Edwardian wrote:
“In most cases, preserving a single example of a building type [would] more than meet the community’s needs.”


I'm pretty shocked at the attitudes.

Adelaide has wonderful heritage, and its the rest that drags the place down.

Its easy to make the claim of 50% is heritage protected, but what they don't say is that the other 50% is junk that could just as easily be demolished or built on. I'm talking hideous grade carparks, multi-storey carparks, rail yards, low rise post war industrial rubbish and the like which plagues the city. Urban renewal in shitty suburban and industrial areas would go a long way to making Adelaide a much better city.

Lifting height restrictions and relocating Adelaide Airport might help too ....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2010, 14:06 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: 30 Nov 2009, 14:22
Posts: 24
I wouldn't agree to a lifting of the height restriction, at least certainly not within the central part of Adelaide surrounded by the perimeter of green. I think that's what makes Adelaide unique and in future generations this will give it an identity. Imagine if we still had the 40m height limit in place in the CBD - although that would mean we would have missed out on great locations for the Rialto Towers and 101/120 Collins, we would have gained much more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2010, 15:24 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 Oct 2010, 08:32
Posts: 153
I know there are some pretty serious discussions about the water supplies and climate in Adelaide ...it just doesn't seem to be a city that can withstand developers for developments sake.


Last edited by ONEant on 22 Mar 2015, 22:32, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2010, 19:51 
Offline
Elite Member
Elite Member
User avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2008, 17:20
Posts: 550
I just went to Adelaide for the first time recently and was so impressed at teh range of buildings. A lot of them were empty though, but perhaps what Adelaide needs is to push developers towards thinking creatively about how to re-use the buildings that exist, plenty of cities manage to be economically viable inside older buildings.

Adelaide could use it's architecture to promote more tourism. When I was taking photos a few people stopped me to ask why I was photographing certain buildings, so I explained that they were interesting they seemed pleased enough but maybe many can't see the value they have right under their noses.

Also can I just say how much the attitude that we just need one example of a building irks me! Argh. The gallery has a lot of paintings from the 19th century, we should probably sell them all and keep one. While we are at it I think we only really need two football teams to get an idea of how football is played so let's dissolve the AFL.

_________________
http://boscoparrasio.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2010, 22:38 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2002, 00:36
Posts: 3940
Tempesta wrote:
I just went to Adelaide for the first time recently and was so impressed at teh range of buildings. A lot of them were empty though, but perhaps what Adelaide needs is to push developers towards thinking creatively about how to re-use the buildings that exist, plenty of cities manage to be economically viable inside older buildings.


Bring back postmodernism I say. When done well, it works.

Tempesta wrote:
Adelaide could use it's architecture to promote more tourism. When I was taking photos a few people stopped me to ask why I was photographing certain buildings, so I explained that they were interesting they seemed pleased enough but maybe many can't see the value they have right under their noses.


Definitely I find the same thing in Ballarat. On Lydiard Street even. Probably one of the best Victorian era streetscapes I've seen in this country and people here are suprised why they shoot ads here .... its quite crazy really.

I love Adelaide too. Its such a well planned and thought out town. North Terrace, the gardens and squares are quite wonderful and there is a real sense of elegance, refinement and dignity in the sandstone colonial buildings. Its got so much character and unlike the bigger cities relatively unspoiled, a bit like Ballarat. If both cities could reinstate their tram networks and stop their horrible sprawl they'd be just about perfect.

There is a bigger growth mentality in the smaller towns and cities though. They see people move to the big cities and think they have to be more like them to keep people there, especially younger people. The reality is that many people return to these places later in life because they come to realise what they've got is quite special and then they do anything they can to try and keep it that way.

Tempesta wrote:
Also can I just say how much the attitude that we just need one example of a building irks me! Argh. The gallery has a lot of paintings from the 19th century, we should probably sell them all and keep one. While we are at it I think we only really need two football teams to get an idea of how football is played so let's dissolve the AFL.


Hear what you're saying but dissolving the AFL is actually a great idea, it would be much better for the game :)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Melbourne Buildings