Riverbank Precinct Code Amendment

While I am not against change or development the plan to re-zone these areas is one of the most appalling ideas I have ever heard. Developers must be rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of getting hold of the most prime land in the city for next to nothing.
What is our State Government thinking? It makes one wonders what sort of deal they have with these developers and if it is moral or even legal.

They will certainly lose countless votes and possibly the next election, if they insist on going ahead with it.

The whole problem started when we were not vigilant enough to stop the building of a major hospital on one of the busiest intersections in the city, against the advice of many medical professionals and others who said it was not adequate.The current proposal to build the Women’s and Children’s Hospital adjacent to it, is equally ludicrous. Again many medical professionals have said the proposed Women’s and Children’s Hospital will also not be adequate.

Along North Tce, coming from Port Road towards King William Street we have a number of ugly, concrete high rise buildings on the left hand side of the road, that in no way contribute to the enhancement or beautification of the city.
If we need to have these monstrosities how about we modify them, or pull them down to enable a Women’s and Children’s Hospital to take their place? High rise parking could also go in that area.

I doubt if any member of the public would object to that plan unless they were either developers or had some pecuniary interest in the sites.

I also doubt the Government would be interested in looking at that idea as they would need to pay for the land they are on. Instead they want to get free land that was set out as parklands and using public monies desecrate not only the Parklands but heritage buildings such as the Adelaide Gaol and The Police Baracks. They say these buildings would be re-purposed. This euphemism is often employed when they intend to destroy or partially destroy these buildings or possibly sell them as has happened with Glenside Hospital.
It would be impossible to use part of the Gaol for redevelopment without destroying the rest of it. Surely the Gaol should stand intact as a testament to the early history of this State and the first settlers lives?
The Government have also not thought about, or ignored the pitfalls of interfering with Kaurna sacred sites. I am surprised that they are even contemplating touching the Aboriginal burials at the Gaol.

I despair that common sense has not prevailed so far and can only hope that this whole idea is dropped.
Please look at other areas to develop that do not destroy our wide open spaces in the city.

Penny Wilkinson
President
Adelaide Gaol Preservation Society Inc. (AGPS)

I don't want more buildings in the Riverbank Precinct. I understand the Children's hospital needs some but other than that, leave it alone. I enjoy concerts there and like the green space.

No!
What are you thinking!
Adelaide City Council does not need to be at the table in discussions other than to stand up for protecting Adelaide’s greatest asset - its very special public owned parklands that surround the city.
It is zoning that has slowed down the gradual chipping away of what is owned by all to line the pockets of developers. Don’t change the zoning that has protected what is becoming increasingly rare.
Why would you want to create a new business area away from the existing business area?
So what happened to the idea of the “historic push to have Adelaide become the world’s next National Park City”?
Get money out of politics and get back to the common good for all.

The Parklands and Riverbank is still considered an iconic and beautiful feature of Adelaide even with the refurbishment and expansion of the Entertainment Centre, Festival Theatre and Oval (and construction of the footbridge). The development proposed goes beyond common sense For this reason, there should be a limit to urban development along the precinct. We currently have the Oval and Entertainment and Festival Centre. Further development would spoil the ambience of the precinct. The renewal of the CBD is much needed especially derelict blocks but not along the riverfront which everyone enjoys. Pinky Flat should remain to be enjoyed by the whole community are spaces where arts events can be held (Fringe, OzAsia etc). Green belts are important to maintain for now and future generations.

Unbelievable! How could this government think it is acceptable to rezone Helen Mayo Park as "entertainment" and therefore be free to develop the area with multi storey buildings, hotels, restaurants, shops along our riverbank, into Bonython Park and upon Pinky Flat. How sneaky to rezone a large portion of parklands under the guise of building an enclosed stadium! It is hard to imagine why a stadium is needed - we have a convention centre and an entertainment centre. We also have a recently vacated brewery site on Port Road very close to the Entertainment Centre. The parklands are precious and for everyone. They are a unique feature of Adelaide and were set aside in perpetuity. It is simply not true that the area of the parklands where the Marshall government wants to build this stadium is "degraded". They may be referring to a dump of contaminated soil - surely able to be removed.
No land grab!!!

I am appalled by this proposal to take heritage Parkland green space and quiet serenity for concrete, car parks, private developments and a new stadium. Adelaide’s world renowned Parklands are a unique feature of our city and should not be encroached on. Our city faces increasing summer temperature extremes with climate change and our green Parklands and river frontage will help buffer the city CBD from this. More concrete and metal buildings proposed for the rezoned space will exacerbate extreme summer temperatures. This land grab must not proceed!

How much expert scientific evidence do politicians need to understand that the health benefits of outdoor open green spaces, climate change, ecological and environmental needs far outweigh any conceivable building big or small? The contradictions in this proposal are incredible. How can a city and its people benefit from more carbon emissions, more concrete, more buildings at the expense of living vegetation in open air recreational spaces on public land that was bequeathed to South Australians supposedly into perpetuity?
Shame on this government.

I am deeply distressed by the government proposal to 'acquire' considerable chunks of our Heritage Listed Park Lands. Our open spaces are what makes Adelaide so desirable - they are the lungs of the city.
You can't take a walk in the park when it's covered in concrete and glass.

I was gobsmacked when I saw the map of the proposed land to be rezoned and ultimately developed along the Torrens River Bank. This area has been an iconic part of Adelaide ever since I was a child, some 60 years ago. It was always a joy and something to look fowrard to, when our parents would take us to Elder Park. My brother and I would play around the Rotunda, we would feed the ducks and walk long the riverbank, while my parents would set up the picnic rug and prepare for a day of fun and relaxation. This included the obligatory cricket match.

Since then in adulthood, I have attended countless picnics, food and cultural festivals, and New Years' eve fireworks displays with my own family.

These simple pleasures would be lost forever should developers get their hands on this land. At a time when climate change is causing increasing deaths from heat stroke and heart attacks, I cannot believe this government is considering increasing the heat island effect in our city. Elder Park is literally an oasis in the city for relief from the increasing impacts of climate change.

I can only think that developers are paying the Liberal Party very handsomely for even considering this change of zoning - how much in donations has been paid to the decision-makers and influencers within the government, to have even brought the idea this far, to date? How many $10,000 Liberal funda raiser dinners have been paid for, to provide developers with access to those in this government who would sell an iconic part of Adelaide along with the lifestyle and health benefits it offers, purely for more money in their re-election coffers.

I am not even sure why I am taking to time to leave this comment - no doubt this decision has already been taken and the community consultation is mere lip service. I cannot afford to pay for access to the government like developers can, and neither can the people who have written submissions or left comments here. This is just another case of our democracy being up for sale and the big losers are those who, in reality, have no voice.

Instead of destroying this iconic part of Adelaide, any redevelopment should be more along the lines of what has been done along the Brisbane River. Playgrounds, water play areas, and cafes, make the Brisbane Riverbank the perfect place to cool off, have a bite to eat, and a coffee, for all ages. Whereas any redevelopment by developers of the Torrens Riverbank will serve the rich only.

To say I am disgusted that such a rezoning has even been floated, is a massive understatement.

First, I find it offensive that I am asked some very personal questions to register to provide this feedback. The questions are obviously designed to understand 'us' better so that future propaganda and proposals can be appropriately targeted, or to disregard my input based on my age, location or interests. At least make them voluntary.

Secondly, the development that has already taken place along the north side of North Terrace is simply stunning in its ugliness and lack of coherence.

If we had planned and implemented an integrated development of this area, I still would have been stunned at a city that wantonly destroys its parklands, but at least I would have had somewhere nice to sip lattes.

It is not possible to either walk from north to south, or from east to west, around this area without multiple steps, dead-ends and wind-tunnels. It is a complete disgrace. It is like it has been deliberately designed to keep people away.

Furthermore, the buildings themselves, that have sucked up enormous amounts of public money, are so ugly. The materials from which the second extension of the Convention Centre were made were already deteriorating from sun exposure, when the same stuff was used for the third extension - which is already deteriorating. This may have been a 'planned look' - but I seriously hope not. It is easier to bare if it was just a genuine mistake.

The thing that makes me truly sad is that Adelaide has missed the opportunity to really be a 'city within a parkland'. We seem to have given up on this concept, and elected to surround a city that was already lacking in any meaningful architectural merit, with a publicly-funded mess.

We have a whole city area just begging for government money to improve it. Yet our short-sighted representatives see the 'free land' in our parklands as ripe for development opportunities.

I would happily accept 100-storey buildings along the city side of all our terraces - although it would make more sense to 'step up' the development from shorter to taller as you move back away from the terraces and parklands so that everyone gets a view....

I would be spending government money to cover the roads leading into the city with park-covered overpasses to create a green ring - that would truly attract locals, visitors and 'convention goers' to a convention centre built within the original commercial zone.

And what about our northern and southern suburbs? Where is their infrastructure? The State Government has allowed broad-acre development without allocating any large spaces for community engagement, and spends no money on sports facilities, convention/meeting areas, hospitals, footbridges, etc. Outer-suburban ratepayers should be furious.

I find it interesting that the State Government tries to malign 'NIMBY' responses to proposed development of our city parklands, while at the same time totally ignoring meaningful infrastructure in any suburb further out than Norwood (where both Liberal and Labor members like to live).

Do you think London would accept the development of Wimbledon Common? Or New Yorkers, the development of Central Park. Come on Adelaide. Think a little bigger than scrappy public buildings on your parklands.

Re-zoning sets a dangerous precedent for more park lands grab in the future. Our free green access public lands are being stolen by greedy private developers and back room deals. I am very concerned. We need our parks, particularly now when people need to reconnect with the natural environment for our physical and mental well-being. A picture on a little screen simply doesn't cut it. I want to feel grass under my feet, smell lemon scented gum trees, hear the myriad of birds and watch them raise their young, to maybe discover a butterfly that hasn't been seen for years, to feel the peace and tranquility that a park gives and, most importantly, know that our park lands are one way to help fight against climate breakdown.

I find it strange that changes are being considered to the zoning of the riverbank when we are attempting to become a city parkland. The Adelaide riverbank is wonderful because it is not Southbank Melbourne. I thought we had finally grown up being glad of who we were. Pinky Flat and Elder Park are great because families can gather at events and bring picnics or spend at the removable stalls and food trucks. the events are for everyone and not just those who can afford to eat in expensive restaurants. The Asian Lantern Festival is a great example and so many people out and about.
the proposed re zoning seems such a bad decision for the ordinary people of Adelaide

I am amazed that this major grab for our Park Lands is even being considered amid the major threat of Climate Change. Destroying green public open space and cutting down hundreds of trees along the river is the last thing we should be contemplating. When Adelaide suffers more and more severe heatwaves, we will want to sit on grass under trees by a river, and not on barstools surrounded by concrete and metal. I suggest people visit Helen Mayo Park, the proposed site for the 15,000 seat stadium, to get an idea of the scale of the destruction the State government is proposing. More than 120 trees will be destroyed, including majestic river red gums and Illawarra flame trees. And this is what's being called alienated parkland.
It was not so long ago that such infrastructure developments were seen as urban renewal opportunities: a stadium, for instance, built on derelict industrial land along Port Road, with the potential to extend the tram line. However, that would mean the State government buying the land. The wonderful feature of building on the Park Lands is it's free! That's why every government takes a little more public green space. But no government until the Marshall Liberal government has dared to grab this much of our Park Lands. This blatant theft of public open space must be vigorously resisted. Otherwise Adelaide will go from the world's only city in a public park to a few parklets scattered around the outskirts of the CBD.

Adelaide’s National Heritage listed Parklands are recognized internationally and nationally as unique. I am strongly against this proposal to re-zone 70 hectares (10%) of the city’s prime river front Parklands enabling it to be covered in massive concrete buildings, high rise, and carparks. The private profit driven motive here is blatant. An arena and 500 car parks built on FREE Parklands enabling the Hindmarsh Entertainment Centre to be “decommissioned” - ie sold for profit to developers for apartments. The proposed new WCH and car park built on FREE Parklands and the existing WCH site to be sold for redevelopment as private high rise apartments. Other areas of the rezoned Parklands to be “activated” (a favorite term of the Adelaide City Council “Team Adelaide” Liberal members) - ie covered in commercial “for profit” enterprises like bars, restaurants etc.
Rather than the Government spending our $ on follies and spin aimed at enriching the property development community, we would be far better served if they focussed on delivering public services properly. Instead of “talking down” areas such as Helen Mayo Park, they could re-habilitate it by removing paved car parks and construction lay down areas, and re-planting and upgrading it. Instead of building a land greedy low profile WCH on free parklands, they could purchase land in the CBD (eg the Newmarket Hotel site), and build a modern high rise hospital like the new Calvary hospital (at a fraction of the per-bed cost of the expansive model of the RAH).
Drawing analogies between the proposed Parklands rezoned areas and Melbourne or Brisbane’s Southbanks are flawed. Both of those riverfront areas were previously vacant industrial land and used car yards. Both are now largely covered in massive concrete structures, high rise and roads. Minimal peaceful green spaces, few trees, in these redeveloped inner urban spaces. There is no way that the proposed Adelaide Parklands rezoning to facilitate these styles of property development is appropriate. It should be rejected in full.

In principle I would not be against development of the area wherein the old gaol used to be and in particular for it to be a centre of excellence in the health and bio-medical fields. I think that sits well with the evolution of Adelaide as a city which encourages innovation. Nor would I be negative about further development of entertainment facilities as described in the information memorandum. Adelaide needs to grow and develop and it needs focus which I think in general the plan achieves, but it needs to be done in a sensitive manner consistent with the current character of the city

Reassuringly in the documents the terms:-

"protect heritage values"
"small scale"
"unobtrusive"
"ensure parklands setting and open character is protected"

are frequently used.

BUT:_

How can we, as concerned citizens and lovers of all Adelaide has to offer trust the processes and the people involved when at the east end of North Terrace a monstrous 34 level tower is nearing completion; when extensive community consultation was undertaken regarding the re-development of the old Le Cornu site at 88 O'Connell St in N. Adelaide which led to an agreement to build up to 8 levels high and behind closed doors Adelaide City Council/the State Government have allowed an 18 storey development which will be totally out of character compared to the immediate surrounds.

I have a strong business background, am all for progress and fully support Adelaide going forward as a vibrant city but it must be done in a manner that doesn't ruin what we have and I fear what may happen in reality once the veneer of the consultative process has been exhausted - will it be another blot on the city such as we now have at the end of North Terrace or an act of deception and treachery such as will occur in O'Connell St?

What checks and balances will there be and can the process be trusted?

I hate to be cynical but I am afraid history is a great teacher and Adelaide's recent development history is disturbing and makes one mistrustful. The masterplan needs to recognise and address the real concerns of citizens who feel they have been taken for mugs and working limits for any development need to be fully spelled out together with on-going checks and balances - we need to play a part, be listened to and to be able to trust !!

I have no problem with more cafes, restaurants, bars opening up along the Southern Side of the Torrens to take advantage of the water front in the same way Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney do.

However, I think it should be:
a) limited to between KWS and the Morphett St Bridge; and
b) be required to replace greenspace lost with additional tree canopy.

I fully support the new WCH as well, and linking up to new RAH makes sense.

A new CBD Public Highschool is also an important investment in the future.

A new stadium isn’t justified though.

I am also adamantly opposed to the destruction of Kaurna sacred sites in this precinct, which will follow if the proposed developments proceed.

The proposed Riverbank Precinct Code Amendments should not proceed as they will alienate parklands to facilitate unnecessary property developments which will blight the precinct, destroy enjoyment of its natural beauty and access to the longstanding leisure and sporting facilities.

This proposal is outrageous and must not go ahead. We must protect our national heritage icon, not alienate it.
The Park Lands are our heritage and the heritage of future generations. it is also important to note the social and cultural significance of the place to the Kaurna nation.
These Park Lands were also the first public park in the world. Before Adelaide’s establishment in 1837, the only Parks that existed anywhere in the world were owned by royalty, or private, wealthy landowners. It was a radical initiative to create a planned city with Park Lands for all.
On 7 November 2008 the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout received the nation’s highest heritage honor when it was included on the National Heritage List. In the Statement of significance prepared for the Australian Heritage Council six values were identified as important about the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout as a National Heritage Place. They included the following elements: the History of the City, the Inspirational design, Planning history, Social and economic context-Principal characteristics of a place, Creative or technical achievement etc. Read about this in full in the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout, Issues and Opportunity Analysis for National Heritage file:///C:/Users/Leonie/Downloads/heritage-survey-adelaide-park-lands-and-city-layout-2018%20(3).pdf
Adelaide, the city in a park, is regarded throughout Australia and the world as a masterwork of urban design and the model has been used widely by other towns in Australia and overseas. It is recognised by town planners and historians as a major innovative influence on the Garden City planning movement. It would be great if our planners did not undo great work.
Thus, picturesque Adelaide Park Lands is important to the identity of South Australia and must not be further alienated.
At the present time Climate Change and sadly the approval being given to high rise buildings such as the one recently approved in North Adelaide, it is important that we respect the Park Lands as the lungs of the city and keep them intact for the now and the future.
The Government must not remove 10% of 70 hectares of our National Heritage Listed Park Lands along the River Torrens from Adelaide Goal via Pinky Flat to the Adelaide Botanic Gardens.
I hope the people’s voice will be heard this time and that this consultation will not be in vain. Remember the 15-storey building on O’Connell St, North Adelaide. Consultation had agreed to 8 storeys.

Business can keep their hands off our parklands