Thinking big

Anything goes here.. :) Now with Beer Garden for our smoking patrons.
Message
Author
User avatar
Prince George
Legendary Member!
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Melrose Park

Re: Thinking big

#16 Post by Prince George » Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:37 am

I think that the post was encouraging people to brainstorm, to silence the inner critic and just let ideas tumble out. I think that creativity often works in two phases: idea generation, when new possibilities are brought out to expand the range of options that are available, and idea synthesis, when we work through this pool of ideas to bring out the bits that we like or don't like and merge together a concept that could become a real option. So here's some of my examples:

Most people on the forum would agree that increasing the population in the CBD is a desirable goal. But there's only so much land in the area and building heights in Adelaide are restricted by the need for a safe approach to the airport. Meanwhile, because of a lack of housing supply in the metro area, there's constant pressure to release land at the city's fringe, which is generally argued as a way to solve affordability. I say that we solve both of those problems by moving the airport.

Relocate a new facility somewhere to the north of the city and the existing site now becomes available for a massive TOD aimed specifically at affordability. The terminal would be the only building that we'd keep, but it now becomes repurposed as the primary civic building in the area. The arrivals/departure drop-off points now become the transit centre; one is the train station, the other a bus station. The other portions of the building become the library, a community centre, a sports centre, or other shared use buildings; what they don't become is offices or apartments. Actually, we might also keep the parking garage, because that complements the other part of my plan: within the rest of the area, there will be no parking and probably no streets as we know them today.

Removing the need to have parking in every residence and to provide car access to every block will save a great deal of space within the area (roughly a quarter of a typical suburb is given over to streets and parking), allowing a greater level of density than in a conventional sub-division. The current entrance to the airport will be the only conventional road in the entire area, residents or visitors alike would need to park at that one spot. There would be some degree of streets for mini-buses, for example a shuttle service running to and from the civic centre, or to the neighbouring roads where we can then travel on to Glenelg or the city; these buses would travel on shared streets at lower speeds, more like streetcars.

Addressing affordability is a key point of this whole exercise, I want to do that by having the entire area owner-build; it's a back to the future solution. Self-build produces initially small houses that grow over time. Budgets for each family/person are small, block sizes are small and the construction primarily uses materials like cob, rammed earth, or adobe (super-adobe?), making use of resources that can be found on or near the site itself. Apart from being inexpensive and sustainable, these materials are also more suitable for the people themselves to work with. The community will have a staff of architects, planners, builders, engineers to support, teach and advise them, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the residents themselves: whatever they can build within the limits of their budgets, time, and ingenuity. Issues like zoning are not decided by some central plan, indeed may be non-existent; if someone wants to build a shop, a workshop, or an office and they have the resources (materials, time, space) to do so, then so be it.

Portions of the land are held in common, with the people living in that location responsible for deciding what to do with it; if they want a park, they can make one; if they want some shared building they can make that too. We promote this idea by encouraging the communites to form together in clusters around groups with some common interest; an extended family, a group of friends, a group of people that want to start some larger enterprise and build that workplace as a common building.

In all, I'm aiming at an average density of something like 50 buildings per hectare with about a quarter of the space being common space. That would give an average plot size of about 150 square metres, houses would probably have a footprint of about half that - I did say they would be small. If we managed that and had an average of 2 people per household, that would put the population density at something like 10,000 people per square kilometre, or more than 8 times Adelaide's average.

Here's another idea. The Torrens is not a river, it's a fiction created by Europeans that didn't want to make a port city the capital as that would be unseemly. Europe's capitals are built on rivers, therefore Adelaide needed a river, so they tried to create one out of a seasonal stream. The result is the stinking algae factory that graces our so-called riverfront; it needs constant intervention to avoid becoming a health hazard, and if Adelaide's climate gets drier the situation is going to get worse. Rather than persisting in that delusion, what if we got rid of it?

Drain it, perhaps even divert the waterflow underground through the section up to the weir, what could we do with the space that we gain? The narrower sections to the east could just be parkland, or perhaps a trail. The section through Elder park up to the Morphett St bridge could be built upon - a plaza, entertainment, Guggenheim Adelaide (it could be something like a snake or a tree branch)? West of that bridge up to the Weir, we excavate and move the rail lines across to where the railyards currently are to make space for an enormous sunken ampitheatre; heck, there might even be space there for a stadium, all without blocking anyone's views.

Or what about rising sea levels? If the entire Greenland ice-sheet melted, it would raise the sea by about 7m, and Antarctica would be even worse. Even at 3 or 4 metres, we'd be faced with losing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of houses and businesses. I imagine that we'd decide to build some sort of sea-wall to protect them, but then we'd also be turning their attractive beachfront location into something like the back of an industrial estate ... unless we made the wall transparent. Imagine a glass wall running the length of the foreshore, from Brighton up to North Haven, curved for extra strength; far from fearing a rising tide, we might even start to encourage it to make the view more spectacular. Suburbs like Brighton, Glenelg, and Henley Beach could build artificial reefs where their beaches currently are to keep attracting people, installing lighting to improve the view by night.

raulduke
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:22 am

Re: Thinking big

#17 Post by raulduke » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:54 am

i would like to see a 50 storey tower built on top of it :D

User avatar
stelaras
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:49 pm
Location: melbourne (born and raised in adelaide)

Re: Thinking big

#18 Post by stelaras » Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:32 am

Prince George wrote: I say that we solve both of those problems by moving the airport.
Great Idea, this should have been done before the new generation airport was done a few years ago, factoring a transport system to and from the newly relocated airport. However, you would find that the old airport, would not be ripped up and returned to residents, it would still function as an airport albeit for smaller planes. Example here is in Melbourne when they built the Tullamarine they did not return Essendon airport to the public, it is still an airport/training facility, they just tagged a massive DFO onto it..
Prince Geroge wrote: Here's another idea. The Torrens is not a river, it's a fiction created by Europeans that didn't want to make a port city the capital as that would be unseemly. Europe's capitals are built on rivers, therefore Adelaide needed a river, so they tried to create one out of a seasonal stream. The result is the stinking algae factory that graces our so-called riverfront; it needs constant intervention to avoid becoming a health hazard, and if Adelaide's climate gets drier the situation is going to get worse. Rather than persisting in that delusion, what if we got rid of it?
How pertinent, did it not just empty by some electrical "accident" that caused the weir gates to open??

I think at this point in time perhaps it would be a good idea to dredge it, clean and decontaminate the "river" out from all this crap that is in it. Im not sure what to do with the river, but if money was not an option perhaps we could engineer a new rather more substantial river perhaps not a fresh water river, but a salt water one, Perhaps the notion of being able to take your boat from the sea and up to the city might give the city a bit of an edge.... Maybe we can recruit some whiz bang engineers from Dubai, they seem to be able to create anything..

before i have me A$$ dragged over the coals for these comments...Im just really dreaming...

User avatar
Shuz
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Glandore

Re: Thinking big

#19 Post by Shuz » Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:41 pm

Building on Prince George's idea,

Maybe the airport's not the problem. Maybe it's the city. What if we relocated the city 'centre', to Port Adelaide?

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2075
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Thinking big

#20 Post by Aidan » Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:02 pm

Shuz wrote:Building on Prince George's idea,

Maybe the airport's not the problem. Maybe it's the city. What if we relocated the city 'centre', to Port Adelaide?
The City and airport are not the problem. The airport is conveniently located, and the heights of nearly all City buildings are restricted for reasons unrelated to the airport.

Maybe the real problem is the mentality that the tallest buildings must be in the City Centre. Why? London doesn't - its tallest buildings are currently in the Docklands, though this will change soon. And Paris doesn't have any tall buildings in the City Centre - apart from one famous tower that doesn't have many people working in it!

Keswick is a better location for the skyscrapers of the future - but meanwhile there existing CBD has lots of potential, despite the constraints of an airport that serves it well.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

User avatar
Queen Anne
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:32 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Thinking big

#21 Post by Queen Anne » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:35 am

Wayno wrote: *Thinking Big* must be done from a long-term cultural perspective. Creating a stadium, taller buildings, a swimming centre, etc is background noise that add little to our image. It's all necessary stuff, but no sooner is it finished that it's forgotten (e.g. when was the last S-A post about the Rundle Convergence? and remember how excited we were - lol). The only time a construction project makes a difference is when it directly adds to the culture. Two great examples are the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, and Fed Square in Melbourne - and being frank, both would be out of place in todays Adelaide, and any attempt to do similar would be quickly dismissed as an exercise in imitation - and that's the last thing you want to occur).

Instead, we must have our own distinct flagship mega-project that is aligned to our culture (not a tall glass building, not a sports stadium - something distinctly Adelaide - and it might be only 3 storeys tall, and not even located in the city!). You'll know it's a flagship mega-project if it triggers a myriad of functions including: discussion, communication, use of high technology, social engagement, knowledge exchange, and cultural growth.

Once we have completed the flagship mega-project we then push for a flagship mega-event with tremendous media exposure (e.g. the commonwealth games). The two will work beautifully in tandem to reinforce our desired image - heck, we might even lose the 'city of churches' brand.

And never forget that whilst we are *Thinking Big*, from little things big things grow, as long as you always stay true to your cultural strengths...
Wayno, your post was very interesting and I think you have helped me better gather my own thoughts on "thinking big" for Adelaide.

Like I said in my earlier post on this thread, I have been becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the idea that, "We need a big project to make others take notice". Instead, I have been leaning towards thinking we should give up on dreaming of large, quick-fix projects and instead concentrate on how Adelaide functions as a place to live and experience - the smaller details that could make a city thrive, I guess ( stuff like: who do we let set up shop & where. What kind of street level ambience are we after & how do we get it? How much difference does our approach to things like car parking & driving speed make to pedestrian safety and the vitality of the city?...etc).

But reading your post makes me realise I might be wrongly assuming that we need to play the "either/or" game when choosing a direction for our city to take. Maybe it would be silly to deliberately limit our options. Maybe, it's "why" and "how" we go about things that is the really important issue, rather than just simply "what do we do". Meaning that, maybe, there is a magaproject out there that could be a great fit for Adelaide..

Like you say, to make a real difference, "our own flag-ship mega project must be aligned to our culture". And If I undertsood you correctly, you touched on the fact that a real flagship project triggers social engagement, discussion, growth etc. I think this is key (as they say :D). Imo, to be truly aligned with our culture, projects must come from us -the local community in all its diversity - to a much greater extent than currently occurs. We citizens are largely alienated from our built environment and that is a huge shame. The decisions are made for us, pretty much, and I guess that's what the "Think big, freak out" link that George used to start this topic is saying - that we citizens must to be fired up and engaged in the making of our own cities. And maybe if we are not invited to be a part of it, we should demand to be?

So, I'm wondering how do we insert ourselves into this process of how our city and it's important projects get created? The article mentioned in the comments section of George's link is something to mull over: architect, Will Alsop, "employs locals for collective creativity and it's no surprise that the public have such an affection for the finished article" (quote from said comments section):

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 29087.html

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: Thinking big

#22 Post by Wayno » Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:19 am

hi QA, yes - having locals involved in shaping our city and surrounds is critical - it will foster a stronge sense of pride and ownership. Unfortunately, the typical "community group" is more interested in NIMBYism and/or maintaining the status quo (or even going back to the 'good ol times'). Of course, S-A is the exception to the rule, but even among our ranks it's quite difficult for home-grown Adelaidians (myself included) to truly step back and dream about what can be done that aligns with our culture (a case of not seeing the forest for the trees). Seeking independent help (e.g. the PPS for VSQ) is generally a good idea...

That being said, I truly like some of the 'out of the box' and whacky ideas being put forward here (move the city, move the airport, do away with the torrens lake, tall buildings outside the CBD, etc) and encourage more of that style of thinking. Some of the simplest ideas provoke great discussion and act as catalyst for bigger/better ideas.

So come on guys, more mega-project ideas please - but not 1 line posts saying "i know - let's build a skyscraper/stadium" :roll:. In fact, why does a mega-project have to involve building a physical structure? could it be that we need to remove a structure (and not just to build something in its place)? or perhaps we need more conceptual inner spaces?

So here's an idea (thinking about conceptual inner spaces :-)): what about a LARGE new (rural?) community/suburb/township set aside for alternative/hippy lifestyle? everyone getting around in hemp clothing, no retail chains, lots of quirky little shops selling tie-dye t-shirts. And i don't mean to create a "fake hippy commune" where you can do tours and see the hippy's in action (like a wildlife park). It would be a true lifestyle retreat. Add in some sympathetic tourist accommodation and we have a brand new attraction not found anywhere else in australia (ok, perhaps nimbin comes close). It would have it's own festivals, and a Council who upkeeps the lifestyle by not allowing McMansions to be built, etc. All housing would be build from ecologically friendly products, and be subdued in nature. I bet many baby boomers would throw cash at this - and they are the richest segment of the community! Thoughts?
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: Thinking big

#23 Post by Wayno » Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:38 pm

what about leveraging one of SA's unique features - underground living in the outback opal fields. Could a world-class 5+star underground hotel/resort be justified at Cooper Pedy? There is already a 4star hotel, which i'd never heard about til i googled just now: http://www.ozhorizons.com.au/sa/flinder ... /dcave.htm

Asians love opal stones, surely a big tourist market could be developed?

[edit]I was thinking that perhaps cooper pedy is too far/remote from Adelaide for a 5+star hotel to be justified, but there's many parallels to be drawn to the $800+ per night per person Ocean Lodge Resort on Kangaroo Island. So i think it would work!
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

Cam
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:39 am

Re: Thinking big

#24 Post by Cam » Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:51 pm

Shuz wrote:Building on Prince George's idea,

Maybe the airport's not the problem. Maybe it's the city. What if we relocated the city 'centre', to Port Adelaide?

Exactly, it should be Port Adelaide.
Take the image of Brisbane City and bridges and overlay it on Port Adelaide to get an idea..

also in regards to water,
We need to have the greatest Nation Building infrastructure of all time with Water Pipelines from the North.

Only through development of Water Resources that South Australia will be able to Prosper in an Organic sense.
Adelaide, Saudi Australia.

User avatar
adam73837
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: The wilderness being sustained by nutrients in the air and powering my laptop with positive energy

Re: Thinking big

#25 Post by adam73837 » Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:49 pm

Aidan wrote:Keswick is a better location for the skyscrapers of the future - but meanwhile there existing CBD has lots of potential, despite the constraints of an airport that serves it well.
I quite agree with you on this. The light industry and warehousing areas from the Greenhill Road/ Anzac Highway Intersection up to the River Torrens has such huge potential to be transformed (at a great cost of course :( ) into Adelaide's own Docklands-style area. With large apartment towers, a commercial precinct (maybe even a sporting precinct starting at Adelaide Oval, heading through City West and into the 'Keswick Docklands-area') as well as restaurants and a shopping precinct, Keswick could become the new focus point of Adelaide.
Of course for a lot of these things to happen, the railway lines would probably have to go underground.

I am currently working on a 'vision' for the Inner-City that would essentially involve a train subway (or two), several tramlines within the CBD, a new Multi-Purpose Stadium at AO's current site, a rectangular stadium or other Entertainment Venue (with a similar exterior to that of Allianz Arena in Munich) on the City West precinct, etc. Adelaide has so much potential (and I'm not saying my plans are what we need to do), we just need to SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITIES! 8)
I take back many of the things I said before 2010; particularly my anti-Rann rants. While I still maintain some of said opinions, I feel I could have been less arrogant. I also apologise to people I offended; while knowing I can't fully take much back. :)

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5427
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 187 times
Been thanked: 328 times

Re: Thinking big

#26 Post by crawf » Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:11 pm

adam73837 wrote:
Aidan wrote:Keswick is a better location for the skyscrapers of the future - but meanwhile there existing CBD has lots of potential, despite the constraints of an airport that serves it well.
I quite agree with you on this. The light industry and warehousing areas from the Greenhill Road/ Anzac Highway Intersection up to the River Torrens has such huge potential to be transformed (at a great cost of course :( ) into Adelaide's own Docklands-style area. With large apartment towers, a commercial precinct (maybe even a sporting precinct starting at Adelaide Oval, heading through City West and into the 'Keswick Docklands-area') as well as restaurants and a shopping precinct, Keswick could become the new focus point of Adelaide.
Of course for a lot of these things to happen, the railway lines would probably have to go underground.
There is no river in Keswick.

User avatar
Shuz
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Glandore

Re: Thinking big

#27 Post by Shuz » Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:21 pm

I'm working on a concept masterplan for Lights's Vision II - Port Adelaide.
A historic port surrounded by parklands, with waterfront apartment towers lining the edges of the riverfront, historic buildings restored to their former glory provide a brilliant contrast to the glassy modern skyscrapers adjacent and a vast tram network within the city streets. It would be a sophisicated integration where the ideas of Canary Wharf, Docklands and La Defense come together to create a streetscape that is uniquely Port Adelaide.

User avatar
adam73837
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: The wilderness being sustained by nutrients in the air and powering my laptop with positive energy

Re: Thinking big

#28 Post by adam73837 » Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:27 pm

crawf wrote:
adam73837 wrote:
Aidan wrote:Keswick is a better location for the skyscrapers of the future - but meanwhile there existing CBD has lots of potential, despite the constraints of an airport that serves it well.
I quite agree with you on this. The light industry and warehousing areas from the Greenhill Road/ Anzac Highway Intersection up to the River Torrens has such huge potential to be transformed (at a great cost of course :( ) into Adelaide's own Docklands-style area. With large apartment towers, a commercial precinct (maybe even a sporting precinct starting at Adelaide Oval, heading through City West and into the 'Keswick Docklands-area') as well as restaurants and a shopping precinct, Keswick could become the new focus point of Adelaide.
Of course for a lot of these things to happen, the railway lines would probably have to go underground.
There is no river in Keswick.
Yes... When I said a Docklands-style area I meant the aspects of what things such as the Docklands have (minues the river/ harbour). My apologies if I wasn't clear on that :oops: .
I take back many of the things I said before 2010; particularly my anti-Rann rants. While I still maintain some of said opinions, I feel I could have been less arrogant. I also apologise to people I offended; while knowing I can't fully take much back. :)

User avatar
Shuz
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Glandore

Re: Thinking big

#29 Post by Shuz » Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:33 pm

Well, there could be a river or lake in Keswick. Dubai did it, so can we!

User avatar
adam73837
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: The wilderness being sustained by nutrients in the air and powering my laptop with positive energy

Re: Thinking big

#30 Post by adam73837 » Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:55 pm

Shuz wrote:Well, there could be a river or lake in Keswick. Dubai did it, so can we!
Certainly! If we are to be "Thinking big", we ought to expand our horizons and do things which we in Adelaide (or Australia) wouldn't usually do.
I take back many of the things I said before 2010; particularly my anti-Rann rants. While I still maintain some of said opinions, I feel I could have been less arrogant. I also apologise to people I offended; while knowing I can't fully take much back. :)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests