Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Property Development

Executive director Nathan Paine said changes to the State Government's affordability measures and more marketing support for high-rise buildings would benefit the entire city.


The news article attracts attention to the redevelopment and renovation of Adelaide....a topic for hot debate. Some want to make Adelaide like any other city. Others want to preserve its unique character as a big town. Obviously people are going to go for what they are used to. If you come from elsewhere then you want Adelaide to be like elsewhere. People do not like change. Those of us who have been here like some of the changes but are not happy with the city being over developed, the parklands being eaten away and our heritage bulldozed. Oh yes, they are old buildings...so is St Paul's, the Louvre, the leaning tower of Pisa...the Eiffel Tower. We keep being told we are stupid for wanting to keep old buildings. Which is where the 3 Ps report comes in. It does discuss the notion of allowing people to learn about refurbishing heritage properties and putting them to practical uses in the current climate. It also discusses renewable energy and how we could maximise and develop that. It looks at our 10 projects , like the desal plant and extending our rail system and how we could benefit. Nothing new there but how and when that is done is important to us.  All that is good. Inner city property which is high rise creates a bang for your buck and the more you develop the city the more expensive the properties and rents so the more the prosperity for the owners ...and prosperity is frequently referred to and underpins the productivity part of the 3 Ps. So we are at a cross roads and the developers will go on without us...but we are Adelaide and we can work this out. Bunging people in high rise city apartments is not always a good look and who cares if the bank balance is increasing nicely? We need to think about this in an Adelaide way...and that means we look at every bit of it and we understand the implications and then we go ahead...or not.

No comments: