Adelaide 2036: Building on Light's Vision

www.propertyoz.com.au/sa

The Voice of Leadership

ADELAIDE

2036BUILDING ON LIGHT’S VISION

ip

Property Council of Australia (SA Division) | 1

CONTENTS PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 2

INTRODUCTION Looking to 2036 3

BACKGROUND Achievements and Challenges 4

A VISION FOR ACTION Future–Proofi ng the Central City: Vision, Objectives and Actions 7

OBJECTIVE 1: Governing the Central City for the Communities of the State 10

OBJECTIVE 2: Designing the Central City to Unleash Potential 14

OBJECTIVE 3: Moving People to and Around the Central City 18

OBJECTIVE 4: Building the Central City as the State’s Business Hub 24

OBJECTIVE 5: Boosting the Residential Population of the Central City 30

OBJECTIVE 6: Creating and Marketing a Dynamic Central City 34

DELIVERING THE VISION: Getting There From Here 40

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 42

2 | Property Council of Australia (SA Division)

ADELAIDE 2036 » BUILDING ON LIGHT’S VISION


INTRODUCTION Looking to 2036

Projections show South Australia is on track to achieve a population of 2.2 million by 2036. When this target is achieved, it will mean that there will be about 1.85 million people living in metropolitan Adelaide.

If we want to develop a vibrant central city, the jewel in the crown of the greater metropolitan area, we need to reshape how we think about our city and how we accept change.

In designing Adelaide, Colonel Light gave us one of the best urban fabrics with which to work – a framework of streets, squares and parks that has seen us through more than 150 years of growth and change.

But we need to stop thinking about Adelaide in the 1800s and 1900s and instead focus on what our great city should be when we achieve our bicentenary in 2036.

What will our city look like and howcan we achieve it?

This means that we will need to change our mindsets on the Park Lands as not passive but active open space. We need to create active, people spaces that draw rather than repel the community, and a city that merges the old with the new.

Maintaining appropriate heritage is important, as it provides a sense of mojo to our city, but we do not need to preserve our city in aspic by treating everything old as if it is special. And we do not need to keep our heritage buildings rooted in the past with archaic regulation, preventing them from adapting and adding to the social and built fabric of our great city.

We need to stop talking and deliver, whether it is the Park Lands, Victoria Square, the river front, our laneway on our city – let us deliver good urban design as a catalyst for economic development.

None of these notions are new, nor are they revolutionary. Adelaide has put out the welcome mat for global urban thinkers in the past, such as Jan Gehl. However, in true parochial Adelaide style, little if anything has been done.

It is time to gather together these ideas and place them fi rmly on the agenda. It is time to say that we will not resile from delivering a city of vibrancy and buzz; a city that draws the best and brightest from across Australia and across the globe. We will not go quietly into the night!

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

From the moment the ink was dry on the plan, Colonel Light’s vision for the City of Adelaide has been the subject of much debate and argument.

While much has changed since 1837, the communities of Adelaide continue to debate – sometimes fi ercely – on how we see our city and where we want it to go. Most often we debate so hard we don’t get around to actually doing anything. But one truism remains: a growing city set amid boundless potential cannot be allowed to stagnate.

To promote action in the city, in 2000 the Property Council released Adelaide: The Way Forward. This report contained a raft of recommendations to deliver a better city of Adelaide. Nine years later, many of these recommendations have been delivered and the result can clearly be seen in a more vibrant and positive Adelaide.

Much has changed in the last decade and, as the economic cycle turns, the Property Council is once again looking to mobilise action to secure the future of South Australia’s capital city.

When Colonel Light conceived Adelaide, the great cities of the world consisted of dense, bustling, medium-rise environments with a rich mixture of business, living and culture. Amid these cities, the great urban parks of the world were active spaces full of people enjoying recreation, social interaction and entertainment.

It is perhaps ironic, then, that the major debates impacting on Adelaide tend to centre around romantic notions of Adelaide as a low-rise and low-density city and keeping activity and life out of the city’s Park Lands and squares.

Colonel Light has provided us with one of the best sets of planning “building blocks” of any city in the world. This is recognised by some of the world’s best urban planners, thinkers and designers.

It is now time to use those building blocks to create a city of vibrancy, economic activity and culture. A city that every South Australian deserves. A city that serves the best interests of the state as a whole, not just of those who live in the “square mile” of the inner city.

This will mean some hard decisions need to be made, but they must be made for the benefi t of every South Australian – and the Property Council is committed to working with the community and key stakeholders to ensure that these decisions are taken and delivered.

In this document, the Property Council sets out a vision and agenda that is squarely focused on redesigning how we manage and use our city. We invite comment from all those with a stake in our city’s future – be it economic, social or environmental.

The document looks to the future and is grounded in the past. Just as Light showed vision in laying out a versatile, accessible and robust town plan, we need to show vision in ensuring that the plan is clothed with a city that meets the needs of all South Australians.

I encourage everyone with an interest in our capital city to get behind this plan for the future.

Justin HazellPresident




But the vitality and sustainability of the central city cannot be achieved by the property sector alone – it requires joint commitment and action by State Government, Council and the private sector.

Economically, a vital city centre is essential to underpin innovation, creativity and the provision of the higher-order business services that enable South Australian businesses to compete in national – and increasingly in global – markets. It provides the sort of urban environments that attract and retain workers in the knowledge, innovation and creative sectors.

Socially and culturally, a vibrant and rich central city brings more people closer to social services, cultural institutions and entertainment opportunities, and fosters equity and diversity. It supports a range of social and cultural interactions centred on arts, events, recreation and entertainment.

And environmentally, the central city off ers unique opportunities to model the sort of density, green technologies and transit accessibility that will be essential to achieving the reductions we need to make to our ecological footprint.

For South Australia, with its population centralised in metropolitan Adelaide, the importance of the central city is magnifi ed. While accounting for only around 2 per cent of metropolitan Adelaide’s population, the central city accounts for 20 per cent of all metropolitan jobs, around

13 per cent of metropolitan retail fl oorspace, and nearly two thirds of the state’s post-secondary students. The value chains of the state are stitched through the central city, creating a symbiotic and interdependent relationship.

Put simply: the success of the state depends heavily on the success of the central city. This creates an imperative for Government (Commonwealth, State and Local) to work with the property sector to ensure the city succeeds.

When the Property Council released Adelaide: The Way Forward in 2000, the central city was failing to deliver on a range of fronts. The state was at the end of a long period of slow economic growth and the central city had eff ectively come to a standstill – development had stalled, employment levels were static and offi ce vacancies were hovering around 20 per cent.

In this lukewarm investment climate, Adelaide: The Way Forward provided a valuable wake-up call about the importance of the state’s capital city and the need for action to build its contribution – economically, socially and environmentally.

The document recommended a total of 79 actions, grouped according to three key themes and six key issues. It proposed a partnership approach to delivering on these actions. Nine years later, 14 per cent of these actions have been delivered, or substantially delivered, and another 35 per cent have been signifi cantly progressed.

BACKGROUND Achievements and Challenges

The Property Council is the peak advocacy body representing all major building owners and developers across commercial, industrial, retail and residential asset classes. The Property Council’s main task is to represent the interests of more than $35 billion invested in property in South Australia, much of which is invested in buildings in the central business district.

The Property Council has a valuable and enduring stake in central city Adelaide. It is the property sector that invests the capital that underpins the city. This investment delivers the physical framework in the form of our offi ce buildings, and our homes. It injects a sense of verve and mojo into our city.

These buildings underpin the economic, social and environmental future of the state. They provide the offi ces where people work, many of which are at the leading edge of Green-Star rated environmentally-friendly building technology.

They provide the shops, restaurants and cafes that attract visitors to the city, the hotels for visitors to stay in and the apartments that residents (be they short term or long term) live in. They support the state’s public transport network by putting jobs, shops and attractions in the heart of the city where they can be effi ciently serviced by buses, trains and trams.

City of Adelaide – A Snapshot

NUMBER TREND SHARE TREND

METRO ADELAIDE SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Area 15.6km2 n/a 0.854% 0.001% n/a

Resident population 2008a 18,990 1.6% 1.2% –

Dwellings 2006b – total occupied private dwellings 6,757 1.6% 1.2%

– total medium/high density dwellingsc 5,576 5.6% 4.7%

– total high density dwellingsd 1,898 29.3% 28.5%

Employment (jobs) 2006b 98,541 20.9% 15.0% –

Retail fl oorspace 2007e 533,597m2 13.4% n/a

Offi ce fl oorspace 2009f 1,434,849 n/a n/a n/a

Post-secondary students 2008g – total 70,800 n/a 65.4%

– international 10,599 n/a 61.0%

Average daily metropolitan visitorsh 60,000 – n/a n/a n/a

Value of development approved 2007–08h $726.2 M n/a n/a n/a

Sources: (a) Australian Bureau of Statistics, Estimated Resident Population; (b) Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census data; (c) all dwellings other than separate houses; (d) fl ats, units or apartments higher than two storeys; (e) Planning SA Retail Database; (f) CB Richard Ellis Market Overview Report, fi rst quarter 2009; (g) ABS Education and Work Australia, May 2008 and Adelaide International Student Statistics Update Full Year 2008; (h) Adelaide City Council

Adelaide: The Way Forward Scorecard 2000–2009

THEME/KEY ISSUE PROGRESS

THEMES

The Central City as a place to do business

The Central City as a place to do live

The Central City as a cultural, recreational, leisure and tourism destination

KEY ISSUES

Transport

Car parking

Governance

City centre management

Rundle Mall

The Advertiser precinct

Summary

TOTAL OF ALL THEME/KEY ISSUE ACTIONS

Legend: Bar length indicates percentage of actions that have been Achieved; Some progress / partial delivery; Nil/negligible progress; Negative progress / backwards move.




Some of the most signifi cant delivered recommendations from Adelaide: The Way Forward include:

redeveloping the Advertiser Precinct, establishing • new Green-Star rated premium offi ce fl oorspace and improved pedestrian links;reviewing the central city’s planning rules, removing • outmoded and ineff ective plot ratio controls and lifting development potential in key precincts, together with introducing new green building controls and tighter acoustic design requirements;extending the Glenelg tramline from Victoria Square to • City West and commencing the further extension down Port Road to the Entertainment Centre;constructing a new central city bus station;• opening new public parking stations to serve city • visitors and workers; establishing a new Rundle Mall management authority; • androlling out additional pedestrian crossings and signage • to improve the central city’s pedestrian environment.

These and other achievements have signifi ed a turnaround in the fortunes of the central city over the last nine years. The city’s resident, worker and visitor populations have grown strongly, record values of development have been approved and offi ce vacancy rates are now at, or near, record lows.

However, there is much work still to be done. About half of the recommendations of Adelaide: The Way Forward have yet to be actioned, and in several cases things have actually moved backwards in the last decade, the loss of horse racing from Victoria Park being a case in point.

The central city faces a range of very signifi cant challenges if it is to eff ectively underpin the future economic prosperity of the state – challenges that can only be addressed by concerted action from Government, Council and business working together.

As the global fi nancial crisis makes its presence felt on the Australian and South Australian economies, there is no room for complacency. At a time of economic slowdown, the central city must be positioned to compete eff ectively for available investment and activity.

Now is the time to plan for recovery and set a framework of policies, projects and partnerships that will enable the central city to support and refl ect South Australia’s economic resurgence. We need to build on the successes of the past nine years and squarely tackle the areas where the central city has underperformed.

By taking hard decisions now, we can make a stronger future for all South Australians.

A VISION FOR ACTION Future–Proofi ng the Central City: Vision, Objectives and Actions

The Property Council has a vision for the future of the City:

The central city of Adelaide will be the dynamic and economic powerhouse of the state, providing unique opportunities for working, doing business, living, relaxing, visiting and learning.

The central city will be the state’s principal focus for employment, business, education, cultural, retail, event, entertainment and tourism services.

It will grow to maximise its economic, environment and social sustainability and will refl ect the aspirations of the communities of the state.

Above all, the central city will support the attainment of a prosperous and equitable future for all South Australians.

To achieve this vision, the Property Council advocates six key objectives built around:

governance;• urban design;• movement and accessibility;• business support;• residential growth; and• marketing our city.•

Each of these objectives is supported by a number of priority actions.

Taken together, this framework – vision, objectives and actions – will future–proof the central city and lay the groundwork for it to lead the state into the next positive economic cycle.




The current model simply does not – and can not – adequately refl ect the interests that the Communities of the state have in their capital city.

At the time of Adelaide: the Way Forward, high hopes were held that the Capital City Committee would provide an effective means of ensuring state communities would have a say in how the city is governed.

However, with the passing of time the Committee appears to have become less and less relevant, now having little more than a “watching brief” on city issues of state signifi cance. It has discharged few of the potential roles given to it by Parliament and, in particular, has played little or no part in major city development decisions such as the tramline extension, the new city hospital or the proposed redevelopments of Victoria Park and Victoria Square.

The Adelaide Park Lands Authority is another joint State/Council governance initiative that has failed to deliver a shared vision. Established in 2006 under the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005, the Authority is charged with planning and managing Adelaide’s Park Lands for the benefi t of all South Australians. However it has failed to take a proactive stance on major proposals aff ecting the Park Lands and is dominated by the views of a particularly narrow lobby groups.

The time for reform of the way the CBD is governed is past and it is time for hard decisions to be taken to refl ect the

state signifi cance of the central city. Unless the system is changed, there will be no practical way of ensuring that broader interests are brought to bear on important city decisions.

The Property Council believes that the guiding principle for reform should give state interests the dominant role in relation to areas of state signifi cance, allowing local interests to take the running in other areas.

In considering its position, the Property Council has considered a range of options that could be applied to achieving this, including some or all of:

changing electoral boundaries• to create a “central city council” and annexing remaining areas to adjacent municipalities or to create a new “mega Council” for the central metropolitan area (say from Gepps Cross to Darlington);establishing a new authority• with responsibility for state signifi cant areas; transferring powers• from the Adelaide City Council to State Government in relation to state signifi cant areas (building on the steps already taken by “calling in” all city planning applications valued at more than $10M to the Development Assessment Commission);making voting mandatory• so that elected local representatives have a mandate from all of the communities they represent – not just from those who choose to vote;

OBJECTIVE 1: Governing the Central City for the Communities of the State

Governance of the state’s capital city has been contentious ever since Colonel Light fi rst feuded with Governor Hindmarsh over the site for the new City of Adelaide.

In recent decades – in Adelaide as in most Australian capitals – the most common cause of confl ict has been the need to make decisions that refl ect the interests of the state as a whole, and not just the interests of those who live in the central city.

In 1998, following a comprehensive review of capital city strategy and management, a new governance model was established for the City of Adelaide. The new model featured a reduced number of Councillors, each charged with representing the entire city (ward Councillors were abolished as being prone to parochial, rather than city-wide, perspectives).

It also featured an innovative new State/Council consultative and advisory forum – the Capital City Committee – established to act as a focus for jointly planning, developing and managing the state’s capital.

These arrangements were designed to ensure that the state’s capital city was governed and managed in the interests of the communities of the state. However, the hoped-for benefi ts have not been achieved.

In 2007, the State Government approved the Council’s proposals – against the recommendations of its own independent expert advisory panel – to reinstate the former ward system and to increase the number of Councillors from eight to 11. This means that only fi ve Councillors (plus the Lord Mayor) are elected with a city-wide mandate – the majority of the Council are elected from a local precinct base.

It also means that each elected member represents a smaller constituent base, on average representing a maximum number of only 1,838 electors. Prospect and Walkerville are the only metropolitan Councils with a lower electoral quota. Major Councils like Salisbury, Tea Tree Gully and Onkaparinga have quotas that are three times greater than the City of Adelaide.

Perhaps more signifi cant is the fact that only about 10 per cent of the city’s estimated 208,000 daily population have the right to vote in Adelaide City Council elections, and less than one third of eligible voters – most of whom are residents – choose to exercise that right.

This means that the government of the city is decided by only about three per cent of those who use it, and that less than 360 primary votes is all it takes to get elected to the City Council.

Capital City Committee – Summary of Activity as derived from Annual Reports 2005/06 – 2007/08

STATUTORY ROLE AS PER CITY OF ADELAIDE ACT 1998 ACTIVITY AS PER ANNUAL REPORT

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Mandatory

Meet at least four times per year [Section 12(1)]

Convene Capital City Forum to engage stakeholders in City issues/strategies [Section 10(2)]

Prepare Capital City Development Program [Section 11(1)] ? ? ?

Optional [Section 10(1)]

Identify and promote Strategic City Development

Coordinate public and private resources and recommend priorities for action

Monitor implementation of City progress

Publish strategies, goals, commitments

Collect and disseminate information

Legend: Achieved; Partially achieved; No achievement evident; ? Unclear/no mention.




widening the franchise• to give city workers (and possibly students) a say in city government by means of an “electoral college” or similar approach; and/orchanging the composition of Council• to comprise a combination of elected and State-appointed positions, (a model analogous to that which currently applies in relation to Council Development Assessment Panels).

After examining these options and what is being done in cities like New York, Sevilla, Washington and Singapore, the Property Council recommends the second option outlined above – creation of a new Adelaide Economic Development Agency to take responsibility for the state signifi cant areas of the central city.

The Agency would report to the Minister for Economic Development and would be tasked with delivering economic development outcomes, setting planning policy, asset management, urban design and key infrastructure delivery for the inner city and the Park Lands.

The Authority would have a mandate to drive integrated marketing and promotion of the central city, including business attraction, retail strategy and Rundle Mall management.

It would also have responsibility for key approval roles as necessary (for example, approving major events in the Park Lands).

The Agency would be controlled by a fi ve-member State-appointed Board and would be resourced via a levy placed on the Adelaide City Council (much as is currently applied to the resourcing of Natural Resource Management Boards across the state).

Adelaide City Council would retain its municipal service role and would continue to have full responsibility for the residential districts of North Adelaide and the southwest and southeast of the Central City.

Priority Actions – Governance

Recommendations KPI1 Create a new Adelaide City Economic

Development Agency with responsibility for planning, economic development, infrastructure delivery and managing the heart of the central city.

June 2010

2 The Adelaide City Council to continue to take responsibility for community development, municipal services, civic roles and the suburb of North Adelaide.

June 2010

Regeneration Concept – Towards a New Central City Governance Model

State Government

Adelaide City Council

responsible for • residential districtsprovider of municipal • servicescivic and local • community role

Adelaide City Economic Development Agency

responsible for state • signifi cant central city areascontrolled by fi ve member • state-appointed boardplanning economic • development, project delivery role

Minister for the City of Adelaide

Minister for Economic Development

State Economic Development Board

City Property Owners and Occupiers

The People of the State




OBJECTIVE 2: Designing the Central City to Unleash Potential

The design of buildings, streets, squares, Park Lands and public spaces in the central city is one of the most signifi cant infl uences on its economic vitality and on its social, cultural and environmental value.

Around the world, the most successful cities have been those which have set an inspiring design vision, backed up by delivering a series of connected and city-changing projects, and then maintained a commitment to this vision and action agenda through electoral cycles and across levels of government.

Public spaces have been energised, creating dynamic and vital streets and squares with a “buzz” of diverse activity throughout the day and well into the night. Quality design, innovative public art and a rich blend of historic and modern architecture make up the picture.

What makes cities competitive and sustainable is their environment, architecture, facilities, building stock and distinctive character. Good urban design seeks to identify what is special about a place, and then to build on these special qualities by improving the way the public realm works – not only by upgrading the public spaces themselves, but by carefully guiding the way that new development shapes the public spaces around it.

Melbourne has been particularly successful at using urban design to reinvigorate the central city. Starting with the visionary document Grids and Greenery in 1987, Melbourne City Council has set and achieved high standards of design in all elements of the public realm, and Council and State Government have worked together in partnership with the private sector to apply these design standards to projects such as Federation Square, Docklands, Birrarung Marr and major new sporting and entertainment facilities.

But good design takes more than major projects – it is about getting the small details consistently right. Melbourne’s laneway reinvigoration program is a particularly good example of this, over the years transforming central city laneways from neglected and unsafe fi re escapes and delivery lanes into vibrant urban spaces characterised by a busy, intimate and distinctive mix of cafes, pedestrians and small-scale boutique retailing.

Adelaide is famously good at talking about the design of the central city, but notoriously poor at delivery. There can be no better case in point than Victoria Square. Designed by Colonel Light as a generously proportioned space in the heart of his new city, he included provision for a major Cathedral in the Square and no doubt would have imagined it would eventually look like some of the great city parks of Europe. Light would be stunned to fi nd it as it is today,

given over to motor vehicles, poorly landscaped, inactive for most hours of most days, diffi cult to access and virtually unusable.

The repeated failure of Councils and State Governments to upgrade Victoria Square to realise the potential given to it by Light’s vision has become a parable for Adelaide’s ability to put talking over action time after time. The Property Council congratulates the Council for the process it has put into place to design a modern, active space. However, signifi cant challenges remain – not only in design, but more particularly in funding. A good plan demands funding commitment to match.

It is well past time to act.

The 2002 report Public Spaces and Public Life: City of Adelaide 2002 by Jan Gehl, jointly commissioned by Council and the State Government, off ered us an agenda for action that could have, over time, reinvigorated the public spaces of the central city and positioned Adelaide for an urban renaissance akin to that achieved by Melbourne.

While some of Jan Gehl’s principles have been put into practice in some projects, implementation has been slow, disconnected, and well short of the jointly implemented urban design agenda that was recommended.

Light’s design vision deserves a shared design agenda, and the Property Council believes that the place to start is with a Design Charter – a set of principles which guide the activities of Council, Government and the private sector.

These principles should also be applied to setting planning rules for the central city, where the goal should be to set a framework of good design principles within which designers can be bold and innovative.

The position of State Architect should be created within State Government and given power to oversee the implementation of the urban design character. Appointed by the Premier, the State Architect would be the “champion” of the city’s design and development, with responsibility for the design of all major city projects undertaken by or for the public sector. They will also advise the City’s planning authority on any amendments to the Adelaide (City) Development Plan (but will have no role in development approval decisions).

The Adelaide (City) Development Plan must provide an assessment framework that focuses on the end design outcome being sought, rather than on specifying particular

ways of achieving it. It needs to encourage design quality and innovation without stifl ing designers with arbitrary, rigid or disconnected controls.

Above all, it must seek to unleash areas of development potential and ensure maximum practical yields from scarce inner city land. It should be aligned with the operation of the property market wherever possible and should preclude particular forms of development only where they can be clearly demonstrated to be unacceptable. Overlapping controls on development (such as airport building height limitations) should be rationalised to remove unnecessary restrictions on development.

Adelaide’s distinctive built form character should be strengthened by encouraging quality design which respects its context but is unashamedly contemporary. Rather than listing and protecting ever-greater numbers of buildings and frontages, or relying solely on podiums and setbacks to ensure compatibility, the Development Plan should enable good designers to respond to the site and its context using their design skills and training.

Priority Actions – Urban Design

Recommendations KPI

1 Adopt and implement an urban design charter based on ten key principles of urban design for the central city;

June 2010

2 Support the appointment of a State Architect with responsibility for design of major public projects in the city and ability to champion quality design;

March 2010

3 Review the Adelaide (City) Development Plan to boost development potential in key locations (eg Park Land Terraces, the fi ve southern squares, along the extended tram routes and in the northwest corner in conjunction with the new city hospital) and to remove unnecessary design constraints;

December 2010

4 Review airport fl ightpaths and/or airspace regulations and lobby Federal Government to facilitate greater building heights in the western part of the central city without compromising airport operations;

December 2010




Recommendations KPI

5 Develop, implement and fund a comprehensive program of upgrading laneways across the central city, modelled on the Melbourne City initiative, to generate economic activity, cultural vitality and improved pedestrian amenity;

July 2011

6 Create and fund an urban design masterplan for the CBD that focuses on improving public spaces including renewing footpaths, reducing the heat island eff ect through more trees, creating a linked, people-friendly city;

July 2011

7 Upgrade Victoria Square to create a dynamic and people-friendly civic, event and gathering space in the heart of the central city;

July 2012

8 Renew and upgrade the public realm of Rundle Mall (including paving, landscaping, street furniture and signage) and implement projects to activate evening use of the Mall;

June 2011

9 Create an incentives scheme to increase investment in public art and the public realm.

December 2010

ACCESSIBILITYThe central city should be easy to get to and from all parts of the metropolitan area, whether by public transport, driving, walking or cycling. An eff ective mass transit system – fast, reliable, safe and frequent – should underpin city accessibility. A range of attractive access choices should be built in to every new development and major public realm project.

INTENSITY Increase the concentration of jobs, housing, shops and services in the central city to build critical mass and make optimum use of valuable land and infrastructure. Use density to boost vitality and sustainability and make more opportunities accessible to more people. Any unnecessary barriers to maximising development yields on scarce and valuable central city land should be removed.

CONNECTIVITYThe central city should be easy to move around in, with a high number of connections and choices. Frequent and free trams and buses, safe pedestrian and cycle networks and good visual connections should be provided to enhance connections within and around the central city.

VARIETYVariety brings competition, choice and dynamism. Uses and activities should be mixed – both vertically (within buildings) and horizontally (between buildings) – to create stimulating and unique environments. Public spaces should be diverse in design, use, look and feel, and welcoming to all groups in the community.

ACTIVITYThe central city should be bustling with people 24 hours a day, seven days a week. City Park Lands, squares and public spaces should contain attractions, services and facilities that draw people into them and entice them to stay. Building frontages at ground level should be activated to contribute visual interest and safety to the street.

LEGIBILITYThe central city should be easy to understand and interpret for all users. Adelaide’s unique urban structure should be strengthened by points of reference, views and vistas, landmarks, signage and interpretive information. Tall buildings should be encouraged to make the central city identifi able across the Adelaide plains.

SUSTAINABILITYThe central city should exemplify the “triple bottom line” – generating economic, social and environmental benefi ts. The central city should build its critical mass to guarantee economic sustainability, should demonstrate leading-edge green building techniques and should foster environments that are socially diverse and equitable.

IDENTITYAdelaide’s unique “sense of place” should be evolved and strengthened by encouraging well-designed new development. Our existing very large number of listed heritage buildings should be complemented by new buildings to create contemporary urban environments with distinctive character.

SAFETYCentral city environments should be safe and be perceived to be safe. The physical arrangement of places, buildings and activities should have a positive impact on perceptions of physical safety. “Feet on the street” and “eyes on the street” should be encouraged.

QUALITYUrban development in the central city should be constructed up to a standard, not down to a price. Quality need not cost the earth, but compromising on design, materials, fi nishes or workmanship will cost the city dearly in the long run.

REGENERATION CONCEPT: Towards a design charter for the public realm

Ten key urban design principles for the central city




The answer is to make other options progressively more attractive so that, incrementally over time, the dominance of the car can be reduced as cars become less necessary. The city already off ers a broad choice of transit options, and city workers and residents are much less car dependent than average.

A recent successful example of incremental (but signifi cant) change is the upgrade and extension of the Glenelg tramline – a recommendation of Adelaide: The Way Forward – which has signifi cantly improved city accessibility and boosted patronage levels. The transfer of road space from cars to the new tramline corridor has been accomplished with a net positive accessibility benefi t.

The tram extension has the potential to, in conjunction with the rezoning of key precincts along the tram corridor, catalyse signifi cant new development and investment. As a result, King William Street South, once the poor cousin of the rest of the central city fringe, is now home to signifi cant new residential and commercial buildings.

The Property Council advocates further investment in light rail, together with supportive zoning policies, as a means of catalysing regeneration in other areas of the central city.

The northeastern and northwestern areas of the central city are ripe for regeneration, characterised by large landholdings, low-rise buildings (frequently at or past the end of their useful lives) and a high proportion of low-value economic uses of land.

By extending light rail to loop through these areas, and concurrently introducing new zoning to boost development potential, it is possible to bring virtually all areas of high development potential to within 400m of light rail transit. This would catalyse widespread renewal, change the face of the central city, and would lay a foundation for possible future extensions out along regeneration corridors in the suburbs.

It is time to challenge the “adopted wisdom” of separating trams from pedestrians. Melbourne, Auckland and many other cities have integrated trams into pedestrianised environments, creating vitality and interest.

A particular further extension opportunity could be to link the remote, isolated and inhospitable Keswick Rail Terminal – surely one of the most unattractive capital city rail arrival or departure experiences available anywhere in the world – to the hotels and attractions of the central city.

The Government’s announced agenda of concentrating metropolitan Adelaide’s future employment and population growth into fi xed transit corridors depends for its

success upon the vitality of the central city. The central city can support this strategy by providing abundant living, working, recreation and other opportunities easily accessible at the heart of the fi xed rail network, to the benefi t of everyone who lives or works along the transit corridor and TOD network.

By providing park’n ride opportunities close to selected fi xed transit stops, the Government can further increase the benefi t of its corridor/TOD strategy. Park’n ride makes transit attractive to those who live beyond the walking catchment of the corridor. The current project to use the Entertainment Centre carpark as a major park’n ride accessible to the current Port Road tramline extension is an important start to strengthening the park’n ride network.

The suburban park’n ride network should be supplemented by well-located parking stations on the periphery of the central city, allowing visitors and workers to “change modes” to move through the core of the city.

Over the years, the pedestrian-focused heart of the inner city has expanded, and as a result, a number of parking stations are now located in high pedestrian traffi c areas. We should be planning now for the next generation of parking stations, taking the opportunity to establish new stations in preferred locations and considering the closure and redevelopment of those in higher use areas.

Parking under city squares and the Park Lands must be considered a priority as part of this strategy. A technique successfully used in many other cities, this would also provide a catalyst for redesigning and regenerating underutilised and traffi c-dissected squares. Particular priority should be given to building car parks under Hindmarsh and Victoria Squares and the Adelaide Park Lands.

While rail transit has acknowledged regeneration benefi ts, buses will remain the most fl exible and economic form of mass transit in most situations. Bus priority measures in the central city – such as bus lanes, priority signalisation and superior kerbside access – should be extended to make buses as time-competitive as possible with private vehicles.

The announced linking of the O’Bahn from Gilberton to the city is a valuable step forward in improving bus conditions in the central city – although a busway extension would be preferable to an on-road lane. Anzac Highway also off ers potential to support near-city regeneration with rapid bus transit.

The best cities in the world are those that are easy to get to and move around in. They off er a range of fast, safe, clean and convenient public transport choices. Cycling and walking are recognised as important transport modes and supported with well-designed infrastructure. Streets have multiple accessibility functions, and are pleasant environments to move through and linger within.

Private vehicles are provided for in these cities, but not to the exclusion of other transport modes. Road space is shared equitably, with space allocated to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport – as well as private cars – and footpath space for walking, sitting and dining.

Metropolitan Adelaide’s love aff air with the car has lasted more than fi fty years now, and is the overwhelmingly dominant infl uence in shaping our urban form. Transit and urban form have become mutually reinforcing – the more we drive, the more we build our city around cars, and the more we “design out” non-car options. More people are forced into car-reliance, and the cycle begins again.

In this context, it is not surprising that the streets and squares of the central city are currently designed and operated chiefl y to meet the needs of private cars. If we want people to come to the city, in a car-dependent city they will want to bring their cars with them.

The key to reducing the car-dominance of the central city does not lie in punitive measures such as congestion taxes, carparking levies or road closures. However, greater use of one way roads in the CBD may also facilitate traffi c movement and allow for improved public space. For so long as the car rules unchallenged across the rest of the metropolitan area, applying these measures in the central city will only force workers and visitors out into the suburbs.

OBJECTIVE 3: Moving People to and Around the Central City

Source: ABS Census 2006Note: Workforce containment is the proportion of residents who live within an LGA that also work within that LGA.

City of Adelaide - Accessability Comparisons, 2006

AllMetropolitan

Councils

City ofAdelaide

AllMetropolitan

Workers

City of AdelaideWorkers

EmployedMetropolitan

Residents

Employed City of Adelaide

Residents

0

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Workforce Containment Walked only Bicycle Public Transport




An off street bus interchange in the heart of the central city would provide a safe and convenient all-weather facility for bus users and reduce competition for scarce kerbside space. It could also potentially open up retail and other economic opportunities. The City of Brisbane is a good example of what can be achieved with an underground bus station, and could be replicated under Hindmarsh Square, Victoria Square, or the intersection of King William and Grenfell/Currie Streets.

In the interim, the major public transport thoroughfares of Grenfell and Currie Streets must be developed into a transit mall. This would involve promoting easy public transport access by reducing the road to two lanes, with the inside lane a dedicated bus lane with passenger pickup and drop off from the centre of the road — set amongst trees and shelter for passengers.

Finally, we need to provide an eff ective city ring route. Scarce city road space should be devoted to moving people and goods to, from and within the central city — not to treating the central city as throughfare to other destinations. Once again, the answer lies not in choking city roads to deter through traffi c, but in making alternatives more attractive. A program of intersection improvements (signal priority grade-separation or other) on major ring route junctions is a good place to start.

Priority Actions – Movement and Accessibility

Recommendations KPI

1 Extend tram routes through the central city to catalyse renewal and regeneration;

July 2013

2 Establish a connection from the central city to the interstate rail terminal and upgrade the terminal to improve the arrival experience for interstate rail passengers; as well as extending connectivity to the state’s major sporting facilities and to Adelaide Airport;

June 2012

3 Fund and improve pedestrian linkages and wayfi nding signage around the central city;

December 2010

4 Expand bus priority measures (including construction of a dedicated O-Bahn link from Gilberton) to at least 3km of road in the City;

June 2011

5 Promote and deliver better cycle commuting infrastructure, including secure bike storage and end-of-trip facilities for cyclists;

December 2010

6 Prepare and implement an off street parking strategy to set priorities for aff ordable public parking stations serving workers and visitors and located around the periphery of the central city (including under city squares and the Park Lands);

December 2013

7 Expand the program of park’n ride facilities at suburban transit stops;

June 2014

8 Upgrade Grenfell and Currie Streets into a transit mall;

December 2010

9 Deliver an off street bus interchange in the central city;

June 2020

10 Strengthen the ring route around the city to ensure road space primarily serves those moving to/from and within the city (and not those seeking only to move quickly through it).

June 2014

xtend tram routes through the central city to catalyse renewal and regeneration

E




0 150 300 450

400m (easy walking distance)

600 metres

1:15,000

LEGEND

400m walking catchment

Road Network

Existing Tram

Committed Tram Extension

Priority bus transit improvement

Current

Committed

Potential

IndicativeDevelopment

PotentialHigh Low

Key Principles:⁄ unlock potential by investing in accessibility

⁄ create walkable transit-rich, mixed use,

high rise communities

⁄ calm the traffic to integrate light rail (no

need for dedicated rights of way)

⁄ bring all of central and mixed use zones

within easy walking distance (400m) of light

rail transit

possibleHenley Beach Road

extension option

possible Mile End /Keswick Terminalextension option

possible Kent Town /Parade extension option

Priority One - City East Loop - greatest regeneration benefit - Rundle Mall route option has potential to bring activity and safety to Mall out of shopping hours

Priority Two -City West Loop

Possible Adelaide Oval / North Adelaide / Prospect

extension optionNorth Terrace

loop option

Rundle Mallloop option

Improved rapid bus transit link to Keswick/

Mile End/ Anzac Highway regeneration areas

Improved rapid bus transit link to Obahn

busway

REGENERATION CONCEPT: TRANSIT AS GROWTH CATALYST




While the economic fundamentals of the state remain strong, no sector is beyond the reach of the global fi nancial crisis, and decisive action is needed now to ensure that the central city can compete eff ectively for investment and growth both during times of economic hardship and beyond, as the cycle moves into its next positive phase.

A jobs target should be set for the central city, and work commenced to deliver on it. This should be based on anticipated growth sectors in the economy and on the competitive advantages of the central city as an employment location. This target should be set at the 43,000 jobs as indicated in the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

The central city is increasingly competing for jobs and investment not only with interstate rivals, but with suburban locations elsewhere in the metropolitan area. While decentralisation of employment and retailing to suburban centres has been underway for some years, a more recent trend is the rise of out-of-centre employment locations such as new offi ce parks, technology precincts and bulky goods retail estates.

If the central city is to maintain or increase its share of state employment, it must provide an off ering that makes it attractive for employers to locate in the central city, encompassing eff ective marketing and promotion, investment attraction programs, a quality public realm, increased residential development; including aff ordable housing, superior accessibility and a supportive regulatory environment.

The central city’s retail sector is particularly vulnerable to competition. The lure of major regional centres needs to be off set by the development and implementation of a coordinated central city retail strategy. The Central Market precinct and Rundle Mall should be the anchors in this strategy, supported by the distinctive niche retail off erings

of the West End, Rundle Street and the mainstreet precincts. The strategy should cover positioning, promotion, tenant mix, public realm, accessibility and management.

The public realm of Rundle Mall should be comprehensively upgraded. A typical major regional centre would have the fi nishes and fi ttings in its common areas renewed at least every ten years in order to remain competitive and Rundle Mall is no diff erent. Cracked pavers, tired signage and outdated street furniture are no asset in a competitive retail environment.

More activity is needed in the Mall to promote vitality and safety outside shopping hours. The Rundle Lantern and the two new restaurants provide a base that should be built on, for example by extending the tram down the Mall to Rundle Street (as successfully achieved in Melbourne’s Burke Street Mall and in European cities such as Freiburg).

As part of achieving a supportive investment climate, the Adelaide (City) Development Plan should be reviewed to remove unnecessary obstacles to approval of new employment-generating activity. For example, setback angles on the southern side of the street have little solar access value but can prevent attainment of competitive fl oorplate sizes in proposed new offi ce buildings.

Adelaide is at a “tipping point” in investor confi dence. The number and value of new development proposals is now trending downwards for the fi rst time in many years and the level of negative decisions from Council’s Development Assessment Panel is trending upwards. Of equal concern, Council’s DAP is showing an increased propensity towards redesign of proposals, and the upwards trend in the level of deferrals is a sign of ineff ective decision making.

The impacts of the DAP’s performance on investor confi dence are limited by the fact that the Development

OBJECTIVE 4: Building the Central City as the State’s Business Hub

An economically vibrant city heart is an essential prerequisite for the economic success of the state as a whole.

The central city provides the skills and high-order services needed to support state priority growth sectors including education, defence, electronics, information, health and bioscience. Only the central city can generate the critical mass and economies of scale that underpin effi cient labour market operation. Only the central city can provide the sort of dynamic mixed-use environments that attract and retain key knowledge workers and facilitate reduced transaction costs.

In terms of its contribution to the state, the City of Adelaide contributes around 15 per cent of the state’s Gross State Product (GSP), confi rming the economic signifi cance of the city and its importance to the value chains of the state.

However, evidence suggests that this share is declining slowly as employment and retailing decentralise out of the city, and with the rising importance of non-urban economic activities (particularly mining and resource development). Over the last ten years or so, the city’s Gross Regional Product (GRP) has been growing more slowly than the state average.

It is essential that this leakage of GRP share be reversed. The state cannot aff ord to have its economic heart weakened. The value chains of the regions are stitched through the city centre.

To ensure all policy eff orts are working in the same direction, a target should be set for the city’s contribution to GSP and vigorous action taken to achieve the target.

In terms of workers, central city workers are much less likely than their suburban counterparts to rely solely on motor vehicles for work journeys, resulting in much lower per capita greenhouse gas emissions.

Employment numbers in the central city have been trending upwards over the last decade, boosted by a robust state economy, strong asset price growth, low interest rates, strong business confi dence and supportive offi ce location decisions by the State Government and other major employers.

The central city offi ce market has performed very strongly over the last ten years, consistently recording positive net absorption and low vacancy rates, with the exception of the last Offi ce Market Report, which recorded a slight increase in vacancy rates.

Source: Adelaide City Council “2004–2007 Strategic Management Plan Progress Report to June 2008”

Comparative Commuter Travel Energy

City Typical Suburban Office Park0

10

20

30

40

50

Total travel (GJ)Workplace based travel (GJ)Commuting to work (GJ)

Giga

joul

e (G

J)

18.6

1.0

19.6

34.1

8.6

42.7

Source : Property Council of Australia (July 2009)

Total Vacancy Adelaide Offi ce Markets

02468

10121416182022

% to

tal v

acan

cy

Jan 90Jan 91

Jan 92Jan 93

Jan 94Jan 95

Jan 96Jan 97

Jan 98Jan 99

Jan 00Jan 01

Jan 02Jan 03

Jan 04Jan 05

Jan 06Jan 07

Jan 08Jan 09

Frame Fringe CoreSource: Adelaide City Council “2004–2007 Strategic Management Plan Progress Report to June 2008”

Adelaide City Workforce Change1977–2006

1997

1992

1987

1982

2002

2006

1977

11,500

11,000

10,500

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

Tota

l Wor

kers




Assessment Commission is the authority for all city development value over $10m. It is vital that this arrangement continue, and possibly be extended to developments under $10m, unless/until a new city governance model is implemented.

Heritage should also be viewed in this context. Adelaide already has a very high number of heritage listed buildings — more than 1,820 local and State heritage items across the city and North Adelaide, equating to nearly 15 per cent of all buildings, with the Council now seeking to add a further 300-odd properties to this list. While the state has already protected the central city’s heritage buildings, the sheer scale of the list has potential to compromise the central city’s ability to grow and develop as the state’s principal concentration of economic activity.

The current proposal to list more than 300 additional buildings in the central business area of the city is both unnecessary in terms of character preservation and counterproductive in terms of the message it sends to business. This is absolutely the wrong time to introduce more constraints on development potential in the central city. Listing more heritage buildings will only increase the relative attractiveness of suburban locations for investment, growth and development. Some of the issues relating to heritage listing can be resolved by the establishment of a state-wide fund and a new Heritage Code of Development that would promote the adaptive reuse of heritage listed buildings.

Indeed, a basic calculation of the spatial requirement to house 43,000 workers indicates that we will need to expand the current CBD accommodation of about 1.2 million m2 by a further 900,000 square meters. This is a signifi cant expansion, which will be increasingly diffi cult to achieve if the Development Plan is not amended and if the state continues to list properties on the heritage list.

Major investment projects should be accompanied by proactive planning and investment attraction initiatives that seek to maximise the economic benefi ts. For example, the new city hospital will bring thousands of workers, patients and visitors into the west end of the city. There are huge opportunities to foster synergistic land uses in the surrounding northwest corner of the central city, including medical research, technology, education, visitor accommodation, consulting services, offi ce suites and so much more. This must be delivered though a precinct masterplan for the entire Riverbank area to maximise its potential to the community and the state.

Similarly, relocation of the Royal Adelaide Hospital presents an opportunity to generate wider economic outcomes as well as to create additional open spaces. Environmental sustainability generally, and schemes like carbon emissions trading in particular, will generate a whole new sector of economic activity in the decades to come. It is essential that Adelaide maximises its share of this nascent employment powerhouse, and the RAH site is a standout opportunity to leverage this.

The Property Council advocates creation of a new “green innovation” precinct on the RAH site to act as a hub for the state’s emergent “green collar” employment base. This precinct would provide a cluster focus for environmental research, design, innovation, education and business services, building on synergies with adjacent institutions. Existing historic buildings should be re-used for education, accommodation, interpretive or business incubator purposes, and iconic new signature buildings should be carefully inserted on the sites of demolished hospital buildings.

The green credentials of the central city should be strengthened by building on central Adelaide’s concentration of Green-Star rated offi ce fl oorspace.

Already one of the highest in the nation, more Green-Star fl oorspace could be achieved – especially through refurbishments – by delivering a more proactive and supportive raft of incentives. These could assist business to off set the costs of investing in green building technologies and recognise achievement by setting diff erential service charges and/or rates.

A particular opportunity is to incentivise new development to connect to the recycled water network. By extending the “purple pipe” throughout the central city and providing a supportive regime of pricing and connection incentives, new buildings and refurbishments can be progressively connected to the network for non-potable purposes.

However, we must be clear that any activities or developments that occur on our Park Lands should be ancillary to educational, cultural and tourism activities. Park Lands must not be opened up for broader residential and commercial development.

Priority Actions – Business Support

Recommendations KPI

1 Set at target for the city’s contribution to GSP of 15 per cent;

January 2010

2 Set employment growth target of 43,000 workers for the central city. This target should not be static and be reviewed every two years to ensure that at a minimum, the central city should accommodate at least 15 per cent of state jobs growth;

January 2010

3 Deliver a new “green innovation” precinct on the site of the (former) Royal Adelaide Hospital to promote the State’s emergent “green collar” sector and build on linkages with nearby environmental research and education activities;

December 2017

4 Ensure the Development Plan allows maximum economic benefi ts of new city hospital by providing opportunities for ancillary activities to be located near the site;

December 2010

Recommendations KPI

5 Review the Adelaide (City) Development Plan to ensure the central city is an attractive place to build new employment-generating development (for example, by encouraging large fl oorplates, providing incentives for site amalgamation, raising height limits and/or removing unnecessary setback/podium requirements);

December 2010

6 Terminate the current proposal to apply heritage restrictions to more than 250 additional central city buildings and instead implement a program to promote the central city as a place to invest, develop and do business;

Immedi-ately

7 Establish a state-wide fund to support State and Local Heritage listed buildings in the CBD and promote adaptive reuse of heritage buildings by creating a Heritage Building Code that recognises the inherent qualities of heritage buildings;

December 2010

8 Set a target for the growth of the central city’s retail sector and prepare and implement a retail strategy to achieve this target. At a minimum, the central city should increase its share of Metropolitan retail fl oorspace to 15 per cent within ten years;

June 2010

9 Deliver the Property Council’s “green incentives” program to encourage business to invest in green technologies and practices;

June 2010

10 Deliver the Property Council’s Recycled Water Program (utilising the Glenelg to Adelaide recycled water pipeline) for the CBD including the establishment of a “waterproofi ng the central city” program to provide incentives to ensure new buildings and major refurbishments connect to the pipeline for non-potable purposes.

December 2010

Source: Adelaide City Council, Quarterly DA Activity Reports, Committee Agenda Papers Notes: Excludes applications >$10M in value lodged after 17 July 2008 (i.e. after Q2 2008)

City of Adelaide DA Activity 2007–09 Value Lodgements

202.4

258.6

155.3

426.4

282.5

140

271.9

155.6

35.9

30.6

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4200920082007

$ M

illio

n

Value of Lodgements Trend

Source: DAP Annual Reports 05/06, 06/07, 07/08; DAP Minutes 08/09 (to 30 March 09).Notes: Excludes; preliminary assessment decisions on non-complying DAs (i.e. to proceed or not); decisions on ERD compromises; matters withdrawn from agenda.

City of Adelaide DAP Decisions 2005/06 – 2008/09

0

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2008/09 YTD2007/082006/072005/06

% matters deferred% matters refused/not supported

% matters approved/supported

75%

14%11%

77%

15%8%

72%

13% 15%

67%

17% 17%




Multi-storey Car Park⁄ Retain to ensure accessibility⁄ Improve linkages to Botanic Gardens (especially for major events, ie WOMAD)

Frome Road Park Lands⁄ Under construction by Adelaide City Council⁄ Ensure integration with Botanic Gardens and new Green Innovation Precinct

New Park Lands⁄ Annex to Botanic Gardens ⁄ Link into Botanic Gardens path network⁄ Demolish and remove existing RAH buildings

University of AdelaideMedical School⁄ Option to relocate to site of new city hospital⁄ Retain in educational/ research use ⁄ Re-use or redevelop for “green” faculties/activities

Dental Hospital⁄ Relocate to West End, co-located with new city hospital ⁄ Re-use or redevelop building for environmental education/research

⁄ Strengthen linkages to wine centre

North Terrace⁄ Upgrade as per endorsed concept plan

Historic Buildings⁄ Retain and develop for interpretive and visitor facilities,

serving business, community,

boutique accomodation and/or residential ⁄ Establish incubator spaces for green start-ups

Sites for new iconic “Green Buildings”⁄ Interpretive, educational, research, cultural facilities⁄ Include dining, convenience retail and short term accommodation to serve precinct⁄ Demolish existing RAH buildings

IMVS/Hanson Institute⁄ Consider relocation to City West, co-located with new city hospital ⁄ Long term redevelopment opportunity - research, education focus

Services/Hospitality⁄ Small scale retail/

Central Activity/Gathering Space⁄ Green events/gatherings (ie green craft fairs, green product expos) ⁄ Demonstration green technology installations⁄ Underground car park⁄ Demolish existing RAH buildings

metres

0 50 100

LEGEND

Key pedestrian path

Vehicle circulation

Gateway/ entry feature

Historic buildings retained/ re-used

Return to parklands

Institutional/educational buildingsretained (alternative “green” uses to be considered)

Redevelopment sites

Retain in current use

Proposed Tram line

Key Principles⁄ Reflect, symbolise and support Adelaide’s emergent “green collar” employment sector

⁄ Build on synergies to nearby “green” institutions/activities (Zoo, Universities, Botanic Gardens, Wine Centre)

⁄ Re-use historic buildings

⁄ Return land to Park Lands

⁄ Create new green architectural icons

⁄ Create permeable, active, multiuse network of paths and spaces

REGENERATION CONCEPT: CITY EAST “GREEN INNOVATION” PRECINCT




With the onset of a period of lower economic activity, the time is right to reinvigorate the central city’s residential sector. The population capacity, density potential and infrastructure based of the central city should be recognised by designation as the most signifi cant transit–oriented development (TOD) precinct in the metropolitan area. A population target should be set for the central city and a program of action implemented to achieve it.

This program of action should encompass a review of planning controls – in particular, to free up residential development opportunities along frontages to squares and terraces, locations the market values particularly highly. Unnecessary barriers to development should be removed, including unduly restrictive minimum dwelling sizes for student accommodation.

The current anomaly in the stamp duty system, which favours Torrens-Titled proposals over community titled by allowing purchasers to settle on land before new buildings are constructed, acts as a disincentive to apartment living and should be rectifi ed.

New programs should be initiated to bring underutilised fl oorspace into residential use. For example, much of the fl oorspace above ground level in Rundle Mall and many heritage listed buildings is vacant or underused and could be converted to a range of unique living spaces, bringing activity to the Mall and other streets outside of business hours. Similarly, there are signifi cant opportunities to encourage owners to convert secondary stock to residential use, particularly should offi ce vacancy rates in lower grades rise signifi cantly.

Government, Council and owners can work together to identify conversion opportunities and encourage their takeup by solving challenges associated with building rules, fi re safety, access to light and air and heritage

adaptation. This is particularly important to ensure heritage buildings are used to their maximum potential — something stymied by rules and regulations.

The benefi ts of city living can be felt more widely, subject to appropriate infrastructure and zoning being established. The State Government’s proposed new transit–oriented urban village at Bowden will, in many respects, seek to recreate the city’s living environments on a brownfi elds near-city site.

Consideration must also be given to promoting student, aff ordable and social housing in Adelaide. Overseas students are incredibly important to the state’s economy and it appears the only blockage from increasing their numbers is limitations on ‘beds’. The means to resolve these issues, to achieve delivery of increased student accommodation developments, requires the introduction of fi nancial and non-fi nancial incentives. In addition, it is important that Adelaide achieves a good mix of people; this can be achieved through delivering more aff ordable, key worker, and social housing outcomes.

Another opportunity is the creation of “Adelaide’s Saint Kilda Road” on Greenhill and/or Fullarton Roads. These gracious parkland boulevards could be home to hundreds of people living in 6–12 storey high–rise apartments above offi ce uses on lower fl oors. Residents would enjoy frontages to the Park Lands and easy walking access to central city attractions and opportunities.

Implementing other central city regeneration initiatives will also create more demand for city living. For example, the urban design agenda recommended in Objective 2 will create urban environments that will increase the appeal of the central city as a place to live. Improved city accessibility (Objective 3) will likewise attract more people to city living.

OBJECTIVE 5: Boosting the Residential Population of the Central City

City living generates a very wide range of social, economic and environmental benefi ts — not just for the central city, but for the metropolitan area and the state as a whole.

More people living in the city builds vitality, supports local businesses and attracts home-based, boutique and footloose employment. City living puts more people closer to employment and recreational opportunities and builds economies of scale for public transport and other services. City dwellers are much less likely to need or use a car, considerably reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

City living puts more “feet on the street” and “eyes on the street”, promoting passive surveillance, improving security in public spaces and building activity outside of offi ce hours. Putting more residents in the central city also helps reduce pressure for infi ll development in character suburbs, and to reduce the demand for expansion onto valuable farmland at the fringes of the metropolitan area.

Colonel Light’s visionary plan created a network of streets and spaces that lends itself to dense, permeable, walkable mixed-use communities. These days we call this “transit– oriented development” — but in Light’s day it was just the way towns worked.

Adelaide’s population peaked at just under 45,000 in the early 1920s, and plummeted in the postwar decades — under the infl uence of car-induced mobility, cheap fringe land and rising standards of living — to under 15,000 by the early 1980s, remaining generally stable until the end of the 1990s.

Over the last decade, the population of the city has risen strongly, driven by changing demographic and household formation patterns, diff erent lifestyle choices, growth in the tertiary education sector (especially among international students) and a national trend to value the accessibility and “buzz” of city living.

The rate of population growth in the central city has been high in proportional terms — consistently averaging in recent years many times the metropolitan average growth rate — and aff ordability of city housing is not declining relative to the average. However growth remains low in absolute terms, averaging only about 500 people per annum between 1996 and 2008.

Indeed, as it currently stands, the suburb or Paralowie, 20 kilometres to the north of the CBD is the densest square kilometre in Adelaide.

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics Census Counts

City of Adelaide Population Change 1861–1996

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

1861 1881 1901 1921 1941 1961 1981 2001

Popu

latio

n

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics

City of Adelaide Population Change 1996–2008

10,00011,00012,00013,00014,00015,00016,00017,00018,00019,00020,000

19961997

19981999

20072008

20002001

20022003

20042005

2006

Source: Real Estate Institute of Australia and RP Data

City House Prices vs Metro House Prices

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

$500,000

19992000

20012002

20032004

20052006

20072008

Medi

an Pr

ice

Metropolitan Median House Price

City Median House Price

City Median Unit/Apartment Price




Priority Actions – Residential Growth

Recommendations KPI

1 Designate the central city as a Zone of State Signifi cance to recognise its potential as the pre-eminent TOD for Metropolitan Adelaide;

December 2009

2 Set a residential population target and ensure the Development Plan promotes its delivery. At a minimum, the central city should accommodate an additional 10,000 residents over the next 10 years;

January 2010

3 Review the Adelaide (City) Development Plan to boost residential yields in key locations and remove disincentives and barriers to residential development;

December 2010

4 Remove the stamp duty disincentive to multi-level residential dwellings compared to an equivalent house and land package;

June 2011

5 Establish a “shop top” program to utilise obsolete space above street level for residential/ studio purposes (particular focus on Rundle Mall and on heritage listed buildings);

December 2010

6 Establish a new “building conversion” program to promote conversion/reuse of secondary stock by assisting owners to resolve issues with building rules, fi re safety, asbestos removal access to light and air, and other conversion design challenges;

September 2010

7 Develop, fund and implement a program to promote student accommodation developments in Adelaide.

June 2010

8 Promote density along Park Land edges (including outside of the city) as means of extending high density 6–12 storey city-style living opportunities (and boosting activity and safety in the Park Lands). Make Greenhill/Fullarton Roads Adelaide’s St Kilda Road.

December 2010

More people living in the city builds vitality, supports local businesses and attracts home-based, boutique and footloose employment




OBJECTIVE 6: Creating and Marketing a Dynamic Central City

The central city is home to an unparalleled range and concentration of visitor attractions – cultural, recreational, tourism, leisure, events, arts, educational and institutional. Expanding and improving this range of visitor attractions is essential to the future of the central city and will also off er an increased range of benefi ts to the metropolitan area as a whole.

On average, there are more than 90,000 visitors in the central city on any given day, the majority of which come from the suburbs within ten to 15 kilometres of the city. These visitors come to shop, to learn, to access services, to conduct business, to visit galleries or museums, to meet friends, to be entertained, to enjoy major events, and for a host of other purposes. Each of these interactions generates social, cultural and economic value.

What is unique and special about the central city is its ability to host such a wide and diverse range of attractions in accessible environments of distinctive character. This co-location of attractions means that visitors are easier to attract and likely to stay longer. Importantly, visitors to the city are much more likely to use public transport than are visitors to suburban locations, contributing signifi cantly to the reduction of our ecological footprint.

Adelaide’s relatively small population base means that we cannot aff ord to disperse our attractions across the metropolitan area. In visitor attraction terms, dispersal serves only to dilute the quality of the off ering. Co-locating a broad range of facilities in an accessible central location will boost vitality, build synergies, and generate broader economic, social and environmental benefi ts.

Over the last ten years, signifi cant opportunities to build critical mass have been passed up by choosing to locate major metropolitan recreation and entertainment facilities

Source: Adelaide City Council “2004–2007 Strategic Management Plan Progress Report to June 2008”

Method of Travel into The City – Shopping/Leisure Trips

2004 2005Shopping Trips Leisure Trips

2007 2004 2005 20070%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Self-propelledPrivate TransportPublic Transport

3639

29

38

58

43

53 56 5753

4

20

10

4

149

38 38

shop

pers

and

leis

ure

seek

ers

remote from the central city in locations where visitors are almost totally reliant upon private vehicles and supporting facilities such as dining and accommodation are few or nonexistent. Examples include the new state aquatic centre, cycling, hockey, the science and technology centre and the announced major upgrade of AAMI Stadium.

The Property Council believes that metropolitan visitor attractions such as these should be located in the central city. With commitment, planning and foresight, we have the opportunity to build the vitality and attractiveness of our city to the benefi t of the metropolitan area. Once again, the central area of Melbourne shows us what is possible — with its clustering of major visitor facilities (Docklands Stadium, South Bank, Rod Laver Arena, MCG, Sydney Myer Music Bowl) all within easy walking distance of superior public transport services and the facilities of the central city.

To unleash the potential of the Riverbank precinct access must be improved.

At the moment it is a lost opportunity – a riverfront immediately adjacent to the central city, public transport infrastructure and major institutions and accommodation is currently given over to marshalling yards and train storage. The riverbank itself is very diffi cult to get to and once accessed off ers low amenity, few facilities, poor linkages to other public spaces and visitor facilities and low levels of safety after dark.

The Government’s decision to locate a major new hospital and medical research facility on part of this land has potential to unleash this signifi cant opportunity by catalysing regeneration for a range of other purposes and opening the area up for the public. The hospital need not be a low-rise building that consumes the bulk of the precinct – it can be built higher on a much smaller footprint, freeing up land for other uses.

The Property Council believes that there should be an integrated masterplan that links the river to the city and opens up opportunities for major new sporting, entertainment and exhibition facilities, together with dining, retail, and cultural opportunities – all connected by high quality public spaces and served by the new tram extension. A blend of uses can boost activity around the clock and ensure we achieve the critical mass needed for the precinct to work. At the very least the Government must commit to expanding the Convention Centre to attract the nation’s biggest conventions and a refurbishment and expansion of the Festival Centre to attract world-leading orchestras and operas.

Adelaide’s unique Park Lands are another standout opportunity to build the visitor attraction base of the central city.

Colonel Light has passed on to us a priceless asset for the people of the state, with enormous potential to accommodate a range of recreational, cultural and recreational activities. This asset is, by any measure, vastly underused at present. With the exception of two or three centrally located parks, Adelaide’s Park Lands are largely unused, poorly maintained and empty of people for much of each week.

By contrast, the great urban parks of the world are mostly full of people – and to attract people, and keep them there, the parks accommodate a range of things to look at and do. Central Park in New York, Millenium Park in Chicago, the Royal Parks in London and many others besides – all contain a range of visitor attractions, including cafes, function centres, event spaces, skating rinks, sporting fi elds, concert halls, plazas, zoos, theatres, carparks and stadiums.

We must widen our view of what makes our Park Lands work. Not everybody who comes to them wants only to enjoy solitude and green space. There are plenty of opportunities to provide events infrastructure, visitor facilities and visitor attractions without sacrifi cing the open character and heritage values of the Park Lands.

We need activate our squares and Park Lands by investing in the infrastructure that supports visitor attractions – for example, event spaces and infrastructure, carparking, dining. Proposals like the Government’s multi-purpose stadium in Victoria Park should be achievable, subject to careful design and management, as part of an overall “active parks” view of the Park Lands. Major metropolitan events – circuses, open air concerts, festivals, civic gatherings – should take place in the Park Lands, where they can be easily accessed from across Adelaide, rather than in suburban locations. Innovative design solutions like green bridges over major roads should be used to make our parks more connected and useable.

The Glenelg to Adelaide Park Lands recycled water pipeline provides a potential catalyst for the renewal and regeneration of tired and underused parks. For example, large areas of the south Park Lands become barren deserts in summer and are largely devoid of quality attractions and facilities for park users. With the advent of recycled water, the opportunity exists to create a range of landscaped green spaces and playing fi elds, connected by walking and




cycling trails and providing café and dining opportunities and sporting clubrooms. This would also support the objectives of boosting residential opportunities along South Terrace and Greenhill Road.

But delivering vitality and vibrancy is only part of the process. As illustrated so successfully with the Postcode 3000 campaign in Melbourne, a signifi cant marketing and sales program must be delivered to promote the central city and the opportunities and possibilities it can deliver.

It is essential that the central city is a “24/7” visitor destination, off ering visitor facilities and services throughout the day and night. However, hosting entertainment and nightlife in close proximity to residential and accommodation activities requires careful attention to land use mix and acoustic design.

This requires responsible management both of noise generators and noise receivers, and clear guidance on desired locations for “noisy” activities such as nightclubs, bars and the like. The Adelaide (City) Development Plan currently tends to focus on where these activities are not envisaged, rather than where they are.

Priority Actions – Marketing and Creating a Dynamic Central City

Recommendations KPI

1 Prepare and implement a masterplan to create an integrated events, sporting, cultural and entertainment precinct at Riverbank West – Adelaide’s only chance to build a Southbank or Docklands;

December 2010

2 Redevelop and expand Adelaide Oval and construct a new footbridge across the River to link it to the Riverbank West precinct and the rest of the central city;

June 2011

3 Develop a policy to recognise the importance of critical mass and the accessibility of the central city by ensuring that any new metropolitan-level entertainment or recreation facilities are located within the central city, or as close as practical thereto;

June 2010

4 Review the Adelaide (City) Development Plan to encourage the establishment of 24/7 visitor and entertainment facilities in preferred locations such as the West End;

December 2010

5 Develop a marketing program, similar to Postcode 3000, to sell the Adelaide central city both internally, nationally and globally;

June 2010

6 Develop a policy to activate Park Lands and southern city squares by providing events infrastructure, attractions and facilities within them;

June 2010

7 Create major events parks at Victoria Park, Elder Park and Bonython Park. Work to attract major gatherings, concerts and events to these parks;

June 2011

8 Maximise the benefi ts of the Glenelg–Adelaide recycled water pipeline to regenerate the Park Lands, particularly tired and underused parks in the south.

June 2010

It is essential that the central city is a “24/7” visitor destination, off ering visitor facilities and services throughout the day and night




GREENHILL ROAD

DAOR

NOT

RALL

UF

DAOR

YE

LNU

SOUTH TERRACE

NORTH TERRACE

DAOR

YE

NKCA

H

TEER

TS

MAIL

LIW

GN

IK

TEER

TS

TTU

H

ECAR

RET

TS

EW

RICHMOND RD

⁄ Strengthen ring route to obviate need for through traffic to use city roads

⁄ Transit to park’n ride and TOD network

⁄ Construct car parking stations under squares

⁄ Activate parklands by providing events infrastructure and visitor attractions

⁄ Review planning controls to lift heights on Greenhill/ Fullarton Roads - Adelaide’s St Kilda Road to 6-12 storeys

⁄ Review planning controls to lift heights/densities on Terraces/Squares to 6-12 storeys

⁄ Improve connections between rail terminal and central city

⁄ Review airport flight paths and/or building height limits to free up development potential without sacrificing airport operations

⁄ Construct new “green innovation precinct” on site of the RAH - foster environmental business, education, institutions

⁄ Upgrade golf course to host international fixtures

⁄ Upgrade Adelaide Oval construct underground carpark

Riverbank Precinct⁄ Entertainment, sports, arts, convenient accommodation, leisure - Adelaide’s South Bank

New City hospital and research institute⁄ Build high to achieve small footprint and free up land for other uses

⁄ Construct dedicated busway from Gilberton

⁄ Extend Glenelg Recycled Water to serve new developments and major refurbishments

⁄ Transit to park’n ride and TOD network

⁄ New Torrens foot bridge

⁄ Construct light rail loop to catalyse regeneration⁄ North Terrace or Rundle Mall route options

⁄ Upgrade Rundle Mall - renew public realm, reposition in market

⁄ Upgrade Victoria Square

⁄ Possible tram link to Kent Town regeneration area

⁄ Rapid bus transit corridor to near-city regeneration areas

⁄ Possible tram links to near-city regeneration areas

Key Principles⁄ Reform city governance - create new Adelaide City Economic Development Agency with responsibility for State - significant areas⁄ Set targets for 2019: Ñ 10,000 extra residents Ñ 15 per cent of total State employment Ñ 10 per cent of total State retail floorspace growth⁄ Adopt and implement ten key urban design principles: Ñ accessibility Ñ legibility Ñ density Ñ sustainability Ñ connectivity Ñ identity Ñ variety Ñ safety Ñ activity Ñ quality⁄ Initiate new programs to boost central city sustainability: Ñ green refurbishment incentives Ñ green incentives for businesses Ñ recycled water down every street⁄ Upgrade and activate citys laneways⁄ Improve accessibility and connectivity: Ñ mass transit and tram loop Ñ bus priority measures Ñ off-street bus interchange Ñ cycle infrastructure Ñ pedestrian links and signage⁄ Boost city living: Ñ “shop top” conversions Ñ “building conversion” and reuse Ñ uplifting by rezoning

LEGENDBusiness focusMixed use focusResidential focusCultural/ institutional/ tourismRetail focus

Priority for uplift by rezoning

Priority for parkland activation

Area where airport restrictions limitbuilding heightRecycled water pipelineMajor road accessHeavy rail accessLight Rail:Existing/committedProposed

SUMMARY MAP




DELIVERING THE VISION: Getting there from here

Adelaide tends to be long on vision and plans, and very short on delivery and action. The Property Council is committed to working with key stakeholders to ensure the regeneration concepts advocated in this report come to reality.

This will involve the Property Council in continuing to champion for city issues, supporting the work of members as they plan and deliver improvements to the central city assets for which they are responsible, and contributing to policy and projects of Government and Council.

The Council also looks to Government to engage with the property sector to open up creative new opportunities for the private sector to build the central city of the future.

We need to recognise that Government and business have diff erent strengths and capacities, and that innovative project delivery mechanisms can be developed to engage these strengths in a complementary fashion. If we want to foster an innovative, dynamic and effi cient property sector in this state, we need to provide challenges and opportunities to deliver.

The Government is already working to deliver the new city hospital by means of a public/private partnership. This model could be applied more widely to building or capital city.

For example, the recommended City East Green Innovation Precinct and the under-square car parks could be delivered by the private sector in return for a fi xed income stream from building rental and/or carparking revenues.

And the public spaces and facilities of the Riverbank West proposal could be provided by the private sector return for being allowed to develop retail and/or commercial components.

On a smaller scale, key installations or projects could attract private sector contributions in return for advertising or naming rights.

Working in partnership means exploring all of these options and others, making timely decisions and then following through.

The next steps will be to deliver this vision – the Property Council stands willing and keen to work in partnership with the Government and the community to deliver the city that every South Australian deserves.

We can get there from here, and we must get there from here – but we need to start the journey now.

The future of the central city depends on it.

SASP objectives

state policy initiatives

Relationship with Key State Governement Strategies and Implementation

SASP objectives

Growing prosperity

Improving wellbeing

Attaining sustainability

Fostering creativity and

innovation

Building communities

Expanding opportunity

PLAN FOR GREATER ADELAIDEstate policy initiatives

SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S STRATEGIC PLAN

Water for Good – a plan to ensure our water future to 2050

Greenhouse Strategy Infrastructure Plan Skills Strategy for SA

Planning ReformInformation,

Communication and Technology

Population Policy Economic Statement

ADELAIDE 2036

DELIVERY

IMPLEMENTATION Establish an advisory board of Government, Council, property industry,

business and community to oversee implementation of the Plan

Establish an Adelaide City Economic Development Agency




OBJECTIVE 1: Governing the Central City for the Communities of the StatePRIORITY ACTIONS – GOVERNANCE

Recommendations KPI

1 Create a new Adelaide City Economic Development Agency with responsibility for planning, economic development, infrastructure delivery and managing the heart of the central city.

June 2010

2 The Adelaide City Council to continue to take responsibility for community development, municipal services, civic roles and the suburb of North Adelaide.

June 2010

OBJECTIVE 2: Designing the Central City to Unleash PotentialPRIORITY ACTIONS – URBAN DESIGN

Recommendations KPI

1 Adopt and implement a urban design charter based on ten key principles of urban design for the central city;

June 2010

2 Support the appointment of a State Architect with responsibility for design of major public projects in the city and ability to champion quality design;

March 2010

3 Review the Adelaide (City) Development Plan to boost development potential in key locations (eg Park Land Terraces, the fi ve southern squares, along the extended tram routes and in the northwest corner in conjunction with the new city hospital) and to remove unnecessary design constraints;

December 2010

4 Review airport fl ightpaths and/or airspace regulations and lobby Federal Government to facilitate greater building heights in the western part of the central city without compromising airport operations;

December 2010

5 Develop, implement and fund a comprehensive program of upgrading laneways across the central city, modelled on the Melbourne city initiative, to generate economic activity, cultural vitality and improved pedestrian amenity;

July 2011

6 Create and fund an urban design masterplan for the CBD that focuses on improving public spaces including renewing footpaths, reducing the heat island eff ect through more trees, creating a linked, people-friendly city;

July 2011

7 Upgrade Victoria Square to create a dynamic and people-friendly civic, event and gathering space in the heart of the central city;

July 2012

8 Renew and upgrade the public realm of Rundle Mall (including paving, landscaping, street furniture and signage) and implement projects to activate evening use of the Mall;

June 2011

9 Create an incentives scheme to increase investment in public art and the public realm. December 2010

OBJECTIVE 3: Moving People to and Around the Central CityPRIORITY ACTIONS – MOVEMENT AND ACCESSIBILITY

Recommendations KPI

1 Extend tram routes through the central city to catalyse renewal and regeneration; July 2013

2 Establish a connection from the central city to the interstate rail terminal and upgrade the terminal to improve the arrival experience for interstate rail passengers; as well as extending connectivity to the state’s major sporting facilities and to Adelaide Airport;

June 2012

3 Fund and improve pedestrian linkages and wayfi nding signage around the central city; December 2010

4 Expand bus priority measures (including construction of a dedicated O-Bahn link from Gilberton) to at least 3km of road in the City;

June 2011

5 Promote and deliver better cycle commuting infrastructure, including secure bike storage and end-of-trip facilities for cyclists;

December 2010

6 Prepare and implement an off street parking strategy to set priorities for aff ordable public parking stations serving workers and visitors and located around the periphery of the central city (including under city squares and the Park Lands);

December 2013

7 Expand the program of park’n ride facilities at suburban transit stops; June 2014

8 Upgrade Grenfell and Currie Streets into a transit mall; December 2010

9 Deliver an off street bus interchange in the central city; June 2020

10 Strengthen the ring route around the city to ensure road space primarily serves those moving to/from and within the city (and not those seeking only to move quickly through it).

June 2014

OBJECTIVE 4: Building the Central City as the State’s Business HubPRIORITY ACTIONS – BUSINESS SUPPORT

Recommendations KPI

1 Set at target for the city’s contribution to GSP of 15 per cent. January 2010

2 Set employment growth target of 43,000 workers for the central city. This target should not be static and be reviewed every two years to ensure that at a minimum, the central city should accommodate at least 15 per cent of state jobs growth;

January 2010

3 Deliver a new “green innovation” precinct on the site of the (former) Royal Adelaide Hospital to promote the State’s emergent “green collar” sector and build on linkages with nearby environmental research and education activities;

December 2017

4 Ensure the Development Plan allows maximum economic benefi ts of new city hospital by providing opportunities for ancillary activities to be located near the site;

December 2010

5 Review the Adelaide (City) Development Plan to ensure the central city is an attractive place to build new employment-generating development (for example, by encouraging large fl oorplates, providing incentives for site amalgamation, raising height limits and/or removing unnecessary setback/podium requirements);

December 2010

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS




Recommendations KPI

6 Terminate the current proposal to apply heritage restrictions to more than 250 additional central city buildings and instead implement a program to promote the central city as a place to invest, develop and do business;

Immediately

7 Establish a state-wide fund to support State and Local Heritage listed buildings in the CBD and promote adaptive reuse of heritage buildings by creating a Heritage Building Code that recognises the inherent qualities of heritage buildings;

December 2010

8 Set a target for the growth of the central city’s retail sector and prepare and implement a retail strategy to achieve this target. At a minimum, the central city should increase its share of metropolitan retail fl oorspace to 15 per cent within ten years;

June 2010

9 Deliver the Property Council’s “green incentives” program to encourage business to invest in green technologies and practices;

June 2010

10 Deliver the Property Council’s Recycled Water Program (utilising the Glenelg to Adelaide recycled water pipeline) for the CBD including the establishment of a “waterproofi ng the central city” program to provide incentives to ensure new buildings and major refurbishments connect to the pipeline for non-potable purposes.

December 2010

OBJECTIVE 5: Boosting the Residential Population of the Central CityPRIORITY ACTIONS – RESIDENTIAL GROWTH

Recommendations KPI

1 Designate the central city as a Zone of State Signifi cance to recognise its potential as the pre-eminent TOD for metropolitan Adelaide;

December 2009

2 Set a residential population target and ensure the Development Plan promotes delivery. At a minimum, the central city should accommodate an additional 10,000 residents over the next 10 years;

January 2010

3 Review the Adelaide (City) Development Plan to boost residential yields in key locations and remove disincentives and barriers to residential development;

December 2010

4 Remove the stamp duty disincentive to multi-level residential dwellings compared to an equivalent house and land package;

June 2011

5 Establish a “shop top” program to utilise obsolete space above street level for residential/ studio purposes (particular focus on Rundle Mall and on heritage listed buildings);

December 2010

6 Establish a new “building conversion” program to promote conversion/reuse of secondary stock by assisting owners to resolve issues with building rules, fi re safety, asbestos removal access to light and air, and other conversion design challenges;

September 2010

7 Develop, fund and implement a program to promote student accommodation developments in Adelaide.

June 2010

8 Promote density along Park Land edges (including outside of the city) as means of extending high density 6–12 storey city-style living opportunities (and boosting activity and safety in the Park Lands). Make Greenhill/Fullarton Roads Adelaide’s St Kilda Road.

December 2010

OBJECTIVE 6: Creating and Marketing a Dynamic Central CityPRIORITY ACTIONS – MARKETING AND CREATING A DYNAMIC CENTRAL CITY

Recommendations KPI

1 Prepare and implement a masterplan to create an integrated events, sporting, cultural and entertainment precinct at Riverbank West – Adelaide’s only chance to build a Southbank or Docklands;

December 2010

2 Redevelop and expand Adelaide Oval and construct a new footbridge across the river to link it to the Riverbank West precinct and the rest of the central city;

June 2011

3 Develop a policy to recognise the importance of critical mass and the accessibility of the central city by ensuring that any new metropolitan-level entertainment or recreation facilities are located within the central city, or as close as practical thereto;

June 2010

4 Review the Adelaide (City) Development Plan to encourage the establishment of 24/7 visitor and entertainment facilities in preferred locations such as the West End;

December 2010

5 Develop a marketing program, similar to Postcode 3000, to seel the Adelaide central city both internally, nationally and globally;

June 2010

6 Develop a policy to activate Park Lands and southern city squares by providing events infrastructure, attractions and facilities within them;

June 2010

7 Create major events parks at Victoria Park, Elder Park and Bonython Park. Work to attract major gatherings, concerts and events to these parks;

June 2011

8 Maximise the benefi ts of the Glenelg-Adelaide recycled water pipeline to regenerate the Park Lands, particularly tired and underused parks in the south.

June 2010

Property Council of Australia(SA Division)

142 Gawler PlaceAdelaide SA 5000

t: 08 8236 0900f: 08 8223 6451

www.propertyoz.com.au/sa

Documents

Adelaide 2036: Building on Light's Vision