Commenting on the story: Developer hits back over Wright St hotel heritage debate
On this occasion I completely agree with the developers of this site.
On checking the City of Adelaide Development Plan, it confirmed that, indeed, the western two of these three identical bluestone cottages are not heritage-listed.
And hence I credit the developers for seeking to retain and incorporate all three cottages and setting the tower element back reasonably far behind them.
This perverse situation points to the absurdity of the fact that whilst being ostensibly identical, one is listed and the other two aren’t.
This inconsistency of heritage listing is a result of political interference in the heritage listing process that leaves identical properties with different heritage status or usually none at all.
First in 1992 the Henry Ninio Council voted not to take any action to list any building where the owner had objected, regardless of merit.
Then a little while after I was elected in about 2010, John Rau listed just 37 of 251 CBD properties that had been recommended by Heritage Consultants by the ACC for listing, including the two that are unlisted on this site.
For this reason most of our historic properties in the CBD are without local heritage protection including in and around this location, where you would be staggered to see what and how much isn’t protected by heritage listing.
So, given the zoning allows a multi-storey hotel on this site, I am pleased that the developer is treating these bluestone cottages as an asset to their hotel development, rather than trying to argue to demolish the listed one, and only lament that the entry canopy didn’t just sit below the decorative brick parapet rather than crudely cutting through it. – Sandy Wilkinson
I am so disappointed on hearing about yet another heritage-listed property in Adelaide being destroyed.
Adelaide was always known for its fabulous heritage buildings in the city and suburbs, but not so now.
The buildings now are put up so badly with very poor quality supplies. They are not built to last, unlike the heritage buildings, and will need to be demolished in only a few years.
The large windows which always seemed to be favoured are going to make heating and cooling a very expensive option, not at all eco-friendly.
It is so wrong that these buildings can be built and heritage buildings destroyed without consulting the public. – Belinda Meyers
Commenting on the story: Call to extend animal extinction inquiry after bushfires
If you are not concerned about species extinction, then you should be.
If we take KI as an example, with 50% of the island burnt and the fact that it will take many years for the flora and fauna to return, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that KI could have the remaining 50% of the island burnt well before the burnt 50% recovers.
Exit koala, dunnart, glossy black cockatoo and much of KI’s tourism income.
The only problem is I am not convinced that the Liberals will agree with the need for an inquiry and if they do whether they would act on its recommendations.
Then again, if someone finds coal on KI then who knows? – Geoff Moore
Want to comment?
Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.
We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.
InDaily has changed the way we receive comments. Go here for an explanation.
We value local independent journalism. We hope you do too.
InDaily provides valuable, local independent journalism in South Australia. As a news organisation it offers an alternative to The Advertiser, a different voice and a closer look at what is happening in our city and state for free. Any contribution to help fund our work is appreciated. Please click below to become an InDaily supporter.