Commenting on the story: Twin towers set to soar above heritage-listed hotel
Who is kidding who? It’s way over the height limits. It’s in the flight path. It contravenes the Adelaide council’s plan for the city. It’s a mockery of all the planning rules. And it’s just ugly set against the elegant heritage hotel.
Why have rules? Not much point if they don’t apply. – Wayne Steele
This development is one of the ugliest yet conceived and approved to date.
There is no other way of describing the extreme excesses of height, the lack of originality of design, or consideration of the heritage qualities of the Newmarket Hotel. Goodbye Adelaide. – Noris Ioannou
“Scholes said the 106-metre towers would be 65 metres higher than the maximum recommended building height of 43 metres for the zone. He said … this would be a “substantial departure” from Development Plan policy”.
“The SCAP agreed with Scholes, finding the proposal was not “seriously at variance” with the Adelaide City Council’s development plan and “generally accords” with its stated objectives and principles on development control.”
What exactly does “seriously” mean, and why is it not a case of either it accords or does not, rather than generally/roughly/possibly/maybe/almost?
What is the point of having any regulations at all if they can be flouted so easily? Will this open the floodgates to other developers wanting to build even taller buildings? – Don Cole
This is an outrageous proposal. It is not just a little higher than the current limit for the city centre; it is nearly three times the maximum height. Greedy developers will always want to squeeze more properties onto a site so they can make obscene profits, but the planners have a responsibility to preserve the character of the city.
The community should make it clear to the city council and the State government that this proposal is completely out of line. It should be summarily rejected. – Ian Lowe
Commenting on the story: SA to enforce quarantine rules for Sydney transit
It looks like Sydney’s COVID lockdown is going to last a long, long time, so at some point South Australia is going to need to decide what to do regarding travel restrictions on the COVID-free parts of NSW outside the lockdown area.
It made sense as the Sydney outbreak started to be cautious about the risk of COVID spilling out to NSW’s regional areas and the ACT. But six weeks later a very clear picture has emerged that this isn’t happening. In the last fortnight, Sydney’s had almost 3000 cases in the lockdown area. In the rest of NSW and the ACT there have been 0.
With every passing day of high case numbers in Sydney, and zero in regional NSW, confidence should grow that regional NSW is safe at this time, and that the protection measures put in place like travel restrictions to and from Sydney are working. Instead, South Australia has only increased restrictions on regional NSW and the ACT as time has gone on.
How many days of zero cases will it take before this large and important part of Australia – home to around 3 million people and the nation’s parliament – is considered safe? Is one (known source, successfully isolated) case in the last two months not already enough? – John Kramer
The decision that people coming from regional Queensland via Sydney will have to self quarantine is of no help to those of us who a travelling by road from regional Queensland and who haven’t visited any hotspots.
We have to detour nearly 1000 kms via Tennant Creek just so we can enter SA from the NT. The decision is as clear as mud to us. – Jerome van der Linden
“Outdoor sporting matches must adhere to a one person per two-square-metre density cap, with the maximum to be capped at 1000”.
The test, of course, is the power of money and the AFL when it comes to the Showdown. – Tony Curtis
Commenting on the opinion piece: Nation’s COVID pathway is missing some steps
The 70% and 80% thresholds should require every state and territory (and preferably also each capital city) to reach that threshold, not just a national average.
For an Oympics analogy, let’s call it Bronze for 70%, Silver for 80% and Gold for 90%. And we should aim for Gold. – Stefan Landherr
Commenting on the story: Santos merger with Oil Search gains pace
“The dot-com hysteria is completely overblown.” This is, apparently, what the Blockbuster CEO said back in 2000 when he refused to acquire Netflix for $50 million.
Within a few years, Blockbuster was bust and Netflix was the largest provider of filmed entertainment in the world, where, by and large, it remains to this day. It is a cautionary tale of hubris and lack of vision.
The Santos and Oil Search merger is almost the opposite – the merger of two Blockbusters. The International Energy Agency has stated that the world should add no new oil and gas fields and no new coal mines or mine extensions if it is to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 in the energy sector. According to the AEMO, the demand for gas, especially industrial, is predicted to decrease as the world adopts renewable energy sources. The EU and US, to name but two, are set to introduce carbon border adjustments which will affect any Australian fossil fuel exports.
Even if you ignore the harm being done to the environment, expect to see a lot of stranded assets, to be paid for by the taxpayer. If only Blockbuster had had the benefit of such an accommodating federal government in its day. – Milos Karapandzic
Local News Matters
Media diversity is under threat in Australia – nowhere more so than in South Australia. The state needs more than one voice to guide it forward and you can help with a donation of any size to InDaily. Your contribution goes directly to helping our journalists uncover the facts. Please click below to help InDaily continue to uncover the facts.