Here's what people are saying
(Letters, comments and statements (and some satire) made for the argument for keeping Shed 26 in one form or another.)
19 May 2019, Statement from Shed26 Alliance
| shed_26_statement_updated_080519__1_.pdf |
4 June 2019, Poem by Geoff Goodfellow, published by the CFMEU.
| geoff_goodfellow_poster_copy.pdf |
19 April 2019 just after Ministers Spiers announces he is de-listing of Shed 26 from the State Heritage Register.
|
Emma Webb's intro
|
Susan Close MP State Member for Port Adelaide
|
Tony Kearney, Past Chair PoANT
|
|
Anthony Coupe, Mulloway Studio
|
Councillor David Wilkins
|
Karen James, Past Chair PoANT
|
Video
By Cameron Raynes, interviewing community members about Shed 26
By Cameron Raynes, interviewing community members about Shed 26
Article:
From the Summer 2019 edition of Heritage Living, National Trust of South Australia
From the Summer 2019 edition of Heritage Living, National Trust of South Australia
Letter:
From Professor Susan Oakley, Head of School, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, The University of Adelaide, to the Hon Stephan Knoll MP, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure & Local Government (and others).
The price of removing Shed 26 should not be considered in financial terms but rather a material cultural and historical cost to Port Adelaide and the State. This is the last significant maritime artefact that connects the Port centre and the inner harbour. It is unique and should be retrofitted to reflect both the past, present and future of this amazing site. Much of the Port’s shipping, manufacturing and commercial architectural heritage remains in the Port centre. Numerous old firms, warehouses, shops and banks exist in central Port Adelaide and particularly around Lipson-Divett Streets precinct, which is in close walking distance to the waterfront. The historical value of these buildings has prompted their renovation and reuse for different functions. Shed 26 offers a critical connectivity to these buildings and the inner harbour. Left remaining along the inner harbour is Harts Mill, the first slipway situated close to Shed 26 and Shed 26. It should not be forgotten how these three structures have connections not only to the state but to the rest of the wold. It is these three structures that make the inner harbour unique, and the ongoing redevelopment of the waterfront a point of difference to other national and international examples of renovation and revitalisation.
From Professor Susan Oakley, Head of School, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, The University of Adelaide, to the Hon Stephan Knoll MP, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure & Local Government (and others).
The price of removing Shed 26 should not be considered in financial terms but rather a material cultural and historical cost to Port Adelaide and the State. This is the last significant maritime artefact that connects the Port centre and the inner harbour. It is unique and should be retrofitted to reflect both the past, present and future of this amazing site. Much of the Port’s shipping, manufacturing and commercial architectural heritage remains in the Port centre. Numerous old firms, warehouses, shops and banks exist in central Port Adelaide and particularly around Lipson-Divett Streets precinct, which is in close walking distance to the waterfront. The historical value of these buildings has prompted their renovation and reuse for different functions. Shed 26 offers a critical connectivity to these buildings and the inner harbour. Left remaining along the inner harbour is Harts Mill, the first slipway situated close to Shed 26 and Shed 26. It should not be forgotten how these three structures have connections not only to the state but to the rest of the wold. It is these three structures that make the inner harbour unique, and the ongoing redevelopment of the waterfront a point of difference to other national and international examples of renovation and revitalisation.
Comment:
Anthony Coupe, Semaphore resident and architect
What is going on here is the loss of potential: Potential to create something special that reflects the identity of the Place. If this is demolished, it’s gone forever. It will not be replaced: The resonance of all that activity, the community of work and the symbol of association will be lost. We will have generic apartment buildings. And while I acknowledge that we have to have population to make things happen, there are so many past examples, lessons, case studies and just reasonable thinking available that point to the fact that re-developing these types of places is much more successful in the long term.
The number 1 rule of any post-industrial waterfront development is to retain everything unless it absolutely must go – not the other way around. There’s a fundamental problem here that ‘heritage’ - whatever that is, is portrayed as the cause of development stagnation. It is simply not true. It is used as an excuse because of the way the projects are conceived in the first place. Shed 26 has been empty for years because of the process of divesting the land and the previously failed development – a developer problem not a heritage problem or a community problem. Further to this, the whole way we develop urban spaces is flawed: this should be a story driven process, not a financially driven one.
One of the reasons for demolition being put forward by Cedar Woods is that it’s too costly to ‘bring up to code.’ I would suggest that it’s a naive misunderstanding to think about this structure merely as a ‘building.’ If it was thought about properly, there are many ways this could be considered. I have always thought about this as more of a large landscape envelope than a simple building and should be treated as such. We know the roof is asbestos and the walls are poorly constructed, and that won’t wash with some types of development but that is beside the point; it could be built around in, under, and as is demonstrated at Tonsley, providing a more resonant and successful outcome. Again, we know that this was not an easy process and slow to take off, but the rewards are emerging. I acknowledge also that the development of a place in this way is complicated and expensive. But it shouldn’t be driven totally by the short-term financial outcome. That thinking is totally absurd. And If developers are not able to deal with this in a reasonable way, they shouldn’t have taken it on; or they should give it back, not simply wipe it out.
Anthony Coupe, Semaphore resident and architect
What is going on here is the loss of potential: Potential to create something special that reflects the identity of the Place. If this is demolished, it’s gone forever. It will not be replaced: The resonance of all that activity, the community of work and the symbol of association will be lost. We will have generic apartment buildings. And while I acknowledge that we have to have population to make things happen, there are so many past examples, lessons, case studies and just reasonable thinking available that point to the fact that re-developing these types of places is much more successful in the long term.
The number 1 rule of any post-industrial waterfront development is to retain everything unless it absolutely must go – not the other way around. There’s a fundamental problem here that ‘heritage’ - whatever that is, is portrayed as the cause of development stagnation. It is simply not true. It is used as an excuse because of the way the projects are conceived in the first place. Shed 26 has been empty for years because of the process of divesting the land and the previously failed development – a developer problem not a heritage problem or a community problem. Further to this, the whole way we develop urban spaces is flawed: this should be a story driven process, not a financially driven one.
One of the reasons for demolition being put forward by Cedar Woods is that it’s too costly to ‘bring up to code.’ I would suggest that it’s a naive misunderstanding to think about this structure merely as a ‘building.’ If it was thought about properly, there are many ways this could be considered. I have always thought about this as more of a large landscape envelope than a simple building and should be treated as such. We know the roof is asbestos and the walls are poorly constructed, and that won’t wash with some types of development but that is beside the point; it could be built around in, under, and as is demonstrated at Tonsley, providing a more resonant and successful outcome. Again, we know that this was not an easy process and slow to take off, but the rewards are emerging. I acknowledge also that the development of a place in this way is complicated and expensive. But it shouldn’t be driven totally by the short-term financial outcome. That thinking is totally absurd. And If developers are not able to deal with this in a reasonable way, they shouldn’t have taken it on; or they should give it back, not simply wipe it out.
Comment
Ronald Brown on Facebook
My father was a welder in the ship yard 1966-72. I attended many ship launches through that time. What annoys me is the lack of historical appreciation for this building, as it stands as a reminder for all the ship builders and their families who helped shape the direction of Port Adelaide's future with their skills and to some their lives.
Ronald Brown on Facebook
My father was a welder in the ship yard 1966-72. I attended many ship launches through that time. What annoys me is the lack of historical appreciation for this building, as it stands as a reminder for all the ship builders and their families who helped shape the direction of Port Adelaide's future with their skills and to some their lives.
Letter:
From Mark Butler, Federal Member for Port Adelaide, to Mr William Hames, Chair of Cedar Woods
From Mark Butler, Federal Member for Port Adelaide, to Mr William Hames, Chair of Cedar Woods
From a submission to Planning and Development, DPTI, 12th Oct 2018
Kirsteen Mackay, South Australian Government Architect, Office of Design + Architecture
"I request further clarification in due course of the intended outcome for the existing Shed 26. I remain of the view as expressed in the Design Review session, that the retention of Shed 26 presents an opportunity to celebrate the site's history, and I encourage ongoing investigations into retention and reuse of the building"
Kirsteen Mackay, South Australian Government Architect, Office of Design + Architecture
"I request further clarification in due course of the intended outcome for the existing Shed 26. I remain of the view as expressed in the Design Review session, that the retention of Shed 26 presents an opportunity to celebrate the site's history, and I encourage ongoing investigations into retention and reuse of the building"
Letter:
From Cath Duncan, former member of the Premier's Steering Committee for the redevelopment of Port Adelaide, to Cedar Woods
As a member of the (then) Premier’s Steering Committee for the redevelopment of Port Adelaide and past member of Adelaide Metro Regional Development Board (Federal), I’m writing to express my concern and incredible disappointment that both Shed 26 and the Port Sailing Club are not to be retained and incorporated into the Fletcher’s Slip development.
These 2 buildings are local assets that define the culture of our Port and denote its important history of trade and recreation to the settler people of South Australia. Over a decade of formal and informal feedback to Government, Council and Developers has left no doubt whatsoever that our community has a pro-development stance but expects development along the river to be imaginative, reflective of the history of Our Port Adelaide and to, architecturally, reflect the old and the new. I draw your attention to the First Principles of the Port Precinct Plan that was formally signed off in 2013 and published in January 2014.
1. A “living port” that celebrates its maritime past as well as a future that embraces new ideas, innovation and development – a melting pot of historic quality and newfound confidence.
2. Achieve urban renewal in the various precincts in a manner that does not sanitise the Port’s character, but rather, builds on it, reinterprets it, and reinforces it.
3. Creatively regenerate its inner harbour and water’s edge with new buildings and spaces of a human scale.
4. Focus upon the historic precincts and heritage of Port Adelaide with the development of active “main streets”.
5. Realise the Port’s potential for pedestrian friendly and inspirational spaces to explore, savour and enjoy, that will allow locals and visitors alike to soak up the unique atmosphere.
6. Emphasise environmental sustainability in all future activity to undo past negative impacts and enhance future environmental outcomes.
7. Respect the cultural beliefs and existence of Aboriginal people and the values they share.
"Port Adelaide will be a living port that celebrates its maritime past as well as a future that embraces new ideas, innovation and development — a melting pot of historic quality and newfound confidence."
The urban narrative of the role and function of Port Adelaide’s inner reach will be decimated with the loss of Shed 26 and The Port Adelaide Sailing Club buildings.
I ask for more from Cedar Woods’ brand reputation for "thoughtfulness of its designs, and the creation of dynamic communities that meet the evolving needs of its customers” and trust that these buildings will be retained and imaginatively incorporated into the urban design for Fletcher’s Slip.
From Cath Duncan, former member of the Premier's Steering Committee for the redevelopment of Port Adelaide, to Cedar Woods
As a member of the (then) Premier’s Steering Committee for the redevelopment of Port Adelaide and past member of Adelaide Metro Regional Development Board (Federal), I’m writing to express my concern and incredible disappointment that both Shed 26 and the Port Sailing Club are not to be retained and incorporated into the Fletcher’s Slip development.
These 2 buildings are local assets that define the culture of our Port and denote its important history of trade and recreation to the settler people of South Australia. Over a decade of formal and informal feedback to Government, Council and Developers has left no doubt whatsoever that our community has a pro-development stance but expects development along the river to be imaginative, reflective of the history of Our Port Adelaide and to, architecturally, reflect the old and the new. I draw your attention to the First Principles of the Port Precinct Plan that was formally signed off in 2013 and published in January 2014.
1. A “living port” that celebrates its maritime past as well as a future that embraces new ideas, innovation and development – a melting pot of historic quality and newfound confidence.
2. Achieve urban renewal in the various precincts in a manner that does not sanitise the Port’s character, but rather, builds on it, reinterprets it, and reinforces it.
3. Creatively regenerate its inner harbour and water’s edge with new buildings and spaces of a human scale.
4. Focus upon the historic precincts and heritage of Port Adelaide with the development of active “main streets”.
5. Realise the Port’s potential for pedestrian friendly and inspirational spaces to explore, savour and enjoy, that will allow locals and visitors alike to soak up the unique atmosphere.
6. Emphasise environmental sustainability in all future activity to undo past negative impacts and enhance future environmental outcomes.
7. Respect the cultural beliefs and existence of Aboriginal people and the values they share.
"Port Adelaide will be a living port that celebrates its maritime past as well as a future that embraces new ideas, innovation and development — a melting pot of historic quality and newfound confidence."
The urban narrative of the role and function of Port Adelaide’s inner reach will be decimated with the loss of Shed 26 and The Port Adelaide Sailing Club buildings.
I ask for more from Cedar Woods’ brand reputation for "thoughtfulness of its designs, and the creation of dynamic communities that meet the evolving needs of its customers” and trust that these buildings will be retained and imaginatively incorporated into the urban design for Fletcher’s Slip.
Letter
Dr Susan Close, Member for Port Adelaide, to the Hon Stehan Knolls, Minister for Planning, 12/12/18.
Dr Susan Close, Member for Port Adelaide, to the Hon Stehan Knolls, Minister for Planning, 12/12/18.
Policy:
Excerpt from The Port Adelaide Enfield Development Plan (2018) concerning Shed 26. (page 367)
Port Adelaide Enfield Council
Zone Section
Regional Centre Zone
North West Policy Area 45
DESIRED CHARACTER
The remaining ‘saw tooth’ building west of Fletcher’s Slip provides a short term opportunity for dry boat storage and/or recreational use and possible longer term loft apartments and/or cultural use.
FORM AND CHARACTER
3 Development should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for the policy area.
Excerpt from The Port Adelaide Enfield Development Plan (2018) concerning Shed 26. (page 367)
Port Adelaide Enfield Council
Zone Section
Regional Centre Zone
North West Policy Area 45
DESIRED CHARACTER
The remaining ‘saw tooth’ building west of Fletcher’s Slip provides a short term opportunity for dry boat storage and/or recreational use and possible longer term loft apartments and/or cultural use.
FORM AND CHARACTER
3 Development should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for the policy area.
Comment:
Hugo Keene on Facebook
We all have a stake in our cities and wanting to save unique old buildings is not emotion over good sense, in fact it's quite the opposite. The last thing we need is a slab of more of the housing we see springing up all over the city. There is enough of that already across the city and plenty of space for them to build them without demolishing the remaining scraps of the industrial heritage of the Port.
All over the world you can point to cities where heritage buildings like this are being intelligently reused to enormous success and in some cases being the centre pieces of regeneration efforts (Rotterdam, Lisbon, London, Berlin, the list goes on and on). It's unfortunate that there are attitudes to the past like this where people don't understand the value and importance of the layering that exists when intelligent regeneration occurs. Advocating bulldozing something because you think that what's going to replace it is automatically going to be fantastic, shows a critical lack of understanding of the history of post industrial development. The fact that the developer is already reneging on parts of the sale agreement gives you a hint to their intentions and likely outcome. unicorns anyone?
Hugo Keene on Facebook
We all have a stake in our cities and wanting to save unique old buildings is not emotion over good sense, in fact it's quite the opposite. The last thing we need is a slab of more of the housing we see springing up all over the city. There is enough of that already across the city and plenty of space for them to build them without demolishing the remaining scraps of the industrial heritage of the Port.
All over the world you can point to cities where heritage buildings like this are being intelligently reused to enormous success and in some cases being the centre pieces of regeneration efforts (Rotterdam, Lisbon, London, Berlin, the list goes on and on). It's unfortunate that there are attitudes to the past like this where people don't understand the value and importance of the layering that exists when intelligent regeneration occurs. Advocating bulldozing something because you think that what's going to replace it is automatically going to be fantastic, shows a critical lack of understanding of the history of post industrial development. The fact that the developer is already reneging on parts of the sale agreement gives you a hint to their intentions and likely outcome. unicorns anyone?
Letter:
Peter Bicknell, Semaphore, Former Chair of the Premier’s Port Adelaide Redevelopment Steering Committee, to Cedar Woods
Having chaired the Premier’s Port Adelaide Redevelopment Steering Committee I find it extremely frustrating that the recently announced proposals to demolish shed 26 and the old Port Sailing Club are contrary to the principles of the Precinct Plan and the clearly expressed views of the Port Adelaide community.
As the developer you now cite the expense of renewing these two particular sites as the reason for their demolition however, I understand you undertook the redevelopment of the area under the general value proposition that heritage, although sometimes expensive, would be given priority and funded as part of the overall package whereby the developer has the wonderful opportunity of promoting/marketing the total site within which such buildings enhance the value of this heritage location.
Indeed, marketing under the title “Fletcher's slip” implies the identification of this precinct with local heritage.
Having secured the rights to develop this area Cedar Woods have now apparently stepped away from this understanding, contradicted earlier drawings of the precinct which included shed 26 and gone for the maximum profit proposition with little regard for culture or heritage.
Peter Bicknell, Semaphore, Former Chair of the Premier’s Port Adelaide Redevelopment Steering Committee, to Cedar Woods
Having chaired the Premier’s Port Adelaide Redevelopment Steering Committee I find it extremely frustrating that the recently announced proposals to demolish shed 26 and the old Port Sailing Club are contrary to the principles of the Precinct Plan and the clearly expressed views of the Port Adelaide community.
As the developer you now cite the expense of renewing these two particular sites as the reason for their demolition however, I understand you undertook the redevelopment of the area under the general value proposition that heritage, although sometimes expensive, would be given priority and funded as part of the overall package whereby the developer has the wonderful opportunity of promoting/marketing the total site within which such buildings enhance the value of this heritage location.
Indeed, marketing under the title “Fletcher's slip” implies the identification of this precinct with local heritage.
Having secured the rights to develop this area Cedar Woods have now apparently stepped away from this understanding, contradicted earlier drawings of the precinct which included shed 26 and gone for the maximum profit proposition with little regard for culture or heritage.
Letter:
Susan Close, State Member for Port Adelaide to the Hon Stephan Knoll MP, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure & Local Government
(Letter dated 21.09.2018, there has been no reply, when/if one is received then we will put it up here, after gaining the necessary permissions)
Susan Close, State Member for Port Adelaide to the Hon Stephan Knoll MP, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure & Local Government
(Letter dated 21.09.2018, there has been no reply, when/if one is received then we will put it up here, after gaining the necessary permissions)
Comment:
Lesley Richmond, Port resident, on Facebook
There are only a few waterfront buildings left in the Port that directly relate to its working maritime past, including Shed 1/Fisherman's Market, which is scheduled for demolition and "development", and Shed 26, which is now scheduled for demolition and "development". Once they are gone, that remnant touchable history and its visual presence in our landscape is gone and irretrievable. From then on, all that is left is likely another cut and paste waterfront development that could be anywhere.
Also lost will be a once only opportunity to develop a multi-use space that would organically link activity and foot traffic between the north and south inner harbour over the Birkenhead bridge and provide an actual local pole of community activity for Ethelton, Birkenhead, and Glanville that doesn't currently exist.
Other cities in Australia and around the world have generated great social and/or commercial value out of adaptively repurposing similar sites. Surely the capital of the "Festival State", that wants to lean so heavily on culture and creativity for its self image and public face, should have the imagination to see the cultural importance and potential of this site instead of just dollar signs.
Lesley Richmond, Port resident, on Facebook
There are only a few waterfront buildings left in the Port that directly relate to its working maritime past, including Shed 1/Fisherman's Market, which is scheduled for demolition and "development", and Shed 26, which is now scheduled for demolition and "development". Once they are gone, that remnant touchable history and its visual presence in our landscape is gone and irretrievable. From then on, all that is left is likely another cut and paste waterfront development that could be anywhere.
Also lost will be a once only opportunity to develop a multi-use space that would organically link activity and foot traffic between the north and south inner harbour over the Birkenhead bridge and provide an actual local pole of community activity for Ethelton, Birkenhead, and Glanville that doesn't currently exist.
Other cities in Australia and around the world have generated great social and/or commercial value out of adaptively repurposing similar sites. Surely the capital of the "Festival State", that wants to lean so heavily on culture and creativity for its self image and public face, should have the imagination to see the cultural importance and potential of this site instead of just dollar signs.
Letter:
From David Wilkins, Councillor for Semaphore Ward, PAEC to Stephen Knoll, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government
From David Wilkins, Councillor for Semaphore Ward, PAEC to Stephen Knoll, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government
Comment:
Cathryn Charnock on Facebook
Not good...not progresive...not respectful of the past...not respectful of the future...not intelligent...not innovative...not thoughtful...not any of the things that this could be. Retaining Shed 26 and adding some of these ingredients would go a long way to RENEWING ADELAIDE.
Please … STRIVE FOR SOMETHING BETTER…. This could still be a GOOD decision.
Cathryn Charnock on Facebook
Not good...not progresive...not respectful of the past...not respectful of the future...not intelligent...not innovative...not thoughtful...not any of the things that this could be. Retaining Shed 26 and adding some of these ingredients would go a long way to RENEWING ADELAIDE.
Please … STRIVE FOR SOMETHING BETTER…. This could still be a GOOD decision.
Letter:
From Alison Hastings, founding committee member of the Port of Adelaide National Trust to Mr William G Hames, Chairman of Board of Directors, Cedar Woods
RE: Probable demolition of wharf shed (‘Shed 26’) by Cedar Woods
On Le Fevre Peninsula in South Australia, on an inner-harbour bend in the Port River, between the important and historic suburbs of Port Adelaide and seaside Semaphore, on the site of the former 1850s Government Dockyard and alongside the former Graving Dock, stands an enormous and eye-catching structure, the last of Port Adelaide’s iconic saw-tooth-roofed wharf sheds. Visible from many angles on both sides of the River, it stands on land which Cedar Woods Adelaide will be developing for its Fletcher’s Slip project.
Cedar Woods intends to demolish this building shortly because it does not have heritage status.
On the land that Cedar Woods will be developing, stand a number of historic maritime artefacts, including the actual 1850s Fletcher’s Slip and associated buildings, Shed 26, and the former Port Adelaide Sailing Club, founded in 1897. Sadly, Cedar Woods intends to demolish the Sailing Club building too.
Port Adelaide is the last of the Australian capital city ports to be redeveloped. That is a big responsibility for any government and any developer, if reputations for honouring this nation’s industrial history, as well as providing tasteful and appropriate accommodation and viable commercial spaces, are to be considered.
The previous developer in Port Adelaide, the former Land Management Corporation, is widely regarded as not having covered itself in glory with the way in which it bulldozed through historical structures to erect ugly and unsympathetic multi-storey apartments. All of us who love Port Adelaide are hoping for better from Cedar Woods, and the other developer, Starfish, as we have lost significant historical buildings already.
Shed 26 is a 1950s sawtooth shed, with a steel structure in good condition, and with a large gantry inside. It was constructed at a time of expansion of the dockyards, when a number of workshops were built to high international standards. It closed about 1988.
Arguments for a demolition of Shed 26 seem to include the matter of asbestos, but that is not credible, because the asbestos will need to be removed whether the structure is demolished or saved. Cost is another argument – but has Cedar Woods given consideration to the benefits of the adaptive retention of such a large and dramatic structure in such a significant spot? One of the ironies of development so far in Port Adelaide is the promotional material of developers attempting to attract people to this area on the basis of its heritage, whilst simultaneously demolishing that heritage to make way for apartments……
Shed 26 could be repurposed for cultural, commercial or residential outcomes, given its significant size and presence in the landscape and I note from the Cedar Woods website that a number of your practices and aspirations would fit with the adaptive re-use of an historically-important and attractive building:
As an activation of these community priorities, the Port of Adelaide Branch of the National Trust, one of the Trust’s largest and most active advocacy branches, took steps to gather the input of internationally famous architect Professor Robert Morris-Nunn, who is responsible for the adaptive reuse of many of Hobart’s historic buildings, and award-winning local landscape architect firms, Mulloway Studio, which was also responsible for the comprehensive 2010 Cultural Mapping and Survey of the Port Adelaide Waterfront. The Branch and other concerned citizens have also studied the recent development in Adelaide’s southern suburbs of the huge former Mitsubishi site at Tonsley, which successfully retained and adapted a huge steel-framed structure many times larger than Shed 26. (On Mulloway Studio’s website, is its extensive ‘Shed 26 – An Industrial Jewel Box. Adaptation Concept’).
Has Cedar Woods considered the suggestions and successes of such eminent experts? If Cedar Woods cannot be mindful of place, and summons the imagination to advantageously incorporate Shed 26 into its Fletcher’s Slip development, it would have been better for our State government to sequester Shed 26 from the Cedar Woods site and seek another developer for the building, so I ask that your company consider its responsibility for the fate of this important piece of State maritime history and the opportunity to incorporate it maximally into the Fletcher’s Slip development.
From Alison Hastings, founding committee member of the Port of Adelaide National Trust to Mr William G Hames, Chairman of Board of Directors, Cedar Woods
RE: Probable demolition of wharf shed (‘Shed 26’) by Cedar Woods
On Le Fevre Peninsula in South Australia, on an inner-harbour bend in the Port River, between the important and historic suburbs of Port Adelaide and seaside Semaphore, on the site of the former 1850s Government Dockyard and alongside the former Graving Dock, stands an enormous and eye-catching structure, the last of Port Adelaide’s iconic saw-tooth-roofed wharf sheds. Visible from many angles on both sides of the River, it stands on land which Cedar Woods Adelaide will be developing for its Fletcher’s Slip project.
Cedar Woods intends to demolish this building shortly because it does not have heritage status.
On the land that Cedar Woods will be developing, stand a number of historic maritime artefacts, including the actual 1850s Fletcher’s Slip and associated buildings, Shed 26, and the former Port Adelaide Sailing Club, founded in 1897. Sadly, Cedar Woods intends to demolish the Sailing Club building too.
Port Adelaide is the last of the Australian capital city ports to be redeveloped. That is a big responsibility for any government and any developer, if reputations for honouring this nation’s industrial history, as well as providing tasteful and appropriate accommodation and viable commercial spaces, are to be considered.
The previous developer in Port Adelaide, the former Land Management Corporation, is widely regarded as not having covered itself in glory with the way in which it bulldozed through historical structures to erect ugly and unsympathetic multi-storey apartments. All of us who love Port Adelaide are hoping for better from Cedar Woods, and the other developer, Starfish, as we have lost significant historical buildings already.
Shed 26 is a 1950s sawtooth shed, with a steel structure in good condition, and with a large gantry inside. It was constructed at a time of expansion of the dockyards, when a number of workshops were built to high international standards. It closed about 1988.
Arguments for a demolition of Shed 26 seem to include the matter of asbestos, but that is not credible, because the asbestos will need to be removed whether the structure is demolished or saved. Cost is another argument – but has Cedar Woods given consideration to the benefits of the adaptive retention of such a large and dramatic structure in such a significant spot? One of the ironies of development so far in Port Adelaide is the promotional material of developers attempting to attract people to this area on the basis of its heritage, whilst simultaneously demolishing that heritage to make way for apartments……
Shed 26 could be repurposed for cultural, commercial or residential outcomes, given its significant size and presence in the landscape and I note from the Cedar Woods website that a number of your practices and aspirations would fit with the adaptive re-use of an historically-important and attractive building:
- ‘We are proud of our reputation for being a responsible developer and we continue to look for opportunities to reduce our footprint, save on energy…’. Surely retaining the embedded energy in such a large structure would fit with your intentions?
- ‘(P)reserving Indigenous and European history is a top priority…and (W)e undertake detailed assessments to ensure heritage elements are retained.’ Not only is our area rich in Kaurna living history but by the 1950s Port Adelaide was the third busiest port in the nation, with many current families on Le Fevre Peninsula having a long history of involvement in early colonial shipping and more recent port activities.
As an activation of these community priorities, the Port of Adelaide Branch of the National Trust, one of the Trust’s largest and most active advocacy branches, took steps to gather the input of internationally famous architect Professor Robert Morris-Nunn, who is responsible for the adaptive reuse of many of Hobart’s historic buildings, and award-winning local landscape architect firms, Mulloway Studio, which was also responsible for the comprehensive 2010 Cultural Mapping and Survey of the Port Adelaide Waterfront. The Branch and other concerned citizens have also studied the recent development in Adelaide’s southern suburbs of the huge former Mitsubishi site at Tonsley, which successfully retained and adapted a huge steel-framed structure many times larger than Shed 26. (On Mulloway Studio’s website, is its extensive ‘Shed 26 – An Industrial Jewel Box. Adaptation Concept’).
Has Cedar Woods considered the suggestions and successes of such eminent experts? If Cedar Woods cannot be mindful of place, and summons the imagination to advantageously incorporate Shed 26 into its Fletcher’s Slip development, it would have been better for our State government to sequester Shed 26 from the Cedar Woods site and seek another developer for the building, so I ask that your company consider its responsibility for the fate of this important piece of State maritime history and the opportunity to incorporate it maximally into the Fletcher’s Slip development.
Minutes:
Port Adelaide Enfield Council from Council meeting held on 27th of November.
ITEM 16.1 HISTORIC BUILDING USE
Cr. Hartog moved that the City of Port Adelaide Enfield Council write to Minister Knoll, Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, that we would like to remind the Minister of Council’s policy to retain and seek adaptive reuse for historic and/or significant buildings within the Port Adelaide precinct.
Cr. Vines seconded
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Port Adelaide Enfield Council from Council meeting held on 27th of November.
ITEM 16.1 HISTORIC BUILDING USE
Cr. Hartog moved that the City of Port Adelaide Enfield Council write to Minister Knoll, Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, that we would like to remind the Minister of Council’s policy to retain and seek adaptive reuse for historic and/or significant buildings within the Port Adelaide precinct.
Cr. Vines seconded
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Comment:
Greg Williams on Facebook
I see from left to right....Electrician's, fitter/machinists, Boilermakers/ welders workshops. People these days tend to forget that this was a working Port, most people that lived on the peninsula, worked on the peninsula, I for one think this 'derelict shed' should be given a new lease of life and utilised like plant 4 at Bowden. Not knocked down so a crap looking apartment complex with executive penthouses on the top level take its place and take even more of our port away !!
Greg Williams on Facebook
I see from left to right....Electrician's, fitter/machinists, Boilermakers/ welders workshops. People these days tend to forget that this was a working Port, most people that lived on the peninsula, worked on the peninsula, I for one think this 'derelict shed' should be given a new lease of life and utilised like plant 4 at Bowden. Not knocked down so a crap looking apartment complex with executive penthouses on the top level take its place and take even more of our port away !!
Comment:
Eddie Knight on Facebook
Of course the more apartments that are built the more money the government/council reaps in taxes. Apparently Gallery Yampu is slated for demolition sometime in the next couple of years - surely the government should be looking after the cultural facilities that improve the lives of their current constituents, rather than going hell for leather to fill the place with new residents at all costs. If there is nothing to do then the place becomes an incubator for all manner of social problems.
Eddie Knight on Facebook
Of course the more apartments that are built the more money the government/council reaps in taxes. Apparently Gallery Yampu is slated for demolition sometime in the next couple of years - surely the government should be looking after the cultural facilities that improve the lives of their current constituents, rather than going hell for leather to fill the place with new residents at all costs. If there is nothing to do then the place becomes an incubator for all manner of social problems.
Comment:
Katherine Driscoll on Facebook
How short sighted of the developers. This could have made a wonderful cafe, market, performance space for the new development with a twist of history about the Port thrown in. The old lantern that was saved at Bowden has been brilliant for the community there.
Katherine Driscoll on Facebook
How short sighted of the developers. This could have made a wonderful cafe, market, performance space for the new development with a twist of history about the Port thrown in. The old lantern that was saved at Bowden has been brilliant for the community there.
Satire:
Back in August 2008, Bryan Dawe and the late John Clarke lent their hand to activism in the Port. Aired on ABC's Clarke and Dawe.
BRYAN DAWE: Pat Conlon, thank you for your time.
JOHN CLARKE: Just hang on a minute, Bryan. Hang on.
BRYAN DAWE: What are you doing?
JOHN CLARKE: Hello. I am just going to put Mike Rann and Kevin Foley on speed dial just in case we need a ruling at some point, yeah.
BRYAN DAWE: Don't you make your own decisions?
JOHN CLARKE: Yes, I do.
BRYAN DAWE: Can you give me an example?
JOHN CLARKE: I have just given you an example, Bryan. I've just decided to put Mike Rann and Kevin Rudd on speed dial. Just in case we need a ruling.
BRYAN DAWE: What sort of ruling?
JOHN CLARKE: Presumably, you will ask me about development, I am the Minister for Infrastructure.
BRYAN DAWE: You're the Minister for Development, aren't you?
JOHN CLARKE: No, this is not a Minister for Development in that formal sense. I am the Minister for Infrastructure.
BRYAN DAWE: Who is the Minister for Planning?
JOHN CLARKE: There's a work experience boy around the office may be doing that kind of class of work but you can talk to me because I'm the Minister for Infrastructure and I will talk to these blokes if anything crops up at any moment.
BRYAN DAWE: So the Planning Minister plans development.
JOHN CLARKE: No, the Planning Minister doesn't do the planning. He is just the Planning Minister.
BRYAN DAWE: What does he plan?
JOHN CLARKE: Nothing. Other people plan things and then they submit those plans.
BRYAN DAWE: So what does he do?
JOHN CLARKE: Assesses those plans submitted to him.
BRYAN DAWE: Then he approves them?
JOHN CLARKE: Not always. He will only approve them if they meet our very rigorous planning requirements.
BRYAN DAWE: What are these rigorous planning requirements?
JOHN CLARKE: I have said Port Adelaide needs more shops and taller crap, it's good for South Australia. Those guidelines are very clear.
BRYAN DAWE: Does the Government have the support of the people in Port Adelaide?
JOHN CLARKE: The who?
BRYAN DAWE: The people of Port Adelaide?
JOHN CLARKE: The people? Oh, I'll just check that. (talks on his mobile phone) Hello, Mike? Yeah. We have the people's support? The people in Port Adelaide? I don't know, Bryan seems to be indicating that it does matter.
BRYAN DAWE: Of course it matters, it is a democracy.
JOHN CLARKE: I will tell him. (to Bryan Dawe) The people bloody voted for us that is why the government runs it.
BRYAN DAWE: Coming back to the Port development. Did the Planning Minister reject any applications around that development?
JOHN CLARKE: I can give you an example. Something we rejected in Port Adeladie. This is a proposal to develop the Great Pyramid of Giza into serviced apartments, with cinemas, a nice Imax cinema for the people down there, and a pool canter-levered over the car park. That will not be going ahead.
BRYAN DAWE: You knocked it back?
JOHN CLARKE: Yes, too small and not enough shops it says here. Not enough shops at all.
BRYAN DAWE: What about the suburbs of Adelaide, there is a lot of development going on there?
JOHN CLARKE: Yes, some fine work. You cannot hear yourself think out there. A lot of development, tons of it, fantastic.
BRYAN DAWE: What is the plan with the suburbs?
JOHN CLARKE: We are replacing the suburbs.
BRYAN DAWE: With what?
JOHN CLARKE: We are replacing the suburbs with a series of shopping centres each of which incorporates the name of the suburb that used to be there before we put the shopping centre in.
BRYAN DAWE: Like North Adelaide Towers, Ikea?
JOHN CLARKE: Yes, excellent example.
BRYAN DAWE: Isn't Ikea a shop?
JOHN CLARKE: Yes, it is now, Bryan. Yeah, yeah.
BRYAN DAWE: What was it called before?
JOHN CLARKE: Burnside. Used to be called Burnside.
BRYAN DAWE: Aren't a lot of these shops going to go broke?
JOHN CLARKE: Not in my department, I am the Minister for Infrastructure, I do not worry about the poor buggers that go into the shops, up to them really. (laughs)
BRYAN DAWE: Mr Conlon thank you very much for your time.
JOHN CLARKE: My pleasure. Give us that, and I will sign that for you.
BRYAN DAWE: What?
JOHN CLARKE: That piece of paper. Then you put your application above it and that will constitute approval. That will be your development application for your shopping centre.
BRYAN DAWE: But I don't have a plan for a shopping development.
JOHN CLARKE: Well bloody give it to someone who has, Bryan, waste not want not, son. Opportunity, seize it.
BRYAN DAWE: Thanks for your time.
Back in August 2008, Bryan Dawe and the late John Clarke lent their hand to activism in the Port. Aired on ABC's Clarke and Dawe.
BRYAN DAWE: Pat Conlon, thank you for your time.
JOHN CLARKE: Just hang on a minute, Bryan. Hang on.
BRYAN DAWE: What are you doing?
JOHN CLARKE: Hello. I am just going to put Mike Rann and Kevin Foley on speed dial just in case we need a ruling at some point, yeah.
BRYAN DAWE: Don't you make your own decisions?
JOHN CLARKE: Yes, I do.
BRYAN DAWE: Can you give me an example?
JOHN CLARKE: I have just given you an example, Bryan. I've just decided to put Mike Rann and Kevin Rudd on speed dial. Just in case we need a ruling.
BRYAN DAWE: What sort of ruling?
JOHN CLARKE: Presumably, you will ask me about development, I am the Minister for Infrastructure.
BRYAN DAWE: You're the Minister for Development, aren't you?
JOHN CLARKE: No, this is not a Minister for Development in that formal sense. I am the Minister for Infrastructure.
BRYAN DAWE: Who is the Minister for Planning?
JOHN CLARKE: There's a work experience boy around the office may be doing that kind of class of work but you can talk to me because I'm the Minister for Infrastructure and I will talk to these blokes if anything crops up at any moment.
BRYAN DAWE: So the Planning Minister plans development.
JOHN CLARKE: No, the Planning Minister doesn't do the planning. He is just the Planning Minister.
BRYAN DAWE: What does he plan?
JOHN CLARKE: Nothing. Other people plan things and then they submit those plans.
BRYAN DAWE: So what does he do?
JOHN CLARKE: Assesses those plans submitted to him.
BRYAN DAWE: Then he approves them?
JOHN CLARKE: Not always. He will only approve them if they meet our very rigorous planning requirements.
BRYAN DAWE: What are these rigorous planning requirements?
JOHN CLARKE: I have said Port Adelaide needs more shops and taller crap, it's good for South Australia. Those guidelines are very clear.
BRYAN DAWE: Does the Government have the support of the people in Port Adelaide?
JOHN CLARKE: The who?
BRYAN DAWE: The people of Port Adelaide?
JOHN CLARKE: The people? Oh, I'll just check that. (talks on his mobile phone) Hello, Mike? Yeah. We have the people's support? The people in Port Adelaide? I don't know, Bryan seems to be indicating that it does matter.
BRYAN DAWE: Of course it matters, it is a democracy.
JOHN CLARKE: I will tell him. (to Bryan Dawe) The people bloody voted for us that is why the government runs it.
BRYAN DAWE: Coming back to the Port development. Did the Planning Minister reject any applications around that development?
JOHN CLARKE: I can give you an example. Something we rejected in Port Adeladie. This is a proposal to develop the Great Pyramid of Giza into serviced apartments, with cinemas, a nice Imax cinema for the people down there, and a pool canter-levered over the car park. That will not be going ahead.
BRYAN DAWE: You knocked it back?
JOHN CLARKE: Yes, too small and not enough shops it says here. Not enough shops at all.
BRYAN DAWE: What about the suburbs of Adelaide, there is a lot of development going on there?
JOHN CLARKE: Yes, some fine work. You cannot hear yourself think out there. A lot of development, tons of it, fantastic.
BRYAN DAWE: What is the plan with the suburbs?
JOHN CLARKE: We are replacing the suburbs.
BRYAN DAWE: With what?
JOHN CLARKE: We are replacing the suburbs with a series of shopping centres each of which incorporates the name of the suburb that used to be there before we put the shopping centre in.
BRYAN DAWE: Like North Adelaide Towers, Ikea?
JOHN CLARKE: Yes, excellent example.
BRYAN DAWE: Isn't Ikea a shop?
JOHN CLARKE: Yes, it is now, Bryan. Yeah, yeah.
BRYAN DAWE: What was it called before?
JOHN CLARKE: Burnside. Used to be called Burnside.
BRYAN DAWE: Aren't a lot of these shops going to go broke?
JOHN CLARKE: Not in my department, I am the Minister for Infrastructure, I do not worry about the poor buggers that go into the shops, up to them really. (laughs)
BRYAN DAWE: Mr Conlon thank you very much for your time.
JOHN CLARKE: My pleasure. Give us that, and I will sign that for you.
BRYAN DAWE: What?
JOHN CLARKE: That piece of paper. Then you put your application above it and that will constitute approval. That will be your development application for your shopping centre.
BRYAN DAWE: But I don't have a plan for a shopping development.
JOHN CLARKE: Well bloody give it to someone who has, Bryan, waste not want not, son. Opportunity, seize it.
BRYAN DAWE: Thanks for your time.
Comment:
David Sefton, former Artistic Director, Adelaide Festival
There are now so many positive examples of Adaptive Reuse of character buildings that the move to demolish feels like not only an act of civil vandalism but commercially suicidal and woefully out of touch with trends in social reactivation.
From Liverpool to Rotterdam and Brooklyn to Shanghai constructive and intelligent use of old port buildings has led to countless demonstrations of successful urban regeneration.
You need look no further than Hobart for an excellent example of this in action - and for a demonstration of intelligent reuse of industrial spaces you need look no further than Bowden which is a thriving example of what is possible.
This short-sighted and ill-conceived plan must be stopped.
David Sefton, former Artistic Director, Adelaide Festival
There are now so many positive examples of Adaptive Reuse of character buildings that the move to demolish feels like not only an act of civil vandalism but commercially suicidal and woefully out of touch with trends in social reactivation.
From Liverpool to Rotterdam and Brooklyn to Shanghai constructive and intelligent use of old port buildings has led to countless demonstrations of successful urban regeneration.
You need look no further than Hobart for an excellent example of this in action - and for a demonstration of intelligent reuse of industrial spaces you need look no further than Bowden which is a thriving example of what is possible.
This short-sighted and ill-conceived plan must be stopped.
Comment:
Deb Jones, Artist, Exeter
I agree wholeheartedly with David Sefton ‘s comments. There are so many amazing examples of the reuse of old buildings just like shed 26 some of which are in our own hometown of Adelaide. Repurposing Shed 26 would lead to a way more interesting and meaningful development than demolishing it and starting from scratch. It is ridiculous that we have to have this conversation. Come on people.
Deb Jones, Artist, Exeter
I agree wholeheartedly with David Sefton ‘s comments. There are so many amazing examples of the reuse of old buildings just like shed 26 some of which are in our own hometown of Adelaide. Repurposing Shed 26 would lead to a way more interesting and meaningful development than demolishing it and starting from scratch. It is ridiculous that we have to have this conversation. Come on people.
Letter:
From Karen James and Pat Netschitowsky from the Port of Adelaide Branch of the National Trust to
Mr Mark Pivovaroff, Development Director, Cedar Woods Adelaide. Sent on the 19th of October.
We write on behalf of the Port of Adelaide Branch of the National Trust in relation to Cedar Woods proposed residential development in Port Adelaide. We recently attended the Cedar Woods presentation to the North West Business Alliance and were encouraged to hear about your interest in preserving and celebrating the heritage listed buildings, especially the iconic Fletchers Slip, and your commitment to the provision of accessible, affordable and quality housing.
However we were concerned and disappointed to hear that there appears to be no plans to retain and incorporate either the saw tooth building, known as Shed 26 nor the Port Adelaide Sailing Club (Gallery Yampu), no mention of pedestrian/cycling friendly infrastructure and connectivity, no planning for public spaces and greening strategies, and no mixed use functions with small scale retail/commercial – this is likely to mean residents driving to nearby shops for basic essentials. We are aware that there is no doubt more detail behind your plans than was able to be presented and that you may be able to address some of our concerns in due course. By way of background the Port of Adelaide Branch of the National Trust (PoANT) was formed in 2006 to advocate for the protection and celebration of our local heritage in its broadest forms – environmental, Aboriginal, maritime, built forms, landscape, stories and people. Local residents were very concerned at the time about the destruction of the existing inner harbour landscape, the nature of new developments and the seeming disregard for existing community assets.
We strongly support new development in Port Adelaide and believe contemporary urban development and heritage can progress in partnership through good and imaginative planning, integrated urban design and architecture, mixed use functions and sustainability as for example in thoughtful adaptive re-use of buildings and their incorporation into new residential development, supporting walkable and pedestrian friendly public spaces and maximizing greening and cooling opportunities.
We also recognise that it is of fundamental importance that with any new development there remains an identifiable cultural heritage. Without cultural heritage with which people can identify there is a corresponding lack of well-being in communities. Feelings of exclusion lead to powerlessness and unhappiness. A ‘sense of place’ in areas like Port Adelaide is needed in order for people to feel included; it is part of one’s familiarity and continuity in a place and provides a sense of community sustainability. A sense of place engenders and supports public confidence and interest in new residential development – we do not want another New Port Quays type of development. You are no doubt aware that many of the historic buildings in this North West precinct and the adjoining New Port Quays area have been demolished in recent years, including the CSR factory and historic boatyards. Little enough now remains of the industrial and maritime landscape on this section of the Port River. Yet what remains provides strong and cohesive links and a visible industrial/maritime landscape between the Glanville Dockyards (formerly the Government Dockyard) on which Shed 26 stands and the surrounding precincts. Other structures instrumental to the Glanville Dockyards operations have already been dismantled. The attached brief overview lays out something of the strong historical and industrial connections that have existed throughout European occupation of this section of the Port River most notably, perhaps between the Fletcher’s ‘Haven’ Precinct and the Glanville Dockyards Precinct. It is this sense of industrial connectivity that is central to the true character of the Port and reflects the aspirations of the Port Adelaide Precinct Plan 2014 of ‘strong connectivity and integration with designated precincts” (2014: 1.1).
Further, among the key objectives of the Port Adelaide Precinct Plan include the vision “to manifest as physical form, the desires of key stakeholders and the community” (1.2) expressed during the ‘Community Open Day’ event held in October 2012. This is why PoANT has advocated for a number of years now for the retention of Shed 26 as one of the remaining vestiges of the Port Adelaide Inner Harbour and of the work practices carried out there and nearby. For us, Shed 26 is also a key landmark building that makes sense of the link, not just between inner harbour precincts, but also between Port Adelaide and nearby suburbs and their shared sense of history. Many local artists have used the unique shape of Shed 26 in photographs, on pottery and on canvas to convey the shape, presence and historic connection to place that it evokes. Also, for the on-looker gazing across the Port River towards Harts Mill from the corner of Semaphore Road and The Causeway Road, Shed 26 makes a strong visual connection that makes sense of the view. This vantage also holds true when looking from Hart’s Mill back across the Port River.
In recent years a strong partnership has developed between Renewal SA, the City of Port Adelaide Enfield and local community organisations with heritage assets being centre stage for redevelopment. There are many examples that showcase this, such as Harts Mill, Winterfest, the Port Admiral Hotel (new private investment in historic buildings), the recently sold Globe Hotel, Pirate Life brewery and the City of Port Adelaide Enfield’s restoration of historic buildings and leasing to community organisations. Further afield Plant 4 at Bowden is capturing people’s imaginations and at Tonsley we have the repurposing of the Mitsubishi factory and recent plans announced for the Boiler House to be revamped for eateries, a brew house, wine bar and more. These initiatives are supporting new purpose built residential development within an integrated planning paradigm.
We hope you give consideration to the issues we have raised and urge you to retain Shed 26 and the Port Adelaide Sailing Club as part of your overall plan for the area. We are most happy to meet with you and your team at any stage and we are also interested to support the proposed archaeological dig on Fletchers Slip and its future restoration and celebration.
From Karen James and Pat Netschitowsky from the Port of Adelaide Branch of the National Trust to
Mr Mark Pivovaroff, Development Director, Cedar Woods Adelaide. Sent on the 19th of October.
We write on behalf of the Port of Adelaide Branch of the National Trust in relation to Cedar Woods proposed residential development in Port Adelaide. We recently attended the Cedar Woods presentation to the North West Business Alliance and were encouraged to hear about your interest in preserving and celebrating the heritage listed buildings, especially the iconic Fletchers Slip, and your commitment to the provision of accessible, affordable and quality housing.
However we were concerned and disappointed to hear that there appears to be no plans to retain and incorporate either the saw tooth building, known as Shed 26 nor the Port Adelaide Sailing Club (Gallery Yampu), no mention of pedestrian/cycling friendly infrastructure and connectivity, no planning for public spaces and greening strategies, and no mixed use functions with small scale retail/commercial – this is likely to mean residents driving to nearby shops for basic essentials. We are aware that there is no doubt more detail behind your plans than was able to be presented and that you may be able to address some of our concerns in due course. By way of background the Port of Adelaide Branch of the National Trust (PoANT) was formed in 2006 to advocate for the protection and celebration of our local heritage in its broadest forms – environmental, Aboriginal, maritime, built forms, landscape, stories and people. Local residents were very concerned at the time about the destruction of the existing inner harbour landscape, the nature of new developments and the seeming disregard for existing community assets.
We strongly support new development in Port Adelaide and believe contemporary urban development and heritage can progress in partnership through good and imaginative planning, integrated urban design and architecture, mixed use functions and sustainability as for example in thoughtful adaptive re-use of buildings and their incorporation into new residential development, supporting walkable and pedestrian friendly public spaces and maximizing greening and cooling opportunities.
We also recognise that it is of fundamental importance that with any new development there remains an identifiable cultural heritage. Without cultural heritage with which people can identify there is a corresponding lack of well-being in communities. Feelings of exclusion lead to powerlessness and unhappiness. A ‘sense of place’ in areas like Port Adelaide is needed in order for people to feel included; it is part of one’s familiarity and continuity in a place and provides a sense of community sustainability. A sense of place engenders and supports public confidence and interest in new residential development – we do not want another New Port Quays type of development. You are no doubt aware that many of the historic buildings in this North West precinct and the adjoining New Port Quays area have been demolished in recent years, including the CSR factory and historic boatyards. Little enough now remains of the industrial and maritime landscape on this section of the Port River. Yet what remains provides strong and cohesive links and a visible industrial/maritime landscape between the Glanville Dockyards (formerly the Government Dockyard) on which Shed 26 stands and the surrounding precincts. Other structures instrumental to the Glanville Dockyards operations have already been dismantled. The attached brief overview lays out something of the strong historical and industrial connections that have existed throughout European occupation of this section of the Port River most notably, perhaps between the Fletcher’s ‘Haven’ Precinct and the Glanville Dockyards Precinct. It is this sense of industrial connectivity that is central to the true character of the Port and reflects the aspirations of the Port Adelaide Precinct Plan 2014 of ‘strong connectivity and integration with designated precincts” (2014: 1.1).
Further, among the key objectives of the Port Adelaide Precinct Plan include the vision “to manifest as physical form, the desires of key stakeholders and the community” (1.2) expressed during the ‘Community Open Day’ event held in October 2012. This is why PoANT has advocated for a number of years now for the retention of Shed 26 as one of the remaining vestiges of the Port Adelaide Inner Harbour and of the work practices carried out there and nearby. For us, Shed 26 is also a key landmark building that makes sense of the link, not just between inner harbour precincts, but also between Port Adelaide and nearby suburbs and their shared sense of history. Many local artists have used the unique shape of Shed 26 in photographs, on pottery and on canvas to convey the shape, presence and historic connection to place that it evokes. Also, for the on-looker gazing across the Port River towards Harts Mill from the corner of Semaphore Road and The Causeway Road, Shed 26 makes a strong visual connection that makes sense of the view. This vantage also holds true when looking from Hart’s Mill back across the Port River.
In recent years a strong partnership has developed between Renewal SA, the City of Port Adelaide Enfield and local community organisations with heritage assets being centre stage for redevelopment. There are many examples that showcase this, such as Harts Mill, Winterfest, the Port Admiral Hotel (new private investment in historic buildings), the recently sold Globe Hotel, Pirate Life brewery and the City of Port Adelaide Enfield’s restoration of historic buildings and leasing to community organisations. Further afield Plant 4 at Bowden is capturing people’s imaginations and at Tonsley we have the repurposing of the Mitsubishi factory and recent plans announced for the Boiler House to be revamped for eateries, a brew house, wine bar and more. These initiatives are supporting new purpose built residential development within an integrated planning paradigm.
We hope you give consideration to the issues we have raised and urge you to retain Shed 26 and the Port Adelaide Sailing Club as part of your overall plan for the area. We are most happy to meet with you and your team at any stage and we are also interested to support the proposed archaeological dig on Fletchers Slip and its future restoration and celebration.
Letter:
Dr Alan O’Connor, resident of Semaphore, founding member of the Port of Adelaide
National Trust, Secretary, Port Adelaide University of the Third Age, to Mr William G Hames, Chairman of Board of Directors, Cedar Woods
I’m writing to express my concern that both Shed 26 and the Port Sailing Club are not to be retained and incorporated into the Fletcher’s Slip development by Cedar Woods. The site of shed 26 in particular is iconic in the Port Adelaide community. The two First Principles of the Port Precinct Plan published in January 2014 state:
1. A “living port” that celebrates its maritime past as well as a future that embraces new ideas, innovation and development – a melting pot of historic quality and newfound confidence.
2. Achieve urban renewal in the various precincts in a manner that does not sanitise the Port’s character, but rather, builds on it, reinterprets it, and reinforces it.
If not here, where else can these principles be acted upon?
As the last of the Australian capital city ports to be redeveloped, surely we should be learning the lessons of other ports in Australia such as Hobart, Fremantle and Sydney. Asbestos will need to be removed however the site is developed. Yes its retention will cost money but as Anthony Coupe states “ What is going on here is the loss of potential: Potential to create something special that reflects the identity of the Place.”
There will come a time soon when we will need to downsize and try to stay in the area. We will not be attracted to a development that does not value the heritage of the local community.
Dr Alan O’Connor, resident of Semaphore, founding member of the Port of Adelaide
National Trust, Secretary, Port Adelaide University of the Third Age, to Mr William G Hames, Chairman of Board of Directors, Cedar Woods
I’m writing to express my concern that both Shed 26 and the Port Sailing Club are not to be retained and incorporated into the Fletcher’s Slip development by Cedar Woods. The site of shed 26 in particular is iconic in the Port Adelaide community. The two First Principles of the Port Precinct Plan published in January 2014 state:
1. A “living port” that celebrates its maritime past as well as a future that embraces new ideas, innovation and development – a melting pot of historic quality and newfound confidence.
2. Achieve urban renewal in the various precincts in a manner that does not sanitise the Port’s character, but rather, builds on it, reinterprets it, and reinforces it.
If not here, where else can these principles be acted upon?
As the last of the Australian capital city ports to be redeveloped, surely we should be learning the lessons of other ports in Australia such as Hobart, Fremantle and Sydney. Asbestos will need to be removed however the site is developed. Yes its retention will cost money but as Anthony Coupe states “ What is going on here is the loss of potential: Potential to create something special that reflects the identity of the Place.”
There will come a time soon when we will need to downsize and try to stay in the area. We will not be attracted to a development that does not value the heritage of the local community.