PlanningAlerts

8 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

1. Demolition of a piece of Goodwood history in the form of 1880 symmetrical cottage. The face of Goodwood is really changing,
   Not for the better. But we don’t have a planning code that protects what little remains of our collective build heritage.

2. Another part of Adelaide’s beautiful face and architecture to be demolished.
   Shame.
   The area is losing too many trees and historical buildings. It needs to stop before it’s too late.
   At the very least the shell or facades should be kept

3. Is there a structural problems with this property? If not then it should retained as cultural. People know when buying that’s not a vacant block

4. If not then they will ensure that there are...the original return veranda villa next door to us was demolished as it was deemed "too expensive to repair".....(note it was in this condition when the new owner's knowingly purchased it).

   When I openly requested at the City of Unley planning meeting, that the quotations for the repairs be presented, we were told "not required" and the meeting promptly moved on (though under the protestations of the heritage planner on the committee).

   So...all they need to do it say "too expensive to repair" and that's that.

   We can see this cottage from our own carefully and extensively renovated cottage - it needs to stay, this is why we live here (this is why we pay the significant premium to pay here), this is probably why the owner's want to love...only they want to look out their (new) windows at our homes.

5. Demolition of a piece of Goodwood history in the form of 1880 symmetrical cottage. The face of Goodwood is really changing,
   Not for the better. But we don’t have a planning code that protects what little remains of our collective build heritage.

6. I too find this so deeply upsetting. I know we all have different perspectives as individuals and there is great strength in that. However I too moved to this beautiful area as I love the old architecture and history, we simply can never replace and agree with others that at least facades and significant features should have to be retained. I would be really interested to know how many local residents agree and/or disagree with allowing such homes to be demolished. As if the number in opposition was great enough surely we could stand as one to protect this stunning historic pocket of Adelaide from being destroyed? Any suggestions on how best to collect such data would be greatly appreciated! In my humble opinion there are so many areas and individual homes with little to no historical or architectural merit and they could be clearly marked as the only properties with potential for development in the older areas of Adelaide. That way we all win.

7. This makes me sad, too. The character of Goodwood is defined by its symmetrical double fronted cottages and single fronted cottages. There is nothing more covetable than a bluestone cottage. Why would anyone want to replace a gorgeous heritage building with yet another soulless box? I have yet to see a new build that could compete with the character, history and beauty of a cottage. These can be sympathetically renovated (if needed). Please save the demolition for a building without heritage character.

8. Demolition sets an uncomfortable precedent for this heritage area. Across Goodwood, heritage needs to be protected otherwise the area will no longer be desirable or valued except for its proximity to the city.