Jamison Inn is Falling Down

agent00 said :

OK, so you are saying the proposed development will look horrible? Just to give you some ideas, these apartments are being done by the same developer who built Space the Residence in Turner, http://www.architecture.com.au/awards_search?option=showaward&entryno=20061007

I actually never gave my opinion on that development’s looks. Personally, I don’t really have too much of a problem with most of the new blocks of flats around nowadays (OK, I agree, Sky plaza is a horror!). I don’t even know what criteria is used to categorise what is and isn’t a ‘souless hole’!
I was actually just speculating a couple of reasons that may be behind developers, in general, not going for the architecture angle….
BTW, your link kinda perfectly illustrates my second point. Apparently Space was an expensive, award-winning design(?), but I’m sure most people commenting here would say the pics in the link you provided show a large, white ‘souless hole’?! But kudos for once again mentioning ‘these apartments are being done by the same developer who built Space the Residence in Turner’. I think that’s about the 10th time that’s been mentioned in a thread about this Jamo development! 🙂
As I said, doesn’t worry me. My place would probably be considered an ugly dog box so who am I to throw stones! Hahahaha!

Are there any good Beer related signs left there?

Need to decorate the home bar.

agent00 said :

dpm said :

What is it with Canberra?

Anything old (oldish or with character) must be bulldozed and replaced with a concrete eyesore.

Concrete eyesores are cheaper and quicker.
Remember, we’re dealing with a bunch of renters who don’t even want insulation in their abodes to raise the price. Do you really think they want to pay any extra costs associated with ‘paying back’ architecturally-designed buildings that have had heaps of money spent on ‘window dressing’ the external look and feel of them?!
Can’t have ot both ways really. Hahahaha!
Then there’s the problem of what you (or I) think is nice architecture may not be to other people’s taste anyway. Take for instance the ApARTments in Acton:
http://www.newacton.com.au/live/the-apartments
That has had a fair bit spent on making it look different and ‘high-class’, yet for every person who thinks it is one of the better apartment buildings, there will be another who hates it! I suppose with all this, the developers of the more mass-produced places figure ‘why bother’? 🙂

OK, so you are saying the proposed development will look horrible? Just to give you some ideas, these apartments are being done by the same developer who built Space the Residence in Turner, http://www.architecture.com.au/awards_search?option=showaward&entryno=20061007

Ps – I’m definitely not working for the developer or selling the apartments in my day job. Love Agent000.

dpm said :

What is it with Canberra?

Anything old (oldish or with character) must be bulldozed and replaced with a concrete eyesore.

Concrete eyesores are cheaper and quicker.
Remember, we’re dealing with a bunch of renters who don’t even want insulation in their abodes to raise the price. Do you really think they want to pay any extra costs associated with ‘paying back’ architecturally-designed buildings that have had heaps of money spent on ‘window dressing’ the external look and feel of them?!
Can’t have ot both ways really. Hahahaha!
Then there’s the problem of what you (or I) think is nice architecture may not be to other people’s taste anyway. Take for instance the ApARTments in Acton:
http://www.newacton.com.au/live/the-apartments
That has had a fair bit spent on making it look different and ‘high-class’, yet for every person who thinks it is one of the better apartment buildings, there will be another who hates it! I suppose with all this, the developers of the more mass-produced places figure ‘why bother’? 🙂

OK, so you are saying the proposed development will look horrible? Just to give you some ideas, these apartments are being done by the same developer who built Space the Residence in Turner, http://www.architecture.com.au/awards_search?option=showaward&entryno=20061007

What is it with Canberra?

Anything old (oldish or with character) must be bulldozed and replaced with a concrete eyesore.

Concrete eyesores are cheaper and quicker.
Remember, we’re dealing with a bunch of renters who don’t even want insulation in their abodes to raise the price. Do you really think they want to pay any extra costs associated with ‘paying back’ architecturally-designed buildings that have had heaps of money spent on ‘window dressing’ the external look and feel of them?!
Can’t have ot both ways really. Hahahaha!
Then there’s the problem of what you (or I) think is nice architecture may not be to other people’s taste anyway. Take for instance the ApARTments in Acton:
http://www.newacton.com.au/live/the-apartments
That has had a fair bit spent on making it look different and ‘high-class’, yet for every person who thinks it is one of the better apartment buildings, there will be another who hates it! I suppose with all this, the developers of the more mass-produced places figure ‘why bother’? 🙂

What is it with Canberra?

Anything old (oldish or with character) must be bulldozed and replaced with a concrete eyesore.

Quite.

I remember wandering past a real estate agent’s window many years ago when Kingston was a beautiful, leafy suburb full of gorgeous old homes. One such was pictured in the window with text saying “Beautiful old Canberra home in magnificent condition. Spacious landscaped private gardens. Ideal site for redevelopment.”

We have met the philistines, and they are us.

agent00 said :

Jethro said :

agent00 said :

The government should fix the parking then by putting underground parking like in Ganghalin. It’s not the developer’s responsibility to cram more parking spaces on-site.

I think it all started out by DeMarco trying to mislead the public in believing that there is insufficient parking. Those who live in the area all know parking can be easily spotted on the north side of the centre.

So… the developers aren’t going to provide enough parking to satisfy the needs of the new tenants (bec ause that would cut into profit margins), so the government should invest in an underground car park for a shopping centre that would otherwise have enough car parks if not for the development.

I like your style.

You should like it. Do you even know how many car spaces are planned? Every two bedroom apartments are given two car spaces and some of the larger one bedrooms even have two car spaces just because DeMarco and Coe fussed about it. Anyway apparently rich men and politicians get to run everything in life these days. They tell you the wrong story and you choose to believe them. What else can I say.

Well if there are going to be enough parks at the new development why are you arguing the government shiuld expand the Jamo carpark wich is more than large enough already?

Jethro said :

agent00 said :

The government should fix the parking then by putting underground parking like in Ganghalin. It’s not the developer’s responsibility to cram more parking spaces on-site.

I think it all started out by DeMarco trying to mislead the public in believing that there is insufficient parking. Those who live in the area all know parking can be easily spotted on the north side of the centre.

So… the developers aren’t going to provide enough parking to satisfy the needs of the new tenants (bec ause that would cut into profit margins), so the government should invest in an underground car park for a shopping centre that would otherwise have enough car parks if not for the development.

I like your style.

You should like it. Do you even know how many car spaces are planned? Every two bedroom apartments are given two car spaces and some of the larger one bedrooms even have two car spaces just because DeMarco and Coe fussed about it. Anyway apparently rich men and politicians get to run everything in life these days. They tell you the wrong story and you choose to believe them. What else can I say.

agent00 said :

The government should fix the parking then by putting underground parking like in Ganghalin. It’s not the developer’s responsibility to cram more parking spaces on-site.

I think it all started out by DeMarco trying to mislead the public in believing that there is insufficient parking. Those who live in the area all know parking can be easily spotted on the north side of the centre.

So… the developers aren’t going to provide enough parking to satisfy the needs of the new tenants (bec ause that would cut into profit margins), so the government should invest in an underground car park for a shopping centre that would otherwise have enough car parks if not for the development.

I like your style.

What is it with Canberra?

Anything old (oldish or with character) must be bulldozed and replaced with a concrete eyesore.

To be fair… the Jamo Inn isn’t just old, it’s completely derelict. It’s a massive wasted space.

ArandaBill said :

The so called ‘underutilised’ carpark to the north of Jamison Plaza, currently used on Sundays for the Rotary Trash and Treasure, and during the working week for ACTION park and ride customers is listed on the ACT Government’s Jamison precinct Master Plan for future residential development. Let’s see how much parking is then available for the elderly, families with young children and others who do not ride bicycles.

On a more positive note my grapevine tells me that demolition of the Jamison Inn eyesore is imminent.

The government should fix the parking then by putting underground parking like in Ganghalin. It’s not the developer’s responsibility to cram more parking spaces on-site.

I think it all started out by DeMarco trying to mislead the public in believing that there is insufficient parking. Those who live in the area all know parking can be easily spotted on the north side of the centre.

Ah the Jamo Inn. I have fond or hang on perhaps not so fond memories of spending over a week there one year when I was without a rental property. Doesn’t look too different to when I stayed there. I am dont oppose apartment I only wish that they didn’t look so bland and uninteresting. New apartments also seem to look like it will only take a few years before they are shabby and an eyesore. Soulless holes the lot of them.

The so called ‘underutilised’ carpark to the north of Jamison Plaza, currently used on Sundays for the Rotary Trash and Treasure, and during the working week for ACTION park and ride customers is listed on the ACT Government’s Jamison precinct Master Plan for future residential development. Let’s see how much parking is then available for the elderly, families with young children and others who do not ride bicycles.

On a more positive note my grapevine tells me that demolition of the Jamison Inn eyesore is imminent.

alistair coe’s concern on parking availability is not legit. plenty of spaces available even during the busiest hours. i reckon he’s speaking up for his mate mr tony de marco who owns the Jamison plaza. the guy is loaded with money and wants to develop the land adjacent to his centre. but now with space macquarie going up he wont get a chance…

shirty_bear said :

This. People who complain about Jammo currently being short on parking are the morons who circulate in the little section between the shops and the Inn. The massive expanse on the other side (towards Canberra High) – most days you could fire a cannon there and hit nothing. On a Saturday afternoon, you might hit chickens.

Absolutely true. I have a family member who works in the centre and he also agrees that the problem is not LACK of parking, but accessability to the centre. The only way to get in the centre from the back part of the carpark (the largest part) is through the employee service passage – otherwise, you’re forced to walk all the way up and around to the side entry.

It’s almost comical, watching the frenetic shoppers scramble to grab elusive parking spots in the tiny upper parking area, when there’s such a huge, empty block of spots just around the other side…!

right?

they knew how to spell back then too.

BIG J
small a
double m
O!

Come right in and see us, come right in and smile!

Ah, those where the days, when they really knew how to right a jingle.

agent00 said :

sounds like somebody is posting for an angry developer who originally wanted to build more apartments near this site but can’t now because the government is’n’t going to approve it…

…and it sounds like you’re one of the agents who are going to sell units in this new development! Relax, i’m sure you’re going to still make a killing, even with one or two people complaining. 🙂

agent00 said :

sounds like somebody is posting for an angry developer who originally wanted to build more apartments near this site but can’t now because the government is’n’t going to approve it…

Seems an odd way to do things, buy an area with the intention to develop it. Start selling places from the plans before they’re even built and before the development is even approved. Seems somewhat shifty.

sounds like somebody is posting for an angry developer who originally wanted to build more apartments near this site but can’t now because the government is’n’t going to approve it…

This is no slum development. It’s being developed by the same team who did Space in Turner. Not sure why ArandaBill has problem with this particular development. Maybe he’s posting for the Jamison Plaza owner?

powerpuffpete said :

I don’t think I have ever seen that carpark full. Sometimes the 4 or so rows of car parks directly in front of the plaza building get taken up but there’s still oodles left.

This. People who complain about Jammo currently being short on parking are the morons who circulate in the little section between the shops and the Inn. The massive expanse on the other side (towards Canberra High) – most days you could fire a cannon there and hit nothing. On a Saturday afternoon, you might hit chickens.

risible said :

The Jamison Inn did not deteriorate until the current developer bought the site and closed the inn. Deserted properties are always vandalised.

Under the approved proposal, all residential parking will be on-site, except for some visitor parking which will be kerbside outside the complex on Redfern and Bowman Streets. Parking for the eleven new retail units will NOT be provided onsite but will rely on the existing public parking in the Jamison Centre and extra parking on neighbouring roads. The official parking surveys show that all possible public parking in the area will then be fully utilised.

I don’t think I have ever seen that carpark full. Sometimes the 4 or so rows of car parks directly in front of the plaza building get taken up but there’s still oodles left.

The new building is supposed to have retail space on the ground floor. Mixed-use buildings deter the potential for ghetto environments. At the very least, you could argue for a multi-level car park. I don’t understand why so many Canberrans love open-air carparks. They’re ugly and at night they’re unused, vacant and dark.
If it becomes inconvenient because you can’t find a park, try the Belco mall. Plenty of parking there.

The Jamison Inn did not deteriorate until the current developer bought the site and closed the inn. Deserted properties are always vandalised.

Under the approved proposal, all residential parking will be on-site, except for some visitor parking which will be kerbside outside the complex on Redfern and Bowman Streets. Parking for the eleven new retail units will NOT be provided onsite but will rely on the existing public parking in the Jamison Centre and extra parking on neighbouring roads. The official parking surveys show that all possible public parking in the area will then be fully utilised.

Ah, the old Jammo Inn…

never the same again after Canberra High School class of ’87 had their reunion there…

Maybe that’s the plan? submit a building plan that the government doesn’t like, then wait until the building becomes an eyesore to help push the approval process?

NoImRight said :

Looks good. How do I book a room?

Luke 2:7

Looks good. How do I book a room?

I’m not against redevelopment of the site providing adequate resident and visitor carparking is provided and it does not overflow into the already overcrowded Jamison Plaza carpark. Most Canberra residential developments do not have adequate onsite carparking and the problem overflows onto surrounding streets and public carparks. Lack of a current redevelopment approval should not be an excuse for making the site safe.

johny said :

the site cant be demolished untill a building approval is issued

Really? As well as all the other issues with leaving a building empty like that it must be old enough to contain asbestos and it seems to me that if it definitely is not being renovated/restored then it would make sense to require a prompt clean-up of the site pending any other action.

The people complaining about the new development are the reason it hasnt been demolished yet, the site cant be demolished untill a building approval is issued and a building approval can not be issued without a development approval, so the longer the objectors fight the development the longer it will take to have the Inn demolished.

Instant Mash said :

Martlark said :

Parking won’t get harder as parking will be provided on site. Most of the residents will drive away during work days and won’t use more spaces then either. These units are no slum housing; each unit will be at least $300k, slum eh? Go to Kolkata or Rio to see what a real slum looks like.

Wouldn’t residents potentially have reserved spaces?

Yeah my understanding (and people should feel free to correct me here) was the plan was to utilize existing surface parking and that there explicitly wouldn’t be parking on site.
There was a similar proposal floating around for Hawker as well, and AFAIK in both cases the shop owners in the area were a bit concerned as well. The OP doesn’t really reflect the main concerns of the community IMO at least – it’s not so much NIMBYism but rather the worry that if they bugger up the parking situation at these suburban shopping centres they’ll lose a great deal of their utility and (in the case of Hawker) their viability in the long run might be harmed.

Knock down one eyesore, build a lovely modern one.

Plus ça change…

Martlark said :

Instant Mash said :

Wouldn’t residents potentially have reserved spaces?

That is what I’m saying, but, in this car dominated city, many people have more cars than beds, so there is bound to be a small night time spill over, esp of the lazy.

Good point. Hopefully they’ll include some overflow.

As long as the redevelopment does not effect “Trash”. I think I can already hear noise complaints and parking arguments.

Jethro said :

So you want the inn knocked down but you are also against the site being redeveloped?

Nice.

A slum:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=kolkata+slum+pics&hl=en&rlz=1C1AFAB_enAU454AU454&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=wy8KT6-yIYWYiAf9ptG-CQ&ved=0CCcQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=675

A high priced apartment block

http://australia.trovit.com/property/index.php/cod.frame/url.http%253A%252F%252Fwww.allhomes.com.au%252Fah%252Fact%252Fsale-residential%252F2-bowman-street-macquarie-canberra%252F1316777067011/id_ad.1D1_E1u1Ir1O1d/type.1/what.apartment%20jamison%20centre/pos.1/org.1/pop.1/publisher_id./referer_id.1/t.1

Spot the differences.

Instant Mash said :

Wouldn’t residents potentially have reserved spaces?

That is what I’m saying, but, in this car dominated city, many people have more cars than beds, so there is bound to be a small night time spill over, esp of the lazy.

Martlark said :

Parking won’t get harder as parking will be provided on site. Most of the residents will drive away during work days and won’t use more spaces then either. These units are no slum housing; each unit will be at least $300k, slum eh? Go to Kolkata or Rio to see what a real slum looks like.

From the unit details already provided, I don’t think these particular units will be too ‘slummy’; however, using the price alone to justify why it isn’t a ‘slum’ doesn’t really work – especially in Canberra! 🙂

Martlark said :

Parking won’t get harder as parking will be provided on site. Most of the residents will drive away during work days and won’t use more spaces then either. These units are no slum housing; each unit will be at least $300k, slum eh? Go to Kolkata or Rio to see what a real slum looks like.

Wouldn’t residents potentially have reserved spaces?

Parking won’t get harder as parking will be provided on site. Most of the residents will drive away during work days and won’t use more spaces then either. These units are no slum housing; each unit will be at least $300k, slum eh? Go to Kolkata or Rio to see what a real slum looks like.

Needs a good fire.

That’s a time-tested Canberra method for speeding up redevelopment of eyesores.

Just knock the damn thing down already!

I have always wondered if the space was big enough to be made into apartments anyways – it looks like such a tiny area.

So you want the inn knocked down but you are also against the site being redeveloped?

Nice.

Parking at Jamison at present is a breeze compared with Dickson. With the proposed development completed, parking will be a breeze compared with Dickson. Sounds like you have still have some issues, ArandaBill. Are you against this sort of in-fill development “in your backyard” . If so, in whose “backyard” does it belong?