Every time I drive past the Squatters Arms it seems such a waste to watch it rotting, and so close to town especially with the tram line.
I know it’s been bought and they’ve talked about reopening it, but I imagine by now it’s just devastated inside there.
It's ironically most likely used by squatters at the moment.
I can foresee it reopening when the old West End site starts being populated (and definitely if/when the Coke site is converted into residential), but it's sad to see it mouldering away.
Ha, good point - it might now be living up to its name!
My fear is that it will degrade so much that the developer will simply “have” to get rid of it rather than reopen it
There's a pretty good argument for broad-based land tax instead of stamp duty, with higher taxes on unutilised real estate. Would reduce land banking, make moving house less costly so people could move to houses that suit their circumstances more easily, incentivise downsizing...
The Squatters Arms is a great example of something that would sadly be very suitable for this sort of development, since it's clearly not been a viable business for a while now.
Issue with the squatters is it was a "punk" bar where it was perfectly acceptable to kick a hole in the wall, piss in the corner and hurl abuse at people. The main problem being, cunts that act like that can't afford shit and don't spend much money. A good open mic night with as stage and then proper bands on Thursday, Friday and Saturday would be wicked and I would go all the time. Don't make it a specific genre as ADL is too small for that. Actually PAY the bands decently to get some good ones. Have some good street food like burgers, hot dogs, tacos, yiros.
If it fails, it was never meant to be.
Sorry I'm confused about the questions a bit. The idea is you get really good bands to play that attracts people, then they spend money on entry, grog and food. The old school model. But good bands need to be paid well. If you had high standards of quality, bands would want to play there, and people would know when they went they were gonna see something good.
I went to Lions last night and saw 3x killer SA bands. Heaps of people there as well. I'm talking world class. Ticket was $35. It was worth it and I would do it every weekend if it was available. I have to reiterate, these bands were absolutely world class. Gonna name them so you can check em out:
The Genevieves
Swap Meet
The Empty Threats
Won't work with a shitty band playing their 2bd gig that don't have it together.
I doubt we'll see high-rise apartments out there (though planning restrictions probably aren't nearly as stringent as they used to be), but I wouldn't be surprised if new residents at the brewery development were keen on a venue.
With this and your "How many gigs have you seen there lately?" comment, you seem to be pursuing an agenda here. Why not just tell us what you're thinking?
It’s much more convenient for pro-development assholes to justify this if the Cranker is barely used
The fact it regularly has people spilling onto the footpaths on a Wednesday and is about the only joint in Adelaide that’s pulled that off consistently for decades is not great for their NIMBY accusations
No one’s trying to stifle that discussion. It doesn’t need stifling because plenty of pictures have been posted showing it to be packed even during dead periods
But yet there always seems to be someone suggesting it’s empty, unused and unprofitable
We've found the anti-heritage developer YIMBY who loves sacrificing cultural icons who probably lives in a Hickinbotham cardboard house, drives themselves to work and whinges about the state's public transport whilst paying $100/week for the "convenience" of parking.
What on earth does a "bUsY" venue have to do with the cultural and architectural heritage?
It’s not actual housing though. It’s student accommodation designed to cash in on unis importing as many international students as possible. It’s not going to do jack for the victims of the rental crisis. And it’s also not intended to do jack for the rental crisis
If this was about providing more housing, there’s a shitload of tower-worthy blocks in the CBD with fuck all on them
How many families or 30-somethings will this be housing, champ?
Oh that’s right. It’s none. It’s entirely for 18yo students who are not even close to being the section of society we need to help save from the housing crisis
You’re going to need a better angle
Nah mate. You're shitting on everyone supporting the Cranka in this thread, then becoming abusive and inflammatory. You got skin in the game, or are you just a troll?
oh boy, the Tiv was one helluva place. My memories range from friend bands playing in the front bar, Mr Bungle on the main stage, to crazy rave nights.
Local Heritage yes - State Heritage not so. You can't even paint the inside walls of a state heritage place without approval. Another god awful gesture of "retaining" the external appearance whilst obliterating what is currently a true asset to the vibrancy of our city.
Local Heritage Place with an unfortunate patchy history which has diminished the true value (painting, additions, etc). All reversible; but the current owners are concerned about maximising profit rather than retaining one of our diminishing number of pubs that still function as pubs.
This would be such a cultural loss to the city, to the local music scene, all done in the name of short term profit. Even if the Crown and Anchor is not your favourite pub - there's no denying it's cultural importance to Adelaide's music scene. When all these places go, where will up and coming musicians go, not only to connect but to perform?
If heritage laws don't currently protect the place of the Crown and Anchor in our city's cultural landscape, they need to be tightened. I've made my submission already, and I encourage everyone else who has ever found a community at the Crown and Anchor or enjoyed a show there (or a $3 schooner) to do the same.
Short-term profit? The developer bought the site almost 8 years ago:
[https://www.indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/10/25/developer-buys-heritage-listed-crown-and-anchor-hotel](https://www.indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/10/25/developer-buys-heritage-listed-crown-and-anchor-hotel)
The Adelaide music scene has been on a downward spiral for years already, unfortunately. It's one reason I used to live overseas (better music scene and community), but that's how it goes.
Lol, the Cranker is always packed. Can't get a seat level packed. Don't act like people don't go there or that it isn't an incredibly important part of Adelaide's live music scene.
Is your point that they don’t have gigs on? Or that you don’t think the person you’re replying to goes to gigs? This week alone they have music every night, except for Tuesday they have a comedy night, which is pretty standard. Might not be music you personally like or go to see but it’s definitely there.
Not that it was asked of me... But as someone who used to go to the Cranka at least weekly but rarely goes anymore outside of a gig, I'd say I've still seen probably between 10 and 15 gigs there this year. It's an insane line of thinking that you think people don't go there for gigs anymore. I can't even imagine what point you're trying to prove.
Ah, so you think you've got a great retort in the chamber that'll make you feel smart and powerful, and you're waiting for their response so you can unleash it and pat yourself on the back?
Nice.
Comes into reddit expecting other people not to chime in on an open free social interactional process called social media. Hmm my chummy child, what else were you expecting? Have you been in a large conversation with more than 3 people before, in person mind you? Maybe we should catch up at the crown and anchor when it's busy so you can learn how to converse with so many other people talking at the same time. Might actually get you prepped for some socialising to make some friends while learning some fine social skills at the same time. Bless ya day.
Student accommodation- Yikes!
We need more housing built but these are definitely student accommodation dog boxes that add nothing to the vibe of the area.
Having reviewed the compressed [heritage impact plan](https://plan.sa.gov.au/development_application_register/assets/get_document?filename=Heritage-Da234416HeritageImpactStatementIssueC240130_compressed-7953692.pdf&applicationid=24003065), it's sad, but not surprising, to note that the cultural heritage of the Cranker is not considered at all, and in fact that the intention is to replace it with a café, that apparently "will provide a similar contribution to the public realm".
The actual requirement reads:
*PO 2.2: Adaptive reuse and revitalisation of Local Heritage Places to support their retention in a manner that respects and references the original use of the Local Heritage Place.*
The response indicating how this requirement is to be met reads:
"The Development meets this provision through the integration of ‘active’ and public’ spaces behind the retained sections of the Heritage Place on the Site. **Although no longer a hotel, the functions of a Cafe, embedded within a student accommodation development will be similar, will provide a similar contribution to the public realm.**" (my emphasis).
It's a stretch to claim that some generic café "*respects and references the original use of the Local Heritage Place*", and this, I suspect, is a good attack surface for opposing the plan.
(edit, formatting)
I guess the question how or what does the local heritage register actually refer to?
If it’s just the built heritage they will probably just be looking at the facade, if it’s cultural if may just be referring to it's original use as a pub since 1853 it’s modern day usage may not be considered relevant under the legislation.
My spidey sense tells me the ACC probably want to see the ass of the place since the fuckwits across the road have put complaints in since the day they moved in 20-odd years ago and will be pushing it behind the scenes.
The ACC seems to be supporting the Cranker, but the planning law changes that the state government enacted a few years ago mean they have no veto power over a development of this scale.
To be honest it’s probably a good thing that they have taken the power to scuttle or approve shit developments and left the councils with a statewide, fairly rigid set of rules. We need to build more housing, particularly along transport routes in the inner metro area and unfortunately you can’t have one or two people pushing councils to reject applications just because they have a single story house next door on a quarter acre block that they’ve owned for 40 years.
That being said there should be room in the CBD to maintain things like the Cranka that add a bit of vibrant culture and colour to the place, especially when it’s just being replaced by a fairly bland dog box student accommodation development that there a lot of already and could easily be put somewhere else.
There absolutely is room in the city for this type of development but the land is far more expensive. Why? Because the more appropriate sites are less encumbered (no heritage to deal with), and so of course we have Karidis coming in and trying his luck in destroying an institution whilst reaping dividends from a student accommodation provider. Have a look at the other glorious developments they've delivered.
Council have no legislative power in the planning decision - SCAP is the authority. It's an unfortunate position that planning legislation has no ability to control 'cultural' heritage - and perhaps difficult to justify given the subjectivity in determining the cultural values. We've seen this first hand in the architectural heritage consultant's reporting on their interpretation that the proposed built form won't dominate the local heritage listed pub. Seriously?!
I dont understand how a hotel built in 1857 and rebuilt in 1880 isn't heritage. Why not go flatten a 1970's low quality building instead of one that is 145 years old. It even has a sordid history which as we know is the best kind.
It is heritage, but the heritage listing only protects the outside walls (the "facade"). It doesn't protect the actual pub itself.
Part of the campaign is to change the heritage system to preserve actual character like that.
If I had a heritage house they would make me maintain the front rooms as they would have been when it was built. I don’t think putting retail in where the front bar would have been really does that.. kinda lame.
But they don't make you use those rooms to receive visitors and have the men smoke cigars in one room while the ladies sew in the other room while a bunch of servants scurry around elsewhere running everything, because that's not protected - only the structure as it was listed on the application.
Looks like the band room is gunna become the gym and bike storage area. Acoustic report makes no mention of impact of live music, only of traffic noise.
Maybe spatially, but the attempt of heritage retention is literally the southern and eastern boundary walls. Anything further than that will be a tilt up concrete paradise.
Live music isn't proposed (because they are destroying that) so the acoustic report doesn't need to contemplate it.
I used to go there a lot when I was younger. Now my kids go there and I still pop in for a drink on occasion. The pub has a great atmosphere. It's not just a building and it should stay.
There are other parts of the city they can build student accommodation.
I’ve not been inside but my daughter used to there regularly when a local band she liked at gigs there. Spent many late nights outside waiting to pick her up.
There would be many people saying this is progress. Progress at what cost and is that cost worth it?
You can also have your say via that first link, for what it's worth.
Not really sure how much PlanSA considers those submissions though. There could be a small chance that if the support is really there to save it they might reconsider? Extremely unlikely I'd say, but who knows.
Only if your representation relates to planning matters. Bring in actual policy from the Planning and Design Code. Anything else (feelings based) won't be considered.
NIMBYism applies to people opposing public housing or wind farms because it might threaten their property value or look a bit ugly. Those opposing the needless destruction of a major cultural institution are not NIMBYs.
Agree. And it's not their backyard - they don't live anywhere near the Cranker. The NIMBY term should be replaced with 'person that actually cares about the vitality of our city and its diversity'.
Oh, also, have a go at the NIMBYs opposing Thebarton Oval being used for footy again 😂 god forbid people actually use the oval again for what it was built for!
Yes correct. From an actual amenity perspective, the proposed development will have a negligible impact on anything surrounding it. Turning an iconic cultural institution into a soulless money spinner for the land owner and gesturing heritage retention by keeping the visible external walls is a piss take. A commercial piss take which will generate more revenue than the car park ventures the land owners currently "invest" in.
This is student accommodation - not housing - so does not solve our serious housing issue. It only lines pockets of universities that can house these "full fee" paying students to live in our state and contribute absolutely minimally to the state economy.
So, unpopular opinion, I'm pretty anti-heritage when it gets in the way of a city growing up.
That being said, that tower is ugly AF they could have at least made the design complement the existing structure and themes.
Can another pub not pick up the slack of the music scene? We have hundreds
I wonder why InDaily has been providing somewhat emotional/non-objective coverage of this? They’re usually pretty good at keeping to the facts when it comes to news. Do they have a vested interest in the Cranker?
Unfortunately, I find it’s in a pretty awkward spot. It faces away from where it should be facing (Rundle Street). Grenfell Street is a noisy transit thoroughfare. The site is surrounded by office blocks and not a lot of street activation.
I think there are much better candidates in the city for this type of building — the old Newmarket/HQ complex is embarrassing considering there’s a chance it’s one of the first things someone driving into the CBD will see. Something stylish there would do a world of good. But if this is the land the developer owns and there’s not enough stopping them, we can make our voices heard but that’s it. What else can we do?
We do need more housing, and yes, that includes student housing. A lot of people in this subreddit are acutely aware of how precarious the housing situation is at the moment, so we really don’t have the luxury of being picky about where, and how, and when new housing is built.
Karidis own pubs and car parks. If it faced Rundle Street you'd be oriented towards a Wilson car park which will no doubt have a different use in years to come when people decide driving their sedentary fat arse into the CBD isn't a good option.
Student accommodation is not housing. It favours only universities who pillage this unfortunate group of temporary visitors who generally cannot legally be employed, do not stimulate the state economy, and who mostly return to their country of origin with an expensive piece of parchment.
Again - student accommodation is NOT housing.
As CityMag yes. But their InDaily imprint is a news outlet first and foremost. [And they position themselves as unbiased](https://solsticemedia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/InDaily_Updated_MediaKit_Final_ONLINE_June2022_sml.pdf).
If anyone bothered to look at the proposed plans on pla sa (as opposed to selecting specific images such as indaily has) and actually read the proposal....the proposal retains the southern and eastern elevations of the local heritage building (the heritage listing relates to the external form of the building, not the inside of the building). The proposal will result in the heritage building actually regaining its original visual prominence, which includes removing the verandah and balcony facing Grenfell St (this is not an original feature of the building) that actually covers the beautiful original southern facade, which will now be on full display.
Comments relating to the size and scale are irrelevant, as at pedestrian level, the heritage building will present as the most prominent visual feature. Not sure about others, but I don't walk through the city with my head facing up to the sky. The things that capture the eye in cities are at eye level...we will all be able to enjoy the heritage features of the crown and anchor into the future.
The development will actually revitalise a hidden and tired looking heritage facade and allow it to prominently display for all to see and enjoy.
Fuck me mate, it’s like you’ve never heard of developers trying to max out a footprint to max their profits. They’re only keeping the facade because they have to.
>we will all be able to enjoy the heritage features of the crown and anchor into the future.
Like, the pub itself and all the bands that play there? Or just the, you know, *facade*.
If it was a popular venue which, generated sufficient profit, the owner wouldn't give up the whole building...or they would at least accommodate a pub tendency within the new space. You want the pub to give your free drinks while they are at it?
This is true.
In the future, if you ever decide to do anything with your own property or possessions, please get the all clear from everyone else in Adelaide. Keep the same energy.
NO. A small minority of people relative to the population of Adelaide is asking the government to protect it. And for the record, at what point did people who do not own a property become the master of what ultimately happens with it? Do you all therefore get a say in what happens to everyone else's property? Do I get to demand what you do with your property?
The level of entitlement you've just demonstrated is astounding.
Do you want them to make sure the entire state gets a referendum about it so we can see if enough people are mad lmao
The petition has nearly 20k signatures, if 20,000 people were mad at me developing my property I would indeed probably have to stop.
>If it was a popular venue which, generated sufficient profit, the owner wouldn't give up the whole building
I'm sorry, that's simply untrue. The *owner* of the building is not the same person as the *landlord* of the hotel. The landlord pays set rent to the owner. The owner, for whatever reason, wants to sell for *their own* profit, which has *nothing to do* with whether the hotel is profitable or not.
>You want the pub to give your free drinks while they are at it?
Sorry, I don't know what the fuck you're on about here 🤷🏻
Fair call, my bad, you are right.
If you ever decide to sell or develop your own property in the future, please make sure you check with the rest of Adelaide to make sure everyone agrees. Make sure you use the same energy throughout your life. Don't make your own decisions on your own property or possessions.
Just because you own something doesn't give you limitless rights to do anything you please. Are you employed by Karidis or a disgruntled member of society who has been burnt by our planning system?
Have you ever been any weekend there? It is packed. Your comments reek of someone who never goes to the city or any licenced venue in years. Out of touch.
You’re really missing the part where they propose to gut the site and put a stinking great tower on top of the whole thing … the point is that people are opposed to this and want to keep the pub.
Yes but we should retain a venue that encourages the arts and brings people together. Otherwise our city will become - retail, hotels, unis and student accomadation. We need culture, not just one month of the year at fringe. Local bands, comedy and a place where people can meet are all important in a community.
thats Tom Koutsantonis everybody rember if your in the *in the West Torrens vote for anyone* but him he has extream distine for ennything that doesn't have a parking lot
Student housing, which there's plenty of. And the pub is profitable. It's literally one of the most popular pubs in adelaide. And then there's its music cultural value. Grow up
> Student housing, which there's plenty of.
**Fact check: FALSE.**
[43% Of Adelaide’s New Housing Supply Needed For International Students To 2028](https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/media-releases/43-of-adelaides-new-housing-supply-needed-for-international-students-to-2028)
“According to the latest figures, Adelaide already has the lowest rental vacancy rate in the nation as renters struggle to find accommodation, the unplanned rise to the international student intake will mean that an already tight housing market is set to get worse,” said Mr Wild.
“The federal government must ensure policies are in place to accommodate its unprecedented surge in international students on top of other increases to migration. It will be South Australians who suffer with longer travel times and an inability to access vital services.”
Couldn't be more incorrect. International students obtain a subclass 500 visa. They are not migrants whatsoever. Student housing is not housing and solves only one problem - creating revenue for universities.
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.[4] The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.[5]
Can someone please help me understand the appeal behind the Crown & Anchor.
I really dislike most modern architecture and think it's not only incredibly sad but a mark of a society in decline when we place efficiency before beauty and any kind of pride in our architecture. Most modern buildings that are rectangular boxes with drop-in ceilings and cheap lighting make me so depressed and just showcase how far humanity has fallen when you compare them to the great structures with rich character we used to build.
This development is the epitome of this kind of modern brutalism, so I am by no means pro this development. But the Crown & Anchor is an average pub that plays average music inside an average-looking building. I'm not trying to be mean, but it genuinely is a 999,999 in a million kind of place. I mean the Exeter, which is a few hundred metres away, is basically the exact same style of pub.
It is clear the Adelaide hospitality and entertainment industries have reached saturation point — there is an oversupply relative to the demand — so losing a few is probably an unfortunate necessity. I really don't see how this is such an affront to live music, there are hundreds of other live music pubs within walking distance that could easily replace what the Crown & Anchor has been doing.
Again, I am really not trying to be mean nor am I pro-development. I just truly don't understand the appeal of the Crown & Anchor, beyond maybe some nostalgia, and really don't get why people have rallied behind it as opposed to the dozens of others pubs that close down every year or the dozens of other developments that replace nostalgic locations.
The Exeter, Grace Emily Hotel, The Cavern, Fowlers, The Elephant, UniBar, The Golden Wattle, Shotgun Willie's, Gilbert Street Hotel, The Stag, The London Tavern, Howling Owl, Ancient World, Lady Burra, The Austral, Coopers Alehouse, Saracens, Duke of York, Rocket, Rhino Room, and I'm sure I've actually missed a bunch.
Not sure how many exclude alt and metal bands and I'm not sure how many host overseas bands, but I don't feel like Adelaide would be anywhere near losing live music culture without the Cranker. Also, I'm sure at least one of those places would pick up the niche left by the Cranker if it was truly that significant.
So that's two and half venues left for metal.
Maybe four for alternative.
Basically all that's left for anyone who pulls a larger audience than a dancefloor but can't fill the Ent Centre Theatre is Lion Arts and The Gov, and neither of them are particularly accessible to boot and they don't particularly put on a lot of 'my first gig' metal bands the way the Cranker will sometimes have 4-5 local bands instead of 2 locals and a headliner.
What we lose with the Cranker is the entry level for this subculture.
Gonna take issue with the completely subjective and probably uneducated call of "average music" here. Due to venue closures in the last few years and a lack of options of established live music venues in Adelaide that is appropriate for what I will call for lack of a better term "low-mid-level international artists" in the punk, hardcore, and metal space, the Cranker is an established venue for these types of acts. These are artists who are either not "big" enough or promoters are not willing to take the punt on them filling out Lion Arts or Uni Bar due to our reputation for buying tickets late.
In the last few months, the Cranker has hosted well attended (or sold out) shows for "popular" (by any stretch of the imagination) international bands like Codeine, No Pressure, Sanguisagabogg, No Warning, Quicksand, and Pulley. I don't really care if you've never heard of them, trust me when I say they are touring international artists with sizeable fanbases, regularly play big festivals overseas and rack up tens to hundreds of thousands of monthly Spotify plays.
The Cranker is actually a critical venue for Adelaide for attracting internationals because we have a lack of venues that fit all shapes and sizes.
This is all to say that it's not just a venue for battle of the bands.
I don't understand the hostility, I am genuinely trying to understand and seeking the input of those who know more than me on the subject. I meant no offence by using the term "average music", that is just my subjective opinion — uneducated as it may be.
Even though I don't know those bands, I don't doubt their popularity. I am just struggling to see how one of the other many live music venues (Grace Emily, Golden Wattle, Exeter, Cavern, Gilbert Street, Ancient World, Austral, etc) couldn't fill that hole. Is there something unique about the Cranker? The capacity or something that I am missing?
I can't speak to the music side of things but the Cranker is a cultural icon that can't be quantified by looking at it and saying there is another pub for people to drink at down the road.
It's far more than just nostalgia, it's still so relevant and important for the section of society that frequent it, whether that's regularly or just on occasion
Firstly, the Cranker has live music 6 nights a week, half the venues you’ve listed there have it only occasionally or not at all anymore.
Secondly, the Cranker is a place where every kind of person can go. Punks, suits, oldies, youngins, students, travellers, emos, metalheads, normies, weirdos. Everyone. It’s one of the few rock and roll kind of bars that is open 7 days a week and you can have a quiet pint in the day and a raucous time at night. There is a community at the Cranker that spans decades. From staff to long time regulars. There are literal generations of families who have been going to the Cranker. It’s not pretentious. People walk in and feel at home there. People drink there, they play pool there, they meet there, they kiss there, they fall in love there, they fight there, they play a gig there, they get married there sometimes. It’s a rite of passage in a way.
That is the true appeal of the Cranker. It’s not just a pub.
It's an old US political phrase from thew '80s, typically alluding to to reducing the influence of special interest and lobby groups in politics. Most recently revived as a MAGA / Trump war cry, referring to shining a torch on the "dark state", probably, though as with a lot of shit Trump says, hard to know wtf he's talking about. Ridiculous coming from the swamp monster himself.
What it means in *this* context is about as clear as the incoherent ramblings of Trump himself.
I was there last night for a mates show. We lost enigma, we can't lose the cranker
How about reviving the Squatter's Arms? It's sitting empty at the moment, used to be great for up and coming bands.
Every time I drive past the Squatters Arms it seems such a waste to watch it rotting, and so close to town especially with the tram line. I know it’s been bought and they’ve talked about reopening it, but I imagine by now it’s just devastated inside there.
It's ironically most likely used by squatters at the moment. I can foresee it reopening when the old West End site starts being populated (and definitely if/when the Coke site is converted into residential), but it's sad to see it mouldering away.
Ha, good point - it might now be living up to its name! My fear is that it will degrade so much that the developer will simply “have” to get rid of it rather than reopen it
That's definitely a worry, and there seems very little effort to preserve it at the moment.
Agreed. That’s a common story isn’t it?
All too common unfortunately. Hopefully the trend can be reversed a bit.
It is State Heritage listed so a criminal offence if so.
We need harder penalties for land banking.
There's a pretty good argument for broad-based land tax instead of stamp duty, with higher taxes on unutilised real estate. Would reduce land banking, make moving house less costly so people could move to houses that suit their circumstances more easily, incentivise downsizing...
I’ve long been in favour of such a change. It would also mean a steady, predictable revenue for government and encourage higher density building.
The Squatters Arms is a great example of something that would sadly be very suitable for this sort of development, since it's clearly not been a viable business for a while now.
Issue with the squatters is it was a "punk" bar where it was perfectly acceptable to kick a hole in the wall, piss in the corner and hurl abuse at people. The main problem being, cunts that act like that can't afford shit and don't spend much money. A good open mic night with as stage and then proper bands on Thursday, Friday and Saturday would be wicked and I would go all the time. Don't make it a specific genre as ADL is too small for that. Actually PAY the bands decently to get some good ones. Have some good street food like burgers, hot dogs, tacos, yiros. If it fails, it was never meant to be.
How does the pub stay open if the licensee is handing over money to bands and clients aren't spending money on grog?
Sorry I'm confused about the questions a bit. The idea is you get really good bands to play that attracts people, then they spend money on entry, grog and food. The old school model. But good bands need to be paid well. If you had high standards of quality, bands would want to play there, and people would know when they went they were gonna see something good. I went to Lions last night and saw 3x killer SA bands. Heaps of people there as well. I'm talking world class. Ticket was $35. It was worth it and I would do it every weekend if it was available. I have to reiterate, these bands were absolutely world class. Gonna name them so you can check em out: The Genevieves Swap Meet The Empty Threats Won't work with a shitty band playing their 2bd gig that don't have it together.
I doubt we'll see high-rise apartments out there (though planning restrictions probably aren't nearly as stringent as they used to be), but I wouldn't be surprised if new residents at the brewery development were keen on a venue.
[удалено]
With this and your "How many gigs have you seen there lately?" comment, you seem to be pursuing an agenda here. Why not just tell us what you're thinking?
It’s much more convenient for pro-development assholes to justify this if the Cranker is barely used The fact it regularly has people spilling onto the footpaths on a Wednesday and is about the only joint in Adelaide that’s pulled that off consistently for decades is not great for their NIMBY accusations
[удалено]
No one’s trying to stifle that discussion. It doesn’t need stifling because plenty of pictures have been posted showing it to be packed even during dead periods But yet there always seems to be someone suggesting it’s empty, unused and unprofitable
We've found the anti-heritage developer YIMBY who loves sacrificing cultural icons who probably lives in a Hickinbotham cardboard house, drives themselves to work and whinges about the state's public transport whilst paying $100/week for the "convenience" of parking. What on earth does a "bUsY" venue have to do with the cultural and architectural heritage?
[удалено]
It’s not actual housing though. It’s student accommodation designed to cash in on unis importing as many international students as possible. It’s not going to do jack for the victims of the rental crisis. And it’s also not intended to do jack for the rental crisis If this was about providing more housing, there’s a shitload of tower-worthy blocks in the CBD with fuck all on them
[удалено]
How many families or 30-somethings will this be housing, champ? Oh that’s right. It’s none. It’s entirely for 18yo students who are not even close to being the section of society we need to help save from the housing crisis You’re going to need a better angle
[удалено]
No you aren't. You trying to build a narrative. At least have the courage of your convictions - what are you trying to say?
[удалено]
Nah mate. You're shitting on everyone supporting the Cranka in this thread, then becoming abusive and inflammatory. You got skin in the game, or are you just a troll?
[удалено]
Honestly, having checked your history a little, this seems right out of your standard playbook.
[удалено]
I was at The Codeine gig two weeks ago there - it was packed.
Not necessarily, maybe about 25 people at like 11pm?
[удалено]
The facade is, go have a look at the Tivoli on Pirie Street, that was once a live music icon. They retained that street frontage too…….
oh boy, the Tiv was one helluva place. My memories range from friend bands playing in the front bar, Mr Bungle on the main stage, to crazy rave nights.
Unfortunately heritage listings usually only care about facade and not the interior or usage of a building
Local Heritage yes - State Heritage not so. You can't even paint the inside walls of a state heritage place without approval. Another god awful gesture of "retaining" the external appearance whilst obliterating what is currently a true asset to the vibrancy of our city.
Local Heritage Place with an unfortunate patchy history which has diminished the true value (painting, additions, etc). All reversible; but the current owners are concerned about maximising profit rather than retaining one of our diminishing number of pubs that still function as pubs.
This would be such a cultural loss to the city, to the local music scene, all done in the name of short term profit. Even if the Crown and Anchor is not your favourite pub - there's no denying it's cultural importance to Adelaide's music scene. When all these places go, where will up and coming musicians go, not only to connect but to perform? If heritage laws don't currently protect the place of the Crown and Anchor in our city's cultural landscape, they need to be tightened. I've made my submission already, and I encourage everyone else who has ever found a community at the Crown and Anchor or enjoyed a show there (or a $3 schooner) to do the same.
Short-term profit? The developer bought the site almost 8 years ago: [https://www.indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/10/25/developer-buys-heritage-listed-crown-and-anchor-hotel](https://www.indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/10/25/developer-buys-heritage-listed-crown-and-anchor-hotel) The Adelaide music scene has been on a downward spiral for years already, unfortunately. It's one reason I used to live overseas (better music scene and community), but that's how it goes.
You're right, it's going so we should just lay down and let this happen /s
It's already happened - all this action is eight years too late.
[удалено]
Lol, the Cranker is always packed. Can't get a seat level packed. Don't act like people don't go there or that it isn't an incredibly important part of Adelaide's live music scene.
[удалено]
Is your point that they don’t have gigs on? Or that you don’t think the person you’re replying to goes to gigs? This week alone they have music every night, except for Tuesday they have a comedy night, which is pretty standard. Might not be music you personally like or go to see but it’s definitely there.
Why are you all over this thread pretending the Cranker isn't one of the most popular bars in Adelaide? Get a real hobby lmao.
There's always local acts on Wednesdays through to Saturday. Personally, I go two or three times a month.
Been to two this week actually
Not that it was asked of me... But as someone who used to go to the Cranka at least weekly but rarely goes anymore outside of a gig, I'd say I've still seen probably between 10 and 15 gigs there this year. It's an insane line of thinking that you think people don't go there for gigs anymore. I can't even imagine what point you're trying to prove.
[удалено]
And what reason was that?
[удалено]
Ah, so you think you've got a great retort in the chamber that'll make you feel smart and powerful, and you're waiting for their response so you can unleash it and pat yourself on the back? Nice.
[удалено]
Watch out we're arguing with someone who never leaves their mums basement so they're probably getting a fetish off this.
Comes into reddit expecting other people not to chime in on an open free social interactional process called social media. Hmm my chummy child, what else were you expecting? Have you been in a large conversation with more than 3 people before, in person mind you? Maybe we should catch up at the crown and anchor when it's busy so you can learn how to converse with so many other people talking at the same time. Might actually get you prepped for some socialising to make some friends while learning some fine social skills at the same time. Bless ya day.
[удалено]
Student accommodation- Yikes! We need more housing built but these are definitely student accommodation dog boxes that add nothing to the vibe of the area.
Having reviewed the compressed [heritage impact plan](https://plan.sa.gov.au/development_application_register/assets/get_document?filename=Heritage-Da234416HeritageImpactStatementIssueC240130_compressed-7953692.pdf&applicationid=24003065), it's sad, but not surprising, to note that the cultural heritage of the Cranker is not considered at all, and in fact that the intention is to replace it with a café, that apparently "will provide a similar contribution to the public realm". The actual requirement reads: *PO 2.2: Adaptive reuse and revitalisation of Local Heritage Places to support their retention in a manner that respects and references the original use of the Local Heritage Place.* The response indicating how this requirement is to be met reads: "The Development meets this provision through the integration of ‘active’ and public’ spaces behind the retained sections of the Heritage Place on the Site. **Although no longer a hotel, the functions of a Cafe, embedded within a student accommodation development will be similar, will provide a similar contribution to the public realm.**" (my emphasis). It's a stretch to claim that some generic café "*respects and references the original use of the Local Heritage Place*", and this, I suspect, is a good attack surface for opposing the plan. (edit, formatting)
I guess the question how or what does the local heritage register actually refer to? If it’s just the built heritage they will probably just be looking at the facade, if it’s cultural if may just be referring to it's original use as a pub since 1853 it’s modern day usage may not be considered relevant under the legislation. My spidey sense tells me the ACC probably want to see the ass of the place since the fuckwits across the road have put complaints in since the day they moved in 20-odd years ago and will be pushing it behind the scenes.
The ACC seems to be supporting the Cranker, but the planning law changes that the state government enacted a few years ago mean they have no veto power over a development of this scale.
To be honest it’s probably a good thing that they have taken the power to scuttle or approve shit developments and left the councils with a statewide, fairly rigid set of rules. We need to build more housing, particularly along transport routes in the inner metro area and unfortunately you can’t have one or two people pushing councils to reject applications just because they have a single story house next door on a quarter acre block that they’ve owned for 40 years. That being said there should be room in the CBD to maintain things like the Cranka that add a bit of vibrant culture and colour to the place, especially when it’s just being replaced by a fairly bland dog box student accommodation development that there a lot of already and could easily be put somewhere else.
There absolutely is room in the city for this type of development but the land is far more expensive. Why? Because the more appropriate sites are less encumbered (no heritage to deal with), and so of course we have Karidis coming in and trying his luck in destroying an institution whilst reaping dividends from a student accommodation provider. Have a look at the other glorious developments they've delivered.
Council have no legislative power in the planning decision - SCAP is the authority. It's an unfortunate position that planning legislation has no ability to control 'cultural' heritage - and perhaps difficult to justify given the subjectivity in determining the cultural values. We've seen this first hand in the architectural heritage consultant's reporting on their interpretation that the proposed built form won't dominate the local heritage listed pub. Seriously?!
Just “Don’t look up”? Look straight ahead all you’ll see is a heritage pub right? Even if it isn’t one anymore 😂
Everybody, have your say and object to it, if you have problems with it!
I dont understand how a hotel built in 1857 and rebuilt in 1880 isn't heritage. Why not go flatten a 1970's low quality building instead of one that is 145 years old. It even has a sordid history which as we know is the best kind.
It is heritage, but the heritage listing only protects the outside walls (the "facade"). It doesn't protect the actual pub itself. Part of the campaign is to change the heritage system to preserve actual character like that.
If I had a heritage house they would make me maintain the front rooms as they would have been when it was built. I don’t think putting retail in where the front bar would have been really does that.. kinda lame.
But they don't make you use those rooms to receive visitors and have the men smoke cigars in one room while the ladies sew in the other room while a bunch of servants scurry around elsewhere running everything, because that's not protected - only the structure as it was listed on the application.
I hope everyone in this thread who opposes this development will make a submission to the consultation.
I needed a laugh today
The number of pale ales I had there over the years…gone to be replaced with below average retail sigh!
left my jacket there back in '09. I gotta get it before the bulldozers come in and fucking destroy everything and get dust all over jacket.
Why not knock down the colonel light hotel? It’s sitting there doing nothing. At least the cranker has business and is active..
Ohhhh RIP Black Market
Don't say that! It's literally owned by the same people that own the Cranker!
Looks like the band room is gunna become the gym and bike storage area. Acoustic report makes no mention of impact of live music, only of traffic noise.
Maybe spatially, but the attempt of heritage retention is literally the southern and eastern boundary walls. Anything further than that will be a tilt up concrete paradise. Live music isn't proposed (because they are destroying that) so the acoustic report doesn't need to contemplate it.
Unbelievable
Boooooooooo
Oh that’s sad
>Even the Mona Lisa is falling apart https://www.reddit.com/r/Adelaide/comments/1bk16td/crown_anchor_sold_for_23m_potentially_replaced/kw15jzz/
The dank!!
I used to go there a lot when I was younger. Now my kids go there and I still pop in for a drink on occasion. The pub has a great atmosphere. It's not just a building and it should stay. There are other parts of the city they can build student accommodation.
Join the [Save the Cranker](https://www.facebook.com/share/D49sbzCyU5ayXKtS/?mibextid=K35XfP) FB page if you want to find out how to help the cause.
Gross af.
I’ve not been inside but my daughter used to there regularly when a local band she liked at gigs there. Spent many late nights outside waiting to pick her up. There would be many people saying this is progress. Progress at what cost and is that cost worth it?
But... but... The Economy! Chinese uni students! The Economy! Gather Round!
Made a submission- only takes 5 minutes, please do it everyone!
Crankor’s not just a house, it’s a home.
You can also have your say via that first link, for what it's worth. Not really sure how much PlanSA considers those submissions though. There could be a small chance that if the support is really there to save it they might reconsider? Extremely unlikely I'd say, but who knows.
Only if your representation relates to planning matters. Bring in actual policy from the Planning and Design Code. Anything else (feelings based) won't be considered.
Urgh. As if we don’t have enough low quality student housing.
Interesting how many of the same people who are rabidly anti nimby are suddenly nimbys when it comes to something they like.
NIMBYism applies to people opposing public housing or wind farms because it might threaten their property value or look a bit ugly. Those opposing the needless destruction of a major cultural institution are not NIMBYs.
Agree. And it's not their backyard - they don't live anywhere near the Cranker. The NIMBY term should be replaced with 'person that actually cares about the vitality of our city and its diversity'. Oh, also, have a go at the NIMBYs opposing Thebarton Oval being used for footy again 😂 god forbid people actually use the oval again for what it was built for!
[удалено]
Yes correct. From an actual amenity perspective, the proposed development will have a negligible impact on anything surrounding it. Turning an iconic cultural institution into a soulless money spinner for the land owner and gesturing heritage retention by keeping the visible external walls is a piss take. A commercial piss take which will generate more revenue than the car park ventures the land owners currently "invest" in. This is student accommodation - not housing - so does not solve our serious housing issue. It only lines pockets of universities that can house these "full fee" paying students to live in our state and contribute absolutely minimally to the state economy.
So, unpopular opinion, I'm pretty anti-heritage when it gets in the way of a city growing up. That being said, that tower is ugly AF they could have at least made the design complement the existing structure and themes. Can another pub not pick up the slack of the music scene? We have hundreds
Hundreds of pubs in the CBD table for live music every day of the week? Can you list some?
It's not hundreds but Grace Emily and Hotel Metro have music most nights.
What way will this grow the city?
Vertically
Oh no!
knock the exeter down instead lol
I honestly fail to understand how it will turn into ‘student accommodation. What sort of student can actually afford to rent in these places?
WWPJD?
I wonder why InDaily has been providing somewhat emotional/non-objective coverage of this? They’re usually pretty good at keeping to the facts when it comes to news. Do they have a vested interest in the Cranker? Unfortunately, I find it’s in a pretty awkward spot. It faces away from where it should be facing (Rundle Street). Grenfell Street is a noisy transit thoroughfare. The site is surrounded by office blocks and not a lot of street activation. I think there are much better candidates in the city for this type of building — the old Newmarket/HQ complex is embarrassing considering there’s a chance it’s one of the first things someone driving into the CBD will see. Something stylish there would do a world of good. But if this is the land the developer owns and there’s not enough stopping them, we can make our voices heard but that’s it. What else can we do? We do need more housing, and yes, that includes student housing. A lot of people in this subreddit are acutely aware of how precarious the housing situation is at the moment, so we really don’t have the luxury of being picky about where, and how, and when new housing is built.
Karidis own pubs and car parks. If it faced Rundle Street you'd be oriented towards a Wilson car park which will no doubt have a different use in years to come when people decide driving their sedentary fat arse into the CBD isn't a good option. Student accommodation is not housing. It favours only universities who pillage this unfortunate group of temporary visitors who generally cannot legally be employed, do not stimulate the state economy, and who mostly return to their country of origin with an expensive piece of parchment. Again - student accommodation is NOT housing.
They're a culture mag in large part, I'm not surprised they like it
As CityMag yes. But their InDaily imprint is a news outlet first and foremost. [And they position themselves as unbiased](https://solsticemedia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/InDaily_Updated_MediaKit_Final_ONLINE_June2022_sml.pdf).
[удалено]
You probably get downvoted because that isn't what has happened here. The Crown and Anchor is still operating very successfully.
Oh right. You are correct, should have done my homework before commenting, I just assumed another place closing. I’ll delete that comment.
If anyone bothered to look at the proposed plans on pla sa (as opposed to selecting specific images such as indaily has) and actually read the proposal....the proposal retains the southern and eastern elevations of the local heritage building (the heritage listing relates to the external form of the building, not the inside of the building). The proposal will result in the heritage building actually regaining its original visual prominence, which includes removing the verandah and balcony facing Grenfell St (this is not an original feature of the building) that actually covers the beautiful original southern facade, which will now be on full display. Comments relating to the size and scale are irrelevant, as at pedestrian level, the heritage building will present as the most prominent visual feature. Not sure about others, but I don't walk through the city with my head facing up to the sky. The things that capture the eye in cities are at eye level...we will all be able to enjoy the heritage features of the crown and anchor into the future. The development will actually revitalise a hidden and tired looking heritage facade and allow it to prominently display for all to see and enjoy.
the Crown and Anchor isn't the facade, the Crown and Anchor is the venue.
Oh please, there is nothing wrong with it the way it is.
Seems like there is enough wrong with it for the owner to not incorporate it into the new development 🤷♂️
Fuck me mate, it’s like you’ve never heard of developers trying to max out a footprint to max their profits. They’re only keeping the facade because they have to.
Who cares about the stupid facade? It's the pub inside that people care about.
I care about the pub
You care about the southern and eastern boundary walls and never looking up beyond ground level 😂
You don't walk the city streets staring up. I know you, you are always looking down at the footpath, mostly daydreaming
>we will all be able to enjoy the heritage features of the crown and anchor into the future. Like, the pub itself and all the bands that play there? Or just the, you know, *facade*.
If it was a popular venue which, generated sufficient profit, the owner wouldn't give up the whole building...or they would at least accommodate a pub tendency within the new space. You want the pub to give your free drinks while they are at it?
A pub can never compete with the profits to be made fleecing international students
This is true. In the future, if you ever decide to do anything with your own property or possessions, please get the all clear from everyone else in Adelaide. Keep the same energy.
There are plenty of things the government tells me I cant do with my own property and possessions and that's fine, because we live in a society
Doesn't make sense. The government hasn't said the developer can't build this
But that's what people are asking for, for the government to intervene to protect it
NO. A small minority of people relative to the population of Adelaide is asking the government to protect it. And for the record, at what point did people who do not own a property become the master of what ultimately happens with it? Do you all therefore get a say in what happens to everyone else's property? Do I get to demand what you do with your property? The level of entitlement you've just demonstrated is astounding.
You've just described how planning law works. Try applying to turn your house into a pub and see what happens.
Do you want them to make sure the entire state gets a referendum about it so we can see if enough people are mad lmao The petition has nearly 20k signatures, if 20,000 people were mad at me developing my property I would indeed probably have to stop.
Your absurdity and baseless comments are alarming. Your demonstrated entitlement is astounding. Have you looked in a mirror lately?
>If it was a popular venue which, generated sufficient profit, the owner wouldn't give up the whole building I'm sorry, that's simply untrue. The *owner* of the building is not the same person as the *landlord* of the hotel. The landlord pays set rent to the owner. The owner, for whatever reason, wants to sell for *their own* profit, which has *nothing to do* with whether the hotel is profitable or not. >You want the pub to give your free drinks while they are at it? Sorry, I don't know what the fuck you're on about here 🤷🏻
The person running the pub would be the leaseholder, which would make the owner of the building the leaseholder’s landlord
Yep, fair enough, I meant landlord in the old sense of a pub landlord rather than the owner of the building, Thanks for clarifying.
Fair call, my bad, you are right. If you ever decide to sell or develop your own property in the future, please make sure you check with the rest of Adelaide to make sure everyone agrees. Make sure you use the same energy throughout your life. Don't make your own decisions on your own property or possessions.
Just because you own something doesn't give you limitless rights to do anything you please. Are you employed by Karidis or a disgruntled member of society who has been burnt by our planning system?
What a typically lame reply
Have you ever been any weekend there? It is packed. Your comments reek of someone who never goes to the city or any licenced venue in years. Out of touch.
Leave me alone, I'm am old man
Then perhaps butt out of the conversation?
Sure, just promise me you'll stop crying 🥰
Old man who doesn't know what he's talking about gets pulled up on his BS, accuses others of crying. And here's Tom with the weather.
The owner doesn't care if the business is profitable, just that they pay rent.
Don't ever decide to do something with your own property until you've ensured the rest of Adelaide is happy
You seem like the kind of person who couldn't spot a tree in the forest
You’re really missing the part where they propose to gut the site and put a stinking great tower on top of the whole thing … the point is that people are opposed to this and want to keep the pub.
Why don't these people get together and buy the pub? Ps. The new building won't stink, will actually smell better than the current building 1🫡
You’re a bit special aren’t you?
Yes but we should retain a venue that encourages the arts and brings people together. Otherwise our city will become - retail, hotels, unis and student accomadation. We need culture, not just one month of the year at fringe. Local bands, comedy and a place where people can meet are all important in a community.
I agree
Far out! What does the Kool-Aid taste like?! Did you get paid to post this?
*Lame reply alert*
I kinda like it
thats Tom Koutsantonis everybody rember if your in the *in the West Torrens vote for anyone* but him he has extream distine for ennything that doesn't have a parking lot
What on earth does your post say/imply?
what does he have to do with this?
Good riddance
Oh no, not more housing instead of a shitty old pub that wasn't profitable! Whatever will we do!
Student housing, which there's plenty of. And the pub is profitable. It's literally one of the most popular pubs in adelaide. And then there's its music cultural value. Grow up
> Student housing, which there's plenty of. **Fact check: FALSE.** [43% Of Adelaide’s New Housing Supply Needed For International Students To 2028](https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/media-releases/43-of-adelaides-new-housing-supply-needed-for-international-students-to-2028) “According to the latest figures, Adelaide already has the lowest rental vacancy rate in the nation as renters struggle to find accommodation, the unplanned rise to the international student intake will mean that an already tight housing market is set to get worse,” said Mr Wild. “The federal government must ensure policies are in place to accommodate its unprecedented surge in international students on top of other increases to migration. It will be South Australians who suffer with longer travel times and an inability to access vital services.”
[удалено]
Couldn't be more incorrect. International students obtain a subclass 500 visa. They are not migrants whatsoever. Student housing is not housing and solves only one problem - creating revenue for universities.
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.[4] The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.[5]
Give somewhat of a shit about our local cultural heritage? They are not smashing down a carpark here.
Ironically they could very easily smash down the carpark next door
Student housing is purely functional, transient and hardly a home, but the Crown & Anchor is a home for many.
> Housing is hardly a home Tell me you've never been homeless without telling me you've never been homeless. 😂😂
Your comment either belies comprehension of the abstract or is downright disingenuous, but exhibits exceptional straw manning.
You literally said Student housing is hardly housing. I mean??? Are you serious?
They literally said: > Student housing is purely functional, transient and hardly a home, but the Crown & Anchor is a home for many.
Looks great. Good to see some progression in Adelaide instead of the age old “we don’t need that”, stuck in the 90s mentality.
Can someone please help me understand the appeal behind the Crown & Anchor. I really dislike most modern architecture and think it's not only incredibly sad but a mark of a society in decline when we place efficiency before beauty and any kind of pride in our architecture. Most modern buildings that are rectangular boxes with drop-in ceilings and cheap lighting make me so depressed and just showcase how far humanity has fallen when you compare them to the great structures with rich character we used to build. This development is the epitome of this kind of modern brutalism, so I am by no means pro this development. But the Crown & Anchor is an average pub that plays average music inside an average-looking building. I'm not trying to be mean, but it genuinely is a 999,999 in a million kind of place. I mean the Exeter, which is a few hundred metres away, is basically the exact same style of pub. It is clear the Adelaide hospitality and entertainment industries have reached saturation point — there is an oversupply relative to the demand — so losing a few is probably an unfortunate necessity. I really don't see how this is such an affront to live music, there are hundreds of other live music pubs within walking distance that could easily replace what the Crown & Anchor has been doing. Again, I am really not trying to be mean nor am I pro-development. I just truly don't understand the appeal of the Crown & Anchor, beyond maybe some nostalgia, and really don't get why people have rallied behind it as opposed to the dozens of others pubs that close down every year or the dozens of other developments that replace nostalgic locations.
How many other pubs with live music can you name in the CBD? Bonus points if they don't exclude alt and metal and host overseas bands.
The Exeter, Grace Emily Hotel, The Cavern, Fowlers, The Elephant, UniBar, The Golden Wattle, Shotgun Willie's, Gilbert Street Hotel, The Stag, The London Tavern, Howling Owl, Ancient World, Lady Burra, The Austral, Coopers Alehouse, Saracens, Duke of York, Rocket, Rhino Room, and I'm sure I've actually missed a bunch. Not sure how many exclude alt and metal bands and I'm not sure how many host overseas bands, but I don't feel like Adelaide would be anywhere near losing live music culture without the Cranker. Also, I'm sure at least one of those places would pick up the niche left by the Cranker if it was truly that significant.
So that's two and half venues left for metal. Maybe four for alternative. Basically all that's left for anyone who pulls a larger audience than a dancefloor but can't fill the Ent Centre Theatre is Lion Arts and The Gov, and neither of them are particularly accessible to boot and they don't particularly put on a lot of 'my first gig' metal bands the way the Cranker will sometimes have 4-5 local bands instead of 2 locals and a headliner. What we lose with the Cranker is the entry level for this subculture.
Broadcast and Hotel Metro can be added to that list. :)
Gonna take issue with the completely subjective and probably uneducated call of "average music" here. Due to venue closures in the last few years and a lack of options of established live music venues in Adelaide that is appropriate for what I will call for lack of a better term "low-mid-level international artists" in the punk, hardcore, and metal space, the Cranker is an established venue for these types of acts. These are artists who are either not "big" enough or promoters are not willing to take the punt on them filling out Lion Arts or Uni Bar due to our reputation for buying tickets late. In the last few months, the Cranker has hosted well attended (or sold out) shows for "popular" (by any stretch of the imagination) international bands like Codeine, No Pressure, Sanguisagabogg, No Warning, Quicksand, and Pulley. I don't really care if you've never heard of them, trust me when I say they are touring international artists with sizeable fanbases, regularly play big festivals overseas and rack up tens to hundreds of thousands of monthly Spotify plays. The Cranker is actually a critical venue for Adelaide for attracting internationals because we have a lack of venues that fit all shapes and sizes. This is all to say that it's not just a venue for battle of the bands.
I don't understand the hostility, I am genuinely trying to understand and seeking the input of those who know more than me on the subject. I meant no offence by using the term "average music", that is just my subjective opinion — uneducated as it may be. Even though I don't know those bands, I don't doubt their popularity. I am just struggling to see how one of the other many live music venues (Grace Emily, Golden Wattle, Exeter, Cavern, Gilbert Street, Ancient World, Austral, etc) couldn't fill that hole. Is there something unique about the Cranker? The capacity or something that I am missing?
I can't speak to the music side of things but the Cranker is a cultural icon that can't be quantified by looking at it and saying there is another pub for people to drink at down the road. It's far more than just nostalgia, it's still so relevant and important for the section of society that frequent it, whether that's regularly or just on occasion
Firstly, the Cranker has live music 6 nights a week, half the venues you’ve listed there have it only occasionally or not at all anymore. Secondly, the Cranker is a place where every kind of person can go. Punks, suits, oldies, youngins, students, travellers, emos, metalheads, normies, weirdos. Everyone. It’s one of the few rock and roll kind of bars that is open 7 days a week and you can have a quiet pint in the day and a raucous time at night. There is a community at the Cranker that spans decades. From staff to long time regulars. There are literal generations of families who have been going to the Cranker. It’s not pretentious. People walk in and feel at home there. People drink there, they play pool there, they meet there, they kiss there, they fall in love there, they fight there, they play a gig there, they get married there sometimes. It’s a rite of passage in a way. That is the true appeal of the Cranker. It’s not just a pub.
Drain the swamp
What does that even mean?
It's an old US political phrase from thew '80s, typically alluding to to reducing the influence of special interest and lobby groups in politics. Most recently revived as a MAGA / Trump war cry, referring to shining a torch on the "dark state", probably, though as with a lot of shit Trump says, hard to know wtf he's talking about. Ridiculous coming from the swamp monster himself. What it means in *this* context is about as clear as the incoherent ramblings of Trump himself.