[CAN] 171-207 Gouger Street | 59m | 19lvls | Mixed Use

[degruch]

There are height restrictions everywhere within the CBD, and encroachment distances to adhere too. Which zone is it in?

[[Shuz]]

All sites over 1500sqm in size have no height restrictions. Fact.

[degruch]

Height restrictions have (apparently) been an ongoing issue for development in Adelaide, previously capped at generally 60m, it was lifted to 103m this year. This would have been negotiated with Adelaide Airport Limited, who take an interest in anything tall in the CBD. Depending on the zone and the surrounding buildings, there are further restrictions on the 103m cap - at least, this is what I've seen. Encroachment is another issue again.

If a building's footprint is an additional clause, wouldn't this would have been exploited by now? Why was the hideous 'Burj Dubai'-esque pointy tower in the CBD back in 2007 knocked back, with it's massive footprint? The hotel at 122 Grenfell I've been so interested in is easily double 1500sqm and is (in theory) restricted to 15 stories. Not saying I'm 100% correct, but this seems like an easy loophole to exploit, so I'm surprised to hear it!

[Ben]

Height restrictions have (apparently) been an ongoing issue for development in Adelaide, previously capped at generally 60m, it was lifted to 103m this year. This would have been negotiated with Adelaide Airport Limited, who take an interest in anything tall in the CBD. Depending on the zone and the surrounding buildings, there are further restrictions on the 103m cap - at least, this is what I've seen. Encroachment is another issue again.

If a building's footprint is an additional clause, wouldn't this would have been exploited by now? Why was the hideous 'Burj Dubai'-esque pointy tower in the CBD back in 2007 knocked back, with it's massive footprint? The hotel at 122 Grenfell I've been so interested in is easily double 1500sqm and is (in theory) restricted to 15 stories. Not saying I'm 100% correct, but this seems like an easy loophole to exploit, so I'm surprised to hear it!

Sorry mate but pretty much everything you wrote was incorrect.

The height limit of 103 has been around for about 6 years and now many areas have no height limitations except for what Airport Authorities say. I assume your talking about the Capital City project but that was from 1997? and was actually approved, however due to the Asian financial crisis the developers were unable to proceed.

Also the 122 grenfell street site is not restricted to 15 stories, this location now has a height limit of approx 30 stories but this building is currently approved at 17 stories...

maybe do some more research before making rash arguements

I actually don't even know what the point you were trying to make is?

[[Shuz]]

Height restrictions have (apparently) been an ongoing issue for development in Adelaide, previously capped at generally 60m, it was lifted to 103m this year. This would have been negotiated with Adelaide Airport Limited, who take an interest in anything tall in the CBD. Depending on the zone and the surrounding buildings, there are further restrictions on the 103m cap - at least, this is what I've seen. Encroachment is another issue again.

If a building's footprint is an additional clause, wouldn't this would have been exploited by now? Why was the hideous 'Burj Dubai'-esque pointy tower in the CBD back in 2007 knocked back, with it's massive footprint? The hotel at 122 Grenfell I've been so interested in is easily double 1500sqm and is (in theory) restricted to 15 stories. Not saying I'm 100% correct, but this seems like an easy loophole to exploit, so I'm surprised to hear it!

I'm sorry, but have you been living under a rock?

Have you not heard of the Capital City Development Plan Amendment?
Have you not heard of the 123 Flinders Street proposal? (hint forum logo hint)
Did you not clearly identify that the Burj-Dubai-esque tower was only a vision and never a serious proposal?
Do you not realise just how big 1500sqm is? Most buildings have a footprint of only about 20m x 20m (400sqm).

[degruch]

Wow, it really does pay to research and/or ask questions, rather than blurt out random info like a complete arse on this site...doesn't it...not. The rock I've been under was busy reviewing and planning alternative developments with the ACC, Rundle Street Association, even Hines Group (indirectly), so it's a pretty well informed rock at least. Call it a hobby.

Height recommendation for the zone where 122 Grenfell Street is located...15 stories. DAP exception made for 17 stories. Are you saying there was no need for the DAP to approve? Why did they?

If what you've stated is in fact correct, why hasn't the city suddenly exploded in size? According to what you've written, there are no restrictions for anything, the DAP can all retire and be replaced by an even bigger rubber stamp, bring on the Burj!

Point: DAP should be relieved of its veto for $10mil+ projects within the CBD and stick to reviewing infrastructure only, thus removing a layer of unnecessary approvals.

[Maximus]

The poor ol' height limits discussion must be feeling a bit stretched by now... There are little bits and pieces of it all throughout the various sub-forums and in a variety of threads. Can we perhaps have a go at some sort of consolidation?

Good places to start would probably be here and here.

[degruch]

Thanks for the info Maximus, this is what I read also - although the map seems to show area around Grenfell Street I've mentioned as a 'no height policy' area - I have the development proposal right in front of me that shows ACC objection to being higher than the recommended 15 stories. So, are we dealing with a conflict between the 15 story Gouger Street limit and huge footprint (slightly larger than 'typical')?

[[Shuz]]

Who are you? You make no sense whatsoever. Do you understand anything?

[Ben]

Who are you? You make no sense whatsoever. Do you understand anything?

+1 I was thinking after I read it the 3rd time. What is being said here?

[crawf]

[degruch]

The point has been derailed somewhat with gobbledygook about height restrictions, but who decided to put forward a plan to erect a bunch of giant glass and concrete bookshelves on the Western side of Gouger Street?

BEN: "How many CBD's in the world stop building high rise buildings because it causes shadows on the single and double story houses on the block next door?"
DEGRUCH: "Why is it that the rules are set, yet developers continue to submit unrealistic plans that are not going to meet council approval? If the hotel is too high the plans need to be amended, very simple"

So, the building is too tall, the residents don't like it? Gosh.

[mgb]

DEGRUCH: "Why is it that the rules are set, yet developers continue to submit unrealistic plans that are not going to meet council approval? If the hotel is too high the plans need to be amended, very simple"

The developers have not submitted unrealistic plans, the plans meet the new requirements. The council is not the approval body, the DAC is.


mgb

[degruch]

The council is not the approval body, the DAC is.

Understand this is how it is (developments over $10mil at least), but should not be, in my opinion. The council (supposedly) represent the wishes of their residents, which should outweigh the wishes of the developer.

[mgb]

The council is not the approval body, the DAC is.

Understand this is how it is (developments over $10mil at least), but should not be, in my opinion. The council (supposedly) represent the wishes of their residents, which should outweigh the wishes of the developer.

This probably is better in another more general forum, but the council brought developments like Altitude to the city and we can see how well that has worked out.

The council is good to organising events, collecting the rubbish etc etc, but they don't really represent the wishes of their residents. There are many residents who welcome the recent developments in the city and the "vibe" it has brought (I know I am one of them). If you look across a vast part of the CBD it's still filled with old rusting tin sheds. Unless development is allowed to occur in a profitable way then this will never change.

The arguments about height really are a distraction from what should be the focus - good development. Put in place decent requirements for the size of the apartments, green spaces etc.

mgb