20-22 Currie St | 123m | 31lvls | Office

Message

#151 Post by **Will** » Mon May 07, 2007 2:14 pm

UrbanSG wrote:This one is up on the Adelaide City Council website for public notice now! Plans look good. Heaps of glass on the northern elevation and the lifts run up the eastern side of the northern elevation. The Planning Report that has been uploaded relates to the North Adelaide Shopping Centre and not this project, so hopefully that gets fixed soon. A couple of renders are also up but we have already seen them. The correct planning report may have a skyline shot but have to wait and see when that one gets put up properly.

I feel that this is the most important high-rise development in Adelaide since the 1980s. As concerned citizens we should do our little bit and make a submission to the ACC. You can make submissions online and you do not have to attend the meeting. Submissions are used to inlfuence the recommndation made to the ACC DAP. Hence if there are plenty of positive submissions, the reccomendation will most likely be for the council to approve it.

Ho Really · #152 Post by **Ho Really** » Mon May 07, 2007 2:18 pm

Will wrote:I feel that this is the most important high-rise development in Adelaide since the 1980s. As concerned citizens we should do our little bit and make a submission to the ACC. You can make submissions online and you do not have to attend the meeting. Submissions are used to inlfuence the recommndation made to the ACC DAP. Hence if there are plenty of positive submissions, the reccomendation will most likely be for the council to approve it.

Thanks for that Will.

Cheers

#153 Post by **Will** » Mon May 07, 2007 2:29 pm

Ho Really wrote:
Will wrote:I feel that this is the most important high-rise development in Adelaide since the 1980s. As concerned citizens we should do our little bit and make a submission to the ACC. You can make submissions online and you do not have to attend the meeting. Submissions are used to inlfuence the recommndation made to the ACC DAP. Hence if there are plenty of positive submissions, the reccomendation will most likely be for the council to approve it.
Thanks for that Will.

Cheers

Actually I think that I have made a mistake. I completely forgot that this development was classified as Category 2. As a result it pretty much complies with the development code, and so only people who have a property in the near vicinity of the development can make a submission. Sorry for misleading everyone!

Ho Really · #154 Post by **Ho Really** » Mon May 07, 2007 3:38 pm

Will wrote:Actually I think that I have made a mistake. I completely forgot that this development was classified as Category 2. As a result it pretty much complies with the development code, and so only people who have a property in the near vicinity of the development can make a submission. Sorry for misleading everyone!

An honest (over zealous) mistake. We forgive you.

Cheers

mooshie · #155 Post by **mooshie** » Mon May 07, 2007 5:18 pm

http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/netc ... attID=1150

just imagining looking from Light's Vision, this will almost completely obscure Santos right? from the north it is nearly twice as wide as Santos.

comresearch · #156 Post by **comresearch** » Tue May 08, 2007 3:51 pm

Ho Really wrote:
Will wrote:Actually I think that I have made a mistake. I completely forgot that this development was classified as Category 2. As a result it pretty much complies with the development code, and so only people who have a property in the near vicinity of the development can make a submission. Sorry for misleading everyone!
An honest (over zealous) mistake. We forgive you.

Cheers

This building breaks so many Australian Standards codes, it is a joke. Don't get your hopes up just yet. It may look good and may be redeemable but it will take a lot of work on the part of the developer and a willingness to stop bullying his neighbours into selling for peanuts ... How refreshing it would be to find a developer who for once is prepared to put his money where his mouth is.

#157 Post by **UrbanSG** » Tue May 08, 2007 4:02 pm

Examples of Australian Codes please? I am guessing you are referring to building codes? You should give some examples, to give some base to what you are saying if you want people to take you seriously. Are you one of those neighbours?

Also have you read all the reports on this one available from the ACC website? I have gone through a fair bit so far. Makes for some great reading. Gives some indepth detail to this development.

What developer doesn't want to buy land for peanuts? Get in the real world!

#158 Post by **AtD** » Tue May 08, 2007 8:24 pm

comresearch: The hell?

Culwulla reports on SSC that this project is 125m above street level, along with additional diagrams.

Ho Really · #159 Post by **Ho Really** » Tue May 08, 2007 10:22 pm

With the amount of glass on this building I hope we (SA) get to supply and install it. City Central Tower One went to the Victorians.

Cheers

reaymeister · #160 Post by **reaymeister** » Wed May 09, 2007 9:31 am

comresearch wrote:
This building breaks so many Australian Standards codes, it is a joke. Don't get your hopes up just yet. It may look good and may be redeemable but it will take a lot of work on the part of the developer and a willingness to stop bullying his neighbours into selling for peanuts ... How refreshing it would be to find a developer who for once is prepared to put his money where his mouth is.

hey, so there is another side to this story. This building is 20 metres above the zoning regulation height among other infringements. They are dreaming if they think they can get a soft DA. All power to the little people!

#161 Post by **UrbanSG** » Wed May 09, 2007 9:50 am

Reaymeister, you obviously haven't read the reports. If you download the Traffic Report there are emails attached outlining correspondance relating to the height and AAL's initial thoughts for this project.

Basically, Brett Eaton from AAL says the height will be clear of the instrument approach and departure procedures. It will still penetrate Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) airspace unless the building is shielded. He says the Santos Tower apparantly 'shields' this tower. This 'shielding' gets assessed by CASA but it is likely they will go with what AAL have said. There is scope in the ACC Development Plan for height above the set height limit.

So what are you on about Reaymeister? It looks positive so far for the developers and the 'little people', of which 90% who responded to the Advertiser survey, want this to go ahead.

I would suggest some people on hear do a little bit more reading of the facts and a little less dramatisation.

#162 Post by **UrbanSG** » Wed May 09, 2007 1:27 pm

Central Business Zone PDC 11

Buildings higher than the prescribed maximum building heights in each Policy Area may only be appropriate where the proposed building:

a) provides an orderly transition down to prescribed max building height of the Policy Area
d) introduces significant energy efficiency (this proposal is going for 5 star green rating)
f) located along high bus stop concentrations

These are only a few examples. Basically if the building meets a number of requirements it can be taller. The Development Plan is a guide and not every single requirement has to be met. It will come down to whether the ACC DAP wants it or not, and any subsequent appeals by the developer if the DAP doesn't approve.

dragonfly · #163 Post by **dragonfly** » Tue May 22, 2007 10:30 pm

I live next door to this proposal on Gilbert Place. In principle, I would love to see this development proceed, but in its current form, will destroy everything good about my apartment building.
The developer did approach us and offered peanuts, did not consult with us at any stage and now all the apartment owners (4) have lodged representations.
I don't think the developer has the skill or experience to succeed with this; even though I have no intention of moving or selling, they could have creamed it through if they simply offered the appropriate compensation.

#164 Post by **UrbanSG** » Wed May 23, 2007 1:06 pm

I assume you are talking about the student apartments on King William Street? Is your problem a loss of views to the west and privacy issues? Can I ask what the hell you expected when buying a property in a CBD business district zone? What no more tall towers because you have purchased a property there?

People need to read through development plans for an area before buying so they actually know what is permitted. Or seek advice first. Prospect Council wants to start up an info pack CD to make it easier for residents when buying into an area to understand what can happen next door to them development wise according to the plan. However in this case it is obvious a large commercial tower could go up next door and you should know that when making such an investment. Compensation

dragonfly · #165 Post by **dragonfly** » Wed May 23, 2007 2:35 pm

actually, no; i live at 31 gilbert place; its the purple/silver 2 storey art deco building converted into 4 apartments about 8 years ago. It is located right next door to the proposed building's glass lift shaft + service lane.

I understand that the area is CBD, but regardless of what future developments happen anywhere, existing properties must be taken into consideration (this is also in the ACC Development Plan). Please understand that I want the project to go ahead; I strongly believe that Adelaide needs developments such as this.

To be specific, the only elements of the development which concern me personally (and my recommendations);
- glazing to the lift shaft to be oscured glazing type up to at least 10 levels to (a) prevent direct visual access from the lifts to every living area and most bedrooms in my building and (b) not adversly affect the development potential of our site;
- service access lane and refuse storage to gilbert place to be consolidated into right of way access via peel street (where there is currently no residential interests). there are currently 3 points of access for vehicles to the building; this is lazy design and should be combined;
- moving mechanical riser off our western boundary by 3 metres (where, in its current position, will effectively destroy 2 bedroom windows.

I do not believe any of these issues, if rectified, will jeopardise the development. The development has my support; I love the idea of living next door to a 31 storey building.

You must understand that the same council approved the residential conversion of our building 8 years ago; they cannot simply approve something which will affect our building to the point of being unliveable.

Just because I live in the central CBD zone, does not give the council or a developer the clear right to do as they please at the detriment of my property. I don't think I am being unreasonalbe; surely, you must agree.

PS: and by compensation, I meant a realistic offer to buy our site and incorporate into the development.

[CAN] 20-22 Currie St | 123m | 31lvls | Office

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

Who is online