[PRO] 292-300 Rundle Street | 68m | 21 Levels | Mixed Use

[Ben]

That photo which Ben posted is a photo of the building on the corner of East Terrace
and Grenfell street. Honestly some of you guys need to get with it.

Adjust your browser settings mate or view the link here

http://futureurbangroup.com/img/success2.jpg

Give us some credit and we accept your apology.

[timtam20292]

So whats the reason behind the photo? I don't see any renders in it.

EDIT: lol posted this at the same time you responded Ben

Wow, I really like this!

[thecityguy]

Love this!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Norman]

I don't like it. It's too tall for the area. I hope it is rejected again. There are a lot more sites worthy of development.

[slenderman]

Ehh, it's okay. The design is a bit more conservative and the orange colour scheme is also more appropriate for the area, so it would definitely be a better outcome for the area than the previous design (if it were to go ahead). I would like to see some more renders as I'm a bit intrigued by the orange patterning creating the interesting textured appearance. Also want to see how they plan on integrating that design with the streetscape.

That said, I'm not sure anything of great height can really be built on that corner. Whilst I'm not entirely sure how big the site is or what buildings are on it, the proposal, at least from this render, seems a bit too close to the street which may not be avoidable for the site and so a high rise will inevitably draw attention away from the Stag and be at odds with the rest of the streetscape, as the DAC implied in the first refusal.

Would very much like to see that design elsewhere in the CBD, but I'm just not sure that this particular site can accommodate anything particularly tall.

[YellowRoad]

Im torn. The design is an improvement on the 90s goldcost proposal originally put up, yet the density remains which may be (dare I say it) too much for the area. It is however directly opposite the park lands which I believe should allow for some leniency regarding the density/scale of developments so more people live closer to them and are able to utilize them. As we've seen with South Terrace proposals, there is a strong market for apartments adjacent park lands.

Will be interesting to see how DAC go about assessing this as I believe the former proposal for this site is the only proposal in recent times that has been flatout rejected.

[PeFe]

Wrong location, Mr (or Ms) Developer !

Please move your proposed building to the western end of Grote or Gouger Street, if you would be so kind !

[Algernon]

Love it

[SRW]

I won't condemn it without seeing all the details, but even despite the improved design, if it's not suitably set back and stepped back from Rundle Street it should again be binned. Ultimately, protecting the asset that is Rundle Street's character must trump amy impulse for increased density near main streets and the parklands.

[Llessur2002]

My memory of the original proposal was that it would encompass the ground-floor tenancies beneath it – including PJ O’Briens. Whilst not by any means my favourite pub I’d be really annoyed to see yet another CBD hotel fall prey to a residential development.

Other than that it's miles better than the original proposal but I'd also question the size and scale for this particular location. I guess this depends on what the long-term plan for the east end is - keep low-rise or build up like the rest of the CBD?

[rev]

That photo which Ben posted is a photo of the building on the corner of East Terrace
and Grenfell street. Honestly some of you guys need to get with it.

It's quite clearly showing a render on the corner of East Tce/Rundle St.
So "get with it". Honestly.

[Dvious]

That photo which Ben posted is a photo of the building on the corner of East Terrace
and Grenfell street. Honestly some of you guys need to get with it.

Were you home schooled?

[monotonehell]

That photo which Ben posted is a photo of the building on the corner of East Terrace
and Grenfell street. Honestly some of you guys need to get with it.

It's quite clearly showing a render on the corner of East Tce/Rundle St.
So "get with it". Honestly.

That photo which Ben posted is a photo of the building on the corner of East Terrace
and Grenfell street. Honestly some of you guys need to get with it.

Were you home schooled?

Guys, go easy on GHS. If his browser window is narrower than yours, the forum will crop the right hand side right off large pictures. So to him it looks like a picture of the building on the corner of Grenfell St & East Tce.

If you suspect a picture has been cropped, right click (or long press if on a mobile device?) and view the image in a new tab. You might then see the whole thing.

This is why in the picture help thread I suggested scaling larger pictures down to around 1024 pixels wide.

[Algernon]

That photo which Ben posted is a photo of the building on the corner of East Terrace
and Grenfell street. Honestly some of you guys need to get with it.

It's quite clearly showing a render on the corner of East Tce/Rundle St.
So "get with it". Honestly.

From the render the building abuts neither Rundle nor East Terrace. The street frontages will be as they always were, and with the wonders of geometry from the street level you often won't be aware the building is there except for the 100-200 extra residents in the area giving it a kick.

[Nort]

If it's set back from the street then the size doesn't bother me. What I am curious about is the shading situation. Rundle Street runs East-West so it gets good sunlight, is this set back enough that it won't cast shadows over a big chunk of Rundle Street in the colder months of the year when the sun creeps a bit more to the north side of the sky?

Ordinarily I would agree that shading is just something you have to deal with in a CBD, but with Rundle Streets big attraction being al fresco dining it would be a bit impact to have a massive chunk of the street cast into shade.