[PRO] 76 South Tce | 12 levels | Mixed Use

[PeFe]

From Indaily

South Terrace park lands tower bid

A 12-storey apartment and office tower on South Terrace overlooking the park lands has been proposed, amid predictions the southern CBD area will soon attract more high-rise development.


The development site at 76 South Terrace (pictured) along with the proposed 12-storey development (inset). Photo: Thomas Kelsall/InDaily; inset image: Planning Chambers/Looka Design
Developer Simon Voss Developments Pty Ltd has submitted plans for a 12-storey mixed-use tower at 76 South Terrace, near the intersection of Morphett Street in the southern CBD.

The tower is earmarked for a narrow vacant lot just 170 square metres in size, situated between a three-storey building at 74 South Terrace and a two-storey building at 77 South Terrace.

Publicly notified last week, the tower will include 10 apartments from levels two to 12 and office space/commercial tenancies on the ground floor and level one.


A view of the proposed tower during the day. Image: Planning Chambers/Looka Design

Each apartment will have two bedrooms and two bathrooms along with a south-facing balcony overlooking the park lands.

The complex will also include a 74-square-metre rooftop patio for tenants.

The nearest buildings of comparable height along South Terrace are two seven-storey mixed-use towers located at 62 and 83 South Terrace respectively.


A view of the vacant development site at 76 South Terrace. The tower will sit on the right half of the vacant property. Photo: Thomas Kelsall/InDaily

Development consultants Planning Chambers, on behalf of Simon Voss Developments, submitted that while the tower will “be more prominent in the locality”, it is anticipated there will be future development in area.

“The building will sit higher than neighbouring developments for the time being until these sites are redeveloped,” Planning Chambers senior associate John Mason said.

“Although the building will be more prominent in the locality, the attractive southern façade and use of balconies breaks down the visual bulk and together with a good design, results in a positive streetscape outcome.”

Mason said the lounge and dining areas of the apartments were deliberately situated on the southern side of the building “to maximise time spent admiring views over the park lands”.

He concluded that the building “is considered to respond acceptably to the local context, given there will be developments that reach similar heights”.

“The building is of a contemporary design which encompasses a mixture of materials to add visual interest and to break down the overall scale and height of the building,” he said.

“This design methodology is balanced with anticipating that similar development will be proposed on abutting sites (to the east and west) in the years to come.”



The overall height of the building is not specified in Mason’s planning report although it will exceed the zone’s maximum height of 36-metres.

Mason argued the proposal qualified to exceed the maximum height sought by the zone because the tower exceeded requirements for private open space and at least 75 per cent of the street frontages “are active frontages”.

He also said the building’s “slender vertical form” would incorporate “several building planes, protrusions, different materials and a high percentage of glazing techniques”.

The developers propose to construct the building with concrete precast panel, glass, aluminium and cast iron.

Members of the public can have their say on the proposal until May 4.

The park lands development proposal comes after the State Commission Assessment Panel last week rejected Melbourne developer Ross Pelligra’s bid to build a 21-storey mixed-use apartment tower overlooking the eastern park lands on the corner of Rundle St and East Terrace.

https://indaily.com.au/news/2023/04/17/ ... tower-bid/

[Nort]

Urgh, hell no.

[SRW]

This does not give the impression of a genuine proposal.

[ChillyPhilly]

I like the height and idea of a dense development overlooking the Parklands, but this is just...gross.

You can formally comment here: https://plan.sa.gov.au/have_your_say/no ... n?aid=5930

[Mpol02]

Blank walls, blank walls, gorgeous blank walls

[Nort]

The whole proposal reads like a joke. Like it's fine for a purely residential building to have minimal streetscape activation, but how they try and spin it.

The ground and first floor of the proposal have been designed to increase streetscape activation.
Specifically, the ground level is to have dedicated office space, a lobby, resident storage area,
services area, bicycle parking and access to the lift and stairwell. The second level is to be an open
floor office area. An open floor area with a high floor to ceiling will also support other commercial or
retail uses if the need ever arises

[[Shuz]]

It's a no from me.

[rev]

Aren't the blank walls part of the fire safety code or building codes or whatever? Given that one day there may well be developments on either side of this, perhaps as tall?

South Terrace should be lined with residential towers in the 40-80m range overlooking the parklands.

[Nathan]

South Terrace should be lined with residential towers in the 40-80m range overlooking the parklands.

This. But apply to the entire parklands, on both sides.

[Neko Neko Peko Peko]

Aren't the blank walls part of the fire safety code or building codes or whatever? Given that one day there may well be developments on either side of this, perhaps as tall?

Yes, buildings within a certain distance to eachother become fire hazards to one another with spread of flame between openings. The options become further setbacks to create required distance/fire proof shear wall or fire rating openings (which adds a lot of cost to the build for not much return if those views get blocked in the foreseeable future by adjacent developments)

[phenom]

Tough call. It looks terrible, but given how narrow it is the concrete walls on east and west are a given. Ultimately I would expect it wouldn't stand out so much but that's likely many, many decades away. Obviously development has to start somewhere but there's already plenty of similar height buildings further down South Terrace where this wouldn't really be so noticeable. I'd say no if it was my decision.

[SBD]

Aren't the blank walls part of the fire safety code or building codes or whatever? Given that one day there may well be developments on either side of this, perhaps as tall?

Yes, buildings within a certain distance to each other become fire hazards to one another with spread of flame between openings. The options become further setbacks to create required distance/fire proof shear wall or fire rating openings (which adds a lot of cost to the build for not much return if those views get blocked in the foreseeable future by adjacent developments)

It says the site is 170 square metres. Looking at the image and guessing four times as deep as wide, that makes it 6.5m wide and 26m deep, presenting a huge blank space to the east and westerly winds. Is it possible to build this in a way that neither sways enough to make the upstairs residents seasick nor falls over from the wind force against it? 26m x 12 storeys collects a fair amount of wind force.

[Algernon]

Aren't the blank walls part of the fire safety code or building codes or whatever? Given that one day there may well be developments on either side of this, perhaps as tall?

Yes, buildings within a certain distance to each other become fire hazards to one another with spread of flame between openings. The options become further setbacks to create required distance/fire proof shear wall or fire rating openings (which adds a lot of cost to the build for not much return if those views get blocked in the foreseeable future by adjacent developments)

It says the site is 170 square metres. Looking at the image and guessing four times as deep as wide, that makes it 6.5m wide and 26m deep, presenting a huge blank space to the east and westerly winds. Is it possible to build this in a way that neither sways enough to make the upstairs residents seasick nor falls over from the wind force against it? 26m x 12 storeys collects a fair amount of wind force.

Not sure about that but on a somewhat related issue to the likely net area of the single floor apartments versus the width..... the light penetration into those things is going to be crap. You certainly won't be getting natural light into every bedroom unless they go for those indoor windows.

I wouldn't buy.

That said, these slim developments rarely get up. Not having the option of straitifying the offering between different apartment sizes really locks the developers in. Even if it sells off the plan, it's vulnerable to basically any sort of change in market conditions/construction costs that can't be adapted to by changing the apartment mix.

[SRW]

Yes, buildings within a certain distance to each other become fire hazards to one another with spread of flame between openings. The options become further setbacks to create required distance/fire proof shear wall or fire rating openings (which adds a lot of cost to the build for not much return if those views get blocked in the foreseeable future by adjacent developments)

It says the site is 170 square metres. Looking at the image and guessing four times as deep as wide, that makes it 6.5m wide and 26m deep, presenting a huge blank space to the east and westerly winds. Is it possible to build this in a way that neither sways enough to make the upstairs residents seasick nor falls over from the wind force against it? 26m x 12 storeys collects a fair amount of wind force.

Not sure about that but on a somewhat related issue to the likely net area of the single floor apartments versus the width..... the light penetration into those things is going to be crap. You certainly won't be getting natural light into every bedroom unless they go for those indoor windows.

I wouldn't buy.

That said, these slim developments rarely get up. Not having the option of straitifying the offering between different apartment sizes really locks the developers in. Even if it sells off the plan, it's vulnerable to basically any sort of change in market conditions/construction costs that can't be adapted to by changing the apartment mix.

Yes, this is exactly why I don't think it's a genuine proposal. There's no reason to refuse it on planning grounds, but the reality is this thing will not sell.

[NTRabbit]

Is it a stalking horse for something bigger? If they added the non-heritage red brick next door they'd double the floor size, but no point in buying if no one will let them build over 6 levels