[PRO] 1-8 North Terrace | ~120m | 32 Levels | Mixed Use

[Prodical]

At least it has now been sold and can now be developed and the Newmarket Heritage building protected. The damage allowed to happen to this lovely old building these past years is pretty awful.

And I am not sure if the previous owners had a serious intention of building there. Their plans were approved twice by SCAP and nothing happened. Let's see what the new owners propose for this important site.

[Jaymz]

Adelaide Now has an article stating the site has been sold to Australian Unity in a '$38.5m deal'. 'The property will be placed into an unlisted healthcare property trust.'
So I guess it won't get the apartment towers after all.....

Yes that's correct and not a bad return given the purchase price was $10.8 million in 2016, as reported in The Advertiser today.

[Mpol02]

Fuckers

[Patrick_27]

And this is where there really needs to be a laws and penalties to prevent developers who are clearly sitting on lucrative real estate for long periods without activity their only intent being to increase its land value. I agree with the above comment.

[rev]

Adelaide Now has an article stating the site has been sold to Australian Unity in a '$38.5m deal'. 'The property will be placed into an unlisted healthcare property trust.'
So I guess it won't get the apartment towers after all.....

RenewalSA should have jumped on this one.

[Elvis]

Perfect piece of the pie for a Women's & Children's Hospital...

But aside that, there's much greater potential here than the prior proposal.

I agree about the WCH.

It would also be ideal for medium length stay for country people who have to come to Adelaide for medical treatment or to accompany/visit family in the hospitals.

I believe this is what part of the "bio hub" was supposed to achieve, which was proposed for the old coke factory. EOI for leasing went up on realcommercial recently as well.

I never liked the bio hub strategy for the coke factory, and reckon this purchase from Aus Unity would compete directly with that.

[Prodical]

If the ACC is looking for more revenue, then stop bleeding the honest ratepayers through rate increases.

Slap a 1% tax on properties that have laid dormant for more than 3 years (there are heaps of them) and 3% tax if there has been development approval granted for a new structure.

The way that 1-10 North Terrace has been allowed to decay is really appalling - it is the main entrance to the CBD and the graffiti + lack of any occupancy + the vandalism internally should not be rewarded through millions of $$ profit.

[abc]

If the ACC is looking for more revenue, then stop bleeding the honest ratepayers through rate increases.

Slap a 1% tax on properties that have laid dormant for more than 3 years (there are heaps of them) and 3% tax if there has been development approval granted for a new structure.

The way that 1-10 North Terrace has been allowed to decay is really appalling - it is the main entrance to the CBD and the graffiti + lack of any occupancy + the vandalism internally should not be rewarded through millions of $$ profit.

agreed
same goes for cnr Currie and KW site

[rev]

If the ACC is looking for more revenue, then stop bleeding the honest ratepayers through rate increases.

Slap a 1% tax on properties that have laid dormant for more than 3 years (there are heaps of them) and 3% tax if there has been development approval granted for a new structure.

The way that 1-10 North Terrace has been allowed to decay is really appalling - it is the main entrance to the CBD and the graffiti + lack of any occupancy + the vandalism internally should not be rewarded through millions of $$ profit.

Where's the line on private property and rights then?
What, just to make some people feel better?
At what point does it stop, when the council or state owns the property? Then you'll be paying that extra tax to keep it graffiti free every day.

[rhino]

Where's the line on private property and rights then?
What, just to make some people feel better?
At what point does it stop, when the council or state owns the property? Then you'll be paying that extra tax to keep it graffiti free every day.

I see where you're coming from and you have a valid point, but there needs to be a point established at which it stops. Having a huge vacant site on O'Connell St for 30 years should have taught us (collectively) a lesson. Seeing Davaar and the Newmarket rotting away should get a ball rolling. If a developer wants to buy land that is blatantly in the public's visible realm, at the entrance to our Capital City or indeed on any of its main thoroughfares, they should be forced via laws to maintain it to a standard, or we'll end up like Houston.

[gnrc_louis]

Where's the line on private property and rights then?
What, just to make some people feel better?
At what point does it stop, when the council or state owns the property? Then you'll be paying that extra tax to keep it graffiti free every day.

I see where you're coming from and you have a valid point, but there needs to be a point established at which it stops. Having a huge vacant site on O'Connell St for 30 years should have taught us (collectively) a lesson. Seeing Davaar and the Newmarket rotting away should get a ball rolling. If a developer wants to buy land that is blatantly in the public's visible realm, at the entrance to our Capital City or indeed on any of its main thoroughfares, they should be forced via laws to maintain it to a standard, or we'll end up like Houston.

I think in the first instance they should incentivise development and if that fails, something to disincentivise sitting on sites waiting for their value to increase is probably needed.

[rev]

Where's the line on private property and rights then?
What, just to make some people feel better?
At what point does it stop, when the council or state owns the property? Then you'll be paying that extra tax to keep it graffiti free every day.

I see where you're coming from and you have a valid point, but there needs to be a point established at which it stops. Having a huge vacant site on O'Connell St for 30 years should have taught us (collectively) a lesson. Seeing Davaar and the Newmarket rotting away should get a ball rolling. If a developer wants to buy land that is blatantly in the public's visible realm, at the entrance to our Capital City or indeed on any of its main thoroughfares, they should be forced via laws to maintain it to a standard, or we'll end up like Houston.

I think when it comes to development applications, then yes if a developer fails to follow through and it's clear it was never something serious, or they fail multiple times to follow through with a development, as is the case here they lodged twice and got approved twice and still did sweet fuck all, then yes, penalize them. In this instance hit them a fee on the sale price.

If it's a small property, like some of the detached dwellings that still exist within the 5000 post code, then those people may not be in a position to pay for constant removal of graffiti from fences or walls. They may not be able to afford to constantly have windows replaced and may only be able to afford having broken windows boarded up.
If it's some 'heritage' listed property, they may not be in a position financially, to maintain it. Penalizing them for that is wrong. If there's brick work or whatever falling, or threatening to fall, then sure, do something about it as Council, work with the property owner to rectify it so there is no risk to the public walking by on the footpath. If the property owner fails to work with the council, then yeh fine them or whatever.

Not everyone that owns property is a multimillionaire or big time developer. There needs to be a clear distinction on who these sorts of penalties would apply to and who they wouldn't.

How do you stop graffiti anyway? There's graffiti in some locations, you look at it and sit there and wonder how the hell they got up there to do it.
Punishing property owners because someone else vandalized their property I don't think will work too well. Nor is it actually reasonable.

[Ben]

New application has been lodged. if this is all office this could be around the 120-130m mark.

1 NORTH TCE ADELAIDE SA 5000
UNDER ASSESSMENT
Description
Partial demolition of State Heritage Place and construction of a 32-storey mixed-use building with associated basement car parking
Application ID
24010844

Public Notification
Not Required

Overview
Assessment
Documents
Application summary
Application ID: 24010844
Lodged: 22/04/2024
Property details
Property address: 1 NORTH TCE ADELAIDE SA 5000
Council area: Adelaide

Land details
Title: CT 6052/235
Plan parcel: D71011 AL1
Applicant details
Name: Australian Unity Pty Ltd C/- Future Urban Pty Ltd

[Prodical]

I really hope this goes through.

That area of the CBD is so underdeveloped, and the neglect of the heritage Newmarket hotel is really disappointing. That whole quadrant is really in need of development to bring people and life into that part of the city. Here's hoping.

[Smithy84]

Demolition of the old nightclub and area behind the heritage facade will be commencing soon.