[PRO] Buckingham Arms | 10lvs | $150m

[Nathan]

Citify lodges $150m plan to transform Buckingham Arms hotel site into apartment towers reaching 10 storeys high

Three interlinked apartment towers would transform the historic Buckingham Arms hotel site in Gilberton as part of a $150m proposal pitched by local developers.

Citify has lodged a development application for the project, featuring 180 apartments rising up to 10 storeys – including specialist disability accommodation and a small number of serviced apartments – atop retail shops on the ground floor.

Townhouses are earmarked for the northeastern corner of the 6200sq m site, while offices and commercial space are planned for a northern portion of the site off Northcote Tce.

The original heritage-listed hotel building would be revamped for hospitality and retail operators.

Citify managing director Joel Wilkinson said the project, to be called The Buckingham, would cater to a broad range of residents.

“The Buckingham presents a rare opportunity to deliver a vibrant mixed-use project in a prestigious location close to the city, parks, public transport, Walkerville town centre and North Adelaide,” he said.

“The design will include high-end residential properties reflecting the prestige of the location, but we intend on pricing many apartments for the first-home buyer market.

“We are also excited about revitalising the existing Buckingham Arms hotel building and providing a new destination for residents and the community by curating a dynamic hospitality and retail offering.”

The mixed-use project has been designed by architects Forum and Studio Gram, and will feature a central public plaza area.

Designed to be fully electric, the apartment building will offer rooftop solar, electric vehicle charging stations, 305 carparks and more than 100 bicycle bays.

Apartments will range from one-bedroom studios to four-bedroom luxury penthouse suites with views to the Adelaide Hills and the city.

Citify acquired the site from previous hotel operator, Matthews Hospitality, following the pub’s closure in June last year.

The historic pub opened for business around 1846 and was renowned for its smorgasbord introduced by the Matthews family in 1955.

Matthews Hospitality secured a rezoning of the sitelast year, enabling residential and mixed-use development of up to six storeys.

Citify’s development plans are expected to open for public consultation next week.

The project is expected to support up to 200 jobs during construction.

Citify has previously undertaken more than $140m worth of residential development across Adelaide, including subdivisions, townhouses and apartments.

It recently completed the eight-storey Botten & Bowser apartment building on Melbourne St in North Adelaide.

[gnrc_louis]

I like it. Perfect site for it.

[Saltwater]

Agree, wonderful location to live and work, and seeing more medium / high density housing popping up in the right locations outside the CBD is great to see.

[dsriggs]

Great idea, great location right near the edge of the city, nice use of the old hotel.

Watch the Walkerville Council blow this to pieces.

[A-Town]

This is great to see. I hope the similar proposal just down the road in Kent Town eventually gets up too.

[[Shuz]]

Unfortunately I don't have high hopes for this one. If Park Royal at Kent Town can't get off the ground, which I argue is probably the prime site of all inner city parklands adjacent sites closest to the city - what hope is there that this one will?

[Nathan]

Unfortunately I don't have high hopes for this one. If Park Royal at Kent Town can't get off the ground, which I argue is probably the prime site of all inner city parklands adjacent sites closest to the city - what hope is there that this one will?

You're right. There's a good chance it's just a play to increase the value of the site. Whilst at a glance it seems like a great location, it's wedged within a fairly messy 5-way intersection, and it's quite an ordeal trying to cross from there to the parklands (6 separate crossings over 13 lanes of traffic). And that's to a much less desirable part of the parklands than Park Royal has close access to (NE corner of Lefevre Park vs Rundle Park and Botanic Garden).

[dbl96]

Unfortunately I don't have high hopes for this one. If Park Royal at Kent Town can't get off the ground, which I argue is probably the prime site of all inner city parklands adjacent sites closest to the city - what hope is there that this one will?

You're right. There's a good chance it's just a play to increase the value of the site. Whilst at a glance it seems like a great location, it's wedged within a fairly messy 5-way intersection, and it's quite an ordeal trying to cross from there to the parklands (6 separate crossings over 13 lanes of traffic). And that's to a much less desirable part of the parklands than Park Royal has close access to (NE corner of Lefevre Park vs Rundle Park and Botanic Garden).

I don't think Park Royal actually ever went to market though. When it is a ploy to raise the value, they don't even try selling the apartments. If they go to sales, there is a much better chance the development is probably legit.

[Waz]

Unfortunately I don't have high hopes for this one. If Park Royal at Kent Town can't get off the ground, which I argue is probably the prime site of all inner city parklands adjacent sites closest to the city - what hope is there that this one will?

You're right. There's a good chance it's just a play to increase the value of the site. Whilst at a glance it seems like a great location, it's wedged within a fairly messy 5-way intersection, and it's quite an ordeal trying to cross from there to the parklands (6 separate crossings over 13 lanes of traffic). And that's to a much less desirable part of the parklands than Park Royal has close access to (NE corner of Lefevre Park vs Rundle Park and Botanic Garden).

I lived across the road for three years, and it's actually not that bad. Also, if they put most entry for vehicles over on Walkerville terrac, I'd see it working ok.

As others have mentioned, no way the Walkerville council approves it, as it's still 1890 in Medindie and Gilberton.

[SRW]

Unfortunately I don't have high hopes for this one. If Park Royal at Kent Town can't get off the ground, which I argue is probably the prime site of all inner city parklands adjacent sites closest to the city - what hope is there that this one will?

You're right. There's a good chance it's just a play to increase the value of the site. Whilst at a glance it seems like a great location, it's wedged within a fairly messy 5-way intersection, and it's quite an ordeal trying to cross from there to the parklands (6 separate crossings over 13 lanes of traffic). And that's to a much less desirable part of the parklands than Park Royal has close access to (NE corner of Lefevre Park vs Rundle Park and Botanic Garden).

I lived across the road for three years, and it's actually not that bad. Also, if they put most entry for vehicles over on Walkerville terrac, I'd see it working ok.

As others have mentioned, no way the Walkerville council approves it, as it's still 1890 in Medindie and Gilberton.

Under the new planning system, SCAP will assess this proposal not the Town of Walkerville.

[Waz]

Under the new planning system, SCAP will assess this proposal not the Town of Walkerville.

I did wonder that. Thank goodness!

[GrowAdelaide]

Definitely what's needed for this kind of site and lets hope it forms good precedent to encourage further similar developments along the parklands fringe.

[HeapsGood]

Could this site do with an under or over pass for pedestrians?

[ChillyPhilly]

Decision day today. SCAP to recommend approval.

https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2024/03 ... evelopment

[gnrc_louis]

This got rejected. Another win for the NIMBY morons.