[PRO] 163A-164 GREENHILL RD | 37m | 11 & 9 Levels | Mixed

[Ben]

11 and 9 level project on public notification.

https://plan.sa.gov.au/have_your_say/no ... n?aid=5866

Mixed use (commercial and residential) development comprising eleven (11) levels (western building) and nine (9) levels (eastern building), as well as adaptive reuse and extension of an existing Local Heritage Place, accommodating a commercial tenancy, 232 residential apartments together with associated shared amenities, swimming pool, carparking and landscaping and removal of regulated tree.

From the application:

The proposed development at 163A Greenhill Road is a Build-to-Rent (BTR) development developed by the Australian Education Union. The project utilizes their existing underutilized site and provides the Union with
new modern office accommodation, an ongoing financial return to the Union and its members through housing for members, key workers and the general public.

The development will provide for approximately:
- 232 apartments
- 540m2 of residential communal space
- 1200m2 of AEU office space
- 209 car parking spaces
- 180 bicycle parking spaces

The development is based on in depth local market research, and lessons learnt from BTR in other Australian capital cities and around the World.
Targeting 20-35 year-olds, the project is biased with a high proportion of one bed apartments with and without studies, as well as a small proportion of 2 bed apartments and studios.

Not the best looking proposal in my opinion

[SRW]

It's a peculiar design, reading sort of like the millennial postmodern style popular in late 90s. The various shades of eucalypt and ochre are informed by collaboration with Kaurna artists and could actually look quite nice opposite the parklands and at sunset.

Also interesting is that the development is serviced by just two lifts in only the western building, with access to the eastern appartments via elevated walkway or stairs. It might be part of a strategy to engender community by necessitating residents to interact in defined common spaces. Similarly, many apartments have only Juliette balconies, meaning they'll resort to the ample communal open space. On balance, I think they get away with it, as the amenities are quite good, and it appears the AEU will retain some form of ownership as it wishes to lease apartments to its members (i.e. teachers).

Presumably this will be quick to action being build-to-rent? It's a great location -- I'm surprised nothing's happened yet with former Tiffins Motel site a block up the road at the corner of George Street.

[flat04]

I'm surprised nothing's happened yet with former Tiffins Motel site a block up the road at the corner of George Street.

ECH bought that site because it's next door to their headquarters. I'm assuming they would be happy just to sit on it for a while, not as much hurry as if a developer bought the block instead. Some lawn and a nice fence might be better than the current hoarding though.

[gnrc_louis]

This was rejected: https://indaily.com.au/news/2023/09/22/ ... emolished/

[Nathan]

Unley councillor says they're not a NIMBY community, and then rattles off a bingo sheet of NIMBY arguments.

[SRW]

I hope the AEU persists with the development, whether on appeal or by revision.

[wilkiebarkid]

Only in Adelaide. As a city in desperate need for a major increase in available affordable housing we get decisions based on shadowing! We are a national joke.

[Nathan]

Only in Adelaide. As a city in desperate need for a major increase in available affordable housing we get decisions based on shadowing! We are a national joke.

And the shadowing isn't even that much of an issue. The main building scales down quite dramatically at the rear.

[[Shuz]]

Poor call by SCAP. The developers should opt for a review. Although, on a technicality it does exceed the height limit by 4m (even allowing for the 'bonus height' provision). They could compromise and cut a floor off the top to swing it in their favour.

[SRW]

This refusal was appealed and apparently a compromise was settled between the proponent and the SCAP. Needs to be signed off by the ERD Court, and some Nimby's are still to be dismissed, but it seems this one will go ahead.
https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2023/ ... rd-towers/