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

[[Shuz]]

Thank God sanity has prevailed with this one. It was excessively tall for the area.

The horse has already bolted with excessive high rise developments nearby Rundle Street to the west of Frome Road.

We should be preserving what's left of the character and heritage and streetscape as much as possible in the section between Frome Street and East Terrace.

The planning policies should be reviewed and be even stricter to be honest for this section.

[dbl96]

Thank God sanity has prevailed with this one. It was excessively tall for the area.

The horse has already bolted with excessive high rise developments nearby Rundle Street to the west of Frome Road.

We should be preserving what's left of the character and heritage and streetscape as much as possible in the section between Frome Street and East Terrace.

The planning policies should be reviewed and be even stricter to be honest for this section.

Agreed. There are plenty of underdeveloped areas in the Adelaide CBD that would be suited to high-rise development - but this is not one of them.

The zoning needs to be changed to prevent these proposals getting up. Corresponding changes could be made to permit greater heights in areas where doing so won't impact heritage streetscapes.

[rev]

Thank God sanity has prevailed with this one. It was excessively tall for the area.

The horse has already bolted with excessive high rise developments nearby Rundle Street to the west of Frome Road.

We should be preserving what's left of the character and heritage and streetscape as much as possible in the section between Frome Street and East Terrace.

The planning policies should be reviewed and be even stricter to be honest for this section.

Personally I don't find it as being too tall, but I agree to an extent about preserving the 'character' of Rundle.
The rear of the buildings fronting Rundle St should be the boundary where 'high rise' is allowed.

[rhino]

Personally I don't find it as being too tall, but I agree to an extent about preserving the 'character' of Rundle.
The rear of the buildings fronting Rundle St should be the boundary where 'high rise' is allowed.

This is a good idea, though in my humble opinion, the "hi-rise" in this area (Frome St to East Tce) should be limited to 8 or 9 levels anyway.

[wilkiebarkid]

Rumour on Triple M radio station this morning inferred that this has been relodged and is likely to be approved. The message conveyed was that it is going to be very high-end with apartments commencing at $4m each up to an extremely expensive penthouse.

[Mpol02]

So long as the design isn’t a pile of dog shit like the previous proposals and so long as the people who buy these aren’t nimby maggots

[gnrc_louis]

https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2024/05 ... ers-tussle

Shame Hines isn't more focused on actually redeveloping either of the other two sites they have proposals for that have sat idle for years.

[Nort]

Seems like the Pelligra proposal is one of the ones that wants an exception to the usual conditions to the area for them, but are building something which has a lot of its value based on being the only thing like it allowed in the immediate area. Perfectly reasonable for the neighbour site to require that they are set back from the boundary or built in such a way that would allow another building to be right against it.

[[Shuz]]

Jesus Christ, neither of them should be allowed. Rundle Street is a low rise heritage area and should be preserved as such! There are hundreds of other suitable development sites in the CBD capable of accommodating 20 storey apartment towers.

[SRW]

I actually think a development on the cinema site (former IMAX and Palace) would be ok as it could be set further back from Rundle Street and better integrate with Ayers House & grounds. The cinemas could relocate to a redeveloped uPark site at the top of Rundle.

The Pellagra proposal sucks.

[Nort]

Jesus Christ, neither of them should be allowed. Rundle Street is a low rise heritage area and should be preserved as such! There are hundreds of other suitable development sites in the CBD capable of accommodating 20 storey apartment towers.

I agree with you,, but if development of this scale is allowed in the area then those objections are still valid.