[CAN] Spire Living | 107m | 37lvls | Residential

[Punishment466]

I got bored... .

[crawf]

For gods sake why do they keep using dodgy skyline photos, maybe the developer is dodgy? have they developed any buildings around Adelaide or Australia?

"I am not too sure what plans are on the council website. The development is 32 levels but is really about 25 storeys high when you add in the double storey penthouse, the 10 storeys of carparks and the cap of the building."

[Norman]

So this starts in about a year's time?

[Al]

This project keeps getting taller the longer it gets. Let's hope it doesn't start until late next year and by then, it'll be 40 floors and 125m tall! I'm still loving this project though. In fact, I'm keen on anything over 100m.

[skyliner]

New Render with the blades back and a bit taller again... 35 levels maybe 115m now?

That latest version is by far the best IMO. Beats off coloured cement and another blue glassed bldg. The blades are excellent - really balance off the top of the bldg. Like everyone else says, the taller the better - seemes to make a unique aesthetic appearance amongst all the other bldgs. visually stretches with height - like a parrallax error - plays games with the eye. I'm sure it will get built, but must be making a record fot the longest procrastination ever for the construction date to arrive. Anyone know the cause of this?

I might be a little thick in the cranial area, but that second pic is supposed to show what exactly?

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[Shuz]

Did the math. The extra three levels should up the height to 120m. Nearly as tall as the Currie St. Tower which is great!

[UrbanSG]

The skyline perspectives are crap. I know they are only meant as a guide but come on. We won't even see any of the western elevation from that angle, only the northern perspective. It is good to deal in the facts and have correct perspectives, otherwise it screams dodgy to me. Plus I don't think it will appear that tall considering it is further south of Westpac. Just a very poor cut and past adobe (or maybe not even adobe) job.

[Pistol]

this is my exact response Will:

Just to clarify, the building is 35 storeys however there are 33 levels of apartments in the building. Sorry for any confusion, we are just tidying up some of the older documents we have sent out with the most up to date information but did not want to hold up the brochure going out any longer as we have had many people waiting for this.

it is a bit dodgy the way it was all panned out. I hope it all works out. This is why I am somewhat skeptical of purchasing an apartment even though I wanted on so badly.

Yes, this is quite strange because I got the response I just posted only 2 days ago. If I had the cash, I would have serious reservations concerning purchasing in this development. This process does not exactly inspire confidence.

I have never heard of a $100 deposit just to register your interest and be one of the first to put a deposit down on an apartment before.

[Howie]

I have never heard of a $100 deposit just to register your interest and be one of the first to put a deposit down on an apartment before.

Was thinking the same thing actually... usually I get served wine and tidbits when i register for apartments, perhaps they do it a little differently those east coasters

[SRW]

Spire brouchure now available for download!

http://emktg.inproperty.com/download/fi ... _FINAL.pdf

Glossy thing, that. Light on relevant detail though. I was surprised to see it used one of my photos (unattributed, too)!

[crawf]

The skyline perspectives are crap. I know they are only meant as a guide but come on. We won't even see any of the western elevation from that angle, only the northern perspective. It is good to deal in the facts and have correct perspectives, otherwise it screams dodgy to me. Plus I don't think it will appear that tall considering it is further south of Westpac. Just a very poor cut and past adobe (or maybe not even adobe) job.

Even that wide

[Will]

Spire brouchure now available for download!

http://emktg.inproperty.com/download/fi ... _FINAL.pdf

Glossy thing, that. Light on relevant detail though. I was surprised to see it used one of my photos (unattributed, too)!

That is very disturbing.

[Ben]

I think that is a bit extreme Will. Although I agree this is poorly marketted and poorly organised it has some reputable companies on bored such as Rothe Lowman who surely must have recieved payment for all the work they have done so far.

But this hasn't even gone to council yet, the builder has not been appointed yet and they are asking for money to register. It certainly puts doubts in my mind. I just think they are a bunch of amatuers nothing sinsiter.

[Will]

I think that is a bit extreme Will. Although I agree this is poorly marketted and poorly organised it has some reputable companies on bored such as Rothe Lowman who surely must have recieved payment for all the work they have done so far.

But this hasn't even gone to council yet, the builder has not been appointed yet and they are asking for money to register. It certainly puts doubts in my mind. I just think they are a bunch of amatuers nothing sinsiter.

I may be over-reacting, but I find it really poor for a developer who wants people to spend hundred of thousands of dollars, even millions to show more organisation, and not steal the intellectual property of other people.

[.::G!oRgOs::.]

For gods sake why do they keep using dodgy skyline photos, maybe the developer is dodgy? have they developed any buildings around Adelaide or Australia?

I think you guys need to realise that the it was a decision made to use the old skyline picture.
It looks more dominating without CC1 and co in the image and so an older skyline pic works to their advantage.
It is not dodgy to use "dodgy skyline photos" as you say, its a strategy.

People have already taken the bate here by saying "look at the gap it fills in!" when in reality we know that the gap is much smaller with CC1 being there. Infact, wouldn't CC1 partially cover it from that angle?