[CAN] Spire Living | 107m | 37lvls | Residential
[CAN]
Anyhow, back on topic....
W should expect to see the marketing for this tower real soon, according to that PDF.
W should expect to see the marketing for this tower real soon, according to that PDF.
[CAN]
Spire has been approved at 33lv 105m.
Construction due to Start Q1 2007 and finished by Q3 2008. Estimated construction time is 22 months. More info coming soon.
Latest report:
http://inproperty.com/pdfs/spir_property_report.pdf
Construction due to Start Q1 2007 and finished by Q3 2008. Estimated construction time is 22 months. More info coming soon.
Latest report:
http://inproperty.com/pdfs/spir_property_report.pdf
[CAN]
Nice.. wonder how they snuck that one through. I'll update the thread title.beamer85 wrote:Spire has been approved at 33lv 105m.
[CAN]
For a building to have a height increase the developers have to lodge a new development application which needs to be voted upon by council.beamer85 wrote:Spire has been approved at 33lv 105m.
Construction due to Start Q1 2007 and finished by Q3 2008. Estimated construction time is 22 months. More info coming soon.
Latest report:
http://inproperty.com/pdfs/spir_property_report.pdf
In regard to this building, no such application has been lodged or voted upon by council.
So as far as we should be concerned, the building is still 91.9m to top of roof and 97.9m to top of structure.
- Ho Really
- Super Size Scraper Poster!
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
- Location: In your head
[CAN]
...andbeamer85 wrote:Spire has been approved at 33lv 105m.
I have seen side elevations of Spire (Bentham Apartments) and can confirm the 33 levels. Not sure about the final height though, but if it's going to be 105 metres, that would make it the second tallest building in our CBD.Will wrote:So as far as we should be concerned, the building is still 91.9m to top of roof and 97.9m to top of structure.
Interesting website...cheers fellas.
[CAN]
This information came direct from the developer yesterday and said this had actually been confirmed a long time ago but was unable to be released until just recently. He also said that at this late stage it is extremley unlikely the detials will change.Will wrote:For a building to have a height increase the developers have to lodge a new development application which needs to be voted upon by council.beamer85 wrote:Spire has been approved at 33lv 105m.
Construction due to Start Q1 2007 and finished by Q3 2008. Estimated construction time is 22 months. More info coming soon.
Latest report:
http://inproperty.com/pdfs/spir_property_report.pdf
In regard to this building, no such application has been lodged or voted upon by council.
So as far as we should be concerned, the building is still 91.9m to top of roof and 97.9m to top of structure.
If you are still unhappy with this I suggest you do some research yourself.
[CAN]
I have done my research, and the simple fact is that the council has not voted or even received an application on increasing the height of the building from 97.9m to 105m.beamer85 wrote:This information came direct from the developer yesterday and said this had actually been confirmed a long time ago but was unable to be released until just recently. He also said that at this late stage it is extremley unlikely the detials will change.Will wrote:For a building to have a height increase the developers have to lodge a new development application which needs to be voted upon by council.beamer85 wrote:Spire has been approved at 33lv 105m.
Construction due to Start Q1 2007 and finished by Q3 2008. Estimated construction time is 22 months. More info coming soon.
Latest report:
http://inproperty.com/pdfs/spir_property_report.pdf
In regard to this building, no such application has been lodged or voted upon by council.
So as far as we should be concerned, the building is still 91.9m to top of roof and 97.9m to top of structure.
If you are still unhappy with this I suggest you do some research yourself.
Unless this is another surprise like the spire on CCT1? However I find this unlikely because late last year the 107m proposal was denied planning approval because of the airport, and the fears that planes would crash into the building.
With this post I would also like to clarify something. This is not a personal attack on yourself, and I am not disputing your conversation with the developer. My issue is that we cannot claim that this building is approved at 105m without having evidence from a source like the ACC stating that the building has planning approval for 105m.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot] and 6 guests