[COM] Lot 8 | 43m | 13lvls | Office

[AtD]

Any wall on a property boundary must be fire proof, therefore it must be blank.

[cruel_world00]

Any wall on a property boundary must be fire proof, therefore it must be blank.

Can you explain this in a little more detail for those of us (aka me) who have no idea about this stuff. Cheers.

[AtD]

Sorry, don't know anything more than that. There's surely to be someone else here who could enlighten us.

[Buildit]

Ok My understanding

Refer to the BCA. It is to do with the FSF- Fire source features. If you build on the boundary and there is the potential for another building also to be built on an adjoining block, that is also on the boundary, having windows on the face is a weak point for fire spread, and depending on the distance between the 2 buildings if any, it would most likely not meet the required FRL-Fire resistance level. Ultimately it means that you have to plan for the future.

If it was possible to have windows on the elevation(The Northern Face) in question it would mean that there would be a requirement for window wetting sprinklers on each window that is exposed to a fire source feature(eg. An adjoining building) and would be unpractical as the window wetting sprinklers would generally protrude past the extent of the external wall, with no encroachments allowed onto the adjoining block.

Also keeping in mind that if the building relied on windows on this elevation to meet the requirements of natural lighting in the BCA Volume 1 Part F4 and a building was built in front of these windows, would the building then have the required natural lighting levels?

Therefore having precast panels in this case would be the safest bet, With an FRL around 240mins(Simply 240mins before something bad happens). Also note that this is why the steel is not exposed on these areas, the precast panels cover the steel to these areas to also fire rate them, otherwise these beams would have to be clad or sprayed to fire proof them. The single columns within the boxed out sections are probably non load bearing, hence can be exposed but not 100% sure as you would need engineers documentation.

As per above areas stepping/returning back in is what you would call lightwells. These would be there to aid in natural lighting requirements, but by stepping back in you are reducing the distance the building is away from an adjacent building, therefore reducing the fire source feature and allowing some windows to be installed facing west to allow some natural light to spill in.

Hope it makes some sense or i may have confused matters.

[AtD]

Thank you, Buildit.

[teflon fox]

Just to look at a different perspective instead of the basic structure or aesthetics of a building
i would be personally concerned about buying an apartment where your views are not essentially
guaranteed. The small building immediately north of this complex - i think it's a Commonwealth
bank branch - could quite easily be demolished and another building constructed which could
essentially block out the northerly aspect of these apartments.

I personally believe structures like 223 North terrace and the Hines developments in
Hindmarsh Square will always be better as their views are sacrosanct.

[omada]

Teflon Fox:
I personally believe structures like 223 North terrace and the Hines developments in
Hindmarsh Square will always be better as their views are sacrosanct.

Agreed, but in this instance.. location mate..1 minute from the markets, chinatown, gouger street, the soon to be resurgent vic square (maybe)... I think this place will probably cater more for students etc

[AG]

Just to look at a different perspective instead of the basic structure or aesthetics of a building
i would be personally concerned about buying an apartment where your views are not essentially
guaranteed. The small building immediately north of this complex - i think it's a Commonwealth
bank branch - could quite easily be demolished and another building constructed which could
essentially block out the northerly aspect of these apartments.

This is the potential risk that people need to accept if they want to buy an apartment. You cannot guarantee a view.

One thing that isn't all that clear in the plans is which floors are residential, which are office, and whether the apartments are actually facing north or west. The only advertising I have seen so far for the apartments are tiny little spaces in the Real Estate liftout from the Saturday Advertiser.

[cruel_world00]

Ok My understanding

Refer to the BCA. It is to do with the FSF- Fire source features. If you build on the boundary and there is the potential for another building also to be built on an adjoining block, that is also on the boundary, having windows on the face is a weak point for fire spread, and depending on the distance between the 2 buildings if any, it would most likely not meet the required FRL-Fire resistance level. Ultimately it means that you have to plan for the future.

If it was possible to have windows on the elevation(The Northern Face) in question it would mean that there would be a requirement for window wetting sprinklers on each window that is exposed to a fire source feature(eg. An adjoining building) and would be unpractical as the window wetting sprinklers would generally protrude past the extent of the external wall, with no encroachments allowed onto the adjoining block.

Also keeping in mind that if the building relied on windows on this elevation to meet the requirements of natural lighting in the BCA Volume 1 Part F4 and a building was built in front of these windows, would the building then have the required natural lighting levels?

Therefore having precast panels in this case would be the safest bet, With an FRL around 240mins(Simply 240mins before something bad happens). Also note that this is why the steel is not exposed on these areas, the precast panels cover the steel to these areas to also fire rate them, otherwise these beams would have to be clad or sprayed to fire proof them. The single columns within the boxed out sections are probably non load bearing, hence can be exposed but not 100% sure as you would need engineers documentation.


Thanks for that.
As per above areas stepping/returning back in is what you would call lightwells. These would be there to aid in natural lighting requirements, but by stepping back in you are reducing the distance the building is away from an adjacent building, therefore reducing the fire source feature and allowing some windows to be installed facing west to allow some natural light to spill in.

Hope it makes some sense or i may have confused matters.

Thanks for that.

[skyliner]

I personally believe structures like 223 North terrace and the Hines developments in
Hindmarsh Square will always be better as their views are sacrosanct.

Fully agree mate. You just have to watch what is happening in Brisbane and the Gold Coast concerning location, views, aesthetics and proximity to key retail areas to realise this. Any high rise looking over the river would have thesame appeal. I would like to see some facing Adelaide on the North side of the Torrens and located around Morphett St Bridge.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[teflon fox]

Teflon Fox:
I personally believe structures like 223 North terrace and the Hines developments in
Hindmarsh Square will always be better as their views are sacrosanct.

Agreed, but in this instance.. location mate..1 minute from the markets, chinatown, gouger street, the soon to be resurgent vic square (maybe)... I think this place will probably cater more for students etc

Don't think so mate - Cheapest one bedder is 399k so think they would be catering more for the owner-occupier

[teflon fox]

Just to look at a different perspective instead of the basic structure or aesthetics of a building
i would be personally concerned about buying an apartment where your views are not essentially
guaranteed. The small building immediately north of this complex - i think it's a Commonwealth
bank branch - could quite easily be demolished and another building constructed which could
essentially block out the northerly aspect of these apartments.

This is the potential risk that people need to accept if they want to buy an apartment. You cannot guarantee a view.

One thing that isn't all that clear in the plans is which floors are residential, which are office, and whether the apartments are actually facing north or west. The only advertising I have seen so far for the apartments are tiny little spaces in the Real Estate liftout from the Saturday Advertiser.

There are 5 levels of apartments with 5 on each level. A 1-bedder, 1-bedder + study, and three 2-bedders. Four of them
face north and the smallest 2-bed faces west.

[Will]

Just to look at a different perspective instead of the basic structure or aesthetics of a building
i would be personally concerned about buying an apartment where your views are not essentially
guaranteed. The small building immediately north of this complex - i think it's a Commonwealth
bank branch - could quite easily be demolished and another building constructed which could
essentially block out the northerly aspect of these apartments.

This is the potential risk that people need to accept if they want to buy an apartment. You cannot guarantee a view.

One thing that isn't all that clear in the plans is which floors are residential, which are office, and whether the apartments are actually facing north or west. The only advertising I have seen so far for the apartments are tiny little spaces in the Real Estate liftout from the Saturday Advertiser.

The bottom half of the building is office, whereas the upper half of the building is residential.

[Will]

Just to look at a different perspective instead of the basic structure or aesthetics of a building
i would be personally concerned about buying an apartment where your views are not essentially
guaranteed. The small building immediately north of this complex - i think it's a Commonwealth
bank branch - could quite easily be demolished and another building constructed which could
essentially block out the northerly aspect of these apartments.

This is the potential risk that people need to accept if they want to buy an apartment. You cannot guarantee a view.

One thing that isn't all that clear in the plans is which floors are residential, which are office, and whether the apartments are actually facing north or west. The only advertising I have seen so far for the apartments are tiny little spaces in the Real Estate liftout from the Saturday Advertiser.

The bottom half of the building is office, whereas the upper half of the building is residential.

[wilkiebarkid]

Some pics from a different perspective today.

No.3 is my little grumble at how close new townhouses are to an expanding CBD. Wait for all the problems in 10 years or so when someone wants to build a decent sized highrise next to these tinny (that's meant to be tinny!) townhouses!