CAN: [Glenelg] Latitude | 42m | 12lvls | Residential

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in areas other than the CBD and North Adelaide. Includes Port Adelaide and Glenelg.
Message
Author
User avatar
Hoops
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:49 pm

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#136 Post by Hoops » Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:40 am

turnip wrote:Well if you think about it idiot, there's only about four months to go this year...... and they have not started selling
these apartments yet. If this project goes ahead I think they would start around the middle of next year.

You really should work on your attitude.

User avatar
bm7500
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 901
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:04 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#137 Post by bm7500 » Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:21 am

turnip wrote:Well if you think about it idiot, there's only about four months to go this year...... and they have not started selling
these apartments yet. If this project goes ahead I think they would start around the middle of next year.
Calling people idiots is unecessary :wank:

Mr Moderator do we need to declare a NIMBY alert??
ADELAIDE SINGAPORE LONDON BERLIN AMSTERDAM PARIS TOKYO AUCKLAND DOHA DUBLIN HONG KONG BANGKOK REYKJAVIK ROME MADRID BUDAPEST COPENHAGEN ZURICH BRUSSELS VIENNA PRAGUE STOCKHOLM LUXEMBOURG BRATISLAVA NASSAU DUBAI BAHRAIN KUALA LUMPUR HELSINKI GENEVA

User avatar
Pikey
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 2478
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Sitting Down

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#138 Post by Pikey » Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:17 pm

turnip wrote:Well if you think about it idiot, there's only about four months to go this year...... and they have not started selling
these apartments yet. If this project goes ahead I think they would start around the middle of next year.

Mod Edit.

Take it easy on the insults. Consider this your first warning.
:!:
Walking on over....

| Sensational-Adelaide.com Moderator |

User avatar
Mants
Legendary Member!
Posts: 990
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:40 am
Location: City of Burnside

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#139 Post by Mants » Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:01 pm

bm7500 wrote:Calling people idiots is unecessary :wank:

Mr Moderator do we need to declare a NIMBY alert??
i dont think he is a NIMBY (judging by other posts), just not overly optimistic.

User avatar
bm7500
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 901
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:04 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#140 Post by bm7500 » Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:06 pm

Mants wrote:
bm7500 wrote:Calling people idiots is unecessary :wank:

Mr Moderator do we need to declare a NIMBY alert??
i dont think he is a NIMBY (judging by other posts), just not overly optimistic.
Yep, fair call Mants.
ADELAIDE SINGAPORE LONDON BERLIN AMSTERDAM PARIS TOKYO AUCKLAND DOHA DUBLIN HONG KONG BANGKOK REYKJAVIK ROME MADRID BUDAPEST COPENHAGEN ZURICH BRUSSELS VIENNA PRAGUE STOCKHOLM LUXEMBOURG BRATISLAVA NASSAU DUBAI BAHRAIN KUALA LUMPUR HELSINKI GENEVA

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#141 Post by crawf » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:34 pm

turnip wrote:Well if you think about it idiot, there's only about four months to go this year...... and they have not started selling
these apartments yet. If this project goes ahead I think they would start around the middle of next year.
Idiot?
Last edited by crawf on Sat Aug 16, 2008 2:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

aussie2000
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:12 pm
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Contact:

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#142 Post by aussie2000 » Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:27 am

crawf wrote:
turnip wrote:Well if you think about it idiot, there's only about four months to go this year...... and they have not started selling
these apartments yet. If this project goes ahead I think they would start around the middle of next year.

Mod Edit.

Take it easy on the insults. Consider this your first warning.
Idiot?
yes crawf, its considered an insult in the western world :wink:

User avatar
Shuz
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Glandore

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#143 Post by Shuz » Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:26 pm

I'm not to jump on Turnip's bandwagon, but with all honesty - I think this one could be a while off, at the earliest 2010.

It was proposed in 2005. 3 years ago now. The market was saturated with all the new Marina projects, and then Liberty was built. Liberty saturated the market even more, and still is. If the situation has gotten to investors loaning out residences to Oaks (although illegally) that means theres little demand for apartment living at Glenelg. And then you have this coming onto the market? It would'nt be a wise more financially as there would be little interest in it now.
I think developers will want to hold onto their approval, and wait it out a couple of years - until things improve economically, and until the market is soaked up a bit more over time to create enough demand for this.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#144 Post by monotonehell » Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:26 pm

Shuz wrote:I'm not to jump on Turnip's bandwagon, but with all honesty - I think this one could be a while off, at the earliest 2010.

It was proposed in 2005. 3 years ago now. The market was saturated with all the new Marina projects, and then Liberty was built. Liberty saturated the market even more, and still is. If the situation has gotten to investors loaning out residences to Oaks (although illegally) that means theres little demand for apartment living at Glenelg. And then you have this coming onto the market? It would'nt be a wise more financially as there would be little interest in it now.
I think developers will want to hold onto their approval, and wait it out a couple of years - until things improve economically, and until the market is soaked up a bit more over time to create enough demand for this.
Just picking out a tangent that you hinted at there, and I know very little about this topic so I'm working on anecdotal evidence of a sample size of one here (me).... but... I've noticed that pretty much all apartment style living is being marketed on websites such as realestate.com.au is being pushed as an investment to be leased back to a hotelier (serviced apartments) or as student accommodation via an agent.

So is the market of people who actually want to live in apartments very small?
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 3650
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Glenelg

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#145 Post by SRW » Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:54 pm

monotonehell wrote:So is the market of people who actually want to live in apartments very small?
I suspect it might be more a case of the market of people who can afford an apartment (or at least, of people prepared to pay more for something they could probably find cheaper in a house) being very small.
Keep Adelaide Weird

how_good_is_he
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:32 pm

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#146 Post by how_good_is_he » Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:43 am

I think it also has a lot to do with the size of the apartments and their location. When Urbans built The Pier/Liberty/Horizon/Embassy the av. size apt was maybe 60 - 90sqm and their location is ideal for the business travellers/tourists etc.
On a note raised by Shuz, you pick up on the"illegal" use of short term accommodation in the Liberty building[ Pier etc are ok]. I know a little bit and welcome any further insight. My understanding is that the Liberty building is zoned Residential by council.
However many investors had enormous difficulty in leasing their apartments to medium-long term tenants [probably because of the size and the glut of say 200 - 250 of them.]
It is my understanding that Urbans sold the management rights to Oaks Hotels [with the Pier opp. as well as Horizon/Embassy] so they could offer to manage investors apartments for them - for short term accommodation.
This is where the bun fight started as some buyers who bought in Liberty are claiming that this short term leasing doesnt comply with the Residential zoning and they bought into the building believing it was "residential" only [esp. $2m penthouses].
This argument I believe has been going on for years, but I dont know if lawyers are involved yet or who will win.

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5858
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#147 Post by Will » Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:43 pm

There is some good news regarding this development featured in the Guardian Messenger.

Baulderstone Hornibrook has been selected as the builder and construction is expected to begin in January of next year.

However when dealing with the moribund Holdfast Bay Council there are always dark clouds. Although this development has received planning approval the Holdfast Bay Council has still not accepted defeat and judging by a decision voted on by its councillors the council will do all it can to sabotage and derail this development. Baulderstone Hornibrook had applied to the council to use a section of the roadway in St. John's Row and College Street to erect hoarding with incorporated gantries during the period of construction. Baulderstone Hornibrook had also applied to use a small part of the Elizabeth Street carpark to erect a crane. However in a decision titled 'DEVELOPERS BEWARE', the council voted to reject these applications and force Baulderstone Hornibrook to erect all hoarding, gantires and the crane within the site boundary; despite the fact that the Latitude building occupies the entire site! Mayor Ken Roolond is quoted as saying that such a decision will set a precedent for future development proposals.

The article also features the expert opinion of 86 year old Manson Towers resident Kathleen Job who describes the Latitude building as "an obnoxious project".


I am outraged by the council's decision. It is sending a message that Glenelg is closed for business and does not want new investment and people. But furthermore such a decision will increase costs and potentially put workers lives at risk.

I think all progress loving people have had enough with the extreme consevatism of the Holdfast Bay Council. I call upon the state government to remove planning powers from the Holdfast Bay Council because it cannot be trusted to protect jobs and investment!

Snorkie
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:34 pm
Location: Adelaide!

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#148 Post by Snorkie » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:08 pm

??? WTF!!! You have got to be kidding me! Is Holdfast Bay council run by 5 y.o. playing games. This is embarrasing. Holdfast Bay council seriously reminds me of the towns people in South Park, thats how stupid they are ''You know what scares rich people more than anything... Ghosts! we'll scare those rich people out of town!" :lol:
Please, please state government remove the powers from these bunch of morons, as no good will come of it if things remain the way they are.

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#149 Post by AtD » Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:57 pm

Agreed, Snorkie. Holdfast Bay seems to have lost sight about its role, and has been taken over by vested self interests. As it has been pointed out, there's a few councillors in Holdfast Bay who themselves own apartments in the highrises they so frequently protest. Trying to maintain a small village feel, or trying to maintain capital gains?

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 3650
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Glenelg

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#150 Post by SRW » Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:49 pm

Will wrote:It is sending a message that Glenelg is closed for business and does not want new investment and people.
Well, it is, and they don't. At least as long as the council is stacked by self-interested parties.

I hope the government can grow the balls needed to tackle council amalgamation, because it's becoming ever-more apparent that our metropolitan municipalities need to be rationalised.
Keep Adelaide Weird

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests