[COM] 377-379 King William Street | 50m | 16lvls | Apartments

[crawf]

Its okay, though the southern wall will be block off by Optus and future hi-rises.

[UrbanSG]

I don't mind this one. It isn't that great but that southern blank wall was in the orgininal proposal anyway. This area has a 40m height limit so they are going virtually as high as they can according to the plan. If you want to whinge about that go to the ACC not the developers. The current site is in a bad state of disrepair, it desperately needs redevelopment.

[Will]

It is OK to complain when a blank wall is proposed which abbuts a street, but in this example such criticism is un-warranted. The blank wall abbuts a property boundary, and from the look of the building sitting immediately to the south of this one, I predict that its days are numbered. It would be silly to propose an attractive southern façade in this development because there is a high chance of it being blocked in the near future by another building; not to mention the fire hazard that it would create.

[skyliner]

Resurrected!!(I thought this was dead!)

It looks OK but is, like has been said, not that suitable for our main boulevard - BUT....better than before.

I also think that the almost blank southern wall infers something could be occurring in the future on that side.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[AtD]

It is OK to complain when a blank wall is proposed which abbuts a street, but in this example such criticism is un-warranted. The blank wall abbuts a property boundary, and from the look of the building sitting immediately to the south of this one, I predict that its days are numbered. It would be silly to propose an attractive southern façade in this development because there is a high chance of it being blocked in the near future by another building; not to mention the fire hazard that it would create.

Exactly. The developers have no choice, this building must have a blank southern wall.

[Shuz]

It's very average, I would surely hope that this is the last 'new' building of its kind to be constrained by the ridiculous limitations imposed on the site. I would hope the revision of the Development Plan would see to some changes in the future for KWS South.

[monotonehell]

This development will come before the next ACC DAP, where it is expected to be granted planning APPROVAL.

This is not appropriate development for south KWS. Shit, ..it's just simply not what this town needs!!

We will regret this in years to come. This is our major boulevard. This is the heart of our city. Yet we are proposing something that is now commonplace and considered average development in places such as Darwin ,Cairns, Townsville or Mackay.

For heavens sake we are one of Australia's major cities and we need appropriate development.

I guess it's no use complaining because nothing really changes here.

To just clarify my standpoint, I believe that from the Optus building north to Victoria Square there should be height growth not a reduction.

The ACC will kill the southern end of KWS.

But what are they to do? Reject all development that's below a certain height on other people's land, leaving the street scape exactly the way it is with old crumbling 2 level buildings until some magical day in the future when all the developers are cashed up and have 1000s of potential clients all crying for floor space?

You can't put a hold on development just because it isn't big enough for your personal tastes. Demand in the market is what fills floorspace, and that's what dictates height. Right now we just don't have the demand to drive height.

The council don't build structures, business and the economy does. A developer is not going to construct a 30 floor building if they can only fill 10 floors.

[Shuz]

The council don't build structures, business and the economy does. A developer is not going to construct a 30 floor building if they can only fill 10 floors.

I can understand your view Mono - But I believe that a developer can propose a 30lvl building, instead of a 10lvl and erase the competition of 2 other developers who would also be proposing 10lvl buildings. I'm suprised that there isn't more intimidation and competiveness amongst developers in this case, because aren't they all seeking out to maximise their profits anyway?

Hypothetical Scenario:
The developers behind the Kings Apartments project on Waymouth Street should actively pursue building two 35lvl towers instead of their two 22lvl towers, to eradicating their competition's desire (in this case, let's say the developer's behind the Precinct complex - their nearest competition to their project) to build five 18lvl residential towers, and reduce their chance of success at attracting the buyers into the same market - whilst effectively increasing their profit margin of having a larger sales base as a result. In that case the competition would revise their development strategies, and perhaps opt for success at constructing a singular 45lvl residential tower to counteract the market? With increased height offers a new market - unmatched views offered elsewhere in Adelaide - driving a demand for a new breed of buyers and again, increased profits as a result. The Precinct developers have an advantage with their large land holding, to drive even more profits in building even more taller towers to counteract future competing developers - Space Apartments, 10-14 Andrew Street developers, etc. It would create a very competive market, a positive for Adelaide.

I believe Adelaide developers are rather conservative in their sales approach against their competition, and I understand the restrictions imposed by the ACC's development plan do little to help the issue at hand.

[wilkiebarkid]

This development will come before the next ACC DAP, where it is expected to be granted planning APPROVAL.

This is not appropriate development for south KWS. Shit, ..it's just simply not what this town needs!!

We will regret this in years to come. This is our major boulevard. This is the heart of our city. Yet we are proposing something that is now commonplace and considered average development in places such as Darwin ,Cairns, Townsville or Mackay.

For heavens sake we are one of Australia's major cities and we need appropriate development.

I guess it's no use complaining because nothing really changes here.

To just clarify my standpoint, I believe that from the Optus building north to Victoria Square there should be height growth not a reduction.

The ACC will kill the southern end of KWS.

But what are they to do? Reject all development that's below a certain height on other people's land, leaving the street scape exactly the way it is with old crumbling 2 level buildings until some magical day in the future when all the developers are cashed up and have 1000s of potential clients all crying for floor space?

You can't put a hold on development just because it isn't big enough for your personal tastes. Demand in the market is what fills floorspace, and that's what dictates height. Right now we just don't have the demand to drive height.

The council don't build structures, business and the economy does. A developer is not going to construct a 30 floor building if they can only fill 10 floors.

That was just me letting off some pent up steam over yet another insipid attempt to enhance our skyline. I'll take some aspirin and lie down for awhile!

There's no doubt that developments are not initiated by the council, so for that reason they have no control over what comes before them. However they do have the ability to revisit the height limits, and should do so soon, before we end up with a barely visible southern end of KWS from various skyline veiwing points.

[Hippodamus]

what are you talking about mate, an 11 storey building along a strip which has typically got 2-3 storey buildings is a substantial change in the height of the skyline... plus, this will spur future development in a more sustainable manner with more organic growth. over time, there will be varying heights, doesn't mean that all the developments along there are going to be 11 storeys, but what room for arguement will we have if there is no development and later we want to stick a few 25 storey towers amonst 2 level crumbling buildings... at least this is contributing to some neccessary density along the spine which is creating a better environment for taller structures in the future... it's very good.

[monotonehell]

I can understand your view Mono - But I believe that a developer can propose a 30lvl building, instead of a 10lvl and erase the competition of 2 other developers who would also be proposing 10lvl buildings. I'm suprised that there isn't more intimidation and competiveness amongst developers in this case, because aren't they all seeking out to maximise their profits anyway?

Hypothetical Scenario:
The developers behind the Kings Apartments project on Waymouth Street should actively pursue building two 35lvl towers instead of their two 22lvl towers, to eradicating their competition's desire (in this case, let's say the developer's behind the Precinct complex - their nearest competition to their project) to build five 18lvl residential towers, and reduce their chance of success at attracting the buyers into the same market - whilst effectively increasing their profit margin of having a larger sales base as a result. In that case the competition would revise their development strategies, and perhaps opt for success at constructing a singular 45lvl residential tower to counteract the market? With increased height offers a new market - unmatched views offered elsewhere in Adelaide - driving a demand for a new breed of buyers and again, increased profits as a result. The Precinct developers have an advantage with their large land holding, to drive even more profits in building even more taller towers to counteract future competing developers - Space Apartments, 10-14 Andrew Street developers, etc. It would create a very competive market, a positive for Adelaide.

I believe Adelaide developers are rather conservative in their sales approach against their competition, and I understand the restrictions imposed by the ACC's development plan do little to help the issue at hand.

There's a few more factors that you need to consider, demand and supply works in the fashion we've discussed - if you cant find tenants to fill a floor then there's no profit in building that floor. But supply and demand also works against height - if developers flood the market with floors with a fixed demand in the market then the price they can expect in return falls, reducing profit.

It's a delicate balancing act.

[UrbanSG]

The latest design has been approved at this evening's DAP meeting. At $6.5 million, tell em they're dreaming Obviously a low development cost to avoid higher application fees. From the ACC website:

Regeneration of City’s south continues
01 Sep 2008

The regeneration of the City’s southern precinct continues, with the Adelaide City Council’s Development Assessment Panel approving another office and residential tower on King William Street.

The $6.5 million proposal aims to replace a dilapidated building at 377-379 King William Street with an 11-level mixed use building featuring seven levels of office space, two residential levels and car parking.

Lord Mayor Michael Harbison said it’s another exciting development for the southern end of King William Street.

“This particular region of the City is rapidly changing, with a number of office and residential buildings approved for construction or already under construction in the area, including the new $90 million headquarters for Hills Industries,” he said.

“Companies and investors are seeing the sense of developing this area because of its direct access to the State Government’s tramline extension, which is helping to bring more workers into the CBD.”

“The proposed building is also another welcome mixed use development for our City – bringing a range of different uses such as residential apartments and office space together in the one building.”

“Mixed use projects – especially those featuring a combination of residential and commercial tenancies - deliver significant benefits for developers and investors through good take-up rates and the creation of a vibrant and safer City.”

“The southern end of King William Street, with its direct access to the tramline extension, is an ideal location for this form of development,” said the Lord Mayor.

The proposed development also includes secure bicycle parking for building users, a ground floor café, and a number of ‘green’ measures including energy efficient light fittings and solar panels for hot water.

[frank1]

Regeneration of City’s south continues
01 Sep 2008

“This particular region of the City is rapidly changing, with a number of office and residential buildings approved for construction or already under construction in the area, including the new $90 million headquarters for Hills Industries,” he said.

I thought the hills building was not under construction anymore or is there something we are not being told?

[Just build it]

I think Hills is still officially 'under construction', realistically 'on hold' and is rumoured to be being 're-designed'.

[monotonehell]

I think Hills is still officially 'under construction', realistically 'on hold' and is rumoured to be being 're-designed'.

Since the architects are sweating more than the construction crew I'd say the latter.