[U/C] 88 O'Connell Street | 63m | 13, 13 and 15 Levels | Mixed Use

[ghs]

How many cranes on this one ?

It's a pretty big site, so we could see a couple right ?

[Professor]

At least Moran is consistent...

[iTouch]

If there were cranes, would they count in the crane counter? North Adelaide is different to the CBD :S

[dsriggs]

Can we... FINALLY... change the thread title to SWP?

[Will]

Can we... FINALLY... change the thread title to SWP?

We've done it for other projects in similar situations, so I guess a change in title is warranted.

Done,

[Ben]

Can we... FINALLY... change the thread title to SWP?

We've done it for other projects in similar situations, so I guess a change in title is warranted.

Done,

But it's only demolition... no actual site works in progress... which is what SWP stands for..

[Will]

Well, if actual construction had started on the development then it would technically be U/C and not SWP.

SWP, the way i understand it, means 'site work preparation', which i understand to mean preparing the site for construction, of which demolition of the current buildings on site falls under this definition.

Maybe we should change the term SWP to something less ambiguous like SP for 'site preparation'?

[Pikey]

No site works include demolition. As soon as initial piling commences, it then becomes under construction.

[Ben]

So the following are SWP?:

Space Apartments

Hills House

Merc on Gouger

42 Franklin Street

102 Wakefield Street - Office

.... Do you see where i'm coming from?


Demolition actually doesn't mean any site "prepartion" works for construction are commencing. It's simply demolition, nothing to do with future work.

I do think SWP is a big ambiguos though, as SWP eludes to construction becoming imminent when clearly it is far from it in a lot of cases...

[AtD]

I agree with Ben. I think SWP doesn't actually mean anything and should be removed.

[Will]

I agree with Ben. I think SWP doesn't actually mean anything and should be removed.

Yes, I agree. Let's get rid of it.

However, why don't we create a new category to replace SWP. How about APP-SP (Approved - Site Preparation)?

[Ben]

I agree with Ben. I think SWP doesn't actually mean anything and should be removed.

Yes, I agree. Let's get rid of it.

However, why don't we create a new category to replace SWP. How about APP-SP (Approved - Site Preparation)?

I think "prepare" eludes eminent construction... we could have DEM or SITE-CLR as in demolition or site clearing? Just ideas..

[monotonehell]

From the guide we agreed on way back there's the codes for the administration processes:
#PRO: Proposed
#APP: Approved
#REJ: Rejected
#DEF: Deferred
#ONH: On Hold

The on site action codes:
#SWP: Demolition, Preparation, etc: (Site Works in Progress)
#U/C: Under Construction
/ or /
#U/R: Under Renovation

Howie removed all the discussion we had before he pinned that thread to all the development forums, but from what I remember; since #U/C is only (supposed to be) applied when the foundations are poured, I don't see a problem with #SWP meaning any non-construction preparation before that. It's just that some people may have forgot the key.

I've argued before that if the SWP is completed but no construction is evident for some time then the project's thread should be switched to ONH. But a few people said that was "too political". I still think if there's no further action after a month ONH is reasonable until work recommences.

[stumpjumper]

Last week I spoke to Makris' retail manager, Mark Filipowicz, who told me that while the site would be cleared, there were no plans to commence siteworks. Further, no working drawings have been lodged with ACC so no building approval has been given.

[stumpjumper]

Makris said this morning that he remains 'committed to the project'. There may be a word missing there: he didn't say 'committed to building the project'.