[COM] 58-76 Franklin Street | 70m | 19lvls | Mixed Use

[SRW]

i actually like it, and think it looks a lot nicer than Altitude up the street. but then again i like the city central developments too (i prefer glass to precast walls).

it's not too different from Conservatory at Hindmarsh (car park, glass office block, and glass and balcony residential part), except rather than all being in one tower, it is side by side.

love the mix of commercial and residential too. means there will be people around day and night.

As someone else first said, you'll notice that this proposal is a virtual amalgamation of Samaras' previous two projects at 400 King William Street and Coglin Street. And like those two projects, this one will likely end up looking cheap and ageing disgracefully.

I don't think we should be hoping for DAC to block it, however. That's all too blunt and leads only to inconsistency. Rather, this is yet another project (along with, say, 115 King William Street or Rowlands Place) that would benefit from what I presume would be critical review processes of an Integrated Design Commission. So when does that get going?

[Wayno]

Rather, this is yet another project (along with, say, 115 King William Street or Rowlands Place) that would benefit from what I presume would be critical review processes of an Integrated Design Commission. So when does that get going?

Aha! i just today received a PDF detailing much about the IDC, it's goals, time lines etc. I'll upload to a relevant thread very soon. My goal is to have 1-2 people from Tim Horton's team as regular contributors to the S-A forum - not sure how successful i'll be, but stay tuned!

[Ben]

From the City Messenger:

Tower to give Franklin St new life

by Emily Charrison

DEVELOPMENT industry experts are hoping plans for a $73 million apartment and office tower on Franklin St will rejuvenate the otherwise idle strip.

Developer Kyren has lodged plans with the City Council to build a 16-storey residential block and 19-level office complex at the former Just Kidding site, on the corner of Franklin and Young streets.

The project also includes a further five levels at the Young St carpark, along with upgrades to the existing retail shops.

Public consultation closed last week and will be passed on to the state’s Development Assessment Commission, which holds the ultimate power to decide on projects worth more than $10 million.

Property Council of Australia (SA branch) executive director Nathan Paine said Franklin St was currently “under-developed” with many blocks sitting empty, including the site of the former Truscott building and Aspen Group’s yet-to-be-built Tower 8 office complex.

“There’s certainly plenty of potential in Franklin St,” he said. “Urban Construct has a couple of sites along there with development approval and as demand increases we’d expect to see that area regenerated.”

Urban Development Institute of SA executive director Terry Walsh said the planned Victoria Square overhaul would also encourage growth on the street.

“Any revitalisation zone in the city has the capacity to attract other buildings to be revitalised or rebuilt,” he said.

“Good buildings and redevelopments are a feeder they cause more building owners to move to that precinct.”

Kyren managing director Theo Samaras said he hoped to start building the carpark within two months of planning consent, with work on the office and apartments starting mid next year.

He said the two 5-star green buildings would help activate Franklin St and encourage more developments.

“It’s all happening around there at the moment, there’s the telephone exchange building being redeveloped, and I think the next best place in the city will be Franklin St,” he said.

[Ben]

Surprise.... ACC staff are recommending this development NOT be supported for Monday nights DAP meeting.

[monotonehell]

Surprise.... ACC staff are recommending this development NOT be supported for Monday nights DAP meeting.

Hang on, ACC back office staff or the development board? Because isn't the normal run of events that the staff say yay, the board says nay, and then the state government rubber stamps it?

Do we know the reasons they aren't recommending it?

[Just build it]

Looks perfectly suitable for the location to me and it's resi component is exactly what Franklin needs. In fact I'd be happy for Franklin to be glass walled with these things from KW to Morphett. Currently Waymouth = CBD, Franklin = Wastelands. Less than a year ago I actually dodged then overtook a decent sized tumbleweed that was rolling without fear down the middle of Franklin St. True story. It didn't look out of place either, all it needed was the 3.10 to Yuma to come rolling though with it. FGS, let's get some people into Franklin Street.

Certainly can't see why this proposal copped so much flak when the 'Gallery on Steroids' proposal at 176 Morphett St has been roundly praised. Is it a case of 'first one to post' sets the tone? Couldn't possibly be aesthetics. The car-park?

[Will]

Surprise.... ACC staff are recommending this development NOT be supported for Monday nights DAP meeting.

Hang on, ACC back office staff or the development board? Because isn't the normal run of events that the staff say yay, the board says nay, and then the state government rubber stamps it?

Do we know the reasons they aren't recommending it?

Unfortunately one of the reasons cited is that the building is too tall and will clash with the majestic pyrammid concept for the skyline.

Furthermore, the vast expanses of plain glass on the facade, the lack of a wind impact statement, the lack of internal plans for levels 16-19 and concern at the small size of the 1 bedroom apartments are also issues of cocern.

[Plasmatron]

Too tall? Oh geez, not this again...

[wilkiebarkid]

Just when you thought that Franklin Street was going to give the City another dimension of height and density, the morons that hold back this City make embarrassingly silly decisions based on building heights that in 20 years will be deemed as underdeveloping such prime sites.

[monotonehell]

Well, hang on guys. Is this a case of you're only seeing what you expect to see?

Will wrote two statements:
1.

Unfortunately one of the reasons cited is that the building is too tall and will clash with the majestic pyrammid concept for the skyline.

2.

Furthermore, the vast expanses of plain glass on the facade, the lack of a wind impact statement, the lack of internal plans for levels 16-19 and concern at the small size of the 1 bedroom apartments are also issues of cocern.

Now I'm bending over backwards a bit here on the benefit of the doubt thing, but is it perhaps a case of; a bit tall by itself might be okay but taken in combination with the FOUR other points is was rejected on weight?

We're going off at them with out the full facts here, and that's an activity reserved for AdelaideNow trolls.
(I could be wrong, but I don't know)

[Waewick]

guys I recall someone talking about Adelaide height restrictions and flight paths

was that a yeah or nay ? I can't seem to find it and its a relevant topic at work at the moment.

[Wayno]

guys I recall someone talking about Adelaide height restrictions and flight paths

was that a yeah or nay ? I can't seem to find it and its a relevant topic at work at the moment.

here.

Browse though the 10 pages, or jump to the end for the final submission doc.

[Waewick]

cheers mate

[norwood]

Well, hang on guys. Is this a case of you're only seeing what you expect to see?

Will wrote two statements:
1.

Unfortunately one of the reasons cited is that the building is too tall and will clash with the majestic pyrammid concept for the skyline.

2.

Furthermore, the vast expanses of plain glass on the facade, the lack of a wind impact statement, the lack of internal plans for levels 16-19 and concern at the small size of the 1 bedroom apartments are also issues of cocern.

Now I'm bending over backwards a bit here on the benefit of the doubt thing, but is it perhaps a case of; a bit tall by itself might be okay but taken in combination with the FOUR other points is was rejected on weight?

We're going off at them with out the full facts here, and that's an activity reserved for AdelaideNow trolls.
(I could be wrong, but I don't know)

Monotonehell, as you indicated, perhaps some are jumping to conclusions here based on printed words as an interpretation of actual facts on the meeting night. For those who are awaiting the 'official DAP minutes'

The application was not rejected, nor was the initial application recommended for refusal. The recommendation from DAP in resect to the proposal sought that nominated components of the planners report, items (2) and (3) be adequately addressed and should they not, the panel does not support the development.

Good to see the use of the ACC’s 3D model for this application in the planners report, although it was highlighted to the panel on the night that the model did not include the buildings near or adjacent the proposed development; 42-56 Franklin Street, Tower 8, The Precinct… this can make any proposed building look out of place for those who cant recall whats missing in the model.

Also good to see the progressive and positive outlook shown by a particular member of the panel on the night, perhaps what a city needs.

[Omicron]

Vast expanses of plain glass? That's a bit rich, considering the entire City Central development up the road is, er, a vast expanse of plain glass.