[CAN] 2-20 Flinders St | 100m | 27lvls | Hotel & Office

[Will]

maan if both this and Pirie St are approved, we're talking about ULTRA-Density. Flinders and Pirie St will look dark and business-like. (In a good way)

I had to laugh.
Obviously you've never been interstate, or internationally.

I have travelled, and this still looks quite dense to me:

[stumpjumper]

It could happen. Toga (the developer of the proposed Flinders St building) occupies the old Treasury building (the Medina Hotel) and in the past has put up a proposal for a tower in the middle of that building. Under the right conditions, Toga could consolidate the Treasury building, the present proposal and perhaps the Pilgrim Church site if the heritage listing were ever removed or dealt with somehow.

[rhino]

I had to laugh.
Obviously you've never been interstate, or internationally.

I had to laugh too.
I must admit, I have never 'been internationally'
I have travelled overseas, however....

[Ben]

The council are expected to support approval of this project due to a number of conditions at tonights meeting.

[AtD]

Good to see the ACC looking beyond the fact that it's over 20m above their height limit.

[Will]

Dissapointing news from the Messenger:

Heritage buildings protected ahead of planned tower

Local News25 Jul 11 @ 08:30am by Tim Williams



Artist's impresson of the proposed Flinders Tower on Flinders Street, Adelaide.


THE top third of a 27-storey tower proposed for Flinders St must be tapered so it does not dominate nearby heritage buildings, the City Council’s development assessment panel says.

The Toga Group wants to build an $80 million, 100m tall hotel and office tower, which would be Adelaide’s fourth highest, next to the Pilgrim Uniting Church near Victoria Square.

The maximum building height allowed for the site is 72m.

The DAP last week ruled the section of the building above the height limit must be “substantially” stepped in from the lower section and tapered toward the top.

Floor space on the levels above 72m must be no more than 50 per cent that of levels below the height limit.

The government’s Development Assessment Commission will have the final say

[cyber_256]

A bit disappointing, but not terrible. I still think it would look alright, I personally like the look on the old SA Water building.

We shall see what happens though with the State Gov DAC as they generally approve these things without many objections.

[crawf]

This is why it's good we have the DAC

[spiller]

So wait, it already tapers outwards towards the top and now they want it to taper in as well? Could make for an interesting redesign

[arki]

I agree that from a design point of view the recommendations could make for a much more interesting structure for our skyline.
However it is the classic rigmarole provided by the ACC and the DAP which irks me about most proposals in this city.

As people who follow my posts may have realised I am completely pro-heritage preservation and restoration but the current design hardly compromises the heritage of the site so why bother and make a fuss over it? The building doesn't even front Flinders Street so the need to 'step' the height back in order to disallow any clash with the current structure seems completely impotent.

[AtD]

How bizarre. It hangs over the driveway, not over the church.

Has the DAP gone against the advice of its staff?

[[Shuz]]

The DAP comes up with the most mind-numbingly stupidest reasons and excuses to block/amend development proposals. Thank God for the DAC.

[Will]

The DAP comes up with the most mind-numbingly stupidest reasons and excuses to block/amend development proposals. Thank God for the DAC.

and yet, just a few days ago....

Unfortunately, I have my doubts in the DAC's capability to make the right decision. I am led to believe that the DAC have never rejected a proposal; they have rubber-stamped every proposal and amendment to date ever since its inception.

[omada]

I really don't understand the ACC sometimes, this is a building with more architectural merit than most of the dull concrete and glass boxes that are now gracing our skyline, let alone the ACC's penchant for approving carparks.

I echo Shuz "thank god for the DAP". Sounds like a good sensational adelaide t-shirt slogan actually.

[[Shuz]]

The DAP comes up with the most mind-numbingly stupidest reasons and excuses to block/amend development proposals. Thank God for the DAC.

and yet, just a few days ago....

Unfortunately, I have my doubts in the DAC's capability to make the right decision. I am led to believe that the DAC have never rejected a proposal; they have rubber-stamped every proposal and amendment to date ever since its inception.

Apples and oranges.