[CAN] 123 Flinders Street | 135m | 39lvls | Mixed Use

[skyliner]

Just build it!

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[Reb-L]

The City Council should be renamed the Village Committee.
Until the electorate is expanded (e.g. into Adelaide Central, North and South) we will get backward-looking councils like this one.

[Ben]

Some more info just came through

Thought Sensational Adelaide might like to know that as expected ACC staff have written a report for their DAP that recommends the Council advise DAC that it DOES NOT support the development on the corner and Flinders and Pulteney.

The meeting is Monday at 5.30pm.

Maybe we should stop putting proposed buildings in our header ... :/

Unless we don't like them

[Waewick]

This council is seriously sending out mixed messages, on one hand there is this huge push to make the city exciting and alive (eg Picture Adelaide). Yet on the other hand, there is still this ridiculous big country town mentality that has been stagnanting Adelaide for far too long. This development is located in the CBD core for heaven sakes!. I know the DAC have the final say, but still I don't understand our city council's thinking and logic at times...

The council is irrelevant - I actually wonder why they even bother making all the noise they do.

it is time to either shut down the ACC or create a large council that encompasses suburbs in the surrounding area this will atelast give them scope to decline large developments in that area....

[Will]

It has just been reported on Ten News that the council voted to REJECT this proposal.

Thankfully, the final say will rest with the state government DAC.

[Ben]

Also 7 and 9. Anne Moran was saying it was an easy decision at double the height limit. Whose to say the height limit is right though Anne? The 1973 Adelaide City Council that wrote the dev plan?

If this get approved council will consider appealing.

[jk1237]

the council have made themselves look like fools governing a small town of 5,000 over this decision.

If only the developer proposed a multi-storey carpark, would have been approved at the blink of an eyelid

[ynotsfables]

I don't understand I thought this newly elected council were all for higher and more innovating proposals than the last.What's happening is there a minority faction within the current council that are trying to pull all the strings? Or is it just an Adelaidien thing that will go on for ever?

[Matt]

Anne Moran, the mouthpiece for mediocrity, as usual.

[[Shuz]]

No, no, this one has Anne Moron written all over it.

[UrbanSG]

It's something that will continue to happen until the Development Plan is amended to allow increased heights. That is the key issue.

Trying to fall back on the 'you can have increased height in certain situations' just doesn't wash at the end of the day, especially when the proposal is significantly over height.

When planner's and Council recommend approval or refusal it is also based on Case Law. If a representor decided to appeal an over height approval they have a chance of winning on appeal and the development being refused anyway. These factors are also considered in an assessment.

The ACC and government keep harping on about amending the Development Plan to increase heights. Do it already!!! Only then will developers start to propose decent height buildings in Adelaide.

[Ben]

City council rejects tall tower plans
by: Giuseppe Tauriello
From: The Advertiser November 23, 2011

AMBITIOUS plans for a 75m-tall apartment building have been knocked back by Adelaide City Council.

If approved, the $120 million project would become Adelaide's tallest residential building, incorporating offices, restaurants and leisure areas.

However, the council's Development Assessment Panel said the proposal - on the corner of Flinders and Pulteney streets - was inappropriate given it exceeded the area's 40m height limit.

Architect Paul Pruszinski said the opinion was misinformed.

"The development plan allows additional height on corners and major sites and this is one of the top four sites in the city in terms of size," he said.

DAP member councillor Sandy Wilkinson said it would be unfair to allow a developer to "abuse" height restrictions in order to reduce their development cost per unit.

However, he acknowledged uncertainty within the city's development plan needed to be addressed.

"There are over-height provisions in the plan but if you read them, one of the most important aspects is that the development achieves a design that is of good quality and which fits in with the area," he said.

Pruszinski Architects will work with developer Datong Australia to secure approval for the project from the State Government's Development Assessment Commission, which is expected to deliver its decision early next year.

[Adelarch]

Mmm I wonder if ‘good quality’ is a term that can be used to describe the shiny new car parks at 42 Franklin St or 102 Wakefield St, which Sandy had a say in approving? ‘Fit in with the area’ – well another bland box would certainly fit better with the character of the area than this design I agree, perhaps if they changed the design to another car park it would cut the mustard here and quietly get approved.

What a joke


Edit: Ok having checked my facts I’m being a bit unfair here because the Franklin St carpark wasn’t supported by council.

But my point stands that when I look at certain actual constructed outcomes in the city versus some of the great designs that get submitted and very publicly – even somewhat proudly – knocked back by certain councillors in the daily rag, I wonder why these guys don’t get more embarrassed and throw more of their time and effort behind either working with developers behind the scenes towards developing a conforming design or else updating the seemingly forever out-of-date design guidelines. Publicly bagging bold, interesting designs in which good money is being invested in Adelaide is not smart, even if it wins a few extra votes in North Adelaide.

[Wayno]

Notes from David Plumridge's latest newsletter (edition 71) state: "This building includes 4 levels of parking in the city core where there is already too much parking and growing congestion"

[Nort]

Notes from David Plumridge's latest newsletter (edition 71) state: "This building includes 4 levels of parking in the city core where there is already too much parking and growing congestion"

Given it's residential though it should have parking.

Really hope the DAC approves this.