[COM] 122 Grenfell Street | 59m | 17lvls | Ibis Hotel

[Jatza]

wow degruch, you're a real genious... you have a perfect recipe there don't you?
who's going to pay for it?
it's really easy to simply throw a few small bars and restuarants in here, and sprinkle a few streetlights there when you're in fairy land isn't it.
unfortunately we live in the real world, a world where somebody has to pay for it and get it approved from a demented council planning department.
losing the jade is a real shame, but surely you can see this development is the first step forward for the lane.
The design is a great outcome, a really stylish building with nice detailing - especially the facated concrete panels, they look really nice.

[degruch]

$65 million...I think they'll find the money. As for the council's input, I'm sure they'd find money to assist the enterprise, given the life it could potentially inject into a dead laneway, particularly given they've stated interest in stimulating such culture. I'm not a genius, I'm just a lateral thinker...I make a living out of it.

PS: The design is pretty ordinary...is that a giant magnet to the left? Also, why partially cover the lower floor with a solid facade when you're advertising retail there? Absolutely daft.

[Pants]

wow degruch, you're a real genious...

Of all words to misspell when you're trying to make a point!

[ynotsfables]

That's a beauty well noted Pants.
Good on you degruch I like your lateral thinking.

cheers

[Reb-L]

For those who don't know;
Lateral thinking = doing it while lying down

[Jatza]

Touche Pants, i'll pay that.

No matter what you think Degruch, council, architect's or any other party won't convince private land owners to do something that isn't commercially viable, some may argue developing small bars and cafes isn't the best result financially - thus the demo of the jade, unfortunately.

[degruch]

Oh absolutely, I agree...but the point is, the developers seem to be missing a golden opportunity to make their development even more commercially viable, whilst refusing to engage the community outside the hotel's walls. It would cost, what, $10k to knock the building over? Then what? One potential revenue stream (rent) lost. Given Hines are spruiking the heritage value of adjoining Gays Arcade, why are they not developing something actually on Twin Street itself, even using what should be a heritage listed building (JM) as part of it?

Given the council's interest in developing laneways themselves, Hines could have retail or cafe/restaurant facilities at the Grenfell Street corner of Twin Street, with the proviso that the council adds lighting, tidies up the street and possibly includes closure to traffic during certain hours (allowing markets or alfresco dining). JM could even make a great restaurant (the hotel seems aimed at travelling business anyway) or offices (ready-made cafe clientele), if not a venue.

These ideas may have already been considered, who knows (as mentioned previously, I' love to know more about what is really planned other than the two seemingly conflicting press releases), but the development seems fixed on 'turning its back' on Twin Street and destroying any value currently on it...it will render Twin Street dead for good, instead of opening it to viable business opportunities.

Each to their own in regard to the architecture, I believe the development is otherwise fine, just short-sighted. Why do developers have to continually set themselves up as the cultural bad guy? The community, council and State have voiced their concern about what's planned (and not yet approved), maybe it's time to embrace everyone and make the most of the opportunity, rather than go on the defensive?

[Waewick]

I would imagine that any "save the Jade" success would probably only save the building and not the tenants.

I can't see the ACC being that interested in saving it given they would be the ones most likely left to fix up the building.

[Omicron]

A more pertinent question - what is to become of the site? I don't recall any part of the hotel plans extending across the Jade Monkey site, which I find very odd indeed. If they own it and they're going to knock it down, why not use it for something? Such a limited space separate to the main building isn't going to allow for any construction of note, so for the life of me I don't see why it hasn't been incorporated into the hotel development.

[jk1237]

Exactly Omicron. I'm on the side of degruch in all this. It sad to see the Jade move on, but I reckon they will find another venue. But why wouldn't the developer not want to restore the old stone facade and turn it into a cool hotel lounge bar, brasserie or cafe. Its not affecting the plans for the hotel building structure, so why are they bulldzozing it and what will they do with the land.

If they bulldoze the old Jade building for something such as 2 carparking spaces for the hotel manager I will be pissed off

[SRW]

Oh absolutely, I agree...but the point is, the developers seem to be missing a golden opportunity to make their development even more commercially viable, whilst refusing to engage the community outside the hotel's walls. It would cost, what, $10k to knock the building over? Then what? One potential revenue stream (rent) lost. Given Hines are spruiking the heritage value of adjoining Gays Arcade, why are they not developing something actually on Twin Street itself, even using what should be a heritage listed building (JM) as part of it?

Given the council's interest in developing laneways themselves, Hines could have retail or cafe/restaurant facilities at the Grenfell Street corner of Twin Street, with the proviso that the council adds lighting, tidies up the street and possibly includes closure to traffic during certain hours (allowing markets or alfresco dining). JM could even make a great restaurant (the hotel seems aimed at travelling business anyway) or offices (ready-made cafe clientele), if not a venue.

These ideas may have already been considered, who knows (as mentioned previously, I' love to know more about what is really planned other than the two seemingly conflicting press releases), but the development seems fixed on 'turning its back' on Twin Street and destroying any value currently on it...it will render Twin Street dead for good, instead of opening it to viable business opportunities.

Each to their own in regard to the architecture, I believe the development is otherwise fine, just short-sighted. Why do developers have to continually set themselves up as the cultural bad guy? The community, council and State have voiced their concern about what's planned (and not yet approved), maybe it's time to embrace everyone and make the most of the opportunity, rather than go on the defensive?

All of these considerations are what integrated design is supposed to be about. So where's our lauded Commission on this project?

[arki]

Exactly Omicron. I'm on the side of degruch in all this. It sad to see the Jade move on, but I reckon they will find another venue. But why wouldn't the developer not want to restore the old stone facade and turn it into a cool hotel lounge bar, brasserie or cafe. Its not affecting the plans for the hotel building structure, so why are they bulldzozing it and what will they do with the land.

If they bulldoze the old Jade building for something such as 2 carparking spaces for the hotel manager I will be pissed off

Its much cheaper in the long run for the developer to simply demolish the Jade rather than keep it around and have to deal with the headache of maintaining such an old structure, even if they can find a tenant to fill the space.

[degruch]

Its much cheaper in the long run for the developer to simply demolish the Jade rather than keep it around and have to deal with the headache of maintaining such an old structure, even if they can find a tenant to fill the space.

Possibly...hard to say really isn't it? The current tenant only recently restored the cellar themselves, now they effectively have 2 venues in one (Jade Monkey and Two Ships), I'm not aware of anything structually wrong with the building. The owners are probably making $20k per annum from the Jade Monkey. Will the financial benefit from ease of construction, or hotel parking, outweigh this and the demolition cost? Can they make more money from it once renovated?

How the old building will stand up to the construction site next to it is another question again.

Alternatively, if the developer guts the building to incorporate into the hotel complex (provided it's not heritage listed in the interim), what maintenance is required? Could be a minimal outlay for the return, if the building is used as part of the hotel ("Come dine in our stunning heritage restaurant, one of the oldest buildings in Adelaide" blah, blah, blah), or tenanted otherwise.

As I mentioned, there's a fair amount of irony in Hines' press release that mentions the heritage value of Gays Arcade (Twin Street entrance), but ignores the fact they plan to level the 1850's building in between.

[Pants]

It's a pretty safe bet that the Jade site will be developed into a more financially lucrative property as soon as the market warrants.

It's also a pretty safe bet that the Jade's lease has or is about to expire allowing them to be turfed from the site, that with Twin Street not exactly a hive of activity, they weren't paying all that much rent and wouldn't be willing to pay much more than they currently are on a shorter-term lease.

Perhaps the developers simply thought that all of this, together with the ease of construction advantages of having the site razed, meant that now is the most opportune and cost-effective time to act.

Will it be sad to see the Jade go and would I prefer to keep the building, even if only to integrate it into the current development? Yep, but if the above assumptions are correct, there's some commercial logic in what the developer's doing.

[Pants]

Touche Pants, i'll pay that.

Haha, thanks mate.