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

[degruch]

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.

Wot, you some kinda jeaneus?

Yes, but you only have to look at the old LeCornu site in North Adelaide to prove that there's not always a sound thought process in place. The development that was to be beside the Grace Emily Hotel would now most likely be a 50% tenanted apartment block, instead of the 100% tenanted block of heritage offices. There's not a lot of info to show what Hines are really planning, hence the discussion.

I believe JM have got until the end of the year by the way...they're gone, forget about them...I'm really interested in seeing a vibrant future for the street and our CBD. Just because it has a weak pulse, doesn't mean you have to kill it.

[Omicron]

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?

Another pertinent point.

[Ben]

Not sure what this is all about...

Type: Development Application Received
Application Number: DA/138/2012
Lodgement Date: 28/02/2012
Location: Jade Monkey, Ground Shop 4 29A Twin Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description: Demolish existing building.

Applicant Name:

PRUSZINSKI ARCHITECTS P/L 214 Pulteney St, ADELAIDE SA 5000

[omada]

They probably want to get on with the demolition ASAP, that way it mitigates any potential problems caused by public outcry to demolition. The sooner that useless pile of rubble is gone the better I say! Get some concrete and glass there pronto!!!

Btw is the applicant name always under the architects name or usually the developer? Would've thought Hines Property would be the applicant?

[Ben]

The ACC will discuss this proposal on Monday. They are expected to support the development, but not the demolition of the Jade Monkey as there are no plans for the site and that is against the Development Plan of permiting demolision without building approval for the site.

Some new renders:

[metro]

no me gusta

[Plasmatron]

I have a feeling this is one of those buildings that will actually turn-out looking better in real-life than the renders. Although I don't mind the renders at all, looks like it will fit into the location nicely.

[Wayno]

Does that render show a slight taper on the building (skinnier at the top)? could be an optical illusion.

[Thanial]

Am I the only one who actually really likes this, my only wish is that it at list hit the 60m mark! I get why people are against the building being demolished, but the Jade itself is merely moving so its not like they will no longer exist. I love this buildings mosaic kind of design, with the panels similar to the Hawke Building, I think this will look even better built. I've just gotta ask, if someone proposed a 200m+ building on this same site, but insisted on the demolition of the Jade, would you still be objecting?

[[Shuz]]

I like it... but...

Those bleeping blank western walls!

[Nathan]

I like it... but...

Those bleeping blank western walls!

Especially since it's unlikely anything will ever get built to cover them up - give the tiny space between it and Adelaide Arcade.

[Ben]

The DAC are expected to grant approval at thursday meeting including demolition of the Jade monkey. Further information is included below. Funny how the conservatory residents are concerns about the loss of views - poor them.

Jade Monkey nightclub will be demolished to provide a crane and site services area for the
hotel development. An application for the development of this site will be lodged later.

As a development over the prescribed maximum height for the Eastern and Western Core Policy
Area 15 the development was notified as a Category 2 development. A total of fourteen (14)
representations were made and raised a number of planning, heritage, access and related issues
- these can be divided into three main areas.

The first being from residents of the Conservatory building concerned about loss of views, noise,
privacy and height / bulk / scale. However, these concerns must be viewed in light of the nature
and scale of development envisaged in the Adelaide (City) Development Plan. In this context,
these concerns are not seen to be significant and have been considered in my detailed
assessment. The second relates to local shop owners and businesses that rely on Twin Street for
deliveries, customers and tradespeople (which is a no through road with restrictive, time limited
carparking). A number of conditions have been recommended to ensure access to these
businesses is maintained. The third issue is the possible (negative) impact to local and state
heritage places (noting the close proximity of Adelaide and Gays Arcade to the development - a
listed state heritage place and an iconic building and destination). The State Heritage Unit
(DENR) has advised of no objection to the proposal.

In addition, there has been local and media interest in the demolition of the Jade Monkey
nightclub, however for the reasons outlined in my report (and the need to take pressure off Twin
Street during the construction of the hotel and a number of other site constraints, including a
right of way which needs to be maintained), the use of the northern portion of the subject land
(where the Jade Monkey building is situated) is seen to outweigh any issues associated with site
clearance and replacement buildings stipulated within the Adelaide (City) Development Plan.

[degruch]

Interesting submission - can't site access and crane location be provided without demolishing the building? There's considerable space behind the building, plus a laneway, I would have thought removing the current JM beer garden would provide enough space?

I have spoken to State Heritage extensively about listing of the building, of course, they are urging me to make a submission very quickly. Unfortunately, time's not really on my side, and I'd prefer the developers use the existing building to their advantage, rather than stifle the development. Here's a reasonably obvious idea, which could retain the feel of the street:

http://www.dezeen.com/2012/03/06/192-sh ... ore-197001

Interesting to see what will happen with this one, but sadly I think we'll probably see the usual...Adelaide's one dimensional approach to development, smash everything down and put up something as fast as possible. I wonder how much 80's and 90's CBD office space is now untenanted?

[Waewick]

are you serious? now we have a one demensional approach to development.

Honestly, people really do invesnt things when the don't like a development. perhaps we need to rename this the North Adelaide preservation society.

[omada]

waewick, degruch is not against development, neither am I, in fact I rather like the proposal. But when there's a way of retaining street level interest and vibrancy as well as embracing new multi story developments, then this should be investigated and indeed encouraged by local and state governments.