Sensational-Adelaide.com

Just because a new development doesn't always fit into the general theme of an area, doesn't mean that it won't be a cataylst for future development and potential.

I think with the addition of this and the Coglin Place buildings, there will be a marked improvement to the area's economical value - providing further incentive to invest in retail development oppurtunities.

Shuz wrote:Just because a new development doesn't always fit into the general theme of an area, doesn't mean that it won't be a cataylst for future development and potential.

I think with the addition of this and the Coglin Place buildings, there will be a marked improvement to the area's economical value - providing further incentive to invest in retail development oppurtunities.

That's not quite the point I was trying to make, there's some areas (Gouger Street, Hutt Street for example) that have an interesting vibe about them. They are occupied by businesses that create interest in the area. Often though these businesses are of the sort that operate marginally on their current lease arrangements. When you get a situation like in Rundle Street where property values increased, landlords put up their rents forcing the very businesses that made the area interesting to move out or go out of business.

It's often an inescapable situation, development creates value and that value is paid for via higher rents. But the result is usually unfortunate. It's something that needs to be watched if we are to retain the "interesting" retail and restaurant precincts. Otherwise they will all be replaced with higher volume, but bland, businesses. And Adelaide will end up as just a high density suburb with purely utilitarian businesses, and its residents will have to travel out to the inner suburbs for some "spice".

monotonehell wrote:I'm with Tyler to a degree, while I think that this building is okay, he's right about 'spoiling' a restaurant precinct. Look what happened to Rundle Street. Although I don;t blame the development for that directly, it was the flow on effects of landlords increasing their leases. Ironic that what made Rundle Street desirable has been edged out by the property values increasing.

I thought the demise of Rundle Street was as much to do with the new residents complaining about the noise, and the ACC responding with restrictions on new venues trading hours and licences.

AtD wrote:

monotonehell wrote:I'm with Tyler to a degree, while I think that this building is okay, he's right about 'spoiling' a restaurant precinct. Look what happened to Rundle Street. Although I don;t blame the development for that directly, it was the flow on effects of landlords increasing their leases. Ironic that what made Rundle Street desirable has been edged out by the property values increasing.

I thought the demise of Rundle Street was as much to do with the new residents complaining about the noise, and the ACC responding with restrictions on new venues trading hours and licences.

That's just a bit of FUD that's been put about. It was the rise in rent. The majority of the businesses affected who moved out didn't make noise; retail shops, and restaurants. All the 'noisy' tenants are still there - the pubs and clubs.

Interesting, because usually rents on such places are attached to turnover.

Different angle, from today

AtD wrote:Interesting, because usually rents on such places are attached to turnover.

That's only in drone malls like Westfield where all the shops are owned by one entity. In the real world the landlord sets a fixed weekly or monthly rent which is reviewed at 1,3 or 5 years. (or variations on this theme)

Pics today from rear of building. Glass already in on some of the lower floors.

Pic from today:

The war of the photos continues

Two oldies - two weeks ago I think.

wilkiebarkid wrote:Pics today from rear of building. Glass already in on some of the lower floors.

That looks like green-tinted glass. Yay originality!

Just doing my rounds of getting my database information scoop - how much office space does this hold? AFAIK its roughly 8,000sqm but does anyone have an exact figure?

Shuz wrote:Just doing my rounds of getting my database information scoop - how much office space does this hold? AFAIK its roughly 8,000sqm but does anyone have an exact figure?

According to my documets 8 000 sqm2 is the actual figure.

Photos from Monday