CAN: [Glenelg] Latitude | 42m | 12lvls | Residential

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in areas other than the CBD and North Adelaide. Includes Port Adelaide and Glenelg.
Message
Author
User avatar
skyliner
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: fassifern (near Brisbane)

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#121 Post by skyliner » Wed May 28, 2008 4:41 pm

Will wrote:
Ho Really wrote:
NIMBY23 wrote:You can forget about this one going ahead. There's no demand for apartments down at glenelg !!!

As for Twin towers that one won't go ahead in a million years !!!
Good question, is there demand down at Glenelg?

Cheers
I doubt Urban Construct would place millions of their dollars on the line if they had not done their homework and made a decision that by the time this building will be complete in 2010, there will be sufficient demand in Glenelg to make this a success.

The Platinum apartment building was completed in 2006, so by the time this is complete in 2010, I am sure that the current oversupply in apartments will have vanished. Furthermore this building will appeal to a different type of buyer, in that this building will include many studio apartments with no carpark. Thus this building unlike Platinum is aimed at younger buyers.
Exactly, no developer I know about does not do their homework. With respect NIMBY23 - what homework have YOU done!
As already stated, Glenelg will NEVER be like the GC. I live only 1 hr. dr. from the GC. I see it a fair bit and once lived there. Going through it is NOTHING like Genelg. Why panic! You are looking at pop.450,000 against Glenelg's few thousand ? also. Pop.= demand.

BTW - love the design guys. :D :D :D Gives the impression of being many more that 12 floors.Very open, interesting staggered style. Good sized footprint.

ADELAIDE - CITY ON THE MOVE
Jack.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#122 Post by monotonehell » Wed May 28, 2008 5:44 pm

Norman wrote:I'm going down to Glenelg now to take a few pics. If I see any NIMBYs around you know what I'll do... ;)
You'll say "Good afternoon sir/madam, lovely day isn't it? *click click* "

Wont you? :wink:
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 6491
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#123 Post by Norman » Thu May 29, 2008 12:08 am

Sorry it took so long guys. I had a big night tonight, photography-style :P

College Street from St. Johns Row
Image

Manson Tower
Image

Image

Image

Image

Precious Car Park :roll:
Image

1 College Street
Image

Image

3 & 5 College Street
Image

Image

3 St. Johns Row
Image

Image

User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2721
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#124 Post by Ho Really » Thu May 29, 2008 12:47 am

skyliner wrote:
Will wrote:
Ho Really wrote:Good question, is there demand down at Glenelg?

Cheers
I doubt Urban Construct would place millions of their dollars on the line if they had not done their homework and made a decision that by the time this building will be complete in 2010, there will be sufficient demand in Glenelg to make this a success.

The Platinum apartment building was completed in 2006, so by the time this is complete in 2010, I am sure that the current oversupply in apartments will have vanished. Furthermore this building will appeal to a different type of buyer, in that this building will include many studio apartments with no carpark. Thus this building unlike Platinum is aimed at younger buyers.
Exactly, no developer I know about does not do their homework...
Acknowledged. Just hoping they don't end up having a hard time selling those apartments.

Cheers
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5521
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#125 Post by crawf » Thu May 29, 2008 6:46 am

Cheers norm :)

That old house has a nice balcony, Mason Towers needs a bomb

User avatar
Omicron
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 pm

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#126 Post by Omicron » Fri May 30, 2008 12:29 am

I am always quietly amused by the fact that the delightful Manson Towers shares its name with a heinous serial-killer.

User avatar
Queen Anne
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:32 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#127 Post by Queen Anne » Fri May 30, 2008 4:41 am

crawf wrote:Cheers norm :)

That old house has a nice balcony, Mason Towers needs a bomb
Yes, thanks very much Norm :)

Well, as soon as I saw 3 & 5 College Street I realised that I have put my mouth into action before I put my brain into gear, on this thread :( I am genuinely excited about higher density living and its environmental and societal benefits, but..

3 & 5 College Street does not look insignificant to me, and I should have read this thread more carefully and thought about things a bit more before submitting my posts.

I had a look on Wikipedia for John Colton (1823 - 1902), the former premier who lived in the house: He was premier twice (in the 1800's) before there was even a formal party system in SA. His ministries passed a "forward policy of public works in connection with railways and water supply" and also a public health act.

Imo, this house is not to be demolished lightly, even though I understand the need for Adelaide to develop and evolve. I think I wish that no 5 (I think it was) had not been sold, and that Urban Construct had been compelled to develop around it, keeping half of it (if I understand the situation correctly). I don't see a need to preserve our history like an untouchable shrine, but I do wish we would be more creative about how old and new can fit together.

I understand that, sometimes, old buildings just have to be demolished, if progress is to be made - I don't want Adelaide to fade away into insignifance - but I feel that this house does deserve some respect.

I am having an identity crisis! Half of me wants this development, for many reasons, but the other half worries about our history.
Caroline

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5870
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#128 Post by Will » Fri May 30, 2008 12:06 pm

Queen Anne wrote:
crawf wrote:Cheers norm :)

That old house has a nice balcony, Mason Towers needs a bomb
Yes, thanks very much Norm :)

Well, as soon as I saw 3 & 5 College Street I realised that I have put my mouth into action before I put my brain into gear, on this thread :( I am genuinely excited about higher density living and its environmental and societal benefits, but..

3 & 5 College Street does not look insignificant to me, and I should have read this thread more carefully and thought about things a bit more before submitting my posts.

I had a look on Wikipedia for John Colton (1823 - 1902), the former premier who lived in the house: He was premier twice (in the 1800's) before there was even a formal party system in SA. His ministries passed a "forward policy of public works in connection with railways and water supply" and also a public health act.

Imo, this house is not to be demolished lightly, even though I understand the need for Adelaide to develop and evolve. I think I wish that no 5 (I think it was) had not been sold, and that Urban Construct had been compelled to develop around it, keeping half of it (if I understand the situation correctly). I don't see a need to preserve our history like an untouchable shrine, but I do wish we would be more creative about how old and new can fit together.

I understand that, sometimes, old buildings just have to be demolished, if progress is to be made - I don't want Adelaide to fade away into insignifance - but I feel that this house does deserve some respect.

I am having an identity crisis! Half of me wants this development, for many reasons, but the other half worries about our history.
Caroline
Well if you remove the verandahs, it is essentially just an old box. There is a reason why this is not heritage listed.

I think that it would suffice if before demolition photographs were taken of the house for the archive and upon completion of the Latitude building, a plaque was erected at tits base to pay homage to the house and that it was the former house of Premier Colton.

User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2721
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#129 Post by Ho Really » Fri May 30, 2008 12:34 pm

Will wrote:Well if you remove the verandahs, it is essentially just an old box. There is a reason why this is not heritage listed...
I haven't been down there and have no idea what this building looks like construction-wise, but maybe if they took the render off the walls we might see some stone and it might look as original, ( :? ) if that's how it was. Also, what are the interiors like?

Cheers
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.

User avatar
Queen Anne
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:32 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#130 Post by Queen Anne » Sat May 31, 2008 4:40 am

Will wrote:
Queen Anne wrote:
crawf wrote:Cheers norm :)

That old house has a nice balcony, Mason Towers needs a bomb
Yes, thanks very much Norm :)

Well, as soon as I saw 3 & 5 College Street I realised that I have put my mouth into action before I put my brain into gear, on this thread :( I am genuinely excited about higher density living and its environmental and societal benefits, but..

3 & 5 College Street does not look insignificant to me, and I should have read this thread more carefully and thought about things a bit more before submitting my posts.

I had a look on Wikipedia for John Colton (1823 - 1902), the former premier who lived in the house: He was premier twice (in the 1800's) before there was even a formal party system in SA. His ministries passed a "forward policy of public works in connection with railways and water supply" and also a public health act.

Imo, this house is not to be demolished lightly, even though I understand the need for Adelaide to develop and evolve. I think I wish that no 5 (I think it was) had not been sold, and that Urban Construct had been compelled to develop around it, keeping half of it (if I understand the situation correctly). I don't see a need to preserve our history like an untouchable shrine, but I do wish we would be more creative about how old and new can fit together.

I understand that, sometimes, old buildings just have to be demolished, if progress is to be made - I don't want Adelaide to fade away into insignifance - but I feel that this house does deserve some respect.

I am having an identity crisis! Half of me wants this development, for many reasons, but the other half worries about our history.
Caroline
Well if you remove the verandahs, it is essentially just an old box. There is a reason why this is not heritage listed.

I think that it would suffice if before demolition photographs were taken of the house for the archive and upon completion of the Latitude building, a plaque was erected at tits base to pay homage to the house and that it was the former house of Premier Colton.
I had a look on a website: Overview of Heritage in SA, and the criteria for state heritage..

Listing State Heritage Places
In response to nominations from the public and heritage surveys, and acting on advice from the Heritage Branch, State Heritage Places are entered in the Register by the Register Committee of the South Australian Heritage Council. The Council and the Committee are bodies established under the provisions of the Heritage Places Act 1993. Places are first provisionally entered, to allow a period for any representations, and subsequently either confirmed or removed. To be entered in the Register a State Heritage Place must satisfy one or more of the following criteria, which can be found in Section 16 of the Act.

It demonstrates important aspects of the evolution or pattern of the State's history.
It has rare, uncommon or endangered qualities that are of cultural significance.
It may yield information that will contribute to an understanding of the State's history, including its natural history.
It is an outstanding representative of a particular class of places of cultural significance.
It demonstrates a high degree of creative, aesthetic or technical accomplishment or is an outstanding representative of particular construction techniques or design characteristics.
It has strong cultural or spiritual associations for the community or a group within it.
It has a special association with the life or work of a person or organisation or an event of historical importance.

I wonder if 3 & 5 College Street could meet the last criteria, but I guess that you are right, Will, that there is a reason why the house is not state heritage listed - if it was warranted, I guess it would have been done by now?

I still want Glenelg, and Adelaide, to develop, (in fact, I think we *need* it). But, It still does bother me that unless a place has specific protection, it is "open season" on them. It annoys me that developers often have to be compelled to respect the past. I think we would build a more interesting city if they were a little less greedy and a little more creative :2cents:

Definitely feel the old house and premier deserve the respect of a plaque placed outside Latitude, and photos archived.
Cheers, Caroline

turnip
Banned
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:25 pm

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#131 Post by turnip » Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:35 pm

This one's gone a bit quiet. Is there any danger that it will go ahead ?

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 6491
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#132 Post by Norman » Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:41 pm

Doubt it.

turnip
Banned
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:25 pm

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#133 Post by turnip » Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:46 pm

According to Urban Constructs website construction is due to start this year - I don't think so.

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5521
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#134 Post by crawf » Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:34 am

And why is that?

turnip
Banned
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:25 pm

Re: Approved: Latitude (12lvl - 42m)

#135 Post by turnip » Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:04 am

Well if you think about it idiot, there's only about four months to go this year...... and they have not started selling
these apartments yet. If this project goes ahead I think they would start around the middle of next year.

Mod Edit.

Take it easy on the insults. Consider this your first warning.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests