Page 9 of 14

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

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 4:41 pm
by skyliner
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

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

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 5:44 pm
by monotonehell
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:

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

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 12:08 am
by Norman
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

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

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 12:47 am
by Ho Really
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

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

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 6:46 am
by crawf
Cheers norm :)

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

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

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:29 am
by Omicron
I am always quietly amused by the fact that the delightful Manson Towers shares its name with a heinous serial-killer.

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

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 4:41 am
by Queen Anne
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

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

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:06 pm
by Will
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.

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

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:34 pm
by Ho Really
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

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

Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 4:40 am
by Queen Anne
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

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

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:35 pm
by turnip
This one's gone a bit quiet. Is there any danger that it will go ahead ?

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

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:41 pm
by Norman
Doubt it.

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

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:46 pm
by turnip
According to Urban Constructs website construction is due to start this year - I don't think so.

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

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:34 am
by crawf
And why is that?

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

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:04 am
by turnip
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.