Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5399
Of course it is. There's no such thing as "first in best dressed" in the planning code. The neighbour has just as much right to build to the boundary. It's worrying that people don't have basic common sense to understand this. Take for example the idiots in Melbourne's Freshwater Place development who insist the neighbouring lot can't be developed (by Crown casino) because it is too close to their balconies. Yet you look at the orientation of the building on its own lot... massive podium with a tower squeezed against one boundary. What did the residents think would happen? Then the obvious solution to these fools is you just strip the neighbour of their own rights to develop their property and rip up 90% of its valuation..... so we can reward people who don't forsee such an inevitable problem.how good is he wrote:I have seen the council/their planners override and demand the developers/architects build blank concrete boundary walls on this very basis (& also fireproofing grounds). It actually becomes a condition to get the approval!
Apartment tower planned for Franklin St in Adelaide’s CBD would increase in height to almost 90m
Renato Castello, The Advertiser
October 10, 2016 11:22am
DEVELOPERS of a city apartment tower want to increase the building’s height by more than 30m and nearly double the number apartments.
The Development Assessment Commission will on Thursday debate whether to approve Alto Adelaide Pty’s proposal to increase height of its $35 million Alto Apartments tower at 124-126 Franlkin St by 33.2m, to 86m, and the number of apartments from 30 to 54.
On site carparks would increase from 34 to 51. The DAC had previously approved the building for 53m.
“The proposed height of 86.2m exceeds this maximum by 33.2m,” the report to the DAC, recommending approval, says.
“While this equates to an additional 62 per cent over the desired height it is considered to be acceptable given that the over height criteria is met for the subject land and the proximity to the Central Business Policy Area (with no maximum height limit) and the height of surrounding development.”
Alto Adelaide is a consortium of three Adelaide businessman who bought the site in January this year.
Among them is real estate agent Peter Price of Price Real Estate, who said increasing the size of the building will allow a greater mix of one, two, three and four bedroom apartments, keep strata fees down.
There will be two apartments per floor with north south facing aspects.
Mr Price said a rooftop garden, theatre and gymnasium, groundfloor cafe and larger balconies have also been included in the revised designs.
“Sales to date have all been to owner-occupiers,” he said.
The subject site has a frontage of 14.5 metres to Franklin Street and a total site area of
580.3sqm
The original advertising actually explicitly did say something along the lines of "We don't include this kind of things to keep strata fees low....."phenom wrote: "Among them is real estate agent Peter Price of Price Real Estate, who said increasing the size of the building will allow a greater mix of one, two, three and four bedroom apartments, keep strata fees down."
Um, OK. This would be the first building ever where making it taller lowers strata fees. Can't say I've seen any relationship between height and strata fees in the dozens of buildings I've looked at. Sure, more apartments means more people to spread costs over but it also means the lifts cost more, get used more and there's more maintenance to be done because there's more building.
"Mr Price said a rooftop garden, theatre and gymnasium, groundfloor cafe and larger balconies have also been included in the revised designs."
And there's the other part to the strata fees. Particularly being in the middle of the CBD, I can't help but wonder if the prospect of (slightly) lower strata fees in return for not having a theatre and a usually pointless gym wouldn't be a good thing.
Is showing up on realestate.com.au for me still.....Ben wrote:I can't see this on Real Estate.com. anymore...