Sensational-Adelaide.com

The ACC are going to recommend the DAC refuse this development in it's current form!

A massive development for the area!

Commie blocks!

Shuz wrote:Commie blocks!

Hardly! Commie blocks don't bother with decadent luxuries like "aesthetics."

Looks great. Pitty about the blank western walls.

Ben: Do you know what's behind the refusal recommendation?

36m proposal in a 28m zone - maybe that's the problem?

Ben wrote:The ACC are going to recommend the DAC refuse this development in it's current form!

A massive development for the area!

Looks pretty good, however I agree with AtD about how it's a pity about the blank western walls. Maybe because of the glare? (Just a wild assumption, don't anyone hold me to it, etc. )
Where are Freedom moving? Adelaide Airport to compete with IKEA maybe?

Wayno: Hopefully that mean the ACC will be ignored.

adam73837 wrote:Looks pretty good, however I agree with AtD about how it's a pity about the blank western walls. Maybe because of the glare? (Just a wild assumption, don't anyone hold me to it, etc. )

Apparently the fire code requires any wall that butts onto a property boundary to be solid and fire proof, which basically means concrete and no windows. This is to stop fires spreading between attached buildings.

Also, it'd be a pain the arse to deal with all the complaints from occupants if/when the neighbouring property has a high-rise built on it, as their windows would be bricked over!

I would say because of the high likely hood of the Petrol station/hungry jacks site being redeveloped they have opted for blank walls and also to reduce the heat from the sun in the meantime.

Freedom are to lease the ground floor so this is also partly a Freedom redevelopment.

Ben wrote:The ACC are going to recommend the DAC refuse this development in it's current form!

A massive development for the area!

This may be great in terms of giving the city a density and population boost but I tend to agree with the Commie block comment.

It looks almost like Housing Trust accommodation and the finishes look cheap, albeit I don't have much information to form the opinion. From the render it looks like its has the potential to become a bit of a slum with the density creating crime problems.

I was having a read of the documents on the ACC website, and there are quite a few reasons as to why the planning staff at the ACC are not to happy with this building.

The reasons include:

How each of the 3 buildings look essentially the same

The level of articulation is not considered appropriate for the eastern and western facades.

The selection of external materials is considered unsatisfactory

There will be less than 2 hours of sunshine for many aaprtments per day

70% of apartments will not have direct access to sunshine

Too little common areas withing the complex

The proposed coutyard may not receive enough sunshine

Access to building 2 is cumbersome

Bedrooms in some apartments rely on shared access to natural light which can reduce the privacy of the occupants

The proposed rainwater storage and bicycle parks are considered innapropriate




However it is important to note that the ACC is not against this development as such, but rather are willing to support it when their concerns have been adequately addressed.

There will be less than 2 hours of sunshine for many apartments per day, and 70% of apartments will not have direct access to sunshine

I agree with a few of the ACCs concerns, but the sunlight one is amusing - so should all CBD south facing apartments be banned because the sun mainly shines from the North (except in the height of summer when it is almost overhead)?!? Surely the only impact is the financial return being slightly less for apartments without direct sunlight?

To confirm: 9, 11 and 8 stories respectively. Any idea on the height in metres?

And why is the council worried about access to sunlight for occupants? Surely anyone who cared simply wouldn't be a tenant in the building. The rest of the concerns seem reasonable.

I think that there are legitimate reasons for them to take an interest in the level of direct sunlight that a building will receive - apart from appeal or mental health, there's the level of energy use required by buildings in deep shadow - but I would prefer to see them express it as a desired outcome (eg LEED certification here in the States) rather than as specific design points, which runs the risk of turning into a cargo cult.

Wayno, I think that it's likely because the gap between the first and second towers seems quite narrow. There's a significant difference between a window facing south over one of the squares or a wide street, and one facing south over a narrow alley (perhaps not in terms of the passive heating that you can get, but at least it can get some natural light).

Oh, no. We may as well just hang a sign out the front that reads 'Couldn't Afford Anything Better' or 'Here Because I'm Trying To Escape My Seven Boyfriends'. Public housing has ruined forever the notion of replicating the same residential building several times over, and that's exactly what this appears to be.

Omicron wrote:Oh, no. We may as well just hang a sign out the front that reads 'Couldn't Afford Anything Better' or 'Here Because I'm Trying To Escape My Seven Boyfriends'. Public housing has ruined forever the notion of replicating the same residential building several times over, and that's exactly what this appears to be.

This would be a first of its kind in Adelaide, correct? There's dozens apon dozens of such developments copy-pasta in the eastern states, and I don't think they're got such a social stigma. They're just another form of housing. A lot of reasonably paid public servants live in such developments. It's not uncommon for them to only get an hour or two of sunlight either.

Remembering that this is next to a service station on one of Adelaide's busiest roads, it's not going to be the most desirable address in town. I think they look reasonably good, considering the ACC has a history of refusing anything that isn't earth tones and the blank western wall is unavoidable. The West End would benefit greatly from this project.

I Love it! Needs a little work though. Love the concept

This type of development would be great for the area and would spur future growth in the region. This area could also be service by a tram at some stage in the future.

Bring it on I say...