[COM] 185-189 Pirie Street | 31m | 8lvls | Office

[Patrick_27]

Of course this development is better than what is currently there, yes the building looks neat, tenancies are good in this economic times and it fills a hole. But i think this is still prime land in a major CBD an 8 level office doesn't nearly cut it. I understand supply and demand but..... Why doesn't Adelaide mix it's classes of high rise more? Have more Joint developments? A few more levels of retail & Restaurants on this one, then the existing office space and if the developer was to add say 10-15 levels of apartments there is enough demand now that they would sell, the central location and imagine the views around the 90m-100m mark!!

This is one of the worst parts of the CBD.The fugly offices across the road, either side the old Adelaide bank building, channel 9? and a massive U park. Across from that another large Hindmarsh square car park. Much like has been suggested for Adelaide Central markets why wouldn't the land owners of these carparks sell the space above for development, such a waste a prime space and opportunity. Adelaide is in a real pickle now economically and has been for a long time. Throw in the highest rate of unemployment and one of the lowest exporters in the nations. Yet policies and legislations here make it hard to invest??? Why do we have by far the highest land tax and stamp duty in the nation. Why would an investor what to pays literally tens of thousands of dollars more to invest here?? when already the risk of return is higher than in other states. On top of that backward council's and development panels. Shesh!! What are they doing to encourage investment?

Went on a bit of a spill but why are the fundamentals and principles of this state for a prosperous and sustainable economy and future so wrong!

Tell me, Serca. Would you go to this location to indulge in some shopping or a meal? Probably not, and neither would I. So your idea doesn't really sit.

I've said this time and time again, why does every new building in this city need to be 90-100m tall? WHY? Have you seen the average building height in this area? How would a building that tall be suitable for this area?

[serca]

Of course this development is better than what is currently there, yes the building looks neat, tenancies are good in this economic times and it fills a hole. But i think this is still prime land in a major CBD an 8 level office doesn't nearly cut it. I understand supply and demand but..... Why doesn't Adelaide mix it's classes of high rise more? Have more Joint developments? A few more levels of retail & Restaurants on this one, then the existing office space and if the developer was to add say 10-15 levels of apartments there is enough demand now that they would sell, the central location and imagine the views around the 90m-100m mark!!

This is one of the worst parts of the CBD.The fugly offices across the road, either side the old Adelaide bank building, channel 9? and a massive U park. Across from that another large Hindmarsh square car park. Much like has been suggested for Adelaide Central markets why wouldn't the land owners of these carparks sell the space above for development, such a waste a prime space and opportunity. Adelaide is in a real pickle now economically and has been for a long time. Throw in the highest rate of unemployment and one of the lowest exporters in the nations. Yet policies and legislations here make it hard to invest??? Why do we have by far the highest land tax and stamp duty in the nation. Why would an investor what to pays literally tens of thousands of dollars more to invest here?? when already the risk of return is higher than in other states. On top of that backward council's and development panels. Shesh!! What are they doing to encourage investment?

Went on a bit of a spill but why are the fundamentals and principles of this state for a prosperous and sustainable economy and future so wrong!

Tell me, Serca. Would you go to this location to indulge in some shopping or a meal? Probably not, and neither would I. So your idea doesn't really sit.

I've said this time and time again, why does every new building in this city need to be 90-100m tall? WHY? Have you seen the average building height in this area? How would a building that tall be suitable for this area?

Patrick this is 400m-500m away from a biggest cluster of high rise buildings in a major CBD..... too far you say? Why are they building Vue if your point is valid ?

I didn't say every building has to be 100m. I have no problem with the low rise going up of south terrace now. 90-100m building is not big for a capital city of more than a million people.

And no need to answer for me yes I would go there for a meal. Gougar st is not near Rundle st or Melbourne st for that matter but people travel to all of those destinations just for a meal.

[Ho Really]

This building is about the right height. Maybe 40 metres would've been better. What is a waste is the old Adelaide Bank and soon to be Channel 9 offices. That building should've been much higher. Maybe even 80 metres or so. I'm pissed off too about missed opportunities serca. My !!!

Cheers

[crawf]

I've said this time and time again, why does every new building in this city need to be 90-100m tall? WHY? Have you seen the average building height in this area? How would a building that tall be suitable for this area?

Probably because this is a development forum and the bulk of people are always going to favour taller buildings. Especially when you consider that Adelaide's tallest building will soon not even be in the Top 100 nationally.

This whole area is a dogs breakfast. If I had my way, I would demolish that hideous suburban office park and replace it with a mixed use buildings ranging from 60-120 metres+, half the bitumen surrounding Hindmarsh Square to extend the parkland space and demolish the sandstone multi-level carpark.

That low rise office precinct especially is sitting on prime real estate, and I personally don't think it will be around for much longer... (hopefully)

As for this development, on the upside it will be create jobs and fill in a vacant gap along Pirie Street.

[[Shuz]]

Pretty sure Adelaide's tallest doesn't even rank in the top 100 in Melbourne.

[EBG]

The former state bank has not rated in Australia's top 100 tallest buildings for some years now . last time I checked it was rated some where near 150 - 160. Go Sky Scrapper City web site.

[Patrick_27]

Does where our tallest building ranks nationally really matter? So long as high-rise designs in this city are decent, it shouldn't really matter what the height is. I'm quite happy for this city to keep churning out 80-110m tall buildings so long as it adds a little more modern filler to our skyline.

[serca]

To a degree it does matter. It's not really about comparing our city to others in Australia. It reflects or indicates economic growth and prosperity, Adds to the vibrancy of the city being more populated, entices private investment and makes for a better post card pic just to name a few. I would like more 120m - 150m buildings. Its ok to say keep the 80m-110m building coming along but realistically in the last 20 years how many buildings have gone up in that height category? Bugger all! I agree with Crawf that block of office complex and U park across the road from it is the most under-utilised property in the CBD. A cluster of 80m - 150m mixed class is welcomed

[Raider]

Demolition of the existing structure will commence next Wednesday.

[Raider]

Demolition is now well underway.

[morbuilds]

Hi guys Im aware this is an old thread but hopefully someone sees this and is able to help. I was just wondering if anyone has any information on the demolition that took place on the old building on site. Any useful links or sources, or information on the type of building that use to exist, its size and use etc.

Cheers

[Norman]

So this site is now empty?

[Llessur2002]

Have you tried the 'time machine' feature in Google Maps? http://www.techlicious.com/blog/google- ... e-machine/

Had a look on my desktop and it definitely shows the building that was on the site up to 2015 (some sort of church?) - unless you mean the historical use before this?

[slenderman]

I've been meaning to ask this for a little while, and this bump seems as good a time as any to ask.

I've been wondering why developers in the last couple of years have bothered to demolish existing buildings on a site when they don't plan on starting construction immediately after, leaving an unsightly empty lot to just sit there for months or years in some cases. We've seen it with this one, U2, West Franklin, possibly One Adelaide (nothing seems to be happening there at the moment, I've gone past several times since demolition) and I suppose Palladium too, which is now just a lonely little front wall standing up by itself these days. Not to mention LeCornu.

Is the demolition to get the site to be immediately ready once the developer is ready to go ahead with it? Is it to create the illusion of progress to entice potential buyers in the case of apartments?

It's just ugly looking at empty lots in a CBD. Even if the demolished buildings generally aren't anything special, surely they're better than empty lots? I know it's a bit of a First World Problem.

[Algernon]

I've been meaning to ask this for a little while, and this bump seems as good a time as any to ask.

I've been wondering why developers in the last couple of years have bothered to demolish existing buildings on a site when they don't plan on starting construction immediately after, leaving an unsightly empty lot to just sit there for months or years in some cases. We've seen it with this one, U2, West Franklin, possibly One Adelaide (nothing seems to be happening there at the moment, I've gone past several times since demolition) and I suppose Palladium too, which is now just a lonely little front wall standing up by itself these days. Not to mention LeCornu.

Is the demolition to get the site to be immediately ready once the developer is ready to go ahead with it? Is it to create the illusion of progress to entice potential buyers in the case of apartments?

It's just ugly looking at empty lots in a CBD. Even if the demolished buildings generally aren't anything special, surely they're better than empty lots? I know it's a bit of a First World Problem.

A few reasons

1) the developer genuinely intended to develop the site then hit a problem. i,e, New Mayfield ready to go and the builder goes under. Can't undemolish the building.

2) if the site is earmarked for development it's probably for a reason. The existing building is more trouble than it's worth - can't be leased either because the yield is pitifully low for the land value, or needs more work done than it's worth to lease out.

3) easier + faster to onsell to another developer. They don't have to demolish which gets them off to a faster start. They don't have to cross their fingers that they won't find John Hardie's favourite littered through the building.

4) squatters. Bitch to secure and monitor a vacant building, bigger bitch to get them out.

5) in some unique cases, don't want a retroactive heritage application on the building

6) don't want existing tenants holding up a development. Can't get off to a start until the building is empty, the tenant has a legal right to stay for the duration of the lease

7) Even if the building is vacant the city can still levy costs on the owner to secure the site. If the building is gone they just need to keep the weeds down. Absolutely massive headache for the owner if their vacant building burns down aswell.