Sensational-Adelaide.com

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:41 pm

Do they not read their own articles? It says the developer has commissioned an architect but not that any designs have been released. That render is definitely the back (western side) of the Gray Street development, there is no question about it... The Advertiser have no fucking clue.

Looking more closely I'm pretty sure that's the Remand Centre on the left of the render as well exactly where it would appear from Gray Street.

wilkiebarkid wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:26 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:58 am

17 stories based on the render.

https://www.afr.com/real-estate/singapo ... 910-h1566k

The render they are using is definitely the Gray Street one. This one may have a similar finish to Gray Street but would definitely have a slightly different design due to the frontage being narrow in comparison.

It's the exact same bloody render from the Gray St project.

http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... 30#p159279

They just cropped it to remove the unilodge logo from the top.

The advertiser are run by a bunch of retards.

Ok, what have we established so far?

- 124 Waymouth has been sold.
- Development to contain 721 bedrooms
- the Advertiser has the journalistic integrity of a burnt crumpet.

Until we see definite plans, renders, even a DA, the rest is purely hypothetical. Let's play the waiting game rather than throw wild numbers around.

Cheers

So is this actually the failed U2 site, or maybe both the red brick building plus the U2 site?

mgb wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:28 pm

So is this actually the failed U2 site, or maybe both the red brick building plus the U2 site?

Next door to U2.

mgb wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:28 pm

So is this actually the failed U2 site, or maybe both the red brick building plus the U2 site?

124 Waymouth st is the red brick building I posted from google maps on the first page.

rev wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:43 am

mgb wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:28 pm

So is this actually the failed U2 site, or maybe both the red brick building plus the U2 site?

124 Waymouth st is the red brick building I posted from google maps on the first page.

Yes, realise that... just doesn't make sense to not include the U2 site.

mgb wrote:

rev wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:43 am

mgb wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:28 pm

So is this actually the failed U2 site, or maybe both the red brick building plus the U2 site?

124 Waymouth st is the red brick building I posted from google maps on the first page.

Yes, realise that... just doesn't make sense to not include the U2 site.

If they don't own it, why would they build on it?

mgb wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:57 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:43 am

mgb wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:28 pm

So is this actually the failed U2 site, or maybe both the red brick building plus the U2 site?

124 Waymouth st is the red brick building I posted from google maps on the first page.

Yes, realise that... just doesn't make sense to not include the U2 site.

Probably because they don’t own the U2 site....

Norman wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:18 pm

mgb wrote:

rev wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:43 am

124 Waymouth st is the red brick building I posted from google maps on the first page.

Yes, realise that... just doesn't make sense to not include the U2 site.

If they don't own it, why would they build on it?

Totally understand that, but then it was being sold off by the receiver with committed sales of appartments. Yes, different situation to a student accomodation, but far easier to get financing with existing sales.

mgb wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:37 pm

Norman wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:18 pm

mgb wrote:
Yes, realise that... just doesn't make sense to not include the U2 site.

If they don't own it, why would they build on it?

Totally understand that, but then it was being sold off by the receiver with committed sales of appartments. Yes, different situation to a student accomodation, but far easier to get financing with existing sales.

So you're asking why a developer who specialises in high density student apartments didn't change their plans to rescue a stalled build using a different business model on a different site?

No one said rescue....

To no avail, I messaged on Facebook and e-mailed The Advertiser to correct their render mistake providing direct links to Synergy's website and their article on the Gray Street development last year, the reporter (Tim Williams) has stood by it saying that both developments look extremely similar. Morons...

You can't shove brains into a statue unfortunately, fucking crapvertiser

Perhaps someone at Synergy should message this moron reporter?