Sensational-Adelaide.com

What are the chances of teh developer pulling their submission from the ACC and re-lodging one of their earlier renders with the DAC? IMO this is exactly what they should do to avoid the ACC's little power trip!

The process is a bit funny actually.
Developers lodge applications to the ACC, they just merely look at it, whinge, so forth - give it the thumbsup or thumbsdown, and refer it to the DAC.
The DAC doesn't necessarily have to follow the ACC's advice (thats all it is really), and make the decision for themselves.

So a development could be rejected by the ACC, but approved by the DAC.

I understand why the ACC would be quite strict with any development in the area, however analysis of the recent plans reveals that the developer has gone quite out of their way in addressing the council's concerns. In fact as reported last week this development was recommended for approval.

I find the ACC's reasons for deferment to be simply bizarre. The building relies on its strong vertical lines to achieve a cohesive design. By forcing the building to be set back, it would ruin the buildings appearance causing it to appear as a blocky mish-mash. In addition I recall from the plans that about a quarter of all apartments are on the building's north side. Setting the building back would require these apartments to be deleted thus making this development potentially unviable. In such economic circumstances the ACC should not be putting up such ridiculous obstacles to investment. It is obviously an example of the mouse that roared.

Will wrote:
I find the ACC's reasons for deferment to be simply bizarre. The building relies on its strong vertical lines to achieve a cohesive design. By forcing the building to be set back, it would ruin the buildings appearance causing it to appear as a blocky mish-mash. In addition I recall from the plans that about a quarter of all apartments are on the building's north side. Setting the building back would require these apartments to be deleted thus making this development potentially unviable. In such economic circumstances the ACC should not be putting up such ridiculous obstacles to investment. It is obviously an example of the mouse that roared.

Exactly -as I was strongly intimating in my post of 20th Dec. So what is the ACC up to? DONT SET IT BACK.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

Re earlier posters' misgivings about student accommodation. The claim of 'Student accommodation' is often used as a tool to build undersized apartments without the otherwise required number of carparks. The market will pays a certain amount for any new unit, regardless of size, so the exercise boosts profit.

As to this development, I keep thinking of architect Ian Hannaford's warning years ago that without adequate controls, Adelaide risks becoming a city like a sunken cake - a rim of highrise surrounding the rest of the city.

stumpjumper wrote:Re earlier posters' misgivings about student accommodation. The claim of 'Student accommodation' is often used as a tool to build undersized apartments without the otherwise required number of carparks. The market will pays a certain amount for any new unit, regardless of size, so the exercise boosts profit.

As to this development, I keep thinking of architect Ian Hannaford's warning years ago that without adequate controls, Adelaide risks becoming a city like a sunken cake - a rim of highrise surrounding the rest of the city.

Why do students who don't permanently live here and who study in a university withing walking distance need a carpark?

And what's wrong with a developer making a profit? You criticise Julia Gillard for being a socialist, yet here you criticise developers for seeking a profit.

Does anyone know how this development is going?

Is it currently on "Hold"????

stumpjumper wrote:Re earlier posters' misgivings about student accommodation. The claim of 'Student accommodation' is often used as a tool to build undersized apartments without the otherwise required number of carparks. The market will pays a certain amount for any new unit, regardless of size, so the exercise boosts profit.

Frankly, I don't understand why there are any minimum parking ratios on any inner-city apartment buildings. If parking is so important to people, then market forces alone will dictate that a certain number are built. And if they aren't desperately needed, then the minimum requirements just compell us to waste space and money on low-value parking spaces.

joshzxzx wrote:Does anyone know how this development is going?

Is it currently on "Hold"????

The developers are probably re-designing the building to address the ACC's concerns.

Will, I don't object to Julia Gillard's faith in socialism, but I do object to her introducing socialist policies for which Labor has no clear mandate - ie a centrally-controlled $14.7 billion building program when there is an entire planning and development industry/mechanism which could deliver the projects more efficiently than Gillard's model.

As to 'student housing' units, while we can fill them with students, fine, and I'm not sure that building endless CBD carparks is sound planning, but I wonder what the future of these bedsits will be if overseas student numbers drop?

That's criticism based on speculation, so it's perhaps less than valid, but I think Ian Hannaford's 'high-rise rim' is fair criticism from a planning point of view.

stumpjumper wrote:As to 'student housing' units, while we can fill them with students, fine, and I'm not sure that building endless CBD carparks is sound planning, but I wonder what the future of these bedsits will be if overseas student numbers drop?

I'd imagine that they'd be sold off as cheap inner-city apartments or converted into hotels.

stumpjumper wrote:Will, I don't object to Julia Gillard's faith in socialism, but I do object to her introducing socialist policies for which Labor has no clear mandate - ie a centrally-controlled $14.7 billion building program when there is an entire planning and development industry/mechanism which could deliver the projects more efficiently than Gillard's model.

As to 'student housing' units, while we can fill them with students, fine, and I'm not sure that building endless CBD carparks is sound planning, but I wonder what the future of these bedsits will be if overseas student numbers drop?

That's criticism based on speculation, so it's perhaps less than valid, but I think Ian Hannaford's 'high-rise rim' is fair criticism from a planning point of view.

I will respond to the Julia Gillard comment in the appropriate thread.

And regarding your comments about this development. No one can predict the future, and as such whether this building will always be used as student housing is frankly irrelevant in any planning debate. If a developer wants to invest their own money because in the current circumstance there is a demand for student apartments then good for them. Why place so many barriers in their path? (reading this thread in its entireity should convince you that there are already too many barriers in place).

Stumpjumper, whether or not the developer can find demand for the project and turn a profit in the required number of years is entirely the developer's problem. It is a purely commercial issue, not an issue council should ever bring into consideration. To bring such issues into consideration and dismiss a development on such a basis would directly lead to higher rents in the long term.

Stop looking for monsters under the bed.

whether or not the developer can find demand for the project and turn a profit in the required number of years is entirely the developer's problem. It is a purely commercial issue, not an issue council should ever bring into consideration. To bring such issues into consideration and dismiss a development on such a basis would directly lead to higher rents in the long term.

Stop looking for monsters under the bed.

I find it hard to agree that the success of a project is entirely the developer's problem. One of the purposes of a responsible planning system is to ensure that a good balance is retained 'into the future' as they say.

To take an extreme example, if oil were discovered under Adelaide, then without any effective planning we could find that every building owner or purchaser might rush to demolish and drill oil wells, leaving the city unable to function as a city.

The experiment of letting a city grow without the constraints of planning has been tried, without much success.

Of course the tool of planning can be abused, like any control. It is the job of parliaments and public debate as well to keep processes open and responsive to the needs as well as the wants of all parties.

I hate to think what might be under the bed - not Gillard I hope. I always jump into bed from the door, just in case.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. The financial success of the development is entirely the developers problem. Rejecting a development on "what the future of these bedsits will be if overseas student numbers drop" is not the Council's problem. If the developer can't get the high rent he wants and goes bankrupt, that's entirely the developer's concern. (Any future change in use would have to be council approved anyway)