Sensational-Adelaide.com

If we belong to the development at any cost cargo cult, then may I suggest that you belong to the 'no development at any cost' cargo cult. You seem to find problems in every development. May I suggest to you that your expectations are too high and unrealistic and would require developers to build things at a loss. Or maybe you simply do not like development?

Au contraire, Will.

I am pro-development, although I think there probably are problems to be found in every development if you look for them; they're more than likely the result of some necessary compromise. About my favourite Adelaide building is the small, new, green glass and grey render one overhanging the footpath on Pulteney St east side just south of the tyre place on Pirie St, so there. I like the Kingston villa on South Tce too.

No one but the good old government will build at a loss. Some developers, though, seem to think that each development should allow them to retire in comfort. The 'developer's equation' should allow a reasonable profit commensurate with risk, not as in some outrageous cases 100% profit after 50% of sales or whatever, protected for example by an effective monopoly of site. I'm a capitalist, but in those extreme cases it would be good to see some of the profit put back, for occupants or the public.

I admit to being deliberately provocative. It is my unilateral opinion that by doing so I am helping debate along, helping people examine their own positions, and enjoying it to a very small extent of course. Further, I often tone it right down by editing before posting.

What I don't like is bullsh*t in its many forms, needless waste and people taking advantage. I do my best not to be guilty of those sins myself, but I've caught myself at it a few times. You can only try your best.

Will - 2 storey Union/Rundle? Are you referring to the wall of the Fruit and Produce Market?

stumpjumper wrote:

If we belong to the development at any cost cargo cult, then may I suggest that you belong to the 'no development at any cost' cargo cult. You seem to find problems in every development. May I suggest to you that your expectations are too high and unrealistic and would require developers to build things at a loss. Or maybe you simply do not like development?

Au contraire, Will.

I am pro-development, although I think there probably are problems to be found in every development if you look for them; they're more than likely the result of some necessary compromise. About my favourite Adelaide building is the small, new, green glass and grey render one overhanging the footpath on Pulteney St east side just south of the tyre place on Pirie St, so there. I like the Kingston villa on South Tce too.

No one but the good old government will build at a loss. Some developers, though, seem to think that each development should allow them to retire in comfort. The 'developer's equation' should allow a reasonable profit commensurate with risk, not as in some outrageous cases 100% profit after 50% of sales or whatever, protected for example by an effective monopoly of site. I'm a capitalist, but in those extreme cases it would be good to see some of the profit put back, for occupants or the public.

I admit to being deliberately provocative. It is my unilateral opinion that by doing so I am helping debate along, helping people examine their own positions, and enjoying it to a very small extent of course. Further, I often tone it right down by editing before posting.

What I don't like is bullsh*t in its many forms, needless waste and people taking advantage. I do my best not to be guilty of those sins myself, but I've caught myself at it a few times. You can only try your best.

Will - 2 storey Union/Rundle? Are you referring to the wall of the Fruit and Produce Market?

Like most human endeavours, faults are there if you search for them.

development is no different. I do not think that anyone on this site suggests that the Light Square building is perfect or world class, but it does exceed the minimum threshold by a large margin to warrant approval.

For example, yes it is boxy, but it employs new colours and features not seen on any other proposal in Adelaide. It has a nice plinth which relates well to the square; it has an active street frontage; it employs environmnetally friendly priciples; it does not have any carparking space; it creates jobs in construction; it expands the skyline westward; it shows that Adelaide is progressing....



And the 2 level building on the corner of Rundle and Union is:

Howie wrote:

I'm loving this development now that it has a more active street frontage, which is particularly important when facing a public square.

My only issue is that all the vehicles in the render are from the US (The bus the R/H doors was the give away)

I think we should name this one the People’s Building since almost everyone but the incompetent council wanted this to happen .

I hope there is something on the street level of this building to add to this too, something better than just a Hudsons coffee or a 7/11 something everyone in that part of town can enjoy to make it the People’s Building

7/11 I wish we had them in Adelaide

aussie2000 wrote:7/11 I wish we had them in Adelaide

Uh, they're really not that exciting, trust me.

We already have K-Foods and Adelaide Convenience stores, they're pretty much exactly the same.

Article in the messenger says this development will start in the next 4 months!!

Article in the Sunday Mail saying construction will start next month. Adelaide Lawyer Morry Bailes, the man behind the development, is magaging partner of law firm Tindall Gask Bentley, which will occupy most of the building.

yep that's good news.

My main hope is that quality finishes are used - for example if the orange highlights are copper cladding (very unlikely), or some other sort of metallic finish they may look quite smart - on the other hand if they are just plain painted concrete I fear the building could appear rather tacky

I'll be interested to see how the living wall/vertical garden/thing is implemented.

Is there any 'real' render of this project? Something that doesn't look like it's just been drawn up in Sketchup?

Sorry for the late reply. I have not been on this site for a long time. And just to clarify... I have no vested interest in this development. I do not work for the ACC. I was just expressing my opinion, however, I do approach it with slight bias since I'm studying Urban and Regional Planning at UniSA.

Looks like some amendments to the design before construction is due to commence in next few months.

Type: Application Assessed on Merit
Application Number: DA/896/2008/A
Lodgement Date: 19/01/2010
Location: Tindall Gask Bentley, 74-80 Light Square, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description Vary previous authorisation to demolish existing building and construct 13 level office building with ground floor retail - VARIATION - amend external materials & finishes, amend plant room details & basement level.

Any word on what the amended "external materials & finishes" will be?