[U/C] 42-56 Franklin Street | ~78m | 17lvls | Office

[Pikey]

Companies have still been signing up to large office deals in other states despite the GFC and worse office vacancy rates and economic conditions, yet in a state that is meant to be 'booming or about to boom' and with low CBD vacancy rates we have no office projects commencing apart from the Police building which is hardly exciting given its campus low-rise form.

I am basically disapointed and waiting for the next surge of development, hopefully we do better that time around.

Are these companies signing up to large office deals because they need them? I don't see that any company should be required to move premises because a bunch of folks on a web forum want more office towers in Adelaide. If they signed a contract, they'll pay a penalty. It's their decision. Get over it.

Nail. On. The. Head.

If two developers were pinning their hopes on one "potential" tenant, then that is just plain dumb.

[Ben]

I'm actually devastated. WTF!!!

Type: Development Application Received
Application Number: DA/805/2009
Lodgement Date: 20/10/2009
Location: 42-56 Franklin Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description: Construct 8 level car parking station on vacant land.

[Norman]

It has been sitting vacant for a while now, they had to do something...

[Pistol]

That is just fcuked up.
I really hoped they built these buildings.
I guess the government will choose CC8 then.

[Will]

I have changed the title of the thread again to how it was previously. The change in title was very premature.

Indeed, this project was always going to have an 8 level carpark at the rear.

All the developers are doing is breaking up the project into stages.

First will be built the carpark, and at a later date the 'twin towers'.

[Ben]

I have changed the title of the thread again to how it was previously. The change in title was very premature.

Indeed, this project was always going to have an 8 level carpark at the rear.

All the developers are doing is breaking up the project into stages.

First will be built the carpark, and at a later date the 'twin towers'.

If this is the case Will, why would the developers be lodging a new application when they already had approval for an 8 level carpark? When that is the case the developers lodge a building application (Stage 1 carpark) this is indeed an entirely new application.

Also on another note the original application included a 7 level carpark as a podium to the building. The carpark can not be built and then the building erected on top at a later stage one woud assume. I know this has occurred in some places around the world but be realistic it's not happening in this one.

[Will]

I have changed the title of the thread again to how it was previously. The change in title was very premature.

Indeed, this project was always going to have an 8 level carpark at the rear.

All the developers are doing is breaking up the project into stages.

First will be built the carpark, and at a later date the 'twin towers'.

If this is the case Will, why would the developers be lodging a new application when they already had approval for an 8 level carpark? When that is the case the developers lodge a building application (Stage 1 carpark) this is indeed an entirely new application.

Also on another note the original application included a 7 level carpark as a podium to the building. The carpark can not be built and then the building erected on top at a later stage one woud assume. I know this has occurred in some places around the world but be realistic it's not happening in this one.

Ben, the developers do not have planning approval to build the building in stages, in fact it appears from the original plans that although the building does include 7 levels of carparking at the rear, the carpark section appears to be 'incorporated' into the building. As such the fact that they are going to build it in stages requires alterations to the existing plans, so that the office components can be incorporated onto the carpark base structure at some future time.

Not only does the original proposal include 7 levels as the application lodged indicates, but furthermore, it was only 2 days ago that it was reported that this development is in the running for the new SA HQ of the ATO. Not to mention the fact that this development is still listed on real-estate.com as for lease and the developers applied for and were granted a further 12 month extension only in May of this year.

Also, I recall a couple of weeks ago, someone posted an article in which it was stated that this development would be built in stages, with the carpark first.

I am confident that this is the case, and that is why I think it is premature to call this one dead before we know all the facts.

[AtD]

I worry that changing a formerly all-at-once project into a "build in stages" project is shorthand for the developer saying "We want to build the most profitable bits now, and probably never build the rest. But please consider the project as a whole but don't be upset if we only build the bits you don't like and the impressive bits get scrapped."

IMO The Council shouldn't expect the other stages to continue and therefore treat these as separate, stand alone developments. The developer can offer no guarantee that once the car park is built, they'll walk away from the office tower for economic reasons. This would be a very bad outcome for the city.

Past examples include the City Cross "staged development" of just one stage.

[Ben]

I sincerly hope your right Will, but I honestly can not see anywhere where the carpark is to be "built at rear" in either the old or new proposal, but once again I hope you are right.

[rhino]

If this carpark is a podium on which the towers will sit, won't it have to be built structurally to take the weight of the buildings? Won't that be a reasonable expense to go to if the developer has no interest in building the rest of it?

[Will]

I sincerly hope your right Will, but I honestly can not see anywhere where the carpark is to be "built at rear" in either the old or new proposal, but once again I hope you are right.

I hope this puts your worries to rest:

[Ben]

This was one time I had hoped I was wrong but unfortunatly the developers want to build a glorified carpark. The council is not supporting this development but ultimatly the decision will rest with the DAC next year.

Some info from the Councils Agenda.

Proposal

The applicant seeks to develop a multi-storey car park for 575 vehicles upon a
proportion of the subject site. The car park is to be located at the rear of the
site, set back 30 metres from the Franklin Street frontage.

Whilst the applicant has indicated that the residual portion of the site can be
developed with a commercial building, nothing is proposed within the current
application. The remaining area of the site is to be finished with compacted
gravel, with a strip of landscaping and paving to be installed along the road
frontage.

Existing consent
A valid Planning Consent exists upon the site for a 31,700m² office
development with 800m² of retail on the ground floor frontage and 278 car
parks within an integrated multi-storey car park at the rear of the site.

The office is to be constructed at the front of the site, adjoining the Franklin
Street frontage, with the car park gaining access via a three lane cross over
from Franklin Street at the eastern end of the frontage.

The proposal was initially lodged with a 478 space car park, however this
number was reduced to the approved number of 278 following concerns
raised by Council staff in regard to the potential impact of this number of
vehicles upon the locality. The application was to be staged with the
construction of the car park separate from the office component. The applicant
revised the proposal to a single stage development due to Council concerns
that the car park could potentially be constructed without the associated office
component.

The current application will supersede the previous approval.

[bm7500]

Reject, Reject, Reject. Thats the only outcome that this applictaion deserves.

[Mpol]

The city of carparks indeed...

[AtD]

Reject and slap the developer across the back of the head. The last thing the city needs is more car parks. This flies in the face of all the PT-friendly TOD objectives the state government has been spruiking. If this is approved, it'll be conclusive evidence that it's nothing more than talk IMO.

Not to mention it's ugly has hell.

I'm surprised this passes the $10m threshold to go to the DAC.