Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=425
Planning Commission: "You have to build a taller building on this site or else we're not going to approve your design and proposal."
This is correct, if it made sense for developers to design taller buildings in Adelaide, they would. Why would they do it if there’s no financial incentive?Patrick_27 wrote:Planning Commission: "You have to build a taller building on this site or else we're not going to approve your design and proposal."
Developer: "But, I've followed all the design specifications and there is no monetary return or justification for us to build a taller building..."
Planning Commission: "BUT IT MUST BE TALLER, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY."
Developer: "OK, sure, I'll just design a building for this site that will never gets built because I won't be able to secure finance for the development due to a lack of commercial interest in the size and scale of my proposal."
See how stupid that sounds? If a building design is shit, sure, let's all discuss that and by all means complain about it to no end. But if a building (especially if it's a commercial/office building) doesn't crack the 100m+ mark, I honestly don't really see how a developer can be held accountable when the desired size for these developments by most on this forum isn't actually viable in Adelaide. I'd rather this glassy, stump of a thing go up than half of the tall, concrete slab style student accomodation buildings that have gone up or are yet to go up.
Same, have always loved that one.timtam20292 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:04 pm
If it’s that beautiful two story building then I hope it never happens.
You mean 89 Pirie Street?noted wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:29 pmSame, have always loved that one.timtam20292 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:04 pm
If it’s that beautiful two story building then I hope it never happens.
Wow, talk about an overreaction and taking one word out of context.Patrick_27 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:37 pmPlanning Commission: "You have to build a taller building on this site or else we're not going to approve your design and proposal."
Developer: "But, I've followed all the design specifications and there is no monetary return or justification for us to build a taller building..."
Planning Commission: "BUT IT MUST BE TALLER, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY."
Developer: "OK, sure, I'll just design a building for this site that will never gets built because I won't be able to secure finance for the development due to a lack of commercial interest in the size and scale of my proposal."
See how stupid that sounds? If a building design is shit, sure, let's all discuss that and by all means complain about it to no end. But if a building (especially if it's a commercial/office building) doesn't crack the 100m+ mark, I honestly don't really see how a developer can be held accountable when the desired size for these developments by most on this forum isn't actually viable in Adelaide. I'd rather this glassy, stump of a thing go up than half of the tall, concrete slab style student accomodation buildings that have gone up or are yet to go up.
You totally misread what arki wrote.Patrick_27 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:37 pmPlanning Commission: "You have to build a taller building on this site or else we're not going to approve your design and proposal."
Developer: "But, I've followed all the design specifications and there is no monetary return or justification for us to build a taller building..."
Planning Commission: "BUT IT MUST BE TALLER, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY."
Developer: "OK, sure, I'll just design a building for this site that will never gets built because I won't be able to secure finance for the development due to a lack of commercial interest in the size and scale of my proposal."
See how stupid that sounds? If a building design is shit, sure, let's all discuss that and by all means complain about it to no end. But if a building (especially if it's a commercial/office building) doesn't crack the 100m+ mark, I honestly don't really see how a developer can be held accountable when the desired size for these developments by most on this forum isn't actually viable in Adelaide. I'd rather this glassy, stump of a thing go up than half of the tall, concrete slab style student accomodation buildings that have gone up or are yet to go up.
Sorry but I can’t subscribe to this. If we allow developers to take advantage then they will.cmet wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:08 pmThat’s all well and good, but enforcing certain setbacks and plot ratio’s etc will still make a development more expensive for the same amount of lettable area. Still discourages development all the same.
In saying that, yes of course I would like to see more interesting designs than boring boxes.
Narrow street like Pirie? I suggest you visit Sydney, Perth or Brisbane. Then you'll really see what a narrow street is.arki wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:22 pmSorry but I can’t subscribe to this. If we allow developers to take advantage then they will.cmet wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:08 pmThat’s all well and good, but enforcing certain setbacks and plot ratio’s etc will still make a development more expensive for the same amount of lettable area. Still discourages development all the same.
In saying that, yes of course I would like to see more interesting designs than boring boxes.
Imposing glass boxes that create uninspired glass and concrete canoyons are not conducive to good city planning, especially on a narrow street like Pirie.
Urban planning regulation from early 20th century NYC should serve as a very well established reference for you.
I understand, but a developer is always going to be more concerned with the bottom line rater than they visual impact of their building at the end of the day. As we have more and more developments I believe we will see an increase in quality. This will be because there will be an incentive for developers to create more outstanding products in a competitive market. Currently in terms of appartments and office space, things are pretty bland. They don’t have too much to compare with, so why spend $$$$ trying to stand out?arki wrote:Sorry but I can’t subscribe to this. If we allow developers to take advantage then they will.cmet wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:08 pmThat’s all well and good, but enforcing certain setbacks and plot ratio’s etc will still make a development more expensive for the same amount of lettable area. Still discourages development all the same.
In saying that, yes of course I would like to see more interesting designs than boring boxes.
Imposing glass boxes that create uninspired glass and concrete canoyons are not conducive to good city planning, especially on a narrow street like Pirie.
Urban planning regulation from early 20th century NYC should serve as a very well established reference for you.
That’s one, incomplete development
