Sensational-Adelaide.com

Paulns wrote:

Ben wrote:I'd wet myself if we had a 44lvl 160m tower... lol funny how when you reach a certian level you always want more. Don;t blame them though.

Haha! I agree... I'd break down and cry with tears of happiness if someone ever built a 160m hotel, tower, building, anything in Adelaide!!!!! We should be happy their even proposing this? I hope it gets built, looks better than some of the other real 70's/80's dog box ugly buildings that still spoil the city...

Well the last time I was emergency evacuated from Telstra House I was only a little sore two days later. So Mono's cap on building heights has risen from 15 floors to 20 floors.

I've also moved offices from the 17th to the 18th. So that's one more floor to walk down in an evacuation. *sigh*

Has anyone seen any info on proposed starting dates for this one?

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

I doubt that they've planned a starting date at this stage

I've heard that there will be a good news announcement regarding this tower in the coming weeks.

Sounds promising Pikey. Any good news in the current environment would be a plus.

dont hold your breath. (fingers crossed)

Thanks Pikey - just been wondering about the outcomes with this one. Sounds encouraging.Won't get too excited yet however.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

Eithier dead or on hold...

Type: Development Application Received
Application Number: DA/360/2009
Lodgement Date: 14/05/2009
Location: 64-68 Hindley Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description: Alterations including, Cafe gallery, restaurant, entertainment venue and studio on 1st floor

Well this could potentially totally fly in the face of what I was told. And by a very reputable source too

How does this new application mean the hotel is dead/on hold? It sounds to me like it could be either work on the existing building or alterations to the approved plans for the hotel. Inconclusive?

Is it because it's a new DA number?

AtD wrote:How does this new application mean the hotel is dead/on hold? It sounds to me like it could be either work on the existing building or alterations to the approved plans for the hotel. Inconclusive?

Is it because it's a new DA number?

Yeh if it was alterations to the hotel plan it would be the same da number but with a /A on the end ect.

Ben wrote:Eithier dead or on hold...

Type: Development Application Received
Application Number: DA/360/2009
Lodgement Date: 14/05/2009
Location: 64-68 Hindley Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description: Alterations including, Cafe gallery, restaurant, entertainment venue and studio on 1st floor

Considering that even minor alterations to buildings require councils approval, I suspect that maybe this DA is just for some temporary short-term changes to the current building. i.e. something to generate income before construction commences on the Majestic Vertical Garden hotel.

Ben wrote:Eithier dead or on hold...

Type: Development Application Received
Application Number: DA/360/2009
Lodgement Date: 14/05/2009
Location: 64-68 Hindley Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description: Alterations including, Cafe gallery, restaurant, entertainment venue and studio on 1st floor

the value of this application is $40 000.

From this my judgement is that this is some kind of temporary measure to generate revenue from what is essentially a derelict and abandoned building.

Will wrote:

Ben wrote:Eithier dead or on hold...

Type: Development Application Received
Application Number: DA/360/2009
Lodgement Date: 14/05/2009
Location: 64-68 Hindley Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description: Alterations including, Cafe gallery, restaurant, entertainment venue and studio on 1st floor

the value of this application is $40 000.

From this my judgement is that this is some kind of temporary measure to generate revenue from what is essentially a derelict and abandoned building.

Nobody is going to spend $40,000 on fitting out a restaurant only to know it will close in 6 or 12 months due to building demolition. It isn't a promising sign to me at all.

Ben wrote: Nobody is going to spend $40,000 on fitting out a restaurant only to know it will close in 6 or 12 months due to building demolition. It isn't a promising sign to me at all.

$40 000 isn't a lot of money in the scheme of things. Particularly considering what other restaurant fit outs cost. A succesful venture on Hindley Street could recoup such costs in less than a month. So it isn't entirely crazy to suggest that this could be some temporary measure designed to generate revenue for the next year.