[COM] COM/CAN: Aurora on Pirie | 54/57m | 14/15lvls | Office

[stelaras]

Its pathetic, they even have to cut it down. Especially when a 55m building is currently getting built next to Victoria Square.

Shame on ACC

And we expect with decision like that to build our Adelaide city population to 65,000???!!!!...I can't find enough smilies to demonstrate how laughable that is!

[Ho Really]

Yes, it is laughable for a few metres difference. Conservatory on Hindmarsh, which is in the same north-south alignment and on the square, will be nearly 20metres higher (68metres). Go figure. Now, I am just wondering whether the 49metre height limit is only for the east tower or both (the one facing Hyde Street)?

Cheers

[Shuz]

The flight path comes over North Adelaide on an NE/SW angle, so you would think - technically, the transition of height limits would go smaller from the north, to higher in the south and smaller from the west, higher to the east. Instead, that example shows the reverse being applied, which makes no sense at all. If Conservatory is higher, Aurora technically should be taller. Another example - Westpac House, to the west is higher - much more obtrusive to the flight path and this, being further east is scaled back because of 'height limits'?

Seriously, the ACC needs to be shot. They have no idea.

[Pistol]

Aren't their height limits keeping with their pyramid scheme they have designated for Adelaide?

[rhino]

Aren't their height limits keeping with their pyramid scheme they have designated for Adelaide?

I think this has a lot more to do with the height limits than flight paths do.

[Shuz]

This 'pyramidical' scheme is so ridiculous. I don't think anyone in the business world, or property development world, or even the real world really gives a flying f*** over what the city skyline specifically looks like. I would rather see a skyline that appears free from these sort of development specifications, and let it take shape out of the constraints of airspace matters, site matters, etc - the things that cannot be changed no matter what.

[Snorkie]

I went into sales office at lunch and spoke with one of the guys there. He told me they have scrapped the top floor and will now only have 13 levels and be approx 49m. This is still above the height limit but they belive it will be enough to get approved. He said ACC should have the revised proposal now and they still hope to have demolision commencing in October with completion March 2009 assuming this revised proposal is approved.

If I can add my 2c... if ACC approves this at 49m it will be absolutely bullshit. Seriously like that extra 4m is going to completely ruin the character of our 'pyramid' skyline and hindmarsh square, what a load of crap! At 49m it is still non complying and still some 25% over the actual limit, which is a large enough percentage not to be approved on this basis. I think if ACC do approve it at this height, they will be setting a bad precedent for themselves I feel, not that any of us could really care less. These height limits are a joke, certain projects being approved way over limit i.e. COH (major project status, I know), but under what logic does COH get approved way over height limit and this not? What basis are they evaluating these projects on?... Oh yes this project is over the limit and so is that one, but one will get approved, and the other will not...wtf? It is still NON COMPLYING at 49m, they are digging their own graves if they approve it. I seriously think it is time we abolish these 1800's acceptable height limits, and start approving projects on their merits...idiots!!!

[bva]

be careful using the term non complying as it has strong planning meaning!!
all applications are assessed on merit and in this case the planners recommended approval but the DAC refused it - this does happen, sometimes for planning and other times unclear reasons.
i think the DP and height limits are fine. remember these new height limits are higher than previous and the next dp review will probably increase them again but this takes time. if ACC jumped heights dramatically first time round the dp would probably still be unadopted and you would have the old limits!!

[Ben]

new app was recived on 30th july

DA/601/2007

Seems it is for a 14 level and 15 level building so not sure what has changed....

[Will]

new app was recived on 30th july

DA/601/2007

Seems it is for a 14 level and 15 level building so not sure what has changed....

It appears that 1 floor has been removed from one building (most likely the eastern tower). In addition, maybe the height of each floor has been lowered as well.

[Howie]

Minutes from the meeting which rejected the original proposal.

Application for consideration on Merit.

3. ITEM NO. 3.1 - 131-147 PIRIE STREET AND 42-56 HYDE STREET,
ADELAIDE SA 5000, PLAN NO. DA/266/2007 [DA] (F/DA/0266/2007, RH)

The Presiding Member, Mr B Burman, declared an interest in this matter, pursuant to
Section 56A (7) of the Development Act, 1993, because he has an association with
the applicant and a representor, withdrew his chair and left the room at 5.35pm.
The Deputy Presiding Member, Mr R Cheesman took the Chair at 5.36pm.

Mr M Doherty declared an interest in this matter, pursuant to Section 56A (7) of the
Development Act, 1993, because he has an association with the applicant and a
representor, withdrew his chair and left the room at 5.37pm.

Ms J Nolan (Nolan Rumsby Planners), on behalf of MacQuarie Office Management
Ltd, representor, addressed the Panel in relation to the application and also
responded to a question from a Panel Member.

Mr D Wallace and Mr M O’Connell, QED Pty Ltd, Mr J Hazell, Urban Construct and
Mr S Ferris, Woodhead Architects, on behalf of the applicant – Urban Construct P/L
addressed the Panel in relation to the application and also responded to questions
from Panel Members.

Much discussion ensued.

It was then -
Moved by Councillor BRINE,
Seconded by Mr GRIEVE -
That the development, the subject of the application from Urban Construct P/L to
demolish existing buildings and construct 2, 15 level office buildings with ground level
retail tenancies, ancillary car parking and other facilities at 131-147 Pirie and 42-56
Hyde Street, Adelaide SA 5000 as shown on plans designated DA/266/2007 be
REFUSED for the following reasons:-
• The proposed development exceeds the height desirable for the Policy area to
enclose Hindmarsh Square.
• The proposed development does not provide the desired transition in height
between the Central Activities Zone and the Mixed Use Zone.
• The proposed development does not possess sufficient merit to warrant
exceeding the maximum height as contained within Principle 10 of the Mixed
Use Zone.
Discussion continued.
The motion was then put and carried.

[AtD]

"Much discussion ensued"

Very helpful.

[Ben]

They have applied for major project status with the original proposal. Status pending!

Organisation: Urban Construct Pty Ltd
Project Title: AURORA on Pirie
Project Details: Two Commercial Office Towers
Contact: Mr Todd Brown
Position: Chief Executive
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 61 8 8412 5000
Mobile:
Project Cost: $210,000,000
Estimated Completion Date: 31/07/2009
Status: Pending

http://www.majorprojects.sa.gov.au/publ ... ?xcid=1204

[Howie]

Wow big news!

[Pistol]

I thought this was inevitable...