Sensational-Adelaide.com

And I think it could have something to do with the price of the apartments -is it too farfetched to imagine that more people might be interested in city apartments if they were cheaper? And is it just possible that each unit could be built to the same standard for a lower price if the developer was not limited to some imaginary line in the sky decided by the no change brigade? Seems to me that height restrictions are another way of saying that if you cannot afford an overpriced apartment in the CBD then - well, there's always Davoren Park? Just my

Reb-L wrote:And I think it could have something to do with the price of the apartments -is it too farfetched to imagine that more people might be interested in city apartments if they were cheaper? And is it just possible that each unit could be built to the same standard for a lower price if the developer was not limited to some imaginary line in the sky decided by the no change brigade? Seems to me that height restrictions are another way of saying that if you cannot afford an overpriced apartment in the CBD then - well, there's always Davoren Park? Just my

I definitely agree that the development plan and how it's applied are a problem, but the taller a building, the more it costs per square metre of floor space. There's no "bulk buy discount" with apartment buildings - quite the opposite (that is the expected economies of scale do not apply, because the cost of more height is proportional to the amount of extra engineering required).

I definitely agree that the development plan and how it's applied are a problem, but the taller a building, the more it costs per square metre of floor space. There's no "bulk buy discount" with apartment buildings - quite the opposite (that is the expected economies of scale do not apply, because the cost of more height is proportional to the amount of extra engineering required).[/quote]

The developers shouldn't have an issue with height restrictions then? And a place like Melbourne must be financial suicide for them? I guess that even if the cost per sq m of floor space is higher in a tall building is higher (due to stronger foundations, more planning etc.) the total return is better - or have I missed something?

Reb-L wrote:The developers shouldn't have an issue with height restrictions then? And a place like Melbourne must be financial suicide for them? I guess that even if the cost per sq m of floor space is higher in a tall building is higher (due to stronger foundations, more planning etc.) the total return is better - or have I missed something?

I think you did.

monotonehell wrote:

Reb-L wrote:The developers shouldn't have an issue with height restrictions then? And a place like Melbourne must be financial suicide for them? I guess that even if the cost per sq m of floor space is higher in a tall building is higher (due to stronger foundations, more planning etc.) the total return is better - or have I missed something?

I think you did.

OK, interesting to know your opinion - but it would be even more interesting to know what you base it on. Myself I have a slight problem getting my head around why developers would want to go higher if they get less return on it and there's no market for it?

Reb-L wrote:

monotonehell wrote:

Reb-L wrote:The developers shouldn't have an issue with height restrictions then? And a place like Melbourne must be financial suicide for them? I guess that even if the cost per sq m of floor space is higher in a tall building is higher (due to stronger foundations, more planning etc.) the total return is better - or have I missed something?

I think you did.

OK, interesting to know your opinion - but it would be even more interesting to know what you base it on. Myself I have a slight problem getting my head around why developers would want to go higher if they get less return on it and there's no market for it?

I wasn't expressing an opinion, just popping in with the fact that taller apartment buildings cost more per floor space than shorter ones.

Now as to how much that adds in real terms I don't know. But from there it's simple demand and supply. If there's demand, then the price developers can get is higher, therefore they can cover the extra costs associated with high-rise while supplying to demand. (That would be based on the same amount of land used.) But asking them to go higher while keeping costs down - while there's low demand... it's a vicious cycle.

Investors (rightly or wrongly?) expect a certain return on their investment. Interesting to note all the student accommodation that's been put up recently. Seems that investors think there's enough demand there?


It seems the only real driver of taller buildings is lack of space to build coupled with demand. Which is something we have lots of (space) but only some of (demand). While we have so much room to wobble about in, I doubt that we'll see much in the way of Manhattan skylines here.

monotonehell wrote:It seems the only real driver of taller buildings is lack of space to build coupled with demand. Which is something we have lots of (space) but only some of (demand). While we have so much room to wobble about in, I doubt that we'll see much in the way of Manhattan skylines here.

if your theory is true why are developers holding off until current CBD height restrictions are eased? So they can spend more money because they feel like building taller? Unlikely.

Ben wrote:

monotonehell wrote:It seems the only real driver of taller buildings is lack of space to build coupled with demand. Which is something we have lots of (space) but only some of (demand). While we have so much room to wobble about in, I doubt that we'll see much in the way of Manhattan skylines here.

if your theory is true why are developers holding off until current CBD height restrictions are eased? So they can spend more money because they feel like building taller? Unlikely.

Apartments in a landmark building can attract a higher purchase price.

Ben wrote:

monotonehell wrote:It seems the only real driver of taller buildings is lack of space to build coupled with demand. Which is something we have lots of (space) but only some of (demand). While we have so much room to wobble about in, I doubt that we'll see much in the way of Manhattan skylines here.

if your theory is true why are developers holding off until current CBD height restrictions are eased? So they can spend more money because they feel like building taller? Unlikely.

Look up Ceteris paribus

Are they intending to build residential accommodation only? I doubt it. Mixed use seems to be the way they deal it in this financial climate. From what I understand the expected/perceived demand is for office accommodation. You have to realise that the height restrictions are ridiculously below tallies, but are also below what developers are looking at. Not only that but the development plan is a red rag to a bull in the developers' eyes because it restricts also aesthetic considerations.

There's so much more to that story than one or two points of height or design.

Pics taken today:

Rising quickly as expected. Pics taken today:







Already doing its job with the core beginning to obscure the gastly Telstra Exchange from the SW.

Wow, that wnt up pretty much out of the blue!

Thanks for the photo updates Urban.

Pics taken today:

Had no idea how fast this was rising!

from today;