Page 19 of 31
[CAN] Re: New Mayfield | 37-50m | 10-14lvls | Mixed Use
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2015 1:50 pm
by Ben
Some specific heights:
Vary previous authorisation to demolish existing buildings and construct a multi-level mixed use development incorporating retail/commercial ground floor tenancies and upper level residential apartments along with associated basement car parking and landscaping - VARIATION - Building 1 - increase in height of 3.8 metres (37.4 metres to 41.2 metres) to incorporate roof plant - Building 2 - incorporation of hotel land use with 200 rooms and increase of additional 3 building levels (12.6 metre increase from 43.8 metres to 56.4 metres) and various architectural changes - Building 3 decanting of residential apartments from Building 2 to Building 3 with an increase of additional 3 levels (11.1 metre increase from 50.3 metres to 61.4 metres)
[CAN] Re: New Mayfield | 41-61m | 11-17lvls | Mixed Use
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:50 pm
by phenom
This is a nice change from the dark days when every single alteration proposed was a reduction in height.
I think now there's been actual or proposed increases in height for Vue, Palladium, Bohem, U2, all three New Mayfield proposals...
[CAN] Re: New Mayfield | 41-61m | 11-17lvls | Mixed Use
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:34 pm
by slenderman
The tallest building is now 61 metres tall? That's excellent. Would be almost as tall as Optus and the third tallest in the Southern CBD if it goes ahead. The 56 metre hotel would also be quite significant for the area, and even the shortest 41m building would be about the same as the Chifley Hotel on South Terrace and the nearby Wave/Edge, so they should all have some reasonable skyline impact and make the area much denser.
Can we now claim that Adelaide has two different skylines within the CBD, or is that too ridiculous?
[CAN] Re: New Mayfield | 41-61m | 11-17lvls | Mixed Use
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:49 pm
by Pikey
slenderman wrote:The tallest building is now 61 metres tall? That's excellent. Would be almost as tall as Optus and the third tallest in the Southern CBD if it goes ahead. The 56 metre hotel would also be quite significant for the area, and even the shortest 41m building would be about the same as the Chifley Hotel on South Terrace and the nearby Wave/Edge, so they should all have some reasonable skyline impact and make the area much denser.
Can we now claim that Adelaide has two different skylines within the CBD, or is that too ridiculous?
Throw in Citi Terrace and the nearby Parkland Vista to the above and there definitely is the beginning on a southern King William St Skyline.
[CAN] Re: New Mayfield | 41-61m | 11-17lvls | Mixed Use
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:43 pm
by Plasmatron
It kind of reminds me of Melbourne, which has a low-rise gap between its two main high-rise clusters in the CBD. Well, three high-rise clusters... if you include the Southbank area across the Yarra.
[CAN] Re: New Mayfield | 41-61m | 11-17lvls | Mixed Use
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2015 9:38 pm
by [Shuz]
I get what you're getting at Plasma, but any comparison to Melbourne is a tad far fetched. We don't have anywhere near the height or critical mass.
Those are good heights for buildings in the area. Looking forward to seeing it all go up, along with the swathe of the South Terrace proposals, and that other new hotel earmarked for King William Street as well that was mentioned a month or so ago.
[CAN] Re: New Mayfield | 41-61m | 11-17lvls | Mixed Use
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:05 am
by Ben
The full amended development is now on the DAC.
Not a lot that we didn't already know.
Stage 2 to start in October.
[CAN] Re: New Mayfield | 41-61m | 11-17lvls | Mixed Use
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:02 pm
by Smithy85
[CAN] Re: New Mayfield | 41-61m | 11-17lvls | Mixed Use
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:10 pm
by ghs
I wouldn't be too worried about it :
1) The media is most likely exaggerating the situation.
2) Vision on Morphett has also had some financial issues and the project has still been progressing.
[CAN] Re: New Mayfield | 41-61m | 11-17lvls | Mixed Use
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:29 pm
by rev
IfTagara can't pay contractors(ie their bills), how long till they shut their doors?
If Tagara can't pay contractors, why would other contractors work for them?
[CAN] Re: New Mayfield | 41-61m | 11-17lvls | Mixed Use
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:45 pm
by Smithy85
Tagara in liquidation (as opposed to administration which would indicate there was a hope in saving the company) according to the Tiser.
Imagine we'll see some delays on this one.
[CAN] Re: New Mayfield | 41-61m | 11-17lvls | Mixed Use
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:06 pm
by rev
Smithy85 wrote:Tagara in liquidation (as opposed to administration which would indicate there was a hope in saving the company) according to the Tiser.
Imagine we'll see some delays on this one.
Yeh, according to the advertiser, which doesn't have a stellar track record of reporting actual facts.
[CAN] Re: New Mayfield | 41-61m | 11-17lvls | Mixed Use
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:51 pm
by ghs
Unfortunately there could be a big delay, if there's no builder, it will take time to find another.I
[CAN] Re: New Mayfield | 41-61m | 11-17lvls | Mixed Use
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 3:21 pm
by boony87
Can some clarify something and let me know if this is right?
Sturt land are the owner of the site & is where purchasers have deposits too?
Tagara is the developer who has been subcontracted to complete the work?
Sturt land still retains the deposits in a trust account not accessible to any legal proceedings?
As tagara has gone into liquidation will Sturt land just find another developer to complete the rest of the project?
As an owner of a stage 1 apartment I really feel sorry about the contractors who haven't been paid. Reading into it further, it seems to be a common theme in off the plan buildings.
[CAN] Re: New Mayfield | 41-61m | 11-17lvls | Mixed Use
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:09 pm
by langrissa
