Sensational-Adelaide.com

i dont get it then? Santos, Grenfell and Telstra are all over 100m so why did they get to be built?

btw i like bostons idea, adapt that!

Things are getting interesting with this one. Looks like the developers are taking the matter higher, to an appeals court to go for the full 33lvl 105m tower. Apart from the government stepping in and making it a major project, I don't know what luck they'll have. Here's hoping the developers don't crack the shits with the ACC and pull the whole project.

Good on em. It would be great if there was a backdown on this one and it got back up to 105m just for the principle of it alone. I read yesterday how the State Government has a $5million bond thing with Caversham. As each development on the block is completed Caversham gets a bit of the bond back This is to try and prevent Caversham from pulling out of the total development of the block however it is pretty stupid as $5million ain't much to a big developer who cold just pull out and sell the land anyway. Interesting though.


Bentham isn't directly related to Caversham though is it? I have a feeling Caversham might push the boundaries with the CC2 proposal and that this may eventually get major project status. That would be a while away though.

AG wrote:The airspace regulations make little sense. The airport is 6-7km west and the north-eastern approach is some 3km north of where this site is. Santos House is closer to the flight path than this would be and it would still be 30m higher. Around this area, planes would still be several thousand feet above the ground, and these buildings are only a few hundred feet high. Take a look at Logan International Airport's location in Boston. The airport is directly across the bay from its downtown area, yet it has a handful of buildings over 200m high.

If thats the case, than the north-western part of the CBD can't really go much higher than about 80-90m above ground, and to the most extreme north-west, above 55-60m. Anything higher would have to go further east or further south.

Another obvious example is the old airport in Hong Kong. I seriously doubt that Adelaide airport will ever compete traffic wise with HK's airport and they've had jets coming a lot closer to buildings than they do here. What I can't understand is that the regulations do not allow for buildings to be higher than 100m and given that Santos is already 130m, that would suggest the buffer is somewhat greater than that but what about the houses in the suburbs adjacent to the airport? As the jets land, they would get a lot closer to houses than they do crossing the city buildings. Perhaps the regulations assume that jets only ever crash over CBD areas and not closer to the actual airport? Weird.

Pikey wrote:Things are getting interesting with this one. Looks like the developers are taking the matter higher, to an appeals court to go for the full 33lvl 105m tower. Apart from the government stepping in and making it a major project, I don't know what luck they'll have. Here's hoping the developers don't crack the shits with the ACC and pull the whole project.

This is a very interesting development to the story. I hope the developers succeed with their appeal, however I am confused as to why they are doing it, because the developers seemed quite happy when the ammended 98m tower was approved by the ACC.

Well I am guessing the court action is delaying this project? I would think construction would be a fair way off seeing as there has been no advertising for the apartments yet that I am aware of?

Has anyone heard any updates on this project? Has any demolision happened at the site or any progress at all?

no demolition yet. The gouger rug sign is still out the front even though the tenants moved out a long time ago.

edit: scratch that... i'm confused in my old age

Howie wrote:no demolition yet. The gouger rug sign is still out the front even though the tenants moved out a long time ago.

Umm, are you getting confused with Conservatory here mate?

Scratch that... i thought i read a different title ... i think i'm going blind.

well not that its always the most reliable source of info but the capcity site suggests construction will commence in April this year
http://www.capcity.adelaide.sa.gov.au/p ... asp?ID=427
interestingly it shows a mere 6 month period for construction - a wee tad ambitious for a building this tall methinks

Just a tad

Hey check out the minutes from Nov 05.

[quote]
4. ITEM NO. 3.2 – 16-20 BENTHAM STREET AND 47 WAYMOUTH
STREET, ADELAIDE SA 5000, PLAN NO. DA/443/2005 [DA]
(1999/02896, PN)
Much discussion ensued.
It was then -
Moved by the LORD MAYOR,
Seconded by Councillor HAYWARD -
That the development, the subject of the application from Oracon Pty Ltd to
construct 25 level building for residential, office and retail use at 16-20
Bentham Street and 47 Waymouth Street, Adelaide SA 5000 as shown on
plans designated DA/443/2005 be GRANTED Provisional Development Plan
Consent, subject to the following reserved matter, conditions and advices:
Reserved Matter
1. Pursuant to section 33(3) of the Development Act 1993, the Council
reserves its decision of the following matters until further assessment
has occurred;
• Sun shading/protection to the northern and western elevations.
Conditions
1. The development granted Provisional Development Plan Consent shall
be undertaken in accordance with the plans and details submitted to
the satisfaction of Council except where varied by conditions below.
2. There shall be no aerials, lightening rods/protection devices, satellite or
microwave dishes or any other projection above the building height of
97.1m.
3. The building shall, to the reasonable satisfaction of Council and the
Department of Transport and Regional Services, be marked or lit.
4. External materials, finishes and colours of the building or structure shall
be consistent with the description, details and samples hereby granted
Provisional Development Plan Consent. Prior to the issue of
Provisional Building Rules Consent, the Applicant shall submit to
Council a schedule and samples of the final selection of all external
materials and surface finishes to demonstrate consistency with this
Provisional Development Plan Consent.
5. Final details of stormwater retention and disposal arrangements shall
be submitted and approved by Council prior to Provisional Building
Rules Consent and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of
Council. Where disposal is required, the following requirements shall
be complied with:
• The connection of storm water to any part of Council’s underground
drainage system shall be in accordance with the attached
guidelines.
• All car parks, driveways and vehicle manoeuvring areas shall be
graded to ensure that no surface water or rubble from within the
property is transported across the footpath.
• The applicant must ensure that storm water run off from the
proposed verandah/canopy is contained within the
verandah/canopy perimeter, collected and discharged to the
building storm water system. All down pipes required to discharge
the canopy/verandah storm water run off must be installed within
the property boundary.

For further clarification or additional information please contact
Council’s Customer Services Centre on 8203 7203.
6. Lighting to the proposed verandah(s)/ awning(s)/ canopy(ies) shall be
installed in accordance with Council’s Under Verandah/ Awning
Lighting Guidelines and operated during the hours of darkness.
Associated maintenance and operating costs including electricity
charges are the responsibility of the property owner and shall be to the
satisfaction of the Asset Manager, Lighting and Undergrounding.
7. Prior to Provisional Building Rules Consent being issued, details of airconditioner
compressor unit positions, noise generation and screening
devices shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of Council.
8. Valet parking shall be provided for car park users between the hours of
7am to 7pm Monday to Friday.
9. Prior to Provisional Building Rules Consent being issued, final design
details of the perforated metal screens to the car park shall be to the
reasonable satisfaction of Council.
10. Prior to Provisional Building Rules Consent being issued, final design
details of the roller door to the basement level from Bentham Street
shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of Council.
11. Prior to Provisional Building Rules Consent being issued, the applicant
shall to the reasonable satisfaction of Council provide a report prepared
by a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic engineer detailing
noise attenuation measures that will be included to ensure adequate
insulation for the dwellings from external noise sources.

Advices
1. Regulation 5 of the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996
(made pursuant to the Airports Act (Cwth) 1996) provides that airspace
around an airport may be declared “prescribed airspaceâ€

Basically, this development can be knocked back if the Airports Authorities want to.

Yikes.

What a joke... nothing sticking above 97m. What about that 130m building next door?

In the Sunday Mail yesterday there was an article about all the developements in the CBD and referred to the Bentham apartments at only 25 stories. Is that correct? I thought I was higher than that even when it got reduced in height.