[APP] 144 Wakefield Street | 87m | 26 Levels | Hotel

[rev]

Heritage is subjective imo.
Are we protecting the likes of the Colosseum? Now that's heritage worth looking after and not having it drowned out by modern skyscrapers.
What heritage are we protecting here? Some old buildings that can be found all over the place? What's the heritage behind them, besides them being old?
What purpose did they serve? Have they contributed, were they part of shaping our civilization?

There's properties in Adelaide that have had councils slap a heritage label on them, because they have been around for X amount of years.
Nobody of note lived in them, nothing of note happened in them. But age seems to be the defining factor.

What's the heritage in this location? Stephen's Lutheran Church -Chinese Ministry building? How is it then that an even bigger development will happen on North Terrace behind Trinity Church?

Code: Select all

d) The development would be expected to dominate, encroach on, or unduly impact
on the setting of an adjacent Local Heritage Place contrary to recommendations
of the Planning and Design Code’s Heritage Adjacency Overlay.

Code: Select all

a) The development would not adequately satisfy the Planning and Design Code’s
expectations expressed in Capital City Zone (Building Height) PO 4.2 part (b) in
respect of measures that would provide for substantial additional gain in
sustainability, and part (b)(i) regarding development that would provide an
orderly transition up to an existing taller building or prescribed maximum
height in an adjacent Zone or building height area.

Yet they approved the 180m "SA1" tower 100m down the street.
Where's the "orderly transition up to an existing taller building" there? Is there a taller building nearby that we can't see? Perhaps SCAP can see things in different dimensions that we mere mortals who struggle to understand how they come to decisions cant see.

Banana republic state as far as planning and decision making goes.

[Cryptic]

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business ... 1cd676495b

A developer’s agent says he was “surprised and disappointed” when the state’s planning committee shut down a bid to build an 86.5m hotel on the former Backpack Oz hostel site.

On Wednesday, the State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP) knocked back the proposal from applicant Phillip Brunning & Associates for a 234-room hotel, restaurant and bar at 144 Wakefield Street.

The existing two-storey building, which is vacant, would have been demolished.

Phillip Brunning told The Advertiser he had been confident in the proposal for the non-heritage listed site, which had the backing of government planning officer Karl Woehle, SA government architect Kirsteen Mackay and the Adelaide City Council.

“The decision was a surprise, we’re disappointed as you’d expect. You don’t go into these things lightly, there’s a lot of money being spent,” Mr Brunning said.

Mr Brunning said his client – a syndicate of local investors– was still committed to the site and was considering options, including a fresh application or an appeal in court, with a decision to be made in the “next couple of weeks”.

“At this stage, we’re going to review and digest the decision by the panel,” he said.

“We hear where the panel is coming from and respect their decision, but we’ll reflect on the reasons for the decision and interrogate those to put our best foot forward.”

[Nort]

From reading all the feedback the reading between the lines interpretation I get is that it would have got approved despite the height if not for all the other ways it seems to have been poorly planned or not taken guidelines into consideration.

If a group goes into approvals like this effectively showing that they've followed so the guidelines and have good justification for wanting to break one rule, it often gets considered.

In a case like this they went in with a proposal that didn't work in multiple ways.

[Smithy84]

Not sure how reliable the info is, but heard this one might still be alive.

[Neko Neko Peko Peko]

Not sure how reliable the info is, but heard this one might still be alive.

I've noticed the Architects for this recently posted on Instagram - It read as if it had been resubmitted for approval?

[Ben]

It was appealed and overturned back in April and is now approved. No media coverage on that though.

[A-Town]

Never should have been rejected in the first place.