Sensational-Adelaide.com

It's not that bad, pretty stock standard bland design.
The major downside is that it will be prominent in that part of the city for a while, until it's neighbour goes up, and until other developments go up around it, at that stage it will be drowned out, and assuming other developments are of a quality design, it wont even stand out.

I received an email update today that the Rhino room and surrounding buildings will be demolished in the coming weeks and a tower crane will be up within the next month. I think they must mean for the student building but the email was specifically for Adeleadean, but it went on to say full construction will start in November. Would there be any reason for a tower crane for site works for a period of 4 months?

Ben wrote:I received an email update today that the Rhino room and surrounding buildings will be demolished in the coming weeks and a tower crane will be up within the next month. I think they must mean for the student building but the email was specifically for Adeleadean, but it went on to say full construction will start in November. Would there be any reason for a tower crane for site works for a period of 4 months?

Depends on how deep the basement and associated ground works are. Look at the Calvary hospital and how long tower cranes were there before any above ground work commenced.

Wouldn't they need to knock down the brand new showroom though ?

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

The developer of this site has apparently put a caveat on the Church/property next door & is trying to get it heritage-listed! The church has a buyer/contract but obviously this will frustrate any sale until its resolved. What does the forum think of the chances of it being heritage-listed?

how good is he wrote:The developer of this site has apparently put a caveat on the Church/property next door & is trying to get it heritage-listed! The church has a buyer/contract but obviously this will frustrate any sale until its resolved. What does the forum think of the chances of it being heritage-listed?

It's an unexceptional building and is clearly just the developer being bitter that they couldn't buy the church block when they wanted it. Obviously just worried any new development on that corner blocking views.

Nort wrote:

how good is he wrote:The developer of this site has apparently put a caveat on the Church/property next door & is trying to get it heritage-listed! The church has a buyer/contract but obviously this will frustrate any sale until its resolved. What does the forum think of the chances of it being heritage-listed?

It's an unexceptional building and is clearly just the developer being bitter that they couldn't buy the church block when they wanted it. Obviously just worried any new development on that corner blocking views.

Karmas a bitch, the Urban Cow building had more historical significance and he's about to bulldoze it.

how good is he wrote:The developer of this site has apparently put a caveat on the Church/property next door & is trying to get it heritage-listed! The church has a buyer/contract but obviously this will frustrate any sale until its resolved. What does the forum think of the chances of it being heritage-listed?

Oh irony of ironies - a developer is trying to heritage list something.

Just goes to show how cynically some people attempt to use laws for their own gain.

Who wants to buy the church block and build Babel Tower Adelaide?

While "ethically" it might not sit well with everyone, you can't fault someone for trying, within the law, to increase the value of their development.
It's called business. And smart business people get to the top of their industry by using the laws to their advantage.

If you were buying an apartment in this development, facing in the direction of that church, you wouldn't want your views interrupted by another development, when you've bought based on having a view.
You'd be hoping the church is heritage listed.
Clearly none of you have bought an apartment facing in that direction judging by your reactions (neither have I)

Who the person is whose trying to get it heritage listed, whether he owns the development next door and his development could be infringed upon(and lose value) if a similarly tall development were to go ahead next door, should have nothing to do with the decision on whether this church should be heritage listed. If there is merit in it's heritage value, it should be listed.
If there isn't, then allow it to be bulldozed if that's what another developer wants to do to make way for his/her/their development.

Two wrongs don't make a right...as they say.

Views are a privilege not a right

If the Pitt Street Uniting Church couldn't​ be listed then I can't for the life of me see why this unassuming box would be.

rev wrote:While "ethically" it might not sit well with everyone, you can't fault someone for trying, within the law, to increase the value of their development.
It's called business. And smart business people get to the top of their industry by using the laws to their advantage.

The fact that businesses are basically obligated to do everything they think they can get away with is why it's always worth calling them out when they do shitty things.

Is the church site over 1500sqm? If not then the unlimited height zoning wouldn't apply. So what are they worried about?

Also, it's more the fault of the person buying apartment whose views may potentially be blocked out in future, than it is the developer's fault.

I don't see the logic in their argument to get the church heritage listed.

The logic is if the church site can or cant be be developed will impact sales for the developer/the development and the viability of the project.
Further even though not unlimited height a development next door could go to say 53m/18 storeys which would block out many of the North facing views up to those floors.

Internal demolition has started on the Rhino room.