[CAN] 2-20 Flinders St | 100m | 27lvls | Hotel & Office

[Omicron]

I'm surprised that the lower part of the tower will be hotel and not the top.

+1. How intriguing. You'd think views are more important to hotel guests than office workers.

Still, a nice building overall. The ground level work looks very smart indeed - the Town Hall cafe is out the back there, isn't it, and that's where the path runs through the ACC offices at the Colonel Light Centre? What a nice little series of paths and lanes down there once this is all completed.

[Will]

The reason why the hotel component is on the lower levels is because a hotel operates 24/7, and therefore by having hotel guests in their balconies closer to the street, it allows greater human interaction between the building and the community.

[jk1237]

I do hope it gets built, caus it certainly looks different and interesting. But in my honest opinion I think it looks incredibly ugly with the 2 sections

[ml69]

The reason why the hotel component is on the lower levels is because a hotel operates 24/7, and therefore by having hotel guests in their balconies closer to the street, it allows greater human interaction between the building and the community.

That would be a commendable reason for having the hotel in the lower part of the building, but I think there is a far more pragmatic reason for it. Higher office floors command higher rents, therefore it make economic sense to have the office levels in the highest section of the tower in order to maximise potential rental income.

Agree with Omnicron that the ground level scale works really well when viewed from the courtyard. However I think the building does appear to abut pretty awkwardly against the Angas tower from the 3D modelling.

[Splashmo]

Looks great! It's almost very "Adelaide" but in a good way. I really hope it gets off the ground.

[AtD]

Bizarre article on AdelaideNow at the moment.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/property/ ... 6078810329

In the valley of the shadow of death
High-rise sparks fears for church
PLANS for an $80 million hotel-office tower have raised fears it will overshadow a Flinders St church.

The article then goes on and mention of no fears, no concerns, no shadows and the closest thing to a negative view sounds like they're putting words in the guy's mouth:

National Trust SA president David Beaumont said the development must not be allowed to dominate a "uniquely important cluster" of heritage buildings.

"We would be looking for an extremely creative design solution," he said yesterday. "We're open to the idea of it and don't want to simply say: 'No, it shouldn't happen'."

Kinda weird given the site is already in the shadow of high-rises to the north and east. So... who knows. It doesn't sound like a serious objection.

It also tells us nothing we didn't already know two weeks ago.

[believesinadsy]

Whoever wrote that is absolutely out of their depth. A real shame they are putting such a negative headline.

[iTouch]

maybe we should change our name to AdelaideNow and AdelaideNow changes their name to Sensationalist Adelaide

[stumpjumper]

rev, will and omicron -

I'm surprised that the lower part of the tower will be hotel and not the top.

The reason why the hotel component is on the lower levels is because a hotel operates 24/7, and therefore by having hotel guests in their balconies closer to the street, it allows greater human interaction between the building and the community.

Charming, but wrong. It's about money. The lower levels are built on the maximum area of the site footprint. At a certain height, the envelope of the heritage building next door is deemed to have expired so the lettable floor areas of the commercial floors can be increased by 'leaning out' or colonising the air space of the heritage building. Payment for this occupation of a building's air space is likely to have been a sweet deal on office accommodation for Pilgrim Church in the new building. By doing this, you effectively get more land than you paid for.

A more extreme example of this extension of a building into the air space above a listed building is opposite the Town Hall where the new Advertiser building cranks in and out to accommodate the cornice then overhangs the building below.

I wonder how the people behind the glass-walled Angas building next door feel about having a building in front of their windows? It will shield them from the western sun, I suppose.

[Will]

rev, will and omicron -

I'm surprised that the lower part of the tower will be hotel and not the top.

The reason why the hotel component is on the lower levels is because a hotel operates 24/7, and therefore by having hotel guests in their balconies closer to the street, it allows greater human interaction between the building and the community.

Charming, but wrong. It's about money. The lower levels are built on the maximum area of the site footprint. At a certain height, the envelope of the heritage building next door is deemed to have expired so the lettable floor areas of the commercial floors can be increased by 'leaning out' or colonising the air space of the heritage building. Payment for this occupation of a building's air space is likely to have been a sweet deal on office accommodation for Pilgrim Church in the new building. By doing this, you effectively get more land than you paid for.

A more extreme example of this extension of a building into the air space above a listed building is opposite the Town Hall where the new Advertiser building cranks in and out to accommodate the cornice then overhangs the building below.

I wonder how the people behind the glass-walled Angas building next door feel about having a building in front of their windows? It will shield them from the western sun, I suppose.

So, are you suggesting that the development should not proceed because the developer may make money?

I can't believe that in another thread you cynically said that in 2 years nothing would have change in Adelaide because we would 'still be talking about it', yet then go on to criticise every development proposed? May I put it to you, that the reason why some projects take forever to eventuate is because this state is filled with people such as yourself who think that development only benefits developers?

Furthermore, why should it matter that the Angas Securities House lose its views? No-one owns views, or are you sugesting that we should stop all development, because someone may lose their views?

[Omicron]

rev, will and omicron -

I'm surprised that the lower part of the tower will be hotel and not the top.

The reason why the hotel component is on the lower levels is because a hotel operates 24/7, and therefore by having hotel guests in their balconies closer to the street, it allows greater human interaction between the building and the community.

Charming, but wrong. It's about money. The lower levels are built on the maximum area of the site footprint. At a certain height, the envelope of the heritage building next door is deemed to have expired so the lettable floor areas of the commercial floors can be increased by 'leaning out' or colonising the air space of the heritage building. Payment for this occupation of a building's air space is likely to have been a sweet deal on office accommodation for Pilgrim Church in the new building. By doing this, you effectively get more land than you paid for.

A more extreme example of this extension of a building into the air space above a listed building is opposite the Town Hall where the new Advertiser building cranks in and out to accommodate the cornice then overhangs the building below.

I wonder how the people behind the glass-walled Angas building next door feel about having a building in front of their windows? It will shield them from the western sun, I suppose.

All that achieves is the maximum space X. Why are lower floors better for a hotel, and why are higher floors better for an office?

The reason why the hotel component is on the lower levels is because a hotel operates 24/7, and therefore by having hotel guests in their balconies closer to the street, it allows greater human interaction between the building and the community.

I'd have thought that the location of rooms is far less relevant to the street than the location of public areas - lobbies, restaurants, bars, lounges etc. - where hotel guests and randoms from the street can both mingle.

[skyliner]

Why do we come to single reasons for this - it would be several - i can see the relevance of the points above. Purchasing airspace occurred with the bldg next to the church on Nth Tce. (can't remember the name now) next to the SE corner of the Morphett st bridge long before this.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[stumpjumper]

Will wrote: So, are you suggesting that the development should not proceed because the developer may make money?

Certainly not. I'm not even suggesting that the development should not go ahead. I'm just pointing out some features of it.

I can't believe that in another thread you cynically said that in 2 years nothing would have change in Adelaide because we would 'still be talking about it', yet then go on to criticise every development proposed? May I put it to you, that the reason why some projects take forever to eventuate is because this state is filled with people such as yourself who think that development only benefits developers?

Give me a bit of credit, Will. Most developments go ahead without much criticism, as they should. I criticise, as is my right and yours, developments which look like poor design practice. I acknowledge that being outside the developer's office without a copy of the brief, the specification or the drawings, I'm not necessarily aware of all the constraints and conditions affecting the development, so that any criticism of mine is generally based on the external form of the building or its fit into its locality.

In some cases, I object to other factors such as funding or management. For example, I object to the PPP being used for the NRAH because it is primarily a device to get the cost off the government balance sheet rather than an economic advantage to SA, and I object to the arrangements at AO on grounds of accountability, among other reasons.

As to cynicism, I think it's well placed in many cases. In other cases, especially developments where the government has a hand, the process is too often 'announce and defend' - with no consultation while sweeping away as many legislative barriers as possible. Developments by this government that fall into this category include the AO redevelopment: the government's own Park Lands Act 2005 prohibits major project status with its fast tracking and lack of public review from applying to any construction in the Park Lands, so the land concerned is simply reclassified non Park Lands. Similarly, the Cheltenham redevelopment proceeded without effective consultation, to the extent that at the next council elections, angry residents threw out the government-friendly mayor and councillors and installed the leader of the residents' protest group.

Furthermore, why should it matter that the Angas Securities House lose its views? No-one owns views, or are you sugesting that we should stop all development, because someone may lose their views?

Again, I didn't say any of that. I just made an observation (no pun intended). In many cases, the 'to be built out' side of a building is intentionally left windowless. I was merely wondering how someone in an office on the upper northern side of the Angas building's presently exposed west face would feel about having a solid wall a metre away or whatever the distance would be. On that point, while there is in SA no right to light or protection of views, the view into a blank wall could affect rents. But I wasn't saying the development shouldn't go ahead on that basis.

Omicron wrote: Why are lower floors better for a hotel, and why are higher floors better for an office?

I didn't say they were. At Sofitel in Melbourne, the hotel lobby is on the ground floor but the hotel rooms don't start until the 38th floor. In other cases, like this one, it's the reverse. There must have been reasons for the choice in this case - I don't know what they were. Whatever the reasons, the points about colonising adjacent airspace still applies. Further, I wonder what would happen if Pilgrim Church burned down, for example. What would become of the vacant site with the building next door encroaching on its airspace? Presumably, the church has extracted a payment to compensate for the permanent reduction of the development potential of their site.

Overall, though, I'm not against development in the City of Adelaide, but I am not in favour of either crap development or crap processes, especially flawed process involving our trustees of the public interest, the government.

It's been said before, that this place is not ours to trash. We are custodians, and should hand on at least as good as we received ourselves.

[iTouch]

maan if both this and Pirie St are approved, we're talking about ULTRA-Density. Flinders and Pirie St will look dark and business-like. (In a good way)

[[Shuz]]

maan if both this and Pirie St are approved, we're talking about ULTRA-Density. Flinders and Pirie St will look dark and business-like. (In a good way)

I had to laugh.
Obviously you've never been interstate, or internationally.