[COM] 74-80 Light Square | 31m | 8lvls | Office

[Will]

Good to see the Council got this right. Height should never prevail over design

The buffoons in the council rejected it because they deemed it was too tall, not over it's design.

It was too tall. The limit was 40m and they put in an application for 45m. If it was a better design it would probably be approved. That's just the way the Council works. The developers didn't play the game. The Council made the right decision. It's an ugly building that exceeded it's height restrictions. Plain and simple.

Buildings can exceed the stated height limits, if they display merit; indeed the recommendation from the ACC's own planning staff was that this building although exceeding the height limit by a paltry 5m still warranted approval as overall it would have been a positive addition to Light Square. Plenty of other developments have exceeded the height limit.

By the way are you from the ACC?

[contractor]

No Olliepee. Your not breaking world records with your posts either.

[contractor]

No will. Just don't like the design. Having previously been involved with submitting drawings to the ACC, while I don't claim to be an expert, I know how they work. Cheers.

[jk1237]

No will. Just don't like the design. Having previously been involved with submitting drawings to the ACC, while I don't claim to be an expert, I know how they work. Cheers.

One good thing about this decision is the amount of new people to this site. Now, Mr contractor, if you have been involved in drawings to the ACC, I hope you your able to stick around here and give us more info.

Question to you is if you agree with a 40m height restriction for that square. Why would a tall building be detrimental to a square. Hindmarsh Sq already looks 1000% better with a few tall buildings compared to how it looked 10 years ago. Your thoughts?

[crawf]

So according to ten news, this development has NOT been rejected, I was under impression this was one of the last developments the ACC had control off - so glad I'm wrong!.

I'll seriously consider voting liberal next year if they plan on getting rid of that pathetic bunch known as the Adelaide City Council. Too tall?, give me a break. Thanks to them and the media, this gives the impression to potential investors that this city is closed for development and they should take their money elsewhere. Plus it doesn't do well for Adelaide's already terrible image.

God I've had it with some people in Adelaide, sometimes wonder why I even bother with this city.

[AtD]

The 'Tiser did say that the final decision rests with the state government, but I've (temporarily) changed the headline to avoid further confusion.

[contractor]

No will. Just don't like the design. Having previously been involved with submitting drawings to the ACC, while I don't claim to be an expert, I know how they work. Cheers.

One good thing about this decision is the amount of new people to this site. Now, Mr contractor, if you have been involved in drawings to the ACC, I hope you your able to stick around here and give us more info.

Question to you is if you agree with a 40m height restriction for that square. Why would a tall building be detrimental to a square. Hindmarsh Sq already looks 1000% better with a few tall buildings compared to how it looked 10 years ago. Your thoughts?

I've been involved in submitting drawings to the ACC on other projects, not this one.

Like I've said in previous posts, I don't like the design. Architecture is subjective so who am I to say what is right or wrong. But I can see why the Council rejected it and I agree with them. Rome wasn't built in a day.

[Professor]

Rome was not built in a day! What a statement! Imagine if this current group of tossers were in charge of the development of Rome! There would be nothing to remember except the moat!

Get rid of these unrepresentative wankers ASAP. I live in the CBD and am subject to their excessive taxes, fines, levies, charges, surcharges and super=duper-surcharges. They are a mob of oxygen thieves! Bring on their dissolution!

[ynotsfables]

I think the ACC know their reputation and are really quite powerless over these decisions now days anyway so what have they got to loose by rejecting everything. They know its the beginning of their demise and knowing thier place in the future as rubbish removalists and kerbside caretakers.

[Prince George]

People, people, calm down. This thread needs to start generating more light and less heat, lest it turn into "Sensational Adelaide Now". Contractor and TimStevens have a right to their opinion, whatever that may be. Of course, if they do have a vested interest, it'd be best for them to say so, but as long as they are expressing their own thoughts on the matter can we get back to discussing it rather than flaming?

I imagine that I'm getting a reputation as the in-house NIMBY, but I find that there is very little reason to mourn that proposal's faux-rejection.

1. It replaces a perfectly charming Edwardian building on a corner of the square that has very little to recommend it. The buildings surrounding it are all ugly cast-offs from the '80s.
2. The proposed tower was hardly an architectural marvel - a simple box with a charcoal-and-orange colour scheme.
3. The building was going to put further offices around the square, which doesn't take sufficient advantage of its location by a public space.

That last one particularly wrankles me - our city's squares are all large spaces, they need a healthy body of people around and in them to make sense of having them. Offices bring some number of people into the vicinity, but only 9-5 during the work-week, and they spend almost all of that indoors.

[david]

First let me make it clear that as a member of the Council's DAP I am not allowed to comment on the particular application at Light Square but I will stick my neck out and make the following comments in the interests of less heat and more light (pardon the pun)
- I am one of the 4 council members on the DAP (and I am prepared to accept the abuse that goes with that territory)
- The DAP is NOT the Council, don't blame the Council for actions of the independently controlled DAP
- 5 of its 9 members are independent members, including the Presiding Member.
- The decision was unanimous.
- Unlike many other planning bodies, we have the courage to make our decisions in the public arena.
- Height was not the main reason for the advice for refusal given to DAC
- I suggest some of you actually read the relevant parts of the Development Plan relative to Light Square
- It might also be smart to read the actual reasons given for advice for refusal, rather than rely on the hyped up version in Adelaide Now!
David

[Vee]

Have to agree with Prince George on this one.

... our city's squares are all large spaces, they need a healthy body of people around and in them to make sense of having them. Offices bring some number of people into the vicinity, but only 9-5 during the work-week, and they spend almost all of that indoors.

Ignoring the merits or otherwise of this particular building, why can't more of the buildings which front squares and parkland / terraces have a major residential component? Increase the density of population in the city, add much needed vitality (beyond office hours) and provide open space / recreation areas adjacent to where people live. (South Terrace is a perfect example)

Higher central densities are needed to combat endless urban sprawl. 13 levels is hardly skyscraper proportions.

[Howie]

First let me make it clear that as a member of the Council's DAP I am not allowed to comment on the particular application at Light Square but I will stick my neck out and make the following comments in the interests of less heat and more light (pardon the pun)
- I am one of the 4 council members on the DAP (and I am prepared to accept the abuse that goes with that territory)
- The DAP is NOT the Council, don't blame the Council for actions of the independently controlled DAP
- 5 of its 9 members are independent members, including the Presiding Member.
- The decision was unanimous.
- Unlike many other planning bodies, we have the courage to make our decisions in the public arena.
- Height was not the main reason for the advice for refusal given to DAC
- I suggest some of you actually read the relevant parts of the Development Plan relative to Light Square
- It might also be smart to read the actual reasons given for advice for refusal, rather than rely on the hyped up version in Adelaide Now!
David

Thanks for your reply on this matter David. Good as always to have your input.

We've read the development plan, probably cover to cover, hence our submission to the council in regard to increased height limits, and tod style developments around the major squares.
http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... php?id=689

I think we would really like the height issue cleared up, the zoning around light square (PA21) allows 40m, yet balfours site (PA24 ) allows 58m? Then you have pockets closer to the cbd centre which step down again in heights. As we mentioned in our previous two submissions, the city height limits need to be reviewed. From what developers have told me, there is a shortage of good sites, in which to develop decent residential, office, and mix-used towers on - made worse by the height ceiling imposed on them.

I can't comment on this development without having a read of the minutes from the last meeting (which hasn't gone up on the acc site yet), so yes it would be prudent not to rely solely on AdelaideNow for information.

[joshzxzx]

What ever happened with the height submission document?

Have we had any formal reply from the associated authorities? Or was it simply just put in the bin?

[adam_stuckey]

The one thing i don't understand is that everyone's been going on about how crap the council is for years but they still won the last election. There were plenty of pro-development people who nominated last time. In my opinion the only people who voted are the people who want to see Adelaide stay the way it is. If we want change we have to put vote in a fresh radical thinker who all the people who are appalled by this decision will get behind and push Adelaide forward not hold us back.

P.S. I hope the Govenment allows this to go through just to show them how useless they are! (I can't believe the council didn't even listen to their advisors! What are they there for??)