[U/C] 399 King William Street | ~52m | 16 Lvls | Mixed

[arki]

Frankly, I don't care how small the apartments are on the inside. Whether or not it is of sufficient space to live in is for the market to decide, not the city council.
As long as the exterior is not cheap and a blight on the streetscape/skyline *and if the interiors are anything to go by, than I suspect that it would be on the cheap side) then I see no reason why this should be knocked back.

As I said, let the buyers do the talking for developments like this and let the council reject it on the basis of its aesthetics and function, not morals.

[Will]

Frankly, I don't care how small the apartments are on the inside. Whether or not it is of sufficient space to live in is for the market to decide, not the city council.
As long as the exterior is not cheap and a blight on the streetscape/skyline *and if the interiors are anything to go by, than I suspect that it would be on the cheap side) then I see no reason why this should be knocked back.

As I said, let the buyers do the talking for developments like this and let the council reject it on the basis of its aesthetics and function, not morals.

This form of thinking will only promote the 2 cent race to the bottom....

[skyliner]

+1 Will. Caution on how we think in this area - we want Adelaide to be a quality city as well as developing.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[AtD]

Frankly, I don't care how small the apartments are on the inside. Whether or not it is of sufficient space to live in is for the market to decide, not the city council.
As long as the exterior is not cheap and a blight on the streetscape/skyline *and if the interiors are anything to go by, than I suspect that it would be on the cheap side) then I see no reason why this should be knocked back.

As I said, let the buyers do the talking for developments like this and let the council reject it on the basis of its aesthetics and function, not morals.

It was rejected on function - the toilets in the apartments are not separated from the living space.

[arki]

Then the council was wise to reject this proposal. My post referred more to developments in general, I was certainly not an advocate of this development.

[AdelaideGo]

According to DAC's agenda for this coming Thursday 22nd Sep meeting, this project will be approved.

Back in 25th Aug DAC meeting, the same project was rejected on the following 2 grounds:
1. The proposal exceeds the maximum desired height for the King William Street South Policy Area 28, in particular the western part of the site.
2. The proposal does not provide sufficient amenity for residents of the apartments, in terms of the size of apartments, natural light, ventilation, an outlook to the outside and environmental comfort.

Apparently, in the design that is to be approved, the developer has done nothing to address the 1st point.
As for the 2nd point, the new design has made the following 2 changes:
1. The inclusion of translucent highlight windows and door sidelights within the bedrooms - to increase the extent of natural light available to the shared living areas
2. The inclusion of glazed sliding doors to separate the bathrooms from the bedrooms

Althought DAC thinks that the improvement is minimal, but they decide to support the proposal. Below is what they say in the assessment.
The proposed changes are considered to be minimal – however they will improve the amenity of the apartments with regards to provision of natural light in the common room and also create the division between the bathroom and the bedroom. The proposed changes are considered to be acceptable given that the bedrooms are the students’ main living space and that there is good provision of communal open space within the dining/terrace and outdoor spaces on a number of floors. The apartments are also considered to be adaptable for future re-use. I consider that the amenity of the internal layout has improved and therefore support the proposed changes.

[phenom]

Interesting news!

FWIW I can't understand the obsession with the idea that a bathroom/toilet should be 'separated' from a bedroom... there are LOTS of very, very expensive houses where it's a feature that the bathroom/toilet is effectively on the 'other side' of an 'open wall' against which the bed goes... yes, much larger, but the same concept. As a more applicable example, I have stayed in more than a few hotels (not overly cheap ones) on business stays where there is not much effective separation between the bathroom and bedroom. Yes, they were studio rooms but so are these. Plus (again, against the main views) I actually don't mind the look of this building and it's sibling proposal over on Pulteney Street.

[Reb-L]

I agree with phenom's views. These apartments will probably be considerably better than much of the overcrowded share accommodation many students live in far away from where they study. The council should not try to force more space/standard on residents than what they want as long as minimum standards are met. I have lived in smaller pads than these when I lived alone and I was happy with that because the alternative would've been not to have my own place.

[Wayno]

Seems this one is approved...

From the city messenger

PLANS for a 15-level student apartment building, labelled “uninhabitable” by one City councillor, could trigger more questionable housing applications from overseas investors, elected members say.

The state’s peak planning body - the Development Assessment Commission (DAC) - has approved plans lodged by Chinese developer, Tang Cheng Holdings Pty Ltd, to build a student apartment building on the corner of King William and Gilbert streets.

The City Council’s Development Assessment Panel (DAP) twice knocked back the application because it exceeded maximum building heights, bathrooms would have been merged with bedrooms and there was insufficient space for shared areas.

The DAC approved amended plans which increased natural light and featured glazed sliding doors to separate bathrooms from bedrooms.

DAP member Cr Anne Moran said, despite the conditions, the apartments would be “teeny, weeny, substandard flats” which were “uninhabitable.”

“If DAC keeps approving them, they will keep submitting them and I do not want us to become a garbage dump for developments the rest of Australia would not allow to be built,” she said.

Cr Sandy Wilkinson said the conditions imposed did not go far enough and anticipated more applications from foreign investors.

“We are getting the worst type of opportunistic development applications from overseas developers who can make very lean, cheaply built, multi-storey student housing buildings on very small sites,” Cr Wilkinson said.

Cr Michael Henningsen said the application lodged with the DAP was “seriously at variance” with the development plan but disagreed the DAC’s decision would prompt more student housing applications.

Property Council of SA executive director Nathan Paine said requirements for student apartments were different to residential.

“You see international students using their dwelling to sleep in and shower in but 90 per cent of the time they are studying or out with their friends so it does not have the same necessity to be a totally self-contained unit,” Mr Paine said.

[phenom]

I feel like the ACC councillors quoted in the article above are like the boy who cried wolf. Even if their complaints have legitimacy (and I don't think they do, as per my earlier comment on this topic) they have undone their own credibility by complaining about things in the past that in no possible way could reasonably have been seen as a problem... I refer to Cr Wilkinson's rather extreme views on earlier proposals as a case in point.

Also, it's a bit rich to complain about certain aspects of the design when the very limitations of planning - created by the ACC themselves - inevitably create the very thing they claim to not want. Few buildings will ever be built with an effectively 'uncapped' budget, so if you limit height and try to restrain a wide range of design aspects, you invariably end up with attempts to maximise economic viability under those constraints. Why Cr Wilkinson et al think this will lead to beautiful, grand buildings I cannot fathom.

As for future use, I would think these would be ideal studio apartments in future years (if need be) for low income people or local students - or indeed, professionals who are basically only ever home to sleep and would otherwise be needing a hotel room anyway.

[wilkiebarkid]

I think the disappointing thing here is that the Council still hasn't identified KWS as the main street of our Capital City and therefore deserved of only significant, iconic developments that will make it a Grand Boulevard. There is no consideration for the future look of the City by building insignicant student apartments of 46m on KWS. For a start there should be a height minimum on KWS South of 70 - 75 metres and maybe an upper limit of 150 metres. If these limits were available it may actually attract development, but current pathetic height contraints keep holding the City back.

[skyliner]

Couldn't agree more Wilkie - the grand boulevard concept needs picking up by the ACC big time - it has huge potential for this!

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[Ben]

All signage has been removed from the sales office on west terrace. Can only hope that the development in its current form has been cancelled.

[phenom]

OK, thought this has died but adverts have just appeared tonight on realestate.com.au...



Mistaken ad run or still live? Render is a bit cartoonish but doesn't look too shabby

edit: slightly larger thumbnail

[skyliner]

I hope it doesn't die off - for the reasons said earlier in the comments on this bldg. The South of KWS needs enlivening, with upgraded tramstop.

I don't mind the external design except for maybe too much concrete. Impressed with cantilever awning protection for the full external street facing facades. Will enhance interactive street level tenancies on the ground level.

I can't imagine Mr Xu giving up on this too easily.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS AS GREATER CITY SKYLINE