Sensational-Adelaide.com

Thanks Xara. I had completely lost track of this - good to see it actually happened. I note the high rise goes right across from Light to Hindmarsh sq. now.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

New 8 level apartment building on south terrace. Probably doesn't deserve it's own thread. I personally think South terrace should have a much higher height limit.

Type Development Application Received
Application Number DA/624/2010
Lodgement Date 18/08/2010
Latest Decision
Location Land, 111-115 South Terrace, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description Construct 8 level residentail building with underground carparking - 9 apartments.

That's quite a large block. Given it's 9 apartments over 8 levels, most would be 1 apartment per floor. They'd be pretty damn huge apartments.

Ben wrote:New 8 level apartment building on south terrace. Probably doesn't deserve it's own thread. I personally think South terrace should have a much higher height limit.

+1 on that - at the south edge of town complaints about "overshadowing" finally go away!

Another car Showroom for West Terrace:

Type: Development Application Received
Application Number: DA/638/2010
Lodgement Date: 24/08/2010
Location: 164-170 West Terrace, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description: Demolish existing single storey building, retain and modify existing two storey building, remove significant tree and construct new two storey showroom fronting West Terrace.

Ben wrote:New 8 level apartment building on south terrace. Probably doesn't deserve it's own thread. I personally think South terrace should have a much higher height limit.

Type Development Application Received
Application Number DA/624/2010
Lodgement Date 18/08/2010
Latest Decision
Location Land, 111-115 South Terrace, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description Construct 8 level residentail building with underground carparking - 9 apartments.

Further to this, the development has been sent to the DAC. I'm assuming it's not because it's over $10M (only 9 apartments) but because it's over a certain height... I think I rember reading 5 levels or $10 mill is recognised as Category 10 development being referred to the DAC.

Ben wrote:
Further to this, the development has been sent to the DAC. I'm assuming it's not because it's over $10M (only 9 apartments) but because it's over a certain height... I think I rember reading 5 levels or $10 mill is recognised as Category 10 development being referred to the DAC.

I think Adelaide (relevant authorities) should encourage more residential use (higher levels needed) around the parklands and squares. The city needs higher residential densities and the locations opposite/near to open spaces are ideal for this. South Terrace is one such ideal location.

I can't understand why so many desirable near parkland/square locations are occupied by offices and other non-residential uses with a daytime population but deserted at night. The city needs more people and more vibrancy.

veemur wrote:

Ben wrote:
Further to this, the development has been sent to the DAC. I'm assuming it's not because it's over $10M (only 9 apartments) but because it's over a certain height... I think I rember reading 5 levels or $10 mill is recognised as Category 10 development being referred to the DAC.

I think Adelaide (relevant authorities) should encourage more residential use (higher levels needed) around the parklands and squares. The city needs higher residential densities and the locations opposite/near to open spaces are ideal for this. South Terrace is one such ideal location.

I can't understand why so many desirable near parkland/square locations are occupied by offices and other non-residential uses with a daytime population but deserted at night. The city needs more people and more vibrancy.

Agreed. I also think that by having higher buildings opposite parklands (and the squares) would highlight the parklands more (due to the contrast), rather than having building heights petering out leaving the borders not very defined.

veemur wrote:I think Adelaide (relevant authorities) should encourage more residential use (higher levels needed) around the parklands and squares. The city needs higher residential densities and the locations opposite/near to open spaces are ideal for this. South Terrace is one such ideal location.

Aha! not quite in the CBD, but the Unley council is already making movements in this direction - read this post and the following few posts as well. They recognise the 'view factor' of placing tall buildings adjacent to the parklands.

I personally think South terrace should have a much higher height limit.

There are a few disadvantages to that position.

I suggest that all 'sides' - community, developers, governments - would benefit from and are generally in favour of higher density living in the city itself.

However, building very tall towers on the terraces has an effect on nearby land users. On North Tce it matters less because most of the towers are backed up by buildings of height and mass, slowly reducing to the south.

South Terrace with its glare-free southern aspect is ideal for residential use, but rather than build a 'pie crust' of tall buildings there, perhaps a height limit of five or six levels would be better. While on South Terrace there is not the physical effect of overshadowing as there would be on West Terrace, there is still the scale effect. Life (and property values) are different in a single storey dwelling next to a 20 storey building than next to say a five storey one. It's a matter of scale.

There is also the problem of parking. A five or six level building can usually contain in one basement level parking at the rate of two per unit. A taller building, with two, three or four dwellings per floor needs two basement levels to avoid an overly industrial feel to the landscape at street level. There is also the problem of visitor parking. Most residential multi-storey buildings generate an overflow of casual parking in the surrounding streets.

There's a good cost/benefit point at five or six levels too. The building contains enough sellable floor area to pay for two lifts, the basement excavations and systems such as firefighting. Taller buildings move into a higher cost class and the same profitability is not available until 12 - 14 levels. (This argument is debatable - I think it's probably correct, based on my observations.)

parking becomes less of an issue with CBD residential property with sufficient PT.

I would suggest the levels will get higher as the PT improves, just look at the impact of the extended tram line to KW and nearby street. I would suggest a city loop would significantly impact mid/high rise buildings.

I agree that improved PT lessens the need for parking.

However, once you are outside the metropolitan area, universally useful PT becomes very expensive to provide. As a result, people want to hang on to their cars even if they don't use them in the city, because their lives have a component outside the city.

agree with that.

I guess in terms of using those cars to get to work, it would be good to provide PT that means they don't need to use them atleast on weekdays going to work.

stumpjumper wrote:I agree that improved PT lessens the need for parking.

However, once you are outside the metropolitan area, universally useful PT becomes very expensive to provide. As a result, people want to hang on to their cars even if they don't use them in the city, because their lives have a component outside the city.

An odd comment in response to an apartment building on South Terrace.

Ben wrote:Another car Showroom for West Terrace:

Type: Development Application Received
Application Number: DA/638/2010
Lodgement Date: 24/08/2010
Location: 164-170 West Terrace, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description: Demolish existing single storey building, retain and modify existing two storey building, remove significant tree and construct new two storey showroom fronting West Terrace.

Cost of this showroom is $8.8M