Sensational-Adelaide.com

It better be a DAM GOOD cafe.

Ben wrote:from a 31 level building to a cafe....

Type: Development Application Received
Application Number: DA/313/2010
Lodgement Date: 29/04/2010
Location: 20-22 Currie Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description: Internal and external alterations and change the use to cafe.

This application for a cafe was withdrawn on 19/05/2010.

Maybe there is still some slim hope.

fingers crossed...?

forgive me for being daft, and I know the site for this previously proposed development is "between buildings"but is any part of the lot visible from grenfell? is the lot currently vacant at all? i have a rough idea of where it was supposed to stand however i've never been able to pinpoint the exact location when driving by.

You can't view it from Grenfell only currie street. try typing the address into google maps. www.google.com/maps

spiller wrote:forgive me for being daft, and I know the site for this previously proposed development is "between buildings"but is any part of the lot visible from grenfell? is the lot currently vacant at all? i have a rough idea of where it was supposed to stand however i've never been able to pinpoint the exact location when driving by.

http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s ... ,,0,-11.57

Farout just going back to the first few pages, Adelaide really needed this.

So this had actually been cancelled, what would have to be done for it to be brought back to life? Was it the developer that pulled out because of money with the GFC, or that they couldn't find a decent tenant for it

No tennant mate

Ben wrote:You can't view it from Grenfell only currie street. try typing the address into google maps. http://www.google.com/maps

did i say Grenfell? I meant Currie!! sorry, will try maps.

Just to confirm this development isn't dead. There was an extension of time granted earlier this year which doesn't expire till February 2011.

How on earth did this ever get approved in the first place, especially considering the loud DAP objections over that 86m building just around the corner on KWS?

looking back on it, I ask myself the same question. Whether we like it or not, Currie St isn't exactly the the most high-rise place in Adelaide. Yes it has Westpac, but really... that's about it

Omicron wrote:How on earth did this ever get approved in the first place, especially considering the loud DAP objections over that 86m building just around the corner on KWS?

Yes, an interesting question. Both buildings are within PA16, but the BIG difference is the setback, or lack thereof. As you can see from the attached image, 22 Currie St is in the 103m zone, while the 115 KWS building proposal is in the 72m zone.

I believe the council largely rejected 115 KWS because it's not of 'human scale' and it 'looms large' overhead from a typical pedestrian view point. If the 115 KWS proposal included a set back of say 1/2 a block (similar to 22 Currie St) from the street frontage then it probably would have received approval even though it's 14m taller than the 72m limit.

Notice that several zones have 'dual height' limits, the lower being at the street frontage. This should be inversed in many instances, South Terrace being a good example.

Ben wrote:Just to confirm this development isn't dead. There was an extension of time granted earlier this year which doesn't expire till February 2011.

is that merely a technicality though or is there actually a legit chance that this development will come to life again?

spiller wrote:

Ben wrote:Just to confirm this development isn't dead. There was an extension of time granted earlier this year which doesn't expire till February 2011.

is that merely a technicality though or is there actually a legit chance that this development will come to life again?

That's what I want to know too because I don't understand how they couldn't secure a tennant and yet CC8 quite quickly secured the ATO as a tennant for 3,000 (I think it was) employees? It's not like they were beaten to it by the CC8 developers, this proposal was approved a while ago now. Is it that even that kind of a pre-commitment still isn't enough for this development and the cost of the building requires an even larger tennant?