Page 1 of 55
[CAN] [The Precinct] | 58m | 5 x 18lvls | Apartments
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:08 pm
by Howie
http://www.adelaide.sa.gov.au/council/p ... l_west.htm
Consultation has wrapped up on this project. Key groups involved were SA Water, DAIS, Adelaide Airport, ETSA, other gov branches. You can see their responses at the end of the 2005/02/09 pdf document, and it's overwhelmingly positive. Seems to comply in every way and the groups have all but given their nod to the project (i noticed adelaide airport were noticably silent on the issue).
Looks good! Lotsa positive news from the council lately.
Renders :
Updated render from Urban Construct site (2007 05 23)
Old renders here :
[CAN]
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:14 pm
by Pikey
Adelaide Airpost and CASA worry me with this one....
I know that Multiplex are itching to get onto this, constructing 2 towers at a time instead of one a year for five years.
[CAN]
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:29 pm
by Howie
Minutes from the 2005/05/30 meeting... Adelaide Airport Limited writes
a) The possible development envisaged by the proposed PAR potentially represents a penetration of the Adl Airport Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) and would be defined as a 'controlled activity' in accordated with the airports (protection of airspace) regulation 1996. In its current form the resulting development could present a risk to airport operations.
b) Requires investigation and prepared to discuss further. Propose that a specialist consultant be commissioned to undertake a joint study. Will take 2-4 months to undertake investigations, involving negotiations and authorisations with relevant authorities.
c) For a development project, AAL required to assess and make
recommendation to Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Airservices Australia and the relevant building authority. AAL to invite further submission from CASA and Airservices Aust. Before reporting to Dept. of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS). DOTARS to assess and make determination.
Council should make allowance for this process and its determination. Other stakeholders include CASA, DOTARS and aviation industry generally.
To which the council replies
preliminary investigations for council conclude that :
• Development resulting from the proposed policy in the PAR for the Balfours and Bus Station Policy Areas obtain shielding within the Conical Surface of the OLS from the Santos Building, height 181 AHD;
• The proposed developments will not penetrate any of the relevant
PANS-OPS surfaces;
• The proposed developments will not impact other aircraft operations at Adelaide Airport or within the Adelaide Control Zone.
These include operations relating to IFR arrivals and departures, impaired operation and VFR activity;
• Due to the relatively large size of existing buildings within the Adelaide central business district, it is considered that negligible incremental impact on the performance of the Adelaide primary radar will occur.
• The developments do require approval from DOTRS under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996 as amended up to and including SR2001 No 55.
AAL have been advised.
In other words it'll hit santos before it'll hit the city west buildings. You tell em council.
I like this last comment AAL makes
e) Generally positive about redevelopment and PAR as a whole notwithstanding OLS concerns. Santos building is an existing penetration into the OLS, but was built under a different regulatory regime.
[CAN]
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:36 pm
by Howie
One thing i'm not too happy seeing is the Amended proposal for building height set at 19 levels / 62 metres.
[CAN]
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:42 pm
by Pikey
very, VERY encouraging!!
And as far as the 19 lvl - 60m height proposal, I wouldn't mind 5, 60m towers extending our skyline west!! How awesome will it look from Windy point!
[CAN]
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:46 pm
by Howie
yep definately ... a few kpmg sized buildings on the west side would give it at least some sort of vertical height which that side of town is severely lacking.
[CAN]
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:18 pm
by Pants
Did it look any different to this mate?
[CAN]
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:58 pm
by Al
Didn't have any colour pictures but it did seem a little different.
[CAN]
Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 3:23 pm
by AG
Check the renderings from Urban Construct's website and compare:
http://www.urbanconstruct.com.au/futWestCent.html
It depends on which angle this is viewed from. It doesn't look obvious from the above render, but it appears to be from Grote Street.
[CAN]
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:02 pm
by BradJC
Renders UC:
[CAN]
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:06 pm
by Howie
Awesome renders! Certainly looks promising ......!
[CAN]
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:06 pm
by Pants
Again, good work mate.
Great project.
[CAN]
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:27 pm
by UrbanSG
Great renders Bradjc. Doesn't look at all like Adelaide, looks like a scene from a larger city. This development will be very different for the city indeed. I've seen a few articles about The Adelaide City Council wishing to start construction of the bus terminal in 2006 so hopefully the apartment construction will follow soon after.
[CAN]
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:00 pm
by Will
There is some confusion about this development. I was under the impression that the West Central consortium of Urban Construct and Multiplex had already being selected to re-develop the site. However I was reading the Rex Jory column on the Sunday Mail which stated that the council closed tenders to re-develop the site this Monday. It appears that there are other interested parties which want to re-develop the site. The Sunday mail mentions that the winning party will be selected before Christmas, at which point the plans for the site will be made available to public.
[CAN]
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:30 pm
by AG
The consortium has already been selected and it is Urban Construct and Multiplex.
There's still a few issues regarding one crash repairs business that is currently located on the site to be redeveloped, and this is holding up the development. The business claims that its concerns over relocation are being ignored by the council.