[CAN] [Freedom Apartments] 3x | 30m | 8lvls | Apartments

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Brando
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:11 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 63 times

[CAN] Re: #PRO: Freedom Apartments (Grote) | 36m | 1 x 10 + 2 x 8 Lvl

#61 Post by Brando » Wed May 06, 2009 1:49 am

monotonehell wrote:Regarding people's comments on the AAL height concerns. Please understand that there's a lot more to air traffic safety than just where planes fly. The height restrictions on West Tce are to do with the air traffic control systems and radar imaging. That's not to say that it's impossible to change those height restrictions, you just have to appreciate the technological reasons behind the restrictions and not post ignorant things like "a plane doesn't fly that low".

I wish I could find the thread where we posted all the research on this we did last year. Wayno? Little help?
We're aware of the many various issues concerning the AAL, i guess my gripe is that many cities around the world look for solutions and beyond. In Adelaide, we seem to hear from the AAL a lot and as a result restrict ourselves as a city.

Howie, that is the sort of low rise design we should be encouraging. More style, substance and funk..

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 131 times

[CAN] Re: #PRO: Freedom Apartments (Grote) | 36m | 1 x 10 + 2 x 8 Lvl

#62 Post by Wayno » Wed May 06, 2009 8:18 am

monotonehell wrote: I wish I could find the thread where we posted all the research on this we did last year. Wayno? Little help?
over here ==> http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... =20&t=1950. Maybe we should post the document as a visible reference somewhere...
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4111
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 321 times
Been thanked: 449 times

[CAN] Re: #PRO: Freedom Apartments (Grote) | 36m | 1 x 10 + 2 x 8 Lvl

#63 Post by rev » Thu May 07, 2009 1:58 pm

Brando wrote: We're aware of the many various issues concerning the AAL, i guess my gripe is that many cities around the world look for solutions and beyond. In Adelaide, we seem to hear from the AAL a lot and as a result restrict ourselves as a city.
Couldn't agree more with you. I once posted an example of a similar situation in America, in a Texan city(forgot it's name now). Their flight path's, on an airport many times the size of Adelaide Intl & many times the air traffic, runs parallel to the cbd, with a lot more taller buildings then us. Yet we somehow can't find a way to get passed this issue in Adelaide.

The roof's on these towers remind me of Majestic on Frome. Doesn't look like they will have a roof top garden area though :|

Ben
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 6831
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 293 times
Been thanked: 1153 times

[CAN] Re: #PRO: Freedom Apartments (Grote) | 36m | 1 x 10 + 2 x 8 Lvl

#64 Post by Ben » Thu May 07, 2009 2:01 pm

The developers are reducing the 10 level tower down to 8 to comply with Adelaide Airports restrictions.

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 735 times
Been thanked: 163 times

[CAN] Re: #PRO: Freedom Apartments (Grote) | 36m | 1 x 10 + 2 x 8 Lvl

#65 Post by Will » Thu May 07, 2009 5:43 pm

Ben wrote:The developers are reducing the 10 level tower down to 8 to comply with Adelaide Airports restrictions.
This is a very sad outcome, considering that the Australia Post mail distribution centre is 34.5m tall. Because that 1.5m is going to make all the difference.... :wank:

Stupidity: 1 - Common sense: 0

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 131 times

[CAN] Re: #PRO: Freedom Apartments (Grote) | 36m | 1 x 10 + 2 x 8 Lvl

#66 Post by Wayno » Fri May 08, 2009 7:10 am

Will wrote:
Ben wrote:The developers are reducing the 10 level tower down to 8 to comply with Adelaide Airports restrictions.
This is a very sad outcome, considering that the Australia Post mail distribution centre is 34.5m tall. Because that 1.5m is going to make all the difference.... :wank:

Stupidity: 1 - Common sense: 0
yep, another lost opportunity to truly challenge the height restrictions. I wonder if the air safety authorities were involved in this decision, or if a minion at the ACC simply referred to their textbook.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

[CAN] Re: #PRO: Freedom Apartments (Grote) | 36m | 1 x 10 + 2 x 8 Lvl

#67 Post by stumpjumper » Sat May 16, 2009 10:43 am

There's a disturbing current on this forum which seems to suggest that we should dispense with any urban design or building standards and let the market build whatever it wants. Uncritical support for any development doesn't help the credibility of this forum which has had its critics:
'I came across this forum a few years ago when searching for information on the Port development but it seemed like a bunch of people idolising highrises so didn't look again...'


- a German urban design researcher responding to my suggestion that he look at sensational-adelaide for some informed discussion of current urban design in Adelaide. He's since had another look at this forum. Statements like the ones below don't help.
'I think if this building is built, it'll fade into the background thanks to its unremarkable shape.'

'Why is the council worried about access to sunlight for occupants? Surely anyone who cared simply wouldn't be a tenant in the building.'

'is the council people anti-development? sick and tired of this people control of adelaide future.'
Anyway, with regard to the Freedom project. Try this for a scenario:

How to make serious money quickly

1. Put together a $2 company for the purposes of the enterprise. You're selling to the rich parents of Chinese students or mum and dad local investors. Call it Sino Aust Development Corporation. That sounds about right. Get for a relatively nominal sum a copy of the documentation of some cheap apartments that have been built somewhere (so quantities and costing are a breeze) and are BCA compliant or can be made BCA compliant without much trouble. Try eastern Europe (EC member countries) or somewhere like that for some cheap plans if you can't find any locally. The rooms in Asian apartment blocks are usually too small and in western Europe the walls are often too thick (insulation). Why pay for the plans to be completely re-cadded and dimensioned?

2. Ring a few property firms in Adelaide and see if you can't get an option on a 1000sqm of land somewhere in the CBD. Adelaide is a good choice because land is quite cheap, the local council and the state government are both extremely pro development. You're told of developments exceeding by large margins height limits and plot ratios by which their land content was valued. Orientation, view etc don't matter much, and the local council has recently been stripped of its planning authority. No need to sweat about design issues. Anyway, who cares. You don't - you're not going to live in the thing.

3. Once you've lined everything up, sell the project and move on.

4. Or take the risk and actually build it, but life's too short...

I think a case could be made that the ACC and the state government are partly responsible for over driving the Adelaide marketplace. Intervention in a free market usually ends in glut or shortage more severe than in the natural cycle'.

The whole thing shouldn't cost you much more than $100,000, and you can borrow that if you're smart. If you're lucky, you'll do well. The only loser will be Adelaide, which will have one more dogbox to demolish in the future.

To the uncritical cheer squads of 'any development at all, just build the fcuker', there is such a thing as good design and good urban design practice.

My advice to some posters here, though not all by any means, is to educate yourselves.

This is not a pompous statement from some wanker in the design profession, but a plea for some understanding of the subject matter and of the consequences of urban design decisions.

Have a look at some basic design material. There's plenty around, from Wikipedia on.
Last edited by stumpjumper on Sat May 16, 2009 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 2534
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: City
Has thanked: 619 times
Been thanked: 281 times

[CAN] Re: #PRO: Freedom Apartments (Grote) | 36m | 1 x 10 + 2 x 8 Lvl

#68 Post by SRW » Sat May 16, 2009 11:46 am

I agree with most of what you've written above Stumpjumper, but that last line is disgusting.

You talk about the credibility of this forum to outsiders, but think for a moment about the credibility of this forum for women out there when you and a certain few other forum members continue to post such blatantly sexist, even misogynistic, comments.

I expect that it's not a reflection of your actual character, but seriously -- cut it out!
Keep Adelaide Weird

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 735 times
Been thanked: 163 times

[CAN] Re: #PRO: Freedom Apartments (Grote) | 36m | 1 x 10 + 2 x 8 Lvl

#69 Post by Will » Sat May 16, 2009 1:40 pm

Most of us are disappointed with the ACC for rejecting this development not because we want development at any cost, but rather for the ridiculous reasons used to reject the development. Had the councilors rejected this development based on the advice of their planning staff, then I think very few of us would have an issue with the council. We are disappointed with the council because like AtD said they have exceeded their expertise and made a decision not entirely based on the building’s aesthetics but rather on speculation about future trends in the market.

Most of us do not like the look of the building, me included. However I would also like you to consider the economics behind these designs. These apartments are small. They are designed for international students who are not permanent residents. Had the building been approved and released to the market, these apartments would sell in the $150-175k range. Considering this, we cannot expect that such a building will be a Taj Mahal.

If as you are advocating, the developers had employed the finest urban design elements, then the building would cost much more to build. These increased costs would naturally be passed on to the consumers. Thus, these apartments would no longer sell in the $150-175k range but possibly up to double the price. As such the intended market for the apartments would no longer be able to buy them or rent in them making the project unviable.

Although I understand that you are not a fan of the design of most developments, please understand that the market essentially dictates the quality of the design. If a project is unviable I will not proceed, because in a market system, private developers seek a profit. The Adelaide market is smaller than the markets on the eastern seaboard and European countries, thus the potential profits that can be made here are smaller. If the council forces developers to increase the cost associated with their developments, then the already smaller profits available to them will be made even smaller or non existent. Better design, better materials, reduced building heights, reduced number of apartments per level; these things costs money.

By this I am not saying that we should scrap urban design principles, but rather be realistic in the knowledge that not every building, particularly those aimed at the lower ends of the market will be world class.

In addition if we want Adelaide to be a vibrant city, we have to accept, that inevitably the city has to offer different living options. If every development had to be a Taj Mahal, then only rich, retired people would afford to live in the city. This is not something that we should promote.

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

[CAN] Re: #PRO: Freedom Apartments (Grote) | 36m | 1 x 10 + 2 x 8 Lvl

#70 Post by stumpjumper » Sat May 16, 2009 4:29 pm

As before, Will, I agree with most of what you say.

A successful development must tick many boxes, some of them deal breakers. Profit is such a deal breaking box. 'Good design' is not a deal breaking box. There is, however you describe it, a balancing act between legitimate rights of a property owner (the developer, in short) and the legitimate but not property based and therefore less easy to define 'rights' or at least expectations of the community that the community managers (govt, council etc) will protect community amenity and promote good design, not just for now but to ensure the continuing function and attractiveness of the city.

'The market' operating within the framework of commercial law is supposed to look after the profit side of things - the operation of the 'developer's equation'.

The community's interest in good design is supposed to be protected by planning legislation implemented by experts and overseen by elected representatives. As you say, Will, objections to a development must be rational. However, while a dollar is a dollar with respect to profit or loss, exactly what is good or bad in the design aspects of a development is an imprecise thing. Specific limits are not much use when most people would agree that a well designed building which exceeds height or plot ratio is generally preferable to a badly designed building which is within the decreed envelope (which is only someone's opinion anyway).

As to pricing and the need to rack 'em and stack 'em to achieve price points, there is something circular about your argument. I can't remember if it's begging the question or some logical fallacy - it's Sat pm and I'm watching the footy as I type and it's too hard to think through, but while $150-$170K less profit, costs etc doesn't leave a lot to build with, even at 40 - 50sqm per dwelling, consider these figures:

Say rental per student in Adelaide is $200-$250 per week (remember that there is a thriving private accommodation market of share houses and units etc farther out providing cheaper accommodation with no capital investment or tax deductible expense or capital gain). Consider too the cost of keeping a student at a uni residential college (about $250 pw?).

Now, since the general gross return a landlord could expect for a standard finish and location city unit (with limited car parking) is imho about 5% pa, then $200 - $250 per week underwrites a more expensive unit - $225 x 52 = $11,700 pa which is 5% of $234,000. In other words, the market could support 'student apartments' at more than $150-$170K , making whatever 'good design' is a bit easier to achieve given the higher price.

You didn't mention it, but I think there's merit in considering a city wide medium height and density regime - ie no 8, 10 and 12 storey residential towers compromising the development potential of nearby properties, but say a four or five storey limit more or less everywhere except for a core of high-rise. The 4/5 storey limit seems to have worked for Paris, and what's more, a 4/5 storey residential building can usually contain its own adequate car parking on site in a basement.

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

[CAN] Re: #PRO: Freedom Apartments (Grote) | 36m | 1 x 10 + 2 x 8 Lvl

#71 Post by AtD » Sat May 16, 2009 9:49 pm

That some very nice rants stumpjumper, damn those pesky capitalist developers. High rises are rampant profiteering that clearly destroys future of our children, and there's absolutely no authority that can resist them! That's why this building is already under construction with all its paperwork in full order...

Monsters under the bed again, stumpjumper? We've already had "Reds under the bed" from this project.

You might want to go back and re-read the reactions to this development's objection - I think I was the only one who didn't think the renders were ugly!

User avatar
Prince George
Legendary Member!
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Melrose Park

[CAN] Re: #PRO: Freedom Apartments (Grote) | 36m | 1 x 10 + 2 x 8 Lvl

#72 Post by Prince George » Mon May 18, 2009 12:00 am

AtD, I don't think that SJ's target in his posts were the developers themselves, but rather the attitude that says "please someone, build something, anything". There is sometimes an air of desperation, perhaps because of an extended spell where we didn't see anything getting built, that gets expressed as something like a plea for building so we can see that we aren't stagnating. Perhaps because of that gnawing hunger, we're happy to reduce things to a single figure-of-merit, like crane counts or building height. For aesthetics or design, we might glance at renders that are little bigger than a thumbnail, but the real talking points are the numbers in the subject line (with the obligatory "wish it was taller") and how the council are a bunch of fuddy-duddies that want to keep us in the past (like some sort of construction version of "Footloose").

By way of comparison, I'd really like to learn more about this social housing project from Barcelona - Walden 7, designed by Ricardo Bofill. Apparently, despite its striking design, it was built "with a budget substantially lower than those usually assigned at the time to public housing". Of course, there may be a significant difference between the bugets of 1974 Barcelona and 2009 Adelaide, but does that just mean that we're cheapskates?
Image
Image
Image
(Astute readers may remember that I've already mentioned this place once before - in the thread about Spark)

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

[CAN] Re: #PRO: Freedom Apartments (Grote) | 36m | 1 x 10 + 2 x 8 Lvl

#73 Post by AtD » Mon May 18, 2009 9:48 pm


Ben
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 6831
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 293 times
Been thanked: 1153 times

[CAN] Re: #PRO: Freedom Apartments (Grote) | 36m | 1 x 10 + 2 x 8 Lvl

#74 Post by Ben » Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:07 am

This is likely to be approved at Thursdays DAC meeting:
1.
Application
•Construction of two buildings with three 8 storey towers for student accommodation. 319 apartments are proposed.
•The site is immediately east of West Terrace, between Grote and Gouger Streets within the City of Adelaide.
•The development is a merit category 1 assessment.
•DAC is the authority as the development is above $10m.
•The land is zoned “mixed use” which envisages a range of service industry, warehouses, shops, showrooms, hotels, cafes and residential development. In land use terms the proposal is consistent with the zoning.
•The zone has a maximum height of 28 metres. The proposal is 30 metres in height

2.
Key Issues
•The Council Panel opposed the proposal, essentially on the ground that the architectural design was repetitious, and the internal design of apartments did not provide sufficient amenity for residents. Following the Panel meeting the proposal was significantly amended. It has not been reconsidered by the Panel.
•The Department’s Urban Design Unit supports the proposal, on the basis of the amendments made subsequent to the Panel’s consideration, and on the basis that uniform aesthetics creates a cohesive identity (as compared to the Council Panel view that the design is repetitious).
•The building is prominent from Sir Donald Bradman Drive as it comes through the Parklands. Accordingly the site is a gateway from the airport and interstate rail terminal. The Department sought more articulation on the relatively bland western elevation. The Commission may wish to ask the proponent at the meeting whether further articulation or design features can be incorporated on the western façade.

3.
Report Prepared by Gabrielle McMahon

4.
The recommendation to GRANT PLANNING CONSENT is supported
•The proposal generally accords with the zoning and built form guidelines.
•The amendments made during the assessment process now mean the proposal is sufficiently consistent with Development Plan Objectives.
•The western façade remains relatively bland and could be enhanced by further articulation or design treatment.

User avatar
Omicron
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 pm

[CAN] Re: #PRO: Freedom Apartments (Grote) | 36m | 1 x 10 + 2 x 8 Lvl

#75 Post by Omicron » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:02 am

Ben wrote:This is likely to be approved at Thursdays DAC meeting:

*snipsnip*

on the basis that uniform aesthetics creates a cohesive identity (as compared to the Council Panel view that the design is repetitious).

*snip*
This is why I shouldn't read official government documents - the precis format they inevitably assume results in some fearsomely-generalised statements that make me want to tear my hair out and cause harm to puppies and babies and such.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 8 guests