[CAN] 260 Pulteney Street | 46m | 15lvls | Apartments

[iTouch]

mmm nah.
This proposal makes me want to punch baby animals

[[Shuz]]

+1

[Ben]

Council recommended this be rejected at last weeks meeting. the decision now rests with the DAC in a few weeks time.

[Algernon]

Projects like these are pure profit maximisation. No time or effort has been put in to acquiring enough land for a meaningful site amalgamation, so all that occurs is concrete wall built to the perimeter. Looks okay when one is built, but when the neighbours decide to build the street becomes a dark canyon. Unfortunately this is what will characterise Adelaide's future development, all courtesy of the grid - ironically designed by someone named Light.

[Ben]

Council are also expected to reject the amended proposal at tonights meeting for this proposal. Basically the conditions of the "rooms" are unliveable (bedroom and bathroom in same room and many with no natural light)...

[iTouch]

honestly, why did they and who even proposed this in the first place?

[Will]

The developers have ammended the proposal. It is now 12 levels and 37m.

However, they have failed to address the actual reason for its previous rejection:

Living areas within apartments are not of a size to enable the reasonable enjoyment of
use by occupants.

The majority of bedrooms are not guaranteed to be provided with enduring adequate
levels of sunlight in accordance with CW PDC53.

The majority of bedrooms will not have access to direct natural ventilation and are
overly reliant as required by CW PDC50.

The proposal does not meet the 3 metre setback for habitable room windows as
required by CW PDC 64 to provide adequate level of amenity for occupants

Provision of windows to habitable rooms closer than 3 metres to boundaries will
unreasonably affect the development potential of the abutting allotments to the north
and south thereby not satisfying Council Wide Principle 64.

Is not of a sufficient level of external design quality in terms of materials, fenestration,
lack of articulation and lack of outlook to positively contribute towards the Desired
Character of the City, Zone and Policy Area thereby not satisfying Council Wide
Principle 203, Mixed Use Zone Desired Character – Part (a), Mixed Use Zone Objective 4
and Grote and Wakefiled Street Policy Area 22 Desired Character – Part (a).

[[Shuz]]

Council are also expected to reject the amended proposal at tonights meeting for this proposal. Basically the conditions of the "rooms" are unliveable (bedroom and bathroom in same room and many with no natural light)...

Are they for real?
I'm sure that would have to pose some sort of sanitary risk also?

I hope Council/DAC have/will block the proposal and damn it overwhelmingly.

[iTouch]

I recon this shouldn't just be refused, the developers should be investigated. If they thought they could get away with this, I wonder what else they've proposed in other cities? I wonder what their history is like. It all sounds dodgy

[metro]

i cant remember, was this and king william street a Chinese developer?

[Will]

i cant remember, was this and king william street a Chinese developer?

Yes, the developer is Tangcheng Holdings.

[iTouch]

I'm quite impressed by the outrage about the proposal for this development. It shows that the people of Adelaide aren't desperate and have dignity

[Reb-L]

I wouldn't say anything if there was a better proposal waiting in the wings but I'm not so sure about that - I've been going past Le Cornu's so many years now that I'm reluctant to go to down the O'Connell wasteland. Pulteney St. should be one of the main streets in the city. It still looks like the back entrance to Dullsville. I'd rather have a few buildings of dubious architectural value than nothing at all. If an area takes off commercially such buildings will soon disappear among newer creations. I can tell you that a city like Singapore didn't look all that flash 30 years ago, there were lots of awful buildings there then but you cannot imagine that today.
It's easier to stop something than to make it happen.

[Matt]

"Architectural value" isn't the problem here - it's the fact that these 'apartments' (using the term very loosely) are absolute shit boxes.

[[Shuz]]

I had a look through a lot of the comments on AdelaideNow regarding these proposals and I would have to say, genuinely, it is the first time that I have ever agreed with the majority of "AdelaideNow commentators/whingers" over an issue.

These 'apartments' are recipes for social disaster. Anne Moran may be going a bit far to label them 'suicide boxes', but the standard of them, and their effect on a person's health and wellbeing, unfortunately do fall very close to the mark of being as such.

I sincerely do hope that the State Government DAC will reject them, profoundly, and uphold some level of integrity in upholding our values and standard of living in Australia. We have it right here, and our livability ranks as one of the best in the world (amongst other reasons) because of our good minimum standards in our planning guidelines which offers people that quality of life.

Just because developers do it in Europe and Asia, does not make it right here. Unfortunately, I have my doubts in the DAC's capability to make the right decision. I am led to believe that the DAC have never rejected a proposal; they have rubber-stamped every proposal and amendment to date ever since its inception.