[CAN] 171-207 Gouger Street | 59m | 19lvls | Mixed Use

[Will]

This is the kind of development Adelaide needs to become a true city. Development that has enough mass to bring housing prices down to a level that is within reach of ordinary people, development that will bring in enough people into the CBD to keep it humming more hours and get enough people in the streets so that they are not empty after dark. Question is; is Adelaide ready for it?

The true question is whether the developers have studied the market correctly.

If they are going to go down the Urban Construct pathway and try and sell us tiny apartments with no carparks at ultra premium prices, then, they will fail.

[Ho Really]

Brilliant.

Bring it on.

Much better looking now. Agreed, bring it on.

Cheers

[crawf]

Brilliant proposal

[bm7500]

Doesn't look too bad!

It will be good to see this empty plot of weeds developed.

[Waewick]

This is the kind of development Adelaide needs to become a true city. Development that has enough mass to bring housing prices down to a level that is within reach of ordinary people, development that will bring in enough people into the CBD to keep it humming more hours and get enough people in the streets so that they are not empty after dark. Question is; is Adelaide ready for it?

The true question is whether the developers have studied the market correctly.

If they are going to go down the Urban Construct pathway and try and sell us tiny apartments with no carparks at ultra premium prices, then, they will fail.

+1

[Omicron]

It's definitely a more pleasing design - something like what I'd expect if Mawson Lakes had more generous height limits.

[[Shuz]]

It's only just occured to me actually how big this one is going to be for its location. At 59m, this will stand out very prominently in regards to its surrounds. The entire south-west of the CBD is nothing more than 1, 2 and 3 storey cottages and townhouses. For some perspective, the nearest tallest building is Altitude (Balfourds Precinct), at 62m tall and that is 3 blocks away to the north. Coglin Place and Hilton Hotel buildings are at least 600m away to the west.

I hope it gets up, the CBD really needs to expand well away from the 'core' and encapsulate the entire square mile. This is the sort of development that will do well to realising those sort of goals. However, I do share other forumer's concerns about the affordability of the apartments within the project. I don't know if it's a fair comparison, given its in the East End, but the newly proposed Art Apartments are going for $385k minimum (presumbably for the 1 bedroom apartments) with the penthouses at $1.2m - which according to the developer is meant to be for 'families'. Middle-income families can't afford that - if anything, a middle income family should really only be spending $385k!

[rhino]

Coglin Place and Hilton Hotel buildings are at least 600m away to the west.

East.

[skyliner]

New renders much better than the earlier ones - a real presence in Googer - hopefully catalystic towards an all night strip. The length of the frontage looks to take up a large section of Googer St.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[Ben]

Another battle about to start.

From Indaily:

Huge Gouger St proposal: bringing life or shadow?

Tuesday, 20 November 2012

Melissa Mack

A NEW Gouger Street development proposal including a 19 storey apartment tower and 14 storey hotel has outraged neighbouring residents.

Public consultation closes today on the almost 7000sq/m TangCheng Holdings development which includes residential and student housing, a hotel, supermarket and other retail and commercial offices.

The newly formed Claxton Residents has already started fighting against the development. Looking up from spokesperson Rebecca Whittemore’s Claxton Street backyard, it is evident that the buildings will have a huge impact on the area.

“We aren’t opposed to development in general but the design of the development does not adequately consider the context of the locality and as this is so close to a heritage area, that should be taken into consideration as well,” she said.

The 171 Gouger Street development has a 118 metre frontage to Gouger Street, stretching between Claxton and Selby streets and was originally touted to be worth $150 million when first proposed in 2010.

Although it has earned the ire of residents, Hames Sharley director David Cooke said the development would bring life to the western side of Gouger Street.

“It’s a development that has an opportunity to create greater energy along Gouger Street past Morphett Street and will be a very significant development for the city and more than likely one of the first of more higher density developments to follow,” Cooke said.

Cooke outlined the plans for the precinct which includes a range of one-to-three storey town houses as well as eight storey student accommodation and central open space.

“It is envisaged that the retail space will operate outside of commercial business hours thereby creating vitality and activity during the evening.

“There will be a Melbourne-esque laneway through the centre of the site, interfacing with townhouses with the three bedroom offerings having their own private gardens.”

The development has provided for some setbacks to residential and main street interfaces, but this has not been enough to appease local residents.

The development has been through the new Design Panel Review process, established by the State Government early this year, which Cooke said had improved the project.

“The development is really mindful of quality of apartments, so it is not a rack ‘em and stack ‘em development and has a high level of building performance.

“The overall performance of the buildings themselves has changed, including the fact they are focused on so much natural light as well as improved cross ventilation, and the breaking up of the towers has been a major improvement.”

Whittemore moved to the area three years ago from Norwood and said, despite the design panel’s changes, the shadowing would greatly affect the residents.

She said some homes may not receive the minimum two hours sunshine into their backyards required under the development act.

“Only adjoining neighbours received a letter yet this huge development will affect us all greatly,” Whittemore said.

“Like us, many neighbours are listed as being affected by shadowing by these large buildings but we were not informed. Where is the community engagement in this?

“A bunch of us just put in solar panels with the help of the government and that’s seriously going to affect the money we’ll be getting back from that.”

The government attempted to improve the public consultation process in its Capital City Development Plan Amendment but, according to residents, the consultation process in relation to this development has excluded some affected residents.

The development will now be reviewed by the Development Assessment Commission.

[crawf]

Whittemore moved to the area three years ago from Norwood and said, despite the design panel’s changes, the shadowing would greatly affect the residents.

She said some homes may not receive the minimum two hours sunshine into their backyards required under the development act.

You decided to move into an area, knowing full well that will be living right next to a future development site that is situated in the CBD of a major capital city. And now you want sympathy because there is plans to finally develop that site, which may affect peoples backyards?!. I personally have more sympathy to those people who have lived in the city for decades, than to people who decide to move into the CBD from the suburbs and then start whinging about development, knowing full well that high-rises have been a common feature in the Adelaide CBD for decades.

This development is desperately needed to bring some life into this rather poor side of Gouger Street, being the complete opposite to the eastern end which is full of food, vibrancy and people.

“We aren’t opposed to development in general but the design of the development does not adequately consider the context of the locality and as this is so close to a heritage area, that should be taken into consideration as well,” she said.

The usual excuse.

[claybro]

SOME homes MAY not receive the full two hours per day of sunshine???Well thats a convincing argument to stop a major developement isnt it?. Exactly which homes, and where is thier evidence for this?Are these residents engineers, architects?
If in fact this is true, then simply make the buildings taller, and thinner, with more setback, so the sun can get around and between the structures, but they wont like that either... Part of the problem with overshadowing in Adelaide people like this demanding the wide squat buildings built right up to boundarys that then create the shadowing and wind tunnels they supposedly want to avoid. Our obsession with overshadowing is partly what has led to structures which do just that.

[Reb-L]

I cannot understand people who move to the city and then want to turn it into a quaint little village. If you are concerned about tall buildings, overshadowing, noise, traffic, etc. there are many suburbs that would suit you much better. Myself, I too moved to Adelaide from Norwood, in 1987, mainly because there wasn't much happening there at the time (the Parade hadn't really taken off yet). I moved to the CBD because it had a bit more life and energy - that's what you expect from a city. But now all these 'concerned residents' groups want to stop any development near where they live. What did they expect when they moved here? (most city dwellers weren't born within the square mile). This reminds me of people buying property under the flightpath and then want to stop planes from taking off so their sleep is not disturbed. Maybe they didn't know that airplanes make a bit of noise?

[serca]

This is crazy....... Developers wanting to build a 60m building in a CBD . Who do they think they are... Not in my backyard ! Right Rebecca ?

[Ben]

Seriously ACC STOP... Just stop!!! "Recomend the building be lowered to 22m"

Adelaide City Council bid to shrink 14-storey Gouger St hotel plans

by:
Tim Williams From:

City Messenger

December 03, 2012

A 14-storey hotel proposed for Gouger St should be cut in half to lessen overshadowing of neighbouring homes, City Council planners say.

The 184-room hotel would be part of an $80 million mixed use development between Claxton and Selby streets.

It would include an apartment block of up to 18 storeys, two eight-storey apartment buildings and a five-storey student accommodation block, totalling 223 apartments.

A planning report to be considered by the council's Development Assessment Panel (DAP) tonight (Monday, December 3) says the 46.5m hotel should be lowered to 22m to allow for at least two hours of sun on Claxton St properties between 9am and 3pm.

"If this building is reduced in height to 22m ... and using the same building footprint, four of the five (affected Claxton St) properties would continue to maintain the existing amounts of sunlight they currently receive," the report says.

Other Claxton St properties were already "either overshadowed by fences, trees or themselves throughout the day".

The DAP can make a submission on the proposal but ultimately planning approval must come from the Development Assessment Commission.

The City Messenger last month reported a group of Claxton St residents had formed to fight the development because of concerns about it being out of scale with the area, overshadowing homes and lack of parking.

The South West City Residents Association echoed their concerns.

However, a report by architects Hames Sharley for developer Tang Cheng Holdings said design measures such as setting back the tall towers from streetfronts would minimise overshadowing and overlooking of neighbours.

There would be 166 basement parking spaces to add to "ample on-street parking" around the site, that report said.