PRO: 123 Flinders Street | 135m | 39lvls | Mixed Use

[Dvious]

The DAC shows that they have lodged an application.

201-209 Pulteney Street and 123 Flinders Street, Adelaide

To demolish existing building and construct a 22-mixed used building comprising ground floor retail, 4 levels car parking, 4 levels office accommodation, residential apartments for remainder of building

[[Shuz]]

[Ben]

this building is 74.5m to top. it will be interesting to see how this is recieved as it is WAY above height restrictions and there is a letter basically saying how ancient building height limits are and that they are irrelevant and that is why Adelaide has boring buildings and no apartment market.... it's true but not sure I would be saying those things to the people that own the plan. Might get their backs up.

This proposal is seriously going to test the DAC.

The height limit for the area is 40m, the adjourning area is 60m and then 75m next to that way over on Pirie street near Telstra House. This building is basically double what is allowed under the development plan. The development plan does allow for taller buildings if they meet a number of criteria. One of these is a transition of adjourning building heights. There are no high rise around this building meaning it does not achieve this objective.

This proposal also goes against the current rules for this precinct in relation to sunlight levels and the angle of the building.

I really hope it is approved and not made to be reduced in height but it will be the most challenging proposal put up agaisnt the development plan we have seen in recent itmes.

This is on public notification now:

http://www.dac.sa.gov.au/download.cfm?D ... 0F2030D46A

[[Shuz]]

It'll get approved.

123 Currie St was double the height limit as well, I'm led to believe.

[Ben]

It'll get approved.

123 Currie St was double the height limit as well, I'm led to believe.

That was in the 115m height limit area so only 11m over I think.

[[Shuz]]

It'll get approved.

123 Currie St was double the height limit as well, I'm led to believe.

That was in the 115m height limit area so only 11m over I think.

Sorry, you're right. I just double checked the 2006 ACC development plan/height limits map. God, that thing is outdated. Yarwood advised me recently that the ACC are still working on making amendments.

[Will]

There are many precedents where buildings over the height limit have been approved.

This is probably the most significant example, however one that comes to mind is the failed Hills Hq at 413 King William Street, which despite being in a 40m height limit, was nevertheless granted planning approval despite being 60m. And that was approved by the ACC! (it had not yet being stripped of its planning controls).

Hence, considering the high level of amenity of this project, I cannot see how its heigt would be such a large barrier to planning approval.

[Ben]

There are many precedents where buildings over the height limit have been approved.

This is probably the most significant example, however one that comes to mind is the failed Hills Hq at 413 King William Street, which despite being in a 40m height limit, was nevertheless granted planning approval despite being 60m. And that was approved by the ACC! (it had not yet being stripped of its planning controls).

Hence, considering the high level of amenity of this project, I cannot see how its heigt would be such a large barrier to planning approval.

Agree, however the Optus building was also 60m which is where the "Transition in height" rule comes into fruition. If this gets approved (which I hope it does) It will set a massive precedent which I think could ruffle a few of the council members feathers. Knowing that a building proposed at double the existing height restrictions could be approved by the DAC anywhere...

Imagine a 230m building in the 115m zone .... *comes back to reality*....

[skyliner]

There are many precedents where buildings over the height limit have been approved.

This is probably the most significant example, however one that comes to mind is the failed Hills Hq at 413 King William Street, which despite being in a 40m height limit, was nevertheless granted planning approval despite being 60m. And that was approved by the ACC! (it had not yet being stripped of its planning controls).

Hence, considering the high level of amenity of this project, I cannot see how its heigt would be such a large barrier to planning approval.

Also look at 115 KWS - AFAIK it got approved even though it REALLY stands out along KWS. Won't be shocked if approved.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[arki]

The council does appear to be more lenient in the last few years on height restriction, especially if a building has more merit than a tall concrete box.

That being said, beggars can't be choosers I guess....

[Omicron]

I still don't understand the fervent obsession with minimising shadows. Does anyone in the council spend time in Adelaide in the summer months?

Everyone should read the Building Height Report contained in the document - a lovely summary of the contradictions found in the council's development plan. It truly astonishes me that so much attention has to be paid to the height of the building.

[Thanial]

If this building is refused then its just further proof of why Adelaide should either abolish or increase the height restrictions. I preferred the initial height of the building, 78m made it something different, rather than eventually being the fifth 75m building in the city.

[Mants]

a 3m height difference is nothing to lose sleep over. i just hope the edgy design isn't dumbed down or "refined" at all.

[Will]

If this building is refused then its just further proof of why Adelaide should either abolish or increase the height restrictions. I preferred the initial height of the building, 78m made it something different, rather than eventually being the fifth 75m building in the city.

It appears the building was always going to be 75m.

The 78m figure appears to be an educated guess, prior to the release of the plans.

[Will]

Datong signage has been placed on the old Telstra exchange currently on the site.