APP: 152-160 Grote Street | 52m | 17lvls | Mixed Use

[AdelaideGo]

It is not surprising that ACC reject this proposal base on height.

But, looking at the recommendation of the council agenda, the proposal is also rejected because it does not provide an internal courtyard or pedestrian lane. That is ridiculous, the site does not has a dual frontage, why would a pedestrian lane be necessary?

[Will]

From the Advertiser:

Adelaide City Council knocks back development on old Dreamland site

by: STEVE RICE From: The Advertiser December 19, 2011 10:54PM

A $35 MILLION retail and apartment building proposed for the former Dreamland bedding store site in the city has been rejected by Adelaide City Council.

The council's Development Assessment Panel said the 17-storey multi-use building, consisting of underground and above ground parking, ground floor retail and 259 apartments, was "too high and too bulky" for the Grote St site.

However, the panel's decision could be overturned by the Development Assessment Commission, which has the final say on developments.

In its report, the panel chose not to support the development because it exceeded the maximum 40m building height for the area by 11.5m and created a shortfall of 34 spaces for resident parking.

The report said the building's height, bulk, scale and mass did not meet the area's mixed use zone policy.

Councillor Anne Moran said the panel unanimously voted against the proposal because of non-complying internal and external elements.

Ms Moran said the panel was concerned about the lack of cross-ventilation and the number of rooms that did not have access to sunlight.

However, she said the panel was supportive of some of the building's architectural elements and that the development was "certainly not like some of the student accommodation proposals, which were appalling".

Councillor Sandy Wilkinson said the building needed to be set back above the third storey to create a podium effect.

[crawf]

[AG]

Ignoring the height issue, which I believe is the lesser of the main issues being considered here - something is truly wrong with the attitude towards the type of housing proposed in the city. Council seem to have this idea that everyone wants to live in large grand styled apartments and townhouses where everyone drives in and out (I would love to be proven wrong). Not everyone can afford to live in this sort of accommodation, not everyone can or wants to drive but still want to have the convenience of the city on their doorstep. How can we be promoting the city as a vibrant place to live if this elitist sort of attitude can persist within council by knocking back developments that would contribute to the city's vibrancy? There's no such thing as a perfect development, but there are certainly plenty of good ones (and bad ones of course). Just because a councilor wouldn't consider living in it doesn't mean others wouldn't.

There's issues with proposing apartments that are smaller than 50 square metres in area, but as long as the space is designed appropriately for effective use the main issue is primarily a financing one (banks are reluctant in approving finance for those that fall into this category). This issue doesn't seem to apply to this building, however.

[Howie]

Quite embarassed by some of the decisions by the ACC DAP of late. There would be buildings taller in the suburbs (holdfast, west lakes, mawson lakes) if the DAC didn't step in, when will they realise we're in the 21st century.

[Waewick]

Quite embarassed by some of the decisions by the ACC DAP of late. There would be buildings taller in the suburbs (holdfast, west lakes, mawson lakes) if the DAC didn't step in, when will they realise we're in the 21st century.

I actually think this may be deliberate to get some friction between the ACC and the DAP.

I think what the councilors are misunderstanding is that the general public - and the end users of Adelaide are so sick ofthe council that most people I talk too want the council disbanded - or atleast merged.

[Benski81]

Quite embarassed by some of the decisions by the ACC DAP of late. There would be buildings taller in the suburbs (holdfast, west lakes, mawson lakes) if the DAC didn't step in, when will they realise we're in the 21st century.

I actually think this may be deliberate to get some friction between the ACC and the DAP.

I think what the councilors are misunderstanding is that the general public - and the end users of Adelaide are so sick ofthe council that most people I talk too want the council disbanded - or atleast merged.

That's pretty much how I feel and I'm also struggling to understand why they're passing opinions on developments over which they have no control? To me it seems that they're a group of people who are completely out of their depth when it comes to making effective decisions regarding appropriate developments for the CBD and when their recommendations are of no consequence why do we persist in allowing the DAP to knock back every single proposal? As a developer I wouldn't give less of a shit what they have to say as the DAC's ruling is all that matters, so then why dedicate time and resources to a redundant, incompetent, waste of effort and engergy organisation like the Adelaide no idea city council?

[phenom]

I like this proposal - it's decent looking (kind of reminds me of a shinto shrine put through a modern interpretation), decent height and will - importantly - assist in creating an environment in a currently very flat part of town where it will hopefully be easier to follow up with similar densification. I've commented before on the impact even the lone Altitude tower has on many views around the city and I think developments like this and Mandala (Rowlands Place) will assist in making Adelaide actually feel much more like the rather large city it is (1.2m people is *still* way more than a 'big country town' in anyone's language).

I live in the city - and vote - and I am disgusted at this deliberate obfuscation by the council. They are clearly taking the view of a child having a tantrum who has decided to throw every bit of food they get against the wall. The damage they do to our reputation as an investment destination is incalculable. How many projects would have bypassed us completely simply based on the reputation these type of petulant decisions can create?

What world does our council live in? They seem rather obsessed with attempting to turn Adelaide into [insert random European small city] when we are supposedly part of a dynamic Asia-Pacific region with a radically different history, different economic base and most probably a very different future. To deliberately try and make ourselves sclerotic in some sort of attempt to hark back to a time that never was is dangerous - apparently the world sliding into (potentially) a global economic depression is not the time to be stopping projects that will bring jobs, activity and a higher profile to our city.

It's instructive to me that we were able to build taller residential and commercial buildings in many parts of the city in the 1970s and 1980s than seems possible now (you need only look at the 7 to 10 storey residential buildings in the south-west, things like the Optus tower on South Terrace and Brougham in North Adelaide... almost none of which would be possible if you wanted to build at that height from scratch today). Thankfully we have (or had) quite a few sites to rejuvenate so we've got quantity over height - but this cannot be an indefinite process.

[crawf]

The concerning part is most of the general public probably still believe the ACC has the final say, which is undoing all the hard work the State Government is doing to drive investment and positivism to our city. This may be an attempt to get some friction, but the truth is the reason why they were stripped of their powers in the beginning was due to them having a negative attitude towards development.

It's very hard to lure people to Adelaide (or stay/come home), when we still have some councilors more concerned about keeping the status quo alive and not the greater good of the city and state. It really is a waste of ratepayers money to analysis proposals they have no control over and TBH it would not surprise me if Yarwood resigns within the next couple of years due to the frustration of some of his fellow members.

[rhino]

The concerning part is most of the general public probably still believe the ACC has the final say

No, the concerning part is that most of the general public have no idea what obfuscation or sclerotic means. I do. I looked them up. Well done Phenom.

[skyliner]

If the ACC can be overturned by the DAC, why have the ACC say anything about proposed dev't. at all? It seems just a cursory observation of their presence at best. Seems no change has occurred within their ranks over the years - too much say in the hands of too few of them. (and out of step with modern CBD dev't). Do they have a secret agenda of making Adelaide different to the other capitals by preserving a city in a style which existed in previous time? (hence the similar architectural preferences etc). IMO this particular bldg it is a striking design.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[Ben]

The DAC are expected to approve this building at Thursday's meeting.

[Reb-L]

The DAC are expected to approve this building at Thursday's meeting.

Hope this is right - where'd we be without the DAC?

[Benski81]

The DAC are expected to approve this building at Thursday's meeting.

Hope this is right - where'd we be without the DAC?

1923.

[AdelaideGo]

Does anyone know if this project has been approved by DAC?