[VIS] Affordable Apartments | 108m | 30+lvls

[Dog]

Is this our "favourite" news paper again making a controversy out of nothing? Again putting a negative slant on anything built or planned in our city.

[Ben]

"Virtually Adelaide's tallest building".

Much more info if you listen to the audio. Will be similar to Melbournes crystal gardens with gardens every few levels.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/sa/2013/07/chin ... ralia.html

[SRW]

Fred Phillis and Melbourne-based architect Robert Caulfield are in the early stages of designing a building that could dwarf the city's tallest building, Westpac House which stands at 132 metres.

Fred Phillis and Melbourne-based architect Robert Caulfield are in the early stages of designing a building that could reach more than 108 metres, just short of Westpac House - which stands at 132 metres.

Complete contradiction.....

so which is it? Pathetic journalism once again.

Makes you want to rush out and pay for it, doesn't it? Good luck with that, News Ltd...

[Pants]

Advertiser has changed its story...

Adelaide 'like a circus tent', conservative planning approach may knock off plans for CBD's second-tallest tower

A HIGH-profile pair of architects is preparing plans for Adelaide's second-tallest building, but there are fears the city's notoriously conservative attitudes could prevent it becoming a reality.

Former Glenelg footballer and Magarey medallist Fred Phillis has teamed up with Melbourne-based architect Robert Caulfield to prepare designs for a 108.5m affordable housing tower.

If approved, the building would become Adelaide's second tallest after the 132m Westpac House.

Mr Phillis would not reveal the proposed location for the building but confirmed that a 1500sq m catalyst site had been secured, along with approval from Adelaide Airport to build up to 108.5m. "It will certainly push the limit and it's in response to the Premier's push for population growth in the CBD," he said.

"It's a very exciting project for us and for the city."

Mr Phillis said the project was in the pre-lodgement phase and early design concepts had been prepared.

Asked about the likelihood of such a large-scale project being approved, he expressed concerns with the city's current attitude towards building heights.

"Probably not, because Adelaide is verging on conservatism and we've got to get it past the Government Architect, the Development Assessment Commission and council, so it's a daunting task," he said.

"Adelaide has been considered by other states like a circus tent - looking down from Westpac House and fanning out."

"But there is no reason for this, because the development plan allows the same limits as Westpac House across the city."

Mr Caulfield is a prominent Melbourne architect who has been engaged to deliver projects that will help to modernise the historic Chinese city of Nanjing.

It is understood his first foray into the Adelaide market would be delivered for an Australian developer, on behalf of a group of Chinese investors.

Mr Phillis said the developer was seeking National Rental Affordability Scheme certification for the project before an anticipated planning submission to the DAC in the next two months.

He said the tower could house more than 400 affordable apartments across more than 30 storeys.

Mr Phillis' most recent major project in the CBD was the subject of a major run-in with the Adelaide City Council. In 2009, he demanded the sacking of several members of the Council's Development Assessment Panel.

They had earlier labelled his plans for a 462-apartment block at the former Freedom site on Grote St as "absolute rubbish" and the site of "future slums".

[rev]

"Virtually Adelaide's tallest building".

Much more info if you listen to the audio. Will be similar to Melbournes crystal gardens with gardens every few levels.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/sa/2013/07/chin ... ralia.html

That is one ugly building.

[claybro]

I think the "circus tent" reference pretty much sums up this whole story. Add to this a former SANFL footballer and a Melbourne architect, and a tower of affordable housing...is it April 1st?

[crawf]

So the truth is, this is just another 100 metre proposal to add to the list and is hardly worth the attention until the building actually commences construction. The whole thing now comes across as typical Adelaide bashing and as claybro rightly put it, a circus. It's another reason why I would never waste any money on reading the Advertiser online.

I think the "circus tent" reference pretty much sums up this whole story.

[[Shuz]]

I too am sick of the constant negative bashing from the Advertiser. How hard is it to write up an article that says postively 'Developer expresses confidence in Adelaide CBD property market with 108m residential tower proposal'. I wonder how much their readership has gone down since the online paywall went up? They have basically handed their readership over to InDaily on a silver platter. (A good thing).

Having said that, unfortunately I do have to share Crawfs sentiments - I'll believe it when I see a render and construction gets off the ground.

Also I'll have a look at the AAL height limits map to scout out where 108m stands to try and pinpoint the site in question. The big giveaway was that the developer had secured a 1500sqm catalyst site, which triggers the removal of height limits, thus suggesting that it is located outside of the CBD core area. (somewhere to the SE I would presume).

[Ben]

I had a dream it was on Currie street where that massive "church" is near Light Square.

[[Shuz]]

I had a look on realcommercial.com.au for land holdings in the CBD which have sold recently;

124-132 Waymouth Street - Sold 19 October 2012 - 1,868sqm - next door to the 128m 114 Waymouth Street proposal. This site falls within the 53m prescribed height limit zone, so being over 1,500sqm would remove any height restrictions on the site. I suspect this is the one.

97 Currie Street - Sold 29 April 2013 - 1,300sqm
95 Currie Street - 3 June 2013 - 500sqm
These two titles merged would comprise a land holding of 1,800sqm. You might be onto something here Ben, as this site is next door to the church! However, this site already falls within the no prescribed height limit zone, so there would be no need to aquire both land titles to get around the height limits.

[Nathan]

It wouldn't be 95 Currie St (combined with 97). A client of ours is moving in to that building.

[[Shuz]]

Also, I've just learnt something new - which might be of interest to everyone, but in particular Ben, Wayno, Howie (shame you can't tag people in posts on forums).

I don't know if you know, but I seem to have overlooked the fact that the contours of the AAL height limits as set out on p398 of the Adelaide City Council Development Plan are actually measured in AHD. Not above ground level!

http://sa.gov.au/upload/franchise/Housi ... t_Plan.pdf

All these years I was under the impression that the contours were measured above ground level, and thus led me to believe that a proposed building over that height (above ground level) was permissible before getting referred to the AAL should a developer wish to go taller. This is not the case!

If I refer you to the map on p398 - using the location of the 44m AHD star in Victoria Square - Grote/Wakefield Streets intersection, the contour band for that location is 100-110m AHD. Now say for the GHD / Hilton Hotel sites, if a (hypothetical) new building was proposed on either site, the building could only be somewhere in the figure of 56-66m tall without requiring further AAL approval. Any taller, it automatically gets referred to AAL for approval, whereas I thought the other way around and that the 100-110m contour was the height of the building above ground level before getting referred to AAL!

It appears the AAL regulatory regime concerning building heights in the city is much stricter than I first believed, but now the good news is, knowing that, considering the number of buildings right throughout the CBD which far exceed the AAL height limits seems to suggest that AAL are actually quite comfortable with allowing tall buildings in the CBD. I have even more hope that we will definetly see the 'big one' - 150m+ if this is the case.

Further to this, this newfound knowledge actually supports the evidence that Wayno (I think it was) found out a few years ago that AAL just give a very blunt and straight yes/no response in relation to building heights, not a 'you know that you can build up to a maximum of XXX metres at this location' response.

Why all of this relates to this development, is because, assuming the site in question is indeed Waymouth Street, it appears that the developers simply approached AAL with the 108.5m figure and AAL just said 'yes that's okay'. The exact same goes for the adjacent 114 Waymouth Street proposal - those developers would have done the same thing - can we build up to 128m? AAL says yes.

So, developers, if you're reading this, I challenge you to go to AAL with a height of 140m, maybe 150m. I suspect they'll say that's okay.

[monotonehell]

Pretty sure we all knew this already. I remember we were trying to get a reliable contour map relative to mean sea level at the time. Can you point out where we went wrong in the submission?

[[Shuz]]

My apologies - the diagrams are correct seeing as we used the absolute upper OLS figure (153.5m) - I just never picked up on it on the lower figures.

[Ben]

Yep Unfortuntly it is AHD. I first learnt this when reading through the 20 - 22 Currie Street Proposal and seeing the roof height at 168m and lets says I was more than a little excited. Then I relaised you have to take about 44m off or so.