Sensational-Adelaide.com

Pikey wrote:From JAJK on SSC

In Thursday's City Messenger:





This should be a good development! Hopefully it will also get rid of the Renaissance arcade building which would be a bonus!

just to show you.

The building in the photo isn't part of this project. As posted several times earlier, the new buildings will be west of these, and won't have a street frontage.

http://buildinglist.photoadelaide.com/M ... ?maploc=12

ynotsfables wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but is the facade of the current building going to be kept.

As AtD noted, that building shown will remain (Ruthven Mansions). In my youth, it was a very drab & rundown building that housed the
chest xray unit, that people had to attend for compulsory chest xrays. That unit moved to North Terrace, & the Mansions deteriorated
even more until about 1980, when they were restored as resi accommodation.

According to that newspaper article, this project should start by mid-2006.

I'm a picky b.....d

rhino wrote:According to that newspaper article, this project should start by mid-2006.

I'm a picky b.....d

Hey be glad it's starting at all! For a while there I thought it was dead.

Thanks guys thats good to hear.

UniLodge is a great idea I think, not only will it offer student accommodation it'll also accommodate tourists. I stayed at the Unilodge on Flinders St when I went to Melbourne for a holiday. Nice serviced apartments and it was very cheap as well. Will they turn this into a hotel as well or just rental accomodation?

DanielC wrote:UniLodge is a great idea I think, not only will it offer student accommodation it'll also accommodate tourists. I stayed at the Unilodge on Flinders St when I went to Melbourne for a holiday. Nice serviced apartments and it was very cheap as well. Will they turn this into a hotel as well or just rental accomodation?

Same, stayed at unilodge @ flinders... top accommodation, pretty impressed. Hopefully they'll be as good or better than melbourne's.

Just for demonstration, this is UniLodge's new job in Canberra City, near ANU.



I'm not exactly sure who is behind the street-scape though. It makes no sense because this is the only thing on the street that isn't a car park.

Sorry to dig up an old thread - just need to clarify on something before I make amendments.
The site this building is located on at 13 Austin Street, encompasses the future Reconnaisance Arcade twin towers development which the second tower will be built on 11-17 Austin Street. This is just going by my database, and need to clarify if this information correct?

If it is, I'll just merge the post with the Reconnaisance Arcade thread (modify or create a new one) if it doesn't exist.

Shuz wrote:Sorry to dig up an old thread - just need to clarify on something before I make amendments.
The site this building is located on at 13 Austin Street, encompasses the future Reconnaisance Arcade twin towers development which the second tower will be built on 11-17 Austin Street. This is just going by my database, and need to clarify if this information correct?

If it is, I'll just merge the post with the Reconnaisance Arcade thread (modify or create a new one) if it doesn't exist.

Shuz, to be honest I don't quite understand what you mean. However if you are asking whether this is a separate development to the Renaissance Arcade twin towers, the answer is no. This is the same project.

I notice on the application this thing being refused development approval on the 8/8/08 with 12/8/08 being the 'issue decision' date. What the heck does that mean, refused approval? I thought the options were either Approved, Deferred or Rejected. Anyone with further info? I want this height down there, it'd look awesome.

Just build it wrote:I notice on the application this thing being refused development approval on the 8/8/08 with 12/8/08 being the 'issue decision' date. What the heck does that mean, refused approval? I thought the options were either Approved, Deferred or Rejected. Anyone with further info? I want this height down there, it'd look awesome.

I was trawling through the ACC website, and I too found that this project was REJECTED by the ACC on August 8. I find it strange that a development of this magnitude was rejected by the ACC without it being considered by the ACC DAP. A possible reason could be that at 68m, this development exceeds the 53m height restriction for that area of the CBD.

Hi, yeah I thought it was strange when it wasn't mentioned but I should have provided a link to the info. Canny timing for the ACC to knock it back on the opening day of the Olympics too. The proposal was pushing the height limits for sure but gee it's to the east and not that high. It would have been a nice little addition to the skyline. I don't suppose they can re-apply now or is it all done and dusted?

If shadowing was the concern I worry for the Harris Scarfe proposal. Why on earth did they lodge with the ACC 24hrs before the new laws came into effect?

For anyone who regrets the Government taking the CBD planning powers away from that wretched ACC, here is more tangible proof that it was by far the best optiuion for this city and for SA.