[COM] COM/CAN: Aurora on Pirie | 54/57m | 14/15lvls | Office

[stumpjumper]

Without even entering into a discussion about the merits of the design, or the urabn design model it is supposed to fit into, what is going on at Aurora on Pirie illustrates a serious failing in the way built form is delivered in Adelaide.

Think about the process. Forget the qualities of the building. So:

1. Using world best practice informed by planning outcomes everywhere, our elected representatives and their staffs produce planning legislation which is meant to ensure that the city develops along lines that are best for the city, not necesarily only to suit the particular needs of a developer. (Otherwise, we could for example subdivide Elder Park or the city's squares and build very exclusive residences there, or dot dwellings around the North Adelaide golf courses. We could fence off and build on the suburban beaches etc. You get the picture.)

2. Developers ignore the palnning legislation, and propose buildings which seriosuly breach regulations for height, density etc. These breaches are significant simply in that they are breaches, and they have further impacts via traffic density, overshadowing, load on infrastucture etc which the planners may have been trying to avoid by producing the rules as they did.

3. The developers use every advantage available to them to get tehir way - to ignore the planning rules and build in breach of the regualtions. They argue that their case is a special case; that they are doing the right thing by SA and that they might leave the state if they aren't given what they demand; that even while breaching the limits thye are barely profitable; and on it goes.

What if the speed limits were like that? They can be changed, but only with due consideration by all concerned for the balance of safety and amenity. What if a developer, say, drove at 150kmh in a 110 zone and tried to claim that the extra speed was ok because the limits should not apply to him - he was a hard-workign citizen who was putting a lot into this state, he created employment etc.

OK, maybe council Development Assessment Panels or even the government's Development Assessment Commission meeting under direct pressure from developers and deciding on a case by case are not the best mechanism of altering the planning legislation or achieving the best results.

relying on that system encourages ambit claims and is unfair to an individual, say, who wants to build a home extension to a 6m setback when the legislation requires 8m, and who has paid several thousand dollars in assorted council charges and design fees, but who cannot sustain endless court action, nor has the profit at the end of the day to make continued action worthwhile.

Put simply, what's the best way to put the community's interest first in considering non-complying development applications?

Overwhelming and continuing attacks on the system by developers after profit alone do not seem to me to be the answer.

[bva]

stumpjumper, i dont think the developers ignored the development plan on this one as the plan itself appears to provide a path to exceed zone height recommendations. This extract from the officer's committee report:

The proposal exceeds the maximum building height of 40 metres for the
Policy Area by 13 metres for each building. As the site is located on
Hindmarsh Square and is adjacent to a Zone boundary where a taller
building height is permitted (53 metres), Principle 10 of the Mixed Use
Zone contemplates exceeding the building height on this site subject to
demonstrating that development meets a number of criteria. This is
achieved by:
􀂃 Providing an appropriately detailed façade to the street as sought by
the desired character and stepping back the upper building levels.
􀂃 Maintaining adequate levels of sunlight and daylight to adjoining
properties and ensuring wind patterns as a result of the new building do
not cause discomfort surrounding the site.
􀂃 Adequately integrating vehicle access into the development and
achieving active street frontages.


personally i have a feeling this will come down to upper level articulation

[stumpjumper]

Thanks for that post, bva. It does indicate that the legislation offers a path for breaching the height restrictions in certain boundary situations and where certain criteria are met. Food for thought, for sure.

You're right, too, that if things are as your quote suggests, then the articulation of the upper levels, ie the 'gradation area' becomes crucial.

I'll check i've got the latest ACC Devt regs and give them a bit of a read.

Cheers

S

[UrbanSG]

The fact the development was refused because it was 13m over the height limit in a capital city CBD is a disgrace! I would be worried if I was the developer behind the Currie Street tower proposal. When that one goes to the DAP there will hopefully be a full DAP to assess it! I can't believe the DAP approved the ground scraper office complex on Angas/Pultney Street and refused this. That ground scraper is too far from the core CBD area given its huge floor area capacity and will cause more transport/congestion related issues which are far more serious than 13m height infringements.

Urban Construct has a few options now. They can either resbumit a new development application ie dulled down crap, appeal the decision in the ERD Court or apply for major project status. It will be interesting to see which option they choose. I would be annoyed as hell if I was an investor in this proposal. It was an unusual way to market an office building and it was obviously a success. It is a shame it has had to hit this hurdle as a result of incompitent DAP members.

[rev]

Is this a joke?

It seems the only way anything past half decent that will ever get up is if the acc recieves cash bribes.

[Ben]

from the Advertiser:

HEIGHT restrictions on Adelaide buildings are holding back necessary development, the real estate industry says.

On Monday night, Adelaide City Council's Development Assessment Panel rejected plans for two 15-storey office towers on Pirie St, prompting calls for building height restrictions in the city to be relaxed.

Real Estate Institute of South Australia president Mark Sanderson yesterday said the city needed more high-rise buildings. "There is too much restriction on the height of buildings," he said.

"Adelaide has been too conservative on the issue of how tall city buildings should be. It's time that we move on and start allowing some taller buildings in the city.

"The pressure is on for more office space and if you don't have high-rise in the city the pressure will be outwards. People in the suburbs don't want high-rise there."

The council's Development Assessment Panel refused development approval for Urban Construct's Aurora on Pirie project on Monday night because the proposed buildings were 53m tall, while the development plan for the area restricts buildings to 40m.

The Local Government Association says height restrictions can be imposed for a range of reasons, including functional development, appropriate visual appearance, overshadowing, aircraft flight paths and the need for extra services such as car parking spaces and toilets.

Council chief executive Stuart Moseley said he saw no need for height restrictions which were also about "getting density where we want it" to be further relaxed.

"Before our new development plan came into effect in January, 2006, the height limit on that site was 28m and there's now an advisory limit of 40m," he said.

"If we think height restrictions are holding back development in the city, then we will review it but all the figures tell me it's not."

Urban Construct director Todd Brown said he was disappointed the plans had been rejected but was confident a solution could be found.

"The reality is we haven't sold any of the upper levels yet," he said.

"There are many ways we can deal with the height issues. I would hope we will have something resolved within the next few weeks."

Mr Brown said Urban Construct had not yet decided whether it would lodge new plans with the council or appeal against the Development Assessment Panel's decision to the Environment Resource and Development Court.

Despite voting to refuse the plans, acting Development Assessment Panel presiding member Rob Cheesman said at Monday night's meeting he had concerns about the city's development plan.

"I will be asking the question after this meeting of whether our plan is in fact a functional one or whether it is a plan that is more concerned with aesthetics," he said.

Urban Planning and Development Minister Paul Holloway and Treasurer Kevin Foley both declined to comment on the decision.

[Howie]

With council elections coming up, the voters could always ask their candidates "what is your stance on the currently low height restrictions? and would you support a lifting of height restrictions?"

[stumpjumper]

Interesting debate.

A basic question is: 'Who benefits from development?'

Obviously the developer, obviously the community. Will the market take care of the balance between the developers interests and community interests?

Keep in mind that hte release of new premium space has a ripple effect, resulting in the release at the bottom of the scale of the worst accommodation, now re-rated from 'C Grade' to 'Demolition grade'.

If we start with the proposition that development is a good thing which keeps cities alive and healthy, we have to ensure that the result of development benefits the commuinty adequately. If the market can't be relied on to do this, then we need planning laws.

As it is, I think we pay too much attention to the crocodile tears of developers who claim that they can't make money without building huge we should buildings which may have various negative effects, eg:

- they are out of scale with the existing fabric of the city

- they may release so much floor area that numerous small property owners are without tenants for extended periods until the market moves to replace or convert the unlet space

and several other effects which sshould be at least moderated if the needs of the community are put first.

If the needs of the developers come first, ie if their requirement for profit comes first, then we should not have any planning legislation at all, and we should just accept whatever the development industry delivers to us.

[urban]

I can't believe the DAP approved the ground scraper office complex on Angas/Pultney Street and refused this. That ground scraper is too far from the core CBD area given its huge floor area capacity and will cause more transport/congestion related issues which are far more serious than 13m height infringements.

The corner of Angas & Pulteney is not far from the CBD. As a former city resident & current city worker I would rather see the CBD expand while allowing additional residential & retail within the existing CBD to create a truly mixed use city. At the moment the CBD is completely dead after hours & on weekends which is disappointing because there are actually some really good restaurants and cafes in this area.

The Angas/Pulteney development will not create transport/congestion issues. Too often on this site people forget that it is street level activity that gives a city its buzz not the shape of the skyline. The major boulevards need to be lined with office/retail uses.

[UrbanSG]

Urban, I totally disagree. If the campus development goes ahead it will be the largest office development in Adelaide in floor space terms. That area is no where near as well served by public transport as the core Adelaide CBD. Dependence on cars will be much higher for this office building than those located in the core CBD. Sure these developments should go ahead but maybe once the underutilised land in the core CBD has been appropriately utilised first. At present it is still very underdeveloped.

[urban]

Only the train is out of reach for the cnr of Angas & Pulteney.
Tram users currently walk the same distance to get to the core CBD.
It is accessible to bus routes along KWS, Pulteney & Wakefield.

Grenfell St is currently struggling to cope with the level of Bus traffic and waiting commuters. Add the people from a building such as this and you have got trouble. Providing additional bus routes using Wakefield St has the capacity to ease this congestion. Alternatively it could provide impetus for a tram line up Wakefield St to the eastern suburbs.

Gaps in the core CBD must be filled by residential/hotels.

Both these projects are important and will go ahead. Note the developer of Aurora said they hadn't sold any of the upper levels yet.They will go back to a complying design and move on. The Angas St/Pulteney St corner is currently a blight on the city and is in desperate need of redevelopment. Hopefully the proposed project will stimulate additional development to refresh Pulteney St btwn Hurtle & Hindmarsh Squares so that we can finally have 2 squares of the city joined by a decent boulevard.

[UrbanSG]

Yes, another dumbed down building. Another great example of the DAP and Adelaide City Council Development Plan at work. Onto the next project that tries to establish a skyline for Adelaide that gets knocked back.

[AtD]

Stumpjumper:

The property market is interesting to examine, as it does not fit nicely into the traditional microeconomic model and requires a bit more complex analysis. Many the costs and benefits from a development such as this one are external to the developers and the tenants. This is why we have planning regulations and development assessment, to balance the internal and external effects.

Economists often view such situations with scepticism because bureaucracy rarely balances these interests effectively. (Then again, economists have this stage view of markets as a system of absolute elegant efficiency).

Property is such a lucrative industry because the very nature of it, coupled with its regulation, imposes a very tough barrier into entering the market. This gives those already in the market a monopolistic position, allowing then to achieve high returns at the expense of tenants. This effect is more apparent in larger cities. Any reduction in these barriers, and any increase in supply, reduces the ability for high returns and shifts the market in favour of the tenants.

If the tenants are businesses, increasing the supply of letable space is unambiguously a net gain to the market. Reducing the costs to businesses increases their returns, promotes growth and promotes employment. It’s important to remember that the economy, and especially the property market, is neither a closed system nor a zero sum gain system.

Yes, any new development has a negative effect on the returns of any existing development, but this should not be considered in any form by the DAP. As this a strictly commercial development in a commercial area, existing property holders have a vested interest and would be seeking to maintain their monopolistic position. You do not ask Ford for their opinion when considering approving a new Commodore for sale. A competitive market should be our aim.

The external costs are what the DAP considers, at least it should. If the sum of private effects of this development is so unambiguously positive, then for them to block its approval, the sum of public effects must be both negative and greater in absolute terms.

So the question is: Who are these losers from this development?

[Ho Really]

Height restrictions in some parts of our city are laughable. Chopping 13metres off Aurora on Pirie will be a mistake. Let's hope they reconsider. As for the Yorke Campus development, I don't like that Mobil service station opposite. With time transport shouldn't be an issue with this dev.

Cheers

[urban]

Interesting to note that developers of high-end residential subdivisions enforce strict design guidelines in addition to the planning requirements. They then promote this as a feature protecting the potential purchasers amenity. Why are strict developer imposed requirements a positive while loose council imposed requirements a negative? The planning requirements are drawn up by people with the same training and with the same intentions.

Check the following link to see: http://www.brompton.com.au/downloads.asp

Also note the increased stages of approval and level of documentation.