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

[Howie]

I'll eagerly await the minutes from the last night's meeting.

It is also interesting to note that Rob Cheesman, and David Grieve - both who voted against this proposal - are men from the Industry. If Rob is the same architect who designed Alpha and Palais that would be most interesting, as the concerns of tenants and residents on the east end weren't completely addressed some would say with these developments.

But let's not go firing off any nasty emails.. Michael's a hardworking guy, he was probably needed elsewhere at the time.

[Ben]

I don't mean nasty emails because he wasn't even there to vote but just showing our support for such a project, because if he thought the wider community would support such a project maybe he could step in.

[Punishment466]

This council is a joke sometimes

...Sometimes? I'd say most of the time.

[urban]

Everybody relax.

The project will proceed.

The first application is always an ambit claim. Developers believed they haven't pushed the rules hard enough if they get approval 1st time. They will now appeal and go to negotiation. The sums would have been done on a 40m building and they will hope to negotiate to a design of around 45-50m.

The reason David Grieve and Rob Cheesman would have said no is that they are well aware of how the game is played. They know the developer will be back.

Selling properties before receiving DA approval is another trick used to gain leverage on council DAP's and it generally works very well on elected councillors.

[Howie]

Adelaide needs taller buildings, says councillor
At least one city councillor is keen for Adelaide to have taller buildings. (ABC News: Gary Rivett)


An Adelaide city councillor would like changes to development rules to allow taller developments in the heart of the city.

The council's Development Assessment Panel (DAP) has rejected plans for an office block in Pirie Street because of its height.

The area has a 40 metre height limit and the building would have been 53 metres.

Councillor Anne Moran says the decision complied with the principles of the development plan but it needs to be reviewed.

"It's so central to the city that if you can't put high buildings there, to my way of thinking where can you put them?" she asked.

"I think the plan has got it wrong there.

"I think that that square is central city and really should have a much higher height limit."

She thinks the development plan should have been overruled because of the quality of the proposal.

"We want to attract these big office buildings and this was a fantastic one," she said.

"I realise the height was too big for the plan but, considering the excellence in all other areas, I think the DAP panel could've ignored the slight height overlap in this."

[Ben]

Wow never thought I would say this but "Go Anne!"

[AtD]

Howie: I think it's a bit premature to call this development dead!

Developers playing the game, perhaps?

[Will]

This is a shameful and short-sighted decision by the council.

Adelaide has a negative image problem, despite the recent advances there are still plenty of people here and interstate who see the city as slow, conservative and irrelevant. The council should realize this and make decisions which will continue to erode these negative stereotypes. But I am shocked that instead they have made a decision to re-inforce the negative perceptions. Our city is at a crossroads. Do we want the city to become a modern, vibrant metropolis or a quiet Victorian-era village? What dissapoints me is that a lot of the investors who had bought a tenancy in the building are from interstate. How embarrassing for our city, that we blocked a 53m building because it was too high?!

Anti-NIMBY crusader Kevin Foley should enact his threats and force his colleagues to dismiss the extreme nostalgia council.

I also suspect that the decision from the council was politically driven. There will be a council election later this year. In addition the extreme nostalgia lobby is very strong in the city, particularly in North Adelaide and around East Terrace. I suspect the councillors want to beef up their NIMBY credentials in time for the election. This is what dissapoints me. A group of NIMBYS are holding ransom the future of our city. It is time to open up ACC elections to the entire electorate in the suburbs, or get rid of the ACC.

[Will]

Everybody relax.

The project will proceed.

The first application is always an ambit claim. Developers believed they haven't pushed the rules hard enough if they get approval 1st time. They will now appeal and go to negotiation. The sums would have been done on a 40m building and they will hope to negotiate to a design of around 45-50m.

The reason David Grieve and Rob Cheesman would have said no is that they are well aware of how the game is played. They know the developer will be back.

Selling properties before receiving DA approval is another trick used to gain leverage on council DAP's and it generally works very well on elected councillors.

I agree, the development will proceed.

But instead we will now have a dumbed-down box with windows. But further due to the 40m height restriction we will end up with a monolithic box. I don't understand why the ACC likes short stumpy buildings?

[urban]

I also suspect that the decision from the council was politically driven. There will be a council election later this year. In addition the extreme nostalgia lobby is very strong in the city, particularly in North Adelaide and around East Terrace. I suspect the councillors want to beef up their NIMBY credentials in time for the election. This is what dissapoints me. A group of NIMBYS are holding ransom the future of our city. It is time to open up ACC elections to the entire electorate in the suburbs, or get rid of the ACC.

Think again Will

2 of the 3 who voted against it are NOT councillors!

[Ben]

How can a development like this be decided upon by four people. That is just rediculous.

[Bulldozer]

How can a development like this be decided upon by four people. That is just rediculous.

Exactly. ACC has what - 8 councillors? It's a joke, as is every other metropolitan council. This shows it's time to dissolve all the inner-metropolitan councils and replace them with a brand-new one that's Onkaparinga in size. This would mean that people who live in Adelaide proper get a say and dilute the influence of the regressive old-money nimby's. Copy the Brisbane model!

[urban]

But instead we will now have a dumbed-down box with windows. But further due to the 40m height restriction we will end up with a monolithic box. I don't understand why the ACC likes short stumpy buildings?

Unfortunately the extra height probably allowed them to design with a bit more flair.

[alfer7_3]

I agree with you bulldozer. Adelaide needs a larger council area which would be in the best interest of people who not only live in the inside the parklands but also people who work, study or for other reasons. This would be alot more sensible democratically

[Ben]

Urban construct have updated their website and construction was set to commence in October. I'm guessing even if this is approved it will be some time off and will almost certainly delay commencement, which is unfortunate.