[PRO] Masonic Lodge | 183m | 37 Levels | Mixed Use

[rev]

I'm glad some people understand what I'm saying. All I want is for the current height limits to be removed. I reiterate there is NO need to go above a maximum of 230m, but there is a demand to reach the 150 - 200 .
I'm also glad that the masonic hall lodge will challenge these restrictions. There is NO DOUBT that these height limits are reducing economic growth and construction jobs within the CBD.
They MUST be removed.

How did you come to the determination that there is no need for 230m and above, but height limits MUST be removed?

Is there a study you've seen, or done, to determine that height limits are negatively impacting construction jobs and economic growth?

Where is the demand for 200m? Can you show us the data.
Care to address tge property council graphs I posted which show the second highest office space vacany rates of all major capitals and almost none existent demand?

[VinyTapestry849]

I'm glad some people understand what I'm saying. All I want is for the current height limits to be removed. I reiterate there is NO need to go above a maximum of 230m, but there is a demand to reach the 150 - 200 .
I'm also glad that the masonic hall lodge will challenge these restrictions. There is NO DOUBT that these height limits are reducing economic growth and construction jobs within the CBD.
They MUST be removed.

How did you come to the determination that there is no need for 230m and above, but height limits MUST be removed?

Is there a study you've seen, or done, to determine that height limits are negatively impacting construction jobs and economic growth?

Where is the demand for 200m? Can you show us the data.
Care to address tge property council graphs I posted which show the second highest office space vacany rates of all major capitals and almost none existent demand?

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business ... d6784f7d57
200m Tower in the CBD, limiations were too harsh and developers moved elsewhere.
Quashed by the ridiculous limitations ^^^

Kyren group in a group meeting
- 'We would have gone higher if possible to maximise the efficiency of the development, but we can't change that.

Maxcon (Realm) - reportedly 'Disappointed' by the limitations.

Hyatt Regency 150m tower Quashed by limitations. Developer (CEL Australia) Had to shrink even further or it wouldn't be 'economically viable' to 100-110m.
https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2020/ ... downsized/

Synergy construct - Replied to my Tweet. "Good afternoon (my username). In regards to your comment about the height limitations, they are quite tiresome. The company is forced to turn down and shrink developments to meet government requirements, which provides fewer profits for our clients...

Developers of Grand Wyndham were forced by the commission to shrink the development with no reason given. When Indaily asked why they received no response. Told not to tell the media?!? Suspicious.
https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/04/27/ ... t-shrinks/

Just a tiny bit of googling proves my point, If I dive deeper it is inevitable I will find more evidence to prove my point further.

[VinyTapestry849]

The Masonic Tower will challenge these rules, I hope It breaks the barrier and exposes the unexplained, unreasonable, and unwarranted restrictions which are stunting growth in the City of Adelaide.

[rev]

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business ... d6784f7d57
200m Tower in the CBD, limiations were to harsh and developers moved elsewhere.
Quashed by the ridiculous limitations ^^^

That was a vision. Besides one person who tried to convince everyone here that it was going to happen, nobody really took it as a serious proposal did they.
There was also a vision once for something much much taller. Perhaps you could argue for limits pushing that proposal?

Kyren group in a group meeting
- 'We would have gone higher if possible to maximise the efficiency of the development, but we can't change that.

Maxcon (Realm) - reportedly 'Disappointed' by the limitations.

Taller could be an extra 2 storeys.
Could have, would have...but chose not to. Perhaps instead of challenging limits, other realities set in.

Hyatt Regency 150m tower Quashed by limitations. Developer (CEL Australia) Had to shrink even further or it wouldn't be 'economically viable' to 100-110m.
https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2020/ ... downsized/

Perhaps read that again. They had to downsize it or it wouldn't be economically viable. That's counter to your argument.

Synergy construct - Replied to my Tweet. "Good afternoon (my username). In regards to your comment about the height limitations, they are quite tiresome. The company is forced to turn down and shrink developments to meet government requirements, which provides fewer profits for our clients...

Has Synergy built anything pushing the tallest?
Link to their tweet or screenshot?

Developers of Grand Wyndham were forced by the commission to shrink the development with no reason given. When Indaily asked why they received no response. Told not to tell the media?!? Suspicious.
https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/04/27/ ... t-shrinks/

3 storey reduction.

Whose going to occupy these taller buildings pushing 230m?
Low economic & population growth, and the property market is dominated by traditional detached dwellings hence continued urban sprawl north and south.

You continue to ignore the actual facts, from the Property Council of Australia, that we have the second highest office space vacancy rates, nearly 16%, and extremely low demand which is below the average rate for Adelaide.

Talk about how you think there's demand all you like just because developers would like to go taller, doesn't mean they will or would. There's other factors besides simply being able to.

[VinyTapestry849]

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business ... d6784f7d57
200m Tower in the CBD, limiations were to harsh and developers moved elsewhere.
Quashed by the ridiculous limitations ^^^

That was a vision. Besides one person who tried to convince everyone here that it was going to happen, nobody really took it as a serious proposal did they.
There was also a vision once for something much much taller. Perhaps you could argue for limits pushing that proposal?

Kyren group in a group meeting
- 'We would have gone higher if possible to maximise the efficiency of the development, but we can't change that.

Maxcon (Realm) - reportedly 'Disappointed' by the limitations.

Taller could be an extra 2 storeys.
Could have, would have...but chose not to. Perhaps instead of challenging limits, other realities set in.

Hyatt Regency 150m tower Quashed by limitations. Developer (CEL Australia) Had to shrink even further or it wouldn't be 'economically viable' to 100-110m.
https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2020/ ... downsized/

Perhaps read that again. They had to downsize it or it wouldn't be economically viable. That's counter to your argument.

Synergy construct - Replied to my Tweet. "Good afternoon (my username). In regards to your comment about the height limitations, they are quite tiresome. The company is forced to turn down and shrink developments to meet government requirements, which provides fewer profits for our clients...

Has Synergy built anything pushing the tallest?
Link to their tweet or screenshot?

Developers of Grand Wyndham were forced by the commission to shrink the development with no reason given. When Indaily asked why they received no response. Told not to tell the media?!? Suspicious.
https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/04/27/ ... t-shrinks/

3 storey reduction.

Whose going to occupy these taller buildings pushing 230m?
Low economic & population growth, and the property market is dominated by traditional detached dwellings hence continued urban sprawl north and south.

You continue to ignore the actual facts, from the Property Council of Australia, that we have the second highest office space vacancy rates, nearly 16%, and extremely low demand which is below the average rate for Adelaide.

Talk about how you think there's demand all you like just because developers would like to go taller, doesn't mean they will or would. There's other factors besides simply being able to.

You sound bitter Rev, I am merely proving an obvious point. The evidence is there and you can't dispute it. Residences Realm, Adelaidean, Central market all have been 'overrun' with offers from firms, tenants, and commercial businesses BEFORE THEY WERE BUILT, which directly proves there is sufficient demand for quality highrise developments exceeding 130 metres. The restrictions are impacting developments inside the city, and driving down growth. The other members of the forum are in agreement, you're outnumbered. In response to your utterly ignorant statement that I want supertalls, no. As a complete maximum, there should be a limit of around 200. There are companies who are hovering around Adelaide this very minute ready to develop due to the abundance of properties available but are hindering starting due to these unwarranted restrictions.

Wheres is your evidence? Where's your proof that the limitations aren't directly impacting the CBD? I have mine, where is yours?

[VinyTapestry849]

The reason rates are so low rev, is because the CBD is full of aging, unappealing buildings like this.

[VinyTapestry849]

If we had removed limitations in the CBD, It would encourage developers to build structures when they have a need for them, and attract buyers from interstate.

[Llessur2002]

If we had new highrise developments with removed limitations in the CBD with the same interest as Realm, Adelaidean, and Central market tower, to replace these old builds, the vacancy rate would be sorted.

I think it's a bit optimistic to expect that if we build nice new tall towers we'll suddenly see an flurry of companies deciding they need to rent expensive high spec CBD office space. Where currently are the office workers who will fill these towers? Working from home? Packed into into alternative high density spaces? Overseas? Interstate? Renting non-CBD space? Companies moving from old CBD buildings to new will do nothing to help the overall occupancy rate, it'll just shift the vacancy problem to the older buildings. Likewise with residential properties - there's only a finite market in Adelaide for people who want to make the switch to apartment living, or those who are rich enough to splash several $mill on a high level apartment in a swanky 180m tower. Unless we just want to build apartments to sell to foreign investors and see them stay empty semi-permanently like much of Docklands in Melbourne? I'd be interested for example to know what the actual occupancy rate for Realm is - it doesn't look to be a hive of residential activity whenever I walk past it so it might just be a decent place for Chinese (or otherwise) investors to park their money.

At the end of the day I'm sure developers know the CBD property market much better than most of us on this forum and other than in one or two cases there doesn't appear to be huge amount of lobbying for height limits to be increased. Whilst I'd quite like to see a few taller buildings in the CBD I'd definitely take quality mid-sized developments over cheap crap like the new Switch building. Height's not everything when it comes to positive development and to be honest I don't think there are that many forum members who get quite as excited about it as you do. Not that being passionate about it is a bad thing, I'm just stating a point in response to one of your comments to Rev about everyone else on the forum agreeing. Rev and I don't often agree on many things but he has made some potentially valid points above.

[[Shuz]]

Don't forget that the twin tower development on the Newmarket Hotel site corner of North and West Terraces went so far in the process of challenging the airport height limits, involving CASA and AAL, that they have confirmed that airport height limits will be revised and take effect in mid December. We will know more then.

What these new height limits are, we don't know yet, but it will have an impact right across the CBD, because that site is the closest to the airport runway in the whole CBD grid area. Watch this space.

[Nort]

Don't forget that the twin tower development on the Newmarket Hotel site corner of North and West Terraces went so far in the process of challenging the airport height limits, involving CASA and AAL, that they have confirmed that airport height limits will be revised and take effect in mid December. We will know more then.

What these new height limits are, we don't know yet, but it will have an impact right across the CBD, because that site is the closest to the airport runway in the whole CBD grid area. Watch this space.

This is a good point. The Masonic Lodge initial announcement included some discussion of having negotiated the height limit, but I'm not sure if it was ever clarified as being aspirational, or maybe they got some early notice of changes coming in the near future?

[Patrick_27]

I'm glad some people understand what I'm saying. All I want is for the current height limits to be removed. I reiterate there is NO need to go above a maximum of 230m, but there is a demand to reach the 150 - 200 .
I'm also glad that the masonic hall lodge will challenge these restrictions. There is NO DOUBT that these height limits are reducing economic growth and construction jobs within the CBD.
They MUST be removed.

I have no problem with debate stemming from a hypothetical or opinion based POV. But I'm kind of getting tired of your commentary that makes outlandish baseless claims portrayed as fact despite having little to no supporting evidence. You're arguing that the reason for Adelaide's poor economic growth is solely down to the fact that we don't have buildings reaching above 150m tall, you're also making comments stating that Kyren Group and Maxicon would have gone higher with Adelaidean and Realm had they not been met with height restrictions... These and more, and yet you don't have any supporting evidence? You also want to start a petition based on these claims, and want to talk to town planners about their POV, why? You're almost the equivalent of Adelaide Parklands Preservation Group member only with polar opposite viewpoint.

[gnrc_louis]

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business ... d6784f7d57
200m Tower in the CBD, limiations were to harsh and developers moved elsewhere.
Quashed by the ridiculous limitations ^^^

That was a vision. Besides one person who tried to convince everyone here that it was going to happen, nobody really took it as a serious proposal did they.
There was also a vision once for something much much taller. Perhaps you could argue for limits pushing that proposal?

Kyren group in a group meeting
- 'We would have gone higher if possible to maximise the efficiency of the development, but we can't change that.

Maxcon (Realm) - reportedly 'Disappointed' by the limitations.

Taller could be an extra 2 storeys.
Could have, would have...but chose not to. Perhaps instead of challenging limits, other realities set in.

Hyatt Regency 150m tower Quashed by limitations. Developer (CEL Australia) Had to shrink even further or it wouldn't be 'economically viable' to 100-110m.
https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2020/ ... downsized/

Perhaps read that again. They had to downsize it or it wouldn't be economically viable. That's counter to your argument.

Synergy construct - Replied to my Tweet. "Good afternoon (my username). In regards to your comment about the height limitations, they are quite tiresome. The company is forced to turn down and shrink developments to meet government requirements, which provides fewer profits for our clients...

Has Synergy built anything pushing the tallest?
Link to their tweet or screenshot?

Developers of Grand Wyndham were forced by the commission to shrink the development with no reason given. When Indaily asked why they received no response. Told not to tell the media?!? Suspicious.
https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/04/27/ ... t-shrinks/

3 storey reduction.

Whose going to occupy these taller buildings pushing 230m?
Low economic & population growth, and the property market is dominated by traditional detached dwellings hence continued urban sprawl north and south.

You continue to ignore the actual facts, from the Property Council of Australia, that we have the second highest office space vacancy rates, nearly 16%, and extremely low demand which is below the average rate for Adelaide.

Talk about how you think there's demand all you like just because developers would like to go taller, doesn't mean they will or would. There's other factors besides simply being able to.

You sound bitter Rev, I am merely proving an obvious point. The evidence is there and you can't dispute it. Residences Realm, Adelaidean, Central market all have been 'overrun' with offers from firms, tenants, and commercial businesses BEFORE THEY WERE BUILT, which directly proves there is sufficient demand for quality highrise developments exceeding 130 metres. The restrictions are impacting developments inside the city, and driving down growth. The other members of the forum are in agreement, you're outnumbered. In response to your utterly ignorant statement that I want supertalls, no. As a complete maximum, there should be a limit of around 200. There are companies who are hovering around Adelaide this very minute ready to develop due to the abundance of properties available but are hindering starting due to these unwarranted restrictions.

Wheres is your evidence? Where's your proof that the limitations aren't directly impacting the CBD? I have mine, where is yours?

All it shows is those particular projects were in demand, it doesn't somehow automatically "prove" that buildings over 130m are in high demand in Adelaide.

"There are companies who are hovering around Adelaide this very minute ready to develop due to the abundance of properties available but are hindering starting due to these unwarranted restrictions." Do you have any actual evidence of this being true? Most projects in Adelaide from my experience on this forum don't start because a) they don't secure sufficient tenants - whether for an office or a hotel chain, or b) they don't sell sufficient numbers of apartments. Buildings being an extra 25-100m taller won't magically change those things. Good designs in desirable locations, solid marketing strategies and developers with strong financial backing usually seem to be the keys to projects getting off the ground - not their height.

I am all for taller builds in Adelaide and lifting the restrictions on them - as probably most this forum is. It's just none of the arguments you have made seem particularly strong or even coherent, and I really can't see a petition based on them gaining any traction.

[VinyTapestry849]

I'm glad some people understand what I'm saying. All I want is for the current height limits to be removed. I reiterate there is NO need to go above a maximum of 230m, but there is a demand to reach the 150 - 200 .
I'm also glad that the masonic hall lodge will challenge these restrictions. There is NO DOUBT that these height limits are reducing economic growth and construction jobs within the CBD.
They MUST be removed.

I have no problem with debate stemming from a hypothetical or opinion based POV. But I'm kind of getting tired of your commentary that makes outlandish baseless claims portrayed as fact despite having little to no supporting evidence. You're arguing that the reason for Adelaide's poor economic growth is solely down to the fact that we don't have buildings reaching above 150m tall, you're also making comments stating that Kyren Group and Maxicon would have gone higher with Adelaidean and Realm had they not been met with height restrictions... These and more, and yet you don't have any supporting evidence? You also want to start a petition based on these claims, and want to talk to town planners about their POV, why? You're almost the equivalent of Adelaide Parklands Preservation Group member only with polar opposite viewpoint.

I never ever mentioned it was solely based on skyscrapers, Its common sense. Putting words in peoples mouths.

[VinyTapestry849]

Don't forget that the twin tower development on the Newmarket Hotel site corner of North and West Terraces went so far in the process of challenging the airport height limits, involving CASA and AAL, that they have confirmed that airport height limits will be revised and take effect in mid December. We will know more then.

What these new height limits are, we don't know yet, but it will have an impact right across the CBD, because that site is the closest to the airport runway in the whole CBD grid area. Watch this space.

Well that's something, finally, some developers are manning up to this issue.

[Nort]

Don't forget that the twin tower development on the Newmarket Hotel site corner of North and West Terraces went so far in the process of challenging the airport height limits, involving CASA and AAL, that they have confirmed that airport height limits will be revised and take effect in mid December. We will know more then.

What these new height limits are, we don't know yet, but it will have an impact right across the CBD, because that site is the closest to the airport runway in the whole CBD grid area. Watch this space.

Well that's something, finally, some developers are manning up to this issue.

Almost like the system works where if developers can make a solid case for raising limits there is a process to go through it.