[REJ] Gawler Chambers Redevelopment | 70m | 16lvls | Office

[SRW]

They’re owned by old school Adelaide money. They could afford this development if they wanted I’m sure.

If you you look at their website, you'll see they haven't accomplished much at all other than the Blackwood Park development. They go on about owning high profile sites, but theres not much evidence of them actually doing anything with those sites.

I have and it would seem they have completed a range of residential projects in the suburbs. My point is that the family would likely have the capital to complete a larger project like this if they wanted to. However, they seem more content to just sit on the asset as it goes up in value - they did something very similar with The Planet site before selling it to CBUS.

I think you'll find their capital is the asset and that's why they're content to land bank. In any event, very few developers would launch into speculative development without a tenant, which admittedly would be harder to secure with the constraints of the site.

I think the government has a role in restoring heritage buildings for adaptive reuse where the market won't or can't. I think that's a more vital contribution to the city than building otherwise commercial buildings like the EIC at Lot 14 on 'free' public land.

[rev]

As if they got that many extensions to begin with.
Would be interesting to know why they haven't done anything with it after all this time. Perhaps they don't have the finances to proceed?

If you check out their website it doesn’t really provide much information / confidence into who they are, what they own and do etc.

Adelaide Development Company has been around for a century.
One of them was even Mayor of Adelaide once.
Back in the early 1990's the family was worth an estimated minimum of $200 million.
There's also a WA based company they have called Estates Development Company.
They've built 40,000 homes in Adelaide and own commercial & retail property in SA and WA.

Thats 5 minutes of Googling.

[Vasco]

As if they got that many extensions to begin with.
Would be interesting to know why they haven't done anything with it after all this time. Perhaps they don't have the finances to proceed?

If you check out their website it doesn’t really provide much information / confidence into who they are, what they own and do etc.

Adelaide Development Company has been around for a century.
One of them was even Mayor of Adelaide once.
Back in the early 1990's the family was worth an estimated minimum of $200 million.
There's also a WA based company they have called Estates Development Company.
They've built 40,000 homes in Adelaide and own commercial & retail property in SA and WA.

Thats 5 minutes of Googling.

Very good, although they haven’t built 40k homes, they have facilitated the land for 40k homes.

Non company website sources after scrolling google to depths of where a D grade SEO contractor would land you do indeed provide further information such as the above. Where as their own website is very brief, does not mention any specifics of what they own (other than very ambiguous terms which could be interpreted as a means of exaggeration) or the extent of it as well as any names of owners / staff etc. Evidently they like to keep a lowish profile.

https://www.afr.com/companies/family-fo ... 0512-kakl2

http://seventhst.com.au/centre-informat ... t-company/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dbl96]

If you you look at their website, you'll see they haven't accomplished much at all other than the Blackwood Park development. They go on about owning high profile sites, but theres not much evidence of them actually doing anything with those sites.

I have and it would seem they have completed a range of residential projects in the suburbs. My point is that the family would likely have the capital to complete a larger project like this if they wanted to. However, they seem more content to just sit on the asset as it goes up in value - they did something very similar with The Planet site before selling it to CBUS.

I think you'll find their capital is the asset and that's why they're content to land bank. In any event, very few developers would launch into speculative development without a tenant, which admittedly would be harder to secure with the constraints of the site.

I think the government has a role in restoring heritage buildings for adaptive reuse where the market won't or can't. I think that's a more vital contribution to the city than building otherwise commercial buildings like the EIC at Lot 14 on 'free' public land.

As discussed previously on this forum, we need strict measures in place to prevent this kind of land-banking that has resulted in the unsightly decay of prime sites like Gawler Chambers and the Planet nightclub.

Property owners in the city should have to demonstrate, within a reasonable timeframe, that reasonable efforts have been made to tenant buildings that they own.

When it comes to vacant land (and I include open air carparking in the definition of "vacant"), property owners should have to demonstrate that they have commenced construction on replacement buildings within a reasonable timeframe (I say 5 years) of the acquisition of the property.

If property owners do not comply, they should be charged rates at levels which undermine their investments and make it prohibitively expensive for them to continue to hold those assets. There should be no second chances. If the owners don't plan to do any thing with the land, they should sell it to someone who does.

There is zero public benefit in "developers" making money purely from rising land values. They are contributing nothing to the city - in fact they are holding the city back by tieing up land - thereby reducing supply, and making everything more expensive for everyone. Developers should be developing the city.

[rev]

As discussed previously on this forum, we need strict measures in place to prevent this kind of land-banking that has resulted in the unsightly decay of prime sites like Gawler Chambers and the Planet nightclub.

Property owners in the city should have to demonstrate, within a reasonable timeframe, that reasonable efforts have been made to tenant buildings that they own.

When it comes to vacant land (and I include open air carparking in the definition of "vacant"), property owners should have to demonstrate that they have commenced construction on replacement buildings within a reasonable timeframe (I say 5 years) of the acquisition of the property.

If property owners do not comply, they should be charged rates at levels which undermine their investments and make it prohibitively expensive for them to continue to hold those assets. There should be no second chances. If the owners don't plan to do any thing with the land, they should sell it to someone who does.

There is zero public benefit in "developers" making money purely from rising land values. They are contributing nothing to the city - in fact they are holding the city back by tieing up land - thereby reducing supply, and making everything more expensive for everyone. Developers should be developing the city.

So what's next, asset forfeiture?
Ridiculous.

Its called private property.