Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
-
Will
- VIP Member
![VIP Member VIP Member](./images/ranks/vip_rank.gif)
- Posts: 5816
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
- Location: Adelaide
#61
Post
by Will » Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:23 pm
[Shuz] wrote:iTouch(myself) wrote:maan if both this and Pirie St are approved, we're talking about ULTRA-Density. Flinders and Pirie St will look dark and business-like. (In a good way)
I had to laugh.
Obviously you've never been interstate, or internationally.
I have travelled, and this still looks quite dense to me:
![Image](http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y190/Adelarch/2-2.jpg)
-
stumpjumper
- Legendary Member!
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
#62
Post
by stumpjumper » Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:48 pm
It could happen. Toga (the developer of the proposed Flinders St building) occupies the old Treasury building (the Medina Hotel) and in the past has put up a proposal for a tower in the middle of that building. Under the right conditions, Toga could consolidate the Treasury building, the present proposal and perhaps the Pilgrim Church site if the heritage listing were ever removed or dealt with somehow.
-
rhino
- Super Size Scraper Poster!
- Posts: 3071
- Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
- Location: Nairne
#63
Post
by rhino » Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:55 am
[Shuz] wrote:
I had to laugh.
Obviously you've never been interstate, or internationally.
I had to laugh too.
I must admit,
I have never 'been internationally'
I have travelled overseas, however....
cheers,
Rhino
-
Ben
- VIP Member
![VIP Member VIP Member](./images/ranks/vip_rank.gif)
- Posts: 7502
- Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:46 am
- Location: Adelaide
#64
Post
by Ben » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:02 pm
The council are expected to support approval of this project due to a number of conditions at tonights meeting.
-
AtD
- VIP Member
![VIP Member VIP Member](./images/ranks/vip_rank.gif)
- Posts: 4581
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
- Location: Sydney
#65
Post
by AtD » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:06 pm
Good to see the ACC looking beyond the fact that it's over 20m above their height limit.
-
Will
- VIP Member
![VIP Member VIP Member](./images/ranks/vip_rank.gif)
- Posts: 5816
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
- Location: Adelaide
#66
Post
by Will » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:32 pm
Dissapointing news from the Messenger:
Heritage buildings protected ahead of planned tower
Local News25 Jul 11 @ 08:30am by Tim Williams
Artist's impresson of the proposed Flinders Tower on Flinders Street, Adelaide.
THE top third of a 27-storey tower proposed for Flinders St must be tapered so it does not dominate nearby heritage buildings, the City Council’s development assessment panel says.
The Toga Group wants to build an $80 million, 100m tall hotel and office tower, which would be Adelaide’s fourth highest, next to the Pilgrim Uniting Church near Victoria Square.
The maximum building height allowed for the site is 72m.
The DAP last week ruled the section of the building above the height limit must be “substantially” stepped in from the lower section and tapered toward the top.
Floor space on the levels above 72m must be no more than 50 per cent that of levels below the height limit.
The government’s Development Assessment Commission will have the final say
-
cyber_256
- Sen-Rookie-Sational
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:22 pm
- Location: Adelaide
#67
Post
by cyber_256 » Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:06 pm
A bit disappointing, but not terrible. I still think it would look alright, I personally like the look on the old SA Water building.
We shall see what happens though with the State Gov DAC as they generally approve these things without many objections.
-
crawf
- Donating Member
![Donating Member Donating Member](./images/ranks/donor_rank.gif)
- Posts: 5523
- Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
- Location: Adelaide
#68
Post
by crawf » Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:16 pm
This is why it's good we have the DAC
-
spiller
- High Rise Poster!
- Posts: 396
- Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:13 pm
#69
Post
by spiller » Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:20 pm
So wait, it already tapers outwards towards the top and now they want it to taper in as well? Could make for an interesting redesign
-
arki
- High Rise Poster!
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:35 am
#70
Post
by arki » Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:35 pm
I agree that from a design point of view the recommendations could make for a much more interesting structure for our skyline.
However it is the classic rigmarole provided by the ACC and the DAP which irks me about most proposals in this city.
As people who follow my posts may have realised I am completely pro-heritage preservation and restoration but the current design hardly compromises the heritage of the site so why bother and make a fuss over it? The building doesn't even front Flinders Street so the need to 'step' the height back in order to disallow any clash with the current structure seems completely impotent.
-
AtD
- VIP Member
![VIP Member VIP Member](./images/ranks/vip_rank.gif)
- Posts: 4581
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
- Location: Sydney
#71
Post
by AtD » Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:56 am
How bizarre. It hangs over the driveway, not over the church.
Has the DAP gone against the advice of its staff?
-
[Shuz]
- Super Size Scraper Poster!
- Posts: 3216
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm
#72
Post
by [Shuz] » Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:32 am
The DAP comes up with the most mind-numbingly stupidest reasons and excuses to block/amend development proposals. Thank God for the DAC.
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.
-
Will
- VIP Member
![VIP Member VIP Member](./images/ranks/vip_rank.gif)
- Posts: 5816
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
- Location: Adelaide
#73
Post
by Will » Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:25 am
[Shuz] wrote:The DAP comes up with the most mind-numbingly stupidest reasons and excuses to block/amend development proposals. Thank God for the DAC.
and yet, just a few days ago....
[Shuz] wrote: Unfortunately, I have my doubts in the DAC's capability to make the right decision. I am led to believe that the DAC have never rejected a proposal; they have rubber-stamped every proposal and amendment to date ever since its inception.
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
-
omada
- Donating Member
![Donating Member Donating Member](./images/ranks/donor_rank.gif)
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:03 am
- Location: Eden Hills
#74
Post
by omada » Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:58 pm
I really don't understand the ACC sometimes, this is a building with more architectural merit than most of the dull concrete and glass boxes that are now gracing our skyline, let alone the ACC's penchant for approving carparks.
I echo Shuz "thank god for the DAP". Sounds like a good sensational adelaide t-shirt slogan actually.
-
[Shuz]
- Super Size Scraper Poster!
- Posts: 3216
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm
#75
Post
by [Shuz] » Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:12 pm
Will wrote:[Shuz] wrote:The DAP comes up with the most mind-numbingly stupidest reasons and excuses to block/amend development proposals. Thank God for the DAC.
and yet, just a few days ago....
[Shuz] wrote: Unfortunately, I have my doubts in the DAC's capability to make the right decision. I am led to believe that the DAC have never rejected a proposal; they have rubber-stamped every proposal and amendment to date ever since its inception.
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Apples and oranges.
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot] and 1 guest