Sensational-Adelaide.com

cocoiadrop wrote:

dbl96 wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 08, 2022 11:59 am

But as there are increasing numbers of high rise buildings in the area (including the proposal for the tallest building in the city) it is time those height restrictions were revisited and the capital city zoning expanded.

I think this should wait until the rest of the CBD catches up and is developed enough to meet that sort of density. Right now these buildings still stick out like a sore thumb to me

It's a Catch-22. Such developments stick out, they are active catalysts for other developments of their height.

This was rejected. the SCAP must have been in a particularly bad mood 3 of the 4 proposals were rejected.

Development Application Number 22020961, by Phillip Brunning & Associates for
demolition of existing building structures, and construction of a 26 level building
comprising hotel, tourist accommodation, restaurant and bar at 144 Wakefield Street,
Adelaide, is REFUSED Planning Consent for the following reasons:

a) The development would not adequately satisfy the Planning and Design Code’s
expectations expressed in Capital City Zone (Building Height) PO 4.2 part (b) in
respect of measures that would provide for substantial additional gain in
sustainability, and part (b)(i) regarding development that would provide an
orderly transition up to an existing taller building or prescribed maximum
height in an adjacent Zone or building height area.

b) The development would not achieve the outcome anticipated in the Planning and
Design Code’s General Development (Advertising) PO 3.1 which anticipates
advertisements limited to information relating to the lawful use of land they are
located on to assist in the ready identification of the activity or activities on the
land and avoid unrelated content that contributes to visual clutter and untidiness.

c) The development would rely upon waste collection occurring at the subject land’s
Wakefield Street frontage, contrary to the Planning and Design Code’s General
Development (Design in Urban Areas) PO 11.2 which recommends communal
waste storage and collection areas located, enclosed and designed to be
screened from view from the public domain and open space.

d) The development would be expected to dominate, encroach on, or unduly impact
on the setting of an adjacent Local Heritage Place contrary to recommendations
of the Planning and Design Code’s Heritage Adjacency Overlay.

SCAP's reasons for refusal appear reasonable. Doesn't seem like height was the main contributing factor to the application's rejection in this instance.

They rejected it, in part, because of where the garbage would be collected from?

rev wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 2:29 pm

They rejected it, in part, because of where the garbage would be collected from?

That's a standard consideration in basically every development and is an important part of a buildings impact on the streetscape.

100% reasonable. It's at the corner of two major streets. The garbage should be collected from the side lane way.

AG wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 2:13 pm

SCAP's reasons for refusal appear reasonable. Doesn't seem like height was the main contributing factor to the application's rejection in this instance.

Maybe not the main contributing factor, but still a factor which is concerning. If an 87m building is too tall for a core CBD area, we still have a long way to go with fixing the archaic maximum building height regulations in Adelaide.

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 3:41 pm

100% reasonable. It's at the corner of two major streets. The garbage should be collected from the side lane way.

Yeh, I just found it funny seeing it stated.

I would have thought they'd have asked them to amend it instead of rejecting it? But I suppose if there's other reasons to reject it wouldn't make much of a difference.

A-Town wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 6:37 pm

AG wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 2:13 pm

SCAP's reasons for refusal appear reasonable. Doesn't seem like height was the main contributing factor to the application's rejection in this instance.

Maybe not the main contributing factor, but still a factor which is concerning. If an 87m building is too tall for a core CBD area, we still have a long way to go with fixing the archaic maximum building height regulations in Adelaide.

But it’s not a core CBD area… It’s an emerging area, sure, but as far as planning is concerned, the core of our CBD remains within the bounds of Flinders&Franklin/Morphett/North Tce/Pulteney (with a few recent exceptions that are still somewhat concentrated around these areas those being around Frome Street and a Victoria Square).

I don’t think there is any issue with not having amass of 80m+ buildings all over our CBD. There is always going to be the question of demand for these buildings, and the recent growth of our skyline leave it at a point where we should be expecting quality over quantity.

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:15 am

A-Town wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 6:37 pm

AG wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 2:13 pm

SCAP's reasons for refusal appear reasonable. Doesn't seem like height was the main contributing factor to the application's rejection in this instance.

Maybe not the main contributing factor, but still a factor which is concerning. If an 87m building is too tall for a core CBD area, we still have a long way to go with fixing the archaic maximum building height regulations in Adelaide.

But it’s not a core CBD area… It’s an emerging area, sure, but as far as planning is concerned, the core of our CBD remains within the bounds of Flinders&Franklin/Morphett/North Tce/Pulteney (with a few recent exceptions that are still somewhat concentrated around these areas those being around Frome Street and a Victoria Square).

I don’t think there is any issue with not having amass of 80m+ buildings all over our CBD. There is always going to be the question of demand for these buildings, and the recent growth of our skyline leave it at a point where we should be expecting quality over quantity.

Down the road, like barely 100m down the road, they approve a 180m tall tower, but reject this smaller one.

What are they expecting, that height will increase incrementally or something?
Can you imagine if Dubai had taken the approach that planning authorities here do.
It's about time they just fucked off these height zones entirely, and just allowed for the maximum height possible with consideration for the flight path stuff. It's the city/cbd, not suburbia.

The rejection instead of amendment is laughable...

The 180m building gets approved and this doesnt.... something smells fishy down at SCAP

rev wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:15 am

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:15 am

A-Town wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 6:37 pm

Maybe not the main contributing factor, but still a factor which is concerning. If an 87m building is too tall for a core CBD area, we still have a long way to go with fixing the archaic maximum building height regulations in Adelaide.

But it’s not a core CBD area… It’s an emerging area, sure, but as far as planning is concerned, the core of our CBD remains within the bounds of Flinders&Franklin/Morphett/North Tce/Pulteney (with a few recent exceptions that are still somewhat concentrated around these areas those being around Frome Street and a Victoria Square).

I don’t think there is any issue with not having amass of 80m+ buildings all over our CBD. There is always going to be the question of demand for these buildings, and the recent growth of our skyline leave it at a point where we should be expecting quality over quantity.

Down the road, like barely 100m down the road, they approve a 180m tall tower, but reject this smaller one.

What are they expecting, that height will increase incrementally or something?
Can you imagine if Dubai had taken the approach that planning authorities here do.
It's about time they just fucked off these height zones entirely, and just allowed for the maximum height possible with consideration for the flight path stuff. It's the city/cbd, not suburbia.

Couldn't agree more.

rev wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:15 am

It's about time they just fucked off these height zones entirely, and just allowed for the maximum height possible with consideration for the flight path stuff. It's the city/cbd, not suburbia.

100% I've been thinking this for years!

The height isn't even an issue with this location.

I have far more of an issue with SACP allowing a 20 storey building on the corner of Rundle and East Terrace than here.

There's a need for height limits in heritage sensitive areas. This isn't one of them.

rev wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:15 am

Down the road, like barely 100m down the road, they approve a 180m tall tower, but reject this smaller one.

What are they expecting, that height will increase incrementally or something?
Can you imagine if Dubai had taken the approach that planning authorities here do.
It's about time they just fucked off these height zones entirely, and just allowed for the maximum height possible with consideration for the flight path stuff. It's the city/cbd, not suburbia.

From that point of view, I agree. There are blatant inconsistencies with how SCAP go about their processes. And for the record, I stand with the majority in saying that the current planning laws are flawed. After all, the moment an ‘independent’ planning body becomes more concerned with the height of a building rather than the quality of design and finishes, we should reconsider these processes. I know I sit with the minority of users, but I would rather see proposals rejected by SCAP for not meeting a minimum standard of quality than simply because they exceed the height designated for that area; I imagine this sort of approach would sure enough determine the developers that were serious about seeing the fruits of their labours become a reality vs. those chasing a fast buck. For instance, whilst I personally don’t think much of the design in terms of originality, I think the effort that has gone into 207 Pulteney Street should set the benchmark in terms of how much consideration has gone into that submission. I don’t apologise for not frantically trying to find merit in shit buildings, though (Switch at 203 North Terrace, for example), when I know this city is deserving and capable of more (i.e. 52-66 KWS – Southern Cross Arcade).

My only real objection to height, or buildings in general (and this might seem contradictory to the above, as I know I haven’t articulated it very well previously) is their placement. An 80m+ proposal next to an 1850s cottage of historical merit in a pocket of the city that consists of single and two story dwellings, or a 100m+ building shrouding a civic space and the surrounding buildings of architectural significance. Those sorts of applications don’t consider anything but what sits within that developers’ parcel of land, and I believe that goes against the work that architects and town planners alike stand for, from a distance it might look impressive but up close it looks foul.

So with this proposal, the design looks good (especially when compared with what's there currently) it would surely look better if it were bulkier on a site double the size of what it’s been proposed for, but ultimately the comments from SCAP about the relationship of this building with the neighbouring church are fair when you consider the quality of the recent Trinity Church submission.