Sensational-Adelaide.com

What a joke. If you people had your way the whole CBD would be a low rise precinct. If you want low rises, move to the suburbs.

Hex wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 22, 2022 10:13 am

What a joke. If you people had your way the whole CBD would be a low rise precinct. If you want low rises, move to the suburbs.

Agreed. Only in Adelaide would 68 metres be considered as “towering”.

Are there equivalent historical parts of the Sydney and Melbourne CBD where height limits are severely restricted? Only place I can think of off the top of my head is maybe The Rocks in Sydney?

Algernon wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 21, 2022 5:46 pm

Lazy choice of materials: "glass goes with everything". Nope. The East End is brick. Absolutely crap and lazy design.

4 levels of car parking. Because car parks are going extinct apparently.

office space in the East End. Why.

"buh buh a contextual relationship with prminent buildings" : google translate bullshit->english "there's a couple of tall buildings a few hundred metres away, let us get away with one in a heritage zone"

Zero setback to Rundle Street. Ok sorry. maybe 3m.

I've seen some crap proposed in Adelaide in my life but oh my...

Loving the emoji choices

gnrc_louis wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 22, 2022 11:48 am

Are there equivalent historical parts of the Sydney and Melbourne CBD where height limits are severely restricted? Only place I can think of off the top of my head is maybe The Rocks in Sydney?

Sydney has rules that prevent shadowing over Hyde Park, which is why a lot of buildings there have sloped roofs.

Hex wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 22, 2022 10:13 am

What a joke. If you people had your way the whole CBD would be a low rise precinct. If you want low rises, move to the suburbs.

Don't be so dramatic.

Opposing this specific development, in this specific location ≠ Opposing all development.

Mpol02 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:16 pm

Adelaide residents aren’t conditioned I don’t believe, to understand that when you move into the city to live, it’s going to simply be noisy and you need to live with that. Venues, events, bars, restaurants all of it. If this development hinders any of that because they don’t like it, then I’d rather it not happen.

One thing about high rise is that the higher your live the less the street noise bothers you. I live in South Korea where there's a lot of street noise and night activity, but our apartment is on the 9th floor so when we do hear it it's not much of a problem because it sounds distant, even on the 9th. My wife's mother lives in a 16th floor apartment and street noise really isn't much of an issue at all for her.

I accept the desire to provide residential car parking, but 56 spaces for 27 apartments seems excessive. Even for family apartments, I don't see why it shouldn't just have one space each in the building and a small number of visitor parks, and supported (secured) bike parking near street level.

An angle that to me was conspicuously absent in the renders is what does it look like from Rundle Mall. If the answer is that it is completely obscured already, then fine, but the view down the mall to the hills is "special". I don't mind the view (neither offensive nor attractive) from the East parklands but didn't really like the one from North Terrace. I doubt an occupied building could look quite so pleasant though, since it appears that we are looking in through clear glass to ceiling lights turned on in every apartment, with no curtains or lights turned off at night.

SBD wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 24, 2022 4:18 pm

I accept the desire to provide residential car parking, but 56 spaces for 27 apartments seems excessive. Even for family apartments, I don't see why it shouldn't just have one space each in the building and a small number of visitor parks, and supported (secured) bike parking near street level.

I agree, that does seem excessive and goes against much of the concept of CBD living.

However, I was under the assumption that these are going to be marketed as luxury/high-end apartments. If they are to entice ppl to downsize from their inner-city mansions, then they'll probably want somewhere to park his and hers Beemer/Audi/Merc/Porsche.

Jaymz wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 24, 2022 6:15 pm

SBD wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 24, 2022 4:18 pm

I accept the desire to provide residential car parking, but 56 spaces for 27 apartments seems excessive. Even for family apartments, I don't see why it shouldn't just have one space each in the building and a small number of visitor parks, and supported (secured) bike parking near street level.

I agree, that does seem excessive and goes against much of the concept of CBD living.

However, I was under the assumption that these are going to be marketed as luxury/high-end apartments. If they are to entice ppl to downsize from their inner-city mansions, then they'll probably want somewhere to park his and hers Beemer/Audi/Merc/Porsche.

I wonder what height clearance will be allowed to provide for the 4WD (those brands all have one) and the boat it tows.

Ideally, carparking can be banned for residential CBD developments.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 2:30 pm

Ideally, carparking can be banned for residential CBD developments.

Good luck getting people to move into new CBD developments then. This is Adelaide, not London or Manhattan.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 2:30 pm

Ideally, carparking can be banned for residential CBD developments.

Should be the other way around. Remove all parking for non residents. Perhaps allow the existing multi level parks to operate and then never approve another one.

Hex wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 9:37 pm

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 2:30 pm

Ideally, carparking can be banned for residential CBD developments.

Should be the other way around. Remove all parking for non residents. Perhaps allow the existing multi level parks to operate and then never approve another one.

How do "true city dwellers" deal with what I (a suburbanite) would call the "weekly shopping"? Not many of the major residential towers have what suburban people would recognise as a "supermarket" within a very short walk (the distance to the back of the shopping centre carpark). Going to the shop is still different to just using pick and deliver services. If the intent is to significantly increase the city population, then many of the additional people are likely to come from suburban and regional areas where families have at least two cars. Forcing them to only have one on site, but allowing it to have all-weather access to the home is likely to be helpful for a transition. I expect that in Adelaide, it's still more practical to have your own car than to rent one for trips (including to a daytrip to wineries or national parks on the weekend) which aren't practical on public transport. Once people don't touch their car for a month, they've perhaps fully adapted.

SBD wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 10:53 pm

How do "true city dwellers" deal with what I (a suburbanite) would call the "weekly shopping"? Not many of the major residential towers have what suburban people would recognise as a "supermarket" within a very short walk (the distance to the back of the shopping centre carpark). Going to the shop is still different to just using pick and deliver services.

It's just that. Much more use of home delivery for a "big" shop, and then smaller ad hoc pickups from IGA or the Mall supermarkets as needed. Once you're in a routine, it's pretty easy.