Sensational-Adelaide.com

Adelarch wrote:Those Walter Gropius designs are great - thanks for that Prince.
Quick pic from last week, not sure about this one but not dismissing it entirely just yet either. Pretty sure though I wouldn't be a big fan of another 19 storey clone sitting next to it either way, much less five of them

Ever been to Hong Kong? Every building in Hong Kong comes in a minimum of 5s

From the top floor of the ATO Building on Waymouth Street. Thanks to Norman for allowing me to come up here.

Regarding the building, I think we should reserve most judgment until all the cladding has been applied. i suspect that once this happens the look of this building will improve dramatically.

I notice that they've used the same "1960's thick framed school windows" that "ruined" the look of its shorter neighbour.

monotonehell wrote:I notice that they've used the same "1960's thick framed school windows" that "ruined" the look of its shorter neighbour.

At least its standard throughout, could of been a real hodge podge if different designs were incorporated.

I feel sorry for the people that bought property at the Gallery. Is perhaps the worst building of the noughties?

JamesXander wrote:I feel sorry for the people that bought property at the Gallery. Is perhaps the worst building of the noughties?

On a related note, here's a good reason why I'm not rushing in to buy a Gallery apartment:



$499,000-$515,000.

Half a million for that? Um, no.

Wow those apartments are small! I had no idea that the prices were so high for such a small living space. It looks about $6,000 per sq m. I am staying in a hotel "suite" (well that's what they call it - a bedroom and kitchenette combined) at the moment which is a total area of around 45sq m, but it drives me crazy to stay inside it for too long. Imagine spending your waking hours in a living area of 25sq m and then sleeping in bedroom 2, which is 10 sq m and has no window and paying that amount of money. Sobering.

Professor wrote:Wow those apartments are small! I had no idea that the prices were so high for such a small living space. It looks about $6,000 per sq m. I am staying in a hotel "suite" (well that's what they call it - a bedroom and kitchenette combined) at the moment which is a total area of around 45sq m, but it drives me crazy to stay inside it for too long. Imagine spending your waking hours in a living area of 25sq m and then sleeping in bedroom 2, which is 10 sq m and has no window and paying that amount of money. Sobering.

Recipe for a good dose of 'cabin fever' mate - especially when there is no convernient outlet to a bigger area. As you say, 'sobering'. But to get the balance, at least it's not 3 - 4 families per apartment.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

monotonehell wrote:I notice that they've used the same "1960's thick framed school windows" that "ruined" the look of its shorter neighbour.

The thick framed windows are actually for the balconies, and they fold completely away to the sides - hence the need for the frames. They work quite well, as you can have the balcony opened up, or closed off from the weather.

Ive been right through this building and i assumed its only for business people staying in there for a couple of nights at the time or students, it would be impossible to live a normal life in these places there tiny

Omicron wrote:Half a million for that? Um, no.

indeed, what a joke. Could probably buy a luxury penthouse in the US for that.

metro wrote:

Omicron wrote:Half a million for that? Um, no.

indeed, what a joke. Could probably buy a luxury penthouse in the US for that.

No, no you could not. At least, not in any of the places that you would want a luxury penthouse. Just last week we were visiting some people who told us about when they lived in Manhattan. Their apartment was a single room, basically a loft, about 40 sq m all up in an old building in Harlem. The bedroom was just part of the main room big enough for the bed partitioned off by a low wall like office dividers. The bathroom had a basin, a toilet, and a shower, and was so tight that the shower curtain went around the toilet ("that was great, because every time we had a shower we cleaned the toilet too"). They were paying $3600 a month, and that was more than 5 years ago. You want midtown? Better have an executive salary. You want a view? Better be a C-level exec.

Yes, you can buy sprawling McMansions and "starter castles" way out in the 'burbs for this money, but downtown living in most of the serious downtowns, especially in a new building, is plenty expensive.

I think that we've got a skewed view of what to expect because the average size of Australian houses has grown so steadily over the last decade (especially when you consider that the average household size is falling). The first house that the Queen and I lived in was an old wharfie's cottage down in Glanville: that was a 2-bedroom place and couldn't have been more than 80 sqm. From there we moved to a 50s brick house in Melrose Park that's about 100 sqm. Even the place that we're about to leave here in Seattle is about 120 sqm if you include the basement. And we've got a pair of kids in tow too. Now it seems that some people expect a house big enough to have a room filled with rarely used exercise equipment, or a self-contained apartment for the two times a year they have visitors.

Prince George wrote:

metro wrote:

Omicron wrote:Half a million for that? Um, no.

indeed, what a joke. Could probably buy a luxury penthouse in the US for that.

No, no you could not. At least, not in any of the places that you would want a luxury penthouse. Just last week we were visiting some people who told us about when they lived in Manhattan. Their apartment was a single room, basically a loft, about 40 sq m all up in an old building in Harlem. The bedroom was just part of the main room big enough for the bed partitioned off by a low wall like office dividers. The bathroom had a basin, a toilet, and a shower, and was so tight that the shower curtain went around the toilet ("that was great, because every time we had a shower we cleaned the toilet too"). They were paying $3600 a month, and that was more than 5 years ago. You want midtown? Better have an executive salary. You want a view? Better be a C-level exec.

Of course you couldn't buy something similar at that price in MANHATTAN George . Although 500 k wouldn't get you a penthouse anywhere in the Adelaide CBD, it should still get you something relatively half-decent.

Briggzy_03 wrote:Of course you couldn't buy something similar at that price in MANHATTAN George . Although 500 k wouldn't get you a penthouse anywhere in the Adelaide CBD, it should still get you something relatively half-decent.

Yes, it is just about the most extreme example in the States that I could choose (I believe that San Francisco is worse), but bear in mind that it was way expensive and yet it was:

1. Half the size, although it did offer the convenience of being able to shower whilst sitting on the toilet - think of the time you could save!
2. In an old, old building, not new construction
3. In Harlem - only 20 years ago they were still clearing crack houses out of the area

In any case, I'm seeing people dismiss these places on not much more than a price tag and the total floor space. When the area-to-price ratio is the most important consideration, suburban living wins every time. The amenity of living in town costs money, you aren't going to get as much space as you would a few kilometres away. But ask yourself, just how much space do you need?

IMO these apartments are overpriced when you look at what else is on offer both new and existing