[COM] 102-120 Wakefield Street | 65m | 14lvls | Office

[Adelarch]

Mmm, this site is on the market now:
http://www.realcommercial.com.au/proper ... de-5795391

Taking a cynical viewpoint, let me surmise the development strategy here for just a moment:
1. Obtain approval to build an office block with associated car parking, with the latter flagged as ‘Stage 1’ of the project
2. Construct car park only
3. Submit a DA for an ‘upgraded office facility’ in an effort to amend the ‘Stage 2’ office component into a ‘temporary car park’ – which if accepted will increase the land value based on annual returns from the car park
4. Irrespective of approval or rejection, sell the site to lock in profits associated with car park construction
5. ‘Stage 2’ remains dormant for years as it is uneconomic to develop such a small site into an office block or anything else which council will readily accept.

I’m not completely in my sphere of understanding here – perhaps I’m being a tad too cynical?

[AtD]

Sadly I'm not surprised.

[Nathan]

Bloody hell. They were never really intending on building the office block were they?

[omada]

yup the ACC stuffed this one up.. again.

[Will]

I hope the development plan is ammended following this.

You either build it all or nothing at all.

[SRW]

yup the ACC stuffed this one up.. again.

How do you figure this to be the ACC's fault?

[omada]

SRW: How do you figure this to be the ACC's fault?

Assuming that it was under 10m - quite simply because they approved it, and they keep on approving these big ugly carparks.

[Ben]

The DAC would've approved it too.

The only way to stop this from happening to to make sure the office and carparks are built as one stage and this is something that can be built into planning guidelines.

[Aidan]

The DAC would've approved it too.

The only way to stop this from happening to to make sure the office and carparks are built as one stage and this is something that can be built into planning guidelines.

No, that's not the only way at all.

A much better way is to prevent car parks being so lucrative. This can be done by improving train and bus services into the City.

[SRW]

SRW: How do you figure this to be the ACC's fault?

Assuming that it was under 10m - quite simply because they approved it, and they keep on approving these big ugly carparks.

The ACC DAP approved an office building and associated car park because it was in keeping with the development plan and there was no reasonable basis on which to refuse. The DAC would have done the same, else the developers could have appealed.

The reason we ended up with a car park is because of the developers and their, at best, poor management, or, at worst, dishonourable intentions.

But I think the way to prevent this in the future is a mix of what Will and Aidan have proposed; the planning guidelines need to be more sensitive to the way staged developments are handled so we don't end up with something other than was approved (as well as being stricter on the approvals for car parks in the first place). And of course, public transport needs to be better in order to disincentivise the building of car parks all together.

[Ben]

Further extension of time has been applied for. DAC have not said as yet whether they will approve or reject.

[cyber_256]

The empty lot next to the carpark has been cleared. Any news on whether the project was approved?

[IamAdelaide]

Mmm, this site is on the market now:
http://www.realcommercial.com.au/proper ... de-5795391
I’m not completely in my sphere of understanding here – perhaps I’m being a tad too cynical?

Not nearly cynical enough in my opinion

[Ben]

I believe this is being resurrected and should see some info soon.

[rhino]

I believe this is being resurrected and should see some info soon.

Good!