[U/C] Renaissance Arcade | 132m | 40 Levels | Realm Apartments

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Pikey
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 2182
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Sitting Down
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 328 times

[U/C] Renaissance Arcade | 132m | 40 Levels | Realm Apartments

#1 Post by Pikey » Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:20 am

From JAJK on SSC

In Thursday's City Messenger:


Image
Image

This should be a good development! Hopefully it will also get rid of the Renaissance arcade building which would be a bonus! :D
Walking on over....

| Sensational-Adelaide.com Moderator |

User avatar
Pikey
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 2182
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Sitting Down
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 328 times

[U/C]

#2 Post by Pikey » Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:47 am

If these blokes are going for the tallest resi, they'll have to beat the 105m Bentham. Can't see that happening in it's proposed location. I bet it'd be 60m max.
Walking on over....

| Sensational-Adelaide.com Moderator |

User avatar
Howie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4790
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 40 times

[U/C]

#3 Post by Howie » Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:48 am

I pass through the arcade every day on the way to work. I'll be glad it's going!

I do hope this one gets approved and the nimbys don't have their way on this one. Hopefully we can run a few positive/supportive articles and email them to the ACC/Cap Works Committee.

Perfect location however.

User avatar
Al
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: Wild Wild West

[U/C]

#4 Post by Al » Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:00 am

Sounds excellent! I agree that it would have to beat Bentham but according to that article, it seems ACC are willing to "look at what height restrictions apply". Maybe they might make an exception or something. Still, at 60m it'll be pretty good. This town is really booming!!

User avatar
Howie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4790
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 40 times

[U/C]

#5 Post by Howie » Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:13 am

As i mentioned before on skyscraper city, i've got a mate who's coming from o/s to study here in adelaide.. and there is little affordable student accommodation in the cbd. The demand is simply too high, and the supply still way too short. Anything the ACC can do to alleviate this problem would be good. I'm sure it's in the interests of the ACC to approve this building if it's to reach the goal of 7000 extra o/s students in the cbd by 2010. With work on this building starting mid-next year, this development would fit in perfectly with their strategy.

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5510
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 472 times
Been thanked: 144 times

[U/C]

#6 Post by Will » Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:11 pm

I am slightly confused. Would this development involve demolishing the heritage listed apartment building? Is this is the case I cannot support this developement. That apartment building was Adelaide's first 'high-rise' apartment building, and the tallest residential building in the Adelaide until the 1970's. It is one the citie's most attractive buildings, and it baffles me that in a city like Adelaide that is full of ugly 1960's concrete blocks that council would permit the demolition of a 100 year old building. Didn't they learn anything with the demolition of the Grand Central Hotel?

If it keeps the facade, then I am all for it. In that case it would be a great development for the city. The article mentions that the developers want to go as high as city height limits allow. From memory height limits for that part of the city are only 49.5m. However since the council ammended its height restrictions, lets hope that the height limit is now 115m.

User avatar
Al
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: Wild Wild West

[U/C]

#7 Post by Al » Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:58 pm

I'm not particularly fond of that building and I wish it did go but that's my opinion. I don't know how they will get over 100m with 20 storeys though.

User avatar
Howie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4790
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 40 times

[U/C]

#8 Post by Howie » Thu Nov 03, 2005 1:57 pm

I do hope they keep the mansion's facade, sort of how the myer centre did.

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

[U/C]

#9 Post by AtD » Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:08 pm

They don't really need to touch the Masions building. There's plenty of room behind it. It could sit very well just behind and to the east of 223NT. Destroying it for a a Myer Centre style false facade IMO would be a shame. It's a fantastic building which adds some much needed colour and interest to the rather drab end of Pultney street, dominated by the UniSA apartments, 10 Pultney Street (Adelaide University) and the prison-bar carparks on Rundle Street.

User avatar
Howie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4790
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 40 times

[U/C]

#10 Post by Howie » Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:19 pm

I think you're probably right there ATD. That's where the Purple Cafe is I believe.

At the moment that's almost dead space, with a uni book store, two cafes, and a few empty retail spaces.

User avatar
Pants
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1246
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Back Home
Has thanked: 60 times
Been thanked: 21 times

[U/C]

#11 Post by Pants » Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:44 pm

I'd also hate to see it go.

Like AtD said, I imagine that they'd build behind it in the arcade area behind 223 Nth Tce. If they're clever about it they could have a Rundle Mall facade where the Richmond Hotel is.

Could be a great development if done right.

User avatar
Algernon
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Moravia
Has thanked: 304 times
Been thanked: 144 times

[U/C]

#12 Post by Algernon » Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:45 pm

If the old apartment building is marked for demolition then this development won't proceed - because i'll be chaining myself to it, dead set.

User avatar
Al
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: Wild Wild West

[U/C]

#13 Post by Al » Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:57 pm

chris wrote:If the old apartment building is marked for demolition then this development won't proceed - because i'll be chaining myself to it, dead set.
I'll be there with bolt cutters! j/k. :lol:

User avatar
Algernon
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Moravia
Has thanked: 304 times
Been thanked: 144 times

[U/C]

#14 Post by Algernon » Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:01 pm

Al wrote:
chris wrote:If the old apartment building is marked for demolition then this development won't proceed - because i'll be chaining myself to it, dead set.
I'll be there with bolt cutters! j/k. :lol:
I did 2 environmental science electives at uni, so I know all the tricks.

If you bolt your hands together inside some plumbers pipe they can't get to it with bolt cutters. They have to cut the whole pipe down the side - takes hours because they can't just saw through your hand :shock: 8)

Multiply that by 10 smelly hippies and you've got yourself a blockade.

User avatar
AG
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1886
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:44 am
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 17 times

[U/C]

#15 Post by AG » Thu Nov 03, 2005 6:15 pm

The proposal could certainly provide an opportunity to clean up the Renaissance Arcade (possibly rebuild it) and to upgrade and clean up the laneways and area that are within distance of it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Levesque and 13 guests