[COM] Rundle Place | 76m | 15lvls | Retail & Office

[AG]

I think some people here really need to learn to differentiate between planning issues and leasing and financial issues.

[stelaras]

As much as i hate to say it, I think developers still have to jump through hoops to get anywhere with the conservatives that run adelaide.The developers don't want to waste their time or money, so they go to cities like brisbane, melbourne that accomodate them.

Frank1, If you do your basic homework you will find that the developer of this project is Melbourne based, that wants to invest in Adelaide..However, what is the point of building such a building if you haven't got anyone to put in it???

no tenant= no building simple as that

[Shuz]

Maybe take this as a sign, that we could go over the whole process again and get it right from the start this time.

[frank1]

^^ This building was approved some time ago. The only thing keeping it back is commercial interests (finance, tenants, leasing, etc)

what is your point? it is like the le cornu site. the council claims that they are not against it blah blah, but they make it so difficult for developers by continuously tying them up in court they eventually give up. All i am saying is sometimes it is not as simple as no tenants.

[AtD]

Sometimes it isn't, but in this case it looks like it is.

[Brando]

^^ This building was approved some time ago. The only thing keeping it back is commercial interests (finance, tenants, leasing, etc)

what is your point? it is like the le cornu site. the council claims that they are not against it blah blah, but they make it so difficult for developers by continuously tying them up in court they eventually give up. All i am saying is sometimes it is not as simple as no tenants.

Frank, you have to realise that during the recession of the early 90's, many prominent banks were seriously burnt by over commitment to the commercial sector. Hence, the reason why many banks will not fund a pre committed project. Also you have to look at it from a developers point of view. Pouring funds into a project such as this will only increase the risk profile of the company to the banks and make future lending of projects much harder.

Here in Adelaide, we really are at the mercy of supply and demand.

[frank1]

^^ This building was approved some time ago. The only thing keeping it back is commercial interests (finance, tenants, leasing, etc)

what is your point? it is like the le cornu site. the council claims that they are not against it blah blah, but they make it so difficult for developers by continuously tying them up in court they eventually give up. All i am saying is sometimes it is not as simple as no tenants.

Frank, you have to realise that during the recession of the early 90's, many prominent banks were seriously burnt by over commitment to the commercial sector. Hence, the reason why many banks will not fund a pre committed project. Also you have to look at it from a developers point of view. Pouring funds into a project such as this will only increase the risk profile of the company to the banks and make future lending of projects much harder.

Here in Adelaide, we really are at the mercy of supply and demand.

Fair call....i will leave my rant at that.

[Will]

This is dissapointing news, although not surprising considering the circumstances we find ourselves in.

For me, the saving grace of this development was the tower element. Remove that, and all you are left with is a 4 level box. As, such in my mind I cannot reconcile the destruction of the Harris Scarfe Building, which is a great example of interwar stripped classical architecture as well as the 1880s Roger David building which is a nice example of Italianate style for a bland box.

[Ben]

The amended application which includes the inclusion of the Roger David building is expected to recieve approval at tomorrow DAC meeting.

[Pikey]

The amended application which includes the inclusion of the Roger David building is expected to recieve approval at tomorrow DAC meeting.

Is the ony amendment the Roger David building? Are they still keeping the 19 levels in the DA?

[Ben]

The amended application which includes the inclusion of the Roger David building is expected to recieve approval at tomorrow DAC meeting.

Is the ony amendment the Roger David building? Are they still keeping the 19 levels in the DA?

Yep exactly the same, just the addition of this building and therefore greater building area.

[Ben]

This project was discussed at yesterdays council meeting "in confidence".

[Plasmatron]

In confidence, as in, confident that construction will go ahead in the near-future?

*tumbleweed rolls past*

Seriously though, I think this would make a bigger skyline impact than we realise. It's the same size as the former SA Water building on Grenfell Street, only more modern and shiny and stuff.

[skyliner]

SA water in Grenfell makes a greatskyline impact from Windy point. Another of that size in the area will markedly alter the skyline.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[Ben]

Good news on three fronts. Looks like an extra 2 levels meaning this will now be 21 levels and approx 101m and I can only assume this is because they have a tenant lined up who requires more space. Would be fantastic to have another over 100m.

DA/562/2008/B
26/11/2009
Development Application Received
Variation to previous authorisation to Demolish existing buildings and construct a 19 storey building comprising 4 storeys of retail (including basement) and 15 storeys of office accommodation - VARIATION to include an additional 2 storeys of office accomodation.
77-91 Rundle Mall, 90-100 Grenfell Street, 12-18 Francis Street & 1-19 Lindes Lane ADELAIDE SA