The reality is that the developers are going to build a 6000 sqm2 building as that is what they feel the market could absorb. If they had secured the neighbouring property, they would still have most likely persued a 6000 sqm2 building. Except that with a bigger footprint it would not have been 86m, but rather another 40-50m cube.Ho Really wrote:
So, if an opinion is different from yours, they are whingers. Design is fine for what they have been restricted too, but the location is wrong for such a building. Yes, pity about the blank walls!
Would rather see those extra floors on Rundle Place than on this development and that is next to the mall! That's a location!
I am curious to know your objections to this development. Why is the location wrong for the building? and what is wrong with a thin building? I would have thought that it would have been a refreshing change from the fat and stumpy cubes we are accustomed to here in Adelaide.