[APP] 292-300 Rundle Street | 63m | 20 Levels | Mixed Use

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Message
Author
User avatar
metro
Legendary Member!
Posts: 962
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:11 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 371 times
Been thanked: 49 times

[APP] Re: 292-300 Rundle Street | 63m | 20 Levels | Mixed Use

#121 Post by metro » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:27 pm

zippySA wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:40 pm
This simply is out of total scale for the location and Adelaide as a whole...
..This is a real shame I say.
Meanwhile the city's new tallest is getting built a block away. How is it out of scale when it is so close to a building more than twice its height?

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5416
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 179 times
Been thanked: 320 times

[APP] Re: 292-300 Rundle Street | 63m | 20 Levels | Mixed Use

#122 Post by crawf » Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:12 pm

I like that design tbh.

I definitely share the same concerns regarding the Fringe events. Though there is already apartments facing Rymill Park, and Gluttony is getting bigger and stronger every year.

Mpol03
Legendary Member!
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:39 am
Has thanked: 277 times
Been thanked: 46 times

[APP] Re: 292-300 Rundle Street | 63m | 20 Levels | Mixed Use

#123 Post by Mpol03 » Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:29 pm

When the renders are so highly computerised you can’t make out much, then I really worry.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 261 times
Been thanked: 375 times

[APP] Re: 292-300 Rundle Street | 63m | 20 Levels | Mixed Use

#124 Post by rev » Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:09 am

zippySA wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:40 pm
It's telling that the render is positioned to be the "least offensive" view from way back on North Tce.
On the contrary it shows the impact on the skyline that this will have in the immediate area surrounding it, so it could actually act as a negative point of discussion against this development.
This simply is out of total scale for the location and Adelaide as a whole. Our planning system and advocates for high-rise residential have simlpy got it wrong.
With all our space, and as any decent urban planner will attest, appropriate scale is part of livable city - this development simply raises the middle finger to everyone else and grabs what they want - high value returns and benefits for a few people who wish to live with a view (and probably regret quickly living in a small apartment above 15 stories high - particularly as they get used to travelling up and down in a lift all day).
With that mentality nothing taller will get built. As you said, so much of our "City" is flat are low rise. So what location do you propose for this?

At some stage, taller buildings will have to start popping up, if the city's population is to grow(which is the plan). That will see buildings built that are for a period of time, taller then their surroundings.
In time though, they will be among other tall buildings and wont look out of place to some people.

This is a capital city. This is the core of our capital. We can not have 2-3-4 story "apartments" and "town houses.
This is not suburbia.
It's a crying shame we have any such rubbish within the square mile, but we do, thanks to the Adelaide City Circus.

This is the so called "downtown" of Adelaide. It's time it started to resemble a city, and not another suburb.

Here's to more "towers" filling the 5000 post code.
Why aren't we ensuring all developments are taken into context with a broader plan - these huge high-rises right on the fringe simlpy aren't necessary. They could (and should) make excellent profit (higher % yield on lower volume) by developing smaller urban scale apartments on such a prime location (4-6 levels max and complimentary to the surrounds through intelligent architecture).
This is a real shame I say.
Like I said, this isn't another suburb out at Mawson Lakes where 4-6 levels concrete boxes will cut it.
This is the center of a capital city.

This big country town mentality has no place in Adelaide, or any capital city.

User avatar
Pikey
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 2231
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Sitting Down
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 341 times

[APP] Re: 292-300 Rundle Street | 63m | 20 Levels | Mixed Use

#125 Post by Pikey » Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:14 am

I have little concern over the proximity of the Fringe in regards to this development. If anything, buyers are being drawn into the area due to the fact this event occurs every March, amongst other attracting factors. I would say apartments are being purchased off the back of this.
In fact, I would say the current residential boom that is occurring in our eastern section of the city is well and truly born of this fact.
Walking on over....

| Sensational-Adelaide.com Moderator |

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1073
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 332 times
Been thanked: 79 times

[APP] Re: 292-300 Rundle Street | 63m | 20 Levels | Mixed Use

#126 Post by SBD » Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:18 pm

metro wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:27 pm
zippySA wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:40 pm
This simply is out of total scale for the location and Adelaide as a whole...
..This is a real shame I say.
Meanwhile the city's new tallest is getting built a block away. How is it out of scale when it is so close to a building more than twice its height?
I wonder how far across Rymill/Rundle Park I'd need to walk to see Adelaidean over the top. Presumably it stops being out-of-scale once I'm far enough away that it stops looking like the biggest thing around.

jim_c500
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:46 pm
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 2 times

[APP] Re: 292-300 Rundle Street | 63m | 20 Levels | Mixed Use

#127 Post by jim_c500 » Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:04 am

rev wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:09 am
zippySA wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:40 pm
It's telling that the render is positioned to be the "least offensive" view from way back on North Tce.
On the contrary it shows the impact on the skyline that this will have in the immediate area surrounding it, so it could actually act as a negative point of discussion against this development.
This simply is out of total scale for the location and Adelaide as a whole. Our planning system and advocates for high-rise residential have simlpy got it wrong.
With all our space, and as any decent urban planner will attest, appropriate scale is part of livable city - this development simply raises the middle finger to everyone else and grabs what they want - high value returns and benefits for a few people who wish to live with a view (and probably regret quickly living in a small apartment above 15 stories high - particularly as they get used to travelling up and down in a lift all day).
With that mentality nothing taller will get built. As you said, so much of our "City" is flat are low rise. So what location do you propose for this?

At some stage, taller buildings will have to start popping up, if the city's population is to grow(which is the plan). That will see buildings built that are for a period of time, taller then their surroundings.
In time though, they will be among other tall buildings and wont look out of place to some people.

This is a capital city. This is the core of our capital. We can not have 2-3-4 story "apartments" and "town houses.
This is not suburbia.
It's a crying shame we have any such rubbish within the square mile, but we do, thanks to the Adelaide City Circus.

This is the so called "downtown" of Adelaide. It's time it started to resemble a city, and not another suburb.

Here's to more "towers" filling the 5000 post code.
Why aren't we ensuring all developments are taken into context with a broader plan - these huge high-rises right on the fringe simlpy aren't necessary. They could (and should) make excellent profit (higher % yield on lower volume) by developing smaller urban scale apartments on such a prime location (4-6 levels max and complimentary to the surrounds through intelligent architecture).
This is a real shame I say.
Like I said, this isn't another suburb out at Mawson Lakes where 4-6 levels concrete boxes will cut it.
This is the center of a capital city.

This big country town mentality has no place in Adelaide, or any capital city.
:applause: :applause: :applause:

User avatar
[Shuz]
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm
Has thanked: 1009 times
Been thanked: 258 times

[APP] Re: 292-300 Rundle Street | 63m | 20 Levels | Mixed Use

#128 Post by [Shuz] » Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:44 pm

There are ample development sites within the CBD that are far more appropriate for proposals like this one.

A 63m tall development for an area that has a very well preserved heritage and streetscape, which consists of 19th century low-rise 2 to 3 storey buildings is an absolutely inappropriate and disrespectful proposal.

This should be rejected outright, no ifs or buts about it.
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 261 times
Been thanked: 375 times

[APP] Re: 292-300 Rundle Street | 63m | 20 Levels | Mixed Use

#129 Post by rev » Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:25 am

Pikey wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:14 am
I have little concern over the proximity of the Fringe in regards to this development. If anything, buyers are being drawn into the area due to the fact this event occurs every March, amongst other attracting factors. I would say apartments are being purchased off the back of this.
In fact, I would say the current residential boom that is occurring in our eastern section of the city is well and truly born of this fact.
I'd have thought the whole Rundle Street/Rundle Mall aspect was more of a factor then events that could be relocated to another part of the parklands.

Champs84
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 8 times

[APP] Re: 292-300 Rundle Street | 63m | 20 Levels | Mixed Use

#130 Post by Champs84 » Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:51 am

[Shuz] wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:44 pm
There are ample development sites within the CBD that are far more appropriate for proposals like this one.

A 63m tall development for an area that has a very well preserved heritage and streetscape, which consists of 19th century low-rise 2 to 3 storey buildings is an absolutely inappropriate and disrespectful proposal.

This should be rejected outright, no ifs or buts about it.
So who are you saying got this wrong? The DAP? Surely you don't expect developers to pick sites based on what looks best for a city?

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 261 times
Been thanked: 375 times

[APP] Re: 292-300 Rundle Street | 63m | 20 Levels | Mixed Use

#131 Post by rev » Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:13 am

[Shuz] wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:44 pm
There are ample development sites within the CBD that are far more appropriate for proposals like this one.

A 63m tall development for an area that has a very well preserved heritage and streetscape, which consists of 19th century low-rise 2 to 3 storey buildings is an absolutely inappropriate and disrespectful proposal.

This should be rejected outright, no ifs or buts about it.
Why can't modern high rise exist with 'heritage' facades at ground level in Adelaide?
Seems to work elsewhere...I mean, we aren't talking about ancient temples of significant importance to the evolution of western civilization.

Nort
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 222 times
Been thanked: 134 times

[APP] Re: 292-300 Rundle Street | 63m | 20 Levels | Mixed Use

#132 Post by Nort » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:16 pm

[Shuz] wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:44 pm
There are ample development sites within the CBD that are far more appropriate for proposals like this one.

A 63m tall development for an area that has a very well preserved heritage and streetscape, which consists of 19th century low-rise 2 to 3 storey buildings is an absolutely inappropriate and disrespectful proposal.

This should be rejected outright, no ifs or buts about it.
If it was disrupting the streetscape I would 100% agree with you.

As it is though, this seems to be entirely setback from East Terrace and Rundle Street and won't alter the ground level streetscape beyond possible shading. Given that the street is most popular in the afternoons and evenings however that shouldn't be a problem. My main concern would be apartment owners complaining about the noise and activity come Fringe time, but there is already precedent for residents in the area living with those activities, and more people living in the precinct can increase Rundle Streets liveliness all year round.

Definitely needs to be carefully looked at, but I don't think it's necessarily bad for the area and could even be good.

zippySA
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:29 pm
Been thanked: 8 times

[APP] Re: 292-300 Rundle Street | 63m | 20 Levels | Mixed Use

#133 Post by zippySA » Thu May 10, 2018 2:02 pm

interesting collection of alternate views on this one - though the "no's" seem very much in the minority and S-A is very much a "taller is better" audience (I say deliberately awaiting the attacks from known users)

Question to moderators: would love to see one of your surveys - a simple yes or no to everyone who debates high rise appartment living - do you live in an appartment above level 4 from ground?

Would love to know how many people have experienced high rise apartment living for real and not just enjoy tall buildings for the sake of it!

Me personally - couldn't think of anything worse than living in a box in the sky when I live in one of the greenest and most beautiful cities in the world and have the luck to be able to live at ground level surrounded by trees! For the record - I live in the hills on 5,500sqm, 100yr old 4 room cottage surrounded by farms and vineyards - and very happy for "others" to live in apartments - but don't advocate our city to go up just for the hell of it. Yes - we need to densify (to protect my lifestyle from urban sprawl :-) )

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 152 times

[APP] Re: 292-300 Rundle Street | 63m | 20 Levels | Mixed Use

#134 Post by Goodsy » Thu May 10, 2018 2:31 pm

zippySA wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 2:02 pm
interesting collection of alternate views on this one - though the "no's" seem very much in the minority and S-A is very much a "taller is better" audience (I say deliberately awaiting the attacks from known users)

Question to moderators: would love to see one of your surveys - a simple yes or no to everyone who debates high rise apartment living - do you live in an apartment above level 4 from ground?

Would love to know how many people have experienced high rise apartment living for real and not just enjoy tall buildings for the sake of it!

Me personally - couldn't think of anything worse than living in a box in the sky when I live in one of the greenest and most beautiful cities in the world and have the luck to be able to live at ground level surrounded by trees! For the record - I live in the hills on 5,500sqm, 100yr old 4 room cottage surrounded by farms and vineyards - and very happy for "others" to live in apartments - but don't advocate our city to go up just for the hell of it. Yes - we need to densify (to protect my lifestyle from urban sprawl :-) )
nobody is being forced at gunpoint to buy and live in these apartments and the developers wouldn't spend the money if there wasn't already a demand.

ml69
Legendary Member!
Posts: 841
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:16 pm
Location: Adelaide SA
Has thanked: 88 times
Been thanked: 67 times

[APP] Re: 292-300 Rundle Street | 63m | 20 Levels | Mixed Use

#135 Post by ml69 » Thu May 10, 2018 10:06 pm

zippySA wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 2:02 pm
interesting collection of alternate views on this one - though the "no's" seem very much in the minority and S-A is very much a "taller is better" audience (I say deliberately awaiting the attacks from known users)

Question to moderators: would love to see one of your surveys - a simple yes or no to everyone who debates high rise appartment living - do you live in an appartment above level 4 from ground?

Would love to know how many people have experienced high rise apartment living for real and not just enjoy tall buildings for the sake of it!

Me personally - couldn't think of anything worse than living in a box in the sky when I live in one of the greenest and most beautiful cities in the world and have the luck to be able to live at ground level surrounded by trees! For the record - I live in the hills on 5,500sqm, 100yr old 4 room cottage surrounded by farms and vineyards - and very happy for "others" to live in apartments - but don't advocate our city to go up just for the hell of it. Yes - we need to densify (to protect my lifestyle from urban sprawl :-) )
Several years ago, I lived on level 4 of an 8-storey "upmarket" apartment building in Sydney.

I have to say, I loved the convenience and low maintenance, and I'd consider apartment living again when I downsize later in life.

I would say the critical thing to make apartments "liveable" is a decent size balcony with a reasonable view. It is the main way for an apartment resident to escape the inside and connect with the outside in your own personal space.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EBG and 15 guests