PRO: [Kent Town] Park Central | 15lvls | $120m | Hotel

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in areas other than the CBD and North Adelaide. Includes Port Adelaide and Glenelg.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Ben
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 6652
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 1023 times

#REJ: Park Central | $50m | 9lvls | Residential | Kent Town

#1 Post by Ben » Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:59 pm

Resurection of Park Central:

From the City Messenger
ALL 41 apartments in a new nine-storey building proposed for the gateway to the east will be priced at more than $1 million

Plans for the $50 million block opposite the Brewery Apartments on Rundle St, Kent Town, have been lodged with Norwood, Payneham & St Peters Council. Urban Construct chief executive Todd Brown said his firm's latest high profile development would be promoted as a ``millionaire's club''.

``They will be pretty exclusive, it is a boutique-style development.'' The building is a scaled back version of a development rejected by NP&SP in 2003.
Mr Brown said significant changes had been made to the building's scale and design.

``We've worked closely with the ... council and Heritage SA to ensure the development complements its surrounding streetscape and respects and commemorates its heritage value,'' he said.

The new proposal submitted to the council last month is two storeys shorter than the original, and has a smaller footprint.
It also incorporates the site'e heritage-listed building.

NPSP development assessment manager Vanessa Nixon said last week staff were preparing to release the development plans for public consultation.
Ms Nixon said the application would go the the council's development panel in the coming months.

The company first submitted plans to the council in 2003, which were rejected by the panel.

The decision was appealed by the developers, but the Environment, Resources & Development Court upheld the council's verdict.

At the time, the court dismissed the appeal because the design was ``bad mannered'' and did not fit with the NP&SP development plan.
Attachments
COPY_OF_RUNDLE.jpg
COPY_OF_RUNDLE.jpg (10.08 KiB) Viewed 6164 times

alfer7_3
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:19 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: 9Lv $50M Apartments - Kent Town

#2 Post by alfer7_3 » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:14 pm

Is this the new concept of Urban Constructs Park Central apartments that they proposed a few years ago? Anyhow i like these alot better. i hope they get built. id like to see a wall of apartments along that part of Dequeteville Terrece. Cheers

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5522
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: 9Lv $50M Apartments - Kent Town

#3 Post by Will » Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:06 pm

It looks OK, but I'm dissapointed with the original decision by the council and the courts to reject the original 14 and 11 level proposals.

User avatar
jimmy_2486
Legendary Member!
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Glenelg-Marion Area

Re: 9Lv $50M Apartments - Kent Town

#4 Post by jimmy_2486 » Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:34 pm

Will wrote:It looks OK, but I'm dissapointed with the original decision by the council and the courts to reject the original 14 and 11 level proposals.
You realize its probably the work of the ACC here.........again, they would reject a billion dollar donation!!

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

Re: 9Lv $50M Apartments - Kent Town

#5 Post by AtD » Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:53 pm

It'd be in Norwood, Payneham and St Peters.

Ben
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 6652
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 1023 times

Re: 9Lv $50M Apartments - Kent Town

#6 Post by Ben » Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:51 am

Norwood project rejected
RUSSELL EMMERSON, REAL ESTATE EDITOR

November 16, 2007 01:15am

A MULTIMILLION-dollar residential development proposed as the "new gateway" to Norwood has been knocked back by the city council's development panel.

Developer Urban Construct has spent more than $1 million on the proposal since 2001 but had its amendment rejected by Norwood, Payneham and St Peter's Council assessment panel this week.

It would have been near the corner of Rundle St and Dequetteville Tce, opposite the Brewery apartments but the development was out of proportion with existing heritage buildings, acting development assessment manager Mark Thomson said.

The density of the apartments was also given as a reason for the rejection. The panel voted 5-3 to reject the recommendation by staff, he said.

"It is a difficult policy to interpret because it doesn't give any guidance on . . . the amount of space required for (existing) residential development," Mr Thomson said. "(Urban Construct) didn't become frustrated, but did say . . . they had spent more than $1 million on the project over the last five years."

Urban Construct chief executive Todd Brown said he was still "shell-shocked" and would decide on the next step in a few days.

"It is obvious the council have struggled making a decision," Mr Brown said.

"Do they want to end up with a fast-food type operation on the corner? That would be completely out of character but within council's policy.

"That is why things like the major projects process have been introduced - when developers put together deals, the council can't give a decision."

The original proposal for 192 apartments was cut down to 117 apartments before being rejected by the panel and on appeal in 2002.

ozisnowman
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:34 pm
Been thanked: 10 times

Norwood Project Rejected

#7 Post by ozisnowman » Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:26 am

Source The Advertiser

A MULTIMILLION-dollar residential development proposed as the "new gateway" to Norwood has been knocked back by the city council's development panel.

Developer Urban Construct has spent more than $1 million on the proposal since 2001 but had its amendment rejected by Norwood, Payneham and St Peter's Council assessment panel this week.

It would have been near the corner of Rundle St and Dequetteville Tce, opposite the Brewery apartments but the development was out of proportion with existing heritage buildings, acting development assessment manager Mark Thomson said.

The density of the apartments was also given as a reason for the rejection. The panel voted 5-3 to reject the recommendation by staff, he said.

"It is a difficult policy to interpret because it doesn't give any guidance on . . . the amount of space required for (existing) residential development," Mr Thomson said. "(Urban Construct) didn't become frustrated, but did say . . . they had spent more than $1 million on the project over the last five years."

Urban Construct chief executive Todd Brown said he was still "shell-shocked" and would decide on the next step in a few days.

"It is obvious the council have struggled making a decision," Mr Brown said.

"Do they want to end up with a fast-food type operation on the corner? That would be completely out of character but within council's policy.

"That is why things like the major projects process have been introduced - when developers put together deals, the council can't give a decision."

The original proposal for 192 apartments was cut down to 117 apartments before being rejected by the panel and on appeal in 2002.
With Adelaide's foreseeable problems regarding Urban Sprawl, Climate Change, Water Shortages,
Transport and Infrastructure limitations i cant believe such residential developments aren't getting
the tick of approval. Whats the problem of having a high rise next to a heritage building???
as the article said would the council prefer a McDonalds or Hungry Jacks there that would go even
worse with the heritage building than a high rise appartment building.

This is why i think all planning control for the Adelaide Metro Area needs to come under one governing authority.
This authority should set out a plan of what Adelaide should look like and where high rise developments
should go it should also have some consideration for heritage, but heritage should not be the be all
and end all of decision making.

ozisnowman
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:34 pm
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Norwood Project Rejected

#8 Post by ozisnowman » Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:30 am

The project rejected i believe is Urban Construct's Park Central - Kent Town opposite the
Kent Town Brewery Appartments. There is a render in today's Advertiser also.

urban
Legendary Member!
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:59 am
Location: City of Unley
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Norwood Project Rejected

#9 Post by urban » Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:58 am

ozisnowman wrote:This authority should set out a plan of what Adelaide should look like and where high rise developments
should go it should also have some consideration for heritage, but heritage should not be the be all
and end all of decision making.
How would this be different from existing Development Plans?

Ben
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 6652
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 1023 times

Re: Norwood Project Rejected

#10 Post by Ben » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:09 am

there is already a thread on this...

http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... php?t=1030

ozisnowman
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:34 pm
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Norwood Project Rejected

#11 Post by ozisnowman » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:35 am

urban wrote:
ozisnowman wrote:This authority should set out a plan of what Adelaide should look like and where high rise developments
should go it should also have some consideration for heritage, but heritage should not be the be all
and end all of decision making.
How would this be different from existing Development Plans?
I am not talking about the Adelaide CBD PAR or whatever they call it but it should be
cover the whole Metropolitan Area rather than being determined by individual
councils as currently is the case.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2910
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Norwood Project Rejected

#12 Post by rhino » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:01 am

It's not difficult to combine modern architecture with a heritage streetscape. It has been done quite successfully on Grenfell Street. The Rocks area of Sydney abounds with it.
cheers,
Rhino

frank1
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 439
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:54 pm

Re: 9Lv $50M Apartments - Kent Town

#13 Post by frank1 » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:17 pm

Another development knocked back, couldn't see that coming :roll:

User avatar
jk1237
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:22 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Norwood Project Rejected

#14 Post by jk1237 » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:22 pm

how do we get rid of these councils. what a friggin stupid decision. The brewery aptmts across the road are taller and larger. Far out, Kent Town is crying out for some med-high density housing, the suburb is the most ruined of all in Adelaide, by the building of warehouses and awful single storey offices, so ffs, what residents is it going to adversely affect. Most of Kent Towns heritage has already gone already, and that old mansion on the corner is out of place anyway. Urban sprawl goes on. Old retards rule our city. What a perfect spot for something like that ie looking over the parklands, people can actually WALK to the city. Not happy

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5522
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: 9Lv $50M Apartments - Kent Town

#15 Post by Will » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:45 pm

This is further evidence as to why local councils should be merged, because such decisions are not in the best interest of Adelaide as a whole. Local councillors still live in a nostalgic fantasy that they are governing small villages.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests