[COM] 73-85 Pirie Street | 89m | 22 Levels | Office

[Spurdo]

Before anyone gets too upset, I recall reading in an article that Pelligra Group are planning on buying the Allianz building next door to this and demolishing that to make way for a large mixed use office/hotel development.

[timtam20292]

Before anyone gets too upset, I recall reading in an article that Pelligra Group are planning on buying the Allianz building next door to this and demolishing that to make way for a large mixed use office/hotel development.

If it’s that beautiful two story building then I hope it never happens.

[Patrick_27]

We say this a lot but really this is a prime spot for a much taller building as the latest render in context shows. I sometimes wonder if we were more strict on having setbacks whether that would influence taller/more interesting designs.

Planning Commission: "You have to build a taller building on this site or else we're not going to approve your design and proposal."

Developer: "But, I've followed all the design specifications and there is no monetary return or justification for us to build a taller building..."

Planning Commission: "BUT IT MUST BE TALLER, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY."

Developer: "OK, sure, I'll just design a building for this site that will never gets built because I won't be able to secure finance for the development due to a lack of commercial interest in the size and scale of my proposal."

See how stupid that sounds? If a building design is shit, sure, let's all discuss that and by all means complain about it to no end. But if a building (especially if it's a commercial/office building) doesn't crack the 100m+ mark, I honestly don't really see how a developer can be held accountable when the desired size for these developments by most on this forum isn't actually viable in Adelaide. I'd rather this glassy, stump of a thing go up than half of the tall, concrete slab style student accomodation buildings that have gone up or are yet to go up.

[Mpol03]

Being taller is one thing but for the love of god make it interesting.

[cmet]

We say this a lot but really this is a prime spot for a much taller building as the latest render in context shows. I sometimes wonder if we were more strict on having setbacks whether that would influence taller/more interesting designs.

Planning Commission: "You have to build a taller building on this site or else we're not going to approve your design and proposal."

Developer: "But, I've followed all the design specifications and there is no monetary return or justification for us to build a taller building..."

Planning Commission: "BUT IT MUST BE TALLER, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY."

Developer: "OK, sure, I'll just design a building for this site that will never gets built because I won't be able to secure finance for the development due to a lack of commercial interest in the size and scale of my proposal."

See how stupid that sounds? If a building design is shit, sure, let's all discuss that and by all means complain about it to no end. But if a building (especially if it's a commercial/office building) doesn't crack the 100m+ mark, I honestly don't really see how a developer can be held accountable when the desired size for these developments by most on this forum isn't actually viable in Adelaide. I'd rather this glassy, stump of a thing go up than half of the tall, concrete slab style student accomodation buildings that have gone up or are yet to go up.

This is correct, if it made sense for developers to design taller buildings in Adelaide, they would. Why would they do it if there’s no financial incentive?

[noted]

Before anyone gets too upset, I recall reading in an article that Pelligra Group are planning on buying the Allianz building next door to this and demolishing that to make way for a large mixed use office/hotel development.

If it’s that beautiful two story building then I hope it never happens.

Same, have always loved that one.

[Llessur2002]

Before anyone gets too upset, I recall reading in an article that Pelligra Group are planning on buying the Allianz building next door to this and demolishing that to make way for a large mixed use office/hotel development.

If it’s that beautiful two story building then I hope it never happens.

Same, have always loved that one.

You mean 89 Pirie Street?

https://content.knightfrank.com/propert ... 06a-73.jpg

Pretty sure that's State heritiage listed so demolition (at least of the facade) would be unlikely. Or do Allianz have another building nearby?

[arki]

We say this a lot but really this is a prime spot for a much taller building as the latest render in context shows. I sometimes wonder if we were more strict on having setbacks whether that would influence taller/more interesting designs.

Planning Commission: "You have to build a taller building on this site or else we're not going to approve your design and proposal."

Developer: "But, I've followed all the design specifications and there is no monetary return or justification for us to build a taller building..."

Planning Commission: "BUT IT MUST BE TALLER, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY."

Developer: "OK, sure, I'll just design a building for this site that will never gets built because I won't be able to secure finance for the development due to a lack of commercial interest in the size and scale of my proposal."

See how stupid that sounds? If a building design is shit, sure, let's all discuss that and by all means complain about it to no end. But if a building (especially if it's a commercial/office building) doesn't crack the 100m+ mark, I honestly don't really see how a developer can be held accountable when the desired size for these developments by most on this forum isn't actually viable in Adelaide. I'd rather this glassy, stump of a thing go up than half of the tall, concrete slab style student accomodation buildings that have gone up or are yet to go up.

Wow, talk about an overreaction and taking one word out of context.

My point was around encouraging more interesting designs (though you focus on the taller comment in isolation), and setbacks would almost certainly make for more creative and less bulky buildings with the added bonus of being taller to account for loss in floor plate size (which I admit is a tough ask when tenants are preferring the latter).

Of course I would take this any dayover the concrete student monstrosities poping up, but it is also disappointing to me that our A grade office demand is being soaked up by lackluster developments.

[Nort]

We say this a lot but really this is a prime spot for a much taller building as the latest render in context shows. I sometimes wonder if we were more strict on having setbacks whether that would influence taller/more interesting designs.

Planning Commission: "You have to build a taller building on this site or else we're not going to approve your design and proposal."

Developer: "But, I've followed all the design specifications and there is no monetary return or justification for us to build a taller building..."

Planning Commission: "BUT IT MUST BE TALLER, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY."

Developer: "OK, sure, I'll just design a building for this site that will never gets built because I won't be able to secure finance for the development due to a lack of commercial interest in the size and scale of my proposal."

See how stupid that sounds? If a building design is shit, sure, let's all discuss that and by all means complain about it to no end. But if a building (especially if it's a commercial/office building) doesn't crack the 100m+ mark, I honestly don't really see how a developer can be held accountable when the desired size for these developments by most on this forum isn't actually viable in Adelaide. I'd rather this glassy, stump of a thing go up than half of the tall, concrete slab style student accomodation buildings that have gone up or are yet to go up.

You totally misread what arki wrote.

The idea wasn't to mandate taller buildings, it was questioning if requiring setbacks could motivate taller construction (as it would require more floors to get the same amount of floor space).

edit: Whoops beaten.

[cmet]

That’s all well and good, but enforcing certain setbacks and plot ratio’s etc will still make a development more expensive for the same amount of lettable area. Still discourages development all the same.

In saying that, yes of course I would like to see more interesting designs than boring boxes.

[arki]

That’s all well and good, but enforcing certain setbacks and plot ratio’s etc will still make a development more expensive for the same amount of lettable area. Still discourages development all the same.

In saying that, yes of course I would like to see more interesting designs than boring boxes.

Sorry but I can’t subscribe to this. If we allow developers to take advantage then they will.

Imposing glass boxes that create uninspired glass and concrete canoyons are not conducive to good city planning, especially on a narrow street like Pirie.

Urban planning regulation from early 20th century NYC should serve as a very well established reference for you.

[Jaymz]

That’s all well and good, but enforcing certain setbacks and plot ratio’s etc will still make a development more expensive for the same amount of lettable area. Still discourages development all the same.

In saying that, yes of course I would like to see more interesting designs than boring boxes.

Sorry but I can’t subscribe to this. If we allow developers to take advantage then they will.

Imposing glass boxes that create uninspired glass and concrete canoyons are not conducive to good city planning, especially on a narrow street like Pirie.

Urban planning regulation from early 20th century NYC should serve as a very well established reference for you.

Narrow street like Pirie? I suggest you visit Sydney, Perth or Brisbane. Then you'll really see what a narrow street is.

[cmet]

That’s all well and good, but enforcing certain setbacks and plot ratio’s etc will still make a development more expensive for the same amount of lettable area. Still discourages development all the same.

In saying that, yes of course I would like to see more interesting designs than boring boxes.

Sorry but I can’t subscribe to this. If we allow developers to take advantage then they will.

Imposing glass boxes that create uninspired glass and concrete canoyons are not conducive to good city planning, especially on a narrow street like Pirie.

Urban planning regulation from early 20th century NYC should serve as a very well established reference for you.

I understand, but a developer is always going to be more concerned with the bottom line rater than they visual impact of their building at the end of the day. As we have more and more developments I believe we will see an increase in quality. This will be because there will be an incentive for developers to create more outstanding products in a competitive market. Currently in terms of appartments and office space, things are pretty bland. They don’t have too much to compare with, so why spend $$$$ trying to stand out?

[rhino]

Currently in terms of appartments and office space, things are pretty bland.

Realm.

They don’t have too much to compare with, so why spend $$$$ trying to stand out?

Realm.

There goes that argument.

[cmet]

Currently in terms of appartments and office space, things are pretty bland.

Realm.

They don’t have too much to compare with, so why spend $$$$ trying to stand out?

Realm.

There goes that argument.

That’s one, incomplete development


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk