[PRO] North Terrace/Morphett Street | Trinity City | ~105m | 27 Levels | Office

[AG]

I think this one looks pretty nice, especially form that render looking from the north.

If this one does get off the ground, then there's goes my argument for Adelaide needing to get our first true commercial skyscraper off the ground. Not that this is a skyscraper of course, but with 61,000sqm of lettable space, this one could've easily been a true 'scraper if in a different location on a smaller block. If you put those two towers on top of each other, minus one of the podiums then you'd imagine it could be around the 180 - 200 metre mark.

Yep, 61,000sqm lettable space is huge. About 2/3 of the Rialto Towers. If it were a more slender tower, it would be pushing 160m at the absolute minimum. In this case though, for the proposed uses, small floor plates wouldn't really work.

How do they measure demand for specific sectors such as health? I can't imagine the size of this tower being a "health sector only" tower which is what they're marketing it as. Stand to be corrected though.

They might be marketing it that way with the intention of selling the development to one of the larger REITs such as Dexus or Charter Hall, I suspect.

[gnrc_louis]

Leasing listing is up on Real Commercial: https://www.realcommercial.com.au/for-l ... -504172019

[Prodical]

The office leasing sign on Morphett street.

Really hope this gets built - the West End would be v different if this + Uni SA + 1-8 North Tce eventuate

[Ben]

Application was lodged yesterday.

22-32 MORPHETT ST ADELAIDE SA 5000,88 NORTH TCE ADELAIDE SA 5000
UNDER ASSESSMENT
Description
Partial demolition of a Local Heritage Place, alterations and additions to a State Heritage Place and Local Heritage Place, removal of a regulated tree (Celtis laevigata) and construction of a twenty-seven (27) level building comprising offices, child care centre, ancillary gymnasium, car parking and landscaping.
Application ID
22043182

[Prodical]

Thanks for the update, Ben - great news.

Lodged with the SCAP?

[rev]

Application was lodged yesterday.

22-32 MORPHETT ST ADELAIDE SA 5000,88 NORTH TCE ADELAIDE SA 5000
UNDER ASSESSMENT
Description
Partial demolition of a Local Heritage Place, alterations and additions to a State Heritage Place and Local Heritage Place, removal of a regulated tree (Celtis laevigata) and construction of a twenty-seven (27) level building comprising offices, child care centre, ancillary gymnasium, car parking and landscaping.
Application ID
22043182

I had to look up what a Celtis laevigata is.
Why is a tree native to North America regulated here where permission is needed to remove it?

[Nort]

Application was lodged yesterday.

22-32 MORPHETT ST ADELAIDE SA 5000,88 NORTH TCE ADELAIDE SA 5000
UNDER ASSESSMENT
Description
Partial demolition of a Local Heritage Place, alterations and additions to a State Heritage Place and Local Heritage Place, removal of a regulated tree (Celtis laevigata) and construction of a twenty-seven (27) level building comprising offices, child care centre, ancillary gymnasium, car parking and landscaping.
Application ID
22043182

I had to look up what a Celtis laevigata is.
Why is a tree native to North America regulated here where permission is needed to remove it?

Assume it's this one, in which case it would be the size probably.

[WGG]

Application was lodged yesterday.

22-32 MORPHETT ST ADELAIDE SA 5000,88 NORTH TCE ADELAIDE SA 5000
UNDER ASSESSMENT
Description
Partial demolition of a Local Heritage Place, alterations and additions to a State Heritage Place and Local Heritage Place, removal of a regulated tree (Celtis laevigata) and construction of a twenty-seven (27) level building comprising offices, child care centre, ancillary gymnasium, car parking and landscaping.
Application ID
22043182

I had to look up what a Celtis laevigata is.
Why is a tree native to North America regulated here where permission is needed to remove it?

Because it has a trunk with a circumference greater than 2.0 metres, and is not a species which is exempt from requiring development approval to remove.

[WGG]

Thanks for the update, Ben - great news.

Lodged with the SCAP?

Yes, this will be a decision by the SCAP.

[rev]

Application was lodged yesterday.

I had to look up what a Celtis laevigata is.
Why is a tree native to North America regulated here where permission is needed to remove it?

Because it has a trunk with a circumference greater than 2.0 metres, and is not a species which is exempt from requiring development approval to remove.

Yeh I got the part that it's not exempt.
Why is a species of tree native to another part of the world protected is the question.
What's it's significance other then a trunk circumference greater then 2m

[WGG]

I had to look up what a Celtis laevigata is.
Why is a tree native to North America regulated here where permission is needed to remove it?

Because it has a trunk with a circumference greater than 2.0 metres, and is not a species which is exempt from requiring development approval to remove.

Yeh I got the part that it's not exempt.
Why is a species of tree native to another part of the world protected is the question.
What's it's significance other then a trunk circumference greater then 2m

A tree doesn't need to be native to Australia to have legislative status.
Perhaps why there is a review of regulated tree legislation currently underway.
There are dozens of unsuitable trees which end up achieving a protected status purely based on their dimensions.

An interesting read here, which will inform the Commission's findings and recommendations:
https://dit.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf ... Review.pdf

Interestingly, Dr Nicolle recommends that all Celtis vartieties be not excluded from the definition of regulated (where some Celtis varieties are currently excluded).

Do you have a particular disdain for Celtis species or simply because it is not native to Australia?

[Nort]

Large trees are protected because they can take decades or even a century+ to replace.

[Llessur2002]

Why is a species of tree native to another part of the world protected is the question.
What's it's significance other then a trunk circumference greater then 2m

I'll try to find the papers and link to them when I get the time but I was reading into this a few months ago. In a nutshell, deciduous (i.e. almost exclusively exotic) trees are typically superior to most Australian native trees for mitigating urban heat island effect due to their denser canopies. The one edge natives tend to have in this regard is they trap less heat at ground level overnight due to the aforementioned sparser canopy, but that's at the expense of preventing heat build-up in the first place.

In urban environments it's therefore arguable that many mature exotic trees are just as, if not more, worthy of protection (and planting) as natives.

With regards to trunk circumference, this is in most cases directly related to maturity and therefore canopy cover so it makes sense to preserve the biggest examples which have the greatest impacts.

[rev]

Because it has a trunk with a circumference greater than 2.0 metres, and is not a species which is exempt from requiring development approval to remove.

Yeh I got the part that it's not exempt.
Why is a species of tree native to another part of the world protected is the question.
What's it's significance other then a trunk circumference greater then 2m

A tree doesn't need to be native to Australia to have legislative status.
Perhaps why there is a review of regulated tree legislation currently underway.
There are dozens of unsuitable trees which end up achieving a protected status purely based on their dimensions.

An interesting read here, which will inform the Commission's findings and recommendations:
https://dit.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf ... Review.pdf

Interestingly, Dr Nicolle recommends that all Celtis vartieties be not excluded from the definition of regulated (where some Celtis varieties are currently excluded).

Do you have a particular disdain for Celtis species or simply because it is not native to Australia?

It was just a question to (hopefully) get an answer to better understand why.

I'll try to find the papers and link to them when I get the time but I was reading into this a few months ago. In a nutshell, deciduous (i.e. almost exclusively exotic) trees are typically superior to most Australian native trees for mitigating urban heat island effect due to their denser canopies. The one edge natives tend to have in this regard is they trap less heat at ground level overnight due to the aforementioned sparser canopy, but that's at the expense of preventing heat build-up in the first place.

In urban environments it's therefore arguable that many mature exotic trees are just as, if not more, worthy of protection (and planting) as natives.

With regards to trunk circumference, this is in most cases directly related to maturity and therefore canopy cover so it makes sense to preserve the biggest examples which have the greatest impacts.

Thanks.

[dbl96]

Why is a species of tree native to another part of the world protected is the question.
What's it's significance other then a trunk circumference greater then 2m

I'll try to find the papers and link to them when I get the time but I was reading into this a few months ago. In a nutshell, deciduous (i.e. almost exclusively exotic) trees are typically superior to most Australian native trees for mitigating urban heat island effect due to their denser canopies. The one edge natives tend to have in this regard is they trap less heat at ground level overnight due to the aforementioned sparser canopy, but that's at the expense of preventing heat build-up in the first place.

In urban environments it's therefore arguable that many mature exotic trees are just as, if not more, worthy of protection (and planting) as natives.

With regards to trunk circumference, this is in most cases directly related to maturity and therefore canopy cover so it makes sense to preserve the biggest examples which have the greatest impacts.

Exactly. A tree is a tree. Native trees are valuable, but so are exotic ones.

Its also worth pointing out that many "native" trees are not actually native to Adelaide. Why exactly is a tree like a lemon-scented gum (native to Queensland) more valuable than a celtis (native to North America)? Neither are from this place, and neither are part of its native ecosystem.

All large trees should be preserved at all cost, because they take so long to replace. However, we also need better protection for all other urban vegetation - smaller trees and bushes make up the majority of the urban greenery that off-sets the urban heat island effect and provides homes for wildlife.

Urban infill has become the bogeyman for decreasing urban tree cover, but as I see it, the main issue is actually with demolition practices. Often, vegetation on a building site would actually fit around what is proposed to be built. However, unless forced by law to protect particular trees, demolition contractors always completely level the block, destroying all vegetation right up to the fence-line, presumably because it is the easiest thing to do.

Rather than being able to destroy unregulated vegetation, developers should not be allowed to clear vegetation which falls outside of the footprint of the proposed building.