[PRO] 56 - 62 Pulteney Street | ~112m | 35 Levels | Student accommodation
[PRO] Re: 56 - 62 Pulteney Street | ~112m | 35 Levels | Student accommodation
It's hard to judge with excessive sunlit glow. From afar, it almost looks passable, though awkward. But up close, the windows look cheap.
No issue with the developer proposing student accomodation. But I am frustrated that we're seeing very few apartment proposals; as someone looking, the options are lacking.
No issue with the developer proposing student accomodation. But I am frustrated that we're seeing very few apartment proposals; as someone looking, the options are lacking.
Last edited by SRW on Thu May 08, 2025 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Keep Adelaide Weird
- timtam20292
- Super Size Scraper Poster!
- Posts: 1567
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:03 pm
[PRO] Re: 56 - 62 Pulteney Street | ~112m | 35 Levels | Student accommodation
Love the ground floor. Unfortunately the rest of the building is reminding me of what's planned for the old Adelaide Metro site.
It might grow on me. Might.
It might grow on me. Might.
-
- Legendary Member!
- Posts: 776
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 5:03 pm
[PRO] Re: 56 - 62 Pulteney Street | ~112m | 35 Levels | Student accommodation
What ever it eventually looks like, it’s better then this dump of a building on the site.
- gnrc_louis
- Legendary Member!
- Posts: 1018
- Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:04 pm
- Location: Adelaide
[PRO] Re: 56 - 62 Pulteney Street | ~112m | 35 Levels | Student accommodation
lolVinyTapestry849 wrote: ↑Thu May 08, 2025 4:03 amWhat ever it eventually looks like, it’s better then this dump of a building on the site.
[PRO] Re: 56 - 62 Pulteney Street | ~112m | 35 Levels | Student accommodation
Eh. The building on site is great with the street level activation, and since it's low-rise it's not like it's something ugly that can't be avoided. A Switch quality tower on this site would be a definite downgrade.VinyTapestry849 wrote: ↑Thu May 08, 2025 4:03 amWhat ever it eventually looks like, it’s better then this dump of a building on the site.
Hopefully there is a push to ensure that the buildings finish is good.
[PRO] Re: 56 - 62 Pulteney Street | ~112m | 35 Levels | Student accommodation
Has anyone heard any word about the Council’s plans to redevelop the neighbouring Hungry Jacks car park site? I remember a couple of years back they were saying it would likely be their next project after the Market Arcade. It would be interesting to see how it will interact with the proposal at the Block.
Also, conspicuous absence of renders showing the north and east sides of the proposed building. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some blank concrete wall surprises waiting for us.
Also, conspicuous absence of renders showing the north and east sides of the proposed building. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some blank concrete wall surprises waiting for us.
[PRO] Re: 56 - 62 Pulteney Street | ~112m | 35 Levels | Student accommodation
As far as student accommodation goes this doesn't seem as bad as some. I'll be interested to see more detailed renders.
Their other projects look like a mixed bag. Someone on their design team really likes exposed air conditioning ducts
Their other projects look like a mixed bag. Someone on their design team really likes exposed air conditioning ducts

[PRO] Re: 56 - 62 Pulteney Street | ~112m | 35 Levels | Student accommodation
2030 is apparently when the current carpark will be end of life due to maintenance costs and tenant leases: https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2021/04 ... -to-expiredbl96 wrote: ↑Thu May 08, 2025 10:02 amHas anyone heard any word about the Council’s plans to redevelop the neighbouring Hungry Jacks car park site? I remember a couple of years back they were saying it would likely be their next project after the Market Arcade. It would be interesting to see how it will interact with the proposal at the Block.
Also, conspicuous absence of renders showing the north and east sides of the proposed building. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some blank concrete wall surprises waiting for us.
I expect there is a bare East facing fall, but since there is a laneway behind the site there would be no justification for having such a bare wall as it will never be built directly against (even if there is a good chance any views would be blocked by development on the U-park site)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 4 guests