Sensational-Adelaide.com

Former backpack oz site on corner of Wakefield and Pulteney. Street.

144 WAKEFIELD ST ADELAIDE SA 5000
UNDER ASSESSMENT
Description
Demolition of existing building structures and construction of a 26 level building comprising hotel, tourist accommodation, restaurant and bar.
Application ID
22020961

If it's just the two storey backpacker site, that's going to be one thin tower.

And I, for one, welcome our thin tower overlords.

Is this a genuine proposal? Or a ploy to increase the value of the land?

What brand hotel would it be?

PeFe wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 14, 2022 3:34 pm

Is this a genuine proposal? Or a ploy to increase the value of the land?

What brand hotel would it be?

Backpack Oz?

Whether or not this proposal goes ahead, it is a great location for a new tower. Arriving in the city along Pulteney St from South Tce certainly feels different now compared to a few years ago when it was completely bereft of any height. It’s a bit clichéd, but it really did feel like driving in to a big country town rather than the heart of our city. The new Calvary Hospital, the tryp hotel, and the new Forme Projex apartments on Hurtle Square have all changed the vibe. This project would further help, the intersection of Wakefield and Pulteney Streets desperately needs some love and new development.

What’s the max height for this area ?

What’s the max height for this area ?

This is due to be approved next week. 86.5m

The original proposal was 32 levels and 106m but was revised down after pre assessment meetings, the height limit for the area is 53m.

https://www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov ... hments.pdf

Well at least it isn’t another square box

The idea of solar panels on the north side makes an interesting aesthetic finish, but you'd wonder what onerous restrictions it places on the northern neighbour to restrict obstructions to sunlight. You'd hope they purchased air rights from the neighbouring property, rather than dumping it on the council to mediate...

Those renders look pretty nice, but I hope they don't go ahead with the advertising sign. Those LED billboards are a massive eye sore, especially at night.

The fact the height was revised down to comply with height restrictions is a bit of a concern.

I understand why lower height limis may have been adopted for this area in the first place - it was predominantly low rise, and anything tall would have stck out like a sore thumb. But as there are increasing numbers of high rise buildings in the area (including the proposal for the tallest building in the city) it is time those height restrictions were revisited and the capital city zoning expanded.

dbl96 wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 08, 2022 11:59 am

The fact the height was revised down to comply with height restrictions is a bit of a concern.

I understand why lower height limis may have been adopted for this area in the first place - it was predominantly low rise, and anything tall would have stck out like a sore thumb. But as there are increasing numbers of high rise buildings in the area (including the proposal for the tallest building in the city) it is time those height restrictions were revisited and the capital city zoning expanded.

Maybe there's no economical reason they have for making it taller?

Anyhow, is it just me or does this tower look reminiscent?

dbl96 wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 08, 2022 11:59 am

But as there are increasing numbers of high rise buildings in the area (including the proposal for the tallest building in the city) it is time those height restrictions were revisited and the capital city zoning expanded.

I think this should wait until the rest of the CBD catches up and is developed enough to meet that sort of density. Right now these buildings still stick out like a sore thumb to me