Page 1 of 2
[APP] 162 -166 GOUGER ST | 57m | 16 Levels | Residential
Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2024 8:48 am
by Ben
Lodged yesterday
162 -166 GOUGER ST ADELAIDE SA 5000,168 GOUGER ST ADELAIDE SA 5000
Under Assessment
Description
Mixed-use building up to 16 levels in height, comprised of 107 dwellings with podium car parking and three (3) ground level shops.
[APP] Re: 162 -166 GOUGER ST | ~55m | 16 Levels | Residential
Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2024 4:52 pm
by gnrc_louis
Not sure if this is for this site or not but could someone please post:
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscrib ... nt-2-SCORE
[APP] Re: 162 -166 GOUGER ST | ~55m | 16 Levels | Residential
Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2024 5:02 pm
by rev
This is on the western end of Gouger street, corner of Gouger & Oakley streets, across the road from that big empty vacant lot.
Leading Adelaide barrister and engineer reveal plans for a luxury apartment block on Gouger Street
Two well-known Adelaide business partners are planning luxury living near one of the city’s most popular foodie strips.
Belinda Willis
less than 2 min read
October 5, 2024 - 4:38PM
Plans for a luxury apartment block at 162 to 168 Gouger Street in Adelaide have been lodged with Planning SA. Picture: Supplied
Two prominent Adelaide business partners are planning to build a luxury apartment block near one of the city’s most popular foodie strips.
Designs for the 16-storey apartment block at 162 to 168 Gouger St have been lodged with PlanSA.
Adelaide architect Alexander Bibbo has designed the tower with a mix of one, two, three and four bedroom apartments in the building west of Morphett Street.
The project is the vision of business partners, barrister Andrew Moffa, who has owned the site for more than 20 years, and Lelio Bibbo Consulting Engineers founder and managing director Lelio Bibbo.
The site is near the popular Gouger St restaurant and cafe strip. Picture: Supplied
If the plan is approved, there also would be carparking and three ground-level shops.
“Given the site’s unique context, the building has been designed holistically ‘in the round’,” Alexander Bibbo said about the design for 107 new homes.
“The Gouger St precinct is an exciting and vibrant part of our city.
“Consideration has been taken on behalf of the project team to deliver an exceptional design outcome.”
An application was lodged with PlanSA by Greg Vincent of Masterplan, on behalf of Square Mile Properties.
The site is near the popular Gouger St restaurant and cafe strip that is also home to the famed Adelaide Central Market, where Adelaide City Council is planning a $15m makeover this financial year.
The luxury apartment tower has a mix of one, two, three and four bedroom apartments. Picture: Supplied
Planning consent for the application is currently under assessment.
The application comes as the state government targets higher density living in its recently released 30-year master plan for Adelaide.
It lists apartment living as a key driver in building more than 315,000 new homes to support a projected population growth of 2.2 million by 2051.
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscrib ... nt-1-SCORE
[APP] Re: 162 -166 GOUGER ST | ~55m | 16 Levels | Residential
Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2024 6:08 pm
by Patrick_27
It's nothing special, and the likelihood of it getting off the ground is probably nil, it seems as though the Chinese are the only ones actually getting these sorts of developments off the ground in this area. All that said, if it does happen will hopefully serve as a catalyst for this section of Gouger Street which is looking very country town esque.
[APP] Re: 162 -166 GOUGER ST | 56m | 16 Levels | Residential
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2025 5:04 pm
by Ben
[APP] Re: 162 -166 GOUGER ST | 57m | 16 Levels | Residential
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2025 5:52 pm
by Mpol02
I like it nice density filler. Need more lux apartments in this area
[APP] Re: 162 -166 GOUGER ST | 57m | 16 Levels | Residential
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2025 10:24 am
by Will
Looks like this was approved
[APP] Re: 162 -166 GOUGER ST | 57m | 16 Levels | Residential
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2025 4:51 pm
by Ben
This site is now for sale. Obviously never a serious proposal and just trying to increase value.
[APP] Re: 162 -166 GOUGER ST | 57m | 16 Levels | Residential
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2025 10:13 am
by ChillyPhilly
Ben wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 4:51 pm
This site is now for sale. Obviously never a serious proposal and just trying to increase value.
I look forward to the day this is banned.
[APP] Re: 162 -166 GOUGER ST | 57m | 16 Levels | Residential
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2025 11:02 am
by timtam20292
[APP] Re: 162 -166 GOUGER ST | 57m | 16 Levels | Residential
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2025 11:17 am
by SouthAussie94
ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 10:13 am
Ben wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 4:51 pm
This site is now for sale. Obviously never a serious proposal and just trying to increase value.
I look forward to the day this is banned.
I'm not sure what mechanisms could be implemented to stop this though
[APP] Re: 162 -166 GOUGER ST | 57m | 16 Levels | Residential
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2025 12:43 pm
by [Shuz]
SouthAussie94 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 11:17 am
ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 10:13 am
Ben wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 4:51 pm
This site is now for sale. Obviously never a serious proposal and just trying to increase value.
I look forward to the day this is banned.
I'm not sure what mechanisms could be implemented to stop this though
You can't ban the practice out right, however a vacant land tax would certainly be doable.
Time limit restrictions on selling the land could be enacted. i.e. 2 year rule for any land allotments exceeding X square metres - you'd have to set a minimum square metreage so as to not accidentally capture people looking to sell their terrace houses. I don't think any houses with actual "quarter acre" traditional backyards exist in the CBD anymore? (not counting North Adelaide).
The exception would have to be if a development company enters administration or foreclosure necessitating an immediate sale.
[APP] Re: 162 -166 GOUGER ST | 57m | 16 Levels | Residential
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2025 1:08 pm
by SouthAussie94
[Shuz] wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 12:43 pm
SouthAussie94 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 11:17 am
ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 10:13 am
I look forward to the day this is banned.
I'm not sure what mechanisms could be implemented to stop this though
You can't ban the practice out right, however a vacant land tax would certainly be doable.
Time limit restrictions on selling the land could be enacted. i.e. 2 year rule for any land allotments exceeding X square metres - you'd have to set a minimum square metreage so as to not accidentally capture people looking to sell their terrace houses. I don't think any houses with actual "quarter acre" traditional backyards exist in the CBD anymore? (not counting North Adelaide).
The exception would have to be if a development company enters administration or foreclosure necessitating an immediate sale.
That comes back to the thing I've mentioned in the past, how do you define vacant land?
A weed filled block, that's obviously vacant land.
A fenced allotment with a gravel pad that's occasionally used as a carpark? What if it's asphalt instead? Underutilised, most definitely. But is it vacant? The ground level carparks on Hutt St and Pulteney are prime examples of this.
How about someone who owns two adjacent titles, one has a house which they live in, the other is a manicured garden or tennis court. Functionally its the one property, legally its two. Is the second allotment vacant? No one lives or works there, similar to the carpark scenario above. There's plenty of examples of this through the metro area.
How about if the allotment has a building on it that isn't occupied. If the carpark scenario above isn't vacant land, how can a site with a structure on it be vacant?
While I don't disagree with the concept in the slightest, it's not just a simple as saying vacant land should be taxed, without first defining what constitutes vacant land. Otherwise there will be countless loopholes exploited to avoid the tax, while others will need to pay it who probably shouldn't have to.
[APP] Re: 162 -166 GOUGER ST | 57m | 16 Levels | Residential
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2025 1:57 pm
by rev
That's very simple to address.
What's the land zoned as and is it currently being used?
Is land in the CBD zoned the same as land in suburban back streets?
That way, it avoids punishing the little guy, the average joe who owns some suburban land but hasn't developed it, and the big developers who buy land in the CBD sit on it for a while or put up a BS proposal that gets approved and then sell for a profit.
There should be a flat tax on undeveloped land.
Once there's an approval for a proposed development, that tax is paused once site works begin.
If nothing happens after site works, or no site works, for every year it sits idle, the tax should be increased.
The state government should also pass legislation, that if a proposal is approved, and they don't proceed but then sell the land with a net gain, X amount of sale price is taxable.
This is just blatant land flipping. At least when people buy houses to flip, they renovate and improve on them which benefits nearby residents, to be able to make that profit in sale.
[APP] Re: 162 -166 GOUGER ST | 57m | 16 Levels | Residential
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2025 6:58 pm
by [Shuz]
SouthAussie94 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 1:08 pm
[Shuz] wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 12:43 pm
SouthAussie94 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 11:17 am
I'm not sure what mechanisms could be implemented to stop this though
You can't ban the practice out right, however a vacant land tax would certainly be doable.
Time limit restrictions on selling the land could be enacted. i.e. 2 year rule for any land allotments exceeding X square metres - you'd have to set a minimum square metreage so as to not accidentally capture people looking to sell their terrace houses. I don't think any houses with actual "quarter acre" traditional backyards exist in the CBD anymore? (not counting North Adelaide).
The exception would have to be if a development company enters administration or foreclosure necessitating an immediate sale.
That comes back to the thing I've mentioned in the past, how do you define vacant land?
A weed filled block, that's obviously vacant land.
A fenced allotment with a gravel pad that's occasionally used as a carpark? What if it's asphalt instead? Underutilised, most definitely. But is it vacant? The ground level carparks on Hutt St and Pulteney are prime examples of this.
How about someone who owns two adjacent titles, one has a house which they live in, the other is a manicured garden or tennis court. Functionally its the one property, legally its two. Is the second allotment vacant? No one lives or works there, similar to the carpark scenario above. There's plenty of examples of this through the metro area.
How about if the allotment has a building on it that isn't occupied. If the carpark scenario above isn't vacant land, how can a site with a structure on it be vacant?
While I don't disagree with the concept in the slightest, it's not just a simple as saying vacant land should be taxed, without first defining what constitutes vacant land. Otherwise there will be countless loopholes exploited to avoid the tax, while others will need to pay it who probably shouldn't have to.
For discussions sake, let's stick to the CBD square mile as the basis for a vacant land tax.
An open air carpark, although not vacant, but certainly should be discouraged as a land use. One could argue for a lower vacant land tax rate than the normal rate for weed / grass vacant blocks.
Having said that, that could well incentivise developers to just convert vacant land to carparks to avoid the higher tax rate, so you might as well just apply a blanket rule.
An empty building is a bit of a tricky one. You can't really force the market to operate or lease a premises if the demand isn't there. I think they should be exempt initially, however, again, say a 2 year rule applies, if no business is operating, then they are subject to the tax.
I think vacant land tax should be applied right up until the point of site works commencing, not just approval. Look how many developments have been approved but nothing gets done for years.
Putting yet another tax on the sale of a property is a bad look for investment - we already have stamp duty, foreign buyers tax, etc.
Given the state of the housing market lately, I can tell you a lot of people are buying property, doing fuck all with it and still making very sizable profits a few years later. It's purely land value gains, not gains on the structure itself.
