Let's not get too carried away here!!! Still, man would it be good....

A nice 200m to spire scraper (40m spire) would look nice here.........

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid67/pc9a4c90753b216da81ec33b37106b7b4/fbc4d726.jpg







Dreaming............................

And now the story takes another compelling twist........

I received this today:

Dear Daniel

Thank you for your email in relation to the redevelopment of the
Advertiser site.

Council has not as yet a received a development application for the
redevelopment of the site and I have had no clear indication as to when
this may be lodged.

Depending on the public notification process, Council may or may not
publicly notify the application.

Given the likely major nature of the proposal, the application will most likely receive comprehensive media coverage in both the Advertiser and the Messenger.

I trust that this has been of assistance but should you require any
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards

----------------------------------


Interesting, no?

Likely major nature of the proposal?

:D

255+ responses for a vision. What will happen when it (hopefully) get's announced???? We'll probably have a longer thread then the Eureka one!!

Hi guys... thought I'd introduce myself with a bang... ;)

here's the news story: We're moving to new $35m city base (http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6850200%255E2682,00.html)

35 million doesn't get you much skyscraper... :mad:

Yob, did you read the article, or the title?

The site where the current Advertiser Building sits is where the landmark skyscraper has always been planned, according to the link that pikey posted a few pages back, and from some of the ACC's messages.

News Ltd is just moving their headquarters to a new high-rise a few doors down along Waymouth, where one of the proposed high-rises was on the plan. They haven't announced the rest of the proposals for the block anyway.

I'm thinking that once News Ltd has moved into their new headquarters in 2005, they will demolish the old one and then build the new (unannounced) "landmark" on the site. I can't think of any other reason why News Ltd would move their headquarters.

Originally posted by AG
Yob, did you read the article, or the title?

The site where the current Advertiser Building sits is where the landmark skyscraper has always been planned, according to the link that pikey posted a few pages back, and from some of the ACC's messages.

News Ltd is just moving their headquarters to a new high-rise a few doors down along Waymouth, where one of the proposed high-rises was on the plan. They haven't announced the rest of the proposals for the block anyway.

I'm thinking that once News Ltd has moved into their new headquarters in 2005, they will demolish the old one and then build the new (unannounced) "landmark" on the site. I can't think of any other reason why News Ltd would move their headquarters.

Yes, ag, I did read that article.

Here's a brainy idea, maybe they're moving because they plain old need a little bit more office space. Hell, if they hired a few journalists they could put some content in the advertiser, what a sensation that would be.

The part about being part of a multi million dollar redevelopment doesn't tickle my pickle right now - ask me in 5 years when they get around to the rest of it, whatever it is.

Originally posted by yob
Hell, if they hired a few journalists they could put some content in the advertiser, what a sensation that would be.

Oh look! A flying pig... on today's front page.

It's PART of a multi million dollar development. This is the Advertiser section, not the entire development. I still believe we are gonna get our tower.
I'll get more details on this tower for us though

Strange how over recent days they have slowly unveiled more and more sections of the plans for the block. Yesterday it was Electra House that was announced to be redeveloped next door to the Advertiser Building, and then today that Advertiser's new headquarters will move a few doors down.

IIRC, pikey posted a link a while back showing an overview of the Advertiser block, with site A (major building) being in the same place Advertiser is moving it's headquarters to, and Electra House under site of redevelopment. So far, all is to the original plan.

EDIT: http://www.propertyoz.com.au/sa/advoc/subs/forward.pdf (page 33)

Ok just got off the phone to a friend of my Dad's who is a property broker. He told me that it is planned for Adelaide's tallest, and last, residential tower to be built on the site aswell. When I asked him how tall he said around 110m, surprise surprise the height limit of that area. Hopefully this isn't the tallest tower on this block, but I doubt the ACC would now allow a taller office building there. I hope I am wrong here!
Let's see what comes out in the wash in the next few days.

If such a multi million dollar development includes a big fuck off tower, why would they have announced the small one first? I don't like the chances of there being another tower. In fact I rate it a 0% chance. I'm gutted. :(

...they almost always announce the small parts of major projects first, otherwise the largest parts would be occupied, and the small ones would not be. Imagine if Eureka was announced first with 92 floors, and then the next day you announce a 14 floor building right next to it, I can't think of any reason why you'd choose the smaller one over the larger one.

Originally posted by AG
...they almost always announce the small parts of major projects first, otherwise the largest parts would be occupied, and the small ones would not be. Imagine if Eureka was announced first with 92 floors, and then the next day you announce a 14 floor building right next to it, I can't think of any reason why you'd choose the smaller one over the larger one.

Well, quite possibly the 14 storey one would be cheaper to live in........................

AG is right here, the smaller jobbie is usually announced first. Still, I'm a bit pannicky. The thing to remember is that the ACC told me that there will be more than one building in the block. We still may get our tower. Let me a it!! I'll see what I can find - hopefully good news

Any idea how tall the $35m job will be?

Is this thread still going ?

Originally posted by spazpecker
Is this thread still going ?

Eh?

Originally posted by AtD
Eh?

Spaz putting his "devils advocate" hat on >>>>

Here's the ONLY 2 facts that I am aware of -
1- News Ltd has stated that they have strategic plans to redevelop the large 'Advertiser block' in the future, primarily to house their staff.
2- The ACC has reported this on their website.

All the rest is simply heresay. There has been NO news what so ever about the existance of a Development Application, no renders, no marketing, no media articles, no info from tenant ( apart from the very homogenous 'point 1' above), nothing from landlord ( apart from 'point 1' ), no 'leaks' from other sources - nothing apart from pikey and his mate at the ACC.
Let me tell you, ANYTHING remotely newsworthy relating to this project will be reported immediately- and with great gusto - in The Advertiser because it's very positive PR for News Ltd!
Don't get me wrong, I am the biggest supporter of my home town and I admire pikey's ( and his mate's ) endevours, however I remain very cynical that there are ANY plans being developed ( I'm not saying that they won't be though ).
I'm an "evidence" sort of person. I don't believe in God, ghosts, fairies, Father Xmas or Easter bunny either. I did when I was young, but I'm an old cynical prick now....... ;)

So what if all we have to go on is hearsay, what do you think we should do otherwise, simply shut up about it? We're excited, let us be. :)

Originally posted by spazpecker
Spaz putting his "devils advocate" hat on >>>>

Here's the ONLY 2 facts that I am aware of -
1- News Ltd has stated that they have strategic plans to redevelop the large 'Advertiser block' in the future, primarily to house their staff.
2- The ACC has reported this on their website.

All the rest is simply heresay. There has been NO news what so ever about the existance of a Development Application, no renders, no marketing, no media articles, no info from tenant ( apart from the very homogenous 'point 1' above), nothing from landlord ( apart from 'point 1' ), no 'leaks' from other sources - nothing apart from pikey and his mate at the ACC.
Let me tell you, ANYTHING remotely newsworthy relating to this project will be reported immediately- and with great gusto - in The Advertiser because it's very positive PR for News Ltd!
Don't get me wrong, I am the biggest supporter of my home town and I admire pikey's ( and his mate's ) endevours, however I remain very cynical that there are ANY plans being developed ( I'm not saying that they won't be though ).
I'm an "evidence" sort of person. I don't believe in God, ghosts, fairies, Father Xmas or Easter bunny either. I did when I was young, but I'm an old cynical prick now....... ;)

AG - Electra House is a small Heritage listed building between the GPO and the Advertiser building.

While it is going to be restored, it will not be demolished as it is heritage listed. Anyway the Electra House project has nothing to do with the News LTD Tower.


The new NEWS LTD tower will only be worth $35 million dollars.

$35 million dollars isn't a lot of money, to build a decent tower.
I suspect a small office building of around 8-12 levels.

The article does mention that, the new NEWS LTD tower will form part of a multi million dollar redevelopment of the entire block.

This leads me to believe that the multi million dollar development will in fact consist of a few low to medium height office and residential towers.

I now seriously doubt that a 160m tower will be built.

Once again, can SOMEONE show me evidence of a proposal of anything over, say 80m, for this site ?

Don't get me wrong yob, I'd love to be excited about a 140m tower, but I think pikey and his "mate at the ACC" need to have a good chat.....if you know what I mean.

Originally posted by spazpecker
Once again, can SOMEONE show me evidence of a proposal of anything over, say 80m, for this site ?

Don't get me wrong yob, I'd love to be excited about a 140m tower, but I think pikey and his "mate at the ACC" need to have a good chat.....if you know what I mean.

Where has anyone claimed that this is guaranteed to go ahead? We don't need evidence when we're talking about RUMOUR. Nobody has said it is anything otherwise.

Riiiiiight here we go, I knew if something didn't happen soon my name would turn to mud.............

Just reporting what I heard people - can't blame a guy for getting excited over something he was told by several different sources. I apologise for making the assumption that other people may have been interested in what may be something huge.


>(

Guys, don't jump on pikey for something we don't even know about yet! He hasn't done anything wrong. Lets be optomistic, not negative.

Originally posted by pikey
Riiiiiight here we go, I knew if something didn't happen soon my name would turn to mud.............

Just reporting what I heard people - can't blame a guy for getting excited over something he was told by several different sources. I apologise for making the assumption that other people may have been interested in what may be something huge.


>(

don't worry bout it mate :)

Originally posted by AG
Guys, don't jump on pikey for something we don't even know about yet! He hasn't done anything wrong. Lets be optomistic, not negative.

nobody has jumped on pikey at all.

I'm awaiting some concrete details from Karen at the ACC, as in DA's, heights, and she has promised me the TOTAL PLANS FOR THE PRECINCT - EVRYTHING.

So I guess that will put to bed all the rumors once and for all. In her words, the ACC is very excited about this development.

Notice how in the last few days some towers have been announced in the vicinity of this precinct?? 26 Level Resi, 21 level Office Building. What else could be coming up???

is this it ?>>>>>

Adelaide’s Advertiser: all the right moves
Advertiser Newspapers Limited, publisher of The Advertiser, has publicly announced plans to construct new state headquarters. It is currently headquartered at 121 King William Street, Adelaide, where it has been for 44 years. It will invest $35 million in the new development.

The new headquarters will be in the same vicinity as its current headquarters, in the block of King William, Franklin, Bentham and Waymouth Streets. Construction is scheduled to begin in January 2004 and The Advertiser aims to relocate in 2005. It has appointed Caversham Property Developments as site developer. Further appointments have not yet been made public.

The Advertiser is a South Australian newspaper and part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and News Limited. Its Sunday issue is known as Sunday Mail. The Advertiser circulates to around 580,000 people between Monday and Friday and 740,000 each Saturday. Likewise, over 800,000 people read The Sunday Mail.
www.propertyweb.com.au

This is part of the development. Maybe $35m is just the advertisers part of the building cost???

Originally posted by pikey
This is part of the development. Maybe $35m is just the advertisers part of the building cost???

better hope so cause they dosh will only give you a 10 level building...

Me still is worried that the tallest building here will be a resi. I never thought I see the day that I begrudged a tall building in Adelaide, albeit for the hope of a new tallest. I can't wait till the entire development is announced, one way or the other!

Originally posted by chrisaus
better hope so cause they dosh will only give you a 10 level building...

Well, the turth is you don't have any idea how many levels it will give. For all we know it will be 3 levels.

so are they developing it themselfs? because if they were taking space as part of a new development they don't pay the development cost, rather they rent space.... and if they were building a purpose built HQ they would build it exclusivly for them. alot of companies in perth consolidate and build in west perth with large floorplates so the company is all together....

From what I've heard, this is the Advertiser slice of the pie, so to speak. All we know is we're getting a building, anywhere from 3 levels to 33, maybe....

Actually, someone told me that it was canned...

And when did you find this out?

Ummmmmm... *cough* :D

:evil: :gunz:

Originally posted by AG
Ummmmmm... *cough* :D

What? I don't get it.

is this some kind of joke?

Either he's picking a fight or chewing bricks cos either way he's loosing teeth!!!

So there will be $500m spent on this precinct hey...........Still...........maybe............a new tallest????

is that near the citywest or whatever its called renewal area? maybe it means that?

So no new news on this project?

Alls we know is that $500m is going to be spent on this precinct.

Originally posted by chrisaus
is that near the citywest or whatever its called renewal area? maybe it means that?

It's in the City West Precinct, and is supposed to be one part of the revival, (the other parts we know include the Central Market, Franklin Street Bus Terminal and Balfours Factory) though the block occupies a very small amount of space within the precinct.

Originally posted by pikey
Alls we know is that $500m is going to be spent on this precinct.

Well, with that sort of money being spent, you should expect a large scale and quite tall development...fingers crossed guys!:guns1:

All I know is that waiting to find out more gives me the shits!!!

Originally posted by pikey
Alls we know is that $500m is going to be spent on this precinct.

$500 mill on that block, not the precinct :)

Even better hey!

Greetings all. No time for long and painful introductions but suffice to say I take a keen interest in development in Adelaide having originally come from there.

Anyway, just thought I’d put in my two bobs worth and point you towards page 8 of August’s Registered Planning Consents on the ACC website where there’s an entry which I think may be relevant here: a proposed 18 level office block (ground level retail & plaza) worth 60M at 19A-21 Waymouth Street.

The address is part of the Advertiser block so my semi-educated guess is that it’s part of the News Ltd development. 60M would probably make a pretty decent 18 level tower (design-dependent obviously), particularly in an allotment as narrow as it seems to be (check the “Base Map” on the ACC website – it lets you identify the address of each lot in the CBD). The existing building there - whatever that may be - is proposed for demolition.

Anyway that’s about all from me…hopefully fodder for thought.

Once again, I think this is just another smaller part of the project being announced and released before announcing the major part of the project (if it is under planning).

Another one to the Adelaide ss.com list...

Still a heap left of that $500m though.......

Sweet, how tall is 18 levels in office terms????

http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/Council/publications/Dev_Registers/registered/aug03_planapp_regsum.pdf

There it is. :)

Also there is what I guess would be Pinnacle.

Added to Projects List

Originally posted by AtD
http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/Council/publications/Dev_Registers/registered/aug03_planapp_regsum.pdf

There it is. :)

Also there is what I guess would be Pinnacle.

Added to Projects List

Also an office tower conversion to residential, 126 apartments, at 65-73 king william st. Is this Tax Tower?

*edit 99.87235% certain that this is tax tower. I remember the last few times walking past it, the inside has been absolutely gutted.

Redevelopment cost is to the tune of $5 million.

Have a look on page 15 of this PDF

There is a DA from urban construct to erect temporary hoarding for 2 years on 104 - 110 waymouth st. What project is this?? Or is it the beginning of something else??

110 Waymouth is almost at Light Square - a bit far west for a high-rise. But that doesn't mean it won't be one.

Originally posted by pikey
Still a heap left of that $500m though.......

Sweet, how tall is 18 levels in office terms????

Contacted planner at ACC today and got official height of new 18storey office tower for 11-29 Waymouth st (Advertiser site).
the tower will total-86m high! with main roof at 80m.
there will be two floors at ground level then 18 office levels so 20 total!
so this equals height of 26strory res tower in bentham st!
the planner said the developers are very keen on kicking this along next year! so thats great stuff

WOW!

Adelaide is getting a new high-rise proposal every week now!

Originally posted by CULWULLA
Contacted planner at ACC today and got official height of new 18storey office tower for 11-29 Waymouth st (Advertiser site).
the tower will total-86m high! with main roof at 80m.
there will be two floors at ground level then 18 office levels so 20 total!
so this equals height of 26strory res tower in bentham st!
the planner said the developers are very keen on kicking this along next year! so thats great stuff

She's all approved as per last night! Good stuff

I skimmed back through the pages of this thread, and I remember reading several posts saying that the ACC would not dump their height limits. Look what happened recently. :)

bloody hell! it seems within the last two monts all these big projects have just come up for adelaide!

Alls we need is a couple o' 500 footers, and I'll be happy!

Well Pikey, you may be unhappy for a long time:D

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Well Pikey, you may be unhappy for a long time:D

Oh no, here we go again! :rant: :D

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Well Pikey, you may be unhappy for a long time:D

Well, I knew WA was far away, but that passes for humour over there? Ga?

Originally posted by AG
Oh no, here we go again! :rant: :D

dont worry we are not victorians [thank god] we can JOKE around & thats that... well I hope so...

I just had an interesting chat with property developer. He seems to think that once the $60m office tower gets completed on Waymouth St, the Advertiser building is going to get big elbow and another, brand new tower will be built on it's footprint. When I said how tall he said he didn't know, but they wouldn't pull down a building to built a shorter one. He finished off by saying it would be substantial, in comparision to other buildings on the block.

An interesting bit of goss there!!

Originally posted by pikey
I just had an interesting chat with property developer. He seems to think that once the $60m office tower gets completed on Waymouth St, the Advertiser building is going to get big elbow and another, brand new tower will be built on it's footprint. When I said how tall he said he didn't know, but they wouldn't pull down a building to built a shorter one. He finished off by saying it would be substantial, in comparision to other buildings on the block.

An interesting bit of goss there!!


I don't understand why they would want to demolish a perfectly good high-rise building in Adelaide, when we have so much space to build other high-rises?

It's not as if we are living in New York!

Dunno. Maybe it's in quite a bad state inside?? Just going by what he said. Maybe the site is more valuable than the building itself??

Originally posted by pikey
Dunno. Maybe it's in quite a bad state inside?? Just going by what he said. Maybe the site is more valuable than the building itself??


That is true, the Advertiser building dates back to 1960, so it would obviously be dated compared to some modern office buildings.

But I still think the Advertiser building should be retained, because in the past few years we have demolished 2 high-rise buildings.

Whilst I am not saying that the old police building or Adelaide house were worth retaining, I still think the skyline would look much better if we hid the shockers from the 70's instead of demolishing them.

Originally posted by Will
That is true, the Advertiser building dates back to 1960, so it would obviously be dated compared to some modern office buildings.

But I still think the Advertiser building should be retained, because in the past few years we have demolished 2 high-rise buildings.

Whilst I am not saying that the old police building or Adelaide house were worth retaining, I still think the skyline would look much better if we hid the shockers from the 70's instead of demolishing them.

Instead of hiding 70s buildings, or demolishing them for newer buildings like has occurred at least twice in the past few years, the best solution would be to gut the building, and redo the outside of the building, and in some cases, the inside.

thats not to viable AG its just as easy to demolish and re-build...
or they could use 'facadism'

First tower for Adelaide in 16 years
Adelaide will get its first new office building in nearly 16 years with Caversham Property Development's City Central Tower 1 being granted development approval.

The $115 million building will have 24,000 square metres of lettable area over 18 floors and will aim for a five-star rating under Green Building Council of Australia guidelines.

With construction scheduled to start in January and finish by the end of November 2005, the building is the first stage of an ambitious redevelopment project Caversham, part of Futuris Corporation, has spent several years planning.

Occupying a city block bounded by Waymouth, King William, Franklin and Bentham streets, the site is now occupied by the Adelaide Advertiser Building, which will remain there under a deal with Caversham until new premises are built elsewhere.

Caversham will then refurbish the building to blend in with the new tower. Bridges will connect them.

Architect Woods Bagot has designed the tower with a winter garden atrium covering part of the eastern facade.

Leasing agent Jon Cranna of Colliers International said negotiations to sign up a number of premium tenants for about 2000 square metres each were under way.

"We believe there is sufficient demand from the high-end corporate user," Mr Crann said.

"A lot of those tenants are in fit-outs that are 15 years old and coming to their end. They face considerable expenditure in any case."

Mr Cranna said tenants would factor into the equation the greater efficiencies in the running costs of modern design and the better office culture that could be produced by "today's way of doing things".

Mr Cranna said the agency had not been told how much precommitment was needed for the building to go ahead but he imagined it would be about 40 to 50 per cent.

South Australian premier Mike Rann said: "This technologically smart building epitomises all the philosophies behind the green building concept.

"It will be both environmentally and tenant friendly with innovative water and energy saving capacities, including its advanced passive chilled beam air-conditioning, its smart lighting, its advanced IT services and digital property that will reduce the total cost of technology use."
http://afr.com/articles/2003/10/30/1067233320817.html

The name 'City Centre Tower 1' implies that there'll be a 'City Centre Tower 2' as well...

(As a matter of interest, are 'Tower 2's' normally taller than 'Tower 1's' or is that just my general impression?)

And how did the original budget of $60 million almost double to $115 million?? Not a bad thing ofcourse!

:)

*hopes and preys for a "tower 2" worth over 250mil ;)*

OK flashback!! I'm catching up with my mate who works for the Advertiser and I'm gonna compare his "info" with what we are getting.
He told me 1x 160m tower

So far we are getting
1x26 level Bentham St Apartment Tower
1x24 level (could be more) Franklin St Apartment Tower
1x18 Level City1 Office tower
1x12 Level City2 Office tower (Advertiser refurb)
1x5 Level Office Building

SO FAR I should reaffirm

So, are we happy with what we are getting or do you all want to kill me for the 160m so far not going through???

kill! ;)

We want a new tallest :(

I'd rather a new tallest, but when you think about it, 3, 80m buildings isn't that bad; in fact it's great.

Hey checkout the groovy Adelaide webcams at this link:

http://rexel.adam.com.au/

trying to work out if any of them have good views of construction sites around the Waymouth St area - the one called 'Franklin Apartments' looks like it may be looking down on one (not Bentham St apartments by any chance??) but it's a little hard to tell.

There's also one called Bentham St & Waymouth St which appears to have a building covered by scaffolding on the left - possibly part of the Advertiser block redevelopment? You guys probably have a much better idea than me.

From the cameras, the following construction sites in the area can be seen:
City Central Towers (partially)
Advertiser HQ
Bentham Street Apartments

Great, looks like it might give out-of-towners like me a decent birdseye of view of construction of the Bentham St jobbie

:)

Bump.

Pikey and his porky-pies ;)

I call them pikey-pies.

Geez you go away for a week and every mo-fo want's your blood. Fooooiiiine.

No one take this the wrong way but why are we preserving heritage so carefully? Lets face it, australia has very little history and a shit load of buildings would have been built in the early 1900, most of wich didnt really mean anything back then. Why do we intend to keep the majority of them? Why dont we make history by building Incredible and unigue works of art. Adelaide dosent have an important heritage. we have enogh heritage building on north terrace and we have the town hall and all. This is heritage
http://www.adam.com.au/psirris/NAthensPanepistimiouStrNight0004_b.jpg

i am not sure were this is but imagine if someone was gonna tear this building down....THAT would be something to be protesting about...a 1000 year old building not a 80 year old 'heritage' building were damn Newspapers were PRINTED!

Giorgos69, I agree but on the other hand, imagine if they did tear that building down when it was only 80 years old! My point is that some buildings do need to be preserved even if they are only 50+ years. However, I do think that they should only preserve large significant buildings not little shacks or toilets. To give an example, I have a relative living in North Adelaide and he has a new home but he can't touch one of his walls in the back yard because it's Heritage list (or protected by some stupid law). What absolute nonsense!

Giorgos, please stop pulling up extremely old threads. The memories of the pain and agony of not getting what Pikey kept on promising will kill us all... slowly and painfully...

;)

hehehehehe i just wanted to share with u the angar i have about this heritage business. They go way over the top. i mean what makes this stuff so special? like u said about the wall. r people gonna come in 100 years and study the wall?? NO!! i 2 hav a friends hu recently bought a home with a HUGE backyard. Problem was tere was a tree in the backyard. He was going to build units in the back and knock down the existing house until he found out the tee was heritage listed. WTF!! WHO CARES ABOUT THIS DAMN TREE!! i believe he is slowly poisoning it day by day...hehehe

Giorgos69, I agree but on the other hand, imagine if they did tear that building down when it was only 80 years old! My point is that some buildings do need to be preserved even if they are only 50+ years. However, I do think that they should only preserve large significant buildings not little shacks or toilets. To give an example, I have a relative living in North Adelaide and he has a new home but he can't touch one of his walls in the back yard because it's Heritage list (or protected by some stupid law). What absolute nonsense!


AG I completely disagree with you, North Adelaide is a unique example of 19th century arquitecture. If this is not protected North Adelaide would end up looking like Mawson Lakes in a few years. Whilst this might not bother you, it would be a bloody shame for Adelaide.

Will, my point is that perhaps important things should be protected. The wall I mentioned is only about 5m long. It's located between two new (about 10 yo) buildings, in the back yard! What is the point!? I don't advocate the wholesale demolishion of nth adelaide but there needs to be a reasonable purpose for something to be preserved.

Will, my point is that perhaps important things should be protected. The wall I mentioned is only about 5m long. It's located between two new (about 10 yo) buildings, in the back yard! What is the point!? I don't advocate the wholesale demolishion of nth adelaide but there needs to be a reasonable purpose for something to be preserved.


Maybe the wall should not be protected, but I still believe even small buildings such as cottages should be protected.

Bumping to prevent prune. Should I chuck this in the Archives?

I was about to say, "bring up the dead!!"
This thread was my first!