In this Discussion
- [DeletedUser] March 2013
- AndrewCarter May 2013
- Aquanita March 2013
- bookielover May 2013
- Carlosa May 2013
- DamienWyer September 2013
- darkshines March 2013
- goose March 2013
- Lady_Luck March 2013
- lame May 2013
- LarkhillLarrikin May 2013
- LuckyLongshots September 2013
- motivated March 2013
- Pandora January 2014
- Radman May 2013
- RIO September 2013
- SPUDLEY May 2013
- TheDiva May 2013
- thefalcon May 2013
- TheFunkster May 2013
- Theodor May 2013
- Tivers March 2013
- Tucool March 2013
- wedge May 2013
Who's Online
0 Members & 11 Non Members
Belmont Development gets the go ahead
West Australian Racing
TheDiva
13,248 posts
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/16451327/belmont-high-rise-towers-get-go-ahead/
Belmont high-rise towers get go-ahead
Yolanda Zaw, The West Australian
Updated March 27, 2013, 2:00 am
The multibillion-dollar Belmont Racecourse redevelopment has been given the green light to build the tallest skyscrapers outside of the Perth central business district.
The WA Planning Commission yesterday lifted its 30-storey height limit at the Burswood peninsula site, saying the limit was unwarranted and unnecessary.
The Perth-based Golden Group plans to build a $3.5 billion mixed-use development that includes eight towers of 38 to 53 storeys.
When the WAPC met earlier this month to consider the project, planners recommended a 30-storey height limit be imposed across the 73.6ha site.
They argued buildings of more than 30 storeys were "untested" outside of central Perth and the development could diminish the prominence of the CBD.
But yesterday, the WAPC statutory planning committee dropped the limit after advice from the City of Perth and the Office of the Government Architect.
Golden Group managing director Andrew Sugiaputra said he was relieved at the decision and excited to start work early next year.
"With the size of project and it being a long-term, we wanted it to be as flexible as possible and the height restrictions wouldn't have allowed that - we're relieved to see them lifted," he said.
"Construction costs in Perth are much more expensive than in the Eastern States so building higher, depending on where you build, will make it better in terms of the viability of the whole project."
The proposed development would feature 4500 dwellings as well as 31,000sqm of retail space and 60,000sqm of office space.In his submission, State Government Architect Steve Woodland said the redevelopment was unlikely to be detrimental to the status of the CBD.
The City of Perth said in its submission it was looking at removing height limits from large parts of central Perth to allow taller developments.
Future Perth chairman Sean Morrison said the decision was a victory for common sense.
"It is scary to think that any company willing to invest hundreds of millions into our city would be held back by the whim of a few planners," the urban planner said.
Belmont high-rise towers get go-ahead
Yolanda Zaw, The West Australian
Updated March 27, 2013, 2:00 am
The multibillion-dollar Belmont Racecourse redevelopment has been given the green light to build the tallest skyscrapers outside of the Perth central business district.
The WA Planning Commission yesterday lifted its 30-storey height limit at the Burswood peninsula site, saying the limit was unwarranted and unnecessary.
The Perth-based Golden Group plans to build a $3.5 billion mixed-use development that includes eight towers of 38 to 53 storeys.
When the WAPC met earlier this month to consider the project, planners recommended a 30-storey height limit be imposed across the 73.6ha site.
They argued buildings of more than 30 storeys were "untested" outside of central Perth and the development could diminish the prominence of the CBD.
But yesterday, the WAPC statutory planning committee dropped the limit after advice from the City of Perth and the Office of the Government Architect.
Golden Group managing director Andrew Sugiaputra said he was relieved at the decision and excited to start work early next year.
"With the size of project and it being a long-term, we wanted it to be as flexible as possible and the height restrictions wouldn't have allowed that - we're relieved to see them lifted," he said.
"Construction costs in Perth are much more expensive than in the Eastern States so building higher, depending on where you build, will make it better in terms of the viability of the whole project."
The proposed development would feature 4500 dwellings as well as 31,000sqm of retail space and 60,000sqm of office space.In his submission, State Government Architect Steve Woodland said the redevelopment was unlikely to be detrimental to the status of the CBD.
The City of Perth said in its submission it was looking at removing height limits from large parts of central Perth to allow taller developments.
Future Perth chairman Sean Morrison said the decision was a victory for common sense.
"It is scary to think that any company willing to invest hundreds of millions into our city would be held back by the whim of a few planners," the urban planner said.
Comments
RIO likes this post.
hang on...I think that was in the Governments original land swap...so nup, scrub that, bad idea!!!
Somehow the industry needs a turnaround, to be re-invented, much the same way that Australia Post had to do in order to survive (when email and internet took over). It can be done, but it needs a professional to bring it about. I'd be allocating some of that money to contract a gun consultant.
what makes you think that this will end?
RIO likes this post.
The people I have spoken to are really strongly committed to having the operations side of PR running in a manner that it is no longer a financial drain. I also feel that they won’t start spending - well no big spends - until they have that under control..
It is now a matter of seeing if they walk the walk as well... If they can’t get it sorted now they never will, and there is ample proof to confirm that they don’t and haven’t for a long period of time – had the people and expertise to handle it..So a consultant with an over viewing plan to best manage and spend the money is a good starting point.. I’d like them to spend the first $100k on getting this done before wondering off in a lot of self interest areas for those that hold the seats at the moment!!!
why is this so? we have facilities to supply materials..bricks, concrete, steel etc. all states have unions....
i am puzzled...
TheFunkster, RIO, Chelsea likes this post.
google costs at the squires loft... :bz
So if you force them to use local product the construction costs would increase significantly!!!
RIO likes this post.
I agree with Diva, full steam ahead with the project. And let's hope the next generation of Committeemen have a little more foresight than the current ones do.
the question i ask is this: will the property development provide a LONG TERM commercial model of racing in this city for years to come?
YES or NO?
the alternative is what ?
Leave it as bare land and realise no value ever ?
Unless something changes to stem that flow....then the money obtained from selling the assets will disappear too.
something else has to change in the meantime so this opportunity is not squandered. There are only so many assets to sell.
Puntingmad likes this post.
RIO, Puntingmad, JustanL likes this post.
I might add that not just one committee member has spoken to me in the past month about generational change, several have.
They seem to think I have some stake in the future of the Club, any thought of that being true was removed a couple of years ago.
I've only ever seen Belly down stairs, or in one of the function rooms, and have never noticed him wearing a members badge, which we all have to wear at all times to wander around gods waiting room. But that's not to say that he isn't a member.
Whether Belly is good for the members or not (we aren't talking RWWA or an industry body here) is a secondary issue. I hope that the committee has followed due process and consulted in some way or another about this member representative appointment, with the members.
Otherwise i woudl have thought that the position would have been left vacant until the next election..