Opinion New AFC HQ: We're on like Donkey Kong!

[MarcusP2]

It's rarely land price alone, various factors are all assessed independently and have various weightings. Value assigned to land is one factor. You'll have to explain RE the land being worthless to other developers compared to us? Green space is green space, in terms of maximising the value of the land, it makes no difference, it's lost whether you have a personal need for it or not. Either way, it impacts what you can hope to recover from the remainder. There's no tendering advantage to us plonking an oval in our tender compared to another mob that does it. It just forms part of the green space component except ours comes with strings.

I'm not saying we won't win it, an AFL footy club with possibly a public access swimming complex is a pretty cool and unique anchor tenant in what will be a much larger residential development. But let's not make out having to put a footy oval in it is a competitive advantage when any tenderer can do that and make it 100% publicly accessible. We won't be winning because of the footy oval, having to include it makes it harder.

I think what he means is the developers will need to to make a profit from purchasing the land and constructing apartments on it. So any green space is lost apartments and hence revenue - thus driving either the proposed sale prices of the apartments up, or the profit for the developer down.

We don't have to worry about that. However given we won't be selling anything we probably can't afford to pay that much anyway.

 

[Cap]

It's rarely land price alone, various factors are all assessed independently and have various weightings. Value assigned to land is one factor. You'll have to explain RE the land being worthless to other developers compared to us? Green space is green space, in terms of maximising the value of the land, it makes no difference, it's lost whether you have a personal need for it or not. Either way, it impacts what you can hope to recover from the remainder. There's no tendering advantage to us plonking an oval in our tender compared to another mob that does it. It just forms part of the green space component except ours comes with strings.

I'm not saying we won't win it, an AFL footy club with possibly a public access swimming complex is a pretty cool and unique anchor tenant in what will be a much larger residential development. But let's not make out having to put a footy oval in it is a competitive advantage when any tenderer can do that and make it 100% publicly accessible. We won't be winning because of the footy oval, having to include it makes it harder.

If you are a developer coming onto that site you need to make your return by selling the allotments that you cut up for more (significantly) than you paid for the site and develop costs , in this case plus remediation.

This is a 60,000 m2 site, if there is a 20% green space (say) instead of selling 180 blocks ( I've assumed 10% for roads etc) to make your money back, you need make that some money back on 140.

However if your JV partner is only in it to essentially fund the greenspace then your profit margins on those 140 houses goes back up and you don't need to incorporate the cost of the greenspace into land cost making them cheaper, over all the submission should be more appealing than that of a developer wating to build a heap of high rise

That's not even counting the fact the council will AFC paying upkeep on the greenspace, something councils love!!

 

[DevNull]

Latest email from RSA

REGISTRATIONS OF INTEREST
Renewal SA, on behalf of the Government of South Australia, has the pleasure of seeking Registrations of Interest for the former Gasworks site at Bowden. This city-defining opportunity is being presented to the market by way of an open procurement process to ensure the best possible outcome for the land, the local area and the State.
Renewal SA strives to improve the lives of all South Australians by leading, supporting, and driving investment and growth through property and projects. We are committed to unlocking new opportunities for our State through partnerships with the private development and investment sectors, community and all levels of government and industry.
Our 6 Star Green Star, mixed-use development at Bowden reflects this commitment.
Since its inception, we have partnered with 15 local and national developers to deliver more than 850 homes in a walkable, master-planned community that has created a new benchmark for inner-city mixed-use precincts. We are proud of its status as a model for urban renewal and inner-city living for South Australia and beyond.
As part of our vision for Bowden, Renewal SA has a long-term vision to remediate and transform the 5.81-hectare* site of the former Gasworks – also known as the Bowden Heritage Precinct. We are now pleased to offer this exceptional opportunity to the open market to realise the long-term vision for a transformed heritage precinct.
This Registration of Interest is the first in a two-stage process that aims to ensure the vision of the project are achieved and clear benefits are delivered to the local community and the State. This includes a strong desire for the reuse of structures of heritage and cultural significance and see them incorporated into a wider, activated precinct.
At Renewal SA, our entire team is committed to working with a visionary development partner that shares our desire for an active and vibrant mixed-use precinct that blends heritage, sustainability and community in a way that is complementary to the Bowden redevelopment project, and activates a long-held part of the city that has never before been made accessible to the public.
Thank you for your interest in this important opportunity to change the face of our city and the local Bowden community.
Chris Menz
Chief Executive
Renewal SA
THE OPPORTUNITY
A city-defining opportunity now exists in Adelaide’s re-imagined inner west with the release-to-market of the former Brompton Gasworks site within the greater Bowden redevelopment project.
An open market tender process is being undertaken in two stages—a Registration of Interest followed by a Request for Proposal—to best determine how to develop this significant historic site as a thriving, vibrant part of the Bowden neighbourhood.
Proponents who are shortlisted through this initial Registration of Interest stage will be further invited to participate in a formal Request for Proposal process, at which point they will be required to deliver a draft master plan for the site that addresses in detail their proposed approach to site remediation and redevelopment.
Specifically, potential development partners are invited to consider how future development might incorporate the following:

• a combination of housing, retail outlets, commercial premises and recreational spaces that complement and strengthen the surrounding community
• the adaptive and sensitive re-use of the retained historic structures including (but not limited to) the State heritage-listed Retort House, the Retort House chimney and the Chief Street wall
• a minimum of 15% Affordable Housing (where residential development is undertaken)
• a minimum 5-Star Green Star rating for each new building and a 6-Star Green Star communities rating for the development as a whole
• at least 1.26 hectares of public open space
• meaningful engagement with the local community and other stakeholders throughout the planning, design and delivery of the project
• training and employment opportunities through the Renewal SA Works Program
• the creation of an Industry Participation Plan.

The Registration of Interest stage is now open, with submissions invited from the development sector via the SA Tenders and Contracts website (tender code: URA049630) until 2:00pm (ACST) on 2 September 2021.

All enquiries regarding the initial Registration of Interest process for the former Gasworks site should be addressed in writing to:
Ben Parkinson, Managing Director - South Australia
Jones Lang LaSalle
M: 0407 710 389
E: ben.parkinson@jll.com.au

 

[DevNull]

I hope the Crows are a successful bidder for all or part of the site, but I have this nagging suspicion that it may just be a bit hard to meet some of those requirements compared to moving into Thebarton

 

[GameofSloanes]

I hope the Crows are a successful bidder for all or part of the site, but I have this nagging suspicion that it may just be a bit hard to meet some of those requirements compared to moving into Thebarton

Thebarton will be no good, South Rd is taking part of the site based on the released plans, and will be a construction site for 5-10 years

 

[Deaneus!]

1.26ha of open space out of a total of 5.81ha

Tiny bit over 20%, that’s a *lot*

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

I hope the Crows are a successful bidder for all or part of the site, but I have this nagging suspicion that it may just be a bit hard to meet some of those requirements compared to moving into Thebarton

Those requirements are for a developer and will be almost impossible to meet. They can then let the crows buy it because there were no other alternate proposals.

 

[1970crow]

1.26ha of open space out of a total of 5.81ha

Tiny bit over 20%, that’s a *lot*

a *lot* in the sense that unless you're a football club with a $50m grant headstart you're going to struggle to come up with an economically viable development?

 

[DevNull]

Those requirements are for a developer and will be almost impossible to meet. They can then let the crows buy it because there were no other alternate proposals.

Maybe-though I reckon there will be other proposals that RSA and the community will find more appealing and meets more of the brief than having AFC admin offices and a shared use greenspace oval. The developer that they are partnering with will hopefully bring other options to the proposal like providing some retail shops, housing, a playground or dog park etc.

 

[MatthewB]

No Cookies | The Advertiser

No Cookies

www.adelaidenow.com.au

Developers interested in acquiring the former Brompton gasworks site have been asked to set aside close to a quarter of the land as public open space, nearly double the typical requirement for major housing projects.
Renewal SA formally opened a tender process on Thursday, revealing a set of guiding principles likely to shape the future of the 5.81ha site.

Its vision is for a combination of housing, retail outlets, commercial premises and recreational spaces that “complement and strengthen the surrounding community”.OD

At least 1.26ha, or 22 per cent, of the site expected to be set aside for public open space such as parks, playgrounds and public plazas. That compares with the 12.5 per cent requirement set out under the state’s current planning rules for large subdivisions.

MOD NOTE: copy and pasting articles is prohibited - link and first couple of paragraphs only please

 

[Deaneus!]

a *lot* in the sense that unless you're a football club with a $50m grant headstart you're going to struggle to come up with an economically viable development?

Yes, I would think so… 1.26ha required open space of a total 5.81ha site is like 21.7%

usually govt wants 12.5%

that’s a big big difference, and a whole lot of cost to absorb

 

[1970crow]

Yes, I would think so… 1.26ha required open space of a total 5.81ha site is like 21.7%

usually govt wants 12.5%

that’s a big big difference, and a whole lot of cost to absorb

In your learned opinion, do you think this is a deliberate strategy to eliminate most of our competition or are there examples of similar requirements or could this be a trend?

 

[1970crow]

Yes, I would think so… 1.26ha required open space of a total 5.81ha site is like 21.7%

usually govt wants 12.5%

that’s a big big difference, and a whole lot of cost to absorb

Just thinking that if this was your game, you'd have been as bored as batshit as CFO of the AFC. Revenue and timing thereof almost guaranteed year in year out. Almost no fun accounting whatsoever.

 

[NTRabbit]

In your learned opinion, do you think this is a deliberate strategy to eliminate most of our competition or are there examples of similar requirements or could this be a trend?

This particular block was always meant to have more community space than the others, it's been a selling point for the other terraces and apartments nearby that they would have this area to use.

 

[Deaneus!]

In your learned opinion, do you think this is a deliberate strategy to eliminate most of our competition or are there examples of similar requirements or could this be a trend?

without knowing RSA’s requirements for the earlier stages, I would suggest it’s much higher than I ever recall seeing or working on. I worked on a large project you’d have all heard of that was 15%, and my last company has a brand new 12.5% one that’s prominent… basically there’s no incentive to go over the % for anyone. I can see competition screaming blue murder - it’s a big hurdle - but RSA can dress it up anyway they want. If we get to call our training ovals open space, we are laughing

but yes RSA requirements for earlier stages are the real giveaway

 

[mistylake]

View attachment 1172912

I'm sure it will look like this

Why we allow so much West facing glazing in developments is baffling. A quarter of the residents will live in hot boxes with no option for external shading.

I think you can sort those issues with various glazing options now days.

 

[mistylake]

1.26ha of open space out of a total of 5.81ha

Tiny bit over 20%, that’s a *lot*

1.26 Ha only. A circle the size of Adelaide ovals longest dimensions is roughly 2.2 Ha this doesn’t seem like a large enough area for a round “oval” configurable to all ovals.

 

[Cap]

1.26 Ha only. A circle the size of Adelaide ovals longest dimensions is roughly 2.2 Ha this doesn’t seem like a large enough area for a round “oval” configurable to all ovals.

that is the minimum, not the maximum.

 

[FR0GGY]

without knowing RSA’s requirements for the earlier stages, I would suggest it’s much higher than I ever recall seeing or working on. I worked on a large project you’d have all heard of that was 15%, and my last company has a brand new 12.5% one that’s prominent… basically there’s no incentive to go over the % for anyone. I can see competition screaming blue murder - it’s a big hurdle - but RSA can dress it up anyway they want. If we get to call our training ovals open space, we are laughing

but yes RSA requirements for earlier stages are the real giveaway

What else could you call a training oval?

 

[FR0GGY]

that is the minimum, not the maximum.

He’s suggesting if the oval is close to half the space that the total space isn’t large enough.

 

[Cap]

He’s suggesting if the oval is close to half the space that the total space isn’t large enough.

the total space is 5.81ha , there is plenty of space for a 2.2 h/a oval. (or bigger if they call it open space and we essentially pay for the privilege of having it)

 

[FR0GGY]

the total space is 5.81ha , there is plenty of space for a 2.2 h/a oval. (or bigger if they call it open space and we essentially pay for the privilege of having it)

I’m suggesting their not just interpreting what misty was saying.

 

[mistylake]

I’m suggesting their not just interpreting what misty was saying.

Realistically we need that whole site. I bet it’s not cheap land either. It seems a tad out there to spend that much on a block of land for a footy club that won’t be maximising it’s returns to help pay for it. If it’s mostly grass.

 

[FR0GGY]

Realistically we need that whole site. I bet it’s not cheap land either. It seems a tad out there to spend that much on a block of land for a footy club that won’t be maximising it’s returns to help pay for it. If it’s mostly grass.

We are going for the whole block aren’t we?

 

[NTRabbit]

Realistically we need that whole site. I bet it’s not cheap land either. It seems a tad out there to spend that much on a block of land for a footy club that won’t be maximising it’s returns to help pay for it. If it’s mostly grass.

Developers would be looking to get a return on it because their plan is to buy it, develop it, and then sell it, it's why they exist.

We wouldn't be getting a return on it, nor should we be looking to - we'd be planning to buy this site as an owner occupier, not as a flipper or an investor.