[CAN] 51-57 Hutt Street | 49m | 13 Levels | Mixed

[SRW]

The villa style is better represented elsewhere (not least but the group on Hutt closer to South Tce, one of which has an unattractive 80s addition to the front I'd love to see undone), so I'm sanguine about losing these character dwellings. I agree with Wayno that they could be put good use, but a good use of their location is also appropriate. And tbh, I expect that this sort of density development will be the trajectory of the north end of Hutt Street - particularly once the Wakefield hospital site is offloaded.

[Algernon]

But don't you all know how hard it is to find a crappy old building with good acoustics in Adelaide?

[mshagg]

I agree that Hutt St has a unique feel about it, but im not convinced that these facades/buildings contribute much to that, or that this section of Hutt really has its own identity. When I think of Hutt st as a precinct, I tend to think a little further south. It's essentially private day surgeries up and down this stretch isnt it?

It's a stone's throw from art apartments and surrounding developments and not far from what is being proposed on pirie st (i assume this spot is suitably distanced from the salvos ) so it could be important for maintaining momentum in this part of the city.

The existing buildings are quite unremarkable and structures in this style are a dime a dozen. That being said I'd prefer them to a bland development.

[Ben]

DAC are expected to approve next week.

http://dac.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_ ... hments.pdf

[Patrick_27]

DAC are expected to approve next week.

http://dac.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_ ... hments.pdf

Wow, bulldozing more heritage for another pile of shit. What will they think of next?

[Spurdo]

Wow, bulldozing more heritage for another pile of shit. What will they think of next?

Being serious here, is there any buildings that you actually like.

[timtam20292]

Geez Patrick, settle down

[metro]

It is regrettable the older structures are to be bulldozed, but I could find 100 others just like it in the city, suburbs, and across the state. It's not like we're demolishing Beehive Corner for a big ugly carpark. At least the proposed street front of this building looks promising.

[Norman]

I'd rather the density of residents and street activation than another cottage. The city needs people, especially the East End.

[Algernon]

Seems to fit in to the streetscape fine. Pretty positive about this one.

[crawf]

Simple design with improved street activation and no blank walls. Looks fine to me.

[Patrick_27]

Wow, bulldozing more heritage for another pile of shit. What will they think of next?

Being serious here, is there any buildings that you actually like.

So because I have been vocal in my opposition of three other building proposals (11-27 Frome Street, the Bath Hotel proposal in Norwood, and the Festival Plaza building), all of a sudden I don't like any buildings proposed? Let's not forget that I was one of a select few who liked the GPO proposals on Victoria Square. I think the architect/developer has delivered a lazy proposal (probably working on a budget), when you compare it to say the integration of smaller buildings into high-rise developments along St. Kilda Road in Melbourne.

[[Shuz]]

Apples and oranges.

Grow up.

[serca]

Fair dinkum these are not classed as heritage buildings. They are a dime a dozen through out the CBD and burbs. The site and area will benefit greatly from a development like this.

I'm all for maintaining heritage and majestic icons, I certainly wouldn't support the demolition of the South Australian Museum and surrounding buildings for any kind of development for example, but as for these little suckers sayonara !

[victorious80]

I am torn with this one.

The one thing that bothers me is that there are so many less significant or attractive sites in the CBD that would be preferable to demolish, than these examples of beautiful Victorian architecture. eg 60s/70s/80s solid brick buildings with almost no architectural merit.

I don't mind the proposal, and wholeheartedly agree that increased density in the area is a good thing. But what I like about Hutt St is the large number of Victorian era buildings, that as a whole contribute to a very old-world English town feel. This is what makes Hutt St so appealing - an historic, charming town in the middle (or almost) of a modern CBD. This feel is impossible to recreate with modern architecture, and once destroyed, it is gone forever. Some of our nicest CBD streets are attractive due to the age and style of their architecture (Rundle St, Hutt St, to a lesser extent Hindley St and Melbourne St).

I was walking through Kent Town yesterday, and the original cottages and buildings are in the minority. There are many 70s and 80s buildings in the area that were constructed in place of some beautiful bluestone cottages, as someone at the time would have considered them an improvement to the area. It is only now that you look at the older buildings and wish there were more of them, that you realise this old style of architecture contributes so much to the street and surrounding area and should be retained (if possible).

Even though this stretch of Hutt St is not part of what you might call the nicest part of Hutt St, I hope this doesn't set a precedent for the Council and developers to accept demolition of these sorts of buildings further south.

I guess to summarise my thoughts, the ideal situation would be to see underdeveloped, less attractive sites in the CBD go first. Once these are developed, then if required, we can look at the sites that contribute a little more to the architecture and feel of an area.