[COM] 11 Frome Street | 138m | 37 Levels | Crowne Plaza / Adelaidean | New tallest

[timtam20292]

As long as it doesn't lose any height, I don't mind what changes are lobbied or happen (unless they're obviously bad ones).

Ffs, why does it matter if it loses any height?

Once again, you are triggered by a comment about height.

[Patrick_27]

As long as it doesn't lose any height, I don't mind what changes are lobbied or happen (unless they're obviously bad ones).

Ffs, why does it matter if it loses any height?

Because our current tallest was built in the 80s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perth's tallest building was built in 1992, Sydney's in 1981. What's your point? If this lost height, there is another building going up a block away that would still replace Westpac House as our tallest, and there is at-least one other which could also contend for the title. At this stage, I'd be more concerned about the ground level activation that was promised by Samaras either being left entirely or being half-arsed, than what the building will look like above (short or tall that is).

[Nathan]

Agreed, the ground level activation is the make or break of this project. They've been pretty much given a lane and driven it through a building that should have been preserved, in order for their agreed upon drop-off area.

[SRW]

I’m curious what replaces the drop off/pick up in Tavistock Lane to leave the council so up in arms? On the face of it, having that traffic redirected to the existing car park (presumably accessed via the Frome St entrance) could make for a more pleasant laneway.

[AndyWelsh]

Not sure if this aerial view will help show the issues in question?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rev]

Ffs, why does it matter if it loses any height?

Because our current tallest was built in the 80s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perth's tallest building was built in 1992, Sydney's in 1981. What's your point? If this lost height, there is another building going up a block away that would still replace Westpac House as our tallest, and there is at-least one other which could also contend for the title. At this stage, I'd be more concerned about the ground level activation that was promised by Samaras either being left entirely or being half-arsed, than what the building will look like above (short or tall that is).

Those city's have had noticeable changes to their skylines. Adelaide hasn't.
This current crop of 130~ m buildings that are going up will be the first noticeable change to our skyline in a long long time.
What has gone up, with the exception of Vue which is on the far end of the city and almost never included in skyline shots, has barely made any impact. It is a sea of beige and brown still. So with these new buildings well and truly breaking the 100m barrier, we will finally see some change on the skyline.

A reduction in height will diminish the impact on our skyline. What goes up above street level is just as important as what is going on at street level.

[rhino]

Those cities have had noticeable changes to their skylines. Adelaide hasn't.

Fixed that for you

[obituary resider]

Because our current tallest was built in the 80s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perth's tallest building was built in 1992, Sydney's in 1981. What's your point? If this lost height, there is another building going up a block away that would still replace Westpac House as our tallest, and there is at-least one other which could also contend for the title. At this stage, I'd be more concerned about the ground level activation that was promised by Samaras either being left entirely or being half-arsed, than what the building will look like above (short or tall that is).

Those city's have had noticeable changes to their skylines. Adelaide hasn't.
This current crop of 130~ m buildings that are going up will be the first noticeable change to our skyline in a long long time.
What has gone up, with the exception of Vue which is on the far end of the city and almost never included in skyline shots, has barely made any impact. It is a sea of beige and brown still. So with these new buildings well and truly breaking the 100m barrier, we will finally see some change on the skyline.

A reduction in height will diminish the impact on our skyline. What goes up above street level is just as important as what is going on at street level.

You are right to suggest that what goes on above street level is just as important as at street level, but that statement has little correlation to the height of the building other than maybe overshadowing.

I think a lot of people tend to overemphasize the importance of the "skyline". Life does not really play out in, on or around the skyline; it happens down at the street level.

[Patrick_27]

I think a lot of people tend to overemphasize the importance of the "skyline". Life does not really play out in, on or around the skyline; it happens down at the street level.

This. At the end of the day, the people on this forum are about the only ones in this city who really care about our ageing or 'lacklusture' skyline. When people come to Adelaide from all around the world to visit, they don't look at our skyline from the airport or as they drive down Sir Donald Bradman Drive and say: "Oh my, the skyline here is shit, well, f*ck this we'll go to Melbourne instead." (if anything, it's quite the opposite, people love that we're set aside from every other major capital city in Australia and the world - whilst people on here lament at how our skyline isn't comparable to our interstate counterparts.) Tourists come here for everything else, the atmosphere that exists at street level. Which comes back to previous arguments I've made about destroying the character of this city and not preserving establishments that make Adelaide what it is.

[Algernon]

You can have both a tall building and street level activation. They're not mutually exclusive.

[rev]

Perth's tallest building was built in 1992, Sydney's in 1981. What's your point? If this lost height, there is another building going up a block away that would still replace Westpac House as our tallest, and there is at-least one other which could also contend for the title. At this stage, I'd be more concerned about the ground level activation that was promised by Samaras either being left entirely or being half-arsed, than what the building will look like above (short or tall that is).

Those city's have had noticeable changes to their skylines. Adelaide hasn't.
This current crop of 130~ m buildings that are going up will be the first noticeable change to our skyline in a long long time.
What has gone up, with the exception of Vue which is on the far end of the city and almost never included in skyline shots, has barely made any impact. It is a sea of beige and brown still. So with these new buildings well and truly breaking the 100m barrier, we will finally see some change on the skyline.

A reduction in height will diminish the impact on our skyline. What goes up above street level is just as important as what is going on at street level.

You are right to suggest that what goes on above street level is just as important as at street level, but that statement has little correlation to the height of the building other than maybe overshadowing.

I think a lot of people tend to overemphasize the importance of the "skyline". Life does not really play out in, on or around the skyline; it happens down at the street level.

South Aussies love to complain about the east coast bagging SA and putting it down as a big country town, but when it comes to developments and change that will go a long way towards changing those negative perceptions so many are opposed.

Maybe the solution is to leave Adelaide as it is, downsize the metro area footprint even, and do what some other countries have done, even South Korea, and that is build a new city from the ground up. A smart city of the future.

[SBD]

Those city's have had noticeable changes to their skylines. Adelaide hasn't.
This current crop of 130~ m buildings that are going up will be the first noticeable change to our skyline in a long long time.
What has gone up, with the exception of Vue which is on the far end of the city and almost never included in skyline shots, has barely made any impact. It is a sea of beige and brown still. So with these new buildings well and truly breaking the 100m barrier, we will finally see some change on the skyline.

A reduction in height will diminish the impact on our skyline. What goes up above street level is just as important as what is going on at street level.

You are right to suggest that what goes on above street level is just as important as at street level, but that statement has little correlation to the height of the building other than maybe overshadowing.

I think a lot of people tend to overemphasize the importance of the "skyline". Life does not really play out in, on or around the skyline; it happens down at the street level.

South Aussies love to complain about the east coast bagging SA and putting it down as a big country town, but when it comes to developments and change that will go a long way towards changing those negative perceptions so many are opposed.

Maybe the solution is to leave Adelaide as it is, downsize the metro area footprint even, and do what some other countries have done, even South Korea, and that is build a new city from the ground up. A smart city of the future.

It seems we've tried that a number of times, with varied success:

• 1950s Elizabeth
• 1970s Monarto
• 1990s Mawson Lakes / MFP

Perhaps we are due to do the next one - is it the revival of Port Adelaide or Whyalla?

Elizabeth worked immediately due to high immigration and readily available employment. It went through a slump later as the meaning and use of public housing changed, and the area had lots of it.

I was a bit too young to remember what happened that Monarto never took off.

Mawson Lakes has taken a long time, but seems to be reaching many of the goals now that the fanfare has well and truly passed.

Whyalla could receive a revival if Sanjeev Gupta's visions work and can be leveraged by the Government to attract even more people. A new school is a part of that.

[Mpol03]

Could the Port become a viable second CBD?
If I recall, there were plans to have the CBD located here but due to poor soil, it was moved to where we see it today.
I feel a CBD in this location would be wonderful, though we need a larger population to fulfil any of this. And preferably not the PAN OPS limitations we have in the CBD due to the proximity to the airport.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic.
I agree with rev, however. Height is important due to us needing to change the stigma surrounding the city. And believe it or not a lot of people do look at our skyline.

[SRW]

So how about the topic of this thread?

[Algernon]

You are right to suggest that what goes on above street level is just as important as at street level, but that statement has little correlation to the height of the building other than maybe overshadowing.

I think a lot of people tend to overemphasize the importance of the "skyline". Life does not really play out in, on or around the skyline; it happens down at the street level.

South Aussies love to complain about the east coast bagging SA and putting it down as a big country town, but when it comes to developments and change that will go a long way towards changing those negative perceptions so many are opposed.

Maybe the solution is to leave Adelaide as it is, downsize the metro area footprint even, and do what some other countries have done, even South Korea, and that is build a new city from the ground up. A smart city of the future.

It seems we've tried that a number of times, with varied success:

• 1950s Elizabeth
• 1970s Monarto
• 1990s Mawson Lakes / MFP

Perhaps we are due to do the next one - is it the revival of Port Adelaide or Whyalla?

Elizabeth worked immediately due to high immigration and readily available employment. It went through a slump later as the meaning and use of public housing changed, and the area had lots of it.

I was a bit too young to remember what happened that Monarto never took off.

Mawson Lakes has taken a long time, but seems to be reaching many of the goals now that the fanfare has well and truly passed.

Whyalla could receive a revival if Sanjeev Gupta's visions work and can be leveraged by the Government to attract even more people. A new school is a part of that.

Monarto was abandoned because it was based upon population projections that never came to fruition. It never should have been on the cards - Adelaide was experiencing population growth which was boom level for SA but basically similar to Melbourne's growth rate today - strong but not enough to get into a panic and start new cities.

Mawson Lakes and MFP are the same location but not really related. The basis of MFP was to lure japanese corporations to the area. They were really keen on it, but it turned out there were some misaligned expectations. SA thought it was getting a modern technology focused city, the envy of the developed world. The investors legit wanted to build a resort+golf course. Mawson Lakes later emerged on the back of federal development grants. Somewhat embarrassingly, SA put the cash toward Mawson Lakes. WA put it toward a new rail system. Game, set, match WA.