SA Water | 56m | 11lvls | Office

Message

Adelarch · #16 Post by **Adelarch** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:56 pm

Algernon wrote:This question wil be lost on probably everyone, but do people think the square is starting to develop a Le Corbusier quality to it?

I think I know what you mean - large blocky scrapers around a rectangular expanse of greenspace...?

what I'm trying to work out is whether this building takes up the entire footprint indicated in the siteplan or whether they're retaining that grassy nondescript patch between the cathedral and Vic Square. Mehopes the former - that grassed area is a bit of a waste of space IMO

#17 Post by **Pants** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:58 pm

It like to see the grassed area landscaped better and retained.

I also doubt, with the catholic church being the developers, that they'd impact upon their cathedral like that.

Adelarch · #18 Post by **Adelarch** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:45 pm

well just my opinion but to my mind the cathedral doesnt really 'address' the Square - infact you could almost say it turns its back on it by presenting a blank wall with no access points or windows (from memory). Also the grassy strip is by its nature more of a transit space than a 'destination' space and frankly there's plenty of underutilised open space immediately in front.
... or maybe I've just got a bad attitude to churches

#19 Post by **Will** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:19 am

I am very happy with this development, it will add another innovative building to Victoria Square. Although the building is not that tall, it is located at a good position that will guarantee it becomes a skyline altering building.

Just have one question - is the 46m height listed for this building a guess or is it from a reputable source?

#20 Post by **Will** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:23 am

Adelarch wrote:well just my opinion but to my mind the cathedral doesnt really 'address' the Square - infact you could almost say it turns its back on it by presenting a blank wall with no access points or windows (from memory). Also the grassy strip is by its nature more of a transit space than a 'destination' space and frankly there's plenty of underutilised open space immediately in front.
... or maybe I've just got a bad attitude to churches

The Catheral 'turns its back' on Victoria Square because up untill the early 1980's that small grassy area was actually devoted to small commercial buildings; therefore if we went back to 1980, you wouldn't actually be able to see the cathedral from the tram stop.

And I believe that the cathedral with its new tower makes a positive impact to Victoria Square, specially at night when the cathedral is floodlit. I just wish the Catholic Church would actually complete the cathedral. It is still missing its 60m spire.

aussie2000 · #21 Post by **aussie2000** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 9:28 pm

and did you know Parliment House (South Australia) is also missing the dome in top, because of money problems it was never built.

tayser · #22 Post by **tayser** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 1:35 pm

At least the SA parliament had more than one facade completed, VIC and SA parliaments were supposed to be relatively the same - we only got one facade

you got 4 (I think I counted 4 completed facades last Nov?).

Anyhow, this building is tits, good work.

Algernon · #23 Post by **Algernon** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:47 pm

Adelarch wrote:
Algernon wrote:This question wil be lost on probably everyone, but do people think the square is starting to develop a Le Corbusier quality to it?
I think I know what you mean - large blocky scrapers around a rectangular expanse of greenspace...?

what I'm trying to work out is whether this building takes up the entire footprint indicated in the siteplan or whether they're retaining that grassy nondescript patch between the cathedral and Vic Square. Mehopes the former - that grassed area is a bit of a waste of space IMO

Buy the man a sausage roll on the first point.

It's interesting with regard to whether to cover the cathedral from the square. In planning circles its always deemed best to have major institutional (or other fancy type) buildings with open sight lines to complement their sense of grandour. A good example of this is the Barr Smith library at Adelaide Uni, where a building was actually demolished ro create a sight line from frome road.

Unfortunately for the cathedral, its orientation is such that it doesn't make any impact on the square with its grand entrance. We're really just left with it 'shunning' the square, which is unfortunate. For this reason I can see why people would be tempted just to build in front of it.

I'd say my main reason for opposing that move would be that I really, really hate Le Corbusier

It'd be another small step towards this

aaarrrrrgggghhhhhhhh

#24 Post by **UrbanSG** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:31 am

Hehehehe. Algernon don't tell me you aren't a fan of the very imaginative prison block theme. Come on it's wonderful

Le Corbusier went to one side with his ideas in my view. I understand where he is comming from in some ways however it is far too extreme. I suppose you could say we are going down his path with this project but in a much more minor fashion. Thankfully

greenchilli · #25 Post by **greenchilli** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:41 am

this is nothing like the le corbusier idea.... all of our buildings are entirely different to one another and will not block out any sun impact onto the square. Youd better be glad we had wakefield st running thru the middle being as wide as it is other wise itd be a shady place 24/7.

gr8 proposal, but 46m? im sure SA could do somthing bettr than all these 40-60m tall buildings popping up everywhere....

dont start on the density vs height thing tho. i get the gist by now... i just still wish there was a little height.

Adelarch · #26 Post by **Adelarch** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:55 pm

Algernon wrote: I'd say my main reason for opposing that move would be that I really, really hate Le Corbusier It'd be another small step towards this

aaarrrrrgggghhhhhhhh

yep I hate Le Corbusier too, although you have to admit his ideas were bold and novel for his time.

As for that second render, the plan which his design is superimposed on looks suspiciously like the centre of Paris around the Seine and Notradame(??)... thank god almighty it wasn't built

#27 Post by **Will** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:35 pm

On the ACC DAP meeting that was held yesterday (Monday 6) the council voten infavour of demolishing the tram barn. Work should begin by the end of this month, as the documents submitted by the developer (the Catholic Church) wants to undertake a clean-up of the site, due to its industrial past.

These documents reveal that legal documents have already been signed between the developer and the clinet (SA Water) about the new building.

These documents specify that it would be very unlikely for the new tower to be cancelled.

The tower itself is planned to be approved by the council later this month or in early April.

It appears as though the tower will be 12 levels and not the 10 levels that was mentioned in the Sunday mail.

Work should begin on the actual building in October or November of this year.

#28 Post by **Howie** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:40 pm

Cheers for the update Will that's alot of good information you've picked up on there.

#29 Post by **Pants** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:46 pm

Fantastic news, cheers Will.

Let's hope the final product matches the render.

MaximumForce · #30 Post by **MaximumForce** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:03 pm

Thanks for the good info Will

[COM] SA Water | 56m | 11lvls | Office

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

Who is online