News & Discussion: General CBD Development

[timtam20292]

Really don’t get the strong dislike towards the facade. I’m not offended by it.

[Nathan]

God, I hope they redo the facade. Fuck it looks awful.

Miserable looking building. This takeover is great for Victoria squares offering.

Hard disagree. Aside from needing a power wash, the exterior of the building looks great. It's the rooms and conference rooms that need rejuvenation.

This brutalist [s]1950s uninspirational[/s] 1980s monolith is appealing to you?

Yes, as does the cluster of other brutalist buildings on the other side of the square (Wakefield House, Dept of Education, former Motor Registration Centre, etc.)
It represents and speaks about a time in Adelaide's history just as much as the Samuel Way building next to it.

[Mpol02]

I like the education building of all the buildings I think it is the best of the brutalists

[Nort]

I don't really like it in person. It looks old fashioned, not old enough to be classic, not new enough to be flashy and modern.

That's exactly why it shouldn't go. The historical trend is that we tend to have a bit of a cultural cringe for the architecture and fashions of decades past, and eventually see their continued existence as a sign of cheapness, or lack of progress.

It's exactly the same tragedy that was seen throughout the 20th century, where many buildings were torn down for having that same outdated cringe. We look at the destruction of locations like the Grand Central Hotel, demolished for a carpark and are taken back, how could they.

They could because to them it was just another example of half century old architecture they had moved on from and saw as a throwaway sign of stagnation. Either replace them, or put a sleek new 1960s modern facade in front.

The lesson to take from the past isn't that any particular style should have been saved, it's that in situations like this we are as a society and individuals are likely far too quick to dismiss things as not worthy, and can easily be the wreckers of history we are otherwise quick to bemoan

[[Shuz]]

I love the architectural style of the Hilton.

It's just the conference rooms and hotel rooms that need updating, not the facade.

[Patrick_27]

I don't really like it in person. It looks old fashioned, not old enough to be classic, not new enough to be flashy and modern.

That's exactly why it shouldn't go. The historical trend is that we tend to have a bit of a cultural cringe for the architecture and fashions of decades past, and eventually see their continued existence as a sign of cheapness, or lack of progress.

It's exactly the same tragedy that was seen throughout the 20th century, where many buildings were torn down for having that same outdated cringe. We look at the destruction of locations like the Grand Central Hotel, demolished for a carpark and are taken back, how could they.

They could because to them it was just another example of half century old architecture they had moved on from and saw as a throwaway sign of stagnation. Either replace them, or put a sleek new 1960s modern facade in front.

The lesson to take from the past isn't that any particular style should have been saved, it's that in situations like this we are as a society and individuals are likely far too quick to dismiss things as not worthy, and can easily be the wreckers of history we are otherwise quick to bemoan

It's also the reason why they should be preserved in their most original form, even if it means going through phases of looking 'dated'. The buildings on the other side of Vic Square are a good example of doing this, whereas the old Telstra HQ on Pirie Street has seen about four or five iterations of the entrance lobby when the original lobby was the best for that building.

[rev]

Really don’t get the strong dislike towards the facade. I’m not offended by it.

I think we're all kind of used to it being there hence most don't find it offensive. I still think it deserves a bulldozer. If I had the cash I'd buy it just to demolish it
I don't think anyone who likes it, or hates it, is trolling, it's just opinions.

With so much under-development in the CBD, it's unlikely this is going to be bulldozed for a new hotel or any other development. Why take on that extra cost and time burden?

I doubt they'll even do anything to the facade on this one. Would $40 mil cover an interior and exterior make over?