[U/C] 88 O'Connell Street | 63m | 13, 13 and 15 Levels | Mixed Use

[Will]

I wonder what a positive city would have done with a prime piece of real-estate such as this one?

[stumpjumper]

Oh, probably done something that looked really good, and fitted in well and didn't stick out like dog's balls - something that did for O'Connell St what the buildings in Paris do for their streets, or something genuinely different put pleasant too, like Hundertwasser's apartments and shops in Vienna
Have a look:

http://www.phototravels.net/vienna/vien ... hotos.html

or any number of good design solutions as seen in decently run cities all over the world.

What's more, the Le Cornu site is so big that the design has to be good. On a small site a bad design gets swallowed up to some extent by the buildings around it. On the Le Cornu site, a bad design is going to be a very big and very prominent mistake. It won't be covered up and will basically define (and degrade) the area until it is demolished:

A: 'I'm living in some flats in North Adelaide just behind that hideous...'

B: 'Yeah, I know, that Makris thing. Why did they ever let anyone build that?''

[Mants]

I wonder what a positive city would have done with a prime piece of real-estate such as this one?

they wouldnt have had such a prime piece of real estate.

[stumpjumper]

I wonder if local member and what's more Minister for Adelaide Lomax-Smith will have the necessary to stand up to her cabinet mates again? I don't think there's been a bleat from her on the latest Makris propsal so far.

[jk1237]

Stumpjumper, you are certainly entitled to it, but its simply your view that you dont like the design. I actually like it as it looks like something a little different and interesting in this ultra ultra ultra ultra conservative city.
Just look at that rediculous motor inn at the other end of O'connell st (opposite red rock noodle bar) that is so out of character and line with the O'connell st. This project will make O'connel street so more exciting and vibrant. This wont ruin the streetscape anymore than the repulsive developments of the 70s and 80s which have already ruined a third of Adelaide, but since they were mainly only 2 storeys then we all dont mind. Anything over 2 storeys on this site would be classed as a disneyland style development unsuitable for Adelaide by the North Adl nimbys. We let so much 2 storey crap be built but as soon as it gets over 3 storeys, thats when we stand up and go mental about it.
We all have different tatstes and no one is ever going to agree on the design, and we all know the primary goal of property developers is to build something at low cost and make a quick buck out of it, so just get on with it. Its like torture

[skyliner]

Stumpjumper, I do appreciate your points about planning. Put in the context of the Nth. Adelaidean culture it seems to me that restraints are too strong. Over 20 years of the current hole is enough

From the aesthetic point, this proposal is FAR better than the first shown on this thread. (and much better than the undeveloped site that it is today). The development never struck me as cartoonish. In reality it would be quite different to the render, which appears to be a rendition (not a photo) of the final product.(model). The pastal colours etc would be quite different. I believe the walls will possibly appear as 'sandstone' (treated). Also we will not see the development from the top , but as a street frontage, so detracting from the 'cartoon' appearance. As well, it appears a lot better than the tumble down look of some of the shops and awnings opposite.

As I once mentioned, it appears european. The Grande in Glenelg has something of this style and has come out well in the end. Thoughts on this?

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[stumpjumper]

I agree there's no consensus on taste. I agree that the Grand at Glenelg looks good. It's the work of a local architect, too. It's nicely detailed, and well-balanced, and there we are into personal preferences again.

Makris's designers Ignite Architects are an international firm with offices around the Pacific. They have done major retail work in Asia, the Emirates, NZ and now Australia. A lot of the work around the world displayed on their websites features thick facades with rectangular openings, and round tower forms topped by big blue domes with gold needles stuck in them. Very much in the South Australian manner.

Two things about this project get up my nose, and many others I suspect.

FIrst, no-one has demonstrated any local demand for more shops. North Adelaide has two supermarkets which don't seem to be under stress. That's not teh same as saying there is no deamnd to develop the site. Of course there is.

Second annoying thing is the government acquiescing to the developer's outrageous demand for Major Project status for what is basically a suburban shopping centre with no particular issues (flat, regular site, simple planning framework) except one: an unbelievably greedy and aggressive developer who has employed a small army of lawyers, planners and other advisers and lobbyists to ensure that he gets what he wants. And he's a lot closer now with major project status.

Major project status closes down public consultation and there is no reference to the council elected by the community where the project will be built.

What has happened here, aesthetics aside, is that the elected (and publicly funded) government of SA has said, "Right, we, your government, are siding with the developer in this. Now you people get out of the way and allow this company and its designers to build what it likes."

A potentially ugly situation, and a distrubing precedent as the highly sought after Major Project status is applied to smaller and smaller projects, taking them out of the normal planning regime and far away from the annoying shouts of public protest and elected local representatives.

[ynotsfables]

Yes i agree Nth Adelaide needs this project its quite outstanding in my opinion.
As for the newly renovated Nth Adelaide village i think thats a marvelous addition to the area it's much better than before, and it contributes to the development activity of that area with more specialty shops and cafe's that bring in more crowd.

[ynotsfables]

What really gets up my nose though is the government acquiescing to the developer's demand for Major Project status.

and its designers to build what it likes."

This needed to happen i'm affraid due to 20 years of in action and rejection of previous proposals, i was happy when i heard this i thought this government has got balls.
Most people i've talked to feel the same way, they were sick of the eyesore and lack of decison making.
This project will add a new dimention to the cities entrance.

[urban]

It does not take balls to bend over for a developer.

Will, a confident city would have demanded a landmark modern building which was appropriate to the scale, pattern and density of the site. Has any one got pictures of the sculptural glass building on the Champs Elyssses a block away from the Arc de Triomphe?

[AtD]

FIrst, no-one has demonstrated any local demand for more shops. North Adelaide has two supermarkets which don't seem to be under stress. That's not teh same as saying there is no deamnd to develop the site. Of course there is.

I disagree with the principal behind that argument, from an economic sense. Whether or not the developer can get the rents it expects shouldn't be the council's concern. Secondly, retail is probably the biggest industry that benefits from the "build it and they will come" effect.

[Will]

I

Major project status closes down public consultation and there is no reference to the council elected by the community where the project will be built.

What has happened here, aesthetics aside, is that the elected (and publicly funded) government of SA has said, "Right, we, your government, are siding with the developer in this. Now you people get out of the way and allow this company and its designers to build what it likes."

A potentially ugly situation, and a distrubing precedent as the highly sought after Major Project status is applied to smaller and smaller projects, taking them out of the normal planning regime and far away from the annoying shouts of public protest and elected local representatives.

I feel your arguement is contradictory. You complain that granting Major Project status makes this a less democratic process. I beg to differ. I actually believe that the state government taking control of the fate of this site makes it a more democratic process. You conveniently forget that the state government was popularly elected by ALL South Australians, unlike the Adelaide City Council which has councillors elected by as little as 700 votes.

[Will]

It does not take balls to bend over for a developer.

Will, a confident city would have demanded a landmark modern building which was appropriate to the scale, pattern and density of the site. Has any one got pictures of the sculptural glass building on the Champs Elyssses a block away from the Arc de Triomphe?

I realize that the proposal could be better, but I can't quite understand the arguement that it should respect the scale, pattern and density of the locality. If this proposal was proposed for the quiet back streets of North Adelaide, streets which retain un-broken 19th century streetscapes I would understand the arguement, but I can't understand it for O'Connell Street. O'Connell Street lost its village atmosphere many decades ago. Furthermore there are only a few heritage buildings left on O'Connell Street, and the streetscape is a mish mash of different architectural styles, including many ugly concrete blocks from the 1960's and 1970's. Furthermore there are already 2, 10 level buildings at the southern end of O'Connell Street, so I can't understand why 6 levels is such a threat.

The arguement used by those opposed to the development; that it clashes with the village charm and heritage streetscape of O'Connell Street are weak, as both concepts no longer exist.

[Ho Really]

It does not take balls to bend over for a developer.

Will, a confident city would have demanded a landmark modern building which was appropriate to the scale, pattern and density of the site. Has any one got pictures of the sculptural glass building on the Champs Elyssses a block away from the Arc de Triomphe?

I agree with you urban. This and the previous designs look cheap. North Adelaide needs a landmark development regardless of height. Now that is Major Project Status.

Cheers

[how_good_is_he]

JUST TO REMIND SOME PEOPLE - A 12 STOREY BUILDING WAS APPROVED ON THIS SITE IN THE 1980s. FORGET ABOUT DESIGN ETC FOR A MOMENT, WE ARE GOING BACKWARDS WITH OUR HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS THROUGHOUT ADELAIDE WHICH ARE TOO ONEROUS AND SHORT-SIGHTED. From North Adelaide to our beachside suburbs [except Glenelg] why can't we can go more than 3-storeys? I think many people take a very short term approach to what fits in now, its height etc and fail to consider how scarce land will be. Once built, these major developments will likely be around in 100+, 200+ years when our population may be 5m - 10m. So if say New York had this mentality when they had only 1m people and "skyscrapers" were limited to say 20 storeys it would have stifled their potential growth and population forever.