Are residents outside of Adelaide CBD scared of heights?

[skyliner]

Maybe someone should start a new thread entitled "Are residents inside the Adelaide CBD scared of heights?"

Quite so - especially when planes are no-where near the CBD in their flightpaths,

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[duke149]

I heard one excuse man years ago as to why we shouldn't have 2story+ buildings, is because if there is a 2nd floor the ppl in the 2nd floor can see in to the neighbors backyard. *shock horror* omg no, wont somebody think of the children. :wank:

[The Carabinieri]

I find this to be a massive problem.

It it what holds our city back

I think that the area which is affected worse by this, is Norwood

[monotonehell]

I find this to be a massive problem.

It it what holds our city back

I think that the area which is affected worse by this, is Norwood

It depends on what people are objecting to though. I don't mind multi story developments, but I hate the contemporary bland style of most new residential buildings. There's several along Osmond Tce. They are just hideous.

[AtD]

^^ If building proposals in suburbia were to be knocked back because they're bland, then we wouldn't have 9/10ths of the houses. I think some of the other suburban developments are far more an eyesore than a high rise would be, with the acres of uninterrupted colour-bond roofs.

[adam73837]

I think you must have missed the threads on this forum relating to multi-storey residential and commercial development in the suburbs.

Look them up, or better yet go for a drive to the following places:
Mawson Lakes
Port Adelaide
Glenelg

All these suburbs have plenty of multi-storey development, and I'm certain there will be more to come in future years.

So the answer to the question is no!

I live in Mawson Lakes Central in one of the apartment complexes you mentioned and think the concept is great but I still think a 5 storey restriction is too low. I have seen Port adelaide - 8 Stories, I think this is to low - look at the Docklands. Then Glenelg.... way to low - look at the Gold Coast & Coogee etc. The height restrictions outside of Adelaide's CBS seem to be low compared to other suburbs outside the other cities. Whats wrong with 10 storey complexes in North Adelaide or 15 storey complexes at the Port or Glenelg. We dont need to go to extremes like the Gold Coast but I believe the prime locations like Glenelg and the Port are being wasted by only building to the levels they have.

I agree. As you said, the Docklands have HUGE Buildings (especially the Eureka Tower), whilst we are building new developments at Port Adelaide that either are or are less than 8 storeys. As I mentioned in one of the other forums, why not build something tall and iconic at Port Adelaide or Glenelg? Port Adelaide would probably be the better option because there has been so much neglected land there and it will really liven it up to make at an iconic area of Adelaide. I'm not saying not build something at Glenelg (which we could develop to have iconic structures like the new proposed Perth Waterfront), but Port Adelaide would have the same charactaristic as the Docklands.
But if we can't make local councils take those steps, why not make our CBD look great and significant. At the moment, there's the Westpac Building sticing out like a sore thumb amongst other shorter building that are either grey, balck, etc because all the new attractive building aren't very tall. Why don't we make them tall and iconic as to add a bit of 21st Century character to our CBD?

[monotonehell]

^^ If building proposals in suburbia were to be knocked back because they're bland, then we wouldn't have 9/10ths of the houses. I think some of the other suburban developments are far more an eyesore than a high rise would be, with the acres of uninterrupted colour-bond roofs.

It's not so much just that they are bland, it's that they are unattractive and don't harmonise with their surroundings. I wish I had a photograph to show what I mean, I think you'd recognise the style (or lack there of) they are cropping up all over North Adelaide as well.

Certain suburbs have a heritage that should be considered when developing a new site. Doing so enhances the value of your property. If you 'ugly up' a suburb it becomes less desirable. It's also dehumanising. The same can be said for low rise development as well as high rise. It's not about the height, it's about the design.

[monotonehell]

...Why don't we make them tall and iconic as to add a bit of 21st Century character to our CBD?

What's your definition of iconic?

[AtD]

It's not so much just that they are bland, it's that they are unattractive and don't harmonise with their surroundings. I wish I had a photograph to show what I mean, I think you'd recognise the style (or lack there of) they are cropping up all over North Adelaide as well.

Certain suburbs have a heritage that should be considered when developing a new site. Doing so enhances the value of your property. If you 'ugly up' a suburb it becomes less desirable. It's also dehumanising. The same can be said for low rise development as well as high rise. It's not about the height, it's about the design.

"Harmonising with surroundings" is a horrible concept and in itself creates bland suburbs because no one dares to be different. You need to break the monotony up a little. But I will concede that there's a time and a place, and North Adelaide isn't it.

[monotonehell]

It's not so much just that they are bland, it's that they are unattractive and don't harmonise with their surroundings. I wish I had a photograph to show what I mean, I think you'd recognise the style (or lack there of) they are cropping up all over North Adelaide as well.

Certain suburbs have a heritage that should be considered when developing a new site. Doing so enhances the value of your property. If you 'ugly up' a suburb it becomes less desirable. It's also dehumanising. The same can be said for low rise development as well as high rise. It's not about the height, it's about the design.

"Harmonising with surroundings" is a horrible concept and in itself creates bland suburbs because no one dares to be different. You need to break the monotony up a little. But I will concede that there's a time and a place, and North Adelaide isn't it.

Design principles: Harmony and contrast in the appropriate proportions and so on in order to create visual interest. blah blah yada .. it's been too long since I was in Uni lol. These things contrast too much and don't harmonise at all with their surroundings. It's cookie cutter architecture. The design within themselves is also lacking in visual interest. I'm sure if I tied you to a hand truck and wheeled you in front of one you'd agree. (Especially after I threatened not to untie you until you did )

I'm all for development, but I'm also into aesthetics. Which are terribly subjective ...

[skyliner]

[quote="monotonehell"

I'm all for development, but I'm also into aesthetics. Which are terribly subjective ... [/quote]

I agree - bland, repetitive continuous seas of the same thing takes away interest and leads to monotony. (take for example the comments about city central). This has taken place in Sydney's eastern suburbs - some entirely of 4 floor apartment buildings of very similar design - boring and featureless.(4 stories to avoid lifts).

Appearance counts a lot concerning the attractiveness of a city. BTW for the nimbys - - you really don't have to remain at one level buildngs to maintain interest or aesthetic appeal.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[adam73837]

...Why don't we make them tall and iconic as to add a bit of 21st Century character to our CBD?

What's your definition of iconic?

When I say iconic, I mean something like the Sydney Opera House ios an icon of Sydney and the Statue of Liberty is an icon of New York. Obviously I'm not suggesting something of that scale to be built in Adelaide, but to have something big that will attract tourists and give them good views of Adelaide's skyline and will become a symbol of Adelaide.
Yes, it's a big ask, but when people see a picture of the Swan River with tall office building behind it, they know it's Perth they're seeing and when they see a picture of the Bolte Bridge, they know they're looking at Melbourne. Adelaide needs something iconic like that too, because as it's been stated a few times on this forum, whenever people hear 'Australia' they think of Melbourne and Sydney and lately, people are beginning to think of Brisbane and possibly Perth, but Adelaide is the town-city at the moment with lots of little things happening, but not many large and iconic things.

[AtD]

I can't say I've heard of the Bolte Bridge. But as for icons, well, action speaks louder than landmarks.

[monotonehell]

I agree - bland, repetitive continuous seas of the same thing takes away interest and leads to monotony. (take for example the comments about city central). This has taken place in Sydney's eastern suburbs - some entirely of 4 floor apartment buildings of very similar design - boring and featureless.(4 stories to avoid lifts).

Appearance counts a lot concerning the attractiveness of a city. BTW for the nimbys - - you really don't have to remain at one level buildngs to maintain interest or aesthetic appeal.

I agree.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ONEYGU_7EqU

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

Why's your signature in the text body?

...Why don't we make them tall and iconic as to add a bit of 21st Century character to our CBD?

What's your definition of iconic?

When I say iconic, I mean something like the Sydney Opera House is an icon of Sydney and the Statue of Liberty is an icon of New York. Obviously I'm not suggesting something of that scale to be built in Adelaide, but to have something big that will attract tourists and give them good views of Adelaide's skyline and will become a symbol of Adelaide.
Yes, it's a big ask, but when people see a picture of the Swan River with tall office building behind it, they know it's Perth they're seeing and when they see a picture of the Bolte Bridge, they know they're looking at Melbourne. Adelaide needs something iconic like that too, because as it's been stated a few times on this forum, whenever people hear 'Australia' they think of Melbourne and Sydney and lately, people are beginning to think of Brisbane and possibly Perth, but Adelaide is the town-city at the moment with lots of little things happening, but not many large and iconic things.

Oh good, it's just that I've seen a lot of people on this forum use the phrase "tall and iconic" and in the same breath as if they think that just being BIG is the be all and end all. That's such a 1930's Manhattan attitude. And if every tall building is iconic you just end up with a skyline like Shanghai, which is iconic but a a mess.

Of course, an interesting construction by itself doesn't an icon make, you need a back story for the city to attach to the icon in the World's collective consciousness. The Opera House and the Harbour Bridge are in Sydney, not Sydney itself. There's two other similar bridges in the World, and most people wouldn't know them. Sydney is famous in itself and has an icon. Not is famous because it has an icon.

What's Adelaide famous for?

[crawf]

Food, Drinks, Elegant Buildings and Festivals

Hence the Brilliant Blend campaign.