[APP] 199-200 North Terrace | 85m | 20lvls | Mixed Use

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Joely
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: Adelaide & Brisbane

[APP] Re: #PRO: 199-200 North Tce | 53m | 18lvls | Student

#61 Post by Joely » Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:42 am

Düsseldorfer wrote:holy fk, i'm hoping that design 2 with the awesome curved front gets approved!!!!

wouldn't be surprised if the council only approved the first design tho, and say that the second 'curved' design (like with 20-22 currie st) would cause the sun to reflect onto the footpath and blind people :roll:
Sadly, I agree. I'm really scared of being tremendously disappointed with the outcome of this. I'm not usually a pessimist but the ACC are just so backwards and ridiculous in their thinking that something like this is unlikely to stand a chance against them. I'm really excited about this project yet I don't want to get myself too excited because I know I'd get the urge to actually inflict harm on one of the councillors if it was rejected! I really think the better option would be to lodge this with the DAC instead.
Last edited by Joely on Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Just build it
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:12 pm

[APP] Re: #PRO: 199-200 North Tce | 53m | 18lvls | Student

#62 Post by Just build it » Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:47 am

Just the thought of the ACC refusing either of these designs makes my blood boil. :evil:

If design No.1 used a brass/gold coloured material I'd really love it but it looks like a yellow/mustard coloured material so in that case I'd rather design No.2 with the cool curve. This is exactly the 'bold and innovative design' asked for in the CBD Development Plan. The northern side of North Terrace, yeah fair enough, it's historically significant and beautiful but the southern side is littered with cheap bland crap from the '50s-'80s and should be open to modern looking developments.

User avatar
Joely
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: Adelaide & Brisbane

[APP] Re: #PRO: 199-200 North Tce | 53m | 18lvls | Student

#63 Post by Joely » Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:59 am

Just build it wrote:Just the thought of the ACC refusing either of these designs makes my blood boil. :evil:

If design No.1 used a brass/gold coloured material I'd really love it but it looks like a yellow/mustard coloured material so in that case I'd rather design No.2 with the cool curve. This is exactly the 'bold and innovative design' asked for in the CBD Development Plan. The northern side of North Terrace, yeah fair enough, it's historically significant and beautiful but the southern side is littered with cheap bland crap from the '50s-'80s and should be open to modern looking developments.
I wouldn't have thought there were other people still up! I 100% agree with you RE the southern side of the terrace, though the 1 thing that scares me most about those renders is the little 2 storey stone building to the left of it. Council is known for rejecting proposals outright due to not 'blending with' and not 'having a relationship to' adjacent heritage buildings. Fun times ahead!
Last edited by Joely on Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Professor
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Solomon Islands

[APP] Re: #PRO: 199-200 North Tce | 53m | 18lvls | Student

#64 Post by Professor » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:54 am

WHY ARE THE COUNCIL DECIDING THIS ONE? IT SHOULD GO TO THE NEW APPROVALS MECHANISM.

THE COUNCIL ARE HOPELESS!

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

[APP] Re: #PRO: 199-200 North Tce | 53m | 18lvls | Student

#65 Post by Wayno » Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:46 am

Design #2 please...

Both designs seem to extend onto the Nth Terrace footpath. Was the old building like that? and does this mean all adjacent buildings (if demolished & rebuilt) could push further out over the footpath?
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

[APP] Re: #PRO: 199-200 North Tce | 53m | 18lvls | Student

#66 Post by Wayno » Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:48 am

how_good_is_he wrote:Problem with apartments here is lack of avail. carparking as site is quite tight.
Walking, Buses, Trains and Trams...
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

how_good_is_he
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:32 pm

[APP] Re: #PRO: 199-200 North Tce | 53m | 18lvls | Student

#67 Post by how_good_is_he » Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:11 am

Wayno, good in principle, but buyers who spend say $1m+ usually have cars and expect carparking.

Only reason that its with the ACC is the proposal was lodged some 9 months ago with them and they have to deal with it.

The boundary of the site lies some 3m in front of the heritage listed Gallerie building, but runs parallel with the adj. buildings like OPSM on North Tce, with the balconies overhanging the boundary by some 2m [which they can].

User avatar
AG
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:44 am
Location: Adelaide SA

[APP] Re: #PRO: 199-200 North Tce | 53m | 18lvls | Student

#68 Post by AG » Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:18 am

I fail to see how either of the two new designs doesn't fit into the southern side of North Terrace given that there are already two apartment buildings with some similar architectural elements that already exist there in the area, of similar or larger size.

The width of the North Terrace footpath is exaggerated in the renders. However, the existing building (the nightclub) does extend further out onto the footpath than it's neighbour to the east.

UrbanSG
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1848
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:55 am

[APP] Re: #PRO: 199-200 North Tce | 53m | 18lvls | Student

#69 Post by UrbanSG » Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:07 am

Both designs are good. Design 2 is awesome. I am guessing the Council is mainly against the balcony overhang because they are obsessed with the idea of North Terrace as Adelaide's great wall :wank: Even though the hospital, unis, Hyatt etc all extend infront of this wall! They also hate building overhang over footpaths even though it has been allowed on occasions. Anyway I hope somehow one of these designs (preferably 2) can get approved.

User avatar
kernelpanic
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:36 pm
Location: Adelaide

[APP] Re: #PRO: 199-200 North Tce | 53m | 18lvls | Student

#70 Post by kernelpanic » Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:14 am

Absolutely loving the idea of a curved facade. Not only would it be of visual interest in itself, but the contrast would emphasise both the rectilinear new buildings on that strip of North Terrace and the neo-classical old buildings adjacent to it.

User avatar
bm7500
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 901
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:04 pm
Location: Adelaide

[APP] Re: #PRO: 199-200 North Tce | 53m | 18lvls | Student

#71 Post by bm7500 » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:11 am

Design number 2 gets my vote! It looks supurb.... simple, yet elegent!

ACC, reject or ask for a dumbing down of this proposal at your peril :twisted:
ADELAIDE SINGAPORE LONDON BERLIN AMSTERDAM PARIS TOKYO AUCKLAND DOHA DUBLIN HONG KONG BANGKOK REYKJAVIK ROME MADRID BUDAPEST COPENHAGEN ZURICH BRUSSELS VIENNA PRAGUE STOCKHOLM LUXEMBOURG BRATISLAVA NASSAU DUBAI BAHRAIN KUALA LUMPUR HELSINKI GENEVA

User avatar
joshzxzx
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:17 pm

[APP] Re: #PRO: 199-200 North Tce | 53m | 18lvls | Student

#72 Post by joshzxzx » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:27 am

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE Number 2...

Finally something that actually looks good... I hope this one goes ahead..
South Australia the Festival State

User avatar
wilkiebarkid
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:19 am
Location: Adelaide

[APP] Re: #PRO: 199-200 North Tce | 53m | 18lvls | Student

#73 Post by wilkiebarkid » Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:05 pm

how_good_is_he wrote:Comments from council planners is they are against the wall of glass on North Tce facade in option 1 and the curved element in option 2. Reason given, they want to minimise bulk/density/impact on North Tce facade.
This is exactly the type of building we need. Our CBD is pretty drab looking with many ugly, ageing, sandstone coloured buildings as is evident from the render pictures. North Tce needs sprucing up with fresh architecture such as these proposals. Alas, it's the council assessing it at the moment.

frank1
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 439
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:54 pm

[APP] Re: #PRO: 199-200 North Tce | 53m | 18lvls | Student

#74 Post by frank1 » Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:27 pm

I can see the councils point here. They both don't relly fit into the north terrace theme (the heritage buildings to the right and left), especially the curved one. If i had to choose i actually prefer the first render over the curved one.

Professor
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Solomon Islands

[APP] Re: #PRO: 199-200 North Tce | 53m | 18lvls | Student

#75 Post by Professor » Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:02 pm

What North Tce theme? The building to the west is pretty drab and they built the David Jones place directly to the east of the nice edwardian place.

The theme along Nth Tce should be the vibrant high-rise and quality buildings along the south of North Tce, directly opposite (and balancing) the historic library, museum, Elder Hall and art gallery etc on the northern side.

The best improvement to the "theme of north tce" would be to rip down the horrible 60s law building in Adelaide uni, which wrecks the historical link that flows along the whole length from Parliament to the RAH.

Why do the council still persist in their outdated vision for the city? I camnnot fathom their perspective on any of this. They regularly approve drab, mediocre 12 level buildings all over the city that add nothing to our present or future. When a "statement" building like this one comes along, one that announces that Adelaide is not a retirement home after all, they refuse it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], phenom and 5 guests