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

[Paulns]

Pleeeeeease build design 2? That looks awesome!!

[SRW]

Yay for ACC bashing...

In fairness though, the first design hardly seems dissimilar to any of the other recent residential developments on the boulevard, with the exception of a greater preponderance of glass. And that should be welcomed, IMO.

I'm happy with both designs -- torn, in fact. I feel drawn to the first one immediately, but the second one does cause me to think twice. The only niggling I have is the footpath overhang.

[crawf]

Wow!, I can't decide

[Will]

I cannot understand why the ACC thinks that by building mediocre buildings we are respecting our heritage. Any credibility that the ACC had in judging proposals for North Terrace was surely lost when they approved the outrageously ugly Palais Apartments; a building that looks like a shipping container! The best way to respect our heritage buildings is to allow the erection of equally beautiful modern buildings next to them!

[AtD]

New renders of 2 different options submitted. 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. Comments? Your preferred option? Should the developer re-lodge it with the DAC instead?

Who are the developers?

I too hope option 2 gets built, but they're both stunning! I fail to understand the ACC's complaints about the bulk, this is the CBD after all, and there's a lot bulkier buildings along both sides of North Terrace. The Masonic Lodge building would do more to add 'bulk' than this would. I do see their point regarding the overhang, but I think given the quality of this development (at least from what we've seen), it's not detrimental.

Maybe the developer could provide a render from further east along North Terrace showing that 223 will, for the most part, hide this building.

[skyliner]

I just sat and stared for ages at design 2 - just what is needed - kind of like a junior partner to the permanent wave in Currie St. Presence is astounding.

Much needed to get away from the box-like designs of so many bldgs. Here's hoping the conservative ACC does not cause the demise of this one. What a great impression from the city railway stn.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[Just build it]

There's no doubt in my mind that if this looked like the truly revolting Spark88 on Hindley it would be approved without question. Town Hall planning just loooove the heritage height facades with a 6m setback.

But still, I can't really see the difference between this project and the Eastwest Apartments that were approved (and built!) just up the way on North Terrace. Both of these proposed designs are more attractive than Eastwest and the heritage building to the east isn't going to be turned to dust.

[Shuz]

Number 2 all the way. Its a bloody beauty.

I seriously cannot believe the ACC is turning a blind eye to either proposal. Do they want to have crap architecture plastered all over this city? (cough Palais, Alpha, cough) Both designs offer brilliant simplistic designs which offers a elegant contrast to the character along North Terrace.

[monotonehell]

Some of you guys are abusing the ACC like they've already rejected this. Can't you want until IF they reject it before you go abusing them? How many rejections have the CURRENT ACC DAP really issued? I only know of one, and most of you hated it.

[crawf]

Plus where the hell does it say that the council won't support both designs, the only thing I could find that triggered this was a persons comment.

Problem is the council planners won't support either facades, saying option 1 with the wall of glass has too much bulk & density for North Tce and option 2 - the curved element, is too "out there" for North Tce, doesnt fit in with the streetscape and has too much impact.
Thats Adelaide City Council planners for you.
If you were the developer would you re-lodge it with the DAC and in-effect start all over again with many more tens of thousands re-spent in application fees, consultants etc. The architects have already spent over 6 months trying to convince council.
As for the name, for those who remember it in the late 80s, the building was originally called The Promenade, so a nice nostalgic touch.
Problem with apartments here is lack of avail. carparking as site is quite tight. Other option is to go with a 5-star hotel, but there is be a glut of these coming. Probably the first 5 star student accom. available for the international students.

[Just build it]

Of course we have to sit it out and hope but the original poster of the renders sounds like he has a fair idea of what's being said about it inside ACC planning so maybe he works for the ACC, architect or developer? I don't know but I doubt anyone would just make up further info for the hell of it.

Just out of curiosity, have the current DAP ever voted in favour of an application after receiving a negative planning department recommendation before? Just in case.

[Ho Really]

Some of you guys are abusing the ACC like they've already rejected this...

Yeah fellas, take it easy. Don't jump the gun. I have some questions though.

I just want something clarified; are the older buildings on both sides of this proposal heritage-listed? If yes, I assume this proposal will have no top-to-bottom bare walls either east or west. However, there still has to be some to the roofs of these two buildings below the proposal's balconies and glass windows for fire reasons, and I don't see any on the east side renderings. I am also perplexed about this building sticking out onto the footpath so much. Where is the boundary on North Terrace? That widened footpath looks good but it is deceiving! As for the curved facade, if they use non-reflective material, there won't be any glare! So don't worry about that.

Cheers

[Will]

Some of you guys are abusing the ACC like they've already rejected this. Can't you want until IF they reject it before you go abusing them? How many rejections have the CURRENT ACC DAP really issued? I only know of one, and most of you hated it.

I disagree. I think the criticisms of the ACC are completely warranted. This thread has given us a rare and potentially first time glimpse into the very early stages of the life of a development. Usually when we are presented a building, it is at the stage after this one, where a building design has been already chosen.

It makes you wonder how many of the current buildings that have or are going up were originally quite good looking but because of the ACC's conservative attitude had to be dumbed down. In fact this thread has opened my eyes and made me realise that maybe I have been too harsh on architects and developers in the past. Maybe they are hamstrung by the ACC in terms of what they can build. Maybe it's not their fault for the recent epidemic of green boxes...

[Edgar]

Render 1 looks good, but sick of the bland design that seems to appear in every current buildings in Adelaide.

Render 2 looks far more attractive to any other buildings we are currently building, even without the height, it would still no doubt looks better than a glass box.

Let the criticism from ACC be a challenge to the architect of the project. If one is committed enough, I am sure they can come up with a better design that would incorporate the North Terrace street scape, but in the mean time, well done to both renders currently shown, we know how not hard it is, to produce a decent looking building.

[how_good_is_he]

100% correct Will. I am good mates with the team involved and below are some of the direct written comments from the ACC planner to the architects.
[Option 1]
At any rate, and as discussed, the central fixed glass element is heavy and needs to be reconsidered.
[Option 2]
The curved 'framing element' to the North Terrace façade I think is too heavy a feature and adds to the encroaching character of the building - which I think is something we are keen to avoid.