[COM] Rundle Place | 76m | 15lvls | Retail & Office

[frank1]

I wouldn't particularly like to see the facade retained, but I wouldn't mind a more detailed facade.

totally agree

[AtD]

"Colonel Light" on SSC alerted us to:
http://www.dac.sa.gov.au/index.cfm?obje ... A8083E92C7

Which I have backed up here:
http://photoadelaide.com/Rundle%20Mall% ... ov1308.pdf

It's an interesting read if you have the patience. The "conditions: mentioned in the Messenger article would probably be those listed on page 16 of the above pdf, including:

16. That internal ground floor building levels shall match existing footpath levels adjacent to access points to the site, unless otherwise agreed by Council.

There will also be retractable canopies on Francis Street and Lindes Lane.

[Omicron]

"Colonel Light" on SSC alerted us to:
http://www.dac.sa.gov.au/index.cfm?obje ... A8083E92C7

Which I have backed up here:
http://photoadelaide.com/Rundle%20Mall% ... ov1308.pdf

It's an interesting read if you have the patience. The "conditions: mentioned in the Messenger article would probably be those listed on page 16 of the above pdf, including:

16. That internal ground floor building levels shall match existing footpath levels adjacent to access points to the site, unless otherwise agreed by Council.

There will also be retractable canopies on Francis Street and Lindes Lane.

The spelling, grammar and language in the DAC document are oddly juvenile considering it's a product of the State Government.

I note with interest section 7.6:

An overall height to the top of the building core of approximately 82 metres, with an average height of 78 metres.

in conjunction with section 9.3.2a (Council's concerns), stating:

A reduction in the scale and form of the proposed fin elements to the top of the tower

Given 82 metres to the top of the core, that leaves only a further 11 metres for the fins - that doesn't sound particularly dominating or ill-proportioned to me.

I'm quite a fan of the points raised in section 9.3.5:

Not integrating a number of existing buildings in side lanes puts at risk the ability to draw on the richness of detailing and sense of history and place that these buildings provide. There [sic] loss of such buildings would lessen the ability to foster a genuine lane culture as a unique attractor to the State's premier retail mall.

and section 9.6.2:

Without final internal tenancy layout arrangements it is possible that the proposed shop fronts to the lanes are used simply for retail display with no activity or permeability. A clearer demonstration of the intended use that truly utilises and exploits the laneways is required i.e. cafe seating, lift-up servery windows, small/niche retail tenancies etc.

And most importantly:

Most importantly though, these issues have been sensitively dealt with and haven't impeded the progress of the development application.

Exactly.

[pushbutton]

So far as I can tell, it looks like this development was only proposed within about the last 6 months or so, and now it's pretty close to getting the final rubber stamp of approval and looks like construction COULD start early next year, maybe.

What's going on?

Don't these people realise this development is in ADELAIDE? It's supposed to take at least 5 years of meetings and planning and arguing before anything happens! Maybe they thought it was being built in Sydney!

[Will]

So far as I can tell, it looks like this development was only proposed within about the last 6 months or so, and now it's pretty close to getting the final rubber stamp of approval and looks like construction COULD start early next year, maybe.

What's going on?

Don't these people realise this development is in ADELAIDE? It's supposed to take at least 5 years of meetings and planning and arguing before anything happens! Maybe they thought it was being built in Sydney!

Adelaide has changed a lot in the last few years, and this not only includes the built environment but also the mentallity of the place. Maybe your perception of it should change too?

[ghs]

I doubt Construction would start early next year...... middle of next year would be more likely.

[pushbutton]

So far as I can tell, it looks like this development was only proposed within about the last 6 months or so, and now it's pretty close to getting the final rubber stamp of approval and looks like construction COULD start early next year, maybe.

What's going on?

Don't these people realise this development is in ADELAIDE? It's supposed to take at least 5 years of meetings and planning and arguing before anything happens! Maybe they thought it was being built in Sydney!

Adelaide has changed a lot in the last few years, and this not only includes the built environment but also the mentallity of the place. Maybe your perception of it should change too?

It has! Can't you tell that by the sarcastic tone of my last post?

Seriously I can see this change in mentality and it's great to see. There's still maybe a way to go in some respects, but yes things have certainly improved in relation to getting developments approved.

[Wayno]

Harris Scarfe facade lure

Would $2m cover the costs of retaining the facade?

http://city-messenger.whereilive.com.au ... cade-lure/

UP TO $2 million could be offered to entice developers to save Harris Scarfe’s 1920s facade, in Rundle Mall, but it won’t be a deal-breaker.

The City Council has ruled out using its veto power to block the $150 million development.

Town Hall will start negotiating with site owner Alteman SA in coming weeks in a bid to save the building’s facade.

Alteman SA had its 19-storey retail/office tower approved for the site last week by the state Development Assessment Commission (DAC) it requires the demolition of the entire Harris Scarfe site.

The City Messenger understands Town Hall would be willing to offer Alteman SA up to $2 million double its $1 million annual Heritage Incentive Fund to incorporate the facade into its design.

Cr Sandy Wilkinson, who supports keeping the facade, said: “I think that’s small beer in the scheme of things and if that building’s saved, it’s saved for all time, so any money that council puts into it will be amortised over the next century.”

The City Council owns part of the site a 2000sq m basement loading dock and 1685sq m of ground floor space and as part landowner effectively could bring the project to a halt, Cr Wilkinson said.

But Lord Mayor Michael Harbison ruled that out. “What the council’s made quite clear is that they don’t want to stand in the way of the development but they’re about adding incentives, quite clearly they’re not talking about prohibiting anything,” he said.

Mr Harbison said offering a large incentive would be an appropriate use of ratepayer money: “I, for one, as a ratepayer, am happy to see my rates applied to the preservation of our heritage.”

The project was to have been Town Hall’s last chance to assess a major project but the land ownership conflict of interest saw it surrender planning approval powers to the State Government last month.

[AtD]

Cheers Wayno. I presume it's the Rundle Mall facade that they're talking about, because IMO the Grenfell Street Facade isn't particularly worthy of $2m. Does anyone have any photos of the present Rundle Street facing handy?

I think there's probably better heritage matters that $2m of Council money could go towards.

[pushbutton]

Wonderful to hear that they're NOT going to get petty about it and try to delay or block the development, even though they could, if the facade is not kept.

I don't necessarily know that the facade would be saved for a whole century even if it was incorporated into the design, because I doubt the new building will last 100 years.

Chances are it will last maybe between 35 and 60 years max, and then something else will take its place again (by which time it will probably look dated and be worn out anyway).

I see value in keeping some heritage facades but I think the current HS facade would look totally out of place with the new building, unless it is completely redesigned.

[Tyler_Durden]

Chances are it will last maybe between 35 and 60 years max, and then something else will take its place again (by which time it will probably look dated and be worn out anyway).

If it will look dated and worn in only 35 to 60 years then it shouldn't be built.

[pushbutton]

Chances are it will last maybe between 35 and 60 years max, and then something else will take its place again (by which time it will probably look dated and be worn out anyway).

If it will look dated and worn in only 35 to 60 years then it shouldn't be built.

I actually think 35-60 years is a fair lifespan for a modern commercial building. Not everything has to last 100 years (although it is nice to have some buildings that do).

In the case of a shopping centre / department store or most other retail premises, things change so fast in retail that you really can't expect the same building to remain suitable for use for more than that amount of time.

Anyway I have heard that the latest estimate is for work to start around May 2009. That is not absolutely certain at this stage because I believe Harris Scarfe are still trying to negotiate a temporary location to use during building works, and there are also some final alterations still to be approved in the new plans to possibly include keeping the Rundle Mall facade.

[skyliner]

Harris Scarfe facade lure

Would $2m cover the costs of retaining the facade?

http://city-messenger.whereilive.com.au ... cade-lure/

UP TO $2 million could be offered to entice developers to save Harris Scarfe’s 1920s facade, in Rundle Mall, but it won’t be a deal-breaker.

The City Council has ruled out using its veto power to block the $150 million development.

Town Hall will start negotiating with site owner Alteman SA in coming weeks in a bid to save the building’s facade.

Alteman SA had its 19-storey retail/office tower approved for the site last week by the state Development Assessment Commission (DAC) it requires the demolition of the entire Harris Scarfe site.

The City Messenger understands Town Hall would be willing to offer Alteman SA up to $2 million double its $1 million annual Heritage Incentive Fund to incorporate the facade into its design.

Cr Sandy Wilkinson, who supports keeping the facade, said: “I think that’s small beer in the scheme of things and if that building’s saved, it’s saved for all time, so any money that council puts into it will be amortised over the next century.”

The City Council owns part of the site a 2000sq m basement loading dock and 1685sq m of ground floor space and as part landowner effectively could bring the project to a halt, Cr Wilkinson said.

But Lord Mayor Michael Harbison ruled that out. “What the council’s made quite clear is that they don’t want to stand in the way of the development but they’re about adding incentives, quite clearly they’re not talking about prohibiting anything,” he said.

Mr Harbison said offering a large incentive would be an appropriate use of ratepayer money: “I, for one, as a ratepayer, am happy to see my rates applied to the preservation of our heritage.”

The project was to have been Town Hall’s last chance to assess a major project but the land ownership conflict of interest saw it surrender planning approval powers to the State Government last month.

Personally, i REALLY hope that facade is not preserved - the old Myer and John Martin bldgs were far better and they did not last. this one is SOOO provincial, poor architecture, low impact, sooo low (for the centre of a CBD), it does not seem to have merit save for it being Harris Scarf's. The exterior matched the interior - out of date and set up like 70 years ago. A new frontage more suited to current consumerism and it's associated shifts in what is needed is far preferred IMO. There was a doco recently on this on ABC1 - well worth a watch. More coming I believe. Relates well to CBD, bldg design.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[SRW]

Personally, i REALLY hope that facade is not preserved - the old Myer and John Martin bldgs were far better and they did not last. this one is SOOO provincial, poor architecture, low impact, sooo low (for the centre of a CBD), it does not seem to have merit save for it being Harris Scarf's. The exterior matched the interior - out of date and set up like 70 years ago. A new frontage more suited to current consumerism and it's associated shifts in what is needed is far preferred IMO. There was a doco recently on this on ABC1 - well worth a watch. More coming I believe. Relates well to CBD, bldg design.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

You're not getting confused at all with the Grenfell St façade are you? I'd agree with you about that one, but the Council is concerned about Rundle Mall façade, which is actually quite charming:


(Image from Flickr by crispy789)

If not, then I apologise, and each to their own opinion.

[Shuz]

Like, I think that facade, or building proper - would look extremely cool within a four level glass podium around it, provided there was a void between the levels and building so to remain intact. And then for that building to be converted into a boutique internet coffeehouse or something swanky like that.