[COM] 74-80 Light Square | 31m | 8lvls | Office

[Shuz]

No, build and grow
88% (2367 votes)
Yes, a low skyline for me
11% (315 votes)

Well, that says it.

[Pants]

Now that I've seen the proposal Will posted I hope to never read that Cr Wilkinson's knocked something back due to a lack of architectural merit.

[Plasmatron]

Too tall? lmao.

Oh Adelaide, you'll never change.

Well... wont change much, at least.

Even if this building was three times taller, it shouldn't be considered detrimental due to height alone. It's right in the middle of the city, for crying out loud.

[rev]

Who are the councilors who rejected this as too tall?
Perhaps some of the more senior members of S-A should introduce the concept of a CBD to them, and point out the differences between a CBD and Village.

Too tall? What an absurd reason.
Did the ancient Egyptians say their Pyramids were too sloped?
Did the ancient Greeks say the Parthenon was on a hill too high?
Did the Mayans say their temples had too many steps?

For christ sake, a modern CBD is filled by tall buildings. That is part of what defines a central business district in a capital city.
We are not talking about the cbd of Renmark or some other town, but a bloody mainland capital city.

This council has shown it is out of touch too many times, has shown it only hinders progress and development, and it is time it was abolished.
Enough of this embarrassing blight on our city!

[Brando]

How convenient.... the ACC site is undergoing maintenance. Probably inundated with complaints about this ridiculous decision.

The Adelaide City Council web site is currently UNDERGOING MAINTENANCE between :

6pm-9pm ACST, 23rd of June, 2009



The following services are still AVAILABLE

VIEW LIBRARY CATALOGUE

BOOK A LIBRARY PC



Thankyou for your patience.

[Just build it]

Simply embarrassing.

Little wonder I often feel sorry for Adelaide. The founders of this city never designed it to be held back like this. It's size and grid allow for large, easily sustainable growth. Just a shame the ACC hijacked it and have been running it to their own skewed smalltown agenda ever since. Is it really 2009 in Adelaide?

[contractor]

Good to see the Council got this right. Height should never prevail over design

[ozisnowman]

Saw Councillor Moran saying that 13 levels on that corner would be too heigh and overpowering yet slightly across the
road on the governments own land we are getting the 18 level Altitude, go figure. I quite like the design, but yes
others might not. But to say it should be red brick and the same as the other crap around light square is the worse
design in city planning than the building itself.

Councillor Moran is a real damn serial pest when it comes to development and progress in our city...

[rev]

Good to see the Council got this right. Height should never prevail over design

The buffoons in the council rejected it because they deemed it was too tall, not over it's design.

[Howie]

Channel 10 News Interview - re this development rejection.

[muzzamo]

I don't understand - didn't the state government strip them of their powers for developments over 10mill or something?

[contractor]

Good to see the Council got this right. Height should never prevail over design

The buffoons in the council rejected it because they deemed it was too tall, not over it's design.

It was too tall. The limit was 40m and they put in an application for 45m. If it was a better design it would probably be approved. That's just the way the Council works. The developers didn't play the game. The Council made the right decision. It's an ugly building that exceeded it's height restrictions. Plain and simple.

[Hippodamus]

if i heard correctly and did not just imagine it, the news report says that the Council may only provide comment but the ultimate decision rests with the state government.

this is just too funny. other parts of the world are approving larger developments and in Adelaide, we're worried about an 18 story building... quite a sad reflection on our Council really...

hahahahahahahaa

[timstevens]

it sounds like the media is responsible for stating the main reason for the rejection is the height of the building. the development plan for adelaide clearly states that the building height for the zone is 40m and that buildings that front light sq should differentiate from the others in surrounding areas so as to create a focus for recreation and leisure. NOT the CBD for business enterprises. they only chose this site as a financial tactic. so i firmly believe that adelaide council is doing a good job of keeping developers in check.

[olliepee]

timstevens and contractor.. are you from the ACC? with only a couple of posts one has to be suspicious.

"keeping developers in check", "the development plan for adelaide clearly states that the building height for the zone is 40m"

Who cares?.. it's stupid that there's even a height restriction in the first place??!!! Around one of the cities supposedly premiere squares. In the CBD. Its just embarrassing.

It's also really interesting just knowing that Cnr Wilkinson owns his own architecture business.

I agree with Will - hypocrisy.