[CAN] 37-45 Wakefield Street | 40m | 9lvls | Office

[loud]

I don't think this is where PHQ is going at all - i think that it will be built on the RSL site on vic square

[bm7500]

A 36m 'high' building in an area that is zoned for up to 72m... that sucks!

[Will]

This is obviously a victim of the current global economic crisis. Had this been proposed back in 2006 or 2007 they would have been able to secure financing for the 20 level proposal. The needs of SA Police have not changed. They were always going to lease the equivalent of 9 levels, so to speak. The problem is that a few years ago you could have got financing with a (approx) 50% tenant pre-commitment. However at the moment unless the building is 100% pre-commited, there is very little hope of financing.

[UrbanSG]

Firstly the proposal is actually located in a 40 metre height limit area according to the Jan 2006 CBD Building Heights Map. I have not checked the exact sections of the Development Plan though to check if that is correct but I would say it is. The journalist speculating about a 20 storey building on this site did a very poor research job not checking out the height limits, a proposal around 50% over the height limit would never get approved in Adelaide no matter how darn good it was.

The church grounds directly west are in a 72 metre height limit area, go figure??? Classic example of the rediculous height restrictions in this city.

So I think that pretty much explains why this proposal is so damn pathetic.

The financial crisis is definately impacting developments but I don't think that is the reason for this pathetic building proposal in the core of our CBD. If it is for the police, they want purpose built accommodation and maybe they do not want any other tenants for security reasons.

Plus this government does not seem to understand they could help get a large tower built in Adelaide if they stopped signing up for these ground scraper, campus style developments in the heart of our CBD!

By the way we are still not 100% this will be for the police but it is looking like it may well be.

[Ben]

Council is expected to not support the development at Mondays meeting.

The Building is 35m to top of building and 39.5m to top of structure.

The delay in assessing this was council has many councerns.

it is a very common design but will be nice bit of density in that low rise area.

I'm having trouble with photobucket so apologies about the attachment.

[Will]

Oh dear, it's Light Square all over again. The reason why the ACC does not support the proposal is because the proposed building is deemed too modern and clashes with the heritage listed buildings along Wakefield Street. In fact according to the ACC the proposal should be made of masonry and red brick.

When will the ACC realise that the best way to pay homage to our beautiful heritage buildings is by building equally beautiful modern buildings next to them, not boring beige boxes in some 'faux heritage' style. The ACC is seriously out of touch.

EDIT: I'm not saying that the current proposal is attractive. Indeed it is quite bland. I'm just angry that the ACC is rejecting this because it would prefer something blander. If you are going to reject a building, reject it because you want something better! Masonry and red brick are not appropriate facade materials for 2009!

[Omicron]

Oh dear, it's Light Square all over again. The reason why the ACC does not support the proposal is because the proposed building is deemed too modern and clashes with the heritage listed buildings along Wakefield Street. In fact according to the ACC the proposal should be made of masonry and red brick.

When will the ACC realise that the best way to pay homage to our beautiful heritage buildings is by building equally beautiful modern buildings next to them, not boring beige boxes in some 'faux heritage' style. The ACC is seriously out of touch.

EDIT: I'm not saying that the current proposal is attractive. Indeed it is quite bland. I'm just angry that the ACC is rejecting this because it would prefer something blander. If you are going to reject a building, reject it because you want something better! Masonry and red brick are not appropriate facade materials for 2009!

The proposal is a horrid, ill-proportioned box, but to reject it for reasons of heritage clashes? Council reasoning fail. Should we point out that right next door to the delightful St Francis Xavier Cathedral is the new ultra-modern SA Water building?

[YokohamaBoy]

This is gonna sound like blasphemy to those of you with architecture or city planning degrees and the such. But to me, as long as it's all glass, it's fine. It's much better than... oh... let's say... nothing.

[skyliner]

Fill me in guys - it that Francis Xavier's in the extreme right? Besides that, what is the problem for the ACC in rejecting that - it's hardly too modern. (bland - yes). Are they after another round like at 200 Nth Tce?

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[Prince George]

Do we actually know that is going to be deemed "too modern", or are we putting words into their mouths? Personally I don't mind these boring cube designs getting rejected, but I would prefer the reasons to be ones that show some level of ambition for our futures, such as "this looks like a miserable piece of crap, we deserve better".

Far from too modern, I should say that it looks insufficiently modern: not so much a building that speaks of the future as one of our recent past: if it contains any message to us of what we may hope for our tomorrows, it is "business as usual, expect more of the same". And it's practically on Victoria Square, so at the same time as we have a design team working on "fixing" the square, we continue to imagine surrounding it with offices.

But for all this, if the Adelaide city development plan identifies this area as being one that gets the masonry and brick treatment, then we need to aim our complaints at the plan, not at the decision. The plan isn't kept secret, the developers know what it says and yet they willfully ignore it and make designs that are contrary to it. And if the plan is going to have any teeth, we need to stop allowing exceptions -- they just encourage people to ignore the plan's contents.

YokohamaBoy, the danger with building something rather than nothing is that our developers show little motivation to exceed our minimum standards, and every time we say "oh well, better than nothing" we're diluting our standards a little more. Imagine the worst building that you would possibly accept, that's the one that you're going to get in almost every case.

[Ben]

From The Advertiser:

Heritage 'sacrificed' in church development



DANIEL WILLS

November 14, 2009 12:01am

A FUNDRAISING arm of the Catholic Church plans to build a $50 million glass office block around a State Heritage-listed sandstone building on Victoria Square.

The Catholic Church Endowment Society's application to the Adelaide City Council reveals plans for a nine-storey commercial tower on a site adjacent to St Xaviers Cathedral. It would replace a three-storey building and surround Fennescey House, a former church education office built in 1940.

National Trust of South Australia heritage spokesman David Beaumont said the complex would "overpower" the building and neighbouring cathedral.

"I can't believe the spiritual significance of that place can become secondary to commercial demands," Mr Beaumont told The Advertiser.

"I understand the church has got to make the most of its investment potential, but you'd think that they'd draw a line at the cathedral site.

"Adelaide seems to be a happy hunting ground for developers. Heritage seems to be something people are dealing with but don't have any respect for." The Catholic Church Endowment Society declined to comment yesterday.

DOES THIS DEVELOPMENT ADD TO, OR DETRACT FROM, ADELAIDE'S STREETSCAPE CHARACTER? Have your say in the poll to the right of this page and in the comment box below.

In a submission to be tabled at an ACC Development Assessment Panel meeting on Monday night, design firm Hassell rejects claims the new building clashes with the existing structures.

"An L-shaped plan configuration was adopted in order to optimise the available commercial floor area whilst preserving the architectural integrity of the cathedral and Fennescey House," senior associate David Bills wrote.

A council planning staff report to be examined at Monday's meeting recommends the plan be blocked.

The DAP will provide advice to the state Development Assessment Commission, which is expected to make a final ruling on the proposal later this year.

[Will]

We should be very careful in the manner in which we interpret the opinion of people such as Mr Beaumont. Heritage is great, and I think we all support the notion of having buildigns which we protect against demolition. However the problem and indeed the clash of opinions between the pro and anti development people originates from the desire of people like Mr Beaumont who desire to have 'heritage forcefields' around heritage buildings. This is a problem, as this effectively reduces potential development in the city, and forced the development which does occur to be brown and in some faux heritage style.

[mattblack]

We should be very careful in the manner in which we interpret the opinion of people such as Mr Beaumont. Heritage is great, and I think we all support the notion of having buildigns which we protect against demolition. However the problem and indeed the clash of opinions between the pro and anti development people originates from the desire of people like Mr Beaumont who desire to have 'heritage forcefields' around heritage buildings. This is a problem, as this effectively reduces potential development in the city, and forced the development which does occur to be brown and in some faux heritage style.

The thing is also is that the 1950's or 60's crap that is there at the moment detracts a hell of alot more than a modern glass tower. Why would this not be taken into account?

[nimeton]

Has anyone actually visited the site current site or indeed looked it up on Google street view?

The crap that is there at present is already detracting from the heritage value of the church. This new proposal, while bland, would be a huge improvement for the area and a great contrast against the heritage buildings and probably make them more of a focal point than they are at present.

[Will]

We should be very careful in the manner in which we interpret the opinion of people such as Mr Beaumont. Heritage is great, and I think we all support the notion of having buildigns which we protect against demolition. However the problem and indeed the clash of opinions between the pro and anti development people originates from the desire of people like Mr Beaumont who desire to have 'heritage forcefields' around heritage buildings. This is a problem, as this effectively reduces potential development in the city, and forced the development which does occur to be brown and in some faux heritage style.

The thing is also is that the 1950's or 60's crap that is there at the moment detracts a hell of alot more than a modern glass tower. Why would this not be taken into account?

Because buildings of that era have facades in different shades of beige.