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

[skyliner]

or to quote Procul Harem - "A Whiter Shade of Pale'.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[Briggzy_03]

Even though it's a pretty small photo, I don't mind it. Good combination of old and new, I don't know about you guys but I like that look.

[Hippodamus]

Briggzy_03 - I don't like being anti development, but this building as proposed has some serious urban design issues dude.

The streetscape is totally compromised with the buildings scale and bulk, with no respect to upholding a uniform street alignment. very little recognition has been given to the heritage structure apart from rigidly alignment the building around the perimetre.

dissapointing and the architects should be shot. they obviously have no idea, how they ever passed design school is beyond me.

[rhino]

Even though it's a pretty small photo, I don't mind it. Good combination of old and new, I don't know about you guys but I like that look.

I quite like the look too, although it could be improved by softer lines on the new building, while still allowing it to "wrap around" Fennescy House. A curve like on "Wave" would be good.

[Ben]

From The Advertiser:

Adelaide City Council blasts Catholic Church over development

AARON MACDONALD

November 16, 2009

ADELAIDE City Council has branded the Catholic church "disrespectful" for proposing the demolition of buildings surrounding St Francis Xavier Cathedral to make way for a nine-storey glass office building.

The council's Development Assessment Panel last night said the Catholic Church Endowment Society $50 million plan was unsympathetic and deputy presiding member Rob Cheesman cast doubt on whether it was genuine.

"I'm not sure if this proposal is serious or not. I'm not being flippant," he said, citing a lack of documentation and forethought.

Adelaide City councillor Michael Henningsen, who is a member of St Francis Xavier's parish, also had grave concerns about the plan.

"I find this to be an absolutely schizoid proposal," Cr Henningsen said.

"The current Catholic diocesean offices respect everything around it; they are extremely sympathetic to the heritage neighbours.

"Now we have this proposal. I find them incredibly anal in some ways, but in other ways very disrespectful."

Councillor David Plumridge was fearful for the future of the area.

"What's happening is the whole precinct is being destroyed. I appreciate that the Catholic Church Endowment Society has to maximise their investment, but surely they must recognise their other responsibilities. This is very, very disappointing."

Fellow councillor Ann Moran said the proposal was an insult to a "sacred site".

"It's breathtaking in its lack of sympathy to its heritage neighbours," Cr Moran said. "The existing buildings are outstandingly sympathetic, they were an absolute coup for the area."

Under current arrangement, developments above $10 million are not decided by the Development Assessment Panel.

The DAP may only advise the state Development Assessment Commission.

The Catholic Church Endowment Society was not available for comment.

[Omicron]

For the most part, I agree with that Cheesman chap - it really doesn't appear to have any thought put into it whatsoever. One could put the Empire State Building and Fountains of Bellagio next door, and this would still be atrociously inconsiderate of its surroundings. Methinks the official reasoning of 'heritage clash' exists only because that's one of the few codified means to register an official rejection - that is, 'steaming pile of excrement' doesn't appear on their voting cards. And I'm willing to give the DAP all the support it wants in that respect.

I fear that as a consequence of the self-congratulatory world of architecture, those responsible for this disappointing proposal will be entirely confused by the negative reaction to their building, launching into incredulous lawsuits and open-mouthed public bleating. I can only hope that those within Hassell and the Endowment Society will come to the realisation that such underwhelming and unprofessional proposals do harm to attracting clients in the future (Hello! We're Hassell, and we draw boxes!) and development assessment bodies, and quite rightly earn the scorn of the public. Even more than that, I hope that the DAC shows the good sense to send this proposal to the shredder and makes a lovely big list of rude adjectives to tape to Hassell's office once the official meeting is over.

[Will]

I am not too fussed with the ACC rejecting this, as I have already states that the proposal was incredibly bland. However I am dissapointed with the language used by the ACC councillors and DAP members. A body that represents all South Australian's should have said something like "we support development of the site, however the proposal presented is not up to the standard required" and further to this some advice should have also been given as to how the developer and architect can improve. Instead the language used is not very professional and just seems to confirm people's perceptions as to the ACC being anti-development.

[Omicron]

On the contrary - I think that establishing from the beginning that the thing looks like the box for spare toilet rolls makes for a quick, efficient meeting and an easily-interpreted position. Were I sitting on the DAP, I'd add further snide comments making just such a point whilst simultaneously dismissing the dolts who would perceive this to be an example of a supposed ACC anti-development stance, and then get everyone over for lunch.

[UrbanSG]

This proposal represents exactly what this particular area of the Adelaide CBD is becomming. A boring low rise campus office box development hub, particularly thanks to the Yorke (police) building that is about to go up and the other box proposed almost opposite this site. Yawn.

[nimeton]

This proposal represents exactly what this particular area of the Adelaide CBD is becomming. A boring low rise campus office box development hub, particularly thanks to the Yorke (police) building that is about to go up and the other box proposed almost opposite this site. Yawn.

\

I still think you guys are being overly critical of this and I'm not sure what you were expecting? I'll say it again, go back to page 1 and look what is there currently - the site is already a "boring low rise campus office box". The new building, while not fantastic, is a huge improvement. Do you expect the developers to transform the site into the most exciting place in the city overnight? This building would bring more people to the area, possibly a little more retail for the office workers and while it is bland, doesn't make the area look any ulglier. Change takes time and your expectations don't sound too realistic to me....

If the ACC rejected this one on the grounds of it being too big and not sympathetic to the area's heritage, you can bet they'll reject any taller/more unique / interesting proposals the developers may come back with.

[Ho Really]

What I would like to see here is a tower that incorporates some design details of the old bluestone building and the church to the west. Maybe include an angled roof, like many towers seen in North America (Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Tampa, etc). The building would have to be substantially taller than the the church steeple, so to reflect the church's tower in its glass facade when looked at from Victoria Square. No stumpy buildings please!

Cheers

[Wayno]

is this building in the ACC's PA17 (72m) or PA22 (40m) zone?

[Omicron]

is this building in the ACC's PA17 (72m) or PA22 (40m) zone?

It is to be found in PA235436a subsection L district 8 quartile 2, which means it is shaded with yellow and orange textas and has silver glitter added for effect, and was intended to be exactly twenty-two percent lower than the neighbouring PA5w46743b2 subsection S district 4 so as to maintain a perfect pyramidilateralozoid shape when viewed from the third quartile of the seventh district of subsection J of PA3574609, and is bound by compulsory modern voluntary heritage preservation guidelines demanding old-ish frilly bits on the outside and a sympathetic design element in regards to the first district of subsection Tc(1) of PA027590.

[Will]

is this building in the ACC's PA17 (72m) or PA22 (40m) zone?

It's in the 40m zone

[Norman]

is this building in the ACC's PA17 (72m) or PA22 (40m) zone?

It is to be found in PA235436a subsection L district 8 quartile 2, which means it is shaded with yellow and orange textas and has silver glitter added for effect, and was intended to be exactly twenty-two percent lower than the neighbouring PA5w46743b2 subsection S district 4 so as to maintain a perfect pyramidilateralozoid shape when viewed from the third quartile of the seventh district of subsection J of PA3574609, and is bound by compulsory modern voluntary heritage preservation guidelines demanding old-ish frilly bits on the outside and a sympathetic design element in regards to the first district of subsection Tc(1) of PA027590.

I enjoyed that!