[COM] 115 King William Street | 91m | 26lvls | Office

[jk1237]

I thought that King William Street frontage had a strict height limit, about 60m off the top of my head, which is why the CC on the cnr K W and Waymouth is smaller than CC1. Have they finally relaxed it

actually I thought it was even lower than that ie 40-50m

[Mpol]

I'd LOVE for this and Harris Scarfe to go ahead. Some 100+ all just a few metres away. Imagine if Spire and Currie happened... There was another proposal on Pirie that looked HOT, only about a year ago, in about 115M in height. All glass and quite yummy... forget where that was. Had that been built... the area would have been awesome in height and density... alas not to be.

This is it. What a HOT design!
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=823246

[rubegoldbergdevice]

I notice the southern view is not included. I can imagine why.

[russo92]

I notice the southern view is not included. I can imagine why.

why?

This would be great if constructed... though we say that about any 100m + building proposal nowadays lol

[AtD]

The southern face will likely be similar to the northern face. There's buildings on both boundaries so the blank wall rules will apply for both.

[SRW]

Hmm. A 100m+ upright rectangle with only one open face (aside three blank walls). It's going to look smashingly...bad.

I understand the fire safety rules for boundary walls, but surely one doesn't have to build to the boundary in every instance. Good design sense must surely suggest so, I would think.

And aren't the two northwards buildings heritage-listed, anyway?

[AtD]

The west wall won't be blank. Also, look at the render, they're not bland.

[SRW]

The west wall won't be blank.

That's a relief.

Also, look at the render, they're not bland.

I have, thanks. Better than some efforts, sure, but hardly appealing.

[iTouch]

this proposal is in the perfect place for the skyline. It will bring hell loads of density and fill that gap between Westpac and Grenfell (or Telstra)

[skyliner]

aS I've pointed out on many proposals - cantilever awning needed in such a central space. (only place I have ever seen fully addressing this is West Wyalong in NSW.) Anyone know what the story is concerning what is to be on the street level floor.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[rhino]

only place I have ever seen fully addressing this is West Wyalong in NSW

Fantastic streetscape!

[Prince George]

I think that awnings are a double edged sword, I wonder if we would accept some of the things that have been done on the street-levels of buildings if we could see what the whole thing looked like?

Case in point, the old Sands & McDougal building on KWS is a pretty fine old Art Deco number that's been allowed to fall into some disrepair, but under the awning all that anyone can see is the tatty discount souvenirs shop (and the cheap awning). Frankly it seems to me that removing that awning would improve that part of the street considerably. Likewise that building on the corner of KWS and Grenfell -- the name escapes me, the one with Cibo on the corner -- its dull grey marble street level's not as egregious as that other one, but it's still nothing like as good as the building above it (and that awning looks especially tacked-on)

In this particular building's case, aren't there two very substantial plane trees in front of it? They rather reduce the need for further awnings.

[spiller]

I agree^^. I think awnings actually take away part of the experience of being at street level amongst highrise/skyscrapers etc. They block out all of the good bits and make the street seem like a monotonous continuum of shelter after shelter. In all (or most) of the great skyscraper cities ive been too, including Chicago and NYC, you never see such things and as a result the experience at street level is much more interesting (sure those cities arent in the same boat as Adelaide and other factors may contribute to a better experience) but a greater percentage of the people in the Adelaide CBD wouldnt even know what building they are walking past.

Put an awning over the door way, yes, but not the whole street side of the building.

[monotonehell]

...Put an awning over the door way, yes, but not the whole street side of the building.

I disagree!

Some kind of all weather protection over the footpath allows the city to remain pedestrian friendly when it's raining. An uncovered street during a rainy lunchtime is deserted, while a covered one sees as much traffic as a sunny day.

Same can be said for the Mall.

But to the point that PG raised, it's true that there's bad implementations of cover that make the footpath a bit of a tunnel. Some of the newer buildings have been experimenting with glass covers, which let in the light while still providing wet weather protection.

It's all about balance (cantilevers! )

[Nathan]

Given how dry Adelaide is, there's not really that many instances throughout the year when you need shelter from rain.