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

[PJK1]

IMO the stretch of KWS between North terrace and Vic Sq is in desperate need of a makeover. As far as being Adelaide's premier business street, it leaves a lot to be desired. Whilst containing a number of magnificent heritage buildings, the majority of that stretch is characterized by bland and completely unispiring structures, viz the Adelaide Metro building, former ATO building, Souther Cross Arcade and various visual obscenities bearing the 'Polites' nameplate. The proposed building, whilst not visually stunning, is a vast improvement on the majority of post war rubbish that characterises that stretch ATM.

The 3 ringed circus that is the ACC should be actively encouraging development along this stretch, rather than impeeding it. Thank Christ any important decisions have been taken out of their hands as they have demonstrated, once again, that they are an obstruction rather than a fascilitator.

[phenom]

PJK1 I agree entirely.

I'm a little bit taken aback by the resistance to this proposal. To me, it's an innovative use of a very limited site and frankly, it will liven up what looks like a very moribund corridor along there. I don't think it's fair to complain about lack of windows or whatever when these are compelled by building regulations. Large setbacks are not exactly feasible on these postage stamp size plots. You know the ACC is just being deliberately difficult when they start using the Adam building as something to measure a proposal against.

Not to mention the pipeline of building work is not going to be huge going forward and the last thing we need is to lose the employment generated by these sort of developments. In fact, I would be quite happy to see a lot more of this sort of development - I think it's a novel way of enhancing density and building the city without having to pin our hopes on single massive $100m+ projects which are (by virtue of funding constraints) far more difficult to get going.

[omada]

I agree completely with the last two comments, I think this is a fantastic proposal. I know it seems that ACC bagging is over the top, but it is justified, they are not acting in the interests of business nor good architecture, by refusing approval of the building.

[iTouch]

I agree with the last 3 comments, maybe someone should email the ACC on whether there are any other reasons why this proposal was rejected. What I don't get is why the project is too tall even though it is within height limits (which is 102m for that area, I think).

[rhino]

I agree with the last 3 comments, maybe someone should email the ACC on whether there are any other reasons why this proposal was rejected. What I don't get is why the project is too tall even though it is within height limits (which is 102m for that area, I think).

I suspect that the DAP would prefer building heights to reach the 102m limit in small increments. Unfortunately this would mean that it would take decades to get there.

[wilkiebarkid]

Quoting from the news item.

"The Council does not support plans to build a $17m building on KWS because at 86m tall it exceeds the height guidelines by 14m."

Committee member and Councillor Ralph Clarke said at the meeting last night (Mon Jun 7) he could not support the development.

"It has to be energy efficient and have a relationship with heritage buildings on either side." said Clarke.....!!!!!!!!!!!

The proposal still needs to be assessed by the Development Assessment Commission.

Is the Adam Internet building heritage listed?

[Pants]

I wonder how Mr Clarke supposes these buildings can have relationships. I'm sure they'd become friends down the track. Perhaps spend a few evenings at some of the restaurants that will hopefully be open at city central by the time the building's built.

Failure at hilarity aside, I'm starting to go cold on this one... 86m worth of tokenly detailed concrete walls on at least two sides doesn't do it for me. I know $17m's only an estimate to keep the application fees down, but whatever they're spending on it isn't enough. If you have to have fire walls, at least clad them in something interesting so as to not compete with the Adam building for ugliness. This one will stick out like the proverbial, so it needs to be good.

[SRW]

Failure at hilarity aside, I'm starting to go cold on this one... 86m worth of tokenly detailed concrete walls on at least two sides doesn't do it for me. I know $17m's only an estimate to keep the application fees down, but whatever they're spending on it isn't enough. If you have to have fire walls, at least clad them in something interesting so as to not compete with the Adam building for ugliness. This one will stick out like the proverbial, so it needs to be good.

+1

[skyliner]

Let's just think what we could get instead of this building - with any height - and when? I don't see any great issues with it. It is different in two ways - height and the slab appearance but it sure adds the KWS getting higher. As someone has said no windows exist on the northern and southern side at the lower levels - but this would occur on all bldgs put there due to adjoining structures.

The last time I read of a lot of noise about a proposal having to be in sync with heritage and the surrounding bldgs was the one on Nth Tce (18floors) which we gave very encouraging support to due to it's 'futuristic 21st century' appearance - the curved facade etc. It was redesigned and re designed due to rejections and that was the end of it. This too was very narrow, with only a small street frontage.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[skyliner]

The Coucil Panel has decided to advise against accepting the proposal on grounds of height (over by 14m) and not integrating sufficiently with surrounding bldgs. as well as being energy inefficient. (see Clr Plumridge's latest report). Just as well it is to cost over $10m.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[Wayno]

Being energy efficient should be a firm requirement for all buildings. DAC & DAP should request that be fixed as a prerequisite to approval (presuming it's possible).

[Omicron]

I find the height objection most amusing given the objectionable Westpac House nearby, and the objectionable Conservatory on Hindmarsh, and the objectionable Crowne Plaza, and the objectionable Urbanest on North Tce, and the objectionable 374-400KWS, and the Precinct that was so objectionable it was given its very own height zone at odds with the pyramid structure so loved by the DAP.

I also find the 'relationship with nearby heritage buildings' argument most amusing given the awful Adam Internet building next door, the Bank SA building up the road with the (apparently invisible on both height and age grounds) Westpac House building out the back, and this across the road.

I wonder if the members of the DAP have ever bothered to look at their own building? I note with interest that between the lovely Adelaide Town Hall:



and the lovely Epworth Building:



are the Adelaide City Council offices:



And this is the institution which looks down its nose with pompous superiority and lectures everyone else about integration with historic surroundings?

Bless your ill-informed, hypocritical hearts, DAP.

[rhino]

Ha ha, that's the building I got my first full-time job in, as a survey draftsman. It was quite new then, and it was also quite awful then. Even to a young 18-year-old, it was cheap and nasty and tacky. I'm surprised it's lasted this long. I felt sorry for Colonel Light that they'd named this building after him!

[Prince George]

Fair's fair - that building was made a long time before the present council. It wouldn't be unreasonable for them to say "we don't want to repeat those mistakes".

[Will]

I personally am not a fan, however it is interesting to note that the Royal Australian Institute of Architects lists the Colonel Light Centre amongst the 100 best buildings in SA of the 20th century, and one of the best examples of brutalist architecture in Australia!