News & Discussion: Low/Mid-Rise CBD Development

[Pants]

Yep. Screams shanty town. Some of the other designs for that project were great. This one, not so much.

[SRW]

Supposing it does get a few coats of (a lighter colour) paint, I actually like it a lot. It's completely changed the feel of Whitmore Sq -- once they're occupied it should feel a bunch safer too.

[phenom]

Have to agree the development on the corner of Whitmore Sq there is awful to look at, but spare a thought for those of us who see it from 'behind'. This is a truly ugly building, as I watched it being constructed I found myself thinking 'that can't be how they are going to leave it' but I was wrong. Maybe it will grow on the city over time but I have my doubts.

[Pants]

10 mythical points for anyone who digs out the other proposals. They're somewhere on here or SSC. I may have even posted them myself.

[Vee]

Looks like some third-world housing block

Agree with Crawf. Horrible!!
And Pants 'shanty town' label.

These are in such a prominent location too! It's difficult to escape this hideous sight when traversing Whitmore Sq.
Not a good advertisement for environmentally friendly and affordable dwellings. They don't need to look this ghastly.

[Professor]

Not sure where to post this picture.

It's the Gilbert Building redevelopment at the Children's Hospital.

[Prince George]

You can see a little of the other proposals at this article about the design competition. You can see big versions of the renders from the competition at Troppo's site.

It still surprises me when I see a project like this get disliked so heartily when things like SA Water, Aurora, Conservatory, or the behemoth on King William get so much love. I have less patience with the "money no object" places looking like crap than with the affordable housing project located between a pair of half-way houses / homeless shelters.

[Omicron]

This render suggests that it will be painted a sort of yellowy-cream:



Mind you, it seems as if all the external fittings have already been applied, even down to the little lights above the balconies, and I'd be very surprised indeed if they had to paint around all of that. That's rather time-consuming and fiddly (read: expensive) on an affordable project.

Even with paint, though, it's, um, questionable.

It still surprises me when I see a project like this get disliked so heartily when things like SA Water, Aurora, Conservatory, or the behemoth on King William get so much love. I have less patience with the "money no object" places looking like crap than with the affordable housing project located between a pair of half-way houses / homeless shelters.

Boo, SA Water, Aurora and Conservatory are marvellous! The podium of 400 KWS is so horrid that it makes my eyes water, so I'll give you that one.

[jk1237]

I dont really mind it either Prince George, its quite interesting. Very Scandinavian looking for some reason. Wonder if they have a jakoozi (have no idea how to spell it)

[Pants]

Not like that.

[AtD]

I think it's a unique mix of commie block and shanty town.

[stumpjumper]

I'm a big fan of Troppo's signature style for small scale residential buildings.

I'm not too sure if the style survives stretching to mid and high rise. The shading devices don't increase in size relative to the larger structure, for example.

[UrbanSG]

I thought these Whitmore Square apartments were meant to be affordable? Two apartments are up for lease at $470 a week, hardly affordable! Especially considering they will be subject to the constant drunk and disorderly behaviour that occurs in Whitmore Square.

[Isiskii]

I thought these Whitmore Square apartments were meant to be affordable? Two apartments are up for lease at $470 a week, hardly affordable! Especially considering they will be subject to the constant drunk and disorderly behaviour that occurs in Whitmore Square.

It's all relative. I'm fairly sure that the average rental in the Adelaide CBD is something like $700-$800 a week, average.
$470 is cheap, compared to.

[UrbanSG]

Yes there are a lot of expensive rentals in the CBD area. However $470 is getting very steep for what is being offerred, especially considering other developments that are not touted as being affordable (therefore they don't get the benefits from the ACC and State Government) are actually far cheaper to rent per week. The recently completed development next door on Sturt Street was cheaper in the low $400's and offered a far better product.