[COM] Rundle Place | 76m | 15lvls | Retail & Office

[Pants]

^Big call.

I actually think the tower's an improvement on the previous proposal, but the retail podium is as bland as it gets and misses an opportunity to make a statement with both Rundle Mall and Grenfell St frontage.

Was the previous version approved? Not that the first podium was anything special, but it might be the case of the powers-that-be wanting more beige for our city in that location and the developers obliging.

[Mants]

i just don't believe we can pass up an opportunity like this to build a character building right in the very heart of our city. it's not the tower i'm concerned about, it is the podium, which is what will ultimately be seen at ground level by tourists and adelaide residents alike. i just think we have a great change to change the face of the mall with something bold and contemporary. Yet, once again, we are presented with a text-book example of any westfield typed development. it is certainly frustrating.

[Pants]

Yep, agree with all of that.

To me though, the retail component screams the "in keeping with its surroundings" bollocks that has prevented Adelaide from complimenting heritage buildings with bold contemporary architecture as is common in Europe (and Melbourne) and instead has seen a raft of cheap heritage knock-offs or greige boxes.

We might be wide of the mark in blaming the developer for how the latest render looks.

While this doesn't apply as sensibly to the Grenfell St facade given that there are two different looking components to it, maybe the developer wanted the retail component to be uniform even if it was able to be a bit more adventurous on Grenfell St.

I'm probably wrong and it's probably all about the money, but I thought I'd throw it out there just in case.

[Mants]

but what can be done about it? are there people on the DAC who are actually concerned with the aesthetics and quality of what is built, or are they merely employed to hasten the process?

[Will]

If it makes people feel slightly better, the 21 level proposal was not 102m as we had believed but rather 86m. The confusion stems from the fact that the 21 level proposal was the third reincarnation of this development. The image at the beginning of this thread and the one used in the newspaper articles refers to the very first proposal, which was 92m and 19 levels. The reason why it is 19 levels and 92m, was because the first proposal had some vertical fins which elevated the building's height to 92m.

Over time, this initial proposal was ammended, and although 2 extra floors were added to it, the fins were deleted, which caused a reduction in height to 86m.

[crawf]

What makes it worse is the horrid carpark is staying, but will be painted a horrible beige colour like the rest of the podium.

I can move on from another stumpy box, but I can not accept the appearance of this podium and carpark. We have enough bland boring buildings in this city

[Will]

I was having a read of the documents Ben posted from the DAC, and here is a small summary:

[*the podium fronting Grenfell Street will now rise to 25.7m and be roughly the same height as the U-Park next door]

[*the podium will now also incorporate a gym, as well as extra carparking for either 102 or 148 cars, which will be accessed from the current U-Park]

[*the Grenfell U-Park will be redeveloped as part of the proposal. It will now have retail tenancies fronting Grnefell Street, and get a new facade to match the podium of the new building]

[*the floorplates in the tower element have been simplified to a simple rectangle, which will be connected to the western core which will have a diagonal vertical louvered facade finished in charcoal grey powdercoated aluminium ]

[*the glass used for the tower element will be a double glazed curtain wall finished in a silver-grey tint ]

[*there will behorizontal aluminium sunshades to portion of the southern façade and all of the
northern façade of the tower with a black powdercoated finish ]

[*aluminium capping wrapping along the edge of the southern and northern facades, and
running vertically along the eastern façade of the building, increasing in length so as to
provide a diagonal feature along the length of the façade. The capping is finished in a
powdercoated charcoal grey.]

[*The western core further broken up by articulation as well as the use of a variety of
finished and materials including precast concrete of integral colour to tower, precast
concrete articulated panels, in similar integral colour and insitu concrete with composite
rainscreen cladding]

[*The Office entry on the Grenfell Street façade continues to be differentiated from the remainder
of the retail façade of the building through architectural treatment and materials. While the
double height entrance void has been retained, the treatment and materials have varied,
including:

? vertical aluminium louvres finished in powdercoated charcoal grey positioned behind
clear glazing
? entry space framed by silver grey metal cladding
? glazed shopfront of bank tenancy located within portion of the double height entry

The glazed canopy at 6.2 metres height has been retained as part of the proposal.]

[*The building facades maintain the existing shop activation along Rundle Mall, and improves
the activation along Grenfell Street though removal of blank walls or shutters, as well as
providing greater permeability into individual retail tenancies in this location.]

[*The proposed
development also seeks to increase activity and activation of Lindes Lane through the
wrapping of shop frontage 20 metres around the corner of Rundle Mall into Lindes Lane.]

[*The proposed
development maintains the identified pedestrian routes, as well as complementing and adding
to pedestrian movement options between Rundle Mall and Grenfell Street through the
introduction of an arcade.]

[*The basement floor will also include a food court in addition to the new supermarket]

[skyliner]

Agree with everyone else - most unimpresserd. Desiign is now rather westfield - would not give it another look on aesthetics. It just seems to disappear into the surrounds.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[ghs]

This process of scaling down a building seems to happen quite a lot.

Obviously developers initially propose a bigger building just on the off chance
that it might be fully tenanted and then if enough tenants aren't found they
scale down the building. Seriously the same thing has happened with so many
buildings including aurora & light square.

[skyliner]

Depressive to say the least. Maybe the current improvemnt in economic climate will change this.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[ginger-geordie]

WHAT THE HELL!!!! do the people in charge think "hmmm this proposal looks too big and interesting, lets either make it boring or forget about it and make up some crap excuse for why its not going to get built"? I don't know about anyone else but i would rather have a taller building with empty offices that would probably get filled at a later date than a building that is already full. Talk about preparing for the future, hey.

and height limits?!!!!! come on! if a plane is gonna be low enough to hit a 110m metre building then wouldn't it hit the westpac first? and the cbd would be preety screwed if a plane got that low anyway! and also, I would bet that the chances of a plane not seeing the 100m building in front of it ( and even being at that altitude anyway) and hitting the building would be as small as a plane actually falling out of the sky and hitting the building, like a normal crash.

rant over.

[Will]

WHAT THE HELL!!!! do the people in charge think "hmmm this proposal looks too big and interesting, lets either make it boring or forget about it and make up some crap excuse for why its not going to get built"? I don't know about anyone else but i would rather have a taller building with empty offices that would probably get filled at a later date than a building that is already full. Talk about preparing for the future, hey.

and height limits?!!!!! come on! if a plane is gonna be low enough to hit a 110m metre building then wouldn't it hit the westpac first? and the cbd would be preety screwed if a plane got that low anyway! and also, I would bet that the chances of a plane not seeing the 100m building in front of it ( and even being at that altitude anyway) and hitting the building would be as small as a plane actually falling out of the sky and hitting the building, like a normal crash.

rant over.

This has got absolutely nothing to do with the ACC. The reason why the height has been reduced is because no-one is going to finance a building with empty floors at the moment. That is the reality of the market. The ACC or the state government do not build or fund developments.

[mattblack]

Nor do DAC have creative control over architecture except where it is in conflict with its surrounds or heritage buildings. They are only concerned if the building is complying, non complying or of merit status under the development plan of the relevant council.

[ghs]

WHAT THE HELL!!!! do the people in charge think "hmmm this proposal looks too big and interesting, lets either make it boring or forget about it and make up some crap excuse for why its not going to get built"? I don't know about anyone else but i would rather have a taller building with empty offices that would probably get filled at a later date than a building that is already full. Talk about preparing for the future, hey.

and height limits?!!!!! come on! if a plane is gonna be low enough to hit a 110m metre building then wouldn't it hit the westpac first? and the cbd would be preety screwed if a plane got that low anyway! and also, I would bet that the chances of a plane not seeing the 100m building in front of it ( and even being at that altitude anyway) and hitting the building would be as small as a plane actually falling out of the sky and hitting the building, like a normal crash.

rant over.

This reply seems to be way off the mark and doesn't make much sense. Really when it comes to big buildings its all about demand & supply.

[Omicron]

WHAT THE HELL!!!! do the people in charge think "hmmm this proposal looks too big and interesting, lets either make it boring or forget about it and make up some crap excuse for why its not going to get built"? I don't know about anyone else but i would rather have a taller building with empty offices that would probably get filled at a later date than a building that is already full. Talk about preparing for the future, hey.

and height limits?!!!!! come on! if a plane is gonna be low enough to hit a 110m metre building then wouldn't it hit the westpac first? and the cbd would be preety screwed if a plane got that low anyway! and also, I would bet that the chances of a plane not seeing the 100m building in front of it ( and even being at that altitude anyway) and hitting the building would be as small as a plane actually falling out of the sky and hitting the building, like a normal crash.

rant over.

This has got absolutely nothing to do with the ACC. The reason why the height has been reduced is because no-one is going to finance a building with empty floors at the moment. That is the reality of the market. The ACC or the state government do not build or fund developments.

The State Government absolutely funds developments.