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

[AtD]

One issue I see: will Adelaide shoppers get over their peculiar reluctance to shop over several floors unless in a department store? That idiosyncrasy was discovered when Adelaide Arcade was built in the 19th century and it doomed the upper floor tenancies in the Myer Centre.

There will only be speciality shops on Ground and Level 1, with a handful in the basement. Everything else will be Harris Scarfe.

The developers know what they're doing.

[metro]

One issue I see: will Adelaide shoppers get over their peculiar reluctance to shop over several floors unless in a department store? That idiosyncrasy was discovered when Adelaide Arcade was built in the 19th century and it doomed the upper floor tenancies in the Myer Centre.

That's one thing I've never understood. Same goes with going anywhere which isn't the "main strip", such as down adjoining streets or lanes.

I disagree, Myer Centre, not many people venture up beyond level 2, but there are a lot of people who go down to the terrace level food court, same with Adelaide central plaza, a lot of people go down to the food court level and up one level. The problem is poor design, like in Adelaide arcade the stairs are hidden out of sight and there isnt anything to draw people to the upper level like a good restaurant or bar or something.

also there arent that many good lanes or adjoining streets in Adelaide, Exchange place, James place, Moonta street (chinatown) and Leigh Street are about the only decent ones. Gilbert Place i think has a lot of potential, I use it pretty regularly to cut the corner between Currie Street and king William.

[pushbutton]

In theory the Myer Centre was a fantastic idea but there were mutltiple problems with the way it was designed.

For example off the top of my head:

• Most of the specialty shops were made too small to be of much interest to most good major retailers
  
  The fact you could see right the way from terrace level to level 5 and vice-versa was a major attraction and also allowed natural light to flood the whole centre through the atrium. Unfortunately a few years after it opened they were forced to install safety glass and safety fabric sheets across several levels due to a couple of fatal incidents involving people jumping and being pushed from the higher levels. Effectively whilst this made it safer it also blocked the view and light flow between levels, hence making it much less attractive for shoppers to go to the higher levels as it felt a bit more dull and clostraphobic. What this really comes down to is in my opinion poor design.
  
  Part of a good design process is to think of all reasonably foreseeable contingencies and make sure the original design accounts for them. The designers of the Myer Centre ought to have foreseen that people might jump from the higher levels (sad, but true) and implemented adequate safety measures into the original design. Instead they didn't which means a few deaths could possibly have been prevented, and the "band-aid" measures they've retro-fitted post-construction to improve safety have destroyed one of the major attractions of the building.
  
  Dazzleland was, in theory, a brilliant idea and a major drawcard to get people into the centre and up to the higher levels. Sadly it failed due to poor management, over-pricing, and partly due to poor timing as it's first few years of trading were right in the middle of the 1990s recession, when most people were not spending much on luxuries such as entertainment (as is the case again at the moment).
  
  The Myer Centre was built to a unique and quite specific internal style (unique except for the other Myer Centre in Brisbane that is) and unfortunately in a misguided effort to "modernise" it, the current owners have removed the victorian lamp style lighting and re-painted the pillars and ceilings in bland colours which pretty much destroy the original concept of the interior design, but fail in their attempt to make it look contemporary. The Myer Centre was never intended to look contemporary and it doesn't. What is looked like when it opened was a unique, stylish, fun place to be. What it looks like now is a poorly patched up, half empty, struggling shopping centre with many examples of poor design and poor planning throughout.
  
  Same thing goes for the London Tavern. When it first re-opened as part of the Myer Centre it was made to look somewhat like an actual traditional old tavern in London, complete with a London street-scape and old style British telephone box. Now it looks like a slightly dull contemporary bar. Fairly ok but not very interesting because it's just like most other contemporary bars in Adelaide!
  
  If Rundle Place can avoid these sort of mistakes by ensuring they design it well, with all reasonably foreseeable future uses and events properly considered and catered for, then it should be able to be a thriving and profitable centre for many years.

[skyliner]

The new 'red' section in Grenfell st needs an awning - look at the number of people catching buses there - cover for customers needed as well. The new render looks a bit 'stumpy' but definitely better than the old bldg. I note too that the mall facade has held stongly with traditional architecture - don't mind it though. Overall - I like it. looking forward to going there when next in Adelaide.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[Nathan]

The new 'red' section in Grenfell st needs an awning - look at the number of people catching buses there - cover for customers needed as well.

It appears the red section is effectively an awning, sitting out from the building (and by the looks of it, handing out further than than the awnings of the retail frontage).

[Pikey]

The first crane base is now on site. By the looks of them they will be electric cranes, and if there are three on site, i'd dare say they'll be luffers.

[stumpjumper]

Thoughtful points, pushbutton.

An alternative strategy to tackle the regrettable suicide attempts could have been to stretch a strong elastic mesh-style membrane a few metres above the actual ground floor, with an exact image of the real ground floor printed on its surface. A trampoline, in fact.

The theory being that the unhappy self-toppers, having launched themselves into oblivion, would be rapidly returned to about their starting altitude before gradually, and safely, settling onto the membrane to be dealt with by security, their feelings of hopelessness or whatever replaced by harmless embarrassment, and even enjoyment. A much preferable outcome.

[stumpjumper]

The new 'red' section in Grenfell st needs an awning - look at the number of people catching buses there - cover for customers needed as well.

It appears the red section is effectively an awning, sitting out from the building (and by the looks of it, handing out further than than the awnings of the retail frontage).

The more I read the insightful suggestions here the more I think we need a big red suggestion box (real and on-line). It might seem a bit unsophisticated, but thousands of ordinary peiople use the facilities and spaces in this city, and it's not only the expert urban designers who can come up with good, practical ideas. Lower handholds in trams and buses for shortarses, bigger shelters for crowded transport stops, route numbers on the sides of buses. There must be lots of good ideas out there (not just transport related. I might make a formal suggestion to someone.

[Xaragmata]

From Thursday:










http://xaragmata.mooo.com/album/adelaid ... _5477.html

[Pikey]

The crane base has actually moved from it's original set position, to closer to the center of the site.

As you can see in this nearmap image from the August, there is a crane spot set near the southern end of the site, the new second crane location is closer to the smaller truck towards the center of the site.

http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-34.923563,1 ... d=20110822

Long and short of it, I'd say this sit will have two cranes up within the next two months.

[UrbanSG]

Application Number: DA/562/2008/2/C
Lodgement Date: 8/09/2011
Location: 77-91 Rundle Mall, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description: Vary previous authorisation to demolish existing buildings and construct a 19 storey building comprising 4 storeys of retail (including basement) and 15 storeys of office accommodation - VARIATION - internal and external alterations - STAGE 2 - SUPERSTRUCTURE STRUCTURAL WORKS TO PODIUM LEVEL
Applicant Name: PACIFIC SHOPPING CENTRES C/- Synergy Project Management, Level 3 66 Wyatt St, ADELAIDE SA 5000 ALTEMAN (SA) P/L 158 City Rd, SOUTHBANK VIC 3006

[[Shuz]]

I'm confused, I thought this was a 15 level building; as the office component had been reduced from 15 levels to 11, now it seems like it's back to 15? Bringing total height to 19 levels / 92m?

[UrbanSG]

Shuz the key is 'vary'. The shorter version was approved as a variation to the orignal 19 level approval.

The 'internal and external alterations' likely refer to the downsizing of the proposal to 15 levels.

[[Shuz]]

Just to ask a couple of questions;

in this instance - the developer has submitted a DA for a 19 level building. That DA being approved; they have the consent to build up to 19 levels - but they don't have to build the 19 levels and can opt for less pending financing/market climate? So they just ask for a variation? Is that how it works?

That all being said, if the stars aligned; they could just ask for a variation again to build up to 19 levels; as per the DA approval/consent. But would have to lodge a new DA to go any taller/or any other absolutely radical changes to building superstructure?

[UrbanSG]

Generally correct Shuz. A variation application usually only refers to relatively minor changes to the original approval.

An application to increase height above 19 levels say to 20 levels could also be variation to the original approval if the authority (Council or DAC) deemed the changes weren't significant. For example if the 19 levels approved weren't above a height limit and 20 levels wouldn't be above a height limit either the authority may decide the proposal is still only a variation to the original approval.