News & Discussion: General CBD Development

[crawf]

The Hilton is okay, though it's overrated to stay in.

Glad to hear a makeover is in planning

[Adelarch]

From the Adelaide Review. Not an anti-development article by any means but some good points being made about the preoccupation with height to the detriment of other important aspect of building design. While I agree with many of the points in the article it would nonetheless be nice to have a few impressive tallies in the CBD IMHO

Lifting our sights beyond the height hype
June, 2011

Building heights are in the news again. The same rehearsed positions are aired, always in relation to a single development and rarely in the interests of genuinely engaging in a deep analysis of the issue.

It’s called “height hype”. Somehow it seems to tap a vein of insecurity and so we go around again. But it does throw up some interesting issues that might be worth exploring. Along the way, I suspect we might also need to move beyond height as the sole proxy for the more interesting and substantial issues.

It’s true that the factors influencing height might deserve a recap. Traditionally, building height is a factor of land value. Land value is linked to availability. In a city bounded by a non-negotiable growth boundary like the parklands, you’d expect land availability to be a major driver in the CBD placing pressure on land prices and encouraging height. But while there are large swathes of under-developed land, we have a way to go before availability is restricted and that’s an opportunity to agree the parameters for an urban form that suits our needs.

As any planner knows, another influence on height is the flight path approach to Adelaide airport. According to many in West Torrens, the city and North Adelaide, some of the current thinking behind the flight paths could do with a refresh. Is the flight path profile framed around the latest aircraft technology? Many suggest not.

So why is height such an issue? There are currently tall buildings with approval to proceed that probably never will. This has nothing to do with Council approvals or lack of community support or what we can or can’t handle in this city. But it has everything to do with economics. Most tall buildings proceed only once an anchor tenant has been secured. Traditionally in Adelaide, government agencies have been the best anchor tenants. Anchor tenants take a sizable area of a new building; underwriting the project to proceed. Government has sensibly used this lever to promote more sustainable buildings like the 6-star SA Water building in Victoria Square, or the 5-star ANZ Building in Waymouth Street, anchored by Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology. But increasingly, workplace theory encourages larger single floorplates on one level in preference to many smaller workspaces stacked vertically. Larger floorplates promote a more collaborative team environment less likely to be siloed according to business unit. Gone are the days of visiting “Accounts” on Level 11.

The 21st century workplace values larger floorplates and to address this need, Adelaide must come to terms with land aggregation – bigger lots being joined to allow a “long and low” model of development. The market is moving to what’s called “high density mid-rise”. Those buildings with smaller floorplates may well struggle to attract these crucial anchor tenants. In answering the call for this kind of development, we’ll see a range of positive opportunities for the city. Longer, lower buildings often relate better to the street. Longer frontages allow a more consistent approach to footpath and retail activity. Lower buildings are more able to open to the street and are better suited to natural ventilation (wind pressure generally means anything over 10 storeys is sealed). This means they can be activated with balconies and operable shading.

So is height bad? Not at all. The Balfours site development – aptly named Altitude – shows that height can work. Taller, slender towers set in a field of mid-rise might be a reasonable model for the CBD generally. A “both/and” model. Select, sculptural towers of exceptional design quality, with space around them for sunlight, air movement and taking advantage of views out to the Gulf and the Hills, rising from a more tightly arranged urban “undergrowth” might balance the need for active street frontages and the opportunity for views. Important, in fact, when living on a plain like we do. Other cities show an emphasis on tall buildings alone can leave a legacy of vacant forecourts, basement car park ramps and characterless foyer cafes.

We’ll also need to remain vigilant in the face of the piecemeal ad-hockery we see when small sites are developed within the limits of their own constraints. There are numerous examples of poor city development with no consideration of the public footpaths or, in the case of some townhouse developments in the city, space for bins. Once we’ve built the room for the car, it seems we sculpt the pedestrian footpath (note, pedestrian) into a patchwork of stolen pavement and kerb crossing ramps. We end up with a skate park of ups and downs that are anything but age friendly and likely to encourage people off the undulating footpath, onto the road.
In many ways, “height hype” is a straw man and goes to the core of an essential insecurity. It’s important only in that it opens discussion on the city’s “urban form”; the broad scale pattern of built versus open, tall versus short, materials and setbacks, development envelopes and the delivery of a renewed public realm.

Ultimately, the question is; what should drive a unique “urban form” for Adelaide? Height may be a by-product of a number of other drivers. Or not. The design of a city should always reflect at least three essential truths about the place. Firstly, the innate technological capability of its industry. In Adelaide’s case this is reflected in the predominance of precast concrete in our CBD buildings. Unlike other centres that have a heritage of glass shards (think Manhattan), Adelaide’s Italian migrants established a true centre of excellence in the use of concrete that has infused our post-war streetscapes. South Australia’s postcard shot – the view of the Riverbank – is an essay in precast panels; on both John Andrews’ Intercontinental Hotel and most of those buildings lining North Terrace.

Secondly, a city should reflect its local climate. Brisbane has turned this into an art form – well, more a state brand – and converted it into economic opportunity. Brisbane has cleverly marketed its “sub tropical” climate as a shared trait with its neighbours in the Asia-pacific. In declaring itself the “smart state” and investing heavily in arts and culture, Queensland has boosted its trade with Asia over the past decade. Where Queensland looks to Asia to build its cultural associations, Adelaide’s climate offers a link to the more arid, temperate climate of the Middle East, North Africa and the Mediterranean. Like these places, Adelaide’s daylight levels are off the chart compared to other capitals and our famously temperate climate allows outdoor life beyond the conception of most global centres. Interestingly, it’s said that Adelaide’s famously long city blocks are a result of Colonel Light’s desire to protect the city streets from both hot northerlies, and cold southerlies. The east/west orientation of streets works effectively in flushing the city of its daytime heat, thanks to the west-moving gully winds. So a physical response to climate is already inherent in the original plan of the city. Climate is often the main driver of a city’s “vernacular” form. Think of how a tropical city, with an obsession about broad roof overhangs to protect against the monsoonal downpour, contrasts with a Mediterranean hill town, with its flat roofs for sun-ripening the tomatoes!

But in raising the importance of a “vernacular”, beware those who would lead you too far down this road. Too often it is dogmatically applied to a Disney-like preconception of quaint pioneering shopfronts and the purse-lipped Georgian strait jacket and is rarely translated into the 21st century convincingly (we’ve all seen the historicist townhouse dwarfed by the three car garage grafted on the front). No, the future of Adelaide’s city form needs to be modeled on a more sustainable response to our climate, not the Centenary picture book, circa 1936, and not a forced idyll long since departed.

The third ingredient in a considered city form is culture. Boston, Massachusetts is an education town; a broad campus-fusing town and gown in its city form. Manhattan is fuelled by finance and commerce, housed in its tall signature towers, each a competing icon. The Paris riots made famous in Les Miserables were the catalyst for Baron Haussman’s orderly boulevards that bulldozed the hidden alleyways that fostered dissent and conspiracy. A city’s form and culture are inextricably linked. Tony Blair’s embrace of a “cool Britannia” birthed Norman Foster’s “Gherkin” in London. How will Adelaide’s own urban form translate a renewed sense of optimism about its future?

This is not a case for narrowly defining ourselves through a single tag line. It’s an invitation for our talented architects and urban designers, planners and developers, landscape architects and engineers to reflect a certain cultural reinvention.
The noted urbanist and former Mayor of Curitiba, Jaime Lerner, suggests that in the 21st century there are three key challenges for cities – mobility, sustainability and identity. Height doesn’t rate a mention. The way we cater for business and increased residential growth in Adelaide will change according to need. In many cases, the way forward is probably a “longer and lower” form with larger floorplates. This will probably be located more along public transit corridors and perhaps lining the green spaces of Squares and surrounding parklands. But this is hardly the biggest question we need to ask ourselves. In fact, it’s self-evident. The more interesting questions are about innovating in new materials and technology, responding sustainably to our climate and reflecting a more confident and energetic cultural life of the city.

– Tim Horton, Integrated Design Commissioner for South Australia

[Xaragmata]

Conversion & extension of existing brick building near iPad in Waymouth Street as retail / residential:







Apartments u/c in the "Mawson Lakes" end of Franklin Street, at Gray Street:

[AtD]

From the Adelaide Review. Not an anti-development article by any means but some good points being made about the preoccupation with height to the detriment of other important aspect of building design. While I agree with many of the points in the article it would nonetheless be nice to have a few impressive tallies in the CBD IMHO

Interesting read. In my opinion the argument over a building being too tall or too short is not helpful. What makes a typical building a 'successful' addition to the city depends entirely on the ground floor. Of course the interior is important, but that's a discussion between the designers and the occupants. I'm talking about the 'discussion' between the designers and the rest of the city. The ground floor is key, what happens above that is usually only noticed by nerds like us.

A few examples: The new student apartment towers on Hindley Street and Bank Street are cheap and nasty designs, but they both interact very well with the street. They both have an open retail frontage, they don't present voids of activity with blank walls, they don't break the main footpaths with driveways or loading docks. While we may think they're hideous to look at, I would bet that the average person doesn't even notice they exist beyond a shop front - that's how well they blend into the street. There's plenty of other examples, "The Block" on Hindmarsh Square is another.

In contrast there's some stellar buildings to look at which have horrible a street presence. SA Water on Victoria Square is a wonderful building unless you're standing on Angus Street, then it might as well be a warehouse. The Embassy hotel on North Terrace looks great as you're driving over the Moprhett Street Bridge, but from the footpath the three lane wide driveway means the building is just an obstacle and not much more. I think it's partially to blame for the total lack of street level activity along that stretch of North Terrace despite very high activity on paper from UniSA. These buildings get noticed, but for the wrong reasons.

I don't really agree with the article's point that low rise buildings with large floor plates are a good opportunity for the street-scape. There are definitely pros - fewer unavoidable interruptions to the street for essential building services. But the con is monotony. 400 King William Street is an example of this - it has a nice ground floor on paper with lots of retail spaces, but, it feels like just an obstacle to get past due to its size. I also think large plated buildings are riskier for the street, one bad 20m frontage won't ruin a block, one bad 200m frontage definitely will.

A well designed building blends into the street and is unnoticed as a building but noticed as area of activity. It could be 2 levels or 20. I think we should forget about how tall a building is and instead focus more on the ground floor -that's what makes or breaks a building.

Also, Xaragmata, I don't say this enough, but thanks for the photo updates in all the threads!

[Adelarch]

Interesting read. In my opinion the argument over a building being too tall or too short is not helpful. What makes a typical building a 'successful' addition to the city depends entirely on the ground floor. Of course the interior is important, but that's a discussion between the designers and the occupants. I'm talking about the 'discussion' between the designers and the rest of the city. The ground floor is key, what happens above that is usually only noticed by nerds like us.

A few examples: The new student apartment towers on Hindley Street and Bank Street are cheap and nasty designs, but they both interact very well with the street. They both have an open retail frontage, they don't present voids of activity with blank walls, they don't break the main footpaths with driveways or loading docks. While we may think they're hideous to look at, I would bet that the average person doesn't even notice they exist beyond a shop front - that's how well they blend into the street. There's plenty of other examples, "The Block" on Hindmarsh Square is another.

In contrast there's some stellar buildings to look at which have horrible a street presence. SA Water on Victoria Square is a wonderful building unless you're standing on Angus Street, then it might as well be a warehouse. The Embassy hotel on North Terrace looks great as you're driving over the Moprhett Street Bridge, but from the footpath the three lane wide driveway means the building is just an obstacle and not much more. I think it's partially to blame for the total lack of street level activity along that stretch of North Terrace despite very high activity on paper from UniSA. These buildings get noticed, but for the wrong reasons.

I don't really agree with the article's point that low rise buildings with large floor plates are a good opportunity for the street-scape. There are definitely pros - fewer unavoidable interruptions to the street for essential building services. But the con is monotony. 400 King William Street is an example of this - it has a nice ground floor on paper with lots of retail spaces, but, it feels like just an obstacle to get past due to its size. I also think large plated buildings are riskier for the street, one bad 20m frontage won't ruin a block, one bad 200m frontage definitely will.

A well designed building blends into the street and is unnoticed as a building but noticed as area of activity. It could be 2 levels or 20. I think we should forget about how tall a building is and instead focus more on the ground floor -that's what makes or breaks a building.

Also, Xaragmata, I don't say this enough, but thanks for the photo updates in all the threads!

Thanks for your considered response AtD. I agree that activated street frontages are a critical ingredient in creating a vibrant, lively metropolis and that some of the recent buildings of ‘architectural merit’ such as SA Water completely fail in this respect, while other less stunning examples of architecture actually hit the mark.

Another thing which I feel the article doesn’t address in relation to tall buildings is that their greater height tends to translate into more people on the footpaths outside, just by virtue of there being more people that typically inhabit them per sqm of city public domain relative to lower buildings. Moreover, assuming that the potential for active streetfrontages in a city is roughly proportional to the number of people in that city then more taller buildings should mean proportionally more 'active' streetfrontage relative to 'void' streetfrontage in a city.

In other words taller buildings tend to add to the vibrancy at street level. I currently live in South Korea where every second building is twenty stories or more, even apartment buildings miles and miles from the centre of Seoul. As a result the streets tend to have a buzz about them at all times of the day, even in ‘suburban’ areas with no particular attractions.

[Reb-L]

Many interesting points above. What I'd like to add is that maybe I find it a little dispiriting - and boring - to walk around in a city where most buildings have similar height (other attractions not taken into account). For instance; many larger European cities such as Rome or Copenhagen are dominated by buildings around five stories tall in the central areas. Compare that with Singapore or Kuala Lumpur where there are many old two story Chinese shop houses (shop on the ground floor and residence above) mixed with 50+ story towers just next to them. It looks great and also lets a bit of light in (and maybe even opens some flat earth minds). What I'm afraid of is that the Adelaide CBD will become a 'flat box' of look alike 5-20 story buildings where nothing really stands out. Unfortunately that appears to be the trend right now. Of course economical realities have something to do with it but sometimes there seems to be an underlying mentality that always pulls everything towards the middle ground here (I hope I'm wrong). I don't see how "“height hype” somehow "seems to tap a vein of insecurity". This kind of discussion reminds me of the talk a few years ago when some concerned citizens always had to mention something about phallus symbols if a development proposal exceeded their comfort level (they never said that about the spires of Gothic cathedrals though).

[phenom]

A small observation if I may on the trend to larger floor plates. I think while I certainly understand the theory in not having 'accounts on level 11', there are distinct limits to the ability of large floor plates to resolve this - aside, of course, from the human element in organisational silos which physical structures and arrangements can not override. I work in 400KWS and I would dare say this building is actually too big (long). Most occupied floors on it appear (by necessity) to be split into two halves anyway (lifts in the centre), and it is actually a reality that each half from experience may as well be on a separate floor... in fact, if they were on separate (adjacent) floors, you could at least pop up or down the inner stairwells quicker than you can traverse buildings of this size.

I do feel that many people in Adelaide have this view that if we should aim for anything in our CBD, it's to be 'like Paris' although usually an idealised version removed from the reality that Paris too has in the La Defense district it's very own Manhattan-esque area that apparently we should abhor. As Reb-L noted below, the consistency argument has merits but the monotonous nature of it versus the ability of more varied structures - to add both street diversity and punctuate the skyline more effectively - also should be considered.

I guess like most others who frequent SA I am all for smart urban design but would still like a couple of 'tallies' in Adelaide - for while by themselves they don't (and won't) make us 'stand out', and are of course driven by economics as much as regulatory controls, they do seem to tap into most people's sense of how vibrant and alive a city is - and in an era of globalism, this is more important than it used to be. I personally know of more than a few foreign tourists and students who take the flat CBD of Adelaide as a sign of economic failure, not a sign of being respectful to design sensitivities. As a community we need to make a decision about whether we want to be seen in a particular light or not and I would say those 'growing pains' are being thrashed out right now. I do 'get' the Sandy Wilkinson view, that we should lead in some sort of post-industrial kind of 're-villagisation' and even have some sympathy for it but I think there are distinct dangers in trying to get there too soon! Being first isn't always the best.

[skyliner]

A small observation if I may on the trend to larger floor plates. I think while I certainly understand the theory in not having 'accounts on level 11', there are distinct limits to the ability of large floor plates to resolve this - aside, of course, from the human element in organisational silos which physical structures and arrangements can not override. I work in 400KWS and I would dare say this building is actually too big (long). Most occupied floors on it appear (by necessity) to be split into two halves anyway (lifts in the centre), and it is actually a reality that each half from experience may as well be on a separate floor... in fact, if they were on separate (adjacent) floors, you could at least pop up or down the inner stairwells quicker than you can traverse buildings of this size.

I do feel that many people in Adelaide have this view that if we should aim for anything in our CBD, it's to be 'like Paris' although usually an idealised version removed from the reality that Paris too has in the La Defense district it's very own Manhattan-esque area that apparently we should abhor. As Reb-L noted below, the consistency argument has merits but the monotonous nature of it versus the ability of more varied structures - to add both street diversity and punctuate the skyline more effectively - also should be considered.

I guess like most others who frequent SA I am all for smart urban design but would still like a couple of 'tallies' in Adelaide - for while by themselves they don't (and won't) make us 'stand out', and are of course driven by economics as much as regulatory controls, they do seem to tap into most people's sense of how vibrant and alive a city is - and in an era of globalism, this is more important than it used to be. I personally know of more than a few foreign tourists and students who take the flat CBD of Adelaide as a sign of economic failure, not a sign of being respectful to design sensitivities.

In answer to the bold - this I have found to be all too true - the last two I heard were, 'Adelaide is a piddly little city" and. 'Adelaide is just a tiny little town' - references from people in their early thirties. They were a response to the CBD appearing underdeveloped due to the city being an undesireable place - no life, no vibrancy, dead at night and no height. This linked conceptualisation is a real thing and does affect responses to Adelaide - perhaps even economically.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GEATER CITY SKYLINE

[[Shuz]]

A very positive article in the Advertiser today.

Historic Adelaide shopfronts to be revealed again
Alice Monfries From: AdelaideNow June 12, 2011 12:00am

IT'S the Adelaide you've forgotten - or perhaps never seen.

The original facades of many of the city's historic buildings are hidden away behind "ugly iron cladding", put up in the 1960s and '70s when a more modern, simple look was in vogue.

Now an Adelaide City Council scheme is seeking to uncover the Adelaide of old, by chipping in funds to encourage property owners to strip back dated frontages and restore the original architecture.

Through its Historic Facade Restoration Scheme, approved this week, the council will split restoration costs 50-50 with property owners, with grants up to $50,000.

It has allocated $250,000 for the scheme, with the aim of restoring at least five historic facades in the next financial year, and will look to expand the budget the following year.

Councillor Sandy Wilkinson said the project would target buildings in Rundle Mall, Rundle St and Hindley St.

Buildings in Hutt St, Gouger St and O'Connell St, North Adelaide, would also be eligible.

Cr Wilkinson, who has over the past 18 months researched records of many original facades and complied photos of their current frontages, said the scheme would be "like unwrapping presents".

"I've searched the council archives ... and I could see from those architectural drawings that many buildings have the original facade all intact behind (the iron frontage)," he said.

"People didn't appreciate architecture back then; they wished they had modern buildings so they clad over what they thought was a dowdy, old tired building to make it look like a modern, new building."

Cr Wilkinson said the 1998 restoration of Beehive Corner, on the corner of Rundle Mall and King William St, was a great example of how restoring original facades could generate economic and tourism benefits for the city.

"By capitalising on the historic buildings, restoring and improving them and then floodlighting them at night, that would make the streets shine," he said.

"It would set Rundle Mall apart from any Westfield ... and allow Rundle and Hindley streets to draw labels that aren't in suburban shopping centres because they're more likely to be attracted to beautiful historic buildings.

"At the moment Hindley St buildings just look downtrodden and dumpy."

The scheme requires property owners to sign a land-management agreement, agreeing not to knock down the building after receiving $50,000 from the council to restore it.

"They spend $100,000, they get $50,000 back from (the) council and their building goes from looking like a B Grade or C Grade building to a premium, prestige building," Cr Wilkinson said. "It's massive improvement potential for relatively little dollars.

"And once you've restored a building, they're done once, they're done forever."

Full interactive article below;
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/testing/s ... 6073023651

Personally, my approval rating of the Adelaide City Council is at an all-time high. They have been doing a great job in recent months and the momentum can only continue to get better.

[ml69]

Whilst i am certainly no nostalgic historicist, I think this is an excellent scheme to make the most of our existing built heritage. Sadly, it's about the only positive contribution I can think of Sandy Wilkinson making.

[Ben]

Wouldn't really say 5 years is "temporary" for a marquee...

Type: Development Application Received
Application Number: DA/481/2011
Lodgement Date: 14/06/2011
Location: 100 East Terrace, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description: Erect temporary marquee for a period of 5 years.

[Wayno]

Wouldn't really say 5 years is "temporary" for a marquee...

Type: Development Application Received
Application Number: DA/481/2011
Lodgement Date: 14/06/2011
Location: 100 East Terrace, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description: Erect temporary marquee for a period of 5 years.

it appears to already be there - both on google maps and nearmap

[crawf]

Looks like the revamp of Telstra House has already began, with fencing now erected outside the front of the building.

[cruel_world00]

I mentioned this on my Twitter and got varied responses, but Wilsons Organics closed on Gouger Street and moved around the corner to a nice location. But I had been anticipating what could possibly move into such a prime location in the heart of the Gouger Street restaurant precinct.

Low and behold it's a bloody Commonwealth Bank.

What a waste of a location. I know, I know, even Yarwood wrote me that the council has no say because it's the owner who do, but man that is a dog of a location. ATM yes, but a whole bank. Saturday arvos and Sundays that's gonna be a real people puller

Thoughts...?

[Will]

I mentioned this on my Twitter and got varied responses, but Wilsons Organics closed on Gouger Street and moved around the corner to a nice location. But I had been anticipating what could possibly move into such a prime location in the heart of the Gouger Street restaurant precinct.

Low and behold it's a bloody Commonwealth Bank.

What a waste of a location. I know, I know, even Yarwood wrote me that the council has no say because it's the owner who do, but man that is a dog of a location. ATM yes, but a whole bank. Saturday arvos and Sundays that's gonna be a real people puller

Thoughts...?

As far as I am aware, the Commonwealth bank will only occupy half of the former Wilson's tenancy. The other half will occupy a restaurant.

Furthermore, the Commonwealth Bank already occupies a tenancy on Gouger Street. Maybe their old tenancy could be converted into a restaurant?

Also, although I agree the bank will not attract people to the precinct during the weekend, it will help attract people during the day, particualrly in the breaks between breakfast and lunch and lunch and dinner when the restaurants are a bit quiet.