Sensational-Adelaide.com

Another reminder why I no longer read The Advertiser.

Thread title change to Eclipse please.

slenderman wrote:Pretty hilarious that someone thinks we're turning into a mini New York when we haven't had a new tallest in 27 years now.

I agree with your other points and I hate to be THAT guy, but after the Empire State Building was built, NYC didn't have a new tallest building for near 40 years... Then after the original WTC went up, they didn't get a new tallest for around another 40 years when the new WTC was built...

I'm just saying...

adam73837 wrote:

slenderman wrote:Pretty hilarious that someone thinks we're turning into a mini New York when we haven't had a new tallest in 27 years now.

I agree with your other points and I hate to be THAT guy, but after the Empire State Building was built, NYC didn't have a new tallest building for near 40 years... Then after the original WTC went up, they didn't get a new tallest for around another 40 years when the new WTC was built...

I'm just saying...

Sorry Adam, I don't mean to be sarcastic or condescending, but I don't see the connection, unless you're just being facetious (which you probably are).

While they didn't get a new tallest for 40 years, the Empire State happened to be the tallest building in the world in that period, and then the Twin Towers were the tallest until the Sears tower. Besides, they don't really have any trouble getting new tall/supertall skyscrapers. Six of their current 10 tallest were built after 2007.

That said, six of our ten tallest will have been built since 2007 if this one goes up, so I guess we're matching them at a much lower scale and ignoring their U/C buildings. Still, about half of our CBD is 1-2 storeys and Westpac would be a needle in a Manhattan haystack, so we'll likely never be a mini New York, contrary to that person's comment.

Still, don't take this as me being too negative. I'm starting to get confident a new tallest isn't too far away. Vue has shown that a well designed, well marketed building will sell quickly here, and even less attractive and not as well marketed designs such as Vision, Palladium and Central Adelaide are going ahead at a slower rate. No reason to think this one won't go ahead.

Anyway, sorry for slightly derailing a few threads with my ramblings. Can't wait to see this one progress.

slenderman wrote:

adam73837 wrote:

slenderman wrote:Pretty hilarious that someone thinks we're turning into a mini New York when we haven't had a new tallest in 27 years now.

I agree with your other points and I hate to be THAT guy, but after the Empire State Building was built, NYC didn't have a new tallest building for near 40 years... Then after the original WTC went up, they didn't get a new tallest for around another 40 years when the new WTC was built...

I'm just saying...

Sorry Adam, I don't mean to be sarcastic or condescending, but I don't see the connection, unless you're just being facetious (which you probably are).

While they didn't get a new tallest for 40 years, the Empire State happened to be the tallest building in the world in that period, and then the Twin Towers were the tallest until the Sears tower. Besides, they don't really have any trouble getting new tall/supertall skyscrapers. Six of their current 10 tallest were built after 2007.

That said, six of our ten tallest will have been built since 2007 if this one goes up, so I guess we're matching them at a much lower scale and ignoring their U/C buildings. Still, about half of our CBD is 1-2 storeys and Westpac would be a needle in a Manhattan haystack, so we'll likely never be a mini New York, contrary to that person's comment.

Still, don't take this as me being too negative. I'm starting to get confident a new tallest isn't too far away. Vue has shown that a well designed, well marketed building will sell quickly here, and even less attractive and not as well marketed designs such as Vision, Palladium and Central Adelaide are going ahead at a slower rate. No reason to think this one won't go ahead.

Anyway, sorry for slightly derailing a few threads with my ramblings. Can't wait to see this one progress.

Can not agree more. I think if anyone is to do it, it would be starfish. If the correct building is proposed in the correct location, with apartment prices not too overpriced, I believe it's possible. It would then hopefully reflect the progress Adelaide has made in the last 2-5 years at ground level.

Website is now up for registrations. I must say having seen the new larger render on the site the building looks incredibly Ugly...

http://eclipseadelaide.com.au/

Interesting how taste differs. I absolutely love it.

Its not my architectural style but what makes me love it is its ambition, how often do we get buildings like this proposed for Adelaide.

We need buildings like this as they push what people perceive of Adelaide's Skyline and how it should look. Apart from Vue, how many of the proposed residential buildings are really pushing the architectural boundaries?

Overall the proposal is good, but that render hasn't come up too well. There's too much contrast between
the old conservative church and the new flamboyant Eclipse building. Would be better just to have a render of Eclipse.

I like it in principle, but this is one of those buildings that will make or break on the quality of its finishings. Unless the glass and gold cladding are sheeny and luxe, this could look a jagged mess.

Agree entirely with GHS. Does not fit in with surroundings. (eg the church and Ruthven mansions). Overall I generally don't like bldgs that have odd external lines - this looks overbalanced on the sides. Exceptions in this general style IMHO are the Shard in London and the Wave as proposed for Adelaide. GREAT HEIGHT though.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

skyliner wrote:Agree entirely with GHS. Does not fit in with surroundings. (eg the church and Ruthven mansions). Overall I generally don't like bldgs that have odd external lines - this looks overbalanced on the sides. Exceptions in this general style IMHO are the Shard in London and the Wave as proposed for Adelaide. GREAT HEIGHT though.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

That is a very Adelaide comment. "Does not fit in with the surroundings".

So lets paint it beige and give it a steeple so it fits in with the 80's buildings around Adelaide, and the church next door.

Dvious wrote:

skyliner wrote:Agree entirely with GHS. Does not fit in with surroundings. (eg the church and Ruthven mansions). Overall I generally don't like bldgs that have odd external lines - this looks overbalanced on the sides. Exceptions in this general style IMHO are the Shard in London and the Wave as proposed for Adelaide. GREAT HEIGHT though.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

That is a very Adelaide comment. "Does not fit in with the surroundings".

So lets paint it beige and give it a steeple so it fits in with the 80's buildings around Adelaide, and the church next door.

Funny that it's a very Adelaide comment. I thought I had read similar comments from regulars on this site about a number of other proposals over the years.
Your comment seems to be a bit extreme given my intent from the original a few posts back.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

Apartments built in the mall can't be anymore common in Asia, I mean... ADL or aussies really need to go out to the world and open their eyes. Asians are so used to living close to shopping amenities. The closer it is, the better (yeah I know we are bunch of lazy bastar*s), but that's how we have so many vibrant mega cities in Asia. Not everyone wants to live in quiet dead suburbs.

wll6568 wrote:Apartments built in the mall can't be anymore common in Asia, I mean... ADL or aussies really need to go out to the world and open their eyes. Asians are so used to living close to shopping amenities. The closer it is, the better (yeah I know we are bunch of lazy bastar*s), but that's how we have so many vibrant mega cities in Asia. Not everyone wants to live in quiet dead suburbs.

Wayno and I certainly don't and we ain't even asian.