Sensational-Adelaide.com

exactly, there really isnt a huge need for them. although glass would be nicer but thats not very cost effective with maintenance associated with bird poop and other debris from the street.

monotonehell wrote:

spiller wrote:...Put an awning over the door way, yes, but not the whole street side of the building.

I disagree!

Some kind of all weather protection over the footpath allows the city to remain pedestrian friendly when it's raining. An uncovered street during a rainy lunchtime is deserted, while a covered one sees as much traffic as a sunny day.

Same can be said for the Mall.

But to the point that PG raised, it's true that there's bad implementations of cover that make the footpath a bit of a tunnel. Some of the newer buildings have been experimenting with glass covers, which let in the light while still providing wet weather protection.

It's all about balance (cantilevers! )

Well said Mono. I strongly 'support' the use of cantilever awnings due to
A. As some have said, weather protection. (heat as well).
B. More user friendly for al fresco cafes.
C. More people are on the street (as Mono alluded to).
D. You are not dodging rain in their absence.
E. Different styles remove the tunnel effect. (as one has said, glassed)
F. Who, except us SA members, goes around with their necks at weird angles looking up at the bldgs instead of straight ahead. If we want to see the high rise effect, look on the opposite side of the street. We would be seen as an irrelevant reason as to having no awnings.
G. The overall aesthetic effect is quite pleasing. (As in West Wyalong).
H. There is greater reason than ever to make the city pedestrian friendly - 125,000 now work in the CBD. (Rising rapidly).

Nuff said. Need stumpjumper (architect?) to come in on this one.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

I think the protection awnings provide, particularly shade from the excessive heat of our summers, is very important for an active and attractive city. It's clear, too, that they're much appreciated by pedestrians, given how tightly they'll hug against buildings with awnings. Ever seen the mall on a hot day? The middle is a dead zone. People will avoid exposed areas.

I agree, and for that reason I'm not a fan of glass awnings.

But since this particular building is on the west side of the street and has two large trees in front, the sun shouldn't be too bad. It's the rain that will be the problem.

I'm intrigued by how much agreement there is that covering the Mall is pointless on the one hand, and that we all need protection from the sun and rain everywhere else on the other. Having spent three years in a place with weather that was much wetter and colder than here, and did not have awnings as a rule, I'm unimpressed by claims that rain here is an issue (unless people have become soluble while we were away). And for the heat and sun, isn't that why we're growing so many London plane trees on our streets?

Yes, there are streets that don't have awnings and don't have much pedestrian traffic. But all the ones that I can think of are streets that aren't flush with reasons for people to be walking down there anyway. Bologna's arcades are beautiful and busy, but there are reasons (destinations) to walk around there, and other Italian cities without the arcades have plenty of people on the street.

Prince George wrote:I'm intrigued by how much agreement there is that covering the Mall is pointless on the one hand, and that we all need protection from the sun and rain everywhere else on the other.

Why is that a puzzle? It's the best of both worlds.

When there's no shelter and the weather is bad, people rush from A to B rather than lingering.

As someone who's worked in the CBD for quite some time, and lived here for some of that time, although it doesn't rain here "that often" it does enough to warrant the shelter. When it rains the Mall is a place that a lot of shoppers avoid. It doesn't need to be covered completely, just protected in a way that lets the light in, but also provides adequate protection for shoppers when it does rain.

When it rains, people tend to jump in their cars and go to the suburban shopping centres.

Working in the CBD and walking from the traing station through Rundle Mall most days I appreciate the cover that is available. However, I would hate it to become one big undercover mall, which would then be no different to a Westfield with pavers instead of nice flooring... and trucks driving through in the morning.

Why not a well designed extension of the strange glass structure on the corner where OPSM is? maybe have it snake or zig zag through allowing alternate ventilation and cover? I also think that the lighting needs to be improved and more arts and open space development. The balls and bronze pigs are nice, but for a city that has the second largest Fringe festival in the world, once it all packs up there is very little to show for it.

How about a yearly arts award to be decided for the Fringe or Festival of Arts where a new piece can be unveiled as part of the festival opening or closing? It would add something each year and be a visual marker to the passing years.

It could spread through the laneways surrounding the mall as well and try and make them more attractive for foot traffic.

I have seriously gone of topic, this should be part posted in the Rundle Mall thread... Sorry!!

This development is now on Public notification.

Some key details are:

25 levels
86M
6,150 SQM
Cost of $17m

Due to the low cost and also low floor space, this actually has a good chance of happening sooner rather then later IMO.

Below are some new renders.

http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/deve ... ation.html

Category 2 Public Notification
Number: 020/0008/10
Address: 113-115 King William Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description: Demolish existing building and construct 25 Level Office building with Ground Floor retail.

As this application has a total development cost exceeding $10 million, the relevant authority to determine the application is the Development Assessment Commission as set out in Schedule 10, 4B of the Development Regulations, 2008.

The plans will be placed on public display in the Adelaide City Council Customer Service Centre for the public notification period Wednesday, 21 April – Wednesday, 5 May 2010. You can also view the plans during normal business hours at the office of the Development Assessment Commission, Level 5, Roma Mitchell House, 136 North Terrace, Adelaide (opposite Adelaide Railway Station).

If you have any queries regarding the proposal, please contact Gabrielle McMahon, at the Development Assessment Commission, on 8303 0734.

If you wish to make a submission regarding the proposal, please direct your comments by close of business on Wednesday, 5 May 2010 to:

The Secretary
Development Assessment Commission
GPO Box 1815
Adelaide SA 5001

Thanks Ben.

This looks like a bit of an unorthodox office building. The floor plates are quite small so you would think the big tenants would not be interested as they prefer larger areas. It doesn't look like a multi-tenant building as the ground floor looks like it will have no public lobby. Instead Ground level is all leased out to presumably the same tenant.

And lol @ Santos in one of those renders.

Holy blank walls batman!

The street front doesn't look to bad however. Are the shaded red boxes depicted behind the development related to the height restriction or the city central developments?!

Seems pretty cheap for such a tall building when compared to say, CoH which was $70 million/62 metres. CoH does have larger and wider floors but surely the cost of materials/labour etc wasn't $53 million more alone.

Briggzy_03 wrote:Holy blank walls batman!

The street front doesn't look to bad however. Are the shaded red boxes depicted behind the development related to the height restriction or the city central developments?!

Seems pretty cheap for such a tall building when compared to say, CoH which was $70 million/62 metres. CoH does have larger and wider floors but surely the cost of materials/labour etc wasn't $53 million more alone.

Yes the red indicates the height limits.

In regards to the cost of this building and COH. COH had to fit out the apartment levels where as this building is essentially 25 empty levels as the tenant will pay for the fit out. So wouldn't take long and wouldn;t cost much to build.

Anyone have a picture of the building being demolished? i tried looking via google maps but there's a couple of trees blocking the view - damn mother nature!

Great overall impression down King KWS - really adds to it. Interesting superimpositions of height limits.
The slablike appearance could have some implications for establishing or exacurbating micro climates.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

skyliner wrote:Great overall impression down King KWS - really adds to it...[/b]

I was thinking almost the opposite, that it blends in with the streetscape in those 'up the road' photos. Almost becomes lost.