Sensational-Adelaide.com

Love it, simple and elegant.

Big thumbs up, and you know it deserves approval when all us S-A members give it unanimous positivity

ChillyPhilly wrote:Big thumbs up, and you know it deserves approval when all us S-A members give it unanimous positivity

Not quite. Dvious doesn't like it (from the current renders at least), and I'm for this, but would like to see a LOT more of the heritage component retained, and the design around the heritage more sympathetic to it. Still, it would be nice for this and Vue to hopefully break the 80m barrier, since ANZ house is the only thing in the past 20 years do so.

Great proposal, sleek and classy. Great spot for some height too.

Yeah, something about it just isn't doing it for me. Not sure if it is the rounded edges or the strange attempt to retain the existing building. See how it grows on me closer to fruition.

I like it - if this and the Gawler Chambers development both go ahead then this will be a great addition to this part of the city.

My impression is the original heritage building on the north west corner is being retained. Just looking at Street View, the remainder of the building to the east and south is a later addition to the original building. I would guess that part is not listed.

Looks great!

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6970161988

Queen Adelaide Club orders up a 21-storey tower
TIM WILLIAMS SUNDAY MAIL (SA) JUNE 28, 2014 9:10PM

WHILE the old boys of the Adelaide Club were busy opposing a rooftop bar next door, just metres along North Tce the women at their exclusive sister institution were drawing up plans for a 21-storey mega-club and retirement village.

The 105-year-old Queen Adelaide Club has gained approval to knock down two of its three local heritage-listed buildings to make way for a $30 million expansion aimed at securing its financial future.

The club itself will sprawl over six floors with dining rooms, lounges and bars, a function level with a wine store, a library and business centre and six accommodation rooms for members of affiliated clubs around the world.

The rest of the tower will house a “vertical retirement village” mainly for club members. Each of the upper 14 levels will have a pair of three-bedroom apartments, whose residents will have exclusive access to a communal garden, kitchen, lounge and dining area on the rooftop.

“The attraction is, if you are a club member, you can access the services of the club and all of its activities just down a lift (from your apartment),” said architect Mario Dreosti, a director at Brown Falconer.

“It’s quite a unique model and could be applied for sailing clubs or golf clubs.”

Mr Dreosti said the expansion of the 900-member club served multiple purposes, including reintroducing on-site accommodation to avoid having to sending affiliates down the road to stay at the Adelaide Club.

“The club had two challenges — their long-term financial sustainability, but also they do quite a lot of functions there and the existing buildings didn’t have the facilities to handle them as well as they could have,” Mr Dreosti said.

He would not put a price on the retirement apartments, where the club will offer meal and cleaning services, but said they will all feature both north and south facing balconies and be at the “premium” end of the market.

The heritage building at the corner of Stephens Place and North Tce will remain as the club’s main entrance at the tower’s base, next to a new high end retail tenancy that Mr Dreosti said “could be suitable for an Oroton or a Prada”.

The Development Assessment Commission approved the plans on Thursday.

The Adelaide Club for gentlemen opposed a $3 million rooftop bar and dining complex planned for the top of the neighbouring former Westpac building on the King William St/North Tce corner, but a compromise over closing times and entertainment conditions has now been struck.

The Adelaide Club, which has more modest $2.5 million redevelopment plans of its own, also managed to restrict the hours of the Jamie Oliver restaurant set to open next door.

We need to shut the Adelaide Club down. Or at least start shaming the institution

Ugh, that's really disappointing. What's the point of "local heritage listing" if the buildings can be demolished anyway? Would it have been impossible to have at least gutted the buildings that will be demolished, leaving only the facade and then building the tower behind (like 379 KWS)? Why do we have to demolish heritage buildings on our nicest street when there are countless more horrible eyesores in need of removal?

I am in favour for the height and bulk, along with elements of retaining the heritage building at street level along North Terrace. I feel however, that the style appears to be more "corporate" therefore reflecting an office building which would be more suited in another location. This tower would look great on Pirie Street for instance, but I feel, that for a mixed use development along Adelaide's premier cultural boulevard; this design could be tweaked to be a more novel design for this most opportune location.

Waewick wrote:We need to shut the Adelaide Club down. Or at least start shaming the institution

+1.

Waewick wrote:We need to shut the Adelaide Club down. Or at least start shaming the institution

Knowing nothing about the Adelaide Club, why?

DAC report on this development proposal:

http://dac.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_ ... e_Club.pdf

This seems a very worthwhile development with a couple of small flaws, IMHO, one being that the demolition doesn't go far enough.

The development is by the owner to continue the existing use of the site.

To deal with the more obvious points:

The heritage listing

The listing is Local Heritage (City Significance). There are three brick two storey houses on the site, dating from the late 19th century. As buildings, the structures are not particularly remarkable except as survivors of the residential era of North Tce. Historically, the Queen Adelaide Club began to occupy the site in 1909 and took over all three buildings in 1920.
I suggest that the character and history of the buildings while of some significance are at the lower end of the heritage scale.
Local heritage listing is not and never has been an absolute bar to demolition. If it were, why have higher grades of listing such as state and national listings?
In this case, the continuing existing use by the present owner of the site should count a great deal towards a full redevelopment of the site.
Add to that the proposition that the present owner's struggle to maintain its highly inefficient asset could result in the failure of the club as an entity - an ironic outcome.
So in my opinion, demolition is justified provided that the replacement structure is of high quality and worthy of its site.

The proposed concept

The idea of a single building incorporating a women's club, some retail and private apartments is innovative. A good idea.

The building proposal

21 stories, good. The site is only about 500sqm, with a 21 metre frontage to North Tce.
Why muck around with facade retention on such a small site? As mentioned, the brick structure to be retained has already list most of its original interior, and its exterior double verandah/balcony has long gone. What's left does not engage with the street, and the design statement to the effect that the angled brackets of the verandah should be repeated more or less at random strikes me as architectural film-flammery.
More importantly, why skew the rectilinear floor plan a few degrees off the grid? The idea of rounded corners as 'feminine' seems acceptable (although possibly a male designer's idea). The slight skew of the plan serves no practical purpose that I can see, and will add significantly to the cost of construction and arguably, maintenance. Many components of the building will have to be carefully shaped to fit angles a few degrees off 90deg. Why? It is quite possible to design a rectilinear building that looks good. Surely the curved corner/s, à la Johnson Building, are enough.

Be brave. Get rid of the remnant corner building, ditch the weird verandah bracket angles al over the facade and square the building up.

I note that the DA says 'Builder TBA'. There's a rumour that Sarah has an inside run.

In any case, the project gets my vote.

I don't care too much for the reason for this building, or who wants to build it. It's far from ugly, and we should have more of these modern glass structures.
We don't have enough demand for large amounts of new commercial office space, so who cares. We should grab this with both hands, hope it gets built very soon.