Sensational-Adelaide.com

I didn't think I'd ever see the day where I agreed 100% with comments from Sandy Wilkinson.

GoodSmackUp wrote:

noted wrote:Why is Adelaide so bad at integrating heritage sites with something new and modern? Here we have the perfect opportunity and they propose this crap. I feel like I have been transported to the Soviet bloc in the mid 60s.

Can you point to any examples of heritage buildings that have been integrated properly?

If you're asking whether I can in Adelaide- no I cannot, that was my point. If you're asking more broadly, yes I can. Off the top of my head the redevelopment of the old Tip Top factory in Melbourne springs to mind. Something like that could easily be done here and look a lot better than this pretty average proposal.

noted wrote:

GoodSmackUp wrote:

noted wrote:Why is Adelaide so bad at integrating heritage sites with something new and modern? Here we have the perfect opportunity and they propose this crap. I feel like I have been transported to the Soviet bloc in the mid 60s.

Can you point to any examples of heritage buildings that have been integrated properly?

If you're asking whether I can in Adelaide- no I cannot, that was my point. If you're asking more broadly, yes I can. Off the top of my head the redevelopment of the old Tip Top factory in Melbourne springs to mind. Something like that could easily be done here and look a lot better than this pretty average proposal.

For Adelaide - Quest Hotel on the southern end of KWS

I'm sure there are others.

Hmmm - Quest is OK but it's not the most sympathetic merger of old and new that I can think of. Better than losing the original building completely though.

Agree that the Tip Top factory in Melbourne is great and a good comparison of what could/should be possible with the Wigg & Sons building here in Adelaide.

Plant 4 at Bowden... Looks amazing how they have retro fitted a brick and iron sawtooth into a modern purpose facility. Admittedly this is not topped by a 10 storey tower, but there is no excuse for not incorporating the old brick façade of Wigg into the street front of this re development, even if it means cutting shopfronts into the walls in addition to the door openings that already exist.

claybro wrote:Plant 4 at Bowden... Looks amazing how they have retro fitted a brick and iron sawtooth into a modern purpose facility. Admittedly this is not topped by a 10 storey tower, but there is no excuse for not incorporating the old brick façade of Wigg into the street front of this re development, even if it means cutting shopfronts into the walls in addition to the door openings that already exist.

Yes that is a good point, Plant 4 is a good example. I'm not such a fan of the Quest on King William. It was always going to be difficult ask to integrate that particular façade in to a narrow high rise and personally I think they would have been better off just to knock it over.

In terms of this particular development though, I am just staggered that the instinctive mindset is to bulldoze it and build something so drab and boring. A developer should look at a site like this and see it for what it is- a rare opportunity that they will be lucky to ever get again. A tasteful integration on a site like this is the sort of thing that wins architectural awards, and is an impressive addition to a property developers portfolio.

I can confirm that the developer wanted to keep the Wigg&Son structure but the state govt architect over ruled and required it removed. Go figure.

how good is he wrote:I can confirm that the developer wanted to keep the Wigg&Son structure but the state govt architect over ruled and required it removed. Go figure.

Wow, that's an odd one. What grounds could there possibly be for that decision? I'm asking genuinely not rhetorically btw.

As sad as I would be to see the Wigg & Sons factory go (and I do genuinely hope it stays in some form), I do however think this is a great proposal for the area. What's planned isn't visually offensive and I like the slightly industrial brick style of the ground floor. Should hopefully help the Southwark Hotel with patronage too. Hopefully this will be a bit of a catalyst for further residential development around the Thebarton area.

Yep, very odd. I agree, a development here would be great even though I am not sold on this particular design. If it was a flat out choice between keeping the factory and a new development it wouldn't be a contest- bulldoze it now. It serves little purpose in its current form and it would be pointless just to leave it as it is.

Given that the two aren't mutually exclusive though, in fact quite the contrary, I would also be interested to find out what was the rationale behind that decision.

how good is he wrote:I can confirm that the developer wanted to keep the Wigg&Son structure but the state govt architect over ruled and required it removed. Go figure.

Is there no heritage group in Adelaide that keeps an eye on these decisions and makes the relevant people accountable?-Even if just to get a better design outcome and not necessarily block it? I'm sure if this was an old red brick dunny in the parklands, the usual suspects would be all over it.

The report and documents for this are up now on the DAC Website.

Report: http://www.dac.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/ ... Report.pdf

Docs #1: http://www.dac.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/ ... hments.pdf

Docs #2: http://www.dac.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/ ... ents-2.pdf


Regarding the E.S. Wiggs & Son building:

Further to this, it is noted that removal of the existing E.S Wigg & Son wall has been raised by concerned local residents in informal representations. The building is not a heritage listed building and it was determined early on in pre-lodgement discussions with ODASA and DPTI Planning staff that its retention as part of the proposed development will create contextual imbalance between its single storey form, and the adjoining two-storey Southwark Hotel. For optimal design and street activation success to be achieved, its demolition was considered the best option moving forward.

It has to go, otherwise it will "create" an imbalance with what it's stood next to for about a hundred years?

Bizarre.

This is also being recommended to be rejected.

Further to this, it is noted that removal of the existing E.S Wigg & Son wall has been raised by concerned local residents in informal representations. The building is not a heritage listed building and it was determined early on in pre-lodgement discussions with ODASA and DPTI Planning staff that its retention as part of the proposed development will create contextual imbalance between its single storey form, and the adjoining two-storey Southwark Hotel. For optimal design and street activation success to be achieved, its demolition was considered the best option moving forward.

[/quote]

For optimal design and street activation, its demolition was considered the best option?...

That is just lazy. Who are they trying to kid?-There are several existing openings or previous openings in the Port Road façade for "activation". Openings can be created in the side wall for "activation" without demolishing the whole wall.

Out of interest I had a look at the report to see why it has been recommended for refusal.

It appears that whilst the design, bulk and scale of the proposal are deemed acceptable on this site, it was viewed that the traffic issues raised by DPTI (There's a few so I wont paste them all, however the bulk relating to Philip St and increased congestion) had not been correctly addressed. The conclusion was that the proposal in its current form would adversely impact the city ring routes ability to operate efficiently and safely.

Im surprised they put it up to DAC in the first place despite being made aware of these traffic issues during pre-lodgement. The developers will have to do some tweaking in order to get it through.