Sensational-Adelaide.com

metro wrote:and next, they're going to paint it brown. or if paint is too expensive they could just leave it bare.

i hope in the future something nice will cover this building up from the north and south

that's what i said a while back

Re the photo from Ben - ack!Already looking dated.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

I dont reckon its too bad, no masterpiece, but walking from the East end back to Rundle Mall, adds a nice height to an area where previously you could not see 1 tall bulding when walking down Rundle Street

Could be better, could be worse

looks like a cheap 80s spanish apartment building on the verge of demolition...

Ben wrote:Taken yesterday:

Is this the finished product?!
GHASTLY.

As someone else said... quick, build around it. What an eyesore.

It's a poor design on the face of it, but to be honest, it's not that bad in person. In fact, it's far less noticeable/offensive to the eye than that white steel one on Coglin Street in the market precinct.

Still, I can't help but think that Synagogue Place had more laneway potential with the previous buildings.

It depends on the time of day. In the morning and middle of the day, it's bland as hell. But in the late afternoon/sunset the light picks up the detail in the pre-cast and it looks quite nice. At all times of day however, the multicoloured paint underneath the balconies looks terrible.

Nathan wrote:It depends on the time of day. In the morning and middle of the day, it's bland as hell. But in the late afternoon/sunset the light picks up the detail in the pre-cast and it looks quite nice. At all times of day however, the multicoloured paint underneath the balconies looks terrible.

Yes that photo doesn't do it justice. The textured concrete is okay. Still a bit bland though.

I like it! More please, especially in the SW of Adelaide ,, around sturt road, gilles street area. Near the Square (I forgot its name) Im pretty sure its Whitmore...

Just been looking around and according to Emporis this monstrosity is now complete, so perhaps the thread title should be changed??? Also, has anyone else been able to get any other photos of the building?

Horrible in person and in pictures. I find it hard to believe that buildings like this, that have a significant impact on the surrounding urban context are approved.These buildings add very little or nothing to the built environment.

vozdra wrote:Horrible in person and in pictures. I find it hard to believe that buildings like this, that have a significant impact on the surrounding urban context are approved.These buildings add very little or nothing to the built environment.

Buildings like this are a sad indictement on the current development plan, which seeks boring, beige boxes that 'blend in' with the surrounding. In the current development plan, bold, innovative and ultra modern buildings are a big no, no.

Will wrote:

vozdra wrote:Horrible in person and in pictures. I find it hard to believe that buildings like this, that have a significant impact on the surrounding urban context are approved.These buildings add very little or nothing to the built environment.

Buildings like this are a sad indictement on the current development plan, which seeks boring, beige boxes that 'blend in' with the surrounding. In the current development plan, bold, innovative and ultra modern buildings are a big no, no.

So you'd be a fan of the Uno Apartments, then?

dsriggs wrote:

Will wrote:

vozdra wrote:Horrible in person and in pictures. I find it hard to believe that buildings like this, that have a significant impact on the surrounding urban context are approved.These buildings add very little or nothing to the built environment.

Buildings like this are a sad indictement on the current development plan, which seeks boring, beige boxes that 'blend in' with the surrounding. In the current development plan, bold, innovative and ultra modern buildings are a big no, no.

So you'd be a fan of the Uno Apartments, then?

Absolutely!