Sensational-Adelaide.com

wilkiebarkid wrote:

Nathan wrote:

wilkiebarkid wrote:The ACC has voted NO to this one (too tall for the location and doesn't compliment surrounding heritage buildings!), however it doesn't rest with them as it is more than $10m.

Doesn't complement the surrounding heritage buildings? Like what, the Adam Internet building??

We are fortunate that the ACC decision doesn't count for anything. This building would be great for KWS. I guess it will be the tallest building in the street, and nicely standing out amongst the 15-18 story wall.

I had to go to the Adam Internet Building a while back, geez it is ugly.... Im glad that this proposal does not compliment the surrounding heritage buildings, it looks good!!!

I agree that it will look great compared to most of the 18 story buildings

Just as well the ACC does not rule the deal,on this one. Seems to me it is OK with height limits (see diagrams a couple of pages back) so they come from another angle. Love the breakaway from the typical 18 floor barrier so often seen. V strong presernce in KWS.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

I hope its rejected, nothing great about this project at all.

We don't need anymore blankwalls along King William Street.

I disagree and I hope it is approved. You can't avoid blank walls unless you have lower density or lower height.

AtD wrote:You can't avoid blank walls unless you have lower density or lower height.

Well now, that's not really true.

I too hope it's rejected, it's ugly and the council are right in saying it doesn't conform with the surrounding environment. The height needs to be much shorter also - in consistency with the remainder of KWS. I'd rather KWS look like one of the grand boulevards of Paris with it's consistent height and density than have ugly blank walled sticks here and there.

activ8ed wrote:I too hope it's rejected, it's ugly and the council are right in saying it doesn't conform with the surrounding environment. The height needs to be much shorter also - in consistency with the remainder of KWS. I'd rather KWS look like one of the grand boulevards of Paris with it's consistent height and density than have ugly blank walled sticks here and there.

Uhh isn't that what North Terrace is meant to be?

North Terrace isn't flanked on either side by high-rises (for the most part of its length). Anyways, who said we can't have two great boulevards?

This building joins a long list of buildings which were reccomended for approval by the planners of the ACC, and which were rejected by the anti-development DAP.

Thankfully, the final say rests with the pro-future DAC.

activ8ed wrote:

I'd rather KWS look like one of the grand boulevards of Paris with it's consistent height and density than have ugly blank walled sticks here and there.

you kidding? Now Nth tce I can appreciate, really is a great cultural magnet but KWS? Not a hope in hell.

Sorry for sidetracking the thread a little; Also, has any concerns been raised about the buildings shadow impact on Adelaide Town Hall from the afternoon sun? However, I think CC2 and Adam Internet have already set a precedent, it's just I'd hate to see one of our beautiful landmarks being enveloped in the dark all time, especially if there is something we can do to salvage the possibility of further impact.

activ8ed wrote:Sorry for sidetracking the thread a little; Also, has any concerns been raised about the buildings shadow impact on Adelaide Town Hall from the afternoon sun? However, I think CC2 and Adam Internet have already set a precedent, it's just I'd hate to see one of our beautiful landmarks being enveloped in the dark all time, especially if there is something we can do to salvage the possibility of further impact.

If you have a look at the proposal http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/adcc ... proval.pdf it shows the shadow outlines at various times of the year. This development doesn't appear to make much difference to the town hall compared to the Westpac building.


mgb.

The proposed building looks OK to me. Nice and slim and not bad surfaces and presentation onto KWS.

Thank goodness the ACC is not in charge of this decision any morer. They are so consistently negative in relation to any building of a decent height.

activ8ed wrote:I'd rather KWS look like one of the grand boulevards of Paris with it's consistent height and density than have ugly blank walled sticks here and there.

Then move to Paris? This is Adelaide, not Paris. Nothing in Adelaide remotely resembles Paris, nor should it. Not Nth Tce, not KWS. Never has, never will. Seriously, I can't believe people are knocking this project. Sure, it could maybe do with some windows on the northern and southern "facades" but to say that this does not complement the surrounding structures is SO anti-development. How about planning for the future, this building could be a pioneer for taller structures along KWS. We have to start somewhere, otherwise we will never leave the present, and forever be stuck in the past.

there was an excellent post on SCC a while ago which conflicted the whinging posts about the Devon HQ building in Oklahoma City standing out like a sore thumb. The poster put up three images of Minneapolis in three different "eras" to portray how a building which towers over the rest may look out of place at one point in time, but can actually be instrumental in promoting similar developments in the future. Minneapolis now has one of the best mid sized city skylines in America as a result.

EDIT: here are the images I was talking about:

Minneapolis

I fink activ8ed be trollin'. let's stop feeding him