Sensational-Adelaide.com

The second render in the article

Joely wrote:It probably needs to be quite a bit taller for the view to be anything special though.

What sort of height in metres are we actually looking at here?

I would like to see more detailed renders, but i think this proposal has merit. The tower is an interesting design but would need to become a lot taller to become a 'landmark', especially if its going to have an observation deck. The undergrounding of the East/West road should be a must in any serious proposal.

Parking under VSQ is not a bad thing as it will lend itself to special events that are held in the square. Not to mention the steep increase in the number of workers that will be located in the vicinity of VSQ over the coming years.

If this is done correctly we may also have a decent public gathering space to rival that of Federation Square.

In my opinion, this is potentially the best proposal thus far.

I hereby declare a state of emergency, it appears as if there is vomit everywhere.

Again, another fruitless uninspiring idea that won't see the light of day.

Whatever happened to the design competition proposals? Or are we back to square one again?

Brainstorm: Victoria Sqaure might as well be left as it is and renamed Square One.

My hubby recently read, "City: Rediscovering the Center" by William Whyte. Whyte spent time observing how people really use cities. According to hubby, one of Whyte's conclusions was that sunken plazas didn't seem to get used...

and our plaza would even have cars driving over us, which, imo, sounds awful..it reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where he said aliens would think the dogs were in charge because we follow them around picking up their poo.. nice way to show us all who's boss in Adelaide - the cars! I guess that explains all those lovely carparks in the design too. Good grief. Here's an example from Seattle of an attractive but empty park built on top of the busiest road in the city:

http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/0 ... n-seattle/

Victoria Square almost gives me sleepless nights I'm all for a daring revamp but I agree with the Project for Public Spaces opinion that design is not the best starting point from which to create a great public space. http://www.pps.org/squares/info/squares_approach

Whats the point of having a tower as an observation tower/restaraunt if the proposed
height is that of the GPO spire, in other words not much height. If they decide to
build it it needs to be 200m high that way providing a growth range for other buildings
without being obscured.

It looks interesting but it does remind me of something that should have been built for the 1958 World Expo.

Queen Anne wrote:Victoria Square almost gives me sleepless nights I'm all for a daring revamp but I agree with the Project for Public Spaces opinion that design is not the best starting point from which to create a great public space. http://www.pps.org/squares/info/squares_approach

the PPS group certainly get my attention - they have a unique approach. I wonder if we can convince the ACC & Govt to fly a couple of the PPS guys out from the US to consult on VSQ?

Queen Anne: You raise a very valid point which I feel isn't expressed in the majority of the designs submitted to the ACC. When there's a 6-lane drag strip separating the square from the city, what is there to encourage people to cross? Public Transport mainly...

Ugh, i'm not a fan of this crap proposal which looks like it is from the 1960's with a tower like that!! and sunken plaza's IMO are really bad cause in most cases they attract yobos, drunks and stoners...

i really hope that Victoria Square stays as it is or is rebuilt like in the competition proposal ESD0019...

I think ESD0019 is the way to go, it is simple and efficient and blends in well with the surrounding areas of Law Courts, Offices and Markets

this new proposal, to be honest looks awful for something that is supposed to be professional and futuristic, but i would need to see the full proposal, complete with maps and renders before i completely make up my mind. And with the tower, it should be either 300+ meters or not built at all. And i hate to sound like a NIMBY but, the tower......not in Adelaide city....please!

I believe the best proposals were that with a tower at the center of the square - the latest design I think looks good, the observation tower looks really futuristic and a darn sight better than the ESD0019 design. The only thing I could ask for is more height, at least that of Westpac House.

The getaway show tonight had a special called "over the top" which focused on observation decks around the world. I recorded some of it, let me try to youtube it a little later on. If you look at what Melbourne has done with Eureka and Sydney with Centerpoint, you really get a sense of how much catching up we need to do.

How about they do ESD0019, but the tower/observation deck from new proposal in the middle where the bridge is.

Wayno wrote:

Queen Anne wrote:Victoria Square almost gives me sleepless nights I'm all for a daring revamp but I agree with the Project for Public Spaces opinion that design is not the best starting point from which to create a great public space. http://www.pps.org/squares/info/squares_approach

the PPS group certainly get my attention - they have a unique approach. I wonder if we can convince the ACC & Govt to fly a couple of the PPS guys out from the US to consult on VSQ?

Wayno, I'm considering writing to the ACC and State Gov about consulting PPS for Vic Square. Would that be the best thing to do? I don't really know, and am a bit out of my depth, tbh, but I feel very strongly that we the citizens are going to need to grasp this issue or we might end up with a lemon..

I wonder if the ACC might not welcome the idea of consulting PPS on Vic Square with open arms: http://www.adelaidereview.com.au/archiv ... ory4.shtml It's all a bit political by the looks - Jan Gehl is a PPS supporter and they share a philosophy - through traffic could be a sticking point (someone let me know if I have misunderstood this ).

Does anybody else have an opinion on the PPS approach? Would it be worth pursuing this? I support the PPS approach because the idea of taking the time to first really study our square and find what will work, appeals to me a lot more than what is going on currently. But I'd be interested to hear other views..

I know it's the Messenger, but what a terrible article that is. Ughh.

Anyway, is this actually a design commissioned by the combined Grote Business Precinct-Gouger St Traders Association? If so, that would explain why it is so bad. I mean, seriously, a road bridge through the square? How utterly unpleasant, even just to contemplate.

It's such a pity that these traders stupidly back the wrong horse in the pursuit of self-interest. Someone needs to send Jan Gehl their way to drill in what actually makes for a vibrant and prosperous precinct. Here's a hint: cars ain't it!

Queen Anne wrote: Wayno, I'm considering writing to the ACC and State Gov about consulting PPS for Vic Square. Would that be the best thing to do? I don't really know, and am a bit out of my depth, tbh, but I feel very strongly that we the citizens are going to need to grasp this issue or we might end up with a lemon..

I wonder if the ACC might not welcome the idea of consulting PPS on Vic Square with open arms: http://www.adelaidereview.com.au/archiv ... ory4.shtml It's all a bit political by the looks - Jan Gehl is a PPS supporter and they share a philosophy - through traffic could be a sticking point (someone let me know if I have misunderstood this ).

Does anybody else have an opinion on the PPS approach? Would it be worth pursuing this? I support the PPS approach because the idea of taking the time to first really study our square and find what will work, appeals to me a lot more than what is going on currently. But I'd be interested to hear other views..

I spent a good few hours about a month or so ago reading over their website and I, for one, largely support their philosophy. I would be thrilled to have their input on our plight. Seeing as though they're a very community-focused organisation, perhaps we ought to be contacting them about involvement rather than the council? But then, I know that Clr Yarwood is aware of them (indeed, I came upon them in his newsletter), so maybe we could approach him to see whether he's already suggested or initiated contact with the group, or whether we might be able to urge him to do so?