[APP] 199-200 North Terrace | 85m | 20lvls | Mixed Use

[Mants]

i'm happy the amended proposal was rejected (what a blight on the skyline it would have been), but the ACC have been given three options, and requesting a fourth is just plain crazy.

really, i'm disgusted with them. for a council who labels themselves as progressive, i've never heard of such crap.

this is the reason why adelaide fails to deliver exceptional high rise buildings. it's not as if they are not proposed, the developers get scared off by the council.

countless proposals have either been "dumbed down" or rejected thanks to the ACC. they fail to deliver (victoria square), they fail to complete their own projects on schedule (north terrace upgrades), they're unpopular, conservative and are detrimental to the life and culture of our city.

just to think, the first proposal was internationally designed. but don't bother about that, world standards aren't of adelaide standard. we're always given 2nd...no wait 3rd...no wait...is it 4th best now?

[Professor]

SACK THE COUNCIL

They are simply hopeless!!!

[monotonehell]

Ordinarily I can see a point in the councils' rejections or calls for amendments with developments, and so I don't join the chorus of "the counzil iz hopeless init".

BUT

This case has got me wondering what's going on here. Is there some kind of conflict of interests at work here? The first two options were 100% okay for this site. the contrast between the old and new only helped to highlight the heritage buildings. The latest compromise offering is a bland back-stepped thing, I'm all for retaining heritage façades within developments where there is some aesthetic advantage to it, but creating a fake heritage frontage is laughable.

I hope our friends in the council can shed some light on this story?

[how_good_is_he]

But thats the point, it was the heritage dept itself that demanded the fake heritage facade as being the only way they would approve it!

They genuinely believe this fits the streetscape better than the first two designs.

Even the ACC councillors said the 3rd/last design [which was orchaestrated through there planners] is a "dramatic improvement" on the original designs [and yet still didnt approve it].

So if the so called experts [heritage dept] and the decision makers [councillors] have this philosphy, the choice is either let them win or they will refuse the approval anyway.

[how_good_is_he]

PS Can someone from council explain how ordinary developments like Spark88, Palais,Ipad get approval and yet this ones original two world-class designs can't?

[Just build it]

So the 'establishment' is still alive and well then. The biggest farce about this to me is the ACCs own development act that demands new construction proposals for large building projects must show 'bold and innovative design'. These are their own words, in writing.

Unfortunately I think I've passed the point of caring TBH which I suppose is exactly what the ACC would see as a positive outcome.

[Will]

A few pages back, someone wrote that the situation is hopeless and that there is nothing we can do about it.

I disagree.

The ACC is not a dictatorship. I like most people on this website have reached a point where I have lost confidence in the abilities of the council (this comment is not directed at Councillor Yarwood, who is a lone bright light) to guide our city to the future. However I realise that in order to get people like Councillor Wilkinson out of the decision making process, we have to do more than post opinions of this website. This city is not going to change itself. The time has come for people like us to rise up and take control of this city, so that we can guide it towards the bright light of the future.

Once finishing my university degree, I am strongly considering running for council. I would encourage other to do the same. Our city needs us!


And regarding this development, I am shocked by the council's decision. I would have thought that the best way to pay homage to our heritage buildings was to build world class modern buildings next to them which complement their beauty. Obviously I am wrong. The developers then respond to the council's absurd demands with an underwhelming structure which logically should have been approved. Why wasn't it approved? Does the council want this building to be even more brown and underwhelming? This is more proof of how out of touch and out of control certain people in council are.

[sacred_june]

Living in melbourne these days, and i must say, i enjoy riding the trains or trams around the place (brilliant PT) and staring at the architecture and constant new developments popping up all over the place here. it's what i always wanted for adelaide.

maybe we should all move, let the council govern themselves in a ghost town

Living in melb, i'm constantly having to defend my city. It's decisions like this one that make peoples perceptions of adelaide true.
Perceptions like: - Adelaide will be good when it's finished, or
- Adelaide, the New Zealand of Australia

[skyliner]

Once finishing my university degree, I am strongly considering running for council. I would encourage other to do the same. Our city needs us!


.

If only I was over there now - I'd be strongly thinking the same.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[Wayno]

sorry for digressing, but i agree 100% with Will. More people must take positive action - not just blog. I'll be doing a small part when i meet with Clr Plumridge sometime soon - we're going to catchup for a coffee & chat.

I used to wonder why somebody didn’t do something; til I realized that I was somebody

[Matt]

THIS is the reason people are embarrassed to admit they're from Adelaide.
As my home town, I'd love to see it fulfill its potential, but it's this sort of backwards crap that make me think "thank god I'm out of there".

Where else in the world to developers have to suffer through this much bureaucratic bullshit to build a simple apartment tower?
How many re-designs now? 3? 4? - The first two were brilliant.

The city of Adelaide is NOT a museum or some sort of homage to decades past.

New, modern developments should merge with existing heritage buildings, not be dumbed down to become replicas merely so they are "sympathetic" to their surroundings.

[Ben]

Look like the council will get what they want this time. From world class design to ... well you decide. This has been recommended by the council staff for approval but we all know that doesn't mean anything.

[bm7500]

What a croc of Shit!

As people have said earlier in this thread, the initial designs were world class and are just what the city's premier boulevard deserves. Not this half baked, compromised bland bullshit that is the latest incarnation of this (now) flawed development.

This development should NOT be approved in its current form!

[Hindley Street Alley]

i might sound like an old fuddy duddy, but im not that old and not that fuddy - but I like it. Although I was never so absolutely excited about the original designs like some of you, but I like your passion! Basically any of these designs are fine by me.

Also, the thing that intrigues me about the new design is the face that extends from the G to 4th floors to match the heritage building next door. Will these be apartments without balconies? or can we get some cafes and shops? and not just a small cafe on the ground floor (which is better than nothing)...?

What I really want to see is a bit more imagination in the street interactivity and more places where the public can go.. There's barely anything above 2 or 3 floors in the whole city where the public are allowed to go or have things for the public to do... this to me is as important as the appearance of buildings.. their function and relation to people. For example the SA Water building on Vic square is basically a cool design, but it does nothing for any of us in terms of improving our experience of visiting the city unless we work there (or take alot of pleasure in looking at it). That's my rant for the quarter...

[Shuz]

This statement has been retracted.