Page 14 of 38
[CAN] Re: PRO: 51 Pirie Street | 22 levels | 98m | Office
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:36 am
by Matt
Oh, PIPE DOWN SANDY.
God that man is embarrassing.
[CAN] Re: PRO: 51 Pirie Street | 22 levels | 98m | Office
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:46 am
by dsriggs
Matt wrote:Oh, PIPE DOWN SANDY.
God that man is embarrassing.
Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood supported the $151 million development, saying that the applicant needed to be rewarded for the proposal.
This man, however, is not.
[CAN] Re: PRO: 51 Pirie Street | 22 levels | 98m | Office
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:55 am
by Wayno
iTouch(myself) wrote:when he says 8m setback does he mean pushing the tower 8m back from the front of the heritage building like Westpac house? If so, I can understand why he'd think that. However, in doing that, they should push the building up in height to compensate the floorspace which could essentially make it Adelaide's new tallest or 2nd tallest ^_^
Yes, similar to how Westpac house is set back. The ACC Dev Plan requires setbacks, and Wilkinson had an identical complaint against the proposed 66 Currie St Hotel.
[CAN] Re: PRO: 51 Pirie Street | 22 levels | 98m | Office
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:15 am
by Pants
While the Pirie St canyon claim ranks with suggesting that the Rundle St lantern would turn that corner into a mini Times Square and that the backyard ferris wheel at Glenelg is a mini London Eye, set backs are not a thing of evil.
[CAN] Re: PRO: 51 Pirie Street | 22 levels | 98m | Office
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am
by Isiskii
Nort wrote:Isiskii wrote:If I have to make one small critique of the building's design, is that I believe the facade on the building's northern elevation needs to be flipped vertically - so that the thinner portion stands above the high pdoium/atrium thingy, and the wider section above the heritage facade. I think it would help accentuate the vertical illusion of the building.
That does seem like the obvious way things would be done, I suspect it wasn't though as it really makes the new structure look much less integrated into the existing facade. I did a quick photoshop edit to show how it would look the way you want. In the proposal as everything is nicely balanced, whereas with the thin section over the void it looks a little unbalanced.
Thankyou for the wonderful photoshop editing that you've done. Personally, I think it looks better like that, however, I'm not complaining all too much. I think at the end of the day, its a nice proposal, will add to the height and density of the area and has the potential to demonstrate just how a development can be integrated within the existing streetscape whilst being mindful of heritage constraints - as a welcome signal to other developers that it can be done, and that the (new) City Council has a better approach and attitude and is more progressive than previous.
[CAN] Re: PRO: 51 Pirie Street | 22 levels | 98m | Office
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am
by metro
goodbye original proposal, you were just too good for Adelaide
[CAN] Re: PRO: 51 Pirie Street | 22 levels | 98m | Office
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:58 am
by Waewick
wait is that the original?
[CAN] Re: PRO: 51 Pirie Street | 22 levels | 98m | Office
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:57 am
by rev
Yeh the above is the original proposal.
Real shame the original proposal wont be built.
[CAN] Re: PRO: 51 Pirie Street | 22 levels | 98m | Office
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:00 pm
by Waewick
that is disappointing really isn't it.
one day we are going to get some decent deisgnd built not just proposed.
[CAN] Re: PRO: 51 Pirie Street | 22 levels | 98m | Office
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:51 pm
by AtD
From what I recall the original proposal was never put to Council, it was basically just a concept.
[CAN] Re: PRO: 51 Pirie Street | 22 levels | 98m | Office
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:20 pm
by Pistol
Yeah but what a concept..
[CAN] Re: PRO: 51 Pirie Street | 22 levels | 98m | Office
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:48 pm
by stumpjumper
The original (a brilliant looking building in my opinion) would be relatively expensive to engineer and build. Anything with angles or curves tends to be. So the developer, sitting down doing a spreadsheet for the cost/net lettable floor areas of the building, soon discovers that those angles and voids can cost a lot. In a very tall structure, like the 100 storey John Hancock building in Chicago (see pic), the external bracing can maximise floor area. In a short building like 51 Pirie St the structural advantages are not so great while the costs are still there.
Unless the developer is a megalomaniac or has inherited a billion and doesn't have a clue (easily the best classes of clients for producing grand architectural statements), he or she will soon be on the phone, asking how much could be saved if the designers got rid of the angled beams.
[CAN] Re: PRO: 51 Pirie Street | 22 levels | 98m | Office
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:44 pm
by spiller
John Hancock building is my favourite skyscraper worldwide, and it's because of the bracing. Adds so much to the overall look of building, not to mention that it's primarily there for the engineering purposes outlined above, which makes it even cooler IMO. 51 Pirie's original "concept" reminds me of the John Hancock which is why I loved it so much. Couldnt help but fear it would never come to fruition though. I think I like it more than 122-124 Currie St...yep, I went there.
[CAN] Re: PRO: 51 Pirie Street | 22 levels | 98m | Office
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:52 pm
by Brando
Concept plan, cost saving, height reduction......i don't care. I would love for the AAC/DAC say, 'the rest is fine, but we want that atrium. It's much better and what we want for the city, so include it in your new design'....
I don't care about height or design, i liked how the old stood enveloped by the new. It looks so much better than the latter.
[CAN] Re: PRO: 51 Pirie Street | 22 levels | 98m | Office
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:50 am
by Ben
The DAC are expected to grant approval on Thursday subject to a few conditions.
The total Net leasable area of the building is 32,716 sqm
probably won't see construction for some time judging by the below. On the plus side if they do commence demolition soon BankSA will be looking for new office space.
The applicant has requested that the development be staged (as stated below) and the demolition not be linked with a substantial construction element to ensure flexibility in the construction
Stage 1: Demolition and site works
Stage 2: Base Building (basements and ground)
Stage 3: Tower
The applicant has also applied for planning consent which exceeds the Development Act and Requirements, being a three year period for substantial commencement and a five year period for completion of the approved works.
Council has not had the opportunity to comment on these stages. In the past they have not supported demolition being approved without any substructures also being approved at the same time. Their intention has been to discourage buildings from being demolished without being replaced. This is a standard approach Council has been taking in recent years and has been supported by the Commission. Given that the façade of the Local Heritage building is being retained, this is not considered to such an issue with this proposal. By allowing the demolition upfront, the applicant can be working on the detailed design drawings for Stage 2 and thereby resulting in a quicker completion date. Given the level of detail required for this project, I support this approach.
]