Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5041
If I were the developer and anticipated a big delay, I'd be clearing the site quick smart rather than risking a heritage overlay being put on my buildings.
Hopefully it keeps a few people at royal park salvage employed in a few years tooAdelaideGold wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 10:21 pmConsidering what's happening guys and girls.. this is a good thing as it keeps people employed!!
There’s Synergy Construct signs further down North Terrace on the student development next door to the Adelaidean, but I didn’t see any construction or signs at 203 North Terrace today. Is it somewhere else?Ben wrote:Looks like this has started construction there is synergy construct signage up.
Also this week a variation was lodged to add another 2 levels taking this to around 115m.
You’re totally right Ben, there is one there with the Synergy Construct logo!! I got excited and was expecting huge signage, but regardless, really hopeful now to see this underway soon.Ben wrote:I think I can see something in the last photo under the window but can’t quite read it.
It's an appalling design. I'm as supportive of CBD highrise as anyone, but this one definitely should have been rejected by SCAP to save the developer from themselves. Our only hope is that, like other developments, the end result looks nothing like the renders! Even the finest quality facade on earth is not going to make this look good though. And it will of course be the cheapest possible facade the developer can get away with. I don't blame the developer - it's their job to make money. And the architect, paid by the developer, is forced to compromise, so they don't have a lot of choice usually. It's SCAP's job to set a minimum standard and they don't appear to be doing this. It's great that SCAP are supporting CBD density, but there needs to be some limit on what is accepted. Large areas of highly visible precast concrete facade should not be accepted in the CBD, let alone on the most prestigious street in the city. It is very rare for precast to look anything other than terrible. I am extremely supportive of CBD density/highrise, but there has to be a minimum standard for design.
Oh c'mon... Where was this disgust when the student accommodation on Synagogue place went up? Or when the student accommodation on North Terrace next Adelaidean was approved? I'll admit, this design is dogshit but it's no worse than any of the others I mentioned and it's just as visible.CDJ wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 11:41 amIt's an appalling design. I'm as supportive of CBD highrise as anyone, but this one definitely should have been rejected by SCAP to save the developer from themselves. Our only hope is that, like other developments, the end result looks nothing like the renders! Even the finest quality facade on earth is not going to make this look good though. And it will of course be the cheapest possible facade the developer can get away with. I don't blame the developer - it's their job to make money. And the architect, paid by the developer, is forced to compromise, so they don't have a lot of choice usually. It's SCAP's job to set a minimum standard and they don't appear to be doing this. It's great that SCAP are supporting CBD density, but there needs to be some limit on what is accepted. Large areas of highly visible precast concrete facade should not be accepted in the CBD, let alone on the most prestigious street in the city. It is very rare for precast to look anything other than terrible. I am extremely supportive of CBD density/highrise, but there has to be a minimum standard for design.