Sensational-Adelaide.com

OMG Prince George i have always enjoyed your comments but to say this development is more interesting than COH
just shows how a photograph cannot tell the whole truth. I think if you were at the griffens head tomorrow night
and had a look at both developments on a quiet stroll through the city your opinion may be changed - we are talking
two ends of the spectrum

teflon fox wrote:I think if you were at the griffens head tomorrow night and had a look at both developments on a quiet stroll through the city your opinion may be changed

Yes, I'll readily admit that photos cannot tell the whole story, and that I might feel different after I actually lay eyes on them. But having now aired my opinions, I'll be unable to stand losing face and say I was wrong, so I'll have to continue defending myself . What can I say? I'm a small, petty man.

monotonehell wrote:The problem is that they've taken a uninteresting, shear, bulky box and then tried to dress it with treatments that all look like afterthoughts.

But this is the part that I really can't get over - you could use that very phrase on almost any building that's been mentioned on this site. 374-400 KWS is literally a shear box without even an attempt to dress it (apart from that little grey, granite skirt that it'll have on the bottom two levels). Conservatory has all the excitement of a carpark for a few levels, then the almost totally flat office floors and then gets the same couple of balconies added until you get to the top. Aurora omits the bottom part of that plan and skips straight to doing the same thing over and over. SA Water is a box in a layer of gift-wrap (an appropriate thought in this holiday season).

To cap it off, this seems to me to be the building that "shear box" actually applies to the least, with its multiple setbacks along the south face. Take a squizz at the last render from the site's "property profile", what other buildings have that amount of shaping? Again, it strikes me that the difference between all these buildings is that this is the one that's made of concrete.

monotonehell wrote:... and the attempt at contrast through size (the windows) is also fail, because they've used repetition that kills contrast. You can only achieve contrast via size if you interrupt repetition.

I'll just have to say that I disagree with you about that. As a counter-example, I'll give the World Financial Center buildings in Battery Park NYC:

The effect is a little subtle, but they've used three or four different window sizes as they work their way up the building - smallest at the bottom, largest at the top. Unless you mean that there's a difference between horizontal and vertical repetition.

Prince George wrote:...What can I say? I'm a small, petty man.

I don't believe that for a second.

Prince George wrote:But this is the part that I really can't get over - you could use that very phrase on almost any building that's been mentioned on this site. 374-400 KWS is literally a shear box without even an attempt to dress it (apart from that little grey, granite skirt that it'll have on the bottom two levels). Conservatory has all the excitement of a carpark for a few levels, then the almost totally flat office floors and then gets the same couple of balconies added until you get to the top. Aurora omits the bottom part of that plan and skips straight to doing the same thing over and over. SA Water is a box in a layer of gift-wrap (an appropriate thought in this holiday season).

Quite some different kettles of fish there. They all have their good and bad points. But the overall result of the ones I can remember is visual interest from contrast, while still having overall harmony.

Prince George wrote:To cap it off, this seems to me to be the building that "shear box" actually applies to the least, with its multiple setbacks along the south face. Take a squizz at the last render from the site's "property profile", what other buildings have that amount of shaping? Again, it strikes me that the difference between all these buildings is that this is the one that's made of concrete.

Yes it does have setbacks, but at ground level (and I have the advantage of actually being there and wandering around it from several angles) it is an oppressive monolith. I think you're onto something when you mention that this is made of concrete. But it's not the material as such, it's the way it's been used. Great clunking blocks of concrete with no visual interest at all. Symmetrical blocks with symmetrical windows. And in my case at least, it's not the material as I'm quite fond on the '70's carbuncles in London.

Prince George wrote:I'll just have to say that I disagree with you about that. As a counter-example, I'll give the World Financial Center buildings in Battery Park NYC:

The effect is a little subtle, but they've used three or four different window sizes as they work their way up the building - smallest at the bottom, largest at the top. Unless you mean that there's a difference between horizontal and vertical repetition.

That's a contrast in scale that's repeated a lot and viewed from such a distance that it becomes a contrast in texture. The UniLodge building only has about six levels with the smaller windows. Not really a suitable comparison.


As a side journey, check out this discussion on contrast, repetition and harmony in a ... needle point book .. no - I'm not having a go at you. It's true that these concepts apply equally to architecture as they do to needlepoint, painting and music if what we are trying to achieve is visual (or aural) interest.
http://chestofbooks.com/crafts/needlewo ... ition.html

monotonehell wrote:

Prince George wrote:...What can I say? I'm a small, petty man.

I don't believe that for a second.

Oh stop, you'll make me blush.

monotonehell wrote:As a side journey, check out this discussion on contrast, repetition and harmony in a ... needle point book .. no - I'm not having a go at you. It's true that these concepts apply equally to architecture as they do to needlepoint, painting and music if what we are trying to achieve is visual (or aural) interest.
http://chestofbooks.com/crafts/needlewo ... ition.html

Why, side journeys are my favourite part of a trip! And you'll have to do better than needlework to scare me . In fact, I'm a fan of Christopher Alexander, whose theories on design are intended to cover a huge range of activities and scales. In the early 90s he wrote about the art of Turkish prayer rugs, and the ideas that he started to develop there went on to dominate his writing. Now, I haven't actually seen that book yet (it's been out of print for years), but I learned about that work from my favourite book on programming: Richard Gabriel's Patterns of Software. It turns out that, now that this book is also out of print, the good Dr Gabriel has put the entire text on his site. The section about the Turkish rugs begins on p 92 in the doc (79 in the book).

BTW, I highly recommend this book to any programmer with interests that go beyond just memorising APIs. And the introduction, with its quote from Samuel Johnson on the role of "The Critick", should be mandatory reading before posting on internet forums .

This is open for inspection today between 1-2pm if anyone is interested. Just before the Tour Down Under starts

The ground floor retail tenancy has been leased.

Work is currently underway preparing it, as a KFC will soon open there.

Oh my. I hope they're open late on weekends - some fried chicken would really hit the spot at 5am on a Sunday morning.....

this building is incredibly uninspiring.

I'm confused if this is the same development or a new one, as it says development site?

DA/827/2003/A
2/02/2010
Development Application Received
Vary previous authorisation to demolish existing and construct 15-level building containing student accommodation - VARIATION - increase balcony overhang, extend height of kitchen flue, relocate external stair and main entrance and internal changes.
OCTAGON - Development Site, 20-40 Victoria Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000

Ben wrote:I'm confused if this is the same development or a new one, as it says development site?

DA/827/2003/A
2/02/2010
Development Application Received
Vary previous authorisation to demolish existing and construct 15-level building containing student accommodation - VARIATION - increase balcony overhang, extend height of kitchen flue, relocate external stair and main entrance and internal changes.
OCTAGON - Development Site, 20-40 Victoria Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000

It is the same development, which has had a few name changes and is now UniLodge @ Metro Adelaide http://www.unilodgemetroadelaide.com.au/

I wish developers would stop trying to incorporate '88' into the names of their developments, which they do presumably on the assumption that 88 means 'good luck' or 'long life' in the minds of wealthy Asian buyers. It's demeaning for both parties.

As for needlepoint and architecture - a lot of great designers have studied other arts. William Morris is an obvious one; Adolf Loos is another: he studied fabrics and fashion. On the other hand, philosophers have studied architecture and engineering - Roland Barthes wrote at length on the joys of the Citroen DS11.

Are you stoned, by chance Stumpjumer???

Well at least we are now up to date with needlepoint and architecture, priceless knowledge

stumpjumper wrote:I wish developers would stop trying to incorporate '88' into the names of their developments, which they do presumably on the assumption that 88 means 'good luck' or 'long life' in the minds of wealthy Asian buyers. It's demeaning for both parties.

As for needlepoint and architecture - a lot of great designers have studied other arts. William Morris is an obvious one; Adolf Loos is another: he studied fabrics and fashion. On the other hand, philosophers have studied architecture and engineering - Roland Barthes wrote at length on the joys of the Citroen DS11.

The development is located at 88 Hindley Street.

In bingo 88 is referred to as "two fat ladies"

This useless information was brought to you by Hooligan