Sensational-Adelaide.com

It's a secant wall. They usually are used if the development is near the watertable, and seeing as though they are going four levels down, maybe the are close to hitting it?

Pikey wrote:It's a secant wall. They usually are used if the development is near the watertable, and seeing as though they are going four levels down, maybe the are close to hitting it?

Maybe Norman is referring to its appearance more than function? If so I think it was formed by pouring concrete into bored holes in the ground then excavated on the building side. Hence the 'bubbly' look.

This is an example of height restrictions stuffing up a good project. If this building could have been taller it could also have been slender and angled to the street so that the views from the Optus building weren’t stuffed up! We could keep building a canyon down King William successively blocking off the city views. Taller less blocky buildings please.

The building's fine, there's nothing wrong with it!

I agree this is a fine building
Let's hope the design integrity can be maintained through the construction phase. All eyes on ACC!

joy wrote:I agree this is a fine building
Let's hope the design integrity can be maintained through the construction phase. All eyes on ACC!

I know there are height limits, but did your firm ever contemplate having this building setback from Optus and going higher?

Cheers

Jim wrote:This is an example of height restrictions stuffing up a good project. If this building could have been taller it could also have been slender and angled to the street so that the views from the Optus building weren’t stuffed up! We could keep building a canyon down King William successively blocking off the city views. Taller less blocky buildings please.

If you make these tall buildings with small floorplates, it makes it a lot harder to lease the space, due to the fact that most large tenants don't want to be split over floors if they can avoid it.

How's this one looking from above Ben?

*hintity hint hint*

Pikey wrote:How's this one looking from above Ben?

*hintity hint hint*

Well I've been away for the past week or so and thought i would come back and see a world of difference but nothing has changed since my last pic and no one on site today eithier which is unusal for this building....

Potentially bad news here. Seems there is a issue with this building. Confirmation there has been no workers on site since 17th July. No one on site today.

A couple of suits were walking around last Monday but no one since and the entrance has been fenced off now.

Could this one have run into financial issues now the partner has pulled out?

Joy can you give us any info?

It is possible that things are delayed due to Goodman dropping out of the JV... I have heard that another partner is in the wings, but they may not have signed up yet... Finance has probably been cut off until it is sorted...

I'm worried about this one. Seems the site is totally shutdown. The mobile crane is still sitting on site though which is a positive thing. Atleast I'll have my view for a bit longer

It could be anything; a union dispute, a subbie dispute, or as suggested, a financing problem. But those mobile cranes cost far too much per day to leave sitting idle on a dead project.

I think we're all eager to see this one up.

Article in Independent Weekly today regarding this development. Don't have a text copy.

nimeton wrote:Article in Independent Weekly today regarding this development. Don't have a text copy.

What does it say?