Sensational-Adelaide.com

As part of the development plan do they not have to provide a 3D model?

Pants wrote:Not sure why people are hating this one but liking the King William St proposal. Same developer, same architect. This is just a slimmed down version of the other.

+1

IMO, the KWS proposal is worse. At least this one has the potential to be disguised by buildings on adjoining blocks, whereas the KWS proposal puts a bad face directly to the street.

Pants wrote:Not sure why people are hating this one but liking the King William St proposal. Same developer, same architect. This is just a slimmed down version of the other.

Neither of them are that great IMO, but this one's not the anti-Christ.

The Pulteney St building is the worst proposal I have ever seen whilst being a member on here, the KWS proposal isn't far behind.

Both seem like wasted opportunities to make good use of the stunning views towards the city skyline, parklands and the hills. You could also say they remind me of a cheap version of a high-rise prison, dog box rooms with hardly any windows or ventilation. AND not to mention the giant concrete walls that will face both sides of Pulteney St and King William Street.

Building Student Apartments are now just becoming an excuse for developers to build some of the most vile cheap trash in Adelaide with the tiniest rooms. There is no way I would live in some of these buildings.

crawf wrote: The Pulteney St building is the worst proposal I have ever seen whilst being a member on here, the KWS proposal isn't far behind.

Both seem like wasted opportunities to make good use of the stunning views towards the city skyline, parklands and the hills. You could also say they remind me of a cheap version of a high-rise prison, dog box rooms with hardly any windows or ventilation. AND not to mention the giant concrete walls that will face both sides of Pulteney St and King William Street.

Building Student Apartments are now just becoming an excuse for developers to build some of the most vile cheap trash in Adelaide with the tiniest rooms. There is no way I would live in some of these buildings.

I agree with your comment about the concrete walls - why wouldn't the developer take advantage of the views? Hope they'll redesign that part a bit. Otherwise I think you can find worse buildings in our fair city. As for the "most vile cheap trash in Adelaide with the tiniest rooms"; this is something people might have different opinions about. Not all students are looking for three-bedroom luxury suites. Myself I would definitely have prefered something like this proposal during my uni days to the rundown share accommodation in a faraway burb which seemed to be the only option at the time unless you had folks with deep pockets. Don't know about the ventilation - can you figure that out from the submitted plans? By the way, if this building is as awful as you think do you think they would be able to sell any of the units? Guess time will tell.

Rob-L wrote:I agree with your comment about the concrete walls - why wouldn't the developer take advantage of the views? Hope they'll redesign that part a bit. Otherwise I think you can find worse buildings in our fair city. As for the "most vile cheap trash in Adelaide with the tiniest rooms"; this is something people might have different opinions about. Not all students are looking for three-bedroom luxury suites. Myself I would definitely have prefered something like this proposal during my uni days to the rundown share accommodation in a faraway burb which seemed to be the only option at the time unless you had folks with deep pockets. Don't know about the ventilation - can you figure that out from the submitted plans? By the way, if this building is as awful as you think do you think they would be able to sell any of the units? Guess time will tell.

I guess it would have something to do with the building being located in such a narrow space and stuck between two property boundaries, so I guess the developers don't have a choice.

There are already some good examples of decent student apartments in Adelaide - such as UniSA City East on North Terrace, iPad and a few other buildings in the city. However there seems to be more bad than good, and unfortunately it looks like it's going to continue to get worse despite the increasing number of complaints from international students towards the tiny size of most of the apartments aswell as other issues. Decent doesn't mean a luxury 3-bedroom apartment with resort facilities, decent really is just a standard sized apartment with good ventilation and windows.

These student apartments might sell now, but it might be a different story in 10 or 20 years time. The student boom wont last forever.

crawf wrote:The student boom wont last forever.

yep, i'd like the DAP & DAC to recognise this fact, and help to "future proof" these buildings by design. Small student accommodation should be re-configurable into larger apartments (without major work).

Wayno wrote:

crawf wrote:The student boom wont last forever.

yep, i'd like the DAP & DAC to recognise this fact, and help to "future proof" these buildings by design. Small student accommodation should be re-configurable into larger apartments (without major work).

In the document the DAC actually does raise the question about reconfiguration of the building for other uses. Not sure though how much weight they put on this though. I think they appear more concerned about the size of the "apartments" and the risks over the restricted exits through kitchen areas etc.


mgb.

Why would you lay this burden on this type of development specifically? There can just as much speculation in any other class of development. I don't think it'd be appropriate for the ACC/DAP/DAC to single out just this asset class as more likely to bust - that's stepping outside their role IMO.

Strata titled buildings are the biggest risk for future slums and eyesores and there's several examples around. As a single owner, single agent building you would expect this to be maintained much better. There's less risk of it becoming derelict than a regular strata apartment building and it'd be much easier to convert/upgrade/demolish in the future.

AtD wrote:As a single owner, single agent building you would expect this to be maintained much better.

I didn't realise this was the case. It could move to strata title at any point though, and as you say it gets harder from that point on. Maybe my suggestion is unreasonable - several pros and cons i bet.

I haven't the faintest clue if I like the outside or not - I'll need more than an Etch-a-Sketch by a Year 3 class to judge it, and you'd think Laurel and Hardy in charge of submitting the application might have thought that, too. As for the inside....why anyone would choose to live like that I have no idea.

Omicron wrote:I haven't the faintest clue if I like the outside or not - I'll need more than an Etch-a-Sketch by a Year 3 class to judge it, and you'd think Laurel and Hardy in charge of submitting the application might have thought that, too. As for the inside....why anyone would choose to live like that I have no idea.

i reckon i could have whipped up a better 3d model on sketch up in like 5min

Colour render from the sales office on west terrace:

computer says no

better than nothing

better than nothing? Absolutely correct, particularly in this low density area of Adelaide, sorry to all those "we deserve top quality architecture" - I would mostly agree but in this instance, the high density wins, the design whilst not stunning, is certainly not the worst proposal I have seen.