[COM] 152-160 Grote Street | 58m | 19 lvls | Mixed Use

[crawf]

While I like the design, and some large chunks of glass to break up the balconies. I think we should be expecting a lot more from developers.
This imo is something that we would now expect to see proposed for a city like Darwin. And I don't mean that in a negative way.

I've lived in Darwin and this is nothing like anything built or proposed in that city, their new buildings are usually full of concrete and not much glass. This actually reminds me of something you would expect in Melbourne or possibly Brisbane, eg on a smaller scale.

I stand by my comment that we should expect better then this.
I'm not saying this isn't a good design etc. I like it. But I believe that this is the sort of design that is better suited to a city like Darwin, not Adelaide.
If Adelaide wants to reassert it self as one of the big capitals, then it needs more daring and out there designs that make it stand out.
It's a nice design, it will fit in.
But I don't see why everyone is oohing and ahhing. It's not spectacular or innovative.
It's essentially another box, that's been made to look nicer then the rest.

Crawf I know you like you to stretch things a little with the positivism, but suggesting this design is reminiscent of Melbourne is over kill.
This is nothing like resi developments like Vogue for example, which as you said are taller and glassy.

I'd rather see this built in the south of the city. It would be an improvement on the crappy rows of boxes near Wave.

Anyway on a brighter note, more development is good news.
Skyline moving outwards and the low-low rise of large parts of the cbd will slowly dissapear.

Positivism?, I have been far more critical of Adelaide this entire year since moving here 7 years ago. Sure I do tend to be over positive at times, but that isn't a bad thing when it comes to your home city that you love. This proposal is nothing like the sexy Vogue Apartments, but it's very similar to the countless developments happening in Southbank or Docklands. Which isn't a bad thing, as this city needs developments like this to expand and refresh our city..

No it's not the most daring and bold proposal, but it's still a nice sleek proposal that will dominate that low-rise part of the city. If we want Adelaide to grow and prosper, we need to accept these type of developments aswell as the bold and exciting proposals. Not to mention IMO this proposal isn't really just another bland box, the proposed Peoples Choice CU HQ on the otherhand is.

However in saying all this, the glass could definitely make or break this development.

[Howie]

Given a flat real estate market and the current economic climate, I think it's a pretty good outcome. Just look at how well sales of the city west towers went and at $750k for your basic 3 bedroom apartment it's no surprise they didn't sell.

Don't get me wrong, i love magnificent architecture like we've seen interstate and overseas, but i'd say this one has more of a chance to make it through to construction.

[Will]

I'm not really sure why people are being so critical of the architecture of this one. It is much better than most other apartment blocks proposed or U/C in the city. This doesn't mean that I think it's an architectural masterpiece, however it does deserve a solid 6.5/10

Furthermore, not every building proposed or U/C in Melbourne is an architectural masterpiece.

[AdelaideGo]

Until people in Adelaide are willing to pay $8,000 upward for a square meter, it will be difficult for developers to justify an expensive construction cost/design like Vogue in Melbourne.

I like this building, it is a step in the right direction to bring more population into the CBD.

[omada]

me likey +1

[Reb-L]

While I like this development proposal and think it would be great for the area (together with the Rowlands Place project it would finally make Grote St look like it belongs in a city) it so pisses me off to see how the sentiments prevailing in the ACC force architects to dumb down their work to give it a better chance to materialize. Can somebody tell me why horizontal is better than vertical? (the architect has to "de-emphasize it vertical height" to satisfy some sensitive souls). Myself I prefer height to bulk. A landscape with taller and fewer trees has better interaction between light and shade than dense, low bush. A city with a wide variety of building heights, styles and age of buildings is also much more interesting than a city of stumped, elongated, look-alike blocks. Let the designs soar a little but ask for something in return instead; some public space, a small park, a sheltered plaza or something and everybody except the flat earth society will approve.

[Omicron]

Add me to the list of fans.

[Nort]

There is nothing at all offensive about this development, so I am all for it.

[Thanial]

If this building is rejected based on it's height then what little dignity Adelaide has remaining will be lost...

[Vee]

While I like this development proposal and think it would be great for the area ....

... I prefer height to bulk. A landscape with taller and fewer trees has better interaction between light and shade than dense, low bush. A city with a wide variety of building heights, styles and age of buildings is also much more interesting than a city of stumped, elongated, look-alike blocks. Let the designs soar a little but ask for something in return instead; some public space, a small park, a sheltered plaza or something and everybody except the flat earth society will approve.

Yes!
Diversity, interesting designs and taller - with some open/public space/garden/plaza and landscaping sounds good.

Too many city buildings are built wall to wall with limited views of surroundings, creating canyons with little room for trees/landscaping and open areas to enhance the streetscape and amenity.

The idea of such tradeoffs for increased height has merit.

[wilkiebarkid]

This is now on public notification on the DAC website.

There are to be a number of retail outlets on the ground floor. In the Renders they includes stores such as SABA, whether that is for illustrative purposes or they have agreed to lease a tenancy, i don't know.

this will add a lot of life to the area.



http://www.dac.sa.gov.au/index.cfm?obje ... 0F2030D46A

This is an excellent example of what the City needs to help meet population targets. I am still amazed that the ACC continue to decline this type of development because the surrounding buildings are a lot smaller. The CBD bounded by the Terraces requires a serious LONG TERM plan that realises the need to develop UP and OUT. Surrounded by such an expanse of parklands, I just don't understand the logic behind the ACC's refusal of developments that would now be considered average in a place like DARWIN!!

It's embarrassing.

[rev]

The more I look at this, the more I think I've seen this or a very similar design/proposal somewhere before.
Maybe it just reminds me of something else, I dunno.

[IAintTouchin]

yeah it looks like a wide version of something I've seen before too. Still good nonetheless. I don't mind a bit of repetition with buildings such as this one

[Will]

If this building is rejected based on it's height then what little dignity Adelaide has remaining will be lost...

I am not sure if you are aware, but the ACC no longer has the final say for projects worth > $10 million.

As such, as this project is worth $35 million, the ACC's opinion is irrelevant.

[Thanial]

If this building is rejected based on it's height then what little dignity Adelaide has remaining will be lost...

I am not sure if you are aware, but the ACC no longer has the final say for projects worth > $10 million.

As such, as this project is worth $35 million, the ACC's opinion is irrelevant.

Hahah yeah I know, I meant that it will be embarrassing for the ACC to continue rejecting projects like this, in fact I can see developers in the future installing solid gold lifts just so that they can reach the $10 million mark