Sensational-Adelaide.com

Thanks for reminding me of this proposal. When I go to the website www.115kws.com.au it takes me to http://www.themorningtonpeninsula.com/

Definitely been canned. No listing anymore on realcommercial.com

The advertising and signage which was on the building adjacent to the Ambassador's Hotel has also been taken down. It definetly appears dead. I can only say thank god - it was ugly, too tall for the King William streetscape and had blank northern, southern and I presume, western walls. It was not a good building in any way shape or form at all.

[Shuz] wrote:ugly, too tall for the King William streetscape

I thought tall was needed in the city? As far as ugly, as least it's different from most of currently designed apartments?

Tall does not mean good. Dubai and Chicago are 'tall'. But the buildings are divided by wide roads, blank sides/backs that you have to walk the width of to get next door. They're not very good walkable urban environments.

MessiahAndrw wrote:Tall does not mean good. Dubai and Chicago are 'tall'. But the buildings are divided by wide roads, blank sides/backs that you have to walk the width of to get next door. They're not very good walkable urban environments.

Point taken. But I agree with Chicago, definitely not Dubai.

DaShyFreak wrote:

[Shuz] wrote:ugly, too tall for the King William streetscape

I thought tall was needed in the city? As far as ugly, as least it's different from most of currently designed apartments?

I agree, tall is need in the City, but not along the King William streetscape. I purposedly made that very clear in my original statement to draw the distinction between the two. I believe that it was too tall for the street it was on, and that all new structures should adhere to the former 40m height limit that has been formed along King William Street as is evident by the heightline of heritage buildings such as T&L, CML, Post Office and Town Hall.

Also, it was an office building, not apartments.

[Shuz] wrote:

DaShyFreak wrote:

[Shuz] wrote:ugly, too tall for the King William streetscape

I thought tall was needed in the city? As far as ugly, as least it's different from most of currently designed apartments?

I agree, tall is need in the City, but not along the King William streetscape. I purposedly made that very clear in my original statement to draw the distinction between the two. I believe that it was too tall for the street it was on, and that all new structures should adhere to the former 40m height limit that has been formed along King William Street as is evident by the heightline of heritage buildings such as T&L, CML, Post Office and Town Hall.

Also, it was an office building, not apartments.

40? Oh god As with so many other people, I think buildings complement each other when there's a difference! And yes, I do know it's an office building. I can read! *surprise*

I think what [Shuz] is talking about are setbacks? Which are a good idea along a street. Canyon cities are oppressive.

monotonehell wrote:I think what [Shuz] is talking about are setbacks? Which are a good idea along a street. Canyon cities are oppressive.

I wasn't. But now that you mention setbacks, I agree that would be a much better design outcome. I do not believe 86m tall buildings right against the footpath are appropriate for the KWS streetscrape, or any for that matter. A limit of 40m, in line with the older buildings as mentioned before, and then a setback, of say 4-6m, would be ideal.

I am a huge fan of New York City's skyline and diversity of buildings, notably because many of them have setbacks. I am of the understanding that their zoning regulations allowed developers to build tall buildings, so long as they had setbacks. Whilst I do welcome the fact that the Adelaide CBD no longer has height limits in the CBD core, it would be ideal if the planning regulations had provisions in place that setbacks are required for taller buildings at certain locations.

As soon as I saw the renders of that building I thought 'at last!, there is a break from that 18 floor height' - added much interest to the skyline.

KWS is the main thoroughfare, and to me, if any street has taller buildings, it should be this one. I We have been moaning about the old santos building being the only real high rise for 20 years. Here we have one that similarly, would have been very obvious - but only till others are built that tall.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

I liked this proposal because it was something thin and taller right on KWS, should have been 100m+ and maybe gone right to the corner of Waymouth and KWS, that would have been impressive and something different. Stuff the height restrictions, this city needs to change and what better place than on the kings boulevard.

The setback you're talking about, I generally call a 'pedestal' building. I used the Empire State Building on my blog as an example (http://www.andrewalexanderprice.com/blog20121015.php).

If you had a straight up 100 story cement/stone wall right next to you, it would feel intimidating to say the least, and a whole block full of 100 story buildings would only allow very little light to reach through.

To get around these problems, The Empire State Building has a 6 story pedestal at the base:


It doesn't feel intimidating at ground level because it blends in with the surrounding facade while letting plenty of light hit the street. But when you look up:


Where the pedestal ends and the building begins is generally called a setback. But, try not to confuse it with setback which also means how far back from the road a building is. These are examples of setbacks from the road;

Thanks MessiahAndrew - a pedestal is what I meant then.

Seems everything old is new again. the website hasn't been update as yet as still lists completion "late 2013".

Type: Application Assessed on Merit
Application Number: DA/211/2010/A
Lodgement Date: 26/02/2014
Location: 113-115 King William Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description: Vary previous authorisation to demolish existing building and construct 25 Level Office building with Ground Floor retail - VARIATION - staged consent, various amendments including revised height and facade changes.