Sensational-Adelaide.com

how many square metres is this one?

white_goodman wrote:how many square metres is this one?

It doesn't take much to read through the thread. It's 23,000 sqm.

Ben wrote:

white_goodman wrote:how many square metres is this one?

It doesn't take much to read through the thread. It's 23,000 sqm.

sorry i skimmed past it

Interesting article from the messenger. I don't know how anybody who has actually seen the current building would want that facade kept, however I do personally agree with their opinion on the design of the proposed building.

Franklin St facade design cops tower of criticism

03 Dec 08 by Adam Todd

A GLASS office tower planned for Franklin St has been labelled “gross”, “bland” and “terrible” by the City Council’s Development Assessment Panel (DAP).

The 13-storey tower, designed by architect Woods Bagot for developer Urban Construct, features a flat, five storey glass facade at street level.

The DAP recommended the facade be redesigned and its height reduced at Monday night’s (December 1) meeting.

Panel members said they were concerned it was yet another uninspiring, glass-fronted, box-shaped tower in the city.

UniSA architecture Professor Mads Gaardboe said it was a “very bland, terrible facade”.

Fellow panel member Rob Cheeseman said: “It’s gross, it’s not a good look.”

The plans requires the demolition of the vacant Austrasia Trade building at 71-83 Franklin St, next door to the Franklin St bus terminal.

The DAP wants to see the existing building’s facade retained if possible in the new design.

The existing building, a two-storey former warehouse, is not on any heritage list.

The panel also wants the 50m tall building reduced to 40m, or 11 storeys, to comply with the area’s building height limits.

The DAP’s advice will be passed to the State Government’s Development Assessment Commission (DAC), which is the approving body because the development is worth more than $10 million.

Thank god someone of higher authority has criticised this immensely. I'm fairly sure we'll see a change for the slightly better. However, I'm very intrigued about the council's position on height limitations. Were they not calling for a review only a few weeks ago?

I don't understand why the council wants this building scaled down, considering its close proximity to... everything. It's definitely not out of scale with the Precinct towers further west.

I am pleased that the council have considered the effects this building would have on the street scape with its rather horrid facade at street level. I wouldn't mind seeing the existing facade remain as long as it was done tastefully. It may not be heritage listed, but if given a good scrub up and filled with retail & food tenancies it would definitely add to the charm that our inner suburbs and CBD fringe have, namely the 19th century urban industrial areas that have been gentrified into residential.

Picture it with the facade restored, the brick columns extend down to ground level, the windows replaced with shopfronts and cafes and the street paved with outdoor dining. The increased activity generated from this building and The Precinct hopefully could allow such development to be economically feasible.

At street level, I'd prefer a scrubbed up version of this:


To this:


A better design than the one we've been presented would probably make me reverse my stance on keeping the facade.

It's also interesting to note how the council's criticising this development for its lack of street amenity, yet their own neighbouring bus depot/car-park-in-disguise is equally guilty.

AtD wrote:I don't understand why the council wants this building scaled down, considering its close proximity to... everything. It's definitely not out of scale with the Precinct towers further west.

My sentiments too. Why on earth go lower when you've got taller buildings going up to the west!! Go figure.

I am pleased that the council have considered the effects this building would have on the street scape with its rather horrid facade at street level. I wouldn't mind seeing the existing facade remain as long as it was done tastefully. It may not be heritage listed, but if given a good scrub up and filled with retail & food tenancies it would definitely add to the charm that our inner suburbs and CBD fringe have, namely the 19th century urban industrial areas that have been gentrified into residential.

A better design than the one we've been presented would probably make me reverse my stance on keeping the facade.

Can't see any reason to keep the present brick facade unless the brick is textured to a darker colour. They should redesign what has been proposed with better street presence. We need some sort of design continuity (or blend) now that the bus terminal is next door. Those carparks on the other side would have to go too eventually replaced by some mixed-use highrises (to include 4 or 5 levels of parking).

It's also interesting to note how the council's criticising this development for its lack of street amenity, yet their own neighbouring bus depot/car-park-in-disguise is equally guilty.

Funny isn't it.

Cheers

Matt wrote:Oh for the love of God.
NOT AGAIN.

How many more of these bland, ugly, podded, cheap, nasty looking atrocities can we squeeze into one city?

ENOUGH!
If I was the DAP, I'd stamp this application with a big red "WE'RE BORED." and send it on a one-way trip back to the drawing board.

Bravo... sounds like they were listening.

But reducing the height? Come on... one step forward, and two steps back.
I guess at least it's a huge positive that they're "over" the tired glass box look.

I'm in no way enthusiastic about another cookie-cutter glass box from Woods Bagot and would have thought Urban Construct would throw a bit more money at them so they didn't have to rehash this design for about the 5th time, but I think Rob Cheeseman's comments are a bit hypocritical since he's responsible for the recent uninspiring Kyren glass boxes that are even more architectural no-brainers than the Woods Bagot mould.

Either way, let's hope the DAC take some of the DAP's suggestions on board and also force the developers to do something with that horrible blank western wall. This will be a good initial test of the DAC's independence considering what the Govt. has let Urban Construct get away with at Port Adelaide.

Panel members said they were concerned it was yet another uninspiring, glass-fronted, box-shaped tower in the city.

Good to hear!

Though I completely disagree about reducing the height to 40 metres, it would be a complete wasted opportunity on a prime CBD spot.

I would prefer to see the old building remain there for the next few years, until a better and taller building is proposed.

The existing building has much greater scope to become part of a new development given its large street-facing windows and relatively straight-forward layout. I'm with AtD's sentiments on this one.

This will be approved on Thursdays DAC meeting. They are recommending a few changes but the height will remian the same at 47m.

Link to the Agenda docs:

http://www.dac.sa.gov.au/index.cfm?obje ... 248CD3857C

the proposed building presents a fresh, bold interpretation of contemporary architecture, a handsome façade to Franklin Street, complementing the bus station, and carefully articulated treatment of the podium demonstrating excellence rather than the status quo.

...

The Urban Design Unit and I consider that further amendment or articulation to this façade is not required.

...

Phil Cooper
REGIONAL ASSESSMENT MANAGER, METROPOLITAN ASSESSMENT BRANCH

It seems neither the ACC nor many members here disagree with that statement. The question is, were the ACC be so vocal and scathing in its criticism because they knew their opinion doesn't count for much anymore?

the proposed building presents a fresh, bold interpretation of contemporary architecture, a handsome façade to Franklin Street, complementing the bus station, and carefully articulated treatment of the podium demonstrating excellence rather than the status quo.

...

The Urban Design Unit and I consider that further amendment or articulation to this façade is not required.

...

Phil Cooper
REGIONAL ASSESSMENT MANAGER, METROPOLITAN ASSESSMENT BRANCH

Fresh and bold interpretation? Is this bloke serious?

Maybe he hasn't been 200m up the road to witness City Central...

Essentially all office developments in Adelaide are 'low-risk, cheaper investments'. Despite this, some of the recent office additions to our city have turned out quite attractive. Admiral House at 151 Pirie Street comes to mind. For $23 million they were able to create a building with an attractive timeless design. Just because buildings are built within a tight budget does not mean that attractive design should be sacrificed in the process. This building is simply ugly. In fact when I opened this thread and saw it for the first time my first thought was that this was the deformed child of CCT8. The building is purely a mish-mash of different ideas working against each other to produce a building which is disproportionate, monolithic and over-bearing.

However my criticism isn't just for Woods Bagot. Sure, they desrve part of the blame for lack of creativity, but blame should also be reserved for Urban Construct for proposing something with no civic spirit in mind. This building is a monument to extreme capitalism. Blame should also be reserved for the ACC, for having a development plan that allows boring roof lines, blank concrete facades and no proper interaction on the street level. In fact at ground level this building offers no protection for pedestrians from the harsh Australian sun.

People have mentioned that we should be grateful that this "isn't another brown lump of concrete". I think this idea is baseless, because those brown lumps of concrete reflect the architectural styles of their era. In fact I am confident that in 20-30 years time, people will be defending whatever architectural crap is being dished up with a similar defence: "at least its better than all those green boxes with pods from the 00's"....