Page 4 of 27

[COM] Re: PRO: 152-160 Grote Street | 52m | 16Lvls | Mixed Use

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:25 pm
by Nort
rev wrote: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.
It's fairly generic really for an apartment building, just looks like a scaled up version of what you would find in Mawson Lakes.

[COM] Re: PRO: 152-160 Grote Street | 52m | 16Lvls | Mixed Use

Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:59 am
by serca
I like it , but i agree has a glammed up Mawson Lakes feel .. A fine line as Mawson lakes is full of monolithic eyesores ... All the new developments in this part of CBD have similar architecture/design facades ?

[COM] Re: PRO: 152-160 Grote Street | 52m | 16Lvls | Mixed Use

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:22 pm
by Troy
Here are some more images supplied by the Architects, Brown Falconer.

[COM] Re: PRO: 152-160 Grote Street | 52m | 16Lvls | Mixed Use

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:34 pm
by Plasmatron
Some lovely renders there, now they just have to stop teasing us and build it. I guess Adelaide's only going to keep getting bulkier before it gets taller!

Actually, didn't someone used to have that username on this forum? "justbuildit"... damn, think I've been lurking this site for too long. :P

Also, that swimming pool is pretty dang awesome... reminds me of rooftop, "edgeless" pool from that massive building in Singapore. You know the one I'm talking about. Right?

[COM] Re: PRO: 152-160 Grote Street | 52m | 16Lvls | Mixed Use

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:13 pm
by metro
the bottom 2 images look like they're in the right location.. but that top one.. taller than and east of Westpac House?? or is that for another 200+m skyscraper proposal in the eastern suburbs? shh dont tell the NIMBY's :lol:

looks good, would love to live in the city, would be so convenient. Adelaide needs more buildings like this.

[COM] Re: PRO: 152-160 Grote Street | 52m | 16Lvls | Mixed Use

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:20 pm
by jk1237
serca wrote:I like it , but i agree has a glammed up Mawson Lakes feel .. A fine line as Mawson lakes is full of monolithic eyesores ... All the new developments in this part of CBD have similar architecture/design facades ?
well I find the boring box house suburbs and awful weed gardens with 5 cars parked in them of Ingle Farm, Para Hills, Surrey Downs, Aberfoyle Park, Morphett Vale, etc etc (x another 50 suburbs) monolithic eyesores compared to central Mawson Lakes. The only eyesores in Mawson Lakes are the surrounding mcmansions IMO

[COM] Re: PRO: 152-160 Grote Street | 52m | 16Lvls | Mixed Use

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:23 pm
by rev
What a view!
I'd imagine it would surely only get better in time.

Image

[COM] Re: PRO: 152-160 Grote Street | 52m | 16Lvls | Mixed Use

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:25 pm
by grator
good to see development on this side of the city. it looks great

[COM] Re: PRO: 152-160 Grote Street | 52m | 16Lvls | Mixed Use

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:31 pm
by Ben
rev wrote:What a view!
I'd imagine it would surely only get better in time.

Image
Lime green flooring??? :toilet:

[COM] Re: PRO: 152-160 Grote Street | 52m | 16Lvls | Mixed Use

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:37 pm
by rev
I was too busy looking out that window to notice that

[COM] Re: PRO: 152-160 Grote Street | 52m | 16Lvls | Mixed Use

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:05 pm
by Will
This project will come before the ACC DAP this coming Monday.

The ACC is expected to REJECT this proposal, thereby adding another example to the long list of shame. Since being relieved of approving projects over $10 million, the ACC has literally rejected every high-rise proposal sent before it. Even though they do not have the final say, the mere act of rejecting every high-rise proposal sent before it, sends very negative messages to potential investors, not to mention locals.

[COM] Re: PRO: 152-160 Grote Street | 52m | 16Lvls | Mixed Use

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:11 pm
by Thanial
three comments in a matter of minutes, must be a record for me :lol:

I don't think the building probably being rejected by council will come as a surprise to anyone, it just makes Adelaide appear further more disappointing to possible investors. :? In fact today I was speaking to an elderly woman who was criticising the council for rejecting 123 Flinders Street, she said that she went into the city recently for the first time in quite a few years and said it looked exactly the same as it did in the 80s :roll: If only all of the members of council had the same mindset as this one elderly lady :D

[COM] Re: PRO: 152-160 Grote Street | 52m | 16Lvls | Mixed Use

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:24 pm
by crawf
Will wrote:This project will come before the ACC DAP this coming Monday.

The ACC is expected to REJECT this proposal, thereby adding another example to the long list of shame. Since being relieved of approving projects over $10 million, the ACC has literally rejected every high-rise proposal sent before it. Even though they do not have the final say, the mere act of rejecting every high-rise proposal sent before it, sends very negative messages to potential investors, not to mention locals.
Oh what's there reason this time?

[COM] Re: PRO: 152-160 Grote Street | 52m | 16Lvls | Mixed Use

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:31 pm
by Waewick
I think it will be rejected because the council can't paint stupid little coloured dots or put painted cars in front of it,thus showing the world how progressive they are!

[COM] Re: PRO: 152-160 Grote Street | 52m | 16Lvls | Mixed Use

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:32 pm
by Will
crawf wrote:
Will wrote:This project will come before the ACC DAP this coming Monday.

The ACC is expected to REJECT this proposal, thereby adding another example to the long list of shame. Since being relieved of approving projects over $10 million, the ACC has literally rejected every high-rise proposal sent before it. Even though they do not have the final say, the mere act of rejecting every high-rise proposal sent before it, sends very negative messages to potential investors, not to mention locals.
Oh what's there reason this time?
It's too tall and bulky.