Sensational-Adelaide.com

Pants wrote:

arki wrote:Well the design is certainly interesting and much needed in our bland and dated skyline however 78m tall would hardly make this building 'iconic' or a rival to Westpac.

How tall's that Opera House they've got over there in Sydney?

Obviously height is not the ultimate defining factor for an iconic building, but unless that building is absolutely EXCEPTIONAL (think Guggenheim Bilbao/NY) then it wont actually get much attention at all. I can think of many stunning examples of small high-rises in Australia, many with more height than this (Crown Metropol, 1 Bligh are recent examples). So with this in mind I will rephrase my statement. This building, while interesting, may not be as 'iconic' as most people here are desperate to believe. This is compounded by the fact that it lacks height; hence my original statement and why I compared it to Westpac in my post, not some world famous landmark.

And on that note, sorry, but comparing this building to the Opera House is just laughable.

This was on most of the news reports earlier, where it also showed a nice fly-through They also interviewed a few people from the public, though i think they purposely interviewed more negative people then they did positive. One guy did point out that he thinks Adelaide needs to search in google whats happening in the rest of the world because we're stuck in the past

I believe it's an eye-catching design that would be a welcome addition to an unfortunately boring skyline.

The only definite 'thing' here is that the ACC will not support it because of its proposed height. They will then recommend that the maximum height be reduced to 10 storeys and that the building be straightened in keeping with surrounding buildings!!

Fortunately they will not have the final say.

I actually have a feeling they will support this.

The council did approve 20-22 Currie Street a few years back, which was a pretty 'out there' proposal

crawf wrote:I actually have a feeling they will support this.

The council did approve 20-22 Currie Street a few years back, which was a pretty 'out there' proposal

I'm pretty sure 20-22 Currie Street was close to acceptable height levels, being opposite Westpac House. The corner of Pulteney and Flinders is probably 10-12 floors at best.

The ACC needs to be pro-active in the development of the CBD and review it's height restrictions ASAP. To say that a proposed building is too tall in a developing CBD because it towers over existing 50-100 year old non-heritage buildings (some of which will eventually will be demolished for redevelopment anyway) smacks of a lack of vision and a lack of understanding of what a CBD should be.

My old map says this sits in an ACC 40m limit zone.

Great building, striking design, nice mix of uses and the colour of finish used in the first render is actually very 'Adelaide' imo.

Deep down though, I suspect the DAP will recommend planning refusal, the DAC will grant planning approval, then it'll go straight back to the architects to be 'straightened up' for cheaper construction. Pessimistic much?

Fantastic proposal though. Thanks to Paul Pruszinski for the scoop and congrats to Tom Jarrett for the design.

arki wrote:

Pants wrote:

arki wrote:Well the design is certainly interesting and much needed in our bland and dated skyline however 78m tall would hardly make this building 'iconic' or a rival to Westpac.

How tall's that Opera House they've got over there in Sydney?

Obviously height is not the ultimate defining factor for an iconic building, but unless that building is absolutely EXCEPTIONAL (think Guggenheim Bilbao/NY) then it wont actually get much attention at all. I can think of many stunning examples of small high-rises in Australia, many with more height than this (Crown Metropol, 1 Bligh are recent examples). So with this in mind I will rephrase my statement. This building, while interesting, may not be as 'iconic' as most people here are desperate to believe. This is compounded by the fact that it lacks height; hence my original statement and why I compared it to Westpac in my post, not some world famous landmark.

And on that note, sorry, but comparing this building to the Opera House is just laughable.

Did you read the rest of my post?

Just for clarification, the renders on the developer's site are 2 months old. The renders that were posted on the first page are what have been submitted. Hope that helps clear things up.

More renders from Paul.

Yep like!

Looking at the renders I am guessing the entrance to the carpark will be from an entrance on the southern Pulteney Street side?
It appears the building is set back from this boundry so the south facing side will also get windows. Hopefully some renders of the southern side of the building will be released in the future, as it would make an fabulous entrance to the city along Pulteney street from the south.


mgb

Flyover up.. thanks to Paul Pruszinski

Love it thanks Howie and Paul.

To make it official:

Type: Development Application Received
Application Number: DA/626/2011
Lodgement Date: 1/08/2011
Location: Carparks, 201-203 Pulteney Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description: Demolish existing building and construct 22 level mixed use buliding on vacant land comprising ground floor retail, 4 levels of carparking, 4 levels of office space and remainder as apartments.

Applicant Name


PRUSZINSKI ARCHITECTS P/L

Which is the existing building to be demolished by that DA application?

The one on the corner is already gone.

Please tell me the crusty Telstra exchange building next door is going too.....

I wonder how this project can be financially viable, considering that the developer is claiming that it will cost $120 million. For obvious reason, developers always give a low end figure (often without counting the cost of fittings) when they submit for DA approval.

In the paper, they are saying that the apartment price ranges between 300k and 1.2 million. Base on an average price of 800k (which is absoutly high end for Adelaide), the gross revenue they are going to get from the 120 odd apartments will only be just under $100 million. The 4 levels of commercial and car parking just can't make up the difference.

This project is not going to go ahead even it is approved by DAC, unless of course the developer is not doing it for the money.