Patrick_27, both buildings are behind the GPO. Which one?Patrick_27 wrote:Won't work, it'll clash too much with the clock tower. I think they should scrap the office building behind the GPO together and just focus on the other building.
Cheers
Patrick_27, both buildings are behind the GPO. Which one?Patrick_27 wrote:Won't work, it'll clash too much with the clock tower. I think they should scrap the office building behind the GPO together and just focus on the other building.
Completely understandable viewpoint. I'm more than happy to receive constructive criticism about my idea. I think it does seem overbearing mostly because we don't have a lot of height in Adelaide so we aren't used to it. In Sydney it's no big deal seeing the old clock towers surrounded by skyscrapers. But I really didn't consider the effects of shadowing on Victoria Square too much, so thanks for that point.Norman wrote:To be honest I think a building of that size is too overbearing. I think around 100m would be sufficient given the fact the surrounding area has many low-rise heritage buildings around the square. Also, call me a NIMBY, but I think this will block out too much of the sun at Victoria Square, especially in the winter afternoons. A stepped-back approach around Victoria Square would be best IMO.
I'm also not sure that's to become of Electra House... it looks to be half-swallowed up in the proposal.
Mind you, the current proposal isn't great either... but with a little bit more height and a design more sympathetic to the heritage of the GPO it can work.
Obviously this is all just my opinion with no architectural qualifications
Okay. I'll cop all that. I probably went overboard with the height. I'll say that it's not necessarily all about the height, but creating a building which is more interesting than a box and creates more incentive to visit the area, even given the constraints of the sight, even using them as an advantage. I think this building at about half the height would work though (maybe remove the observation deck).Patrick_27 wrote:One has to wonder if some you are taking the piss?...
That building is far too tall for that area, not to mention you've basically destroyed the historic elements of the area also.
I'm not trying to be mean, but for some of you it doesn't seem to mesh that you can't place a building of that kind of size in such a location. By all means, find anywhere along Pirie, Waymouth, Currie, even remaining parts King Williams Street and put your craziest proposals forward; but what's left of that small block will never have a building of such height there purely because it doesn't sit well with it's surrounds. If something like that were ever going to happen, the site/s of Tower 1 or 2 would have been the appropriate place.
Let's hope they'll come up with something a bit more imposing, but not overly. My main gripe is the taller slender and elongated building that's proposed next to the ATO. That's why perhaps a single tower would be best. If they want another building on site make it smaller like it was in the initial Aspen proposal. I think that was supposed to be a hotel.Ben wrote:This was withdrawn by the developer before the meeting. Last minute changes maybe they have been reading our forum
The proposals incorporate two towers, being; Stage 1: 107.8m AHD (15 storeys, including plant); and Stage 2: 130.75m AHD (22 storeys, including plant).
It is noted that the airspace study allows for an additional 3 metres in height to allow for plant - therefore the applicant is seeking approval from Adelaide Airport for a height of 110.8m AHD and 132.5m AHD. This will provide the applicant with some scope for additional structures on the roof in the future without a referral required to AAL.
Users browsing this forum: dsriggs, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 0 guests