Sensational-Adelaide.com

Denny Crane wrote:...Ho Really - Also a good suggestion, but I refer you to what I have said above. Alucabond (aluminium panels) is also very expensive and does nothing for the building in 10 years time. The problem with apartment buildings is that once you build them, they are there for good. Unlike office blocks that are generally on one title, a developer can come along and just refurb it or knock it over and replace it - City Central style. With apartments however, you've got a hundred different owners on the one title - how the hell are you going to buy that back - and when you do, you've just spent $100M on the land component of your feasibility study - a new development won't stack after that - trust me. No, we need to be very careful with our material choices, not only will this building be an icon and be seen from many angles in the metro area, it will also be here for a very, very long time. It will need to withstand the test of time, and be a timeless piece, indicative of its period, but not an eyesore like many of the buildings built here in the 70's - I refer to the one's that we are ripping down now for new stuff...

Thanks for your answer Denny Crane, much appreciated. I realised with aluminium panels the cost is an issue (I mentioned this in an earlier post), but will the Swiss Pearl panels be easily dismountable, in the sense that if in future you or an owner wanted a change of colour or design, is it possible? Thanks again.

Cheers

Denny Crane wrote:
The new building has been broken down on all 4 sides into a series of slim vertical elements that appear separate and cohesive at the same time. The architects have chosen to use different materials and colours on every element in order to make the building visually interesting and break-up the solid nature of the Eastern and Southern facades. As I said earlier, Swiss Pearl is the preferred choice because this is easily achieved without the need for any additional unnecessary costs.

Elevations and illustrations are not good at telling this particular story, the new renders should however.

Yes I guess I jumped the gun a bit, snapping before I had read the whole thread.

I was reacting to this:



but those new elevations with the "vertical elements" are kind of what I was thinking of. Thanks for your reply, it does put my mind at ease

the statement "avoiding unecessary costs" is a poor choice of words. Good design does cost money but first this must be accepted as important. ACC officers should challenge the viability of this scheme as part of the design assessment.

Having said that, I do await more realisted verfieid local and townscape views to judge this proposal.

bva wrote:the statement "avoiding unecessary costs" is a poor choice of words. Good design does cost money but first this must be accepted as important. ACC officers should challenge the viability of this scheme as part of the design assessment.

I disagree. The shortest distance between any two points is a straight line. In business, no one can afford to go the long way. Its expensive, unprofessional and non-competitive. Regardless of my opinion, your opinion, or the whole worlds opinion, these buildings only exist because someone, somewhere has made (or attempted to make) a profit. Unless a building was put up by a government, church or charity, all the rest have made someone money. The trick to development is to deliver the best possible outcome, for the best possible price. The first step is to achieve efficiency in the design. Now, a building like this, that already has everything stacked up against it, needs to achieve that efficiency from the very beginning. The site is landlocked, the floor-to-wall ratio exceeds pretty much every building in its class, there are no economies of scale to take advantage of in terms of prelims (ie cranes, man and materials hoists, etc) - one needs to take all these fixed costs into consideration and then turn his/her attention to the rest of the details during the design development phase.

The design team in this instance, has done a fantastic job of maintaining the architectural integrity of the building, while fighting the rest of the issues that the group is presented with - some I mentioned above. Its not the council's job to challenge the viability of any scheme as part of its assessment. There is no way, at the early stages of a project, especially at the Town Planning stage, that you can forecast the cost or viability of a project. At that stage, no one knows what the thing is going to be made of, and no, they can't estimate it within a certain percentile. The first time you even get an idea within 10-15% is after the design development phase, which in this case, has cost just under $1,000,000. No developer in his/her right mind would spend that sort of money on any project without the guarantee of a Town Planning permit. Sounds a bit like chicken and egg doesn't it?

The system is not perfect. I agree with that. And no-one is arguing that good design doesn't cost money. But there is a difference between stupid design and efficient design. Both can ultimately achieve a "good design". A developer/builder should and will always strive for an efficient design because, in the long run, you can achieve the same result with less time and money. As I said in my previous post, why spend an additional $2,000,000 scaffolding the building when a material like Swiss Pearl will give you a good, weather proof finish that looks exactly the same - and can be delivered in half the time? That is efficient design. Its the design that the entire world will come to judge upon completion of the project, and its the design that the architects and other consultants will have to stand by.

I hope this clarifies the point.

Denny: While you're correct that a project needs to turn a profit otherwise there's no point in it from a commercial sense; this is a residential tower and aesthetics plays a HUGE role in selling apartments. Aesthetic design is just as important as the other points you raised. It's the same with all manufacturing industries.

Denny, do you know if other readily available concrete colour additives (Sika / Solomon / BASF / Grace) have been investigated as an option over Swiss Pearl?

rogue wrote:Denny, do you know if other readily available concrete colour additives (Sika / Solomon / BASF / Grace) have been investigated as an option over Swiss Pearl?

At this stage, everything is on the table. In a meeting in Melbourne earlier today, the developers were presented with the interiors package for the entire building. Along with myself, this is something that everyone has been looking forward to. The package will be released to the general public in a couple of weeks once all the marketing material has been completed, and the facade detail is finished.

Many people, including myself, jumped the gun when the Town Planning illustrations were released. After siting material choices for the more important exterior elements today, I can safely say that those illustrations could not be further from the real thing. The slim horizontal elements that were likened to a "commi block" in an earlier post by someone, are actually anodized aluminium with a very high shine, parts of the exposed concrete will be cladded with coloured material, some parts painted. The light box at the top of the building will rotate colour every 2 hours with a choice of anywhere between 3-8 colours (not decided yet) and the lobby, which has been redesigned, looks like something out of a top end New York apartment building. All this and more is set to be released in the coming days, so stay tuned.

I think I can safely say that this will not turn out like a regular Adelaide building. From what I have seen so far, all parties concerned understand the vital importance of this building's place in the city and its skyline.

Denny Crane wrote:I think I can safely say that this will not turn out like a regular Adelaide building. From what I have seen so far, all parties concerned understand the vital importance of this building's place in the city and its skyline.

That is such great news. Adelaide is screaming out for iconic buildings and of course more height, so, bring it on in all it's glory.

wilkiebarkid wrote:

Denny Crane wrote:I think I can safely say that this will not turn out like a regular Adelaide building. From what I have seen so far, all parties concerned understand the vital importance of this building's place in the city and its skyline.

That is such great news. Adelaide is screaming out for iconic buildings and of course more height, so, bring it on in all it's glory.

Yes, Adelaide is almost unique in that it is a major city, yet with quite a lot of catching up to do - and the city is clearly ramping up to meet this challenge. My hunch is that the developer who delivers Adelaide that one special building which states "We are arriving" is a smart developer - I think we will be amazed by what that first truly exciting development could do for our city, and the people responsible for delivering it could have a very good thing on their hands.
Cheers, Caroline

Denny Crane wrote:

rogue wrote:Denny, do you know if other readily available concrete colour additives (Sika / Solomon / BASF / Grace) have been investigated as an option over Swiss Pearl?

At this stage, everything is on the table. In a meeting in Melbourne earlier today, the developers were presented with the interiors package for the entire building. Along with myself, this is something that everyone has been looking forward to. The package will be released to the general public in a couple of weeks once all the marketing material has been completed, and the facade detail is finished.

Many people, including myself, jumped the gun when the Town Planning illustrations were released. After siting material choices for the more important exterior elements today, I can safely say that those illustrations could not be further from the real thing. The slim horizontal elements that were likened to a "commi block" in an earlier post by someone, are actually anodized aluminium with a very high shine, parts of the exposed concrete will be cladded with coloured material, some parts painted. The light box at the top of the building will rotate colour every 2 hours with a choice of anywhere between 3-8 colours (not decided yet) and the lobby, which has been redesigned, looks like something out of a top end New York apartment building. All this and more is set to be released in the coming days, so stay tuned.

I think I can safely say that this will not turn out like a regular Adelaide building. From what I have seen so far, all parties concerned understand the vital importance of this building's place in the city and its skyline.

I have to admit that i was one of the critques that was somewhat judgemental after seeing the latest 'renders'. I am more comforted with your feedback & commentary and i am again excited about this project and keenly awaiting the new renders.

Thanks for keeping us posted Denny.

Ease up with the circle-jerk, gentlemen.

Omicron said:
Ease up with the circle-jerk, gentlemen.

Well said Omicron, Denny Crane must think he is a god right now.

omada wrote:

Omicron said:
Ease up with the circle-jerk, gentlemen.

Well said Omicron, Denny Crane must think he is a god right now.

Whilst I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the position on this development, it should be noted that the developer, along with many others in Adelaide, respect the opinions of the people that participate in these forums. We merely seek the ability to help shed some light on the various points that so many were quick to judge. I hope that I have managed to do that somewhat.

BTW, God has a capital "G".

Denny Crane wrote:God has a capital "G".

You called?

should this thread be changed back from #Deferred to #Approved?