Sensational-Adelaide.com

monotonehell wrote:

Will wrote:...The revised plans include a revised façade, with a different arrangement of external materials and finishes producing a greater degree of articulation. Despite this, the height, bulk and scale of the building remain the same...

Sorry Will, were those your words or the developer's? Because... does that actually mean anything?

Admittedly those are not my words, however I understand that staement to mean that the revised plans are more visually appealing to the eye. I think it particularly refers to the fact that because all the aaprtments now have balconies the large expanses of concrete will now be broken up by glass balustrading.

"Articulation" == "how many pointy edges there are". Low articulation means a smooth surface, either flat (like Westpac House or the glass thing on King William St) or curves (like "the gherkin"). High articulation means that there are many joins where you can clearly see one section ends and another begins, so the building looks to have been made out of many pieces, rather than a continuous surface.

And here I was thinking it was going to be able to bend in the middle

rhino wrote:And here I was thinking it was going to be able to bend in the middle

I was thinking it would be well spoken.

monotonehell wrote:

rhino wrote:And here I was thinking it was going to be able to bend in the middle

I was thinking it would be well spoken.

I would like to live in a well-spoken building. The building and I could have whimsical discussions and giggle at each other's crafty wordplay.

Let's hope a few people use their heads in relation to this proposal.

Unless there's been a change of ownership, Joff Chappel of Gladys Sym Choon etc, a long time East End resident and business operator (and an innovative guy with good ideas) is behind this.

The manouvering over unit numbers is just the usual ambit claim being reduced to realistic proportions, so it looks as if it might get up this time.

The point is, to make the project really work well, and to reap multiple dividends from it, there are a few other issues which should be resolved, imo.

Consider: Synagogue Place abuts the back of the Masonic Temple, separated by a chain link gate. While the Freemasons owned the whole Temple, this gate was kept religiously closed. There is presently potentially both car and pedestrian access to North Terrace. If at least pedestrian access to North Terrace was allowed, and continued when the carpark at the rear of the temple is developed, it would be a huge advantage not just to the Globe development, but to the life of the section of Rundle Street from Pulteney to Frome Street.

What's more, the lane off Frome Street between Eckersley's building and Amalfi restaurant nearly reaches Synagogue Place. It is separated only by a narrow bit of the former Gerard and Goodman building. That building is owned by the University of Adelaide. If they allowed a pedestrian right of way at ground level (only to first floor height) through to Eckersley's lane (the name of which I've forgotten), the result would make all the frontages along Synagogue Place very viable, and would also open up possibilities with the rears of the Rundle Street shops which back onto Eckersley's Lane. These areas are mainly used for the luxury of employee parking at present. Even the southern part of Eckersley's building and its garage could be turned to interesting retail use, as well as its huge basement, all accessible from Eckersley's lane

Then, there is a single door from Synagogue Place leading to the University owned multi-story carpark, although users of that door don't have access through the Masonic Temple land to North Terrace.

In short, here;'s an opportunity to create a minor network of laneways offering numerous connections - an oft-repeated goal of urban design studies in the East End. All that's needed is the will to do it. The University would find that its Gerard and Goodman building, or site (which it only bought to facilitate its carpark development), became more valuable, everyone would benefit from the added convenience of the connections, and more foot traffic would support more shops - all good. People love interesting laneways.

There remains a problem with the only present permanent resident of Synagogue Place - a couple who live in the Victorian double fronted villa (really!) behind the facade at 11 Synagogue Place immediately south of the Globe site at 13-17. They will lose something by living next to a tall building, but on the other hand their property should rise in value if the laneways were invigorated and became a choice location instead of a scruffy dead end.

Here is a chance to do something really exciting in the east End, to the benefit of all, and it will only take a few landowners to think beyond their walls and give a bit in order to gain a lot.

I'll try to find a decent aerial shot and post it.

I'll have to post two - I'm on a notebook...

I've had similar thoughts too. Basically if there weren't those two car parks, there could very easily be a walkway that links David Jones to Ayers House. Put in a set of pedestrian lights on Pulteney Street and it'd be all set.

As it stands, the Frome St car park is the biggest obstacle.

SJ & AtD, good ideas - you should consider packaging your thoughts and sending to the ACC for consideration. It's unlikely to occur otherwise.

I don't see what the ACC could achieve. There's at least 4 private properties including 3 structures in the way.

AtD wrote:I don't see what the ACC could achieve. There's at least 4 private properties including 3 structures in the way.

If not the ACC then who? someone without purely a focus on instant financial returns should take the lead on such an initiative. Surely the ACC (if they were aware of the potential) could provide some sort of incentive to all property owners?

There are some instances I've heard of developers being given a concession in return for public realm considerations. One example back in Seattle was Harbor Steps, a collection of downtown residential towers that included a public accessway that makes some useful connections between places (such as the busy 1st avenue and the waterfront). It's still a bit artificial around there, but it's a much better for the area than a flat wall of towers would have been. Mind you, just up the street was a strong example of how that might go wrong.

Actually, I wonder if the Precinct is working to similar principles? When I've been around there to take a look, it seems like there's going to be pedestrian connections from Waymouth Ct through to Franklin St; is that land publically held, or is it private but with the requirement that they provide public access? Likewise with the areas around the old Stock Exchange and the Grenfell Centre - how much of that is private/public?

The little through-ways such as you've mentioned (e.g. around the old stock exchange) are one of the things I love about Adelaide - there are so many of them, and each has it's own character. If you walk through them at lunchtime, they are all being utilised and all lovely places to walk through. We could do with more, for sure.

Those steps http://hugeasscity.com/2008/09/06/heres ... bor-steps/ do look like a fairly poor solution, whatever the problem. To anyone disabled, or old etc they might as well be a rope ladder. I like the lighting set into the adjacent wall - weather and vandal proof.

In relation to potential pedestrian ways around Synagogue Place, I don't know about "There's at least 4 private properties including 3 structures in the way." AtD... Ignoring legal access considerations, the only physical block is the Uni's Gerard and Goodman building - in the photos the long, narrow roof running east west between Synagogue Place and the end of 'Eckersley's lane'. (It's Ashley Place or something...).

It's a good idea of Wayno's to put something to ACC on this. One of the good things about that magnificent organisation (heh) is that a well-researched unsolicited proposal can actually get a good hearing, especially if a couple of councillors help it along.

I was involved in the 2002 East End Urban Design Study put together by Steve Grieve of Grieve Gillett. The resulting document was very strong on 'pedestrian percolation within the precinct'. That concept could be given straight back to ACC in a proposal for 'invigorating' the area.

Adelaide Uni is not always a model citizen in terms of 'giving' to the public realm. It has a track record of conservative behaviour, eg avoiding anything that might restrict their future dealings with their properties (eg heritage listings etc). Former federal senator Robert Hill has just been appointed Chancellor - I don't know if he has an interest in urban planning, but he might be interested in a bit of publicity showing what a caring, sharing body the uni is... I'll keep the forum posted.

stumpjumper wrote: I was involved in the 2002 East End Urban Design Study put together by Steve Grieve of Grieve Gillett. The resulting document was very strong on 'pedestrian percolation within the precinct'. That concept could be given straight back to ACC in a proposal for 'invigorating' the area.

Not to mention some more "Adelaidean altruism and alliteration"