[COM] Victoria Square Upgrade - $24m

[ricecrackers]

seriously we dont want another Federation Square here

the only reason Adelaideans drool for it is because it was a good spot to have a bloody great big telly to watch when the last world cup was on.
the only thing that place has going for it is location and function. the design is an abomination. try hard cubism..if that's what its supposed to be, but it looks a mess that bogans built, not much better than our own Festival Plaza...but again its all about the location there, right in front of the train station and all whereas our Plaza is stuck outback where nobody ever goes

anyhow, we seem to be getting our big telly even if only the north half is built...the question is money for the rest and will enough people actually bother to use the space to make it all worthwhile. I still have doubts that Vic Square will ever be a heartbeat location, but I've had a look at the website and at least the design looks quite nice, although I've noticed there is an unrealistic lack of traffic in the renders that show the roads and a lot of people just simply hanging out there. for what reason and from where i don't know

naturally I hear that putting the traffic underground is prohibitively expensive, but what about having some pedestrian subways for each corner? well lit of course...not like our train stations

that might aid traffic flow by removing pedestrian lights crossings and make entering the square quicker and safer for pedestrians

[FancyPants]

This proposal has grown on me as the day has gone on. I particularly think it is vital that the 'direction' of the square encompasses a view towards the city backdrop, so far I think that is a nice aspect of the proposal.

Slightly concerned on how they would allow for an event of "8,000 people" without any storage/facilties/infrastructure for the goings on that are needed behind the scenes. It would be nice if there was a more seemless way of having these events without the need for tents/semi-trailers etc (which mobile events need) - the 'mess' associated with events like this would detract from the square somewhat. A major concert event needs a lot of equipment.

My thoughts/questions:

- Tram line: IS the square to be broadened and the existing roads to be pushed wider? Surely the tram line does eat into the available space and it is essentially invisible in these renders? I figure the tram would be parallel to the west arbour, doubling as undercover waiting space for the tram stop.

- I don't approve of maintaining the east-west Grote-Angas link apart from "major events" - this removes the people friendly aspect and simply retains one of the failings of the square currently - the dissection of it into separate little pockets. Also, isn't wear on the surface going to be rather ugly with vehicle wear/oil? I know traffic flow is a question but living in the city and being in the area my observations is that the east west passage has not anywhere near the traffic volume of north-south. My opinion is that making it into a true square - removing east-west connection - wouldn't be that debilitating to traffic. Again, I have no volume stats but it something to consider. I preferred the design to incorporate traffic on only one side, or a ring. I can see a ring may add a few minutes to a journey since you have to go around but the focus these days is on less and less car use, it'd be nice to remove the dominance of cars, especially straight through a public space. The way I see it, around is better than through but quite a margin.

- Crazy idea: it'd be interesting to turn the arbours into bridges (particularly if the square is to be divided). Imagine something inspired by this in NY http://www.thehighline.org/, perhaps with a European inspiration for a combination of lawns, gardens, seatings and spaces for weekend street vendors/markets. IT would be an effective use of the space available to create something really interesting and provide an interesting, interactive and dynamic 'walk' with exceptional views over the square, down King William, to the hills up Wakefield st. This removes the idea that the square is a flat thing, the sunken event area at the north end combined with raised bridges would be truly interesting.

My two cents.

[Mark]

I think the idea of a raised walkway is an amazing idea and would definitely create some interest and something iconic for the city. Great idea!

[Will]

The state's 175th anniversary is next year. I cannot think of a better present to ourselves than to fix the black hole that is VSQ.

The council should definately use this as a reason to secure the funding from the state government.

[stumpjumper]

Its high time Adelaide start creating its own identity and not copying other cities.

I couldn't agree more. It would be great to see something startlingly good in Vic Square. Easy to say, I know, but think in terms of I M Pei's glass pyramid in Paris, or the fountain in Geneva (without suggesting that either of those is appropriate).

I can see a few issues:

Procuring the best design: If we can ever get together a serious budget (eg the $100 mill being spruiked) why not do it properly and have have a major international design competition for concepts, then get down to business with the best entries? To simply hand the job to the local designer du jour, Taylor Cullity Lethlean (no disrespect to their business or product) is to invite, probably, a predictable response of sheets of grey granite, slabs of jarrah and pointy plants. TCL's work on North Terrace looks good and works well, but it is 'enough' for Vic Square?

Safe pedestrian access: Pedestrian crossings at lights may be sufficient. The alternatives are to go over or under the roadways - both expensive and space-consuming given the gentle disability access slope required (1:14 and 1:12).

Timing and affordability: We are not a hugely wealthy community, and any expenditure of taxpayers' funds will have to come at the expense of other items. Adding the $100 mill to the $450 mill for the Adelaide Oval redevelopment surely takes a lot out of the discretionary expenditure barrel. It's more than a case of simply 'securing the funding from the state government'.

Even if we don't get there this time, 'time spent in reconnaissance is never wasted' as they say, even if the process seems repetitive. What we don't need, though, is yet another expensive report. That's where a design competition, even if doesn't lead straight away to construction, will at least resolve some of the problems and should get the public and the professions thinking. Maybe we could settle on a design, stage it, and at least get some early work done.

[Nort]

I think the idea of a raised walkway is an amazing idea and would definitely create some interest and something iconic for the city. Great idea!

Some sort of pedestrian footbridge would definitely go a long way in linking the two halves of the square together. I have to imagine it was proposed but would have eaten too much into the budget though.

Stumpjumper: ANOTHER design competition for Victoria Square? That's some sort of sarcastic joke post right?

[stumpjumper]

I wasn't joking, Nort. I don't mean a $5,000 prize and the usual local suspects lining up. I mean a serious international, staged competition with serious money attached.

The Sydney Opera House, the Pompidou Centre and La Defense in Paris were all the results of an international competition.

Vic Square is a unique site in what is in planning terms a unique city. It could support a unique solution.

A half-arsed solution (the type that Adelaide too often seems to settle for) would be a lousy result.

IMHO, we should either go for something unique (and I'm saying that a proper, well-funded, international competition is the way to go), or we should leave it as a green square.

If we were to take that option, I'd remove both the Grote/Wakefield and King William Street roadways, and route all traffic around the Square in one direction. I don't think the Central Market's insistence that closing the Grote/Wakefield roadway would kill the market has much validity. It's never been tested, after all.

The result, for very little money, would be 6 hectares of green park, with a tram running around one edge.

I'd then build a small pub right in the middle, the Victoria, seeing the Polites group is no longer using the name for the pub it owns in Hindley Street. The statue of Queen Victoria could be a feature in the beer garden. Hectares of it - I'd license the whole square. The place would be a Mecca.

I'm quite sober, and serious. Fault my idea.

[Norman]

I think that this is a great design, we don't need more reports, competitions, etc, just get on with building the thing, otherwise we'd be sitting here with the current thing for another few decades.

[monotonehell]

To Clr Yarwood if private companies were to pay for an underground carpark, roads etc...

HGIH, we don't need a carpark in the centre of the city. We actually don't need any more carparks in the city full stop. We already have more carparks per capita (I think was the metric) than any other capital city.

If your only reason for suggesting the carparks is to fund an underpass for the roads, it's a little misguided. The cost of relocating underground infrastructure aside, the cost of access for pedestrians of tunnel entrances, exits and so on is greater than having roads in their way in the first place.

Similarly pedestrian underpasses are problematic in terms of security and upkeep. There's a major move away from such things across the World. Pedestrian overpasses are also a psychological barrier to pedestrian access ("I have to go OVER THAT?") and are only necessary for crossings of greater barriers like freeways and railways.


I notice that several people have posted the same concern I have with the observed fringe problem with all other squares (bar the part of Hindmarsh Square that works). But the only person to address this has been Nort. This point is my only major concern with this design, other than that I like it. I reckon it should go ahead despite my concern, but address it if possible (Possibly by only having KWS run both directions along the eastern side).

[Pants]

Procuring the best design: If we can ever get together a serious budget (eg the $100 mill being spruiked) why not do it properly and have have a major international design competition for concepts, then get down to business with the best entries? To simply hand the job to the local designer du jour, Taylor Cullity Lethlean (no disrespect to their business or product) is to invite, probably, a predictable response of sheets of grey granite, slabs of jarrah and pointy plants. TCL's work on North Terrace looks good and works well, but it is 'enough' for Vic Square?

Is precisely how I feel, but it won't happen. We're seemingly past that point now.

The plans look nice and border on great, but if this is to be the heart of Adelaide as it's being touted, it should blow us away. If it's not intended to be the city's heart, then some nice landscaping, furniture, street-art, cafes etc is fine, but to me, this looks like a glorified suburban park.

It's starting to appear that everyone who knocks a development, for whatever reason, is being branded a whinger, or regressive etc, but I don't think it's a problem if you actually want more for your city. This mentality of "well, it's better than what's there now" is dangerous. We need to take more pride in our buildings and civic spaces. There's a context for everything of course, so not everything needs to look like Gehry's finest, but if we're talking about the city's centerpiece, it should.

[Prince George]

Is it ironic, stumpjumper, that you spend so much effort railing against Rann and Foley for what you present as their bullying dictatorial administration, and then you invoke two of the many vanity projects of the man that's practically their role-model - Francois Mitterrand? The Louvre's glass pyramid and the Grande Arche at La Defense are each as much about Mitterrand positioning himself as comparable to France's most famous rulers as they are matters of architecture: the Grande Arche is placed in opposition to Napoleon's Arc de Triomphe; Pei's pyramids are inserted ahead of the palace of the old royal family, of the Sun King and Cardinal Richelieu (another role model!); Jacques Chirac finished the job for him, renaming the adjacent Quai Louvre to Quai Francois Mitterrand.

And it is because of this "edifice complex" pattern that I'm not a fan of having a design competition for Victoria Square, I suspect that we get monuments to the architects, the locations of which are almost coincidental. For myself, there are too many examples where I associate a shape with the name of an architect (Koolhaas' folded functionalism, Zaha Hadid's fractured planes, Will Alsop's blobs and floating monoliths) and have little recollection exactly where it actually is in the world. I feel that this is an outcome we would also face if we concern ourselves too much with being "iconic" - the world is now so full of icons, it's getting harder and harder to know where any of them are; and when we don't know where they are, what can they be but icons of the architects themselves?

It's probably asking too much for this to happen with Victoria Square, which is too big and too political, but my dream is to see the public of Adelaide able to exert positive control over our city. At present, our control is limited to largely negative ones - we can oppose changes we don't like, we get the chance to say "no"; it's rare that we get the chance to actually direct things ourselves. I feel that this is a serious contribution to our reputation for pessimism, and one that isn't helped by expecting competitions to bring "starchitects" who will solve our problems for us.

[SRW]

Wow. Cottoned on to this pretty late.

I'm still gathering my thoughts about the proposal, but I have generally favourable initial impressions. I like the idea of the arbour/verandah for one. The bike hub and tourist/info centre (one or the other of which would hopefully be an outlet for the CityBike scheme) are also great.

On the other hand, I have concerns about the pit-like nature of the events lawn, which (on the face of it) doesn't seem particularly conducive to an accessible space. Is it envisaged that there will be access to the lawn directly from the north (the area from which many people would be coming)? Would not it be better to allow some sort of amphitheatre-like stepping into the lawn, if not for the full perimeter then at least in parts -- at the stage area, for instance, when not in use?

I actually think the Mosaic Garden is the riskiest element. I like the idea of an 'interpretative' garden of South Australian flora (and whatnot), but the garden seems slightly labyrinthine. I think that it will depend a lot upon the 'follies', which may need to be more ambitious than expressed in the masterplan.

Of course, I'm HUGELY disappointed that the Square remains dissected by Grote-Wakefield. That space in the centre of the Square, alienated by road, is such a monumental waste. No, really -- monumental. This could be the site of something that puts this plan into the next league. At the very least, I would hope that this area would become a shared zone. I know that sounds wildly unmanageable, but if vehicular traffic is to continue through the central pedestrian space in the city, it ought to have to contend with, and play second fiddle to, pedestrian traffic.

I still can't quite understand how the edges of the square will work in terms of pedestrian access? It appears as though the four corner quadrants have been shaved off, and the road lanes and Square proper pushed out in their place. I think that's good so long as the road lanes are uniformly reduced (3 is probably still one too many). But then, what type of pedestrian crossings are proposed and where? I see zebra crossings on the visualisations, but given discussion elsewhere on this forum, can we really expect that they'll happen? Traffic speed would need to be (and should actually be) reduced to 25kmph. Moreover, is there any solution to the problem of access between the Markets, the tramstop and Square? The mad rush that occurs presently is an accident waiting to happen. I really don't think enough information has been provided here.

Overall, though, the plan seems like a reasonable attempt to satisfy both those who wanted major attractions and those who just wanted an attractive, usable space. For my part, I've always been aghast at suggestions of a 'Federation Square-style development'. It just wouldn't work in this location (and it's not something we should want to work). Rather, I've kind of viewed the space as our sort of Tuileries or Hyde Park Sydney in the centre of the city. So this proposal goes some way to satisfying my vision for Vic Square.

[JamesXander]

Why not just make it into one gigantic round about?


To have grote/wakefield go straight through the middle of Vic Sq would be an epic fail.




Oh and cringeworthy stuff having the aboriginal name in huge font, and victoria square hidden underneath it. The video that is.

[Aidan]

If we were to take that option, I'd remove both the Grote/Wakefield and King William Street roadways, and route all traffic around the Square in one direction. I don't think the Central Market's insistence that closing the Grote/Wakefield roadway would kill the market has much validity. It's never been tested, after all.

The result, for very little money, would be 6 hectares of green park, with a tram running around one edge.

I'd then build a small pub right in the middle, the Victoria, seeing the Polites group is no longer using the name for the pub it owns in Hindley Street. The statue of Queen Victoria could be a feature in the beer garden. Hectares of it - I'd license the whole square. The place would be a Mecca.

I'm quite sober, and serious. Fault my idea.

The fault is obvious: antisocial behaviour from intoxicated people. Have you forgotten why it was made a dry zone in the first place?

[Stubbo]

If we were to take that option, I'd remove both the Grote/Wakefield and King William Street roadways, and route all traffic around the Square in one direction. I don't think the Central Market's insistence that closing the Grote/Wakefield roadway would kill the market has much validity. It's never been tested, after all.

The result, for very little money, would be 6 hectares of green park, with a tram running around one edge.

I'd then build a small pub right in the middle, the Victoria, seeing the Polites group is no longer using the name for the pub it owns in Hindley Street. The statue of Queen Victoria could be a feature in the beer garden. Hectares of it - I'd license the whole square. The place would be a Mecca.

I'm quite sober, and serious. Fault my idea.

The fault is obvious: antisocial behaviour from intoxicated people. Have you forgotten why it was made a dry zone in the first place?

Locate the pub in the middle, and in certain locations surrounding the pub and within the grounds of the beer garden locate a burger bar, yiros bar and a fish and chips bar for the drunk to congregate around, providing alternate focal points.

It could also be used as a good way to test the recent drink walker awareness campaign, with the results published for the greater good of the nation (and attracting significant federal health funding...). A spire would be constructed above the pub, manned 24/7 with lab technicians monitoring the experiment. Once completed and published in a respected health journal, it could easily be turned back into a dry zone and made family friendly...

Seriously though, I like the suggestion of one big round about, ah la whitmore square, that way the middle is reclaimed, and with slight detour there will still be east west traffic...