News & Discussion: Low/Mid-Rise CBD Development

[Mants]

awful!!!
i prefer what is there currently.
this had better be rejected for not fitting in with the rundle street character. the acc can come up with some dribble like that, surely.

[Will]

In this case the ACC would be completely justified in refusing development approval. Rundle Street has a largely intact late 1800's early 1900's streetscape. In fact the building that would be demolished is regarded as a fine example of a turn of the centry retail building.

The proposed building is grotesque and looks out of character with the street. It looks like a giant public toilet.

[mgb]

Maybe I missed something with this, but is it just me or does the "new" building look just like the old building with something stuck on the back & top? ie, it is a cheap extension to the original building, which would make sense given the ground floor of the existing building is currently undergoing repainting/refitout.
Have to agree the design is pretty average. Even the Nova building looks like it fits in better with the Rundle Street look.

[Shuz]

Epic fail.

I hereby grant my full support to the ACC to reject this development.

[AtD]

Just to drive the point... some people accuse us of being for development for development sake. That may be true, but please don't let that building be built! It's ghastly!

It'd probably be alright for other streets, like Carrington St or Hutt St, but Rundle deserves better.

[joshzxzx]

I completely agree with the previous comments. This definitely does not blend in with its surroundings! At least if it building was maybe 18-25 stories high then I may think different. but for 4 measly stories, keep the heritage and improve something else.

And if this appalling development gets approved.. well what more can I say the council are blind and prob stupid!

[Vee]

In this case the ACC would be completely justified in refusing development approval. Rundle Street has a largely intact late 1800's early 1900's streetscape. In fact the building that would be demolished is regarded as a fine example of a turn of the centry retail building.

The proposed building is grotesque and looks out of character with the street. It looks like a giant public toilet.

Too kind, Will!

Agree!!! Extremely ugly and out of place. It's a prominent location and this will certainly diminish/ruin the streetscape in one of Adelaide's classic streets!!! A definite candidate for a 'brickbat' award but I hope it never wins because I hope sanity prevails and it gets scrapped. Please - developers, architects, ACC, anyone - don't let this abomination proceed.

[Matt]

That is HIDEOUS.

Why are they demolishing the existing building?
I think it's one of the nicer Rundle Street buildings personally. Certainly not worthy of being razed for that abomination.

[Just build it]

This gets a big lol from me. Just goes to show how fearful developers are to avoid the costs involved with the recent wave of negativity from the DAP. Pitch an initial design that's ultra conservative and pray it goes through first time. IMO this proposal proves just how low design thinks it has to sink to please the DAP at the moment. The ACC should be ashamed.

I can hardly believe they'll tear down the existing building to then build a cheaper, tackier looking direct copy of it. Worse still, the new building only has one opening on the first floor facing north. WTF? The Rundle Street frontage and view is the absolute money shot of the whole block of land and they only make use of it by putting in ONE door?! Massive

I'll bet $100 it gets approved on the agreement that the 'blades' on the roof are removed because they 'don't blend with the heritage surroundings'.

[david]

Rundle/Union Corner Update
The DAP tonight did not agree to support this application on going forward to the DAC. The DAP took the unusual step of discussing the application in confidence but the decision was supported by a raft of reasons largely based on the advice of the Council's heritage adviser and the Character Statements for the area.
David

[AtD]

For once I think the majority if this forum agree with the rejection! Thanks for the update, David.

[jk1237]

Rundle/Union Corner Update
The DAP tonight did not agree to support this application on going forward to the DAC. The DAP took the unusual step of discussing the application in confidence but the decision was supported by a raft of reasons largely based on the advice of the Council's heritage adviser and the Character Statements for the area.
David

oh David, thankyou so much. That proposal made me angry, it was a total insult to Adelaide, so Im glad it was dealt with accordingly

[Omicron]

Hooray! A positive outcome.

[Prince George]

One aspect of this that I'm curious about was this detail in Ben's post about the proposal:

The council planning staff have recommend the DAP support the proposal

This makes me wonder what the role of the planning staff is in the development process. What was the reason for the planners supporting this development, what are the criteria that they assess developments against?

I also note that in the thread on the Light Square tower there was some disdain thrown around for the council "ignoring the advice of their own planners" (who likewise recommended support for it), a theme that wasn't repeated here. Evidentally, what was sauce for the goose wasn't sauce for the gander

[Just build it]

To me personally, this proposal and the Light Sq proposal are different animals completely. This one was being demolished to build a mound of mediocrity on a prime block of land in Adelaide's premier street. The existing building, although not a real gem itself, actually blends well with it's surroundings and the new facades replacing it would have only been tacky copies of the original. IMHO if they're going to demolish anything in Rundle St then it should be replaced with something outstanding.

The Light Sq proposal has more merit and TBH, the existing building is an old warehouse/office on a side of the Sq already filled with new (ish) developments. From memory, the building's entire northern side and half the western side are filled by large warehouse doors, I don't think it has any detail on the eastern side and the southern side is simple and presentable but not outstanding. I imagine the interior would need to be completely gutted to incorporate it into any new project leaving only the outer walls.

As a developer or apartment buyer (I'm not, but if I were) there's little chance I'd consider it as a base for a multi-million dollar residential/office project either. It can look ok in the perfect photo but walk around it and it's really not that great. The new office tower that's been proposed would actually better match the streetscape of the eastern side of the square and also inject another 500 people into a traditionally 'dead' area.....but an area that should start coming to life in the next decade with the residential towers planned to go up around it. In comparison I walked past the current building Mon-Fri for three years and can't remember seeing a single person walk into or come out of it.

Plus, I figure if the heritage fundamentalist groups of Adelaide have assessed it and found it not worthy of heritage listing then......