Sensational-Adelaide.com

Xaragmata wrote:

SRW wrote:For a clearer idea of what's proposed, here's the masterplan without trees:

Looks good, but a potential for tram - pedestrian conflict with ped crossings starting / finishing on the tram tracks. At the least, pedestrians waiting for
the lights are likely to obstruct trams ... at the worst ... a job for the Coroner.

+1

In fact, in that diagram posted by SRW, the north-western corner has a cluster of pedestrians standing right in the middle of the tracks. Not good. That's the situation we have now, and while you'd have to be a bit of a clod to miss a thirty-metre lump of moving metal, it's not ideal to end up with exactly the same outcome after spending $100 million to start afresh.

Wayno wrote:You know, it just dawned on me HOW BIG the usable VSQ space will be when this is done. Using my Google Earth ruler, and assuming 3 car lanes all around (12m) & outer footpaths (10m) the central square will be 120m x 300m (notwithstanding the 20m wide road running east-west through it's guts).

That's 18 x 1/4 acre housing blocks. Each half of the square (amphitheatre end, garden end) is as wide as Adelaide Oval (turf) and 2/3rds as long! Quite the oasis!

Certainly puts the cost and magnitude of the redevelopment into perspective ($1800 per square metre based on $100m budget and overall VSQ size of 160m x 350m).

And that sheer size is the fundamental issue here. Time and time again people have shown that they prefer to gather in smaller, more intimate areas rather than stand out by themselves in the middle of wide open spaces. I don't think that anyone can be reasonably confident that the most brilliant of Victoria Square redevelopments would cause a fundamental increase in patronage of its own accord, especially without a significant increase in the residential and commercial population in the immediate area. It's not as if the Square has once been the centre of CBD activity and we are embarking on this project to return it to its busy past - far from it, in fact. VS has only ever been the heart of town on paper.

I like Mr. RubeGoldfingerMachine's notion about how this design 'acknowledges an ambiguity in the space's function'. I agree. I sense that there's a degree of uncertainty as to how the Square will be used once works are complete, and if there will actually be any more people than before - despite the grandiose predictions written in the accompanying materials. Note how the Square continues to remain an entirely separate entity - it will still be a substantial island park located south of the CBD core, near low to mid-density residential areas and low-rise commercial strips (Gouger, Grote etc.), or in other words, a giant park in the middle of an inner-city suburb.

That the new Victoria Square is essentially more of the same but in a much nicer-looking form suggests an acceptance of the realities of its location and the difficulties in convincing people to go further down KWS than they've ever been before. It will be a lovely park - when the trees and plants grow it will look quite lush and inviting, the Three Rivers Fountain at the top of the square is a fine, imposing move (and creates a fantastic north-south photo opportunity along KWS), the paved areas are indeed well-suited for little stalls and the like, and I think it will be a fine place to host the Classic Adelaide, Tour Down Under and other such events. I love the ideas for night-lighting, and I love that they've had the balls to install extra water features (like those running around the edge of the grassed area).

I agree with the idea that an extra lane or two on the eastern side and the complete closure of the western side to vehicular traffic is the most desirable change to the design, provided the lovely central axis is maintained by simply adding extra space over the east lanes rather than picking up the whole design and shifting it sideways. It's probably the most inviting means of entry to the Square that's the most practical, too. Even if that doesn't happen, I have a sneaking suspicion that the 3-lane radial road will be less of a barrier to entry than we think it will.

In short, I think it's a bloody good proposal for our needs - a good city park. I'm not yet convinced that by itself it would bring any more people to the area, but I think it would be a wonderful addition to the city, and I hope it goes ahead.

Oh, and for those that haven't yet done so - go look at this document posted earlier by, er, someone:

http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/ADCC ... report.pdf

It's the 88-page plan, and aside from the usual boring lines and circles and whimsical bosh for the first few pages, when you get to the meaty stuff it's a well-thought-out, informative document. It does answer a lot of the question posed by members, too - there are Tour Down Under configurations presented, for example; traffic movements and effects; and other such useful information.

rubegoldbergdevice wrote:

omada wrote:

by rubegoldbergdevice » Wed May 12, 2010 6:06 pm:

BTW Adelaide already has a "Fed Square" thang of its own. All it would take to bring it together is a coordinated marketing exercise. One day it will dawn on people what it is.

I presume you mean the Festival Centre Plaza area, behind Parliament House? If so, all that area needs is some funky little bars and restaurants, something to make the area "active". Lets hope all these concerns will be addressed in the River Precinct plan.. but thats a whole other story.. sorry thread

Hell no! That stinky, hideous little area needs sticks of dynamite and a total rethink.

No, what I mean is somewhere that already has all the attractions of Fed Sq. It just needs to market itself that way.

It's just been done up too

City Cross? (Rundle Mall Area)

Hindmarsh Square?

City Central Plaza? (behind ANZ)

Haven't had the time to digest anything about this proposal including opinions here (too lazy to go back and read the posts). In short, I don't like it. I think there have been better proposals in the competition that was done a couple of years ago (or whatever). I see too much empty space and not enough trees. Unless there are going to be pavilions and marquees there on a regular basis no one is going to use that space in summer. The arbours are a waste of money and I want to see how they are going to be maintained. As for Wakefield-Grote I think that should be a priority undergrounding, regardless of what plan they go ahead with. Anyway, whatever they do I hope they get it right, because I have come to a conclusion that most things done in this city (airport an exception) have been half-baked and a waste of money.

Cheers

PS. Sorry for the negativity.

A reminder: The proposal that was shelved not long after Harbo became Lord Mayor:


I think the new proposal is much better.

I'm querying the cost. I heard Mr Taylor from landscapers Taylor Cullity Lethlean say that they will be retaining the fountain and the existing tramline.

Hmm, I thought, how extensive is the job going to be?

Considering the huge budget of $100,000,000 ($1250 per sq metre!!) you would expect a complete redesign.

stumpjumper wrote:I'm querying the cost. I heard Mr Taylor from landscapers Taylor Cullity Lethlean say that they will be retaining the fountain and the existing tramline.

Nmm, I thought, how extensive is the job going to be?

Considering the huge budget of $100,000,000 ($1250 per sq metre!!) you would expect a complete redesign.

It is a complete redesign, nothing will be in the same place it is currently. The fountain's sculptures are to be moved to a new fountain, we're not 100% sure on this point; but I think the tramlines are to be moved comparing the design to where they are now, the lawn and southern wet/garden will be sunken. All new plantings and etc.

stumpjumper: what is your basis of saying $1250/sqm is expensive? This includes the associated road works and utility relocation. Remembering that this is a very high traffic area and we don't want it to be full of pot holes and cracked pavement in 12 months time. Quality costs money.

SA's most expensive real estate, prime sites on Rundle Mall, fetch $3,700/sqm/year in rent. Apples and oranges, I know, but it's some context.

Just on the fountain: it will be moved to the northern tip of the Square, and the designers propose to remove its basin to encourage 'playful interaction' and 'visual integration' (especially as they desire it to flow through to 'rivers' either side of the lawn).

I think that $100,000,000 is the fully pimped, bling bling option for the site.

By way of comparison, when Chicago built Millenium Park around the turn of the century, the initial estimates for the price was $150 million; the final price was $475 million. The park is 99,000 sqm, which gives $4750 per sqm. And that was US dollars, and between 1998-2004.

SRW wrote:Just on the fountain: it will be moved to the northern tip of the Square, and the designers propose to remove its basin to encourage 'playful interaction' and 'visual integration' (especially as they desire it to flow through to 'rivers' either side of the lawn).

Hmm. Makes sense for children splashing about in Moseley Square, but I don't know about children splashing about on the corner of Franklin, Flinders and KWS. Still, yay for the expansion of water features.

This city has long been called backwater - and although it helps - it certainly isn't going to bring tourists or much foot traffic to the area.

No hate here, I like it. Futuristic all the way, and filled with modern art too? Bonus! (Will never happen, of course)

yousername wrote:...Go on, bring on the hate.

THIS is not the visions forum, that's the only hate I'm bringing to you.

Please repost this in the proper place and kindly ask a VIP member to clean up your mess

I don't like the latest proposal at all.

The history of Victoria Square can only be described as infamous. What has long supposed to be a jewel in the crown of the Adelaide City’s square mile has escaped success for almost 175 years.

Colonel William Light; the founder of Adelaide established a glorious master plan for the City of Adelaide, back in 1838. A city surrounded by nature, from outside and from within; imposed on a city grid of one square mile is hailed by many planners and city enthusiasts as one of the great urban layouts of mankind. Despite the accolade, the city’s squares and parklands are a continued reminder of the testament of failure, long neglected and unresolved after almost two centuries from creation.

The centrepiece of Light’s Vision; Victoria Square was envisioned as nature’s oasis in the centre of the city, much akin to New York’s Central Park albeit on a far smaller, however just as grandiose scale. Situated at the intersection of Adelaide’s two main boulevards; King William Street and Grote/Wakefield Streets – It was the convergence of which were to form the political and commercial axis of the city respectively. However this is not the case, because the city's commercial district formed along Rundle and Hindley streets instead (where it was closer to source water from at the time). Consequently, we have a great park in the middle of our city which remains elusive as a destination.

Many factors contribute to its poor form, crafted by an array of historical events, political negligence, diminished pride, community warfare and financial implications - and today we are again challenged to resolve what has been an arduous task. This is an opportunity which we can and must not accept failure for; second best is not an option. We should strive to achieve a design which captures and restores the brilliance of Light's Vision, in tribute to its true form but not withstanding a compromise servicing the needs of sustainability across several mediums - Economical benefit, environmental friendliness, ergonomical satisfaction and political honor.

Most are quick to the explore the fantasies of unlimited imagination and potential, by ignoring key elements and several factors of importance; one crucial to Victoria Square - its historical significance. What we have today, and what we have proposed are both designs bastardized beyond imagination by the concept and intention of Light's Vision. "Thou shalt not cross the King's path" (or something similar) was a saying of the times in his day - one influential to the characteristics of which Light's Vision was created. Whilst the streets which crossed over changed names, this remains true - but the current design nor the proposed preserves the the real integrity of the statement which that the path through Victoria Square has been altered, as traffic parts ways and is rerouted around the square - much disrespect to the King!

Crucial to the design, I believe; King William Street should be restored as the thoroughfare it once was - running directly through the Square. From there, the potential is unlimited. This opens up the opportunity for street frontages to be activated, allowing users to spill out directly onto the square, then onto oncoming traffic. Look at the success of the North Terrace streetscape upgrade, where people enjoy and utilize the boulevard's seats, surroundings before and after they visit the art gallery, or going to university. The same principle need only apply also to Victoria Square - albeit, with a bit more imagination and potential to open up large alfresco areas for new restaurants, etc. The creation of many intimate spaces in the area by having 4 quadrants, rather than one big park where people are concentrated more closely together will help create an pockets of atmosphere which people will become drawn to and will move across to, contributing the success of the place as a whole.

Activating the square cannot come from within if it outcasts itself from its surroundings, much like the current proposal does. Victoria Square's issue isn't all just in itself, but to the buildings which surround it also. There should be incentives provided to encourage restaurants, nightclubs, cafes, retail stores, surrounding the square so that people actually have reason to visit the place and hover around. Encouraging foot traffic to and from the square requires a redesigning of the spaces leading into it, so that movement is facilitated towards the square. This together with a mix of new retail varieties surrounding will help facilitate the movement of people across and within the square.