[COM] 269 North Terrace | 119m | 36 Levels | Student accommodation

[Nort]

I am tending to agree. I like the building overall, but the street level doesn't fit that strip of North Terrace.

At the same time it's hard to figure out a decent solution. Other buildings on North Terrace have kept older structures as ground level facades but the church on the site isn't really suitable for that. Also at the same time, the site doesn't seem big enough to build a podium and have a setback.

[SBD]

I am tending to agree. I like the building overall, but the street level doesn't fit that strip of North Terrace.

At the same time it's hard to figure out a decent solution. Other buildings on North Terrace have kept older structures as ground level facades but the church on the site isn't really suitable for that. Also at the same time, the site doesn't seem big enough to build a podium and have a setback.

Looking at pages 7-9 of the report to the SCAP, it does not look possible to completely satisfy both the Government Architect and the State Heritage Branch who care about the State Heritage Place next door. The Government Architect appears to want a building that extends to and dominates the corner of the block and the North Terrace street frontage. The Heritage Branch is pleased that the set back aligns with the setback of the State Heritage Place (presumably in contrast to the current structure).

I'm not entirely certain I can define a single "the character" of North Terrace between Pulteney Street and East Terrace to expect any new building to fit. I think the heritage buildings have survived quite well with a range of different times of "modern" inserted between them.

[Ben]

Deferred:

The State Commission Assessment Panel resolved to defer consideration of the development to allow the applicant to explore in more detail the following issues:
• In association with the Associate Government Architect and the State Heritage Branch, consider the introduction of pedestrian protection at ground level on both street facades.
• Demonstrate that external materials and finishes will deliver the stated architectural design integrity.
• The provision of more realistic streetscape imagery from Frome Street and North Terrace that includes existing and approved developments.
• Provision of lift access to the basement.

[HiTouch]

This isn't a bad thing. There are some good reasons to defer. It also shows that they're clearly not against the development.

[ozisnowman]

Deferred:

The State Commission Assessment Panel resolved to defer consideration of the development to allow the applicant to explore in more detail the following issues:
• In association with the Associate Government Architect and the State Heritage Branch, consider the introduction of pedestrian protection at ground level on both street facades.
• Demonstrate that external materials and finishes will deliver the stated architectural design integrity.
• The provision of more realistic streetscape imagery from Frome Street and North Terrace that includes existing and approved developments.
• Provision of lift access to the basement.

This sort of crap from the Assessment Panel - obviously we don't have detailed development guidelines on how our city should look. Development guidelines seem to be on a development to development basis.
Were was such criteria when they were Assessing "The Sponge"

[Ben]

Deferred:

The State Commission Assessment Panel resolved to defer consideration of the development to allow the applicant to explore in more detail the following issues:
• In association with the Associate Government Architect and the State Heritage Branch, consider the introduction of pedestrian protection at ground level on both street facades.
• Demonstrate that external materials and finishes will deliver the stated architectural design integrity.
• The provision of more realistic streetscape imagery from Frome Street and North Terrace that includes existing and approved developments.
• Provision of lift access to the basement.

This sort of crap from the Assessment Panel - obviously we don't have detailed development guidelines on how our city should look. Development guidelines seem to be on a development to development basis.
Were was such criteria when they were Assessing "The Sponge"

Perhaps it is these developments that have pressured them into taking more consideration in what the delivered materials will be rather then just taking it from a glossy render.

[HiTouch]

Yeah I think the "spongebob on meth" was a line in the sand. I can confirm there was a significant amount of feedback passed on the ACC in regards to the development.

Another thing that is brought up as a reason is that the renders don't show what this building will look like with the Adelaidean and the other student development nearby.

[Ser Noit of Loit]

I'm fine with this one being put on hold. The building is decent and would be good for Adelaide, just not in this location. I don't like how it's right next to the future tallest when there is so much free space in the city.

[Jaymz]

Deferred:

The State Commission Assessment Panel resolved to defer consideration of the development to allow the applicant to explore in more detail the following issues:
• In association with the Associate Government Architect and the State Heritage Branch, consider the introduction of pedestrian protection at ground level on both street facades.
• Demonstrate that external materials and finishes will deliver the stated architectural design integrity.
• The provision of more realistic streetscape imagery from Frome Street and North Terrace that includes existing and approved developments.
• Provision of lift access to the basement.

And it's a good thing. Lots of development going on in our CBD right now. Cranes dotted everywhere..... and most pleasingly all from private investment.

However, happy this one got deferred. The day we start approving buildings based on some cartoon drawings, is the day we start on the slippery slope to becoming a smaller version of Brisbane.

[Patrick_27]

I'm fine with this one being put on hold. The building is decent and would be good for Adelaide, just not in this location. I don't like how it's right next to the future tallest when there is so much free space in the city.

Is this not the same kind of argument that I've been getting torn apart over? Regarding the placement of high-rise development in the city...

[Jaymz]

Deferred:

The State Commission Assessment Panel resolved to defer consideration of the development to allow the applicant to explore in more detail the following issues:
• In association with the Associate Government Architect and the State Heritage Branch, consider the introduction of pedestrian protection at ground level on both street facades.
• Demonstrate that external materials and finishes will deliver the stated architectural design integrity.
• The provision of more realistic streetscape imagery from Frome Street and North Terrace that includes existing and approved developments.
• Provision of lift access to the basement.

This sort of crap from the Assessment Panel - obviously we don't have detailed development guidelines on how our city should look. Development guidelines seem to be on a development to development basis.
Were was such criteria when they were Assessing "The Sponge"

Because the "sponge" is nowhere near 100 metres tall, also built in an area crying out for development. Not built on our finest cultural boulevard. And to be honest, I'm warming to that building. I fly past the city weekly and it gets my attention, not entirely in a bad way.

[Ser Noit of Loit]

I'm fine with this one being put on hold. The building is decent and would be good for Adelaide, just not in this location. I don't like how it's right next to the future tallest when there is so much free space in the city.

Is this not the same kind of argument that I've been getting torn apart over? Regarding the placement of high-rise development in the city...

Sort of. I always said I like development and tall buildings in the city so long as they're in a good place and they're not hurting the area. It's not like I support every development that's proposed. In the case of this building though I wouldn't get fussed if it were approved, though I'd prefer it if it were somewhere else. Maybe just a block away as this area could become a cool skyline nook. Also I haven't been one tearing you apart over this.

To clarify, the biggest reason I don't like this building being here is it blocks the view of Adelaidean. This is nothing about the developers, it's a citzen's view who would rather the bigger, premium building be seen unobstructed from North Terrace.

[Mpol03]

If the Sponge has made the ACC more vigilant in approving quality, I am all for it. I love seeing all of this development in our city but the last five years have been hit and miss. If we make developers more accountable for what they place in our city, we can only get a better outcome.

I really like the design of this, but they were right to deffer. A proposal like this relies so heavily on the quality and finish of the materials. Being student accommodation the outcome could have been scary, so the right decision was made. Let's hope the developer can prove they are wanting to develop quality and come through with the goods

When will this get back to the ACC for approval? Anyone know?

[SRW]

Remember everyone, developments of this value are no longer approved by the ACC. This student tower and the one on Waymouth St are subject to the State DAC.

That said, I agree more attention should be paid to design in approvals. We don’t really know what effect the pre-lodgement design review process has had on developments. I think the ACC should look to put more specific objectives for design into the next development plan update so it’s clearer for developer and community.

As for this student tower, but for concern over materials, I’m ok with the design and actually appreciate the street level interface.

[rev]

Something like this would be a better design option.

2C34C886-ECFB-44D9-8D22-4B5946F80691.jpeg (175.77 KiB) Viewed 3375 times