[COM] Ernst & Young Tower | 51m | 13lvls | Office

[Howie]

Thanks fellas. By the way Norman do you have a image host like flickr ? Because we might be implementing file size restrictions on postings. Attachments add too much to our forum backup.

[Ben]

When the talk about the Site of the Criterion I wonder if this means CC4 or just the Electra House redevelopment... Wasn't a very informative article.

[bm7500]

Those f'ing blinds on CC1!

The Seagram Building in New York City pioneered the 3-stage blinds - fully open, half open or fully closed, back in 1958. It does make a hell of a difference.

Exactly! Developers spend big $$$$ on bringing an architectually eye pleasing building to market, only to have it spoiled by some shithouse blinds!! At the very least, they should have black backing on them

[UrbanSG]

Ben I think they are only talking about the Electra House redevelopment for now. Whilst it will be a nice addition to this area, they are acting as though this is a tower development in itself the way they are carrying on about it. Once CC2 and the Electra House development is complete the entire northern portion of the site will be fully developed. Then the focus should finally shift to the south with CC4 and 8 in particular and the hotel development. I would have thought something would have happened regarding CC4 by now considering it needs to be done before the GPO redevelopment can occur as CC4 will be primarily for the relocation of Australia Post facilities. Anyway nothing we didn't already know in that article regarding City Central.

The best thing to come out of the article is that there are some big tenant requirements looming next year which sounds positive.

[Will]

I am actually quite happy with the way CCT2 is turning out. I like the building's blinds and fins. I really appreaciate how the architects decided to pay homage to the old Advertiser building, by incorporating such features.

[Norman]

Thanks fellas. By the way Norman do you have a image host like flickr ? Because we might be implementing file size restrictions on postings. Attachments add too much to our forum backup.

I might do something on my server for images that don't belong in the main gallery. Thanks for the heads-up though

[UrbanSG]

CC2, hating the exposed concrete. Wish they would do something with it. Signage at the top may help but it looks like they may leave the rest exposed. They are also fixing the panles on CC1 which were put on incorrectly (too many lighter ones in the wrong spots I think, plus a broken one). Pic from today:

[Mants]

it would look better if they used the same cladding as they did on the south-western corner of cc1.
an absolute shocker from the southerly perspective. it doesnt look too bad from other angles though.
im hoping future buildings in city central block out its southern facade!

[Pants]

Hate to whinge, but that's f'n aweful and completely takes away from anything that's good about the rest of the building.

Surely the comparatively small cost of either using the silver cladding used on the western wall of CC1 or continuing with the window panelling as they have done over some of the edges of the core would be worth it.

This is the most important view of city central - from Vic Square - and won't get built out, so I really hope they do something with it.

[Will]

I too would like to voice my dissapointed over the decision to leave so much exposed concrete. I really hope they cover it up, because it really cheapens the building.

This is a render of the building: (courtesy of Pants)




It appears that originally, there was not going to be any exposed concrete. If not fixed, this suggests that this building can be added to the list of high-rise buildings which have been dumbed down.

[Plasmatron]

Am I the only one who thinks CC1 would probably look better without the spire? It sees kind of... awkwardly positioned, tacked on at the last minute. Regarding CC2, it's good enough considering the location, I suppose. Would have preferred it without the pods and visible concrete though. Just look how much nicer the render looks (and the roof-line is flatter without bits sticking up).

[Pants]

I too would like to voice my dissapointed over the decision to leave so much exposed concrete. I really hope they cover it up, because it really cheapens the building.

This is a render of the building: (courtesy of Pants)




It appears that originally, there was not going to be any exposed concrete. If not fixed, this suggests that this building can be added to the list of high-rise buildings which have been dumbed down.

Yeah, this was an old render Will from when the building was going to have a central core. The core got moved south and the architects/developers/whoever decided in all their wisdom that there was no need to continue with the glass (or any) cladding.

It really is an awful result that isn’t much better than the Advertiser building it replaced.

[Ben]

I never understood why the core wasn't where the blank wall of CC1 was.

[urban]

I never understood why the core wasn't where the blank wall of CC1 was.

That's far too logical.

[Pants]

Am I the only one who thinks CC1 would probably look better without the spire?

Nope. The spire looks like an afterthought that has no reference point in the rest of the building and the roofs of both buildings are hugely unappealing.

Again, these are predominantly OK buildings, nothing spectacular but nothing too offensive, but the cheapness of the exposed concrete and plant etc really ruins them, and for me at least, makes them unwelcome additions to the skyline.

I probably wouldn’t care as much if we weren’t promised so much with City Central and it wasn’t the best development spot in town, but…