Sensational-Adelaide.com

Ho Really wrote:
So, if an opinion is different from yours, they are whingers. Design is fine for what they have been restricted too, but the location is wrong for such a building. Yes, pity about the blank walls!


Would rather see those extra floors on Rundle Place than on this development and that is next to the mall! That's a location!

Cheers

The reality is that the developers are going to build a 6000 sqm2 building as that is what they feel the market could absorb. If they had secured the neighbouring property, they would still have most likely persued a 6000 sqm2 building. Except that with a bigger footprint it would not have been 86m, but rather another 40-50m cube.

I am curious to know your objections to this development. Why is the location wrong for the building? and what is wrong with a thin building? I would have thought that it would have been a refreshing change from the fat and stumpy cubes we are accustomed to here in Adelaide.

When driving down the city part of King William St, it has a tall building feeling. I doubt this building will change that.

For reference, 1 KWS is 75m, that red/white thing on the intersection of KWS/Rundle Mall/Hindley is 75m, the former ATO on KWS (now apartments) is 70m, and the Commonwealth Bank building across the street is 68m.

Given the taller Westpac (132m), Grenfell Centre (103m), Telstra (102m) and CC1/ANZ (99m, although 80ish-m without the stupid scaffolding thing on the corner) nearby, and the aforementioned KWS buildings, I think this will fit in nicely.

Omicron wrote:For reference, 1 KWS is 75m, that red/white thing on the intersection of KWS/Rundle Mall/Hindley is 75m, the former ATO on KWS (now apartments) is 70m, and the Commonwealth Bank building across the street is 68m.

Given the taller Westpac (132m), Grenfell Centre (103m), Telstra (102m) and CC1/ANZ (99m, although 80ish-m without the stupid scaffolding thing on the corner) nearby, and the aforementioned KWS buildings, I think this will fit in nicely.

Very well said 'O'.

How do people expect a city to develop, if taller buildings are not allowed to be developed when surrounded by shorter buildings? I'm sure this type of thinking wasn't around when the Westpac building was proposed.

Ho Really wrote: So, if an opinion is different from yours, they are whingers. Design is fine for what they have been restricted too, but the location is wrong for such a building. Yes, pity about the blank walls!

I agree with what your saying and it something that everyone does without actually meaning too.

your clearly not anti- development (hence being on here) having a difference of opinion means the conversations on here will only improve we don't want the board to be a bunch " oh look 20 levels yay build it" people

I'll still be interested if this one ever happens though.

Will wrote: The reality is that the developers are going to build a 6000 sqm2 building as that is what they feel the market could absorb. If they had secured the neighbouring property, they would still have most likely persued a 6000 sqm2 building. Except that with a bigger footprint it would not have been 86m, but rather another 40-50m cube.

Which is a far more suitable outcome for this type of development in that location!

Will wrote:The reality is that the developers are going to build a 6000 sqm2 building as that is what they feel the market could absorb. If they had secured the neighbouring property, they would still have most likely persued a 6000 sqm2 building. Except that with a bigger footprint it would not have been 86m, but rather another 40-50m cube.

That we don't know for certain.

I am curious to know your objections to this development. Why is the location wrong for the building? and what is wrong with a thin building? I would have thought that it would have been a refreshing change from the fat and stumpy cubes we are accustomed to here in Adelaide.

My objections won't stop this building going ahead. To me I find it disturbing that in this city we cannot get the height in proportion to the plots the developers have. Not sure who to blame, but it seems we have an underlining issue that is blocking us from building decent towers (of all shapes and heights) relative to their surroundings. When this building will be completed there will be a huge contrast between Westpac and itself. The old Coop Building across from the Commonwealth Building in King William St., is a prime example of what I am talking about. Very similar in frontage but matching the Commonwealth Building in height and not much taller than the Quest Apartments (old T&G Building on cnr Grenfell and King William). This building is closer to the mark, but that's opinion. The only redeeming aspect (I hope) is that one day those in the Adam Internet building (I think that's what is called) will build a tower of the same height to cover the southern wall, but I think that is strata titled which makes it highly improbable, correct?

As for the stumpy cubes, I can only blame the ACC and its height restrictions. To me height is not the most important aspect of a building, it's good design and functionality.

Cheers

capitalist wrote:

Ho Really wrote: So, if an opinion is different from yours, they are whingers. Design is fine for what they have been restricted too, but the location is wrong for such a building. Yes, pity about the blank walls!

I agree with what your saying and it something that everyone does without actually meaning too.

your clearly not anti- development (hence being on here) having a difference of opinion means the conversations on here will only improve we don't want the board to be a bunch " oh look 20 levels yay build it" people

I'll still be interested if this one ever happens though.

Thanks for the support. Yes, I'm not against development. Like most here I want to see Adelaide outdo everyone else (maybe a little utopian). The potential is there largely to the foundation we have been given. What I want to see is good design and functionality conjoined to decent heights relative to their location. That's all. If this development goes ahead as is, so be it.

Cheers

I really like the proposal

good hight...if its seems to high for the surrounding buildings maybe thats more of an indication that the surrounding buildning need more high to... lets keep it in perspective we are talking about 86m lol put that same building in brissy melb or sydney and you wouldnt even notice it

Personally I think it's a not bad looking building. It is going to stand out at this location, but hopefully that will only go to encourage further developments of middle range height in the area.

There is a website now for the development, www.115kws.com.au which has floor plans etc. There is also a fly through at http://www.115kws.com.au/FlyThrough.asp.



mgb.

Thanks for that MGB. Seems this building is also 27 levels (26 above ground) 25 of strata title, 1 of lobby and cafe.

I noticed something of interest in the video. Anyone care to point out what I just discovered? (Hint: when it highlights the lobby section).

the exit to "waymouth st" ?

Isiskii wrote:I noticed something of interest in the video. Anyone care to point out what I just discovered? (Hint: when it highlights the lobby section).

Plan for City Central complex in the background?