[COM] The Switch - 203 North Terrace | 119m | 35 levels | Student Accom

[Phantom]

It looks like it will topple over if the wind blows too hard. I'm all for height and buildings, but I really do hope the render does not accurate represent the final product.

Hmmm I'd say if 111 West 57th Street in NYC is sound then this building is pretty safe

Oh Jesus! I've never seen that before! How flimsy does that look?

[Will]

This proposal was deferred at the DAC meeting.

[Will]

At its meeting on June 12, the state government DAC granted planning APPROVAL to this development, after the developer made some modifications to the original proposal.

These modifications are as follows:

The revisions to the treatment of the northern façade is as follows:
• Internal alterations to the ground floor (to consolidate egress paths and reduce the number
of penetrations through the main facade);
• Deletion of the proposed new door at the eastern end of the northern façade (made possible
by the changes noted above);
• Revised treatment of fire hydrant and gas meter provisions; and
• Alternative treatment of existing ‘vehicle’ access opening.

[Alyx]

Source: http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/planning/adelaide_investment

[wilkiebarkid]

So UNDERWHELMINGLY Adelaide.

[pushbutton]

That looks absolutely horrific. Far too tall for such a narrow block, and shows no respect whatsoever for the original building it will become part of.

Does the council not have the streetscape / aesthetics as one of its considerations when assessing planning applications?

[crawf]

That looks absolutely horrific. Far too tall for such a narrow block, and shows no respect whatsoever for the original building it will become part of.

Gotta agree with this.

[slenderman]

Also agree. Ugly design. Why do we get such boring architecture in Adelaide? Look at designs like Vue for inspiration (probably impossible on this site, but still)! This is boxy, bland and, as pushbutton said, doesn't complement the heritage (why does that ugly box thing that the tower sits on even exist?). It's also that classic Adelaide ~18 storey, 72m box that we have countless of already. I guess it's good if it breathes some life into the buildings below and adds more people to the area, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if this never got up.

[Will]

Hold on, have I been transported into another dimension?

The same people who complain about faux sandstone are complaining about this building "not respecting the heritage of its surroundings"

Seriously, WTF?!

The reason people think of us as a backwater, is not because "nothing happens in SA", it's because when something doesn't happen, people whinge, and when something happens, people whinge....

Where is the wank emoticon?

[wilkiebarkid]

Hold on, have I been transported into another dimension?

WTF?!

Where is the wank emoticon?

Unusual rant Will, but for me it is just another non-descript, boring, lack of any architectural merit proposal. Agree with Pushbutton and Slenderman here.

[how good is he]

I am all for things to happen and hate whinging......but when something is just plain SHIT it's hard to get excited...

[Mants]

we made the mistake once with the monstrosities adjacent to the strathmore. not again. north terrace deserves better imo.

[SRW]

It's always interesting to see how people react to different buildings on this site. For my own, this design is of equal or better standard than Ibis or Conservatory, two buildings I find it odd to see lauded. The proposal is certainly not innovative, but -- pending more details on façade treatments (and confirmation that the screen on the car park levels is opaque) -- it delivers more good than bad, mostly by rehabilitating an abandoned site and contributing to residential density. Though unremarkable, it's essentially as inoffensive as the rest of North Tce's apartment architecture and I can live with that.

[Patrick_27]

Agree with SRW, I don't feel this is any more out or touch/invasive than any of the other attempts at modern meets heritage on North Terrace: Gawler Chambers, Myer Centre, the old John Martins carpark, the only difference is that it stands out more with the lack of high-rise buildings directly surrounding it.

I feel if you shortened it to between 50-60m, applied more eastern and western windows, halved the buildings depth (setting it further away frin North Terrace) and had it sit above both heritage buildings below and it'd probably work more. However, I understand the building next door is owned by the contractors who are redeveloping Rundle Mall, their intention is to build up with that site also.

[pushbutton]

The point is that it will be on top of (and therefore become part of) an old building which has traditional architecture.

I don't personally think the old building is particularly beautiful, and I wouldn't be too upset if it were demolished. However if it is to be kept and extended vertically, then the extension surely needs to blend in. That's not saying the extension can't be modern, but the architect needs to put very careful thought into the shapes and colours used.

The other thing that's obvious to me is that it will only sit on top of one half of the original building. Why? If it were widened to use the full width of the original building as a base, then that in itself would make it look better too.

It just seems like no real thought was put into this one. Just a cheap, off the shelf option I think. The council should be able to reject such planning applications on the above grounds.