Sensational-Adelaide.com

Will wrote: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?

Oh c'mon Will. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

North Terrace deserves something far better. Something with amazing design, decent height and glass would look brilliant on this site.

This proposal would look better on Angas Street for example.

I don't mind it. It's certainly not startling or amazing but very little really is. I do think it would be a nice rejuvenation of the very ageing North Terrace boulevard (or at least, the eastern side of KWS) particularly if the Queen Adelaide club building a few properties along also goes ahead.

I actually quite like a very strong contrast between ground level frontages and the towers built over the top. Fits this location since for better and worse we already have a similar thing going on with the Myer Centre.

The main thing that bothers me about this building is the side walls. I understand they are probably up against boundaries so can't have windows, but they should incorporate some kind of decoration because those walls of bare concrete will just look hideous.

crawf wrote:

Will wrote: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?

Oh c'mon Will. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

North Terrace deserves something far better. Something with amazing design, decent height and glass would look brilliant on this site.

This proposal would look better on Angas Street for example.

Crawf, this isn't about people not being entitled to an opinion.

I understand that architecture is art, and thus will provoke alternate opinions.

My brain exploded yesterday, because I recall that a frequent criticism of new high-rise developments in Adelaide, is that they are hamstrung by having to 'respect' the architecture of neighbouring heritage buildings, thus making them bland, boring, beige boxes with faux sandstone. Another common complaint is that our 'tall' buildings look like podiums of never built towers - i.e. they are short, fat and boxy.

Thus, when I opened this thread, and saw that people were complaining that this building should 'respect' the look of the existing heritage building and that it is too thin and should be reduced in height.....

For the record, I don't think this is an architectural masterpiece, but equally it isn't offensive. What people should consider is that developers seeking to rehabilitate old derelict heritage buildings have extra costs, which unfortunately may mean extravagant architecture becomes unviable. I would rather this development proceed, rather than the site remain derelict for years and eventually fall into such a state that it has to be demolished.

The building itself looks ok , looks like the ceiling of the upper floor balconies could be cladded in hardwood, which would look brilliant when illuminated. Having said that if your going to add on to an old building it has to compliment it and not look stuck on/ cut and pasted . In my opinion this doesn't work will the original building . I like those proposals or builds whee the new building dominates even engulfs the original heritage building.

Will wrote:
My brain exploded yesterday, because I recall that a frequent criticism of new high-rise developments in Adelaide, is that they are hamstrung by having to 'respect' the architecture of neighbouring heritage buildings, thus making them bland, boring, beige boxes with faux sandstone. Another common complaint is that our 'tall' buildings look like podiums of never built towers - i.e. they are short, fat and boxy.

Thus, when I opened this thread, and saw that people were complaining that this building should 'respect' the look of the existing heritage building and that it is too thin and should be reduced in height.....

I agree with you here. A well designed modern building can look fantastic above an existing heritage building. Old vs new type thing.

For the record, I don't think this is an architectural masterpiece, but equally it isn't offensive. What people should consider is that developers seeking to rehabilitate old derelict heritage buildings have extra costs, which unfortunately may mean extravagant architecture becomes unviable. I would rather this development proceed, rather than the site remain derelict for years and eventually fall into such a state that it has to be demolished.

After doing some research, I since discovered that Catcon/Woodhead only have control of the middle portion of the heritage buildings. I was under impression that these buildings were just one, but that's not the case. So I can now understand why the developers have gone for a proposal like this. I also remembered there is a 20 level proposal for the eastern portion and 199 North Terrace.



It's unlikely this will happen, but I would love for one of the owners to buy the whole site and combine it into one big development. For example.. the heritage buildings converted into retail and dining, with a 20-25 level mixed tower above. It would need to have lots of glass, curves and stunning features.

If this marketed well (eg VUE), it would sell extremely fast... smack bang in the Rundle Mall precinct, opposite the museum/university precinct, close to the riverbank, would have stunning northern views, frequent public transport on it's door step and North Terrace will no doubt attract more big fashion names in the future.

Instead of two completely different buildings right next to each other. Though if I had a choice, I would prefer the 199-200 North Terrace proposal.

Looks like this one is going ahead.

http://203northterrace.com.au

Are folk in this forum still generally aghast at the design?

It could have been better, more iconic or even taller... but I like the sleekness and think it would fit in nicely to that area. There's no "pods" or extraneous stuff; not aesthetically cluttered.

North Terrace is a strange strip. On one side you have many of our a landmark buildings both modern and heritage from the new RAH/SAHMRI & Railway station- right down to the original Adelaide uni site, of course stopping short of the Old RAH. A diverse mix of buildings offering great street level aesthetics atmosphere and public interaction.

On the other side you have strip of turd. Of course there are some nice heritage buildings along this side but they are disgraced and overshadowed by the likes of John Martins, Myer Center extension, several abandoned eye sores, the Stamford, my favourite the My Budget building and the list goes on.

Having said all of that, I don't mind this building, it's not an eye sore and it's not going to win any awards. It's better being built than not. Good height, doesn't disrespect nor compliment the existing buildings underneath it. I think the night time render looks better, I like the large open balconies and what appears the be hardwood clad ceilings, which will look sensational illuminated.

serca wrote:North Terrace is a strange strip. On one side you have many of our a landmark buildings both modern and heritage from the new RAH/SAHMRI & Railway station- right down to the original Adelaide uni site, of course stopping short of the Old RAH. A diverse mix of buildings offering great street level aesthetics atmosphere and public interaction.

On the other side you have strip of turd. Of course there are some nice heritage buildings along this side but they are disgraced and overshadowed by the likes of John Martins, Myer Center extension, several abandoned eye sores, the Stamford, my favourite the My Budget building and the list goes on.

Having said all of that, I don't mind this building, it's not an eye sore and it's not going to win any awards. It's better being built than not. Good height, doesn't disrespect nor compliment the existing buildings underneath it. I think the night time render looks better, I like the large open balconies and what appears the be hardwood clad ceilings, which will look sensational illuminated.

Haha, "strip of turd" I love that! I completely agree, there is no consistency on the Southern strip of North Terrace. Whilst one or two improvements have been made (John Martin's Carpark for one) there is still a lot of tidying up that needs to be done, particularly between Adelaide Central Plaza and Stephens Place but also between KWS and Bank Street - the fact that the Gawler Chambers still haven't been worked on, even just to improve the building and lease the space out for offices without a building built behind it would drastically bring life back to that corner or Gawler Place.

I'm glad to see this going ahead it'll see the restoration of a grand old building and once again bring life back to this area of North Terrace.

Still can't say I'm a huge fan of the design. From that picture of the render Ben posted, I think the blank western wall (reminds me of one of the walls of the Globe Apartments) and the prominence of the building in our skyline exacerbating the mediocre design are my main issues.

That said, my dislike for the building has waned, and that side of North Terrace isn't quite as nice as I made it out to be. I can see that the advantages of the development (redeveloped derelict old building, more jobs) probably outweigh the mediocre design. I've gone from not wanting it to go ahead to being ambivalent but more on the side of being for it. But it's not a building I'd like to see repeated too much throughout the city.

This is now advertised on realestate.com.au :

http://www.realestate.com.au/property-a ... -120755321

5 of the 14 are already pre - committed which is pretty good progress given that they
are advertising the apartments for $3.15 million each

$3.15M That's some serious coin, seems way over priced. You'd think price would be higher on the upper floors?

serca wrote:$3.15M That's some serious coin, seems way over priced. You'd think price would be higher on the upper floors?

$10,000 per square metre of living area, give or take. Bargain!