[APP] Queen Adelaide Club | 83m | 21 levels | Mixed

[stumpjumper]

I doubt that the glazing to the north would be floor to ceiling clear. Too much heat and probably too much of the old biddies in residence.

slenderman - re setbacks: the whole site is only about 21m x 20m. If you had meaningful setbacks, say 6m, you'd only have about 14m x 15m to build the tower, ie it would be a bit cramped. The setbacks in Pirie St are generally 8m to 12m, which if applied here would leave you with FA to build in.

As for local heritage listing absolutely disallowing demolition, if that were the case you would have to ask what further protection state heritage listing offered. I agree that there should be a very strong bias against demolition of local heritage but I think the applicant here makes a pretty good case for replacing the old buildings.

[Patrick_27]

The only point worth noting, that I feel kills the design. In the renders, the glass is so clear that you can see the floor by floor concrete slabs; looks tacky.

[slenderman]

I doubt that the glazing to the north would be floor to ceiling clear. Too much heat and probably too much of the old biddies in residence.

slenderman - re setbacks: the whole site is only about 21m x 20m. If you had meaningful setbacks, say 6m, you'd only have about 14m x 15m to build the tower, ie it would be a bit cramped. The setbacks in Pirie St are generally 8m to 12m, which if applied here would leave you with FA to build in.

As for local heritage listing absolutely disallowing demolition, if that were the case you would have to ask what further protection state heritage listing offered. I agree that there should be a very strong bias against demolition of local heritage but I think the applicant here makes a pretty good case for replacing the old buildings.

I don't think the building needs to be set back from the heritage, just built directly over the top (like 379 KWS is). Could that be achieved by demolishing the buildings, but leaving only the facade walls and then building up the glassy tower from that? I know absolutely nothing about this building's inside, so I guess this might not be possible. But if it is possible, it would satisfy heritage fans and look nicer at street level.

Re heritage listing, I'm mainly wondering about the purpose of "local heritage listing". How powerful is it? When would it override a development? If it really doesn't, then doesn't it seem irrelevant? Again, if I'm missing something, please tell me.

[stumpjumper]

Apologies -I thought you meant setting the tower back above the existing buildings, using them as a podium as with the Pirie St buildings. There's not enough room for that on this small site.

As to building within the walls of the existing buildings - I'm an architect not an engineer, but I can say that the existing buildings are sandstock bricks and lime mortar, so there's not much structural strength there. To keep the external walls you would have to either attach them to a steel frame or virtually stick them to the new structure. Expensive (but arguably worth it if the heritage value is there) and problematic for the design of the new building inside.

My guess is that it will be difficult enough to complete the excavation for the tower without the north-west old building collapsing. I think it would be impossible to excavate leaving only the shell of the three buildings.

That brings you back to the value of this local heritage item. That value, unfortunately, has to be seen in the context of the development potential of the site, which in this case has no height limit following the recent review of CBD zoning. Edmund Wright House for example is safe despite the potential of its site because it is a state heritage place and government owned, but the QAC is local heritage, and privately owned, so it's easier to argue for its demolition.

Local heritage is far from a bomb-proof heritage listing, and I think in the back of everyone's mind is that if DAC were to say no to the application, they would find themselves in the Environment, Resources and Development Court very quickly with the owner objecting to the refusal on a number of grounds. I think the ERD court would have to allow the development on its merits.

If you read the Development Assessment Commission report, all the required parties with a hand in planning have agreed that the development is Category 1, which underlines the likelihood of the ERD court allowing the application? Category 1 is the strongest 'yes, go ahead' category. It means the proposed development is a allowed use, subject to certain conditions, and no third party - adjoining owners or the public - has standing to object.

'Look nicer at street level '... That's a matter of opinion. If the proposed north west facade can be and is retained, I hope it's stripped back to its original bare red brick. I'd even put the double verandah back, if the facade had to be kept. But I'm personally not sure that at the end of the day the NW corner building will make it. Despite its 'remnant heritage' status, it doesn't address the street particularly well at ground level: it has no doors or windows at pedestrian level. But that remnant building is really a minor factor in the scheme of the whole project, and I really think it may not make it.

[IamAdelaide]

We need to shut the Adelaide Club down. Or at least start shaming the institution

+1.

+2

[IamAdelaide]

'Look nicer at street level '... That's a matter of opinion. If the proposed north west facade can be and is retained, I hope it's stripped back to its original bare red brick. I'd even put the double verandah back, if the facade had to be kept. But I'm personally not sure that at the end of the day the NW corner building will make it. Despite its 'remnant heritage' status, it doesn't address the street particularly well at ground level: it has no doors or windows at pedestrian level. But that remnant building is really a minor factor in the scheme of the whole project, and I really think it may not make it.

I agree 100% I saw better buildings than that one demolished without much noticeable reaction from Adelaideans

[ghs]

Looks like this one could still go ahead :

Description: Vary previous authorisation to partial demolition of the existing Queen Adelaide Club building and integration of the
remaining element within a new 21 level mixed-use building that comprises club facilities, ground floor retail, residential
apartments and accommodation - VARIATION - reduce basement and modify level 7.
Property Address: Queen Adelaide Club6 Stephens
PlaceADELAIDE SA 5000

Applicant : QUEEN ADELAIDE CLUB P/L
Owner : QUEEN ADELAIDE CLUB P/L
Estimated Cost of Dev: To Be Advised
Consent: Development Plan Consent

Decision: Planning Consent Granted
Authority: Development Assessment Commission

Date: 3/02/2015