[U/C] 145-159 King William Street (GPO) | 61m | 16 Levels | Hotel

[Jaymz]

Is it possible these renders are merely a concept at this stage as mentioned on the news article as an artists impression? may be there are other designs possibly coming?

Most of us can only hope

[Patrick_27]

Based on the level of complaint on this thread, am I to understand that the majority of you are professional architects? If so, where are your ground-breaking concepts?

Where did that assumption come from? Is what you're saying that this design is acceptable because none of us are paid big bucks to be architects?

That's akin to not being allowed to dislike a movie because I couldn't produce a better one, criticise a sportsman's poor performance because I couldn't play better or send back a terrible restaurant meal because I couldn't cook that meal myself?

With all due respect, you seem to be alone in liking these buildings, so maybe you could elaborate more on what we're all missing? Just because Adelaide doesn't have excellent architectural standards, that does not mean that we should not demand these higher standards. This is a development forum where we evaluate the positives and negatives of urban planning/design, rather than just blindly accept whatever is built/implemented/proposed. We care about how our built environment looks. We take pride in the place where we work, rest and play, and want to build things that enhance the urban environment, rather than detract from it/do nothing. We are not being negative for the sake of it, but because we care and want the absolute best for our city.

A site as prominent as this, in the heart of the city and next to one of our most beautiful heritage buildings deserves a top-notch building standing next to it to complement our inner city and the GPO building. While we like the ground-level amenities, the tower design is bland, boxy and unoriginal. As some have said, throw in some curves or angles to these buildings for example, something that sets it apart from other buildings in the city. Maybe not everyone is the best at coming up with ideas, but we know good ones when we see them.

A lot of people loved that Hames Sharley design for the Balfours/Precinct buildings with the upwards twist and connection at the top because it was audacious and unique, something we don't have in Adelaide, not some dime-a-dozen Lego box you can find on any street like these two buildings are. We've seen those before. They're mediocre. Examples: Coglin Place, Urbanest. Perhaps it's time we start learning from the mistakes of some other buildings in this city, rather than repeating them?

I appreciate the fact that not every building in our city can be an architectural masterpiece and that's absolutely fine, but surely you can see the difference between this site and some random site on say Currie Street?

In any circumstance, a person is of-course entitled to an opinion. I don't think these buildings are fantastic, I don't by any means; but some of the commentary on this thread regarding the design suggest that it's possibly the worst design ever put forward in this city, which is certainly isn't. And yet, a number of people commenting their disapproval for this proposal are the same people who have voiced their overwhelming support for proposals such as 152-186 Grote St and 176-189 Morphett St which as far as I'm concerned hold far less design merit than these two buildings.

I recognise the significance of this site for sure, but where was the vocal opposition to say the Harris Scarfe/Bendigo Bank building (which is also a glass box) when that went up? That for me remains to be among the worst buildings built in this city in the last decade, far worse than this design.

I made this point on Sensational Adelaide's Facebook post regarding this proposal; when the developers approached an architect to design something for this site, they'd have been given a height and area dimensions that they can work within, and unfortunately this site has to be mindful of it's heritage surrounds, the size of the block and as well the amount of tenancy space it provides (remembering the lack of demand for office space in this city). This is what they've come up with; it's not great (hopefully it'll be subject to changes as the proposal moves forward)but for the point of having a positive outlook on the matter, it could be far worse, and it's an incredible improvement on what's there at this point and what else is on the edges of Victoria Square.

You were right to criticise my comment above, but I guess what I'm trying to tell people on here is that you've got an entire thread to discuss alternative designs and what they may entail and so far I think Crawf, Shuz and I think maybe Claybro are the only three who have offered any real solid ideas that may improve the outlook of these designs. Give criticism but also give ideas. Is that not what this website is about?

[Honey of a City]

Based on the level of complaint on this thread, am I to understand that the majority of you are professional architects? If so, where are your ground-breaking concepts?

You don't have to be an architect to have a stake in our built environment. We're all stakeholders in our environment. You may find that what attracts people to this site is the enormous potential that Adelaide has to be a jewel in the small city crown, and a passion to see that potential realised. Sadly this dynamic sometimes clashes with some planners and developers whose only vision is profit. But we're getting there in fits and starts, and the odd architectural treasure pops up now and again. Be great if that was the default though.

[rev]

Based on the level of complaint on this thread, am I to understand that the majority of you are professional architects? If so, where are your ground-breaking concepts?

You find the proposed buildings interesting?

This is interesting. Sure, at heart it's just a box, but they've done something different with that box..instead of just keeping it a square box. Only 4 stories taller then the proposed building in this thread..yet it leaves it for dead. This proposed building I'm posting could be 8 stories shorter then it is, and it would still leave what's proposed for Vic Square for dead.

15885895742_36388c69c8_o.jpg (439.25 KiB) Viewed 4587 times

You don't have to be an architect to appreciate the difference in quality and creativity.
Can blame the architects, but ultimately it's their clients who are at fault because that's what they want to pay for.

[Waewick]

Looking forward to seeing who the major tenants are.

Yes I'm being sarcastic.

[[Shuz]]

The major tenants would be... Government.

As much as we're all complaining about the design - there's probably little chance it'll even come to fruition. Our economy is in the shits. CBD commercial vacancy rates are still quite high and unemployment is at 8.2% ( ABS ). I can't foresee any big business needing even... 10,000sqm - let alone 36,000sqm of office space in the city in the current market conditions.

[Norman]

A business may be interested in moving up a grade or two in their current office accommodation standard though.

[AdelaideGold]

Sounds like early days in terms of design. Even if it remains similar it's better than a poke in the eye with a blunt stick

Article with a different perspective below...
http://www.afr.com/real-estate/charter- ... 709-gi8pqy

[Waewick]

The major tenants would be... Government.

As much as we're all complaining about the design - there's probably little chance it'll even come to fruition. Our economy is in the shits. CBD commercial vacancy rates are still quite high and unemployment is at 8.2% ( ABS ). I can't foresee any big business needing even... 10,000sqm - let alone 36,000sqm of office space in the city in the current market conditions.

So not happpening then at least not for 5 to 10 years

[contractor]

Looks similar to the glass boxes we have on St Kilda Rd, outside Melb. CBD (Our Greenhill Rd)

[H1ghlife]

I'm no professional or even graduate architect, but I can still come up with a concept for this site in a few hours - here's one i prepared earlier

I tried to go with something that blends with the newer developments surrounding it but with significantly more height (30 stories). Blocky compartments, commerical looking glass facades, little or no balconies to speak of, this would be a hotel and office only. Much more interesting IMO than two simple offset boxes. It's not ground breaking by any means, but like I said i'm no architect.

[rhino]

For a non-architect, that's a pretty good looking exterior design, IMO.

[zippySA]

That's a pretty good effort - but suspect the cost manager may have a say on that - the main focus for developer is return on their investment. It's always a fine balance between achieving architectural merit and maximum return for the one actually risking big $$'s.

[Pants]

Nice job, H1ghlifie, but yeah, blame the developers not the architects.

Hassell's more than capable of coming up with interesting designs:



They're only as good as their design and costing brief from the developers though.

[monotonehell]

Nice job, H1ghlifie, but yeah, blame the developers not the architects.

Hassell's more than capable of coming up with interesting designs:



They're only as good as their design and costing brief from the developers though.

Design brief: the client wants a building that looks like a pile of flattened cardboard boxes.