Sensational-Adelaide.com

Praying the DAC defer for radical design amendments.

ml69 wrote: ↑

Sat May 05, 2018 5:52 am

Window proportions, building shape and colour are all wrong.

Who are the architects?

Greaton Development Pty Ltd. They’re the same guys who did West Franklin. They also are in charge of developing The Ribbon in Darling Harbour, Sydney. The Ribbon is a stunning piece of architecture so I don’t know what’s going through their minds with this one though.
Maybe they spent most of their money and are using the loose change from their Big Mac Meals to develop this turd.

Architects need to go back to square one with this.

Utterly embarrassing design for such a location, actually for any location to be honest.

Without sounding like an echo, this is a phenomenally underwhelming design. Has no sympathy for the GPO clock tower at all, and competes tonally with the heritage building. Why not introduce curves? The Star City expansion design shows that curves work well with mid rise towers. I'd envisage a kidney shaped building, with the curve pointing north west, so the tower almost curves around the clock tower, with distance. I'd also be looking at a blue/silver highly reflective facade that due to angles of the curve wouldn't directly reflect the clock tower, rather frame it.

Just my as a nobody...

Talking of echos. I hope they have good sound insulation or the GPO clock bell is going to make sleeping in difficult.

Adding to the chorus that this is an absolutely dismal piece of work.

crowdoc wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 8:55 am

Talking of echos. I hope they have good sound insulation or the GPO clock bell is going to make sleeping in difficult.

Doesn't ring at night.

So I've read through the DA document, and the renders shown before were massing renders, not textural. Whilst I don't agree with the mass or shape of the design, the materials in the document look to be of extremely high quality (double glazed, double tinted highly reflective champagne glass, for example.)

Please see below for textural and contextual renders. I've softened my stance on this tower as a result.

Pikey wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 1:13 pm

So I've read through the DA document, and the renders shown before were massing renders, not textural. Whilst I don't agree with the mass or shape of the design, the materials in the document look to be of extremely high quality (double glazed, double tinted highly reflective champagne glass, for example.)

Please see below for textural and contextual renders. I've softened my stance on this tower as a result.

Does look better, but still pretty disappointing.

Can't help but feel that if the appearance of the base from the last image was visible above the GPO building it would reduce the very stumpy look of the whole thing.

Those renders don't help the argument at all. It basically looks like the State Administration Centre Mark II.

And we do not need TWO of those monstrosities.

Pikey wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 1:13 pm

I guess we can be thankful it doesn't have pods....

Pods or no pods, “champagne glass” or no champagne glass. This development should be 10X better for the location it’s in.

Adelaide deserves soo much better and people are taking advantage of her prime CBD space. I don’t understand where our aesthetic standards went. We had some beautiful developments proposed over the past 10 years but in the past year, it feels like our development desperation has come at the expense of decency.

Does this current DAC have rejection issues? Did that come about at their Year 12 formal that they haven’t properly gotten over due to being rejected by Hot Stacey and resorting to asking out mums who responded “yes yes! my handsome little man”?
Or was that just me?

Pods would probably improve it.
I really still can't believe that this is a building being proposed in the 21st century.

Considering some of the crap we have had proposed and built in the last two years, are you even surprised?

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 4:05 pm

Does look better, but still pretty disappointing.

Can't help but feel that if the appearance of the base from the last image was visible above the GPO building it would reduce the very stumpy look of the whole thing.

If the base, as you say, was somewhere in the middle of the building it would break up the stumpiness and monotony of the block. Also it should be taller. At least 100 or even 115 metres in height to give it some slenderness. Then add a fifth side, angled so it emphasizes the GPO bell tower when viewed from Victoria Square. Simple.

Cheers