Sensational-Adelaide.com

AtD wrote:Where would this one to be located?

http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&ll=- ... 1&t=h&z=20

16 Dequetteville Terrace, Kent Town

Ah, that's where it would be, nestled between the oh-so-heritagey brown lumps, with some no doubt historically valuable carparks to the rear. I wonder if we should consider a letter campaign?

Cation: Past midnight, drunk ranting.

I seriously hate the render we've been given of this building. I hate the shape, I hate the total lack of a lobby, I hate the way it refuses to interact with the street and I hate the balconies. I'm incredibly grateful it was rejected because frankly it looks too tacky for the Gold Coast, let alone Kent Town. Oval floor plates do not equal architectural brilliance.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I don't like the proposed building either, but I dislike the reasons for which it was rejected even more. If it was rejected for some of the reasons that you give, then I would be happy, but the talk of the "density, bulk and scale of the building" (when it's between two monoliths) and the "heritage surroundings" (which a glance at its neighbours, and the area around it, dispells instantly) is clearly bogus.

This is where I part roads with the "common, or garden," NIMBY - even where I may agree with their decisions, I reject their thinking and rationale. The Queen found a quote somewhere to effect of "the problem with NIMBYs is that their motivations are primarily selfish and negative". Their thinking is driven more by preservation of what they have right now -- "I'm alright, Jack, I've got mine" -- by preventing anyone from changing anything ever. It's a negative strategy; in the interests of avoiding deterioration (and let's call a spade a spade -- that really means their house value), they deny the opportunity for improvement.

In the case of NSP&P, I'm particularly concerned with what I've just seen of their submission to have large areas identified as "residential character areas", which means they "have unique neighbourhood character that requires specific attention to ensure this character is retained", and they get special treatment in terms of planning approval. I fear that this translates too readily into parades of cookie-cutter faux character homes. Their map of the proposed areas, which charmingly seems to have been hand-coloured in pencil, shows that huge swathes of the council area have been nominated as character areas (the light blue areas). Many of these areas -- Maylands, Evandale, for example -- are predominantly 600-700 sq m blocks, meaning the population density in these areas is not particularly high (unlike some of the blocks in Norwood proper, which are very small indeed). But the NIMBY mindset doesn't care for such things: by preventing subdivision and anything other than traditional houses, they believe that they are preserving the value of their own house.

To be honest, I don't like it either. Would look extremely out of place

AtD wrote:Cation: Past midnight, drunk ranting.

I seriously hate the render we've been given of this building. I hate the shape, I hate the total lack of a lobby, I hate the way it refuses to interact with the street and I hate the balconies. I'm incredibly grateful it was rejected because frankly it looks too tacky for the Gold Coast, let alone Kent Town. Oval floor plates do not equal architectural brilliance.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Is it necessary for all developments to interact with the street? I feel like there's some wiggle room there. Don't get me wrong, I know it's vital that we have a city where the general street level experience is engaging and inviting, but I figure there will be those buildings occasionally that offer another, different experience for the community..

This Kent Town proposal, I like, and it doesn't seem to bother me that the street level would not interact with me as a passerby - I just like looking at it, and in this instance that satisfies me enough, personally. I assumed the design is sparse down the bottom to highlight the dense, unusual look of the top - to me, it looks top heavy and interesting. (That said, I do have a problem with the tall, solid looking fence that seems to be suggested in the render. Yuck).

I think it all depends on the building's very immediate surroundings too. Personally, I'm not a fan of the SA Water building because, being on Vic Square, it should offer a lot more to the street than it seems to. I wonder if, since the Kent Town proposal seems to share its immediate surrounds with some uninviting looking junk, it might be a wasted effort to concentrate on the street level when there's nothing else nearby that's inviting to passersby. Maybe a 'talking point" new building that causes a buzz could do more to encourage better urban design in that immediate area than concentrating on this one building's lack of interaction with the street.

Anyway, just some thoughts, possibly half baked


I hope you don't have a hangover

Queen Anne wrote:Is it necessary for all developments to interact with the street? I feel like there's some wiggle room there. Don't get me wrong, I know it's vital that we have a city where the general street level experience is engaging and inviting, but I figure there will be those buildings occasionally that offer another, different experience for the community..

I think Prince George summed it up well in the Conservatory on Hindmarsh thread:

Prince George wrote:In the residential section, I dislike that, by starting so far above the street, it's been so separated from the city around it. It's almost like a gated community in the sky. What really appeals to me about urban settings is that public/private mix, those places where apartments are just above the street (or square, as the case may be) and the two have a certain amount of interaction. Maybe not much interaction, maybe just seeing that each other are there, but it's more than you get from seeing distant figures on the balconies of their ivory tower. I wonder if it would be plausible to arrange the stacking the other way around - put the resi bits at the bottom and the offices at the top?

http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... 339#p62339

Even though this building has no other uses separating it from the ground, it is very intentionally going for the "gated community in the sky" effect. It is removed from the ground and separated from everything around it. At least with Conservatory on Hindmarsh, there is some semi-public spaces in the building and an actual ground floor!

I do agree that not every site needs a great deal of street interaction, nor could every site support it. However, I ask you, if this building were on the opposite side of the parklands would this level of street neglect be thought of?

My biggest gripe with Adelaide's parklands is how they separate the activity of the city from that of the suburbs. There is little reason for someone to make the trip from one side to the other, and that is something I think we need to address at every opportunity. We have the incredibly vibrant East End, then a park, then rather quiet Kent Town. With this site sitting opposite Rymill park in a high exposure spot, I think it needs a much better level of street interaction.

The main street in Canberra is lined with continuous 5 - 10 story buildings: offices, apartments, hotels. However, if you never looked up you wouldn't realise that people actually exist in this area. You drive down the street with no sense of anyone actually doing anything other than driving. It's what gives Canberra its sterile feel for which it is so infamous - there is density but not at street level! Take a look around. Do a 360, move around. No life.

Northborne Ave shows that setbacks kill street interaction. This building looks has not just a horizontal setback but a vertical set back too!

I see the outer ring of Adelaide's park lands being threatened by this phenomenon if developments like this are allowed to occur. The Brewery development to the north at least extends right out to the footpath. The blank heritage stone provides for at least some identity and sense of place (ack, airy-fairy buzzword!). The other buildings at least are in the view of passers by. The proposed building looks like it'll offer significantly worse street interaction than even the "uninviting looking junk" around it.

The council boundary between this site and the parklands is a hindrance. The City of Norwood Payneham St Peters wouldn't give due focus on the park lands like the ACC would. They don't have anything invested in it - the ACC is footing the expense.

And no, I didn't get a hangover.

Though I love Adelaide as a place, WE must have the world's most efficient resistors to modern architecture all bunched up together. It disappoints me as to just how much is knocked back or dumbed down into insignificance. There must be some grand plan to make Adelaide an attraction via the absence of such schemes by being 'different' . I think of 140 Nth Tce, the Harris Scarf proposal, bldgs set back on the south side of Grenfell st behind heritage facades and also the bldg. proposed opposite 400KWS. etc etc.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

AtD wrote:

I think Prince George summed it up well in the Conservatory on Hindmarsh thread:

Prince George wrote:In the residential section, I dislike that, by starting so far above the street, it's been so separated from the city around it. It's almost like a gated community in the sky. What really appeals to me about urban settings is that public/private mix, those places where apartments are just above the street (or square, as the case may be) and the two have a certain amount of interaction. Maybe not much interaction, maybe just seeing that each other are there, but it's more than you get from seeing distant figures on the balconies of their ivory tower. I wonder if it would be plausible to arrange the stacking the other way around - put the resi bits at the bottom and the offices at the top?

Even though this building has no other uses separating it from the ground, it is very intentionally going for the "gated community in the sky" effect. It is removed from the ground and separated from everything around it. At least with Conservatory on Hindmarsh, there is some semi-public spaces in the building and an actual ground floor!

I do agree that not every site needs a great deal of street interaction, nor could every site support it. However, I ask you, if this building were on the opposite side of the parklands would this level of street neglect be thought of?

Have mercy! Don't quote George to me, I have to live with him!

Really interesting post AtD, you got me thinking, certainly.

But I was also just thinking about George's post on this thread where he mentioned N,P&SP Council's "residential character areas", and I can't help but feel that the "gated community in the sky", as you guys call this proposal, is less of a blight than the sounds of what the council has cooked up for planning. I'm sure no expert, but it does seem like the council wants to use a scarily big stick to defend its particular vision for the area.

I'm finding the concept of a "level of street neglect" tricky and I'm going to have to think about it some more. I think what you were saying was that any public access or sign of use at street level, or having a ground floor even, automatically raises a building to a higher standard, regarding street level ammenity. But I still tend to think that SA Water is committing a bigger street level crime at its location than the Kent Town proposal is at its own location. But, like I said, I am going to have to think about your post, in its entirety, some more.

And I still think this proposal is nice lookin!

For the crime of street neglect, the SA Water Building can plead self defence IMO. It does have a nice interaction at some angles. However, as that particular corner of Victoria Square is used as a bus layover area there's not really much for it to open up to. All you'll see is a line of idling buses!

I think if this building is built, it'll add fuel to the fire of NIMBYism in the eastern suburbs. Norwood/Payneham/St Peters are not as progressive as the ACC, which is saying something!

Hot off the press;

Legal bid for space age development

DANIEL WILLS
August 27, 2009 12:01am
DEVELOPERS behind a "space-age" apartment complex proposed for Kent Town have taken legal action against a council ruling that blocks the project.

Adelaide firm DC Architecture was refused approval for the six-storey building last month amid complaints it was too high and would clash with heritage buildings.

The company returned to a recent Norwood Payneham and St Peters Development Assessment Panel meeting offering a compromise proposal, which was also rejected.

Both the State Heritage Branch and the council's own planning staff had recommended approval.

The council's general manager for planning and environment, Carlos Buzzetti, said the DAP remained concerned about the building.

"They've weighed up the particular merits of the proposal and considered that it doesn't stack up on the whole," he said.

"There were fundamental concerns with the residential nature of the development. Some panel members were also concerned with the shape and suitability."

The development is proposed for a Dequetteville Tce site next to the Brewery Apartments complex.

The Environment, Resources and Development Court can initiate compulsory mediation. If that fails, the case will go to a full hearing.

Meanwhile, a developer has been fined $100,000 over two illegal buildings on the Semaphore foreshore. The ERD court ordered Nikolas Anargyros and Grafio Pty Ltd to pay $39,000 in fines and costs.

Port Adelaide Enfield Council director of environmental services Fred Newman said the developer "chose to build something seriously at variance" with approved plans.

I LOVE that render.

There is nothing wrong with buildings being "out of place".
For the love of God, WHY is Adelaide so insistent on having everything blend into the background?!

Just because a particular area has a few 'heritage' looking buildings, doesn't mean any new neighbouring development need be as bland just to 'fit in'.

The state government should extend its visionary precedent and strip all councils of the power to judge projects worth more than $10 million.

It is a sad indictment on the council that even the conservative heritage branch does NOT object to this proposal. This clearly shows that these councillors are bringing village politics into their decision making process and not the best interests of their community. They are only making this decision so that come next election they can boast about their NIMBY credentials to the anti-progress people which sadly make up the majority of council electors.

Thanks for your support on the Deq! We believe The Deq will be an iconic building that has "real" architectural merit and will be reviewed and discussed by many design students. Unfortunately, there are a small number of people that have the ability to decide what is appropriate for this site; we disagree with their views with regards to design, surrounds and land use (in terms of residential living). There will only be 8 residencies in this building as opposed to ???????????????????????? next door. Also, it will be an extremely expensive building to construct compared to surrounding ones; >10m in not out of the question.

We will continue moving forward and show the appropriate authorities the merits of The Deq.

FM

Wayno wrote:i wonder if this would have been rejected if the colour was more like surrounding buildings. In fact, maybe that's the trick - propose the building will have "earthy tones" and you'll get the tick of approval!

You mean paint it brown, then make it the colour you wanted in the first place. Well that is what the Myer Center did, anyone notice how it wasn't white with clear glass in plans ?