http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&ll=- ... 1&t=h&z=20AtD wrote:Where would this one to be located?
16 Dequetteville Terrace, Kent Town
http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&ll=- ... 1&t=h&z=20AtD wrote:Where would this one to be located?
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..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.
I think Prince George summed it up well in the Conservatory on Hindmarsh thread: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..
http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... 339#p62339Prince 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?
Have mercy! Don't quote George to me, I have to live with him!AtD wrote:
I think Prince George summed it up well in the Conservatory on Hindmarsh thread: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!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?
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?
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.
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 ?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!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests