Sensational-Adelaide.com

victorious80 wrote:I am torn with this one.

The one thing that bothers me is that there are so many less significant or attractive sites in the CBD that would be preferable to demolish, than these examples of beautiful Victorian architecture. eg 60s/70s/80s solid brick buildings with almost no architectural merit.

I don't mind the proposal, and wholeheartedly agree that increased density in the area is a good thing. But what I like about Hutt St is the large number of Victorian era buildings, that as a whole contribute to a very old-world English town feel. This is what makes Hutt St so appealing - an historic, charming town in the middle (or almost) of a modern CBD. This feel is impossible to recreate with modern architecture, and once destroyed, it is gone forever. Some of our nicest CBD streets are attractive due to the age and style of their architecture (Rundle St, Hutt St, to a lesser extent Hindley St and Melbourne St).

I was walking through Kent Town yesterday, and the original cottages and buildings are in the minority. There are many 70s and 80s buildings in the area that were constructed in place of some beautiful bluestone cottages, as someone at the time would have considered them an improvement to the area. It is only now that you look at the older buildings and wish there were more of them, that you realise this old style of architecture contributes so much to the street and surrounding area and should be retained (if possible).

Even though this stretch of Hutt St is not part of what you might call the nicest part of Hutt St, I hope this doesn't set a precedent for the Council and developers to accept demolition of these sorts of buildings further south.

I guess to summarise my thoughts, the ideal situation would be to see underdeveloped, less attractive sites in the CBD go first. Once these are developed, then if required, we can look at the sites that contribute a little more to the architecture and feel of an area.

I actually typed a similar response last night, but I took too long, was logged out and couldn't be bothered re-typing it.

One question I would pose for those who support this proposal is do you support Hutt Street becoming a high rise street (say 10+ storeys)? If so, how high would you regulate? As high as August Towers? No limit? Or would you only allow high rises north of, say, Wakefield Street, as SRW and mshagg imply. Not having a go at anyone, just curious.

One may look at this development in isolation, but as victorious says, it could well set a precedent for the area. Developments like this and August Towers could be important in deciding how we want Hutt Street to look in the next ten or twenty years. Once we mess too much with the scale of the street, we could possibly end up with an unattractive hodgepodge of heritage buildings among a scattered sea of high rises.

I get that these buildings aren't spectacular, and they are the only heritage on that particular block of Hutt Street, but I do think that the buildings can be used well through adaptive reuse or integrated into a the design of this development. I also think that having little character cottages in the CBD isn't necessarily a bad thing; it would have to be pretty unique in one of the big 5 Australian cities, but the character cottages don't fit in as well with high rises as a heritage building built for other purposes would.

I'm not necessarily opposed to this development as it looks okay and these cottages aren't in the best location, but I will say that I would certainly be opposed to anything nicer than these cottages being demolished on Hutt Street.

The issue with demolishing these sorts of buildings is that it homogenises the landscape. While the construction of this tower would bring residents, vibrancy and more customers for local business, does the attraction to visit Hutt Street compared to say Rundle Street remain if these character buildings are demolished? I get that a developer can only build on a site that they own, but aren't we better off demolishing some of the crap from the second half of last century on Hutt Street before these two go?

I do get the feeling that as a forum, we're developing a "build high rises at all costs, you're a NIMBY if you disagree" mentality. While it's okay to support high rises, consider that others, such as Patrick, may (quite vocally) oppose developments, considering factors that others may not.

This was approved.

From the Advertiser yesterday, set to commence construction early 2017 and be completed late 2017.

I think this will look good. Going by the development application, it'll be fluted white pre-cast concrete - so it'll have an interesting texture, and should develop a nice patina overtime (as opposed to concrete that is painted white). Also, marks for not having those horrid glass balconies that seem so popular.

Much needed perfect addition to the area

serca wrote:Much needed perfect addition to the area

This is the second time you've made such a statement, and once again there is absolutely nothing to back up you up. What exactly is wrong with this part of Hutt Street? It's thriving and businesses are doing well along there...

What back up do you want? A socio economic or demographic analyst of the area will do? Maybe we can just settle with most of the people on this DEVELOPMENT forum supporting it.

This is a CBD and I'm not for the redevelopment of many heritage buildings in Adelaide but if this particular site pulls on your heart strings take a walk around Mile end, Goodwood or 20 other suburbs around Adelaide to get your fix

Patrick_27 wrote:

serca wrote:Much needed perfect addition to the area

This is the second time you've made such a statement, and once again there is absolutely nothing to back up you up. What exactly is wrong with this part of Hutt Street? It's thriving and businesses are doing well along there...

WTF, the only thing thriving in this section of Hutt Street is the car traffic

Agree it's a good looking proposal. Got a bit of the 60s vibe going on.

The sales centre is getting fitted out.

This one is called "opus".

http://opusonhutt.com.au/?gclid=CjwKEAj ... oCHdvw_wcB

Apparently sales are going well.

Type: Schedule 10
Application Number: S10/26/2016/A
Lodgement Date: 14/03/2017
Location: 51-57 Hutt Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Description: Vary previous authorisation demolish existing building and structures and construct a 12 level building comprising retail, commercial, 41 apartments and associated car parking - VARIATION - changes to building setbacks - additional level - changes to basements.

Define "sales are going well"!!!
From what I have heard they would be lucky to count them on one hand.

The fact is that they are going through a redesign of the apartments and pricing because the market didn't want to touch it. My guess for the variation lodged with DAC is that the extra level and basement changes will be moving one level of the carparking that they had on a basement level to above ground. They have reneged on the 3m ceilings and they would be trying to make cost savings on the build wherever they can so that they can start to offer more attractive sales prices.
Back in the press release for this one in October they were spruiking that construction was going to start at the beginning of this year with expected completion at the end of 2017. That was an unrealistic target even then. Mind you that was an article in the Advertiser and written by Tom Bowden who wouldn't let a bit of fact checking or realism creep into one of his articles.

adel aide wrote:Define "sales are going well"!!!
From what I have heard they would be lucky to count them on one hand.

The fact is that they are going through a redesign of the apartments and pricing because the market didn't want to touch it. My guess for the variation lodged with DAC is that the extra level and basement changes will be moving one level of the carparking that they had on a basement level to above ground. They have reneged on the 3m ceilings and they would be trying to make cost savings on the build wherever they can so that they can start to offer more attractive sales prices.
Back in the press release for this one in October they were spruiking that construction was going to start at the beginning of this year with expected completion at the end of 2017. That was an unrealistic target even then. Mind you that was an article in the Advertiser and written by Tom Bowden who wouldn't let a bit of fact checking or realism creep into one of his articles.

I guess Ghs has two accounts now.

According to their facebook 25% of the 44 apartments have sold.