[COM] 74-80 Light Square | 31m | 8lvls | Office

[Shuz]

I think its ridiculous also that Hindmarsh Square can have a 68m tall building, and Light Square somehow cannot? Double standards it seems. They're essentially the same bloody thing! A square in the city. And; you know. More height, means greater concentration of people in an area, which means greater invigoration of the services and space surrounding it. So the taller the better. Or does the ACC just want the city's squares to continue being desolate wasteland devoid of human life?

[Howie]

I think its ridiculous also that Hindmarsh Square can have a 68m tall building, and Light Square somehow cannot? Double standards it seems.

CoH was granted major project status IIRC.

[Will]

So according to ten news, this development has NOT been rejected, I was under impression this was one of the last developments the ACC had control off - so glad I'm wrong!.

I'll seriously consider voting liberal next year if they plan on getting rid of that pathetic bunch known as the Adelaide City Council. Too tall?, give me a break. Thanks to them and the media, this gives the impression to potential investors that this city is closed for development and they should take their money elsewhere. Plus it doesn't do well for Adelaide's already terrible image.

God I've had it with some people in Adelaide, sometimes wonder why I even bother with this city.

Crawf, the Liberal party has not promised to get rid of the ACC. Indeed their position is rather similar to that of the ALP. The only difference is that under a Liberal government the ACC would also be stripped of planning powers for commercial buildings under $10 million. The ACC would retain planning powers for residential buildings under $10 million.

[Will]

People, people, calm down. This thread needs to start generating more light and less heat, lest it turn into "Sensational Adelaide Now". Contractor and TimStevens have a right to their opinion, whatever that may be. Of course, if they do have a vested interest, it'd be best for them to say so, but as long as they are expressing their own thoughts on the matter can we get back to discussing it rather than flaming?

I imagine that I'm getting a reputation as the in-house NIMBY, but I find that there is very little reason to mourn that proposal's faux-rejection.

1. It replaces a perfectly charming Edwardian building on a corner of the square that has very little to recommend it. The buildings surrounding it are all ugly cast-offs from the '80s.
2. The proposed tower was hardly an architectural marvel - a simple box with a charcoal-and-orange colour scheme.
3. The building was going to put further offices around the square, which doesn't take sufficient advantage of its location by a public space.

That last one particularly wrankles me - our city's squares are all large spaces, they need a healthy body of people around and in them to make sense of having them. Offices bring some number of people into the vicinity, but only 9-5 during the work-week, and they spend almost all of that indoors.

I disagree with the idea that Light Square should have a residential component. Light Square is an extension of the Hindley Street nightlife zone, and thus it has nightclubs which operate into the early hours of the day. As such I worry about the impact of allowing residential buildings directly on the square, in that the residents would complain about the noise leading to early closure of such establishments. This would be detrimental to the life of the CBD, as the extra 50 residents in such a building would not contribute more vibe than the hundreds of young people attracted to these nightclubs.

Furthermore, the current building on site is not even locally heritage listed, and thus this means that it is most likely not important to the cultural, architectural or social history of the city. Furthermore, Light Square does not provide a continuous 'heritage' streetscape and thus the loss of this building would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the square. The fact that it looks nice is not sufficient justification to prevent its demolition.

[Will]

First let me make it clear that as a member of the Council's DAP I am not allowed to comment on the particular application at Light Square but I will stick my neck out and make the following comments in the interests of less heat and more light (pardon the pun)
- I am one of the 4 council members on the DAP (and I am prepared to accept the abuse that goes with that territory)
- The DAP is NOT the Council, don't blame the Council for actions of the independently controlled DAP
- 5 of its 9 members are independent members, including the Presiding Member.
- The decision was unanimous.
- Unlike many other planning bodies, we have the courage to make our decisions in the public arena.
- Height was not the main reason for the advice for refusal given to DAC
- I suggest some of you actually read the relevant parts of the Development Plan relative to Light Square
- It might also be smart to read the actual reasons given for advice for refusal, rather than rely on the hyped up version in Adelaide Now!
David

Although I strongly disagree with your decision I commend you for posting in what must be an intimidating forum for you.

I realise that you cannot comment on the decisons of the DAP, however I hope that you take time to read my post as a concerned citizen of Adelaide, and think about it for future meetings.

I am very concerned about the council's decision particularly because the council's own planning staff recommended this development be approved. Furthermore considering that the council's role in this matter was purely ceremonial, and the fact that you must know what the Advertiser's reaction would be, why not spare another Adelaide bashing sessions and approve it? Or at the very least defer it? At least with a deferral you are telling investors, and the wider community that you support the development in principle, but that there are some issues that you would like to further discuss with the developers.

An outright rejection generates a feeling in the community that Adelaide is against change, and says no to jobs and investment.

Although I understand that as a smaller city we are always going to lose young people to larger places, such decisions help to push those considering leaving to the departure gate at the airport. Such decisions only serve to re-inforce the negative views young people have of Adelaide. Next time you are deciding on whether to approve or reject a building, please also consider the 5000 young people we lose to interstate migration every year and not just the residents who elected you.

[adam73837]

Excellent post Will; i couldn't have put it any better.

[david]

Thanks Will for your post which I read with interest. Incidentally I worked for 30+ years for one of Adelaide's leading architectural practices and I can assure you that I am not anti-development. But I do see an obligation to uphold the provisions of the Development Plan AS I READ IT (see attched Desired Character Statement for Light Square from the 2006 City of Adelaide Development Plan) If we don't like what the Plan says then the Council should be persuaded to change it yet again (as S-A has advocated)

As I said I probably cannot comment on the actual decision except to say that the DAP did not have the option to DEFER as we had to give our advice to DAC by a certain prescribed date.

David

light square0161.JPG (64.69 KiB) Viewed 7350 times

[Prince George]

I disagree with the idea that Light Square should have a residential component. Light Square is an extension of the Hindley Street nightlife zone, and thus it has nightclubs which operate into the early hours of the day. As such I worry about the impact of allowing residential buildings directly on the square, in that the residents would complain about the noise leading to early closure of such establishments. This would be detrimental to the life of the CBD, as the extra 50 residents in such a building would not contribute more vibe than the hundreds of young people attracted to these nightclubs.

Furthermore, the current building on site is not even locally heritage listed, and thus this means that it is most likely not important to the cultural, architectural or social history of the city. Furthermore, Light Square does not provide a continuous 'heritage' streetscape and thus the loss of this building would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the square. The fact that it looks nice is not sufficient justification to prevent its demolition.

I wasn't proposing to make it residential, but now I am curious to know if you likewise oppose the Common Ground building that's going up across the square from this one? Likewise, what of the residential components around Hindmarsh Square and its proximity to Rundle Street? Although that horse may have bolted already, there are still late night venues open down that part of town.

What really bugs me (as I keep harping on about) are the street levels - our office towers typically have a ground floor that's consumed by parking and a substantial foyer for the offices themselves (eg Aurora). If it was doing something more interesting on its bottom three levels, the whole building would be more compelling to me.

As for preserving older buildings, heritage listing is a big hammer and it should be used sparingly. But between the extremes of no protection and heritage's total protection, we could do with more graduation of protection levels -- or rather guarantees on the qualities of a building that will replace this or that building. The buildings around this one could be replaced with little or no concern for their loss, but this specific building actually offers something back to the square, especially with its massy brick/stone walls and distinctive windows (rather than simple floor-to-ceiling, wall-to-wall glass sheets). It's not hard to imagine what it would be like if it were cleaned off, and especially if it was given more sympathetic window glazing. But once it's demolished, that opportunity is gone forever.

As a result, I am arguing that we should recognise that cost by setting a minimum bar for the standards of whatever is built in its place. The better the original structure, the better its replacement has to be. I think that this -- demanding quality as a precondition of approval -- would be the right and appropriate role for the council, but it would be important to spell out ahead of time what the guidelines will be, to give clearer parameters for developers and architects to work within rather than learning the rules later as proposals get rejected.

[crawf]

So according to ten news, this development has NOT been rejected, I was under impression this was one of the last developments the ACC had control off - so glad I'm wrong!.

I'll seriously consider voting liberal next year if they plan on getting rid of that pathetic bunch known as the Adelaide City Council. Too tall?, give me a break. Thanks to them and the media, this gives the impression to potential investors that this city is closed for development and they should take their money elsewhere. Plus it doesn't do well for Adelaide's already terrible image.

God I've had it with some people in Adelaide, sometimes wonder why I even bother with this city.

Crawf, the Liberal party has not promised to get rid of the ACC. Indeed their position is rather similar to that of the ALP. The only difference is that under a Liberal government the ACC would also be stripped of planning powers for commercial buildings under $10 million. The ACC would retain planning powers for residential buildings under $10 million.

I never said it was promised, only stated that I would consider voting liberal if they plan to get rid of the council.

[Will]

I wasn't proposing to make it residential, but now I am curious to know if you likewise oppose the Common Ground building that's going up across the square from this one? Likewise, what of the residential components around Hindmarsh Square and its proximity to Rundle Street? Although that horse may have bolted already, there are still late night venues open down that part of town.

What really bugs me (as I keep harping on about) are the street levels - our office towers typically have a ground floor that's consumed by parking and a substantial foyer for the offices themselves (eg Aurora). If it was doing something more interesting on its bottom three levels, the whole building would be more compelling to me.

As for preserving older buildings, heritage listing is a big hammer and it should be used sparingly. But between the extremes of no protection and heritage's total protection, we could do with more graduation of protection levels -- or rather guarantees on the qualities of a building that will replace this or that building. The buildings around this one could be replaced with little or no concern for their loss, but this specific building actually offers something back to the square, especially with its massy brick/stone walls and distinctive windows (rather than simple floor-to-ceiling, wall-to-wall glass sheets). It's not hard to imagine what it would be like if it were cleaned off, and especially if it was given more sympathetic window glazing. But once it's demolished, that opportunity is gone forever.

As a result, I am arguing that we should recognise that cost by setting a minimum bar for the standards of whatever is built in its place. The better the original structure, the better its replacement has to be. I think that this -- demanding quality as a precondition of approval -- would be the right and appropriate role for the council, but it would be important to spell out ahead of time what the guidelines will be, to give clearer parameters for developers and architects to work within rather than learning the rules later as proposals get rejected.

I do not oppose the common ground project because the type of resident that will be living in it would be distinct from one living in a privately-developed residential project. The common ground project is being developed for homeless people. People who I do not feel would complain abaout the noise. In fact they should jsut be grateful that they have a warm and safe place to sleep.

Regarding Hindmarsh Square, that is a very different situation to Light Square in that it does not have night clubs in the actual square. Light Square actually has 4 or 5 nightclubs actually on the square.

And to clrafiy one issue, this development did intend to have retail tenancies on the ground floor.

[Will]

[

I never said it was promised, only stated that I would consider voting liberal if they plan to get rid of the council.

Ok then, so what you are actually saying is that you would consider voting for any party that promised to get rid of the ACC?

[Will]

Thanks Will for your post which I read with interest. Incidentally I worked for 30+ years for one of Adelaide's leading architectural practices and I can assure you that I am not anti-development. But I do see an obligation to uphold the provisions of the Development Plan AS I READ IT (see attched Desired Character Statement for Light Square from the 2006 City of Adelaide Development Plan) If we don't like what the Plan says then the Council should be persuaded to change it yet again (as S-A has advocated)

As I said I probably cannot comment on the actual decision except to say that the DAP did not have the option to DEFER as we had to give our advice to DAC by a certain prescribed date.

David

light square0161.JPG

Thanks David for taking the time to read my post.

I am aware of the development plan and the guidelines that it sets for Light Square, however I feel that the ACC development plan should be read and interpreted like the Bible. What I mean is that it should not be understood literally, but rather interpreted for the realities of today.

Regarding the development plan for Light Square, I realise that it states that new buildings should predominantly be red brick or masonry. However the problem with this is, is that if taken literally this would mean that develoeprs would be forced to come up with buildings that look like Shell House.

Furthermroe taking into account that architecture is an art form, and thus there is no right or wrong answer, I feel that a 40m masonry building would look 'heavy' and be more dominating of the streetscape than a modern glass building.

I feel that the development plan should be interpreted rather, that new buildings should have a 2-3 level masonry plinth to complement the streetscape, and for levels 4-12 the buidlign should be glass. Glass is a light element, and furthermroe if the glass were to be reflective it would blend in better with the square as the building would have the presence of a 'non-building'.

[Queen Anne]

I feel that the development plan should be interpreted rather, that new buildings should have a 2-3 level masonry plinth to complement the streetscape, and for levels 4-12 the buidlign should be glass. Glass is a light element, and furthermroe if the glass were to be reflective it would blend in better with the square as the building would have the presence of a 'non-building'.

If the development plan were interpreted as Will suggests, it would be really nice if a building like number 76 Light Square could be used for the masonry levels. Would this be possible? What would be the reasons to preclude this option?

It would be great to see more of those old buildings that are considered disposable given another life as part of funky new developments. And I think this kind of creativity in a city generates a value beyond the initial cost. I guess it's about the "wow factor" and atmosphere - something that many people crave, even if they don't really dwell on it.

[Ben]

The DAC are expected to approve this development at thursday nights meeting. The Agenda doc can be found here:

http://www.dac.sa.gov.au/index.cfm?obje ... 0F2030D46A

[Professor]

I hope that the DAC approve this and that something actually gets constructed.

This latest debacle with the ACC just highlights why the planning power for constructing anything over the size of a show box has been taken away from their factionalised sand pit. It will give developers and the genderal public some hope if this goes ahead and if the DAC is seen as a reasonable, transparent and responsive body.