Sensational-Adelaide.com

Just a gentle reminder that the 1927 building is mostly all gone already — all that remains is the facade. The 80s brutalist addition on the corner has more remaining heritage value.

Nathan wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:37 pm

Just a gentle reminder that the 1927 building is mostly all gone already — all that remains is the facade. The 80s brutalist addition on the corner has more remaining heritage value.

In most cases, preserving a building is not about the interior preservation but the external. Her Majesty's Theatre is a case in point of this. It's about the street-scape.

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:42 pm

Nathan wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:37 pm

Just a gentle reminder that the 1927 building is mostly all gone already — all that remains is the facade. The 80s brutalist addition on the corner has more remaining heritage value.

In most cases, preserving a building is not about the interior preservation but the external. Her Majesty's Theatre is a case in point of this. It's about the street-scape.

It also reduces "heritage" to the equivalent of a movie studio backlot.

Nathan wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:10 pm

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:42 pm

Nathan wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:37 pm

Just a gentle reminder that the 1927 building is mostly all gone already — all that remains is the facade. The 80s brutalist addition on the corner has more remaining heritage value.

In most cases, preserving a building is not about the interior preservation but the external. Her Majesty's Theatre is a case in point of this. It's about the street-scape.

It also reduces "heritage" to the equivalent of a movie studio backlot.

Maybe, but it's still better than not trying at all. After all, it's virtually impossible to retain the interior of a building that it being built on-top of with pilings and the like going straight through it and the need to reconfigure an interior to accomodate.

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:13 pm

Nathan wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:10 pm

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:42 pm

In most cases, preserving a building is not about the interior preservation but the external. Her Majesty's Theatre is a case in point of this. It's about the street-scape.

It also reduces "heritage" to the equivalent of a movie studio backlot.

Maybe, but it's still better than not trying at all. After all, it's virtually impossible to retain the interior of a building that it being built on-top of with pilings and the like going straight through it and the need to reconfigure an interior to accomodate.

I disagree. I think it's just lying to ourselves. Adaptive re-use is good — repurposing a building in a meaningful way. But carving off a 50cm thick sliver to hang off a new building like a painting? It's a disservice to the original building, and a misplaced compromise on the new.

It also, as always, reduces architectural appreciation and understanding to a superficial "how it looks from the outside". That's not what makes a building important heritage.

Disagree with you Nathan. I walk past it regularly and for me it still has good character and appeal at street level. A development on this site could have been an opportunity to correct the botched 80s job and integrate the facade with a much more creative and sympathetic design

Even so, it isn't necessarily the loss of this particular building that annoys me. It is more the principle that something can be removed from the register on the basis of the quality of the replacement only for that design to subsequently be dumbed down.

This should be knocked back.
Big global brands like Hyatt should be in buildings pushing for the tallest, not seeing reductions.
These are the types of buildings that are more likely, or should be, to see a unique and outstanding design.

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 17, 2020 12:16 pm

This should be knocked back.
Big global brands like Hyatt should be in buildings pushing for the tallest, not seeing reductions.
These are the types of buildings that are more likely, or should be, to see a unique and outstanding design.

 
so the govt should reject it because its not tall enough ?

That's ridiculous.

Thread cleaned up, please keep on topic and no personal insults. Thanks.

Unlocked

This one is on the agenda for the next SCAP meeting. Here is the report and attachments:
https://www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov ... ty_Ltd.pdf

That is fucking terrible!

Trashy 80's design

It's kind of gaudy, not sure it would age particularly well.

Could be ok if the glass is the same as the casino but hard to tell. I prefer the first design from about 10 years ago. With each iteration it has become more bland and basic.

Sorry but can't we do better than building designs that were rejected by the Gold Coast City Council in 1988...