[U/C] 145-159 King William Street (GPO) | 61m | 16 Levels | Hotel

[gnrc_louis]

This proposed structure is the right concept and proportion for this situation as it does not detract from the GPO, rather it enhances it, like a framed masterpiece in an art gallery.

In this case the simple approach is the best – the architectural finesse already exists in the GPO.

For new buildings wanting extreme architectural boldness, there are other potential CBD sites to make that statement, but here is not one of them.

100%. The brief to the architects was probably to showcase the existing GPO rather than overpower it with a bold design and that's exactly what they've done.

[SBD]

While I understand and even agree with this philosophy my point is more the current design of this austere building looks like/should be an office building rather than a new hotel. I doubt its images would look very exciting in marketing to tourists/travellers (unless they want that 1960 -1970s look?). I get the restraint and subdued approach to its design but it doesn’t align with a new (Westin) 5 star hotel to me.

Do many tourists and travellers really care what the outside of the building they are sleeping in looks like? I might care what the inside appearance and amenities are, its location, what attractions are nearby, how easy it is to get to and from. The external appearance is quite low on my list (as long as it is clean and maintained as a first impression on arrival).

[Patrick_27]

While I understand and even agree with this philosophy my point is more the current design of this austere building looks like/should be an office building rather than a new hotel. I doubt its images would look very exciting in marketing to tourists/travellers (unless they want that 1960 -1970s look?). I get the restraint and subdued approach to its design but it doesn’t align with a new (Westin) 5 star hotel to me.

Do many tourists and travellers really care what the outside of the building they are sleeping in looks like? I might care what the inside appearance and amenities are, its location, what attractions are nearby, how easy it is to get to and from. The external appearance is quite low on my list (as long as it is clean and maintained as a first impression on arrival).

And if this was the case, why would anyone stay at the InterContinental or the Hilton?

[citywatcher]

Correct
You think these chains don't take FIRST IMPRESSIONS seriously in their plans?

Sent from my SM-A515F using Tapatalk

[how good is he]

If they built the Hilton or Intercontinental new today do you think they would build what is there now? ie from 1970s or 1980s architecture? I am comparing this current (1960s?) design against new hotels being built. Generally it is the developer/owner who appoints/chooses who they want to manage their hotel/property. Obviously the operator has to be interested/not have existing hotel sites nearby etc.

[Algernon]

If they built the Hilton or Intercontinental new today do you think they would build what is there now? ie from 1970s or 1980s architecture?

yep

[gnrc_louis]

If they built the Hilton or Intercontinental new today do you think they would build what is there now? ie from 1970s or 1980s architecture? I am comparing this current (1960s?) design against new hotels being built. Generally it is the developer/owner who appoints/chooses who they want to manage their hotel/property. Obviously the operator has to be interested/not have existing hotel sites nearby etc.

I feel like every other month the Intercon design is debated on this forum but personally I think it's great with its vaguely post-modern design. Architecture of course being something which is very subjective, as evidenced by most threads on this forum.

[rev]

While I understand and even agree with this philosophy my point is more the current design of this austere building looks like/should be an office building rather than a new hotel. I doubt its images would look very exciting in marketing to tourists/travellers (unless they want that 1960 -1970s look?). I get the restraint and subdued approach to its design but it doesn’t align with a new (Westin) 5 star hotel to me.

Do many tourists and travellers really care what the outside of the building they are sleeping in looks like? I might care what the inside appearance and amenities are, its location, what attractions are nearby, how easy it is to get to and from. The external appearance is quite low on my list (as long as it is clean and maintained as a first impression on arrival).

Yet the big chains all continue to build new hotels all over the world.

[Jaymz]

I have no problem with the Intercontinental building, i've said it in here before. What's not to like about it?

It's tall'ish, an unusual shape and in a prime location. I could think of dozens of buildings in our CBD worse than this. Once again, just my opinion.

[HeapsGood]

So will the old post office building be renovated and make up part of this hotel? Sorry if this is obvious somewhere but I cannot see it and the planning doc keeps crashing on me.

I believe it will be either a lobby or restaurant, or combination of all of those. The old GPO building is gorgeous inside and really suited to a grand hotel lobby.

[Nort]

If they built the Hilton or Intercontinental new today do you think they would build what is there now? ie from 1970s or 1980s architecture? I am comparing this current (1960s?) design against new hotels being built. Generally it is the developer/owner who appoints/chooses who they want to manage their hotel/property. Obviously the operator has to be interested/not have existing hotel sites nearby etc.

I feel like every other month the Intercon design is debated on this forum but personally I think it's great with its vaguely post-modern design. Architecture of course being something which is very subjective, as evidenced by most threads on this forum.

Yup, I suspect a lot of the hate comes from the fact that it appears prominently in lots of Adelaide postcard style shots that didn't change much for ~20 years.

[Ozbear73]

I know I’ll be challenged on this but I think what Adelaide’s skyline suffers from the most (primarily due to height restrictions forced by the Adelaide Airport flight path), is because developers are forced to maximise what they can within height ceilings.

Buildings in Adelaide seem to be mostly designed on full footprints from ground to top out, and due to Adelaide’s grid system in the cbd, most footprints are 4 sided squares or rectangles, and therefore what we get pretty much most of the time are box-shaped designs with flat roofs that squeeze in just under the height limitations they are forced to contend with.

There are one or two rare exceptions in the CBD though (that lovely example on Grenfell St is one) where buildings narrow as they reach their full height and appear to point to the sky, but mostly what is built thesedays are flat-roofed structures that would otherwise be taller in other cities with narrowing/spire features at their very top. Classic examples of this are the recently constructed Kodo, Adelaidean, Sofitel, and even Realm could look better with a more sleeker and narrower finish at its peak.

Cities such as Perth in particular do this very well...it’s skyline is simple yet majestic and elegant..with many buildings that spire into the sky (Brookfield Place there could have been done better though), but sadly here in Adelaide we have to literally slice the top off of any aspirational designs due to height limitations and developers maximising their profits within said height restrictions.......I want more buildings that appear to reach for the skies, not look like they are chopped off to fit beneath the sky....

[Patrick_27]

If they built the Hilton or Intercontinental new today do you think they would build what is there now? ie from 1970s or 1980s architecture? I am comparing this current (1960s?) design against new hotels being built. Generally it is the developer/owner who appoints/chooses who they want to manage their hotel/property. Obviously the operator has to be interested/not have existing hotel sites nearby etc.

I feel like every other month the Intercon design is debated on this forum but personally I think it's great with its vaguely post-modern design. Architecture of course being something which is very subjective, as evidenced by most threads on this forum.

Yup, I suspect a lot of the hate comes from the fact that it appears prominently in lots of Adelaide postcard style shots that didn't change much for ~20 years.

I wouldn't have so much dislike for the building if the owners actually kept it in a good state of repair. Whether that be to reflect modern design and architecture trends or to reflect the period (1980s) in which it was built. But the fact is, the InterContinental branding atop of the building, the lack of restoration/rejuvenation work to the upper exterior (i.e. proper cleaning, to the rejuvenation of concrete facade) and no work on the ground level in terms of activation is chiefly my reason for having such disdain towards it, especially when you consider everything that has been happening around the site in the past five years. Hell, I've said it before, I would have preferred the government to broker a deal whereby the tower part of the building stay in InterContinental's hands meanwhile the ground level and perhaps three levels of airspace be handed over to SkyCity to build a casino around the tower rather than extending their footprint at the Railway Station. I know we're totally off-topic here, but would love to continue this discussion on whatever relevant thread!

[Algernon]

I know I’ll be challenged on this but I think what Adelaide’s skyline suffers from the most (primarily due to height restrictions forced by the Adelaide Airport flight path), is because developers are forced to maximise what they can within height ceilings.

Buildings in Adelaide seem to be mostly designed on full footprints from ground to top out, and due to Adelaide’s grid system in the cbd, most footprints are 4 sided squares or rectangles, and therefore what we get pretty much most of the time are box-shaped designs with flat roofs that squeeze in just under the height limitations they are forced to contend with.

There are one or two rare exceptions in the CBD though (that lovely example on Grenfell St is one) where buildings narrow as they reach their full height and appear to point to the sky, but mostly what is built thesedays are flat-roofed structures that would otherwise be taller in other cities with narrowing/spire features at their very top. Classic examples of this are the recently constructed Kodo, Adelaidean, Sofitel, and even Realm could look better with a more sleeker and narrower finish at its peak.

Cities such as Perth in particular do this very well...it’s skyline is simple yet majestic and elegant..with many buildings that spire into the sky (Brookfield Place there could have been done better though), but sadly here in Adelaide we have to literally slice the top off of any aspirational designs due to height limitations and developers maximising their profits within said height restrictions.......I want more buildings that appear to reach for the skies, not look like they are chopped off to fit beneath the sky....

Everything you say is dead on about the height restrictions and the outcome that they produce. Developers build to the limit then as fat as the site allows to get in as many units as they can. A more liberal height regime would allow more freedom to leave some of the footprint aside for more interesting designs or site orientation.

What you say about Perth, respect your opinion, but that's a pass from me. Incredibly dull skyline. Melbourne broke that dull mold in the late 80s and early 90s and never looked back. Brisbane finally started shaking it around early 2000. Perth.... nope.

[Ozbear73]

I guess that’s the beauty of architecture and ones taste, it’s very subjective and healthy to debate, after all, it is in essence a form of art in the end.

For mr, I find Perth much more stylish whereas I find Brisbane and Melbourne use too much darkness and bulk ( much like I said regarding Brookfield place in Perth).

In Perth the colour palette used (mostly) for recent constructions is blue and white (much like 269 North Tce), and lots of reflective glass...one lovely example of this in Perth is the new QT Hotel building on Barrack St...and also several new residential towers along Langley Park...the structures appear lean, bright and elegant.

I’m a regular visitor to Perth and have lived there in the past (I’m an SA native), so I guess I’m somewhat biased.

And don’t get me wrong I love Brisbane and Melbourne skylines too but for me, Perth is the winner, snd probsbly the most comparable Skyline to Adelaide in times of the city’s population that it supports...even though Adelaide is now approx 1/2 million people behind in population to Perth, when in the 80’s Adelaide was bigger....

Here are some shots of Perth I took in March 2019: