Sensational-Adelaide.com

Plasmatron wrote:Two things come to mind:

- Aurora Place in Sydney (office tower)
- PlayStation 3

In other words, I like it. Much better than what is usually proposed for Adelaide... I'm a sucker for architectural curviness.

iTouch(myself) wrote:reminds me of 20 to 22 currie st's "Wave" building without the "wave"

Development in Currie, Leigh and Bentham Streets should complement and respect the heritage places and the distinctive townscapes of the three streets which are established by the consistent scale and dignified character of late nineteenth and early twentieth century commercial buildings. These townscapes exhibit architectural detailing and ornamentation on their robust masonry facades.

Development should complement and reinforce the townscape character of the group of lowscale, older style commercial buildings on the northern side of Currie Street which are characterised by modelled facades with robust masonry materials and a high proportion of solid to void in their fenestration.

The townscape character of Currie Street should complement the unique grouping of heritage places, enhanced by tall street trees. The streetscape of Bentham Street should be improved to enhance its role as a key pedestrian route to Hindley Street and North Terrace.

Leigh Street being a unique and special environment based on its heritage qualities bringing new activity to the area and providing an important pedestrian link

The desired character for the Policy Area is comprised of:
(c) a transitional reduction in building scale and development intensity from the King William Street North Policy Area to the Light Square and Hindmarsh Square Policy Area

Development along Currie Street within the area shaded grey on Maps Adel/49, 50 and 55 should incorporate existing buildings or new buildings of three to five building levels to reflect and maintain the imposing low to medium scale of development established by one of the City’s most significant groups of heritage places which line its southern boundary. Taller building elements above the three to five storeys should be stepped back from the street alignment according to an angle of 55 degrees to retain sunlight to the southern footpath and a sense of openness to the sky.

The maximum building height is 53 metres with the following exceptions:
(a) within the area shaded grey on Map Adel/50, the maximum building height is 28 metres; and
(b) within the area west of the prolongation north, and south to Flinders Street (but not extending further south than Flinders Street or further west than Gawler Place), of the eastern boundary of the area shaded grey on Map Adel/50, the maximum building height is 72 metres.

Wayno wrote:Prediction: The ACC will receive another public bashing and the DAC will approve irrespective of their concerns.

I wonder if the Developer/Architect has taken the above into consideration with their design? would be interesting to know if they perceive the ACC simply as a minor irritant on the way to DAC approval.

spiller wrote:i cant help but laugh whilst reading those snippets. were the members of the ACC high when they comprised that jargon? "feeling of openess to the sky" - its a CBD ffs, not a park, there are plenty of parklands AROUND the city. I think of cities like NYC and Chicago during gthe early 20s during their "skyscraper race" to present day and ponder, were things like "feelings of openess" considered when they were building stuff 90 years ago that is taller than what Adelaide has today? Probably not, and for good reason.

AtD wrote:IMO they seem so subjective and imprecise that one councillor may approve a project on Monday then reject it on Thursday, citing the same paragraph both times.

monotonehell wrote:

spiller wrote:i cant help but laugh whilst reading those snippets. were the members of the ACC high when they comprised that jargon? "feeling of openess to the sky" - its a CBD ffs, not a park, there are plenty of parklands AROUND the city. I think of cities like NYC and Chicago during gthe early 20s during their "skyscraper race" to present day and ponder, were things like "feelings of openess" considered when they were building stuff 90 years ago that is taller than what Adelaide has today? Probably not, and for good reason.

Actually, yes they were. That's why the building legislation of the day included mandatory setbacks from the now famous 'Zoning Resolution of 1916'. Today we have many buildings on Manhattan like the Empire State, where after a few storeys the building is setback in a stepped fashion to hide the upper storeys along an imaginary sight line from street level.