[COM] 152-160 Grote Street | 58m | 19 lvls | Mixed Use

[rev]

Also this proposal has NO blank walls. Just watch the ACC reject it as it's 9m over the height limit.

Well I think it's safe to say that this development will cost a lot more then $10 million, therefore the council's opinion is as relevant as a homeless person's.
Government DAC will decide, thankfully.

While I like the design, and some large chunks of glass to break up the balconies. I think we should be expecting a lot more from developers.
This imo is something that we would now expect to see proposed for a city like Darwin. And I don't mean that in a negative way.

[AdelaideAlive]

way too tall another skyscraper according to the acc

[crawf]

While I like the design, and some large chunks of glass to break up the balconies. I think we should be expecting a lot more from developers.
This imo is something that we would now expect to see proposed for a city like Darwin. And I don't mean that in a negative way.

I've lived in Darwin and this is nothing like anything built or proposed in that city, their new buildings are usually full of concrete and not much glass. This actually reminds me of something you would expect in Melbourne or possibly Brisbane, eg on a smaller scale.

[AdelaideGo]

While I like the design, and some large chunks of glass to break up the balconies. I think we should be expecting a lot more from developers.
This imo is something that we would now expect to see proposed for a city like Darwin. And I don't mean that in a negative way.

I've lived in Darwin and this is nothing like anything built or proposed in that city, their new buildings are usually full of concrete and not much glass. This actually reminds me of something you would expect in Melbourne or possibly Brisbane, eg on a smaller scale.

Exactly, look at those renders, looks like there is a pool/gym/sky-garden in the top levels. Not something I would expect to see in Darwin.

[AtD]

Wow that looks brilliant!

[Will]

Very sleek, with a timeless quality about it.

Furthermore, if it proceeds, it will be really great to have a tallish building on our main entranceway into the CBD from the airport, and not just 1-2 storey bulky good type shops.

[Adelarch]

Great to have some height in this part of the cbd which often has a deserted country town feel about it. Nice idea also to catch Altitide in the render to provide the DAP of a stark reminder of what they've approved virtually next door.

[AdelaideGo]

I hope the lobby render is not just a "vision", unlike most of the other residential developments in Adelaide, seems like this developer has put in some thoughts about the interior design.

[Waewick]

Also this proposal has NO blank walls. Just watch the ACC reject it as it's 9m over the height limit.

I can already hear the clicking of the red pen...

[Will]

Sorry to be a details Nazi, but when measured to the top of the structure, the building is actually 51.9m.

[Ben]

Sorry to be a details Nazi, but when measured to the top of the structure, the building is actually 51.9m.

I'm never sure of which one to use so always do the lesser just so I don't let people down. Would rather revise up then down

[Wayno]

Also this site is adjacent to area PA19 which has a height limit of 28metres. So people in upper level apartments facing west are only permitted to look down.

[AdelaideGo]

Also this proposal has NO blank walls. Just watch the ACC reject it as it's 9m over the height limit.

I can already hear the clicking of the red pen...

Looks like the issue of over-height is already raised by ACC. On page 27 of the document download from DAC, the architect has the following respond to ACC.

Comment from ACC - While the building has a high level of articulation, the bulk, scale and massing of the development is considered to be generating an excessive perception of bulk and scale and is likely to appear too dominant in the streetscape. It is noted that previous version of this proposal were trending towards a different, more dynamic massing to the one submitted as a trade-off for the greater height: please explain the rationale for the divergence.

Respond from the architect - Further to the series of collaborative discussions which Brown Falconer have had with both the ACC and DAC personnel and some of the specific comments as tabled, the revised building form embodies:
- Greater stepping of the building facades to reduce bulk and mass
- Less extrusions and feature elements to reduce the visual noise of the building
- Greater horizontality of articulation to de-emphasize it vertical height
- Revised materiality and colour palette to provide a more harmonious expression
Following these collaborative discussions, Brown Falconer feel that the resultant built form represents a far more visually appealing, less obtrusive and more appropriate solution for the site context.

[rev]

While I like the design, and some large chunks of glass to break up the balconies. I think we should be expecting a lot more from developers.
This imo is something that we would now expect to see proposed for a city like Darwin. And I don't mean that in a negative way.

I've lived in Darwin and this is nothing like anything built or proposed in that city, their new buildings are usually full of concrete and not much glass. This actually reminds me of something you would expect in Melbourne or possibly Brisbane, eg on a smaller scale.

I stand by my comment that we should expect better then this.
I'm not saying this isn't a good design etc. I like it. But I believe that this is the sort of design that is better suited to a city like Darwin, not Adelaide.
If Adelaide wants to reassert it self as one of the big capitals, then it needs more daring and out there designs that make it stand out.
It's a nice design, it will fit in.
But I don't see why everyone is oohing and ahhing. It's not spectacular or innovative.
It's essentially another box, that's been made to look nicer then the rest.

Crawf I know you like you to stretch things a little with the positivism, but suggesting this design is reminiscent of Melbourne is over kill.
This is nothing like resi developments like Vogue for example, which as you said are taller and glassy.

I'd rather see this built in the south of the city. It would be an improvement on the crappy rows of boxes near Wave.

Anyway on a brighter note, more development is good news.
Skyline moving outwards and the low-low rise of large parts of the cbd will slowly dissapear.

[Nathan]

I find it rather bland as well. We've seen plenty of proposals like this.

What I do find interesting is their initial design concept:

The initial design concept was derived from a building by New York Architect Ben Van Berkel – images below:
The primary design element is the simple horizontal banding that establishes creating the form, which allowed the banding to move to shape the mass.
Our design approach was to use the primary elements of the Van Berkel design and use them in the Grote St context, incorporating building scale and sun angle requirements of the Development Plan, and other design constraints. The design images below were created as a preliminary response:

Personally I think the finished design has nothing on the referenced building:
http://www.unstudio.com/projects/five-franklin-place