Sensational-Adelaide.com

VinyTapestry849 wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:10 pm

Isn't it the exact same image from the articles? Albeit the renders aren't that good, so its hard to tell.

Looks taller to me, although the previous renders I can find are cropped so its a bit hard to tell.

New Old

Cryptic wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 08, 2022 5:08 pm

VinyTapestry849 wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:10 pm

Isn't it the exact same image from the articles? Albeit the renders aren't that good, so its hard to tell.

Looks taller to me, although the previous renders I can find are cropped so its a bit hard to tell.

New
1660722939330.png

Old
36e4f2a2ae4fc6c86df2cab1ede8df35.jpg

Bro looks like they've just used the stretch feature in Adobe lol

So this is the new era where we break the height limit.

When is the era of good architecture going to kick in?

Both this and Pultney get me excited but we can do more here.

I’m not complaining but hopeful we get more in the next round of development.

There is an obvious "wave" feature in the facade on the revised version, for which I think looks quite striking.

SRW wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:39 pm

Nathan wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:21 pm

I wish the taper was a bit more pronounced, so the building had a bit more of an obviously unique silhouette. As it is, it's barely perceptible in that perspective render.

Or, y'know, anything other than an upright box for a change. Curves, tiers, or anything to offer relief/interest in the increasing monotony of the skyscape.

I welcome the development, of course. Just aspiring for more.

Yeah it's a hard one. Interesting buildings are usually a lot more expensive/inefficient and you're dealing with the same material costs as the east coast with less potential income. Land costs are not a big part of it once you start to get higher.
We've gone for a "quiet but confident" look that shifts with the light, day and night.

New Website for the development. No further details that I saw though at this stage.

https://www.keystoneadelaide.com.au/

Finally some progress

Did I miss something? Is this taller than Pultney st?

Mpol02 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 09, 2023 7:58 pm

Did I miss something? Is this taller than Pultney st?

Rumored to be. Nothing has been lodged yet.

If the website image is close to the final design, I will be extremely disappointed.
With such a prominent site, and multiple functional uses within the building, there is ENORMOUS scope to design something much more interesting, even keeping the basic concept of a glass box.

New renders are at the end of the video on the website.

Watch it to see more

I maintain that the taper needs to more prominent so that it's obvious in silhouette. Far too subtle in the current design.

Nathan wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:39 pm

I maintain that the taper needs to more prominent so that it's obvious in silhouette. Far too subtle in the current design.

Is the increase in prominence in silhouette worth all the floor space that would be lost?

Nort wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:14 pm

Nathan wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:39 pm

I maintain that the taper needs to more prominent so that it's obvious in silhouette. Far too subtle in the current design.

Is the increase in prominence in silhouette worth all the floor space that would be lost?

Yes.

Otherwise, why not have every building be just the max floor plate extruded up?

Nathan wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 10, 2023 3:02 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:14 pm

Nathan wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:39 pm

I maintain that the taper needs to more prominent so that it's obvious in silhouette. Far too subtle in the current design.

Is the increase in prominence in silhouette worth all the floor space that would be lost?

Yes.

Otherwise, why not have every building be just the max floor plate extruded up?

For 90% of towers that's basically what happens.

I'm not disagreeing that it could look nicer, but if it could be the difference between the finances of the tower stacking up or not is it worth it? Construction should be blocked or not allowed for it?