Sensational-Adelaide.com

Bob wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:08 am

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.

how good is he wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:07 am

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.

SBD wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 13, 2021 1:14 pm

how good is he wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:07 am

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).

how good is he wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 13, 2021 6:37 pm

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?

how good is he wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 13, 2021 6:37 pm

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.

SBD wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 13, 2021 1:14 pm

how good is he wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:07 am

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).

AndyWelsh wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 11, 2021 9:09 pm

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.

gnrc_louis wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 13, 2021 7:02 pm

how good is he wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 13, 2021 6:37 pm

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.

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:21 am

gnrc_louis wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 13, 2021 7:02 pm

how good is he wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 13, 2021 6:37 pm

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 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:00 am

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....