[COM] 231-243 Waymouth Street | 55m | 17lvls | Student Accom

[morty137]

I totally agree with morty on this but I appreciate you being diplomatic about it Ben. These developments do not look good on their own so I agree that we shouldn’t be seeking development for the sake of it but be consistent with expectations of high quality developments.
A lot of people on here say things along the lines of “oh but that’s the price you pay with development. You’re going to get a few bad eggs”. I totally disagree with that mindset and believe that Adelaide deserves so much better.

It’s not that I’m anti-development but I’m pro quality.
I believe in quality design. The SAHMRI, Realm, (heck even the long defunct proposal of 20-22 Currie Street) speak to me that Adelaide has always deserved quality style for all their buildings. The type of quality style that you can look back on 50 years from now and say “that was a great example of that architecture”. I don’t understand why people are so against that and am happy for somebody to justify why they are because I’d really like to know.

I think for me, a few things stand out:

1) It is absolutely impossible that the developer will be forced to do anything to remove or alter this building. Aside for some variation in the finish of the concrete panels, which could easily be argued is down to the lighting, weather conditions etc, the building accurately matches the renders released when the building was proposed. It has been approved by DAC and built accordingly. The petition is a complete waste of time and not worth the server space it is stored on.

2) The petition seems to be directed at ACC and Nick Xenophon, neither party involved in the planning process or in a position to demand the building be altered/demolished. Xenophon's not even an elected official at this stage, nor may he be come the election.

3) I suspect the OP's desire to have the building altered/demolished has little to do with a genuine desire to see quality architecture across the city of Adelaide, both now and into the future - more that he's put down a deposit for a city apartment and now has a problem with one of the many buildings that can be seen from the windows/balcony. I personally don't feel comfortable with someone using the forum to promote a petition for an approved building to be altered or demolished just to improve the view from his living room.

4) Whether or not this building constitutes 'quality architecture' is completely subjective and nobody can definitively rule whether this building looks good or not. As has been mentioned before, in ten years' time when the area is far more built up than this I think this building will contribute positively to our skyline and offer a point of difference to the glass boxes which are likely to rise around it. It is far too soon to judge the design merits of this building.

Just my opinions of course. I think it's great that Morty has taken an interest in this building, I just think tying up the forum with multiple posts about a misguided petition is not useful. Hopefully he will stay and contribute to the discussion about future buildings and infrastructure, although less from a buyer's perspective and more for the love of seeing Adelaide grow and prosper

Just wanna clarify few things from Mortys perspective here.

1). I'm not asking anything drastic. At least some great artistic painting job would go long way with look and feel.
2). I do not have much knowledge about SA politics yet. I do like Jays initiative on Solar but people seems to not like him much for some reason( going by Advertises comments again). I do not know much about opposition guy and only person I heard about is Nick. So I thought he might be influential in future.
3).I didn't put down deposit for West franklin. I was only looking for apartment with Airport view. Well Adelaide is my home now so I also want to see nice and futuristic city. I love the design of Medical Research Institute.
4.)I dont see this building as quality architecture or has a great feel just yet.More of ready made cheap stuff.

[Llessur2002]

Hey Morty, apologies if I came across as overly negative in my previous post – I am one of the people who really quite likes this building and, whilst I agree it is fairly imposing on the otherwise empty skyline in this area at the moment, I think it will really come into its own when the surrounding area is built up and adds some contrast is shape and texture to what is likely to rise around it. Give it time and I think more people will come to like it.

At risk of going way off topic:

The Advertiser, being the only daily print newspaper in Adelaide, has something of a monopoly on local reporting. It is also owned by NewCorp/Rupert Murdoch (owner of various other publications such as the Australian, news.com.au etc) who, I don’t think anyone will argue with me saying this, has fairly right-wing leanings and his newspapers reflect his views accordingly. The Advertiser generally runs an agenda of opposing cyclists, trams, renewable energy and the Labor government – presumably all things that Rupert Murdoch does not like. For every letter and comment published either online or in print that praises any of the above, you will likely see ten that don’t. This is partially because the editors can choose to publish only the letters and comments which reflect their views, and partially because people who hold similar views to that of Murdoch/the Advertiser are most likely to buy or subscribe to it and people who hold opposing views will tend to avoid it.

The paper and its online content therefore can become a bit of an echo chamber for those with similar views to Murdoch, so you are less likely to see opposing viewpoints. This does not in any way mean that the paper and the comments from readers accurately reflect the views of the majority of South Australia and it should therefore be read with some skepticism in this regard. I believe this is true of any news source, regardless of who publishes it.

With regards to leaders of the parties - whilst I think they are important in terms of driving an agenda and representing our State, it is always worth checking out the policies of each of the main parties – Labor, Liberal, Greens, SA Best – via their websites as certain people (not mentioning any names so we’ll call this hypothetical person Mr X for now) are potentially all talk and no substance. If you like the policies, vote for the party. There is not really much point in voting for the leader.

Hope you’ll hang around and contribute more to the forum – it becomes a little addictive after a while…

[morty137]

Hey Morty, apologies if I came across as overly negative in my previous post – I am one of the people who really quite likes this building and, whilst I agree it is fairly imposing on the otherwise empty skyline in this area at the moment, I think it will really come into its own when the surrounding area is built up and adds some contrast is shape and texture to what is likely to rise around it. Give it time and I think more people will come to like it.

At risk of going way off topic:

The Advertiser, being the only daily print newspaper in Adelaide, has something of a monopoly on local reporting. It is also owned by NewCorp/Rupert Murdoch (owner of various other publications such as the Australian, news.com.au etc) who, I don’t think anyone will argue with me saying this, has fairly right-wing leanings and his newspapers reflect his views accordingly. The Advertiser generally runs an agenda of opposing cyclists, trams, renewable energy and the Labor government – presumably all things that Rupert Murdoch does not like. For every letter and comment published either online or in print that praises any of the above, you will likely see ten that don’t. This is partially because the editors can choose to publish only the letters and comments which reflect their views, and partially because people who hold similar views to that of Murdoch/the Advertiser are most likely to buy or subscribe to it and people who hold opposing views will tend to avoid it.

The paper and its online content therefore can become a bit of an echo chamber for those with similar views to Murdoch, so you are less likely to see opposing viewpoints. This does not in any way mean that the paper and the comments from readers accurately reflect the views of the majority of South Australia and it should therefore be read with some skepticism in this regard. I believe this is true of any news source, regardless of who publishes it.

With regards to leaders of the parties - whilst I think they are important in terms of driving an agenda and representing our State, it is always worth checking out the policies of each of the main parties – Labor, Liberal, Greens, SA Best – via their websites as certain people (not mentioning any names so we’ll call this hypothetical person Mr X for now) are potentially all talk and no substance. If you like the policies, vote for the party. There is not really much point in voting for the leader.

Hope you’ll hang around and contribute more to the forum – it becomes a little addictive after a while…

I dont think your post is overly negative and thanks for being gentle. You may have valid point about when surrounding area is built up with more building. I also hope this is one off building for CBD and I really do not want to see any more builders making ready made buildings like this. But I still like to see at least great paint job. Ideally I would love to see, each block of unit to have different colors.(Something like in Scandinavia) If they can install glass like materials with colors for each block I think that would be fantastic. Again I'm not a designer nor Engineer so they should get some professional advise on this.

Yep. I read about Murdoch and know he control lots of stuff around the world. I dont know for some reason I like reading comments than actual news! . But I agree, I shouldn't take comments as 100% reflection of whole of SA. I quite like labors solar and renewable energy plans. Also like cyclist and public tram system. I also like liberals economic polices than labor. So I should vote for labor+liberal+Nick/3

Yes, I will hang around to see whats going on Adelaide.

[Algernon]

https://www.domain.com.au/news/why-skov ... k&ref=pos1

Interesting that this low rise school with a very similar design is celebrated as the "best designed school in the world."

[Benm16]

I actually really like this building. I know a lot of you think it’s ugly as s**t but I think if it were painted white it would do a world of difference. For example there is a student accommodation building in India that is very similar but looks so nice.

https://www.archdaily.com/883227/stacke ... ure-studio

[HiTouch]

I think the issue isn’t with the development itself but with the colour (or lack of) that it has.

[Algernon]

I think the issue isn’t with the development itself but with the colour (or lack of) that it has.

A lot of little things fuel perceptions. Over the course of the discussion they've basically all been covered and covered well. Context is a big factor and will likely fuel more negative perceptions than positive because the environment around it isn't built up. That negative perception will linger for as long as it stands isolated in its context. The other big one, and what gets me personally, is that perceptions can be very heavily influenced when they think something looks cheap. The inconsistency of the concrete finish is the culprit there. Whatever merit the design has, its application lets it down and makes it feel worse than it is. That's my personal opinion there. I agree with you that if the building were painted in a consistent finish (like the paint job on that new prefab apartment building on Sth Terrace, name escapes me), it would look brilliant. Then again, as the street evolves, and so too its context, that concrete finish could appear totally different again and make people hate the thought of it being painted.

The most important thing to take away from this all is that there's no such thing as a finished street. It always evolves. It'll be an interesting challenge for whatever architect comes along next to design its neighbours.

[morty137]

I actually really like this building. I know a lot of you think it’s ugly as s**t but I think if it were painted white it would do a world of difference. For example there is a student accommodation building in India that is very similar but looks so nice.

https://www.archdaily.com/883227/stacke ... ure-studio

still looks shit to me.

[Pikey]

I actually really like this building. I know a lot of you think it’s ugly as s**t but I think if it were painted white it would do a world of difference. For example there is a student accommodation building in India that is very similar but looks so nice.

https://www.archdaily.com/883227/stacke ... ure-studio

still looks shit to me.

We get it. You hate it. We've acknowledged your distain, some agree, some don't. Opinions are wonderful, just don't keep smashing us in the face with it.

Move on.

[Jaymz]

Walked past this one last week just for a look, and was pretty impressed by the street level aspect of this one. Can also take in West Franklin and Gray Street development within a short loop if interested.

[CDJ]

I am starting to really like this building. It's definitely interesting to look at and that is more than can be said for most buildings in our city. The fact it's generating so much interest from people who would not normally notice architecture is pretty amazing for something built to such a slim budget. As others have said, it will fit in a little better once its surroundings are built up. It certainly looks better in real life than in photos.
Dwell apartments is the one which I believe deserves criticism - it looks absolutely depressing and has not one ounce of creative merit.

[rhino]

I just walked over, and I must admit it is much better close up than it is from a distance. Spoke with one of the owners who was concerned that I was from the media, as the building has been getting some negative press and the owners don't like it. She told me that the company's plan was to paint it white, but Council said they wanted a "sandstone" colour. I'm not sure that's what we've got yet. She also apparently hadn't noticed the different finishes on the panels, and was a bit upset once I pointed out . The courtyard around the back is quite nice, and apparently the inside is too.

[Nort]

The other big one, and what gets me personally, is that perceptions can be very heavily influenced when they think something looks cheap. The inconsistency of the concrete finish is the culprit there. Whatever merit the design has, its application lets it down and makes it feel worse than it is. That's my personal opinion there. I agree with you that if the building were painted in a consistent finish (like the paint job on that new prefab apartment building on Sth Terrace, name escapes me), it would look brilliant. Then again, as the street evolves, and so too its context, that concrete finish could appear totally different again and make people hate the thought of it being painted.

That's exactly it. It doesn't come across as a design choice, but rather as the cheapest choice.

[Llessur2002]

From earlier this week, you can see it rising in the back.

I think the Atira student accommodation building looks pretty good in this shot (taken from the Gray Street thread). As said above, I think this will blend in with its surrounds much better once the area has built up around it.

[Nort]

There was a Supreme Court ruling over this building a couple of days ago, looks like there won't be any changes. Anyone have the details? (Paywalled and couldn't find any other reporting on it)

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 30dd147d91