[Rant] "Bulk", by itself, is not a suitable goal.

[Prince George]

One of the sentiments that I see quite often in forums is that it will be good, in and of itself, to see a bigger building at this or that location. It's usually phrased as something like "will add some welcome bulk", "good to see more height at this end of town", "will make quite an impression", "is going to frame the square/street nicely", or as lamenting its absence with "shame they lowered the height of this one".

This treats city planning as something like interior decorating or Feng Shui, which would be fine if all we want is to have more interesting postcard photos of town. No, I say, we want people in the city, not just bulk. I am wildly in favour of increasing the CBD's density, but that doesn't just mean slapping down bigger buildings. Size is only interesting when it is at the service of drawing people into the city.

By way of example, think for a moment on which streets are the bulkiest, and which are the most active. For size, it's hard to go past the north half of King William St, particularly the middle section. Would anyone disagree with me if I describe it as one of the least active streets in Adelaide? It is not a place that you go to, it is a thoroughfare that you go through on your way to somewhere else. It's only drawcard is the sheer volume of office space that lines it, which you can readily see on any weekend by how empty it is.

By comparison, the active streets are ones like Rundle or Gouger; neither have much in the way of bulk, each have a great deal of activity and positive street levels, each are vibrant all week and late into the evening as well. The bulked-up streets aren't offering to these people the things that are attracting them to these smaller scale streets: things to do, things to see, places to go. Size, in and of itself, isn't appealing; people aren't thinking to themselves "let's go out and look up at some taller buildings". I believe that people rarely raise their view above eye-level, and for that reason the size of the buildings are far less important than what is happening at street level.

That's not to say that big buildings can't spark activity on the street, just that they don't without people explicitly working at it. The mixed success of the areas that come closest to managing it -- the Mall and Hindley St -- show just how easy it is to get it wrong. Take the Myer Centre, look at the frontage it gives to the mall; many of the stores along that face don't actually have an entrance that faces the mall, and when they do they are often the smaller entrance, with the larger one facing the centre's interior.

So I am skeptical of many recent and current developments: SA Water at least makes clear the problem with "campus style headquarters", an entire building given over to one occupant is a recipe for boredom; 374-400 King William looks ominously like a monolith that will swallow that end of town under its 90m facade; even Aurora looks questionable - take the most promising of Adelaide's squares and build an office tower? does it at least have ground-level retail? - my only consolation is that giving twenty CEOs a fabulous view gives them a reason to get back from lunch earlier.

I don't think it helps that the renders that we see are all either aerial shots or expansive fish-eye perspectives from somewhere across the street. Neither of these are useful for judging what the building is really going to be like at ground level, and that is how almost all of us will really experience it. Frankly, I am prepared to forgive almost any monstrosity if its first two levels are outstandingly good, because no amount of architectural merit will make up for a dull street level.

[loud]

I couldn't agree more!

The only thing I would add to this rant would be my complete "fed-up-ness" in the 374-400KWS thread of people continuously saying "this pic shows just how big this is going to be", "this going to be quite the beast", etc, etc... I think we all are intelligent enough to figure this out without each forumer making the same bloody comments!

Just one thing though... SA Water has two tenants - the other tenant is EPA.

[Prince George]

Just one thing though... SA Water has two tenants - the other tenant is EPA.

Ah, good point - I'll try to think of something pithy involving Tweedledum, Tweedledee, and a share house.

[jk1237]

when I see all these developments and proposals, I look at what the development is replacing, and in almost every case at the moment, I see the street interaction of the new development is far better than what was there before. The bulk and impact on our skyline is then an added-on bonus/spin-off. So I like it.

374-400 King Wil St, which I believe will have ground floor retailing, is replacing an empty block of land. Before that, it was a warehouse with a motorbike showroom. The street interaction of this new structure will create far more street activity and connection than the prev 2 uses.

Aurora on Pire, which will have ground floor retailing, has replaced a horrid 2 storey Savings and loans branch that had terrible street interaction. It was awful. The new development will be significantly better for the square

SA Water has replaced a 2 storey tram barn that never had any street interaction. Although SA Water doesnt have any ground floor retailing, its a lot better for pedestrian activity than the 2-storey empty tram barn building.

The CC project has replaced the old Advertiser buildings which were a bit tired and rundown. The ANZ CC has a great food court, which has created a huge pedestrian vibe on Waymouth st, that was never there before. When they finally complete the K W side of things (ie the mall/plaza connection thingo), there should be a greater pedestrian connection to K W St

Even the spark apartments will create a major pedestrian vibe from its students, compared to a empty, disused cinema.

Conservatory on Hindmarsh replaced a dour RAA shop. The new project is also having street retail (i think), but now with the added bonus of an extra 500+ people working/living on top of it, that were not there previously.

I like King William Street, it looks quite grand, but it naturally wont have the pedestrian flows of a shopping strip such as Rundle/Hindley. The pedestrian flow is mainly for commuting, but this happens in all cities, ie Collins St in Melb on a weekend is dead. However I would like Cibo (cnr Grenfell/K W st) and a few more cafes to open in K W st on a weekend, caus I agree, its too dead during non office hours. Theres now a few hotels and apartment blocks to create some demand. I have noticed there is far more pedestrian life on K W st on weekends compared to 5-10 years ago, but we can do more.

Same could be said of North Tce, its suffers from a lack of pedestrians sometimes.

Its true that bulk by itself should not be a suitable goal, and Im glad Adelaide has taken a different direction than boring Brisb and Perth who seem to build tallies simply caus they can say 'we' have more taller skyscrapers than' you'.
However one would be nice

[Prince George]

Saying that what was there before was worse isn't really a recommendation, it reads to me more like that self-defeating talk that this-or-that "isn't great, but pretty good for Adelaide". The point isn't to compare with just what was there before, but with what else could be there now. This is the "opportunity cost" - by making one thing, we rule out a host of others. SA Water was a tram barn, but having decided to put something else there, the best choice isn't one that is simply better than the barn, it has to be better than the other alternatives. I don't believe that this one is, especially not one that fronts a public square.

At 374-400 KW we get 90m of the same street front, over and over again, with the only variety being the signage of whoever happens to be there. My litmus test for something like this is "what will it look like when the lights are out?" When the stores are closed and the staff has gone home, is the place interesting or boring to look at? My guess - it will be as boring as walking through Marion after hours. The same can't be said of the older shopping areas, whose variety comes as much from the hodge-podge of different buildings. If a single development is going to occupy such a large portion of the block, I feel it simply has to be made to present itself at ground level as more than just that one design.

It is far from clear that Aurora will have retail. The floorplans on the website show that 2/3rds of the ground floor is carparking, then there is a substantial lobby; there are two smaller areas in the NE corner that are shaded differently on the plan, neither have a clear label; the 3-D flyover seems to show that the larger of the two is a conference room, and the plan seems to show that it's separated from the lobby by a glass wall. At best, 1/6th of the ground floor will be retail, perhaps less than 1/12, or maybe that final corner isn't retail at all ...

(My favourite part of the site is when they talk about the "changing face of corporate culture". Executives get big window offices? Sounds like the current face to me)

And this is getting to the bigger question here. Street levels aren't just about how many windows and doors you have facing the street; they're about the things that you are providing back to the street to breathe life into it, make a place out of it, and a lot of that is subtle points of design. The current default answer is "ground floor retailing": we declare that some of the bottom floor will be shops and stop there, washing our hands of the question, thinking "there, I've provided some interaction with the street". That's simply not enough - if it were, then the interior of Marion would be the most vibrant, lively street in Adelaide. I don't believe that anyone would actually agree with that, so when we say "vibrant streets" we must mean something more than just "lots of shopping". It's that "something more" that I'm not seeing in these developments.

[Shuz]

It should be compulsory for at least 2/3rds of the ground floor area to be occupied by retail tenancies.

[loud]

It should be compulsory for at least 2/3rds of the ground floor area to be occupied by retail tenancies.

Do you want to put that in to context or is that for every single development in the cbd?

[Shuz]

It should be compulsory for at least 2/3rds of the ground floor area to be occupied by retail tenancies.

Do you want to put that in to context or is that for every single development in the cbd?

Every single development.

[Prince George]

It should be compulsory for at least 2/3rds of the ground floor area to be occupied by retail tenancies.

While there is certainly going to be a place and a need for retail (and let's include dining and entertainment in that), it's not just a matter of setting percentages and stopping there. What if the ground floor of 374-400 KW was occupied by a single retailer, something big like a car dealership or a furniture store? That's 100% retail, but it's probably not going to do much for the street.

There's a need for more variety than that on a number of levels: a variety of businesses, a variety of activities, a variety of designs and shapes and styles of building. I think that some of the idea I'm orbiting around is that a public life will involve having choices and options. If the building is just a single retailer, then you have only two choices - go into that store or carry on walking, walking, walking to get past it. Having multiple shops gives multiple options; a restaurant, cafe, or even cinema offer different kinds of options; libraries and museums are different again.