[COM] City Central 8 | 72m | 20lvls | office

[Professor]

There are lots of opinions across the forum and that's a good thing.

While not being in love with the latest proposal, it was certainly much better than the 11 level one that was originally proposed for that site. And while the city central buildings don't look that good from all angles and at all times, the ANZ and Ernt and Young buildings look pretty damn good at night as a backdrop to the GPO / Town hall etc.

We can't have it all ways but also need some consistency of approach as well. The DAP did not give enough reason for rejecting this proposal out of hand and against the ACC planning recommendation. It is the inconsistency that I don't like. The proposed new 20 level building would have been in keeping with the surrounding ones. I would have preferred 30 levels, but that's just me.

[crawf]

Well call me a NIMBY, but I'm once again going to say I'm glad it was rejected.

Like Will pointed out recently, we aren't desperate for development like we used to be. So we deserve something that interacts better with the street scape, stunning design and taller.

[Hippodamus]

i agree with crawf's last post.

do you know what the height limit is in the area where city central tower 8 was proposed..?

[Will]

i agree with crawf's last post.

do you know what the height limit is in the area where city central tower 8 was proposed..?

the height limit for that area is 72m.

[Professor]

Anyway there is much worse than being a NIMBY

There are the bananas, as epitomised by the east parklands mob.

Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything

[Shuz]

i agree with crawf's last post.

do you know what the height limit is in the area where city central tower 8 was proposed..?

the height limit for that area is 72m.

But, the zoning adjacent the site is a 103m height limit. It's highly likely a revised design will get approved beyond its limitation, because its 'transitional' - same case that applied with Aurora.

[urban]

The ACC is a constant source of amusement for me, Adelaide will never become one of the worlds great cities (despite what media mike and his cronies preach to the masses) unless it shakes this love hate relationship with development.

And please an "interactive pedestrian" area, people go there to work, not to sit on the footpath and drink coffee, there are a million other places in Adelaide for that.

The great cities of the world demand respect from their developers. They don't allow them to put forward a shithouse disrespectful design. In Paris, London or New York the developer wouldn't have even bothered submitting this because they know it would be refused. This building has not been refused on height or size grounds so it is lazy critiquing to suggest that the ACC is anti-development. This has been refused because the design is not good enough. This is healthy and bodes well for our city.

If you look back at the earlier postings you will see that the Heritage Branch recommended refusal for all the reasons cited in the refusal. The developers have obviously been in consultation with the Heritage Branch but refused to consider their recommendations. They have decided they would rather spend money on lawyers to get their poor proposal through than on architects to improve the project.

"interactive pedestrian" areas are what makes cities enjoyable and safe to move around. They don't have to be cafe's, they just have to have uses which involve human activity.

[Hippodamus]

And please an "interactive pedestrian" area, people go there to work, not to sit on the footpath and drink coffee, there are a million other places in Adelaide for that.

can i just say you are a fool! just because this area is not currently an interactive pedestrian area, doesn't mean that it won't be in the not too distant future you knob. With plans eventually coming into fruition with Victoria Square, the surrounding streets will be developed to encourage street activity and connection to the geographical heart of the city. it's not rundle street, but who said 'interactive' means latte sipping / commodore cruising strips anyway!! interactive means good urban design, useable open space, interesting and inviting facades of buildings, good street art / landscaping, etc...

[jk1237]

and just what is this pedestrian interactive area that you talk about. Explain. Theres only a large square 10 mtrs over the road (VICTORIA SQUARE) that should be the spot for the 'pedestrian interactive area'

[urban]

and just what is this pedestrian interactive area that you talk about. Explain. Theres only a large square 10 mtrs over the road (VICTORIA SQUARE) that should be the spot for the 'pedestrian interactive area'

Pedestrian interactive areas are areas which encourage pedestrian activity such as shops, building entrances, civic buildings, cafes, restaurants, galleries.

The best example is Melbournes shopping laneways. It is recognition that the streets that lead to the destination are just as important as the destination. Activity is more likely to permeate into and out of the square if there are safe and interesting laneways and streets leading into and out of the square.

Many people complain that Adelaide is dull and lacks vibrancy. This should not be the case for a city of 1 million people but it has happened because the govt, councils, developers and architects have ignored the fact that urban areas have to be designed to encourage activity and vibrancy. I commend the ACC for realising that urban design is important and that the urban design provisions in the development plan can actually be enforced.

What is of concern is that the planners recommended approval for an obviously fundamentally flawed design. Are our planners properly trained in urban design, architecture and the 3 dimensional affects of buildings? Why should Heritage Branch have to be bringing these urban design issues to the attention of the panel?

[jk1237]

This sounds great, Urban, but it would be nice if the ACC and state govt led by example and encouraged/facilitated development of some of the laneways off Rundle Mall. Its a bit rich for the ACC to say this pedestrian interaction stuff, and just leave our city squares as barren bits of grass with the lowest form of pedestrian interaction possible. Vic Sq has 6 separate parts with absolutely no pedestrian interaction, with 6 lane roads going straight through the middle. These squares could be world class pedestrian environments, no other Oz city is lucky enough to have these squares in their CBD, and all we have is a 1 or 2 tourists walking through the middle of the square to photo the Vic Sq fountain, with thousands of cars zooming around. I think theres a saying 'whats good for the goose is good for the gander'

I am all for this pedestrian interaction, but the ACC needs to show developers exactly what they want before projects are submitted, not after.

[Wayno]

This sounds great, Urban, but it would be nice if the ACC and state govt led by example and encouraged/facilitated development of some of the laneways off Rundle Mall.
<snip>
I am all for this pedestrian interaction, but the ACC needs to show developers exactly what they want before projects are submitted, not after.

Sounds like a job for Chief Architect - Superhero!

[Hippodamus]

what you guys are missing is that activation of the public realm occurs where there is an abundance of ACTIVATED street frontages and streetscapes along the EDGE of that space!

look at true examples of successful open spaces all over the world: piazzas and how they work in Europe. They have mixed use surrounds, even comprising of office space, but the way those building edges are treated at grade and conjucive for pedestrians and stimulate and encourage activity.

[Professor]

This is a bit of a dead-end discussion. The rejection of a building for such obtuse reasoning it pretty lame.

Remember that this is the same council that closed off the NW corner of Victoria Square to traffic so that Peter Duncan could open a restaurant, which failed after 1 month.

Victoria Square is a shambles and a disgrace. There is always the opportunity to make it into a really strong feature of Adelaide, but all the council does is get plans, competitions, suggestions and whatever. NOTHING ever happens and the square remains a desolate traffic roundabout.

And then they reject a building on the opposite side of the road for not being pedestrian interactive or whatever.

Spare me.

[urban]

This sounds great, Urban, but it would be nice if the ACC and state govt led by example and encouraged/facilitated development of some of the laneways off Rundle Mall. Its a bit rich for the ACC to say this pedestrian interaction stuff, and just leave our city squares as barren bits of grass with the lowest form of pedestrian interaction possible. Vic Sq has 6 separate parts with absolutely no pedestrian interaction, with 6 lane roads going straight through the middle. These squares could be world class pedestrian environments, no other Oz city is lucky enough to have these squares in their CBD, and all we have is a 1 or 2 tourists walking through the middle of the square to photo the Vic Sq fountain, with thousands of cars zooming around. I think theres a saying 'whats good for the goose is good for the gander'

I am all for this pedestrian interaction, but the ACC needs to show developers exactly what they want before projects are submitted, not after.

You are absolutely right, the ACC record on this is appalling. I guess I'm hoping this is the beginning of a change in attitude.

This is a bit of a dead-end discussion. The rejection of a building for such obtuse reasoning it pretty lame.

Remember that this is the same council that closed off the NW corner of Victoria Square to traffic so that Peter Duncan could open a restaurant, which failed after 1 month.

The restaurant failed but the concept has worked. That corner of Victoria Sq is the only part of the square which has any activity other than people waiting for buses and trams.