Sensational-Adelaide.com

We currently have a shortage of office space. If the council makes it known that they will not accept demolition or facadism of this building then a smart developer will jump in and restore and refurbish this building in a much quicker timeframe than a new building would allow.

This is an image posted by eastadl on SSC:

I shudder to think that we could lose this:

I for one would like to chip in a dollar or two for the purchase of the awful brown '70s lump next door and have a new tower sited there instead.

Will, reeeelax!!!

I wasn't suggesting that anything you said was misinformed.

I was suggesting that you jumped down my throat and assumed that I was misinformed and didn't know what i was talking about.

It is MY OPINION that this building is architecturally plain past the frontage and the first couple of windows on the western side. It is also the view of the National Heritage Register.

It is MY OPINION that as long as a developer can tastefelly retain the architecturally significant components of the building, that the historical significance of the building will not be lost.

Please do not feel the need to attack me because I dont share the same views as yourself.

Anyone here work in this building? What's it like inside, a rabbit warren of smaller rooms or has it been gutted over the years and opened up? From the amount of dinky air con units I imagine it's probably still quite original. Who's the major tenant?

Just build it wrote:Anyone here work in this building? What's it like inside, a rabbit warren of smaller rooms or has it been gutted over the years and opened up? From the amount of dinky air con units I imagine it's probably still quite original. Who's the major tenant?

I didn't work in there, but was a regular visitor to the second floor, & it was a rabbit warren. In the 90's a lot of work was done to upgrade
the fire safety in the stairwells etc & I got the impression it was a firetrap.

I think it looks promising. The more hi-rises the better, and I actually the the preservation of heritage buildings as frontages or setbacks to a newer one is very intergrated approach to sustainable building development. It utilises maximal oppurtunity for our character to be preserved and setting a higher standard of architectural quality through compromise. It amazes me that people who have long rallied for the need of higher development fail to capitalise on the oppurtunity given at present (if it goes ahead). Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Its encouraging news and could be a very nice development, though I would prefer if those shitty 1-3 storey buildings in the main CBD core were demolished and replaced with taller buildings instead. Streets such as Currie, Pirie, Flinders and Franklin Streets.

Shuz wrote:It amazes me that people who have long rallied for the need of higher development fail to capitalise on the oppurtunity given at present (if it goes ahead). Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I feel that you are directing this thinly veiled critique at me. There is nothing hypocritical about wanting to preserve one of Adelaide's most unique and architecturally stunning buildings. Such building's add to the character of the city. We should not foresake what makes our city attractive for the sake of development. There are many under-utilised sites throughout the CBD which are ripe for development. Sites occupied by heritage buildings are NOT suitable for development. This is why I urge the ACC to lift and expand their height restrictions, so that stunning heritage buildings in the CBD core are not threatened.

loud wrote:Will, reeeelax!!!

I wasn't suggesting that anything you said was misinformed.

I was suggesting that you jumped down my throat and assumed that I was misinformed and didn't know what i was talking about.

It is MY OPINION that this building is architecturally plain past the frontage and the first couple of windows on the western side. It is also the view of the National Heritage Register.

It is MY OPINION that as long as a developer can tastefelly retain the architecturally significant components of the building, that the historical significance of the building will not be lost.

Please do not feel the need to attack me because I dont share the same views as yourself.

I wasn't attacking you personally, just your opinion.

The reason why I am very passionate about this building is because I can see this turning into another Foy & Gibsons.

Xaragmata wrote:

Just build it wrote:Anyone here work in this building? What's it like inside, a rabbit warren of smaller rooms or has it been gutted over the years and opened up? From the amount of dinky air con units I imagine it's probably still quite original. Who's the major tenant?

I didn't work in there, but was a regular visitor to the second floor, & it was a rabbit warren. In the 90's a lot of work was done to upgrade
the fire safety in the stairwells etc & I got the impression it was a firetrap.

I also visited this building several times in the 90s and I also thought of it as being a firetrap. Maybe someone here should give this place a visit and give us their thoughts. Personally I only like the Pirie Street facade. I don't see too much value in the western facade, but I would be happy to retain it if it was part of an interesting redesign.

Cheers

Will wrote:

Shuz wrote:It amazes me that people who have long rallied for the need of higher development fail to capitalise on the oppurtunity given at present (if it goes ahead). Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I feel that you are directing this thinly veiled critique at me. There is nothing hypocritical about wanting to preserve one of Adelaide's most unique and architecturally stunning buildings. Such building's add to the character of the city. We should not foresake what makes our city attractive for the sake of development. There are many under-utilised sites throughout the CBD which are ripe for development. Sites occupied by heritage buildings are NOT suitable for development. This is why I urge the ACC to lift and expand their height restrictions, so that stunning heritage buildings in the CBD core are not threatened.

You can say and you can dream, but the situation at the moment with height limits is set to stay at least for the short-term future. I see no effort, at least until next year, or in 2010 for a review of the development plan to be undertaken which would reconsider height limitations. I sympathise with your point, and I actually agree with your point - if the situation weren't so. But unfortunately it is, therefore we have to capitalise on this oppurtunity while it exists.

I feel a field-trip coming on!

Shuz wrote:

Will wrote:

Shuz wrote:It amazes me that people who have long rallied for the need of higher development fail to capitalise on the oppurtunity given at present (if it goes ahead). Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I feel that you are directing this thinly veiled critique at me. There is nothing hypocritical about wanting to preserve one of Adelaide's most unique and architecturally stunning buildings. Such building's add to the character of the city. We should not foresake what makes our city attractive for the sake of development. There are many under-utilised sites throughout the CBD which are ripe for development. Sites occupied by heritage buildings are NOT suitable for development. This is why I urge the ACC to lift and expand their height restrictions, so that stunning heritage buildings in the CBD core are not threatened.

You can say and you can dream, but the situation at the moment with height limits is set to stay at least for the short-term future. I see no effort, at least until next year, or in 2010 for a review of the development plan to be undertaken which would reconsider height limitations. I sympathise with your point, and I actually agree with your point - if the situation weren't so. But unfortunately it is, therefore we have to capitalise on this oppurtunity while it exists.

What capitalize on the opportunity to destroy our history before people wake up and legislate to stop you? Sounds like Bjelke-Petersen Queensland to me.

Regardless of relitively low height limits there are plenty of undeveloped sites in the CBD and I echo Will's thoughts. By all means build buildings like this one - just choose somewhere else.

Some of the people on this site have to be so careful with how far they take their pro-development stance or risk becoming just as bad as the worst of the nimbys. By all means promote the sustainable and sympathetic development of Adelaide but extremism at *both* ends of the scale does nothing but hurt this city.

If you think about it really, this building has nothing to do with the heritage building in front. The western wall, which someone spoke of before - is merely a latter addition to the original structure, which is where the proposal will stand. The original heritage structure in no way will be affected, if anything this is just a building adjacent the site. There would have been a point in time before the extension, that the land was occupied by two, if not more titles, to accomodate whatever structures were in place beforehand. This proposal would simply revert as it was, and I really don't see why the hell people are complaining! I don't see anyone complaining about the fact that the former Adelaide Stock Exchange is squished in between Grenfell Centre and Telstra House.

As for airspace above the heritage structure, I don't see any complaints with CoH and adjacent RAA building, same case with Tivoli Apartments. All that I care for is the integrity of the original structure to remain, and accomodate for any newer development, large or small. There are several, countless cases in Sydney and Melbourne where such developments have ensured with success. The Herald Sun/Ernst&Young development is one such case that has been adressed very well. From what we are seeing here, this, on a different level, adresses the same respects just as well.