Sensational-Adelaide.com

I have been throughout the building. It is what you would expect from something of this vintage, it is lots of smaller rooms with a strong variety of different tenants.

It is serviced by two elevators and has the necessary stairs, I certainly wouldn't have viewed it as a fire trap...

It also has a janitors quarters on the roof - could make quite a nice little penthouse as it has views over Victoria Square...

Shuz wrote: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.

That's not correct. The entire building was built at the same time. The front facade and first bay are more decorative than the rest of the building. This was a very common technique to maximise the grandeur of the most visible elements (the street frontage) and save money by not decorating the minor, less visible, facades. The whole of the building exterior is original (I can't comment on the interior as I have not seen it) and is therefore significant.

There are so many under developed sites with ugly buildings on them it is such a waste to destroy this beautiful building.

I noticed on the description that this is a U-shaped building. Is there a courtyard through the middle or is it more like a lightwell?

It was actually built in two stages, I dont have the dates handy, but I think the U shaped section was built originally in the 20's and then a T shaped section was built in the 60's.

There are voids in the construction to allow for natural light.

Whilst there are so many other buildings in the city that could be ripe for redevelopment, it is not like there is one property owner that owns them all, and he/she can just choose the site which has the best potential! The reality is that alot of these properties that are "ripe", are owned by groups that do not have the want nor the financial capacity to do anything about it, and that is their right - no use any of us complaining about it.

I think that it is very positive that someone with the want and the financial capacity is trying to propose a sympathetic development that will hopefully help to reinvigorate an otherwise tired looking and unterutilised site.

One more thing, and I may have said this somewhere else, but the developer cant knock the whole box and dice down, they will have to comply with the development act and retain the architecturally significant features of the property. However, how does anyone retain the historical significance of a property, i.e. the merging of the churches, etc? In my opinion they cant!

loud wrote:...It is serviced by two elevators and has the necessary stairs, I certainly wouldn't have viewed it as a fire trap...

Not from that point of view, but doesn't this building have a lot of timber? I'm only going by faded memory.

Cheers

My on 'facadism' (unbidden, and completely uninformed except by my own personal aesthetic preferences, which should of course be the basis of all council bylaws and development plans!) (Sorry make that State Government development plans lol)

I quite like the 'facadism' concept in general as I like tall towers but hate ugly street frontages. I have to admit I quite like the western facade of this building. I walk past it quite a bit and enjoy its "Rear Window" old-school urban vibe, man, but I don't think it is as old or as beautiful as the Pirie street frontage. The air conditioners don't help!!

IMHO stone, brick and old masonry give a street a warm, old fashioned charm. Sheer glass looks beautiful from a distance but too much can give the street a quite cold feel. And concrete's positively freezing. Plus no-one seems to be making beautiful stonework anymore, so if there's a really nice example from the golden age of masonry we should preserve it, I believe.

That's why I think its better to maintain facades with heritage value but gut the interior if it is not as worthy of restoration

Really stunning interiors could be a reason for preservation, I guess, even if the outside is not, but then I suppose you could have reverse facadism and tart it up on the outside

urban wrote:
That's not correct. The entire building was built at the same time. The front facade and first bay are more decorative than the rest of the building.

Whoops, then I guess the Western wall is as old as the front! My mistake. Was right that it's not as pretty though, thanks for the explanation for that

It appears 33 Pirie St lies within the ACC "PA-16" zone, meaning it can be 103m tall. However, it is a reasonable distance due east of Westpac House - so I could envisage the ACC (oops i mean the DAC ) approving a building up to ~120m on this site...

shiftaling wrote:My on 'facadism'...

Add my to that opinion. I agree that heritage doesn't need to give way to development completely. Nor does it need to halt it. A melding of the old and the new done well can add an element of interest to a design. In fact a lot of designs benefit from having to work around a pre-existing element, giving their designers something to inspire them.

Good news for all those who dont want to see this one demolished. It is now up for lease on propertlook.com.au, so it doesnt look like we'll be getting a 120m tower here any time soon

Snorkie wrote:Good news for all those who dont want to see this one demolished. It is now up for lease on propertlook.com.au, so it doesnt look like we'll be getting a 120m tower here any time soon

i'm relieved.
i dont want to sound like a nimby, but the epworth building is definitely a significant character building and must be preserved.

Agree .. that's not being NIMBY as we all want it built I'm sure, just don't ruin something of great architectural appeal .. there are so so many ugly buildings in this city that could be demolished for this .. would hate to be 50 years down the track and look back thinking "why did they get rid of this building??" .. get rid of GHD building for starters.

The site is up for sale:
http://www.realcommercial.com.au/proper ... de-5412496