#APP: 74-80 Light Square | 45m | 13lvls Office

[Just build it]

Even if this building only ends up with 100 or so employees based in it, with the nature of the law work that TGB do they'll still be drawing a few hundred people into and out of the building every day for consultations, mediations etc etc. So yes, they'll definitely be increased vibrancy in the area.

I'm sure the extra foot traffic will be welcomed by small business in Waymouth St too. Every bit helps.

[Howie]

Got some renders from Paul..






Ground floor looking very lively there

[AtD]

Thanks Howie. I'm not sure what those floating canopy things are for, but they're.... yeah. Interesting to say the least.

And I can't for the life of me figure out what's holding them up.

[deano91]

Thanks Howie. I'm not sure what those floating canopy things are for, but they're.... yeah. Interesting to say the least.

And I can't for the life of me figure out what's holding them up.

What, the orange things?? They look like umbrellas to me. Have a look in the third picture, you can clearly see a white pole holding them up over tables, which I'm assuming means that they are planning some sort of dining for the ground floor.

[Prince George]

Thanks Howie. I'm not sure what those floating canopy things are for, but they're.... yeah. Interesting to say the least.

And I can't for the life of me figure out what's holding them up.

What, the orange things?? They look like umbrellas to me. Have a look in the third picture, you can clearly see a white pole holding them up over tables, which I'm assuming means that they are planning some sort of dining for the ground floor.

I think AtD means the curved grey structure with the green sails hanging from it, just above the umbrellas.

[deano91]

OK, good. I didn't think anyone was dumb enough to not be able to figure that one out for themselves

[AtD]

What, the orange things?? They look like umbrellas to me. Have a look in the third picture, you can clearly see a white pole holding them up over tables, which I'm assuming means that they are planning some sort of dining for the ground floor.

Umbrellas in Adelaide? Wow we are progressing. What an amazing new technology!

[skyliner]

Thanks Howie. I'm not sure what those floating canopy things are for, but they're.... yeah. Interesting to say the least.

And I can't for the life of me figure out what's holding them up.

What, the orange things?? They look like umbrellas to me. Have a look in the third picture, you can clearly see a white pole holding them up over tables, which I'm assuming means that they are planning some sort of dining for the ground floor.

I think AtD means the curved grey structure with the green sails hanging from it, just above the umbrellas.

The curved grey structure - cantilever suspension - all done with mirrors me dear boy!!! In all seriousness support not entirely clear to me from the render.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[Shuz]

Re; Howie's previous post about the uniqueness of the design in an organic context - Such sophistication and brillance.

[frank1]

I must admit i like this orange side facing light square, but does anyone know what the other side (east facing) will look like? Hope it is not a blank concrete wall?

[stumpjumper]

The notional height limit for this precinct is 40 metres, and has been since the last review of the development plan. Everyone knows that.

The approval process (whether its by delegated authority, DAP, DAC, DAP/DAC or Major Developments office) has a bit of flexibility in most of the parameters, often used as trade-offs. eg give away site area to the public realm, get a bit more height.

What the best approval method is for Adelaide CBD is another, unresolved argument.

The developer's counsel argued in this case that his client had produced a great design for a special location, and deserved some more net lettable floor area. But is this a great design? It looks like a box with decorations stuck to it.

OK, 'great design' can be subjective, but there are some things that are more or less quantifiable. Does the building improve street level interaction? Probably not. Is it generally designed to a prestige standard - fine materials, excellent detailing etc, or is it merely designed down to a budget.

Unfortunately, this building doesn't seem to offer the metropolis anything extra, so it should stick to the limits.

The time to debate the height limits, btw, is not at each approval. The approval panel is actually bound to implement the development plan as it is written, otherwise, it doesn't work. The time to put a case for greater height limits or whatever is at the regular review of the development plan.

Sledging of ACC panel members only depreciates this forum by leading people to think that it is populated by ignorant cargo cultists with a height fetish, whose motto is 'just build it, the higher the better', regardless of a building's merit or its effect on other city users now and in the future.

There's more to good urban design than building tall buildings, and there's more to good building design than sticking a few bits of coloured metal on them in the hope that people will think your box with fins is 'cutting edge'.

[ynotsfables]

I like the look the colour its avont garde appearance and the fact that this area is still a blank canvas in my opinion, being situated by an art school there is limitless creativity and potential in this area. I believe this building will set a precedence for future development that is cutting edge like this one.

[Will]

The notional height limit for this precinct is 40 metres, and has been since the last review of the development plan. Everyone knows that.

The approval process (whether its by delegated authority, DAP, DAC, DAP/DAC or Major Developments office) has a bit of flexibility in most of the parameters, often used as trade-offs. eg give away site area to the public realm, get a bit more height.

What the best approval method is for Adelaide CBD is another, unresolved argument.

The developer's counsel argued in this case that his client had produced a great design for a special location, and deserved some more net lettable floor area. But is this a great design? It looks like a box with decorations stuck to it.

OK, 'great design' can be subjective, but there are some things that are more or less quantifiable. Does the building improve street level interaction? Probably not. Is it generally designed to a prestige standard - fine materials, excellent detailing etc, or is it merely designed down to a budget.

Unfortunately, this building doesn't seem to offer the metropolis anything extra, so it should stick to the limits.

The time to debate the height limits, btw, is not at each approval. The approval panel is actually bound to implement the development plan as it is written, otherwise, it doesn't work. The time to put a case for greater height limits or whatever is at the regular review of the development plan.

Sledging of ACC panel members only depreciates this forum by leading people to think that it is populated by ignorant cargo cultists with a height fetish, whose motto is 'just build it, the higher the better', regardless of a building's merit or its effect on other city users now and in the future.

There's more to good urban design than building tall buildings, and there's more to good building design than sticking a few bits of coloured metal on them in the hope that people will think your box with fins is 'cutting edge'.

Through the nature of this website, the members of this site are pro-development, however they are also geenrally balanced in their views. I bring your attention to the low-mid rise thread whereby every member of this forum expressed outrage at the proposal to demolish the 2 level building at the corner of Rundle Street & Union Street. In that case we all agreed with the ACC's decision to deny planning approval to the 4 level proposal by Theo Maras. The majority of the people on this site do not have a 'progress at any cost' mentallity.

If we belong to the development at any cost cargo cult, then may I suggest that you belong to the 'no development at any cost' cargo cult. You seem to find problems in every development. May I suggest to you that your expectations are too high and unrealistic and would require developers to build things at a loss. Or maybe you simply do not like development?

[Just build it]

Well said.

[Queen Anne]

OK, 'great design' can be subjective, but there are some things that are more or less quantifiable. Does the building improve street level interaction? Probably not. Is it generally designed to a prestige standard - fine materials, excellent detailing etc, or is it merely designed down to a budget.

Unfortunately, this building doesn't seem to offer the metropolis anything extra, so it should stick to the limits.

There's more to good urban design than building tall buildings, and there's more to good building design than sticking a few bits of coloured metal on them in the hope that people will think your box with fins is 'cutting edge'.

This sums up my reservations about this approved development better than I could do myself. In fact, it helped me clarify my thoughts a bit better.

Personally, I really only want to see old buildings knocked down when the replacement is stellar. Those old buildings have a presence and an obvious care of construction that I just can't seem to see in too many new developments.

I had thought that since the new building at least offered some colour to the city's design palate, it's not too bad. But as you say, does it offer anything extra to the city? To me the bright colours are nice but they don't make up for the loss of yet another irreplaceable old building (and don't get me started on the one at Pultney Grammar!) I guess others might say that what the new development offers the city is another sign that Adelaide is progressing and I can understand that - we have waited a long time to get some spring in our step and this building is at least not entirely clad in green glass, lol.

It's all very complicated, I guess. The fact is, Adelaide does need to show it is progressing as an economic imperative. But on the other hand, our progress needs to be thoughtful so we get maximum benefit. So, I'd just like to say thank you to stumpjumper for his post which certainly is food for thought.