[COM] Rundle Mall Redevelopment | $30m

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Message
Author
Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 131 times

[COM] Re: U/C: Rundle Mall Redevelopment | $30m

#856 Post by Waewick » Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:31 pm

SBD wrote:
Dog wrote:I really don't know what naysayers expect, the development is basically a new surface, which by all accounts being granite will be far more serviceable than the old pavers and a fix of the potential drainage problem. Looks good to me and the new layout means that users now use the whole surface rather than the strip down both sides. The shop front Architecture and lack of after hours cafés is another matter.
The "new surface" at the western end appears to already have patches of asphalt where people dug holes in the new pavers and then did a cheap patch job instead of putting them back. Have I missed something? It looks more like it's due to be replaced soon than only just finished an upgrade.
Just throwing it out there.

But wouldn't you let them finish the job before nit picking like that?

I mean seriously

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

[COM] Re: U/C: Rundle Mall Redevelopment | $30m

#857 Post by monotonehell » Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:47 pm

SBD wrote:The "new surface" at the western end appears to already have patches of asphalt where people dug holes in the new pavers and then did a cheap patch job instead of putting them back. Have I missed something? It looks more like it's due to be replaced soon than only just finished an upgrade.
You missed something. It's not finished. The asphalt patches are where camouflaged service covers will be placed.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
Joelmark
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:03 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 51 times

[COM] Re: U/C: Rundle Mall Redevelopment | $30m

#858 Post by Joelmark » Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:19 am

Re: the removal of the last established trees in Rundle Mall, it's interesting how fiction when repeated often enough becomes "fact". The ficus tree outside Dymocks removed a few days ago has been widely reported as "40 years old"- that would mean the tree was standing there, in middle of traffic-fumed Rundle Street when it was a car thoroughfare, in 1974! In actual fact, the ficus tree (along with almost every other tree removed from the mall) was planted during the 1995-6 mall upgrade. The ficus did indeed provide a lot of shade, but it has also grown haphazardly, interrupting the pavement underneath and blocking the sightlines across the mall. The newly planted elms once mature will provide a much more consistent "tree-corridor" which will line up nicely with Rundle and Hindley Streets.

User avatar
Nathan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3155
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Bowden
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 629 times
Contact:

[COM] Re: U/C: Rundle Mall Redevelopment | $30m

#859 Post by Nathan » Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:44 am

Joelmark wrote:Re: the removal of the last established trees in Rundle Mall, it's interesting how fiction when repeated often enough becomes "fact". The ficus tree outside Dymocks removed a few days ago has been widely reported as "40 years old"- that would mean the tree was standing there, in middle of traffic-fumed Rundle Street when it was a car thoroughfare, in 1974! In actual fact, the ficus tree (along with almost every other tree removed from the mall) was planted during the 1995-6 mall upgrade. The ficus did indeed provide a lot of shade, but it has also grown haphazardly, interrupting the pavement underneath and blocking the sightlines across the mall. The newly planted elms once mature will provide a much more consistent "tree-corridor" which will line up nicely with Rundle and Hindley Streets.
But... but... but... the council hates trees!

I love how it's become a conspiracy theory now that the council paid off an "arborist" to give them the report they wanted. Like Yarwood & co were sitting around the council chambers going "This tree in the mall is really popular, but we hate it, so how can we get rid of it? Oh, I know, let's do a multi-million dollar revamp of the mall, re-do all the underground services and make up some story about the roots being in the way. That'll totally be worth it" :roll:

pushbutton
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1425
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:01 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 18 times

[COM] Re: U/C: Rundle Mall Redevelopment | $30m

#860 Post by pushbutton » Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:45 am

Joelmark wrote:Re: the removal of the last established trees in Rundle Mall, it's interesting how fiction when repeated often enough becomes "fact". The ficus tree outside Dymocks removed a few days ago has been widely reported as "40 years old"- that would mean the tree was standing there, in middle of traffic-fumed Rundle Street when it was a car thoroughfare, in 1974! In actual fact, the ficus tree (along with almost every other tree removed from the mall) was planted during the 1995-6 mall upgrade. The ficus did indeed provide a lot of shade, but it has also grown haphazardly, interrupting the pavement underneath and blocking the sightlines across the mall. The newly planted elms once mature will provide a much more consistent "tree-corridor" which will line up nicely with Rundle and Hindley Streets.
I thought those trees had only been there since the last mall refurb. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so!

pushbutton
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1425
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:01 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 18 times

[COM] Re: U/C: Rundle Mall Redevelopment | $30m

#861 Post by pushbutton » Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:46 am

Nathan wrote:
Joelmark wrote:Re: the removal of the last established trees in Rundle Mall, it's interesting how fiction when repeated often enough becomes "fact". The ficus tree outside Dymocks removed a few days ago has been widely reported as "40 years old"- that would mean the tree was standing there, in middle of traffic-fumed Rundle Street when it was a car thoroughfare, in 1974! In actual fact, the ficus tree (along with almost every other tree removed from the mall) was planted during the 1995-6 mall upgrade. The ficus did indeed provide a lot of shade, but it has also grown haphazardly, interrupting the pavement underneath and blocking the sightlines across the mall. The newly planted elms once mature will provide a much more consistent "tree-corridor" which will line up nicely with Rundle and Hindley Streets.
But... but... but... the council hates trees!

I love how it's become a conspiracy theory now that the council paid off an "arborist" to give them the report they wanted. Like Yarwood & co were sitting around the council chambers going "This tree in the mall is really popular, but we hate it, so how can we get rid of it? Oh, I know, let's do a multi-million dollar revamp of the mall, re-do all the underground services and make up some story about the roots being in the way. That'll totally be worth it" :roll:
Lol!

User avatar
Mants
Legendary Member!
Posts: 990
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:40 am
Location: City of Burnside
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 10 times

[COM] Re: U/C: Rundle Mall Redevelopment | $30m

#862 Post by Mants » Sun Apr 06, 2014 3:20 pm

pushbutton wrote:
[Shuz] wrote:I'm not sure if you're serious?
If you mean me, then yes of course I'm serious.
I have to agree with pushbutton. The Adelaide Airport forecourt surface is visually appealing and something a bit different to what we have seen in other paving jobs in recent years (North Terrace, Rundle Street, Rundle Mall and the Footbridge come to mind).
I'm not sure if this would have been entirely appropriate for Rundle Mall, but paving can actually become an attraction in itself...just look at Burle Marx's Copacabana promenade in Rio. Absolutely iconic.
I can see that a lot of thought did go into the paving of Rundle Mall, but I think they missed the mark with its execution.

stronic
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 3:29 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 5 times

[COM] Re: U/C: Rundle Mall Redevelopment | $30m

#863 Post by stronic » Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:38 am

I'm just glad the council didn't go on with their stupid native crusade and plant Eucalyptus Trees. IMO, those trees are not fit for the city nor the suburbs.

obituary resider
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:33 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 14 times

[COM] Re: U/C: Rundle Mall Redevelopment | $30m

#864 Post by obituary resider » Tue Apr 08, 2014 9:11 pm

Eucalyptus trees would not have worked in the tight confines of the mall for numerous reasons, including adherence to a main chunk of the design ethos envisioned by the architect.... as to the idea that they do not belong else where in the city and the suburbs...?!?! They would've worked an absolute treat in Victoria Square. :(

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2048
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 8 times

[COM] Re: U/C: Rundle Mall Redevelopment | $30m

#865 Post by Aidan » Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:01 pm

Joelmark wrote:Re: the removal of the last established trees in Rundle Mall, it's interesting how fiction when repeated often enough becomes "fact". The ficus tree outside Dymocks removed a few days ago has been widely reported as "40 years old"- that would mean the tree was standing there, in middle of traffic-fumed Rundle Street when it was a car thoroughfare, in 1974!
No, it means it was standing somewhere in 1974. Trees can be moved.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

Patrick_27
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1762
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:41 pm
Location: Adelaide CBD, SA
Been thanked: 219 times

[COM] Re: U/C: Rundle Mall Redevelopment | $30m

#866 Post by Patrick_27 » Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:41 am

Aidan wrote:
Joelmark wrote:Re: the removal of the last established trees in Rundle Mall, it's interesting how fiction when repeated often enough becomes "fact". The ficus tree outside Dymocks removed a few days ago has been widely reported as "40 years old"- that would mean the tree was standing there, in middle of traffic-fumed Rundle Street when it was a car thoroughfare, in 1974!
No, it means it was standing somewhere in 1974. Trees can be moved.
Stop trolling. What are the odds that they'd move an established tree into mall when it first opened.barely established.

User avatar
Nathan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3155
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Bowden
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 629 times
Contact:

[COM] Re: U/C: Rundle Mall Redevelopment | $30m

#867 Post by Nathan » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:13 pm

Chalk up another Advertiser/Sunday Mail opinion piece against the mall redevelopment. I'm not even going to bother linking to it.
How many are we up to now?

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

[COM] Re: U/C: Rundle Mall Redevelopment | $30m

#868 Post by monotonehell » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:43 pm

Nathan wrote:Chalk up another Advertiser/Sunday Mail opinion piece against the mall redevelopment. I'm not even going to bother linking to it.
How many are we up to now?
What the hell could their motivation be? They are way past the quantity of articles pointing this out should be (less than one).
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

stronic
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 3:29 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 5 times

[COM] Re: U/C: Rundle Mall Redevelopment | $30m

#869 Post by stronic » Sun May 04, 2014 12:01 pm

obituary resider wrote:Eucalyptus trees would not have worked in the tight confines of the mall for numerous reasons, including adherence to a main chunk of the design ethos envisioned by the architect.... as to the idea that they do not belong else where in the city and the suburbs...?!?! They would've worked an absolute treat in Victoria Square. :(
They did use them in Victoria Square, remember the big uproar? People, including members of the council, were complaining that Eucalyptus was not an ideal choice because they shed limbs and branches easily, causing mess and becoming a safety hazard. It's true they shouldn't be planted anywhere in a city. They are bush trees and they don't call them 'widow makers' for nothing.

citywatcher
Legendary Member!
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:51 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 67 times

[COM] Re: U/C: Rundle Mall Redevelopment | $30m

#870 Post by citywatcher » Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Good progress being made but still lots of bitumen patches everywhere and no sight of the promised lighting

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests