[CAN] 64 Currie Street | 92m | 25 Levels | QT Hotel/Office

[yousername]

[iTouch]

lol if its of any relevance, I had a dream last night looking at this topic and 66 Currie Street had been pushed up to 40 levels with the height being around 150m and the price something like 30 or 40 million. Come to think of it, it was a pretty detailed dream hah.

Everyone on the forum was like "oh the ACC are going to be slaughtering this" and "I'll believe it when I see it" except Monotonehell and yousername who were all like "OMG" *JIZZinpants*

maybe because of my dreams detail, it'll come true.

[Will Derwent]

I'm still not convinced of the rationale for a set back in a city like Adelaide anyway. Just to remind everyone, we've got no shortage of sunlight in this city, especially in the summer, and not because we've currently got low rise development but because we've got longer and hotter days in both seasons than these major cities in North America and Europe.

I'd willingly trade in a setback provision to mandate pergola's over the street and increased tree coverage at street level to reduce the amount of open sky in the CBD. I want more shade in the summer dammit, not more f@#$ing sun in the summer.

[Isiskii]

Now we're beginning to see a surge of developments which are really starting to test the effective enforcement of the ACC's height limitations. I guess a lot of precedent has been set in recent years by other developments which have exceeded the height limitations and gained development approval, that its encouraging other developers to do the same. This is a good outcome, and I most certainly hope that the amendment to the development plan by the new City Council will reflect this accordingly.

[Prince George]

I'm still not convinced of the rationale for a set back in a city like Adelaide anyway.

(1) Because great big rectangular boxes that repeat themselves over and over until they top out are booorrrrrrrrrring. (2) Irrespective of light-access, having a wall of buildings looming overhead can feel oppressive to people; setbacks allow designs to combine human-scale street levels with tall towers. (3) Buildings that extend out to the property boundaries for the entirety of their height results in the dreaded "blank concrete wall"; building setbacks will give greater scope to designs that avoid this. (4) More frequent gaps between buildings can help reduce "wind tunnel" effects around the city.

[Wayno]

I'm still not convinced of the rationale for a set back in a city like Adelaide anyway.

(1) Because great big rectangular boxes that repeat themselves over and over until they top out are booorrrrrrrrrring. (2) Irrespective of light-access, having a wall of buildings looming overhead can feel oppressive to people; setbacks allow designs to combine human-scale street levels with tall towers. (3) Buildings that extend out to the property boundaries for the entirety of their height results in the dreaded "blank concrete wall"; building setbacks will give greater scope to designs that avoid this. (4) More frequent gaps between buildings can help reduce "wind tunnel" effects around the city.

Yep agree 10,000% (without exaggeration), as evidenced by Westpac House which works perfectly. Imagine it looming large at the footpath - would look quite odd.

Setback's are city design 101 in my opinion. Look at Waymouth St and you'll see what I mean. Imagine multiple cbd streets being like that. Can't see the forest for the trees.

Much better is this look from a recent New York development - note how the POINT TOWERS & BROAD TOWERS are stepped back. This broadens the skyline without limiting building height. This works well on a human scale, adds variety to the skyline, and is aesthetically pleasing. Of course many Property Developers prefer to ignore as it means less floorspace and hence lower profits.

The ACC would get better results if they traded setbacks vs height restrictions.

[Prince George]

A couple of things to note from the NYC example that Wayno linked to:

1) The towers are on a Floor-Area-Ratio of 3.4. This means that the total floorspace of the building can be no more than 3.4x the area of the plot that it stands on. So if they cover the entire site, each building would only be 3-4 storeys high. If you wish to build 10 storeys, you have to cover no more than 1/3rd of your site, leaving the rest as an open plaza etc. (If I understand right, that doesn't include the podium or base, just the tower)

2) Mandatory setbacks prevent buildings from reaching their property boundaries, and there is a maximum width & breadth that a tower may take. This and the FAR produce taller, thinner towers.

3) The maximum total height of the buildings are a little over 200 ft, around 70 metres. So these aren't supertall towers that they're controlling, these are quite moderate sized buildings that they still choose to give setbacks.

PCB

[SRW]

Of course many Property Developers prefer to ignore as it means less floorspace and hence lower profits.

Although, in the experience of New York at least, higher rents can be achieved by creating desirable terraces on setbacks.

[Will Derwent]

I feel a bit like the guy the stupid guy that didn't turn up to planning 101, but I still don't see the appeal.

Many of some of the more amazing streets in New York (just as one example) are very canyon like - such as wall st in downtown, which has very narrow streets and virtually no setbacks that I could see from street level. While I'd happily agree that you wouldn't want the whole city looking like this, the existence of a few streets like this doesn't seem to be a terrible catastrophe, so long as you can leave that part of the city. In a city the size of Adelaide I'd be flabbergasted to see how it would even be possible to achieve a level of density that would cause no end of canyoned streets in both residential and commercial segments of the city. Even in Manhattan you can easily find large chunks of the city nowhere near that density.

And I quite like that section of waymouth st.

I suppose what I'm getting at is I don't see how the requirement for setbacks is anything more than taste, as opposed to objectively improving the city streetscapes. And secondly, the imposition of setbacks greatly reduces the amount of space that a developer can use on a given size. This cost isn't incurred by the city, but it is incurred in reduced return on investment for developers. In my mind I'd want a stronger reason than taste to impose significant costs on developers.

[spiller]

And I quite like that section of waymouth st.

I suppose what I'm getting at is I don't see how the requirement for setbacks is anything more than taste, as opposed to objectively improving the city streetscapes. And secondly, the imposition of setbacks greatly reduces the amount of space that a developer can use on a given size. This cost isn't incurred by the city, but it is incurred in reduced return on investment for developers. In my mind I'd want a stronger reason than taste to impose significant costs on developers.

This.

As I said before, most of the buildings in NYC and chicago that have set backs actually rise to a height before the first set back that is taller than the overall height of most of the buildings in the Adelaide CBD. I.E. the street frontage is similar. Also, Chicago's buildings dont employ as many set backs as in NYC (perhaps due to the lack of that zoning in Chicago??) and it's downtown has plenty of height - it doesnt affect the experience at street level at all. I can see the sense in the ruling, but its probably not entirely applicable in Adelaide.

FWIW I enjoy the drive down Pirie street with its bold street frontage - gives a genuine "big city" feel to the area.

[Nathan]

I feel a bit like the guy the stupid guy that didn't turn up to planning 101, but I still don't see the appeal.

Many of some of the more amazing streets in New York (just as one example) are very canyon like - such as wall st in downtown, which has very narrow streets and virtually no setbacks that I could see from street level. While I'd happily agree that you wouldn't want the whole city looking like this, the existence of a few streets like this doesn't seem to be a terrible catastrophe, so long as you can leave that part of the city. In a city the size of Adelaide I'd be flabbergasted to see how it would even be possible to achieve a level of density that would cause no end of canyoned streets in both residential and commercial segments of the city. Even in Manhattan you can easily find large chunks of the city nowhere near that density.

And I quite like that section of waymouth st.

I suppose what I'm getting at is I don't see how the requirement for setbacks is anything more than taste, as opposed to objectively improving the city streetscapes. And secondly, the imposition of setbacks greatly reduces the amount of space that a developer can use on a given size. This cost isn't incurred by the city, but it is incurred in reduced return on investment for developers. In my mind I'd want a stronger reason than taste to impose significant costs on developers.

I agree. I can see why it would be undesirable for every street in the CBD to be "canyon like", but I quite like having a few streets like that. Most of the streets in Adelaide are very wide, and that combined with set backs I feel contributes to a bit of an empty feeling. Obviously it's just a matter of planning areas of the city that require setbacks, and areas that don't.

[Wayno]

Just for the record - I agree with most comments above by PG, Nathan, Will Derwent, Spiller. A mix is also ok in my opinion with some streets (and buildings) having more setback than others. I'd hate to see the majority of buildings looming over the footpath though - which becomes more likely to occur as precedents get set.

It really comes down to 'design' and 'taste' - which in the world of architecture are highly subjective and polarising topics.

[skyliner]

[quote="spiller

FWIW I enjoy the drive down Pirie street with its bold street frontage - gives a genuine "big city" feel to the area.[/quote]

Me too!!! Gawler place is a little like that too.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS GREATER CBD DEVELOPMENT

[Just build it]

Sounds brilliant. Won't hold my breath but please God, let it get up. From just looking at their website and their work I get the vibe that they're probably not the types who'd throw away considerable cash proposing 'fluff' projects at the moment.

On the subject of Wall Street, it's a narrow little wind tunnel and no amount of setbacks would've saved it. The whole financial district is one windtunnel after another. Still very cool! Best thing about Wall St is the little graveyard across Broadway behind the NYSE. Nice quiet place to chill out with nobody around. Eat your lunch maybe.

[spiller]

Sounds brilliant. Won't hold my breath but please God, let it get up. From just looking at their website and their work I get the vibe that they're probably not the types who'd throw away considerable cash proposing 'fluff' projects at the moment.

On the subject of Wall Street, it's a narrow little wind tunnel and no amount of setbacks would've saved it. The whole financial district is one windtunnel after another. Still very cool! Best thing about Wall St is the little graveyard across Broadway behind the NYSE. Nice quiet place to chill out with nobody around. Eat your lunch maybe.

are you talking about the graveyard next to Trinity at the end of Wall Street? I loved that little area too! Some of the stones dated back to the early 1600s!