[COM] 269 North Terrace | 119m | 36 Levels | Student accommodation

[Mr Smith]

The bookshop has now vacated so the site is ready to go should it be approved.

The Lord Mayor was saying yesterday, council is against this as it will set a dangerous precedent on Adelaide's "Champs-Élysées"


http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 0c155771c7

The best decision made by the SA Labor Govt in it's 16 years in power was to remove the ACC from making decisions on major developments such as this one.

Because we should just approve anything and everything because of height. John Rau is a f*cking moron, and if this building is approved without any kind of assessment of the design then so too are the DAC.

That's an utterly absurd comment Patrick. Who said anything about 'just approve anything and everything because of height'

By your logic, and with the ACC in control, neither Realm nor Adelaidean would be under construction right now.

Is your argument that they represent 'anything and everything because of height'?

Rau is the person who made this happen.

You and the ACC may be happy with an Adelaide resplendent with boring, boxy, 18 story buildings but many people are not.

[timtam20292]

Patrick is anti height and seems to hate it when members of this forum make such comments about wanting more height in the city. Not surprised by this latest round of negativity regarding height. As I have also said on facebook, DEMOLISH the church and build this.

[Nort]

I can understand wanting to have some standards, but I actually think tall buildings work well on North Terrace. They can't overshadow the street itself, so there aren't shading concerns. Shit like the student apartments opposite the train station should never have been approved as designed, but quality taller buildings bring a nice sense of contrast where the taller buildings suddenly end and the art gallery/museum/parklands/uni takes over.

[HiTouch]

I think what Patrick is meaning is that there does need to be a little bit more regulation in regards to North Terrace due to it being a cultural boulevard. It's a really picturesque road and it wouldn't be appropriate for it to have the same blanket rules as Grenfell or Waymouth Street. It's not that he's against height, he's more for development that is complementary to the purpose of the road.

In saying that however, practicality is important and having student accom literally across the road from the university is important as long as it doesn't remove the heritage or cultural aspects which this development doesn't take away anything. Neither does 228-231 North Terrace. They're both appropriate.

[Mr Smith]

I think what Patrick is meaning is that there does need to be a little bit more regulation in regards to North Terrace due to it being a cultural boulevard. It's a really picturesque road and it wouldn't be appropriate for it to have the same blanket rules as Grenfell or Waymouth Street. It's not that he's against height, he's more for development that is complementary to the purpose of the road.

In saying that however, practicality is important and having student accom literally across the road from the university is important as long as it doesn't remove the heritage or cultural aspects which this development doesn't take away anything. Neither does 228-231 North Terrace. They're both appropriate.

Well what you think he meant, per your first para, is in no way representative of what he actually wrote.

Much like the Lord Mayor equally ridiculous comment, viz, we don't want North Tce wall to wall with 30 story buildings. What a load of complete bollocks - we currently have 1 BUILDING in the entire city that is 30+ floors (soon to be 3 or 4 but big deal). Adelaide is not Beijing or NYC FFS, it's just not going to happen.

[HiTouch]

I think what Patrick is meaning is that there does need to be a little bit more regulation in regards to North Terrace due to it being a cultural boulevard. It's a really picturesque road and it wouldn't be appropriate for it to have the same blanket rules as Grenfell or Waymouth Street. It's not that he's against height, he's more for development that is complementary to the purpose of the road.

In saying that however, practicality is important and having student accom literally across the road from the university is important as long as it doesn't remove the heritage or cultural aspects which this development doesn't take away anything. Neither does 228-231 North Terrace. They're both appropriate.

Well what you think he meant, per your first para, is in no way representative of what he actually wrote.

Much like the Lord Mayor equally ridiculous comment, viz, we don't want North Tce wall to wall with 30 story buildings. What a load of complete bollocks - we currently have 1 BUILDING in the entire city that is 30+ floors (soon to be 3 or 4 but big deal). Adelaide is not Beijing or NYC FFS, it's just not going to happen.

Yes his post is quite emotive but I think we understand what he's trying to say. There does need to be scrutiny for developments to go from "fitting in with North Terrace" to "improving North Terrace".

Yes you're right Adelaide is not Beijing but having lived in both Beijing AND Perth, economies and city atmospheres can change quite drastically and from that, over development can be really negative if you don't put in correct procedures and requirements. Yes, the mayor is being quite emotive but there's no use getting emotional about someone being against something. Developers won't stop developing because somebody doesn't like it. Developers will however stop developing if there's no money to be made.

[Patrick_27]

Mr. Smith, you said it yourself by basically endorsing the government's removal of all powers from the ACC.

The best decision made by the SA Labor Govt in it's 16 years in power was to remove the ACC from making decisions on major developments such as this one.

I don't necessarily agree that these kinds of things should be kept in the hands of local government, this isn't how it happens elsewhere in Australia. But it's safe to say that the east end pocket of the city is going sky high with few of rules or regulation purely to correct poor planning which has left the city's east in a bind after the closure of the ORAH. That's my problem this development, not its height but the fact that we have a proposal that looks as though it's come out of 90s Gold Coast and not reflective of architecture of our time taking form to bring people to this area - granted its student accomodation but if we don't clamp down on design now with student accommodation, when will we? Because right now this city block already has one completed concrete monstrosity, another under construction and if this gets through, that will make three.

[Patrick_27]

Patrick is anti height and seems to hate it when members of this forum make such comments about wanting more height in the city. Not surprised by this latest round of negativity regarding height. As I have also said on facebook, DEMOLISH the church and build this.

Oh, so you know my entire stance on height based off my comments on one thread? Perhaps I'm just a simpleton as you appear to be and prefer that Adelaide gets more out of these kinds of developments. But I guess on these forums, if you dare to differ on the view held by most, you're just being negative?

[rev]

Some of you really have problems.
Patrick’s comment is quite obviously about the DESIGN of the building, and design standards in general, and he’s right, it’s a monstrosity with those protruding concrete columns which dominate the design.
At 125m it will be a dominant feature on the skyline. So some level of design standard is important.

If you can’t grasp what the guy is saying no need to gang up on him.

Some of you have blown your loads because of the height, how embarrassing.

[Norman]

I agree that the design is a bit bland, but I would like it more if it had the columns light up at night in different colours like the new Uni SA building on North Terrace. Hopefully we will see the details soon.

[Goodsy]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the design

[wilkiebarkid]

Some of you really have problems.
Patrick’s comment is quite obviously about the DESIGN of the building, and design standards in general, and he’s right, it’s a monstrosity with those protruding concrete columns which dominate the design.
At 125m it will be a dominant feature on the skyline. So some level of design standard is important.

If you can’t grasp what the guy is saying no need to gang up on him.

Some of you have blown your loads because of the height, how embarrassing.

As I reach for some tissues!

[HiTouch]

Patrick’s not in for some tall floozy at a bar. He has standards and needs to get to know her a little better rather than listening to some old twat named John Rau tell him how hot she is.

I think it might be due to the fact that some of us have the old Kodo street mentality. Approve a building quickly. It’s not uncommon for a developer to send a first proposal (a cheap half done quickie) and then have it rejected due to the Panel seeming it looking like poop so they redraw and send it looking better. Developers like testing the waters and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. It shows they’re interested. The issue is when our standards are too low. With some of the proposals coming through, that could be the case.

[Ser Noit of Loit]

Heck, this topic has taken off.

I'd prefer this building to be somewhere else, maybe a block away at the least. Why clump three of the tallest together in one block when we've got such a huge grid?

I'm a fan of tall buildings and I want more here, yet there should be careful consideration of what goes up and where. However since we've had decades of Adelaide having a reputation for being slow and careful to a fault, maybe being a lot more careless for a time will do good for the city. Adelaide could experience a mini boom and attract the attention from people interstate who always think of the city as a small, drab beige place always with Westpac as the standout tallest.

[obituary resider]

Tall buildings does not = liveable city.

I would go as far as saying in certain cases tall buildings can have a quantitatively bad affect on micro-environments and therefore need to be held to much, much higher design standards.

Considering student accommodations usual design standards, a building of this type, this tall, AND in such a prominent location seems extremely counter intuitive, assuming the ultimate goal is a city that can be experienced in a positive way.