Sensational-Adelaide.com

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:09 am

But at-least the Stamford is old enough that it's probably due for some kind of a makeover. Unfortunately with a lot of the aforementioned buildings, they're mostly new and won't need a re-treatment for some time. I actually find it strange that they gave 1 KWS a facelift when it was probably one of those rare examples where a building is timeless and it materials don't need to be covered up or replaced...

1 KW -the old AMP? That is a tragedy. It should have been heritage listed. The makeover was cheap, tacky and will age badly. By all means, refurb the interior, but the façade was timeless, and such a landmark building from a time when "skyscrapers" were few and far between. Yes, there have been some mistakes on North Terrace, but we should now promote North terrace as a strip of real merit. While the student tower is sort of ok, its no stunner.

Changing face of North Tce tower comes under fire https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... b7591287a1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would rather the SCAP had straight-out rejected the amendment, but at least it's criticised the changes and withheld approval. Hopefully the developers desist or come up with something that's actually an improvement. My main concern with the amendment was the aesthetics of concrete panelling and the loss of visual interest in the crown. A point of fact, though, the Messenger article claims ceiling heights were lowered in rooms to fit more levels, but the application said this would be achieved by reducing slab width and taking space from the crown.

AndyWelsh wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:25 pm

Changing face of North Tce tower comes under fire https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... b7591287a1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Redesign of a student accommodation tower for North Tce draws ire of SCAP

Glass panels would become concrete and nearly 40 more rooms would be crammed in under a redesign of a controversial student housing tower on North Tce that has drawn the ire of the state’s chief architect, who has continued to raise concerns about the look of the project.

And the State Commission Assessment Panel is also not impressed either.

Despite getting approval for its $60 million, 118m-tall student accommodation building last year planned for the corner of Frome Road and North Terrace, Global Student Accommodation Australia has sought to make changes to how it looks both inside and out.

The changes include replacing the original glass-panel exterior with precast concrete and getting three more storeys onto the building.

This will increase the amount of rooms from 687 to 725, while the basement will be “deleted” and the retail areas originally proposed will shrink.

Arguing the changes at a SCAP meeting for GSA Australia, Jonothan Cowle of Rothelowman architects said they’d refined the development.

“They keep the tower in a beautiful and classical way,” Mr Cowle said. “The elements of the facade now sit in the structure of the building.”

But the SCAP didn’t buy this argument.

“The panel would prefer to retain the original approved expression,” minutes from the meeting say.

“The panel is concerned about the changes in materiality, specifically in the treatment of the grey concrete spandrels.

“The panel would prefer to see an approach that goes beyond a flat matte finish, incorporating materials of greater quality, texture, durability and interest. Similarly the panel is not convinced the Exotec cladding system will deliver a sufficiently high-quality outcome given that this is a key prominent design feature of the building.”

SA Government Architect Kirsteen Mackay said the change in material on the outside of the building did “not substantially change my previous concerns regarding the appropriateness of the proposal’s architectural expression within the specific context of North Terrace and the site’s location as a key corner to the CBD.

The SCAP has deferred GSA Australia’s application for the changes, so they can “reconsider their design approach” in relation to their concerns.

It isn’t the first time the tower, which has resulted in the demolition of the 1950s First Church of Christ Scientist building, has come in for criticism for its design.

It was also the subject of a Full Court challenge by the developers of the neighbouring 135m-tall Adelaidean hotel and apartment complex on Frome St, which was ultimately dismissed.

Good. I'm glad to see there's some pushback. Force them to keep the glass facade as originally proposed.

A bit of pushback I guess, but I'd prefer they used much stronger language than prefer. They need to make a statement on this one.

I hope this gets a redesign and height taken away, not because it'll obstruct views for Adelaidean but because it might mean a better design that fits around the $60m budget. Having a look at the companies other property, their high-rise accommodation interstate is much nicer that what they're offering us...

Aagh this makes me really angry, it's one of the most prominent locations in the city, why are we served up with such mediocre proposals? The views from this building would be amazing, why are they installing a cramped eyesore?

can't they just decline the changes?

Separated at birth?

AMP Centre in Sydney

^^And that's currently undergoing a major overhaul

The latest plans expected to be approved.

https://www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov ... hments.pdf

Good to see the developers listened to the objections of using precast concrete spandrels, and replaces them with reflective cladding. I still believe the original full height glazed approach would have been better, but as long as this new cladding is as reflective as shown, this could still be striking.

I still think it should be fully glazed, because I don't like the horizontal lines that the solid concrete spandrels introduce and I worry about durability of any painted metallic lustre. But there's probably not strong enough basis to refuse consent given the claimed overall equivalence of the materials to the design intent.

Is there a tldr for all the changes? ie did they also revert the dog box floor height shrink?