[COM] 266 - 270 Pulteney Street | 44m | 11 Levels | Mixed Use

[floplo]

Assuming the TRYP branding on the renders imply that they have a hotel chain committed.

Sent from my G3116 using Tapatalk

[omada]

MEH, looks like something that belongs at Mawson Lakes.

Hideous!

[Val Doxan]

Not even Mawson Lakes would be happy with this painfully unimaginative design from what we can make of the rather poor rendering. It looks cheap too, like an eastern European housing estate. If this gets up, it will truly be a triumph of function over aesthetics, and even that is in question from the government architect.

Poor outcome for Sky Apartments proposed directly across the street too.

Try again, this time with some flair, or at least some imagination.

[Ben]

From the Advertiser:

The state’s planning authority has told the developer behind a $25 million hotel and office block earmarked for Pulteney St to go back to the drawing board to improve the development’s facade.
The State Commission Assessment Panel last week deferred Ginos Group’s application to build an 11-storey hotel and seven-storey office complex because it had concerns with its “external architectural expression”.
The panel has suggested the developer work with the government architect to improve the design.
“The panel encourages a review and reconsideration of the facade and materials to set an appropriate standard for the future streetscape,” the minutes from the meeting said.
It said Pulteney St was in a “state of evolution”, partly driven by the $345 million Calvary Hospital redevelopment.
The new hospital will replace the Calvary Wakefield Hospital in Wakefield St and the Calvary Rehabilitation Hospital at Walkerville.
The proposed development includes a restaurant, commercial residencies, gym, as well as theatre, laundry and games rooms.
It is understood the developer has secured an operator for the hotel.
The Ginos Group’s portfolio of properties extends across the Adelaide CBD, as well as Port Adelaide, Gawler and Mannum.
In December, it released plans for a $1.5 million revamp of one of Port Adelaide’s best known landmarks — the former Globe Hotel.
The Ginos Group and State Commission Assessment Panel were contacted for comment.

[SRW]

That's fantastic!

As I argued earlier, it's important to force the developer to review when the outcome is questionable. I'm not confident that there'll be any drastic changes, but even moderate improvement (I'm hoping they remove concrete panelling from west face or introduce articulation with sun shades) should help ensure this doesn't become a precedent for lacklustre design in future neighbouring developments. A standard has to be set.

[slenderman]

I'm kind of surprised. I thought this would be less controversial than the Pirie Street hotel, but that one gets the go-ahead to demolish a nice old facade as long as they put a plaque in. Meanwhile, this one is sent back.

I recognise that this design is fairly mediocre, and heritage notwithstanding, the Pirie Street proposal looks very good, but I don't see how this is sent back while developments like Dwell and "the cheese" get to go ahead.

You could perhaps argue the standards are raised in response to developments like those ones, but they appear to have recently approved 124 Waymouth Street which I believe looks worse than this, so mediocre designs are still getting through. Similar for that other development underway in Light Square. Couldn't we argue that the Light Square environment is also in a "state of evolution" with Sofitel and Wingfold underway, with West Franklin recently completed?

All that said, I wouldn't really complain if the result is a better design for this site. Just a bit more consistency across the board would be good.

[cmet]

I'm kind of surprised. I thought this would be less controversial than the Pirie Street hotel, but that one gets the go-ahead to demolish a nice old facade as long as they put a plaque in. Meanwhile, this one is sent back.

I recognise that this design is fairly mediocre, and heritage notwithstanding, the Pirie Street proposal looks very good, but I don't see how this is sent back while developments like Dwell and "the cheese" get to go ahead.

You could perhaps argue the standards are raised in response to developments like those ones, but they appear to have recently approved 124 Waymouth Street which I believe looks worse than this, so mediocre designs are still getting through. Similar for that other development underway in Light Square. Couldn't we argue that the Light Square environment is also in a "state of evolution" with Sofitel and Wingfold underway, with West Franklin recently completed?

All that said, I wouldn't really complain if the result is a better design for this site. Just a bit more consistency across the board would be good.

Was going to ask this, does anyone know if the different different policy areas within the city development plan have different standards in terms of building minimum quality requirements?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ben]

124 Waymouth hasn’t been approved yet. They have a separate demolition application which is allowing works to start on clearing the site.

[Ben]

From the AFR seems this will be a TRYP hotel or tripe based on this design..

In Adelaide, global giant Wyndham Hotels & Resorts is bringing a 124-key TRYP Hotel to the centre of the Adelaide to be developed by the Ginos Group.

[PeFe]

No doubt this hotel development is because of Calvary Hospital......otherwise why would you build there (I suppose the land is cheaper than compared to the central core of the CBD)

[Ben]

New plans going before DAC on Thursday.

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

[Mpol03]

I think it looks worse...

[noted]

Disagree on that one- big improvement imo.

[SRW]

The east, north and south façades have all benefited and been improved by continuity of materials, particularly the incorporation of copper elements. The main western façade is still meh. That said, they've mostly met the criteria, and the government architect's remaining concerns are minor, so I expect it will now be approved. But I think this is a win for the planning system, and shows developers the importance of engaging with the pre-lodgement design review process. You can't whine about delays if you rock up with subpar proposals that could have been improved while still in development and led to a smoother approval.

[Jaymz]

Just polishing a turd, as the saying goes.