[COM] SA Water | 56m | 11lvls | Office

[omada]

SRW: I also agree with your call for the ad hominen attacks against Downer to cease. His critique is surely absurd, but such castigation is clearly uncalled for.

Well, as clunky and as unsophisticated as my attack on Downer was, I would hardly say that it was unwarranted, I too am entitled to my opinion.

[rev]

Downer should get back to work as the UN Envoy to Cyprus, and leave this stuff to those whose job it is.
I guarantee you this building will win awards from the Master Builders Association or whoever it is who give out those annual architecture and design awards.
It's not the best looking building in the world, but next to all the brown lumps of crap we have in our skyline, this is a master piece.

[Prince George]

Omada, et al, no one is saying that you can't have an opinion on any subject. All I mean is that our opinions of Downer himself aren't as important as being able to reply to his argument. If ignoring what someone says and attacking the person who said it is acceptable, then McCain-Palin are going to romp home next Tuesday.

(BTW, for the best election coverage - http://www.indecision2008.com/, and of course http://www.thedailyshow.com/. Obama is John Stewart's guest tonight ...)

Some of the responses touch on what's becoming a hot-button for me: accepting second-best because it's a bit better than what you've got. "In Melbourne it'd be average. In Adelaide, it's awesome.", "it is not a bad result ... we're simply grateful", and (from the Le Cornu site thread, I think) "beggars can't be choosers". Rubbish. If anything a smaller city has to be pickier, has to work harder, has to be better, because we don't have the advantage of simply being huge. Even if Sydney was a total hole, you have to take it seriously because it's big.

Maybe I'm being impatient; well, you reach a certain age (grey hair in my beard now -- damn you, Time ) and you can't stand waiting any more. I can't just sit by anymore, I feel like I've got to demand the best. After all, this site's not called "Somewhat-better-Adelaide"

[AtD]

After all, this site's not called "Somewhat-better-Adelaide"

Touche!

[SRW]

Some of the responses touch on what's becoming a hot-button for me: accepting second-best because it's a bit better than what you've got. "In Melbourne it'd be average. In Adelaide, it's awesome.", "it is not a bad result ... we're simply grateful", and (from the Le Cornu site thread, I think) "beggars can't be choosers". Rubbish. If anything a smaller city has to be pickier, has to work harder, has to be better, because we don't have the advantage of simply being huge. Even if Sydney was a total hole, you have to take it seriously because it's big.

Maybe I'm being impatient; well, you reach a certain age (grey hair in my beard now -- damn you, Time ) and you can't stand waiting any more. I can't just sit by anymore, I feel like I've got to demand the best. After all, this site's not called "Somewhat-better-Adelaide"

True indeed.

I should say, though, that I don't think it's accepting second-best to appreciate the architecture of this building. It may not be adventurous, but it compliments its environs extremely well and the quality of its construction (materials, energy efficiency, etc) is pioneering. The only fault I can find with it is simply that its function (as an office block) is not really an attraction to the Square.

[Ben]

Walked past this building today and I must say I am extremelly dissapointed.

There is not one single entrance to the building fronting Victoria square. There are 2 entrances one on the northern side and one on the southern side.

The entire length of Victoria Square Frontage is glass with blinds blocking the majority of the sites inside.

This is a disgrace that this was allowed to happen. The cafeteria inside should have atleast opened up onto Victoria Square to encourage some sort of active frontage.

[AtD]

Perhaps it's because that corner of the square is only ever used as a bus lay over zone? I wouldn't mind some pics. Hopefully it can be easily converted when the usage of the square permits.

[UrbanSG]

Whilst the active street frontages (or lack thereof) to the square are not great, I agree that having a bus lay over zone right adjacent this building doesn't help.

Anyway here are some great photos from 'kitty came home' on flickr, taken from the Hilton Hotel recently:

[Pikey]

Signage was lit up this morning too. Looked great.

[loud]

It wouldn't hurt to wait until this project is actually completed before worrying too much about matters like this...

There are still quite a few works to be carried out to the north which will greatly assist in blending the building in with Victoria Square.

[Shuz]

Wow, the sunset picture is stunning, and now that the boardings have been removed from the footpath I think particularly at its northern end the accessibility has improved much, depsite concerns raised.

[AtD]

The previously mentioned Victoria Square street level face:


I can understand people's complaints about its inactive front. The north west corner looks like there's a tenant fit-out underway. Hopefully they'll be having cafe tables just inside the diagonal beams. The south west corner, however, shuns the square and is occupied by a cubicle farm hidden away from any source of natural light.

Unfortunate.

[Queen Anne]

I absolutely hate those triangular beams. They are cheap looking, clunky and awkward.

To say this building's shortcomings are 'unfortuntate' seems overly charitable to me. It wasn't all the result of an accident. It staggers me that this faceless, forboding, unwelcoming and barren street frontage could have been allowed on Vic Square, of all places. I can't think of enough adjectives to express how much I'm hating this building

[monotonehell]

I absolutely hate those triangular beams. They are cheap looking, clunky and awkward.

To say this building's shortcomings are 'unfortuntate' seems overly charitable to me. It wasn't all the result of an accident. It staggers me that this faceless, forboding, unwelcoming and barren street frontage could have been allowed on Vic Square, of all places. I can't think of enough adjectives to express how much I'm hating this building

I think perhaps you should reserve judgement until you see it in person. When you actually approach it on foot the zig zag columns help interface the frontage at pedestrian level, they create a sense of permeability for people approaching. What will make a real difference is whether they get the "right kinds" of tenants around the skirt. Or if it just becomes a through way for people working in the building on their way in and out for lunch etc.

I'm interested in seeing how the more important pedestrian area around the church end / interface with pedestrian crossing to Victoria Square will turn out.

[Queen Anne]

I think perhaps you should reserve judgement until you see it in person. When you actually approach it on foot the zig zag columns help interface the frontage at pedestrian level, they create a sense of permeability for people approaching. What will make a real difference is whether they get the "right kinds" of tenants around the skirt. Or if it just becomes a through way for people working in the building on their way in and out for lunch etc.

I'm interested in seeing how the more important pedestrian area around the church end / interface with pedestrian crossing to Victoria Square will turn out.

Yeah, you make a fair point and I have been trying to give this building the benefit of the doubt, since I will not see it in person for quite a while yet. But it really annoys me that this development is not a lot better, given the big talk that surrounded it..

There was a newspaper article about this building posted earlier in this thread (from June '06) that quoted the Lord Mayor:

Lord Mayor Michael Harbison said the development was welcome. "It's another big move to pull the centre of gravity back up from the Torrens to Victoria Square, which is the natural heart of the city," he said. "For the future of the city it's so important to activate the centre and have it thronging with people."

I feel like this building should have us all going 'ooh' and 'aah' by now - it should have knocked our socks off and offered a new standard for how surrounding buildings interact with the square - serving as a first step towards Vic Square's big new future - that future where the square is 'thronging with people'. What happened? I can't really see how even the best of tenants or finishing touches can make up for the fact that, at street level, this design is really, umm, pedestrian.

Anyway, I've ranted enough. I'm going to try to wait and see how things turn out, ultimately. Hopefully, the end result will be an improvement on current indications.