Sensational-Adelaide.com

rhino wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:36 am

rev wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:32 pm

Ursus Maritimus wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:09 pm

Today there was talk of hot-desking in the new building, with a number of desks allocated as a percentage of the number of staff. I'm annoyed, but you can't get everything you want.

Does hot desking imply their will be a hybrid setup, partly in the office and partly working from home?

This is often what it implies, yes.

Thanks, I thought that was the case. And holy shit my spelling & grammar was atrocious yesterday.

I was just curious, as some corporates and councils/governments want to see more office workers return to the office more often during the week.

There isn't that much working from home in my division at the moment (I don't have figures, but it is certainly the exception). To what extent that will change with the new building is unclear.

From a distance

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:07 am

rhino wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:36 am

rev wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:32 pm

Does hot desking imply their will be a hybrid setup, partly in the office and partly working from home?

This is often what it implies, yes.

Thanks, I thought that was the case. And holy shit my spelling & grammar was atrocious yesterday.

I was just curious, as some corporates and councils/governments want to see more office workers return to the office more often during the week.

The alternative is that they're all in office but including shrinkage in their desk count, which says all sorts of things about how dreadfully unhealthy they are as an employer (see call centres, who all do this)

From today. Click for bigger

The old facade looks like such an after thought

I dont think it does at all. I think the contrast allows the original facade to stand out and distance itself from the new.

I have no problem with facadism - that's a very Melbourne term right? Better that the mere facade of a good old building is incorporated rather than being demolished altogether. At this building, I believe it looks good.

Dvious wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 11, 2023 6:17 pm

I dont think it does at all. I think the contrast allows the original facade to stand out and distance itself from the new.

That's what gets my goat really. Looks stuck on.

I mean, at least the facade was retained. It had to be. But yeah.... wish there was a better way of incorporating it.

The restoration of the facade itself is top notch tho as a side note

Today we were advised that:

- The building has reached practical completion
- The developer is now looking at any minor defects
- Our division is looking at being the first to move in, and looking at doing so on 11 August

I'll keep you all posted.

What is is with Adelaide, that when a relatively tall building is constructed, it is generally boxy, but the shorter ones are all angles, curves and top notch glass facades? This should have been much taller-given its prime location, WITH the finish presented here. At least we seem to have moved away from faux sandstone and aluminium as the main finish.

Algernon wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 14, 2023 8:15 pm

Dvious wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 11, 2023 6:17 pm

I dont think it does at all. I think the contrast allows the original facade to stand out and distance itself from the new.

That's what gets my goat really. Looks stuck on.

I mean, at least the facade was retained. It had to be. But yeah.... wish there was a better way of incorporating it.

The restoration of the facade itself is top notch tho as a side note

I think this would have been easily avoided by having a variation between the facades on either side of the heritage structure.

claybro wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 22, 2023 4:14 pm

What is is with Adelaide, that when a relatively tall building is constructed, it is generally boxy, but the shorter ones are all angles, curves and top notch glass facades? This should have been much taller-given its prime location, WITH the finish presented here. At least we seem to have moved away from faux sandstone and aluminium as the main finish.

I reckon something to do with money. Shorter buildings may cost less, so more money to spend on making them architecturally meritorious, while with taller buildings more of the budget is taken up by their height. South Australia is, after all, the poorest mainland state.

Ursus Maritimus wrote:

claybro wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 22, 2023 4:14 pm

What is is with Adelaide, that when a relatively tall building is constructed, it is generally boxy, but the shorter ones are all angles, curves and top notch glass facades? This should have been much taller-given its prime location, WITH the finish presented here. At least we seem to have moved away from faux sandstone and aluminium as the main finish.

I reckon something to do with money. Shorter buildings may cost less, so more money to spend on making them architecturally meritorious, while with taller buildings more of the budget is taken up by their height. South Australia is, after all, the poorest mainland state.

This is basically it.

Highest and best use methodology.

It's possible to do your own quick exercise by going through the most recent edition of Rawlinson's Construction Cost Guide.

For example, the most efficient use of the empty lot (former or part time bus depot) on the southern side of Currie Street near West Terrace, was - in 2013 at least - a 15-storey residential tower with a glass exterior.

Is Rawlinson's like the Redbook for construction?