[COM] Victoria Square Upgrade - $24m

[Howie]

Found this picture of a closed vic square

[Ben]

Radical Idea to say the least. I'm glad the Grote st traders are for an underpass I always thought they were the ones campaigning against it.

From the Messenger:

[quote]Vic Square housing plan

04Dec07

A THIRD of Victoria Square should be sold for housing to make the city's heart a more ``human'' space, landscape architect Ian Barwick says.

``I know it's a pretty radical suggestion but I'd be happy with selling off the south third of the square,'' he said.

Mr Barwick said a tower of apartments, with shops and office space, would make the square more enclosed and populated.

``You need people living either in the square or close around it. By doing that you can pay for the redevelopment.''

The City Council and the State Government are offering two $10,000 prizes, one for redesigning the square, and one for redesigning the former central tram stop.

Transport Minister Patrick Conlon's spokesman Matt Clemow said a brief for the competition would be ready in the next few weeks.

Meanwhile, the Grote St Business Group's Dean Bendall, of Dreamland, has renewed traders' calls for an underpass linking Grote and Wakefield streets.

``I don't believe it's that hard, I just think (the Government and the council) don't want to spend the money,'' Mr Bendall said.

``If we don't watch what we're doing they'll just close off Grote St and Wakefield St and we'll have another disaster.''

Mr Bendall said the time it was taking to come up with a plan for Victoria Square was ``typical Adelaide''.

``Apart from a few private buildings the greatest thing that has happened in 50 years is the North Tce upgrade.

``If that is all we've got to hang our hat on, what does that say?'' - by Chris Day and Louise Russell

[UrbanSG]

Mr Bendall held back the last proposal and he talks about typical Adelaide. What an idiot. He is a classic NIMBY who holds back our city and now says we are behind and get on with it. Get it together please Mr Bendall before I throw-up. If you are a NIMBY at least state you are one and not pretend you are pro-development. Arggghhhhh :wank:

[Norman]

Pro-development? Tell him he's dreaming

[roger explosion]

i agree that a third of the square should be sold off and made into apartments, and a tower similar in vein to Q1 should be build inbetween these (marked on my below mock-up in paint by 'Centrepoint'), with the east-west underpass dug out and the rest of the square to be Fed Square-esque. i don't know how the tram works now as i live on the gold coast and haven't been home in the last few months, but the tramline is red. however my concern is that the old Supreme Court and the other court buildings might be lost should that happen (ie. wouldn't be as visible), because i think that they're pretty charming (save for the Noah's Ark thing). but cest la vie.

[AtD]

I strongly disagree! The squares should remain public space, and be better utalised as such. There's still plenty of under-developed land in the CBD (even near Vic Sq).

Not to mention it has no chance in hell to even be looked at by any political figure.

[Norman]

I agree that victoria square should be left as open area. It is just refreshing to have some open space in our thriving metropolis.

[shaun]

I strongly disagree! The squares should remain public space, and be better utalised as such. There's still plenty of under-developed land in the CBD (even near Vic Sq).

Not to mention it has no chance in hell to even be looked at by any political figure.

Tottaly agree, especially when theres plenty of land for development in the city

[JAKJ]

The only structure that should be built in vic square should be a public building with perhaps ground level restaurants/cafe's. A European (medieval)style pedestrian square with retail/cafes on its periphery would be perfect.

[frank1]

i agree, Vic square like all the other squares should be public space. it is rare for a city to have such open public parks.

[skyliner]

I agree also.

Keep the Sq - but improve the green aspect significantly. There is plenty of space in the city for development, but none like this for another square. It is somewhat of a distinguishing feature of Adelaide. Surround it in high rise, but keep the square. Once KWS sth fills up, it will be more than welcome IMO.

ADELAIDE - CITY ON THE MOVE

[roger explosion]

my reasoning behind selling off a portion of the square is because of two reasons. one, the idea of having a lookout tower in the middle is a good one, knowing what Q1 has done for the Gold Coast, and my fear is that if one were put right in the middle of the square itself it would look out of place. secondly, victoria square is just a little too big, don't you think? like, it's a huge area for a public square, much less one for a city of 1 million. again, i fear that if we used the entire vic square area as our fed square, it'd just be a tad too big when you consider the people who might use it, and making it smaller would not only solve this problem, but eliminate the out-of-placeness that a central tower would have.

[shaun]

Victoria Square is not that big at all, building apartments on the square would be a disaster and something I would definitely not support.

Its a public space and it should stay that way. It just needs a major revamp to entice people to the square.

[Tom]

I rather like the glass tower idea for Victoria Square. Something simelar to that Bell Tower spire they have in Perth.

[rhino]

If anyone was in Victoria Square last Saturday evening for the concert and lighting of the christmas tree, they would know that if Grote-Wakefield Streets were underground and the whole square available for use, it would have been used.

Victoria Square is a fantastic resource that should be developed as user-friendly open space, a square for the people. Too big? Do you know how big Central Park in New York is? Sure, New York's population is 12 times Adelaide's, but Central Park is far and away more than 12 times Victoria Square.