[APP] 29 Twin Street | 124m | 39lvls | Student accom

[HiTouch]

Although disappointing, I wonder how many of our developments would have followed through if Corona hit us 2 years ago.

[[Shuz]]

Bumping a defunct development thread because there's been no news about it for over a year so it's pointless to ask if anything is going on with this one. HiTouch, get my point?

[Will]

Looks like this project has had a slight redesign. Looks better in my opinion.

The image is new as the Hines Property website has a copyright 2024 stamp on it.

Possibly still alive?

29 Twin Street Tower - PBSA

29 Twin Street Tower is poised to become one of the tallest purpose-built student accommodation structures globally. This 39-level tower, a project by Hines Property and designed by the renowned global design firm Woods Bagot, will house 570 dedicated student beds.

Strategically located on Twin Street, the tower sits adjacent to the Ibis Adelaide Hotel and is surrounded by the State Heritage-listed Adelaide & Gays Arcade, right in the heart of Adelaide. Its prime location offers immediate access to Rundle Mall, just 80 meters away, and convenient connections to North Terrace and the verdant Hindmarsh Square, only 100 meters away. The tower’s orientation ensures breathtaking views of Adelaide's cityscape, coastline, and the picturesque Adelaide Hills.

The architectural design of the tower emphasises a sleek and vertical silhouette, creating a striking presence in the skyline. This streamlined expression accentuates the building's height and slender profile, contributing to its iconic stature.

A standout feature of this development is the multi-level student hub atop the tower. This hub will offer a variety of amenities, including a state-of-the-art gymnasium, social laundry facilities, study spaces, media room, and dining areas. The hub is distinctly marked by a change in the building's façade fabric, serving as a crown for the tower and offering unparalleled views of Adelaide.

[Pikey]

Thanks for sharing Will, I had a feeling this would be back on deck soon.

I like the redesign too, plus it appears that it's had a level added? Might even nudge the 130m mark?

In terms of skyline composition, I'm looking forward to this one coming up. It'll give a much needed "bridging" effect when viewing the skyline, making the taller (and growing) northern skyline feel more connected with the central cluster.

[abc]

Looks like this project has had a slight redesign. Looks better in my opinion.

The image is new as the Hines Property website has a copyright 2024 stamp on it.

Possibly still alive?

29 Twin Street Tower - PBSA

29 Twin Street Tower is poised to become one of the tallest purpose-built student accommodation structures globally. This 39-level tower, a project by Hines Property and designed by the renowned global design firm Woods Bagot, will house 570 dedicated student beds.

Strategically located on Twin Street, the tower sits adjacent to the Ibis Adelaide Hotel and is surrounded by the State Heritage-listed Adelaide & Gays Arcade, right in the heart of Adelaide. Its prime location offers immediate access to Rundle Mall, just 80 meters away, and convenient connections to North Terrace and the verdant Hindmarsh Square, only 100 meters away. The tower’s orientation ensures breathtaking views of Adelaide's cityscape, coastline, and the picturesque Adelaide Hills.

The architectural design of the tower emphasises a sleek and vertical silhouette, creating a striking presence in the skyline. This streamlined expression accentuates the building's height and slender profile, contributing to its iconic stature.

A standout feature of this development is the multi-level student hub atop the tower. This hub will offer a variety of amenities, including a state-of-the-art gymnasium, social laundry facilities, study spaces, media room, and dining areas. The hub is distinctly marked by a change in the building's façade fabric, serving as a crown for the tower and offering unparalleled views of Adelaide.

it looks like another Switch

[SRW]

They got rid of the weird pod things that were supposed to be 'open' communal space, so I wonder how they've reimagined that.

Agree with the comment about bridging the skyline. It should help make those Frome Street tallies look less out of place.

And for Twin Street, as much as I miss the Jade Monkey, anything is better than a carpark. I'd love to see the old Cox Foy building (Kmart) redeveloped too.

[Prodical]

Maybe with the pressure on universities to provide more student accommodation capacity, something will happen...

Not holding my breath - there are no new high-rises proposed for the next SCAP so anything significant from now on is a while away.

[Pikey]

They got rid of the weird pod things that were supposed to be 'open' communal space, so I wonder how they've reimagined that.

It looks as though they have consolidated the common spaces to the upper three levels, effectively creating a visual crown.

if this remains a mainly glass centric facade as per the materials in the first instance, it could be quite a striking development.

[Ben]

Still alive

Application ID 24039805
27 -29 TWIN ST ADELAIDE SA 5000
Under Assessment
Description
Variation to DA 020/A067/18 for the construction of a 36-storey mixed-use building comprising student accommodation, communal facilities, ground level retail café and associated site works – amendments to internal floorplan arrangements and external appearance

[gnrc_louis]

Still alive

Application ID 24039805
27 -29 TWIN ST ADELAIDE SA 5000
Under Assessment
Description
Variation to DA 020/A067/18 for the construction of a 36-storey mixed-use building comprising student accommodation, communal facilities, ground level retail café and associated site works – amendments to internal floorplan arrangements and external appearance

Good, much better that the rest of the student housing proposals.

[Mpol02]

I'm weary of this render though, it doesn't sho much and it could either look great or as someone said above, become another Switch. The crown is a nice touch but hoping this isn't a huge cement eyesore.

[Ursus Maritimus]

I really don't mind this render, but the light colour indicates it will be clad in a manner like Switch. I guess student accommodation is all about being cheap and nasty.

[Ben]

Some of the key changes are listed below. Essentially SCAP are not happy with the amendments and they need to make revisions.

Increase in one level to 39 but decrease in height.

Change in Western façade to a 124m blank concrete wall.

Some of the comments:

The originally approved scheme was presented to the Design Review panel on one
occasion. This variation proposal was not presented to the Design Review panel. From
considering the material supplied with the referral and evaluating the design merit of the
project, I have a number of concerns, including the proposed redistribution of communal
amenities, introduction of a solid wall section to the west elevation, and the waste
management strategy.

The variation proposes the following notable amendments:
­ built form:
o reduction of the rear/west boundary setback
 three-storey building base – three-metre-wide easement removed
 upper built form – reduced by approximately 500mm
o upper built form projections over the building base removed along the east
and west boundaries
o minor reduction of the north setback
o setback of the northeast corner increased for ground floor, mezzanine,
levels one and two
o minor reduction of the overall building height by one metre (from 169.5 to
168.5 metres)
o projecting ‘amenity boxes’ removed from the north elevation
ground floor configuration
o rear bin storage and loading area enclosed
o bicycle store area increased in size
o fire booster located outside of the building as a freestanding element
o entry and lobbies widened
o reception and office relocated and internal access between lobby and the
rear waste store area removed
o cafe tenancy reduced in footprint
o cafe feature opening and alfresco area on the Twin Street frontage
removed
o raised planters proposed to the northeast recess and in front of the cafe
tenancy.

­ internal planning
o overall bed numbers increased from 510 to 570
o twin shared and five/six bed cluster rooms (single occupancy rooms with
shared kitchen) removed and replaced with studio rooms (self-contained)
o mid-level amenity spaces (on levels five, 11, 17, 23 and 29) removed and
consolidated on an additional communal floor on level 36 (connected with
the existing communal floor on level 35)
o removal of the ‘mid-plant’ floor on level 17.
­ architectural expression/materiality
o architectural expression of the tower form amended from vertical
expression with subtle horizontal bands to stacked horizontal composition
o three-storey tall ‘crown’ element (clear curtain glass) introduced
o solid concrete wall section (with textured mould- standard grey) proposed
to the majority of the west elevation
o projecting ‘amenity boxes’ removed from the north elevation.

I do not support the removal of all mid-floor communal spaces to be consolidated at the
top of the building, as I am concerned by the availability and accessibility of shared
amenity for 570 students. In my view, this is of particular importance, given the modest
sizes of the individual accommodation units, which are now all proposed to be selfcontained studios.

In my opinion, the design concept to ‘spread amenity’ to connect ‘the
vertical community with a choice of varied experiences that promote individuality,
independence, privacy and social interaction’, which was strongly supported through the
Design Review process for the approved scheme, is significantly diluted by
consolidating communal amenity spaces to the top and bottom of the 39-storey
building. I recommend review of the communal amenity strategy to improve accessibility,
with the view to provide a variety of high amenity social spaces for all residents,
consistent with the original design intent.

Regarding the consolidated communal spaces on the top two levels, I note that these
areas appear to be completely enclosed, where the originally approved scheme includes
a rooftop recreational deck area, which is open to the sky. Acknowledging the wind and
safety considerations, I consider it is a reduction in amenity to remove a communal
outdoor open space and recommend reinstatement of usable high amenity communal
open space.

Architectural Expression/Materiality
In my opinion, the removal of the subtle horizontal bands and projecting amenity boxes
reduces articulation and dilutes the unique identity of this highly visible building.
Notwithstanding, I consider the proposed glazed facade system appropriate on balance,
as it maintains the singular expression and continues to include high quality materials
with integral finish.

However, I do not support the introduction of the solid concrete wall to the majority of
the west elevation. Acknowledging the consideration to provide textured concrete to
this wall section, I am of the view that this amendment is inconsistent with the original
design intent to treat the building in the round, which was strongly supported at the time.
In addition to the significant scale of the building, I consider the facade treatment of the
west elevation particularly critical, as it is unlikely to be obstructed in future due to its
adjacency with the State Heritage listed Adelaide Arcade building. I recommend review
of the structural and facade systems to avoid solid wall condition on two elevations.

Summary
The key issues related to this proposal are summarised below. In my view, these matters
warrant further review and resolution prior to consideration by the State Commission
Assessment Panel in order to achieve a successful design outcome.
- review of ground floor configuration and waste management strategy to ensure
safe and convenient waste disposal arrangement
­ confirmation of the enclosure/screening strategy for the freestanding fire booster
­ - review of the cafe tenancy arrangement to optimise engagement with Twin Street
­ - review of the communal space distribution
­ - reinstatement of communal open space
­ - review of the structural and facade systems to avoid solid wall condition on the
west elevation

[Patrick_27]

By 169.5m, is that above sea level?

Glad to see SCAP growing a spine and rejecting a student accommodation building on the grounds of lack of communal areas and blank concrete walls, there is absolutely no need to a blank wall given the surrounding buildings are heritage listed and will likely never be redeveloped.

[[Shuz]]

Yes.