Page 3 of 9
[CAN]
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:14 pm
by Pistol
That is a very uninspiring design for what is supposed to be a 5 star hotel. That south elevation is so BORING! I thought that if a Sheraton or the like were to build a new building they would build something with impact and definitely something in a better part of town. This has office block written all over it - definitely not a hotel.
[CAN]
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:06 pm
by Pants
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
[CAN]
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:21 pm
by UrbanSG
Need some better renders obviously to make a true judgement. I don't mind this building all that much, especially if it is glass all round, it is very plain I do agree. Do we even have a tower in Adelaide that is all glass, on all elevations of substatial height? Most have blank wall jobs on at least one elevation. Cutting edge buildings can look terrible too eg Santos, way too much clutter and what I call 'try-hard' architecture going on there and the result is awful. Give me something simple for a change, and glass, Adelaide needs a lot more of it, especially in this area, it is a concrete and stone jungle there at the moment and the proposed 5 resi towers in the area don't offer much in the way of glass. Too much concrete in them, painted to look better, who knows how that will turn out.
[CAN]
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:52 pm
by Done
I agree with all posts so far, the design does look terrible. So give suggestions on how to improve it as I can have some input. I have been trying to design a building that incorporates design elements of the church.
And no, this is not part of the precinct development. The Church and building behind it are separate to the precinct. Just like Spire and City central.
I'll try get a better shot of the render for you guys.
[CAN]
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:34 pm
by Pants
Hey Done, what's the D/A number?
Might go check out application in the flesh.
[CAN]
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:35 pm
by Done
*Edit
[CAN]
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:21 pm
by Will
Done wrote:I agree with all posts so far, the design does look terrible. So give suggestions on how to improve it as I can have some input. I have been trying to design a building that incorporates design elements of the church.
.
Are you involved in this development?
[CAN]
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:27 pm
by Al
At 56m, I think this will be shorter than the 5 towers of 'the precinct' right? How about some more height then?
I think this design reminds me of the Lippo centre in HK just not as full-on. I don't know if the all glass idea will work that well with a church in front of it but maybe if they incorporate some more 'sandstone' into the design (I can't believe I said that) it might make it better. I'm still a little unclear, is this building going to be joined to the church in any way or is it a completely different development so there is little requirement to blend in with the church?


[CAN]
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:25 am
by shaun
Why do I have the suspension that this is a hoax. Its in a shit location for a 5star hotel (backpacker hostels nearby), looks like a quick sketchup job, looks like a office tower, I'm pretty sure the building behind the church is heritage listed and this is coming from a untrustworthy guy (Las Vegas - SSC Member) who was friends with the guy who made up about the famous 140m tower in the city south.
Maybe im going way over the top, but IMO I think it’s a bit suss.
[CAN]
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:30 am
by shaun
Will wrote:Done wrote:I agree with all posts so far, the design does look terrible. So give suggestions on how to improve it as I can have some input. I have been trying to design a building that incorporates design elements of the church.
.
Are you involved in this development?
Hes 14, So i highly doubt it
[CAN]
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:54 am
by Pistol
I have the same gut feeling as you Crawf.
[CAN]
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:32 am
by Ben
I was thinking that but didn't want to say it, but now you already have... haha
[CAN]
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:56 am
by AG
Crawf spoke my mind after seeing those renders.
[CAN]
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:05 am
by Pants
Pants wrote:Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
[CAN]
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:32 am
by Howie
double hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....