Sensational-Adelaide.com

Prince George wrote:Gazeby, I don't think that anyone has seriously suggested removing all traffic from the area.

George, I guess I could go into the kitchen to tell you this but I'll write it here instead

I would like to see traffic simply removed from the area, as I wrote earlier. I think it would redefine Adelaide and would give us a shot of adrenalin that would surprise us. I think that once we got used to the change we would really like it (assuming that the square itself has also been turned into a genuinely awesome place to be, otherwise, what's the point?)

But that's just my opinion and I understand that daydreams and reality don't always fit together neatly. So that's why the PPS approach appeals to me - experiment with road closures, focusing on bringing stakeholders (including the community) together, with a "can do" rather than a "must not" attitude.

George,
Totally agree,as I said, a long term study needs to take place to see the effects of this closure/semi closure. I think the disaster would be the response from the public, but any decision is going to ruffle a few feathers. it is unfortunate we have the tram running through the side that would be good to close off so that people from the markets, hilton and food outlets could spill onto safely.
Just in terms of a square that works well (IMO) day & night which has traffic running around it is in Sydneys Hyde Park, although its significantly bigger and has more of a park theme rather than a square, the nosie and pollution isnt an issue and it is quite a safe environment day and night and have experienced pleasant journeys through there.

http://www.top-city-photos.com/images/Hyde%20Park.JPG
http://www.johnnyjet.com/images/picforn ... kTrees.JPG
http://photos.igougo.com/images/p49086- ... e_Park.jpg

Actually, after reconsideration from the recommendations of those whove delivered logical alternative solutions - I would support for traffic movement both north and southbound utilise the eastern alignment, and have bus, valet, taxi and emergency access utilise the western alignment adjacent the tram corridor in a pedestrian shared zone.

Gazeby, I am very surprised that you don't like the tram's current alignment. I believe it was purposedly intended to travel the western alignment precisely to cater for improved accessibility to the Markets, Hilton, etc. by providing a door-step service to this area. This is probably the only pro-PT, pro-pedestrian measure the State Goverment has undertaken over the private vehicle and I applaud their incentive for encouraging and delivering such an outcome.

The Grote/Wakefield traffic accessibility is of limited concern because the squares diamond-shape acts as a roundabout technically - and if the concern was too great for some, then the underpass option is still viable. I know some may question my advocate for the closure of the throughfare in ESD0019, but only so to further utilise the square as a public plaza, with even more provision for cafe and restaurant amenities beneath the 'hill', opening out into both covered and uncovered dining areas. Doing so would also provide lift access for those disadvantaged to access to viewing platform atop, and create a throughfare entirely catered for the pedestrian.

At the risk of sounding like a PPS groupie, they feel that it is not a great idea to be prescriptive about road closures until some solid vision for the site has been formulated. I can see the merit in this approach, as a potentially controversial aspect of a project is not automatically billed as the "be all and end all".

Shuz,
Yes the incentive to have pedestrians stopping off at the market side of the square is great however i wonder what would have occured if it was on the eastern side where people were forced to cross the square to get to the markets allowing people to stop along the way and filtrate the potential activities that could be injected into the square. Its like when you go into a shopping centre and the esculators direct you around the shopping mall to get to the next level thus passing all the retail outlets along the way like in the myer centre here in adelaide. It makes sense at the moment to have the tram stop where it is because of its proximity, but in future developments it may be wise to have it running the eastern side...thats my thought process anyhow?

Hyde Park does look like a great comparison point for Victoria Square. Judging from the maps, it's about twice the length, but with a similar width. It's got multiple lanes of traffic around it and it's divided in two (although each of those parts are about the size of the entire Vic Square).

So why is it that Hyde Park works and Victoria Square doesn't?

My initial impressions:
[*]Large numbers of people in the immediate vicinity.
[*]Meaningful destinations around the park, giving people a reason to cross it.
[*]The park provides good spaces for people to be in.

And when I look at my list, only one of the three reasons had to do with the park's design, the other two are its location. If that (sketchy and hastily considered) line of thought is accurate, then changing the square could actually be a big fat waste of time and money if we don't change the areas around it.

Would someone please cheer me up and tell me I'm wrong?

Or at least tell me that we can do something about the buildings in the vicinity?

Well now ... let's see .... to the north we have the GPO and a rather posh hotel which, whenever I've been in there, is not crowded.
To the northwest we have some nice cafes and eateries which seem to do a reasonable trade - there are often people around there.
To the northeast we have the Reserve Bank - people work there but nobody goes there. Also a large church and the Flinders Link complex, each of which has big courtyards where you will often find people eating their lunch, chatting with friends - perhaps because there is somewhere to sit.
To the east we have the State Administration Centre and the Torrens Building - once again, people work in them but no-one goes there. Then there's St Francis Xavier Cathedral - busy on Sundays but rather quiet the rest of the week.
To the southeast will be the new SA Water building - lots of people working there, nobody going there - unless cafes or something to entice people to congregate there is added to the ground floor.
To the south and southwest are law courts. The Commonwealth Law Courts have a cafe at ground level, the rest have Jack S.it. It the Samuel Way building was turned back into Moores, maybe....
To the west we have the Hilton Hotel, and the Central Market, probably the biggest reason for anyone to cross the square, but it's only open 3 days out of 5.

So, Prince George, I think you have raised a valid point. At least when the tram terminated in the square, people going to glenelg had to cross the square!

Dont forget there are a number of other office towers and apartments going up around the CBD whcih are all walking distance to this square providing potential energy to this square

Gazeby wrote:Dont forget there are a number of other office towers and apartments going up around the CBD whcih are all walking distance to this square providing potential energy to this square

What will make people go there? We need attractions and businesses in or around the square to make people walk across it to get to something, a bit like the way people are attracted to it during the Tour Down Under or at Christmastime, things are happening there. When nothing's happening, there's almost no reason to go there - you don't even have to cross it to get to somewhere you want to go, which is the point Prince George was making in his comparison with Hyde Park in Sydney.

I agree and everyone in our office agrees (and we look out onto it) we need attractions. Hopefully the Community Ideas will assist the the ACC to understand our aspirations for Victoria Square / Tarndanyangga & inform future planning and design work for the Square. It is then that the people of the whole city during the working week will have something & somewhere to go to meet for lunch, breakfast, meet clients, read, whatever they choose and visitors/tourists can attend events or attractions on weekends/weekdays/nights all of which will draw people to the square.

If I could choose one of the surrounding buildings to change, it would be the Samuel Way building. It's not an unattractive building, but it not only adds no life to the square -- it actually manages to be a barrier between there and the market/Gouger street. When I think of that passage way that joins the market and the square ... what I wouldn't give to move the District Court elsewhere and repurpose the Samuel Way building to be a better connection between those parts of town.

And while I was thinking along these lines I found http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=289&c=601

This building known since the 1980s as the Sir Samuel Way building houses Adelaide's Local District Courts but the visitor would find it hard to believe that the building was once a department store. Arthur Garlick and Herbert Louis Jackman were commissioned by Charles Moore to build this department store in Victoria Square in 1911. The building is made of reinforced concrete and was opened in 1916. Moore established his retail business in Victoria Square in the 1880s, breaking away from the city's retail centre in Rundle and Hindley Streets.

That seems like quite a loss - the square lost a department store and gained another courthouse.

Prince George wrote:If I could choose one of the surrounding buildings to change, it would be the Samuel Way building. It's not an unattractive building, but it not only adds no life to the square -- it actually manages to be a barrier between there and the market/Gouger street. When I think of that passage way that joins the market and the square ... what I wouldn't give to move the District Court elsewhere and repurpose the Samuel Way building to be a better connection between those parts of town.

And while I was thinking along these lines I found http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=289&c=601

This building known since the 1980s as the Sir Samuel Way building houses Adelaide's Local District Courts but the visitor would find it hard to believe that the building was once a department store. Arthur Garlick and Herbert Louis Jackman were commissioned by Charles Moore to build this department store in Victoria Square in 1911. The building is made of reinforced concrete and was opened in 1916. Moore established his retail business in Victoria Square in the 1880s, breaking away from the city's retail centre in Rundle and Hindley Streets.

That seems like quite a loss - the square lost a department store and gained another courthouse.

Well, the people in the courts administration have been crying out for funding for the last few years, so it's not completely out of the realm of possibility that the State Government may choose to utilise its land reservation on the corner of King William and Wright Streets (behind the Supreme Court building) in the near future for a new court complex. If such an event occurred, it could be expected that they'd offload the Sir Samuel Way building, and it be converted to a usage more amenable to a vibrant square.

I'd certainly hope that would be the case. It would add to the revitalisation of that city block including Lot 8 and Thomson Playford buildings.

If anyone has had the pleasure of entering the Sir Samuel Way Building, it immediately dawns upon you that its current role is not allowing the building to live up to its greatest potential. They say that the Queen Victoria Building in Sydney is the prettiest shopping centre in Australia, however once you have had a view inside of the Sir Samuel Way Building and in particular its majestice marble staircase and dome, you think to yourself that if done correctly, we could have the prettiest shopping centre of them all in Victoria Square!

i hear the small square between the cathedral and sa water is going to house a statue/shrine to mary mackillop