[Rant] "Bulk", by itself, is not a suitable goal.
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:46 am
One of the sentiments that I see quite often in forums is that it will be good, in and of itself, to see a bigger building at this or that location. It's usually phrased as something like "will add some welcome bulk", "good to see more height at this end of town", "will make quite an impression", "is going to frame the square/street nicely", or as lamenting its absence with "shame they lowered the height of this one".
This treats city planning as something like interior decorating or Feng Shui, which would be fine if all we want is to have more interesting postcard photos of town. No, I say, we want people in the city, not just bulk. I am wildly in favour of increasing the CBD's density, but that doesn't just mean slapping down bigger buildings. Size is only interesting when it is at the service of drawing people into the city.
By way of example, think for a moment on which streets are the bulkiest, and which are the most active. For size, it's hard to go past the north half of King William St, particularly the middle section. Would anyone disagree with me if I describe it as one of the least active streets in Adelaide? It is not a place that you go to, it is a thoroughfare that you go through on your way to somewhere else. It's only drawcard is the sheer volume of office space that lines it, which you can readily see on any weekend by how empty it is.
By comparison, the active streets are ones like Rundle or Gouger; neither have much in the way of bulk, each have a great deal of activity and positive street levels, each are vibrant all week and late into the evening as well. The bulked-up streets aren't offering to these people the things that are attracting them to these smaller scale streets: things to do, things to see, places to go. Size, in and of itself, isn't appealing; people aren't thinking to themselves "let's go out and look up at some taller buildings". I believe that people rarely raise their view above eye-level, and for that reason the size of the buildings are far less important than what is happening at street level.
That's not to say that big buildings can't spark activity on the street, just that they don't without people explicitly working at it. The mixed success of the areas that come closest to managing it -- the Mall and Hindley St -- show just how easy it is to get it wrong. Take the Myer Centre, look at the frontage it gives to the mall; many of the stores along that face don't actually have an entrance that faces the mall, and when they do they are often the smaller entrance, with the larger one facing the centre's interior.
So I am skeptical of many recent and current developments: SA Water at least makes clear the problem with "campus style headquarters", an entire building given over to one occupant is a recipe for boredom; 374-400 King William looks ominously like a monolith that will swallow that end of town under its 90m facade; even Aurora looks questionable - take the most promising of Adelaide's squares and build an office tower? does it at least have ground-level retail? - my only consolation is that giving twenty CEOs a fabulous view gives them a reason to get back from lunch earlier.
I don't think it helps that the renders that we see are all either aerial shots or expansive fish-eye perspectives from somewhere across the street. Neither of these are useful for judging what the building is really going to be like at ground level, and that is how almost all of us will really experience it. Frankly, I am prepared to forgive almost any monstrosity if its first two levels are outstandingly good, because no amount of architectural merit will make up for a dull street level.
This treats city planning as something like interior decorating or Feng Shui, which would be fine if all we want is to have more interesting postcard photos of town. No, I say, we want people in the city, not just bulk. I am wildly in favour of increasing the CBD's density, but that doesn't just mean slapping down bigger buildings. Size is only interesting when it is at the service of drawing people into the city.
By way of example, think for a moment on which streets are the bulkiest, and which are the most active. For size, it's hard to go past the north half of King William St, particularly the middle section. Would anyone disagree with me if I describe it as one of the least active streets in Adelaide? It is not a place that you go to, it is a thoroughfare that you go through on your way to somewhere else. It's only drawcard is the sheer volume of office space that lines it, which you can readily see on any weekend by how empty it is.
By comparison, the active streets are ones like Rundle or Gouger; neither have much in the way of bulk, each have a great deal of activity and positive street levels, each are vibrant all week and late into the evening as well. The bulked-up streets aren't offering to these people the things that are attracting them to these smaller scale streets: things to do, things to see, places to go. Size, in and of itself, isn't appealing; people aren't thinking to themselves "let's go out and look up at some taller buildings". I believe that people rarely raise their view above eye-level, and for that reason the size of the buildings are far less important than what is happening at street level.
That's not to say that big buildings can't spark activity on the street, just that they don't without people explicitly working at it. The mixed success of the areas that come closest to managing it -- the Mall and Hindley St -- show just how easy it is to get it wrong. Take the Myer Centre, look at the frontage it gives to the mall; many of the stores along that face don't actually have an entrance that faces the mall, and when they do they are often the smaller entrance, with the larger one facing the centre's interior.
So I am skeptical of many recent and current developments: SA Water at least makes clear the problem with "campus style headquarters", an entire building given over to one occupant is a recipe for boredom; 374-400 King William looks ominously like a monolith that will swallow that end of town under its 90m facade; even Aurora looks questionable - take the most promising of Adelaide's squares and build an office tower? does it at least have ground-level retail? - my only consolation is that giving twenty CEOs a fabulous view gives them a reason to get back from lunch earlier.
I don't think it helps that the renders that we see are all either aerial shots or expansive fish-eye perspectives from somewhere across the street. Neither of these are useful for judging what the building is really going to be like at ground level, and that is how almost all of us will really experience it. Frankly, I am prepared to forgive almost any monstrosity if its first two levels are outstandingly good, because no amount of architectural merit will make up for a dull street level.
