#CBD | On Hold | McNess Memorial Center [22st | Office]

[Direwolf]

If you read the planning commitee notes they don't like the podium levels much and the biggest problem is that if this was where the church is the height would probably be fine, would not compromise stance on overshadowing and no problem changing guildlines for height in that section of the terrace, problem is it is on the peir st side.

I say just move the church easy.

[desperaterobots]

Would it really be as high as St Martins? If so, neat. Probably just a crummy render but I'm not feeling it. Needs a bit of colour.

[GOR@N]

this building is very hot. will look great from kings park with the slice/top facings kp.
its good to add different shapes to the city, just look how great bankwest looks in its triangular ways.

[Auxodium]

now THAT is a cutting edge design for the skyline since BW's design i mean it isnt a box like some, it uses sharp lines and will simply break up the skyline with similar buildings...although IF the waterfront goes ahead it will only compliment those designs as they too will be different.... but in the forseeable future i can see this gem making an impact.

[Johnvb]

I cannot see the render? which page is it on? i can only see it in the skyline development pic

[docker]

here you go Johnvb

[tbor]

Best to forget about it... tall buildings next to churches have little/no chance of EVER being approved. Reposting that pic will just make the kids here cry

[desperaterobots]

It does look a little bit... plonked. It doesn't seem all that sympathetic to the design of the church.

[Scraperfan]

The raised stilts idea actually detracts from its intent I think.

[GAbE27]

Originally Posted by Auxodium

now THAT is a cutting edge design for the skyline since BW's design i mean it isnt a box like some, it uses sharp lines and will simply break up the skyline with similar buildings...although IF the waterfront goes ahead it will only compliment those designs as they too will be different.... but in the forseeable future i can see this gem making an impact.

I dont understand why people love sharp lines and angles... I like my buildings the same way I like my women, curved!!

It might look silly if you see the bank west tower and this BW Jr. a few blocks down!! Mweh...

[docker]

i think you need both, the two can work together, imagine the angles of BW, Central Park and BHP up against the possible curves of the Waterfront Tower, they just compliment each other and there is no domination of either.

[Scraperfan]

Originally Posted by tbor

...tall buildings next to churches have little/no chance of EVER being approved.

oh really?

<<

[tbor]

I stand corrected ;-)

I want this built badly, I like the design. It would break away from the 1960's missile silos in that quarter of the city.

But looking at the render, something makes me think of dinosaur councilors being concerned with the abruptness with the surrounding buidlings... which is why I'd be suprised if it gets approved.

This is Perth afterall!

[docker]

Originally Posted by tbor

I stand corrected ;-)

I want this built badly, I like the design. Its would break away from the 1960's bomb proof buildings in that quater of the city.

But looking at the render, something makes me think of dinosaur coucilors being concerned with the abruptness with the surrounding buidlings... which is why I'd be suprised if it gets approved by the council.

This is Perth afterall!

yes, it is! and Perth is evolving, and we are the first stage of that evolution.

[QV1ismytemple]

My understanding it they just need to stretch it: thinner and taller... and it will get the nod. The footprint, bulk and the way it impinges on the church is the concern, not the design.

[Homeroids]

Thinner and taller sounds good. So there is no issue with shadowing Govie House then?

[dallastexjr]

Originally Posted by desperaterobots

It does look a little bit... plonked. It doesn't seem all that sympathetic to the design of the church.

What exactly would look sympathetic next to an old church though? There are only two ways I can think of when approaching the task of building next to a historic design - bland and complementary, such as a square stumpy, or a sharp contrast.

That church was built in the city at a time when Perth was a small town. Perth will always grow taller, and at some point SOMETHING will have to go next to that church. Again, the choice is short and stumpy, or ultra-modern. Which of those is going to show up the church's historic architecture the best? A boring washed out building or a fabulous glass tower?

New York is filled with beautiful old buildings (the NY Library, the old church opp Ground Zero) surrounded by skyscrapers - and although these buildings are somewhat lost in their surrounds, they also stand out because they are small in a sea of tall, and the contrast to their neighbours draws attention to them.

We are going to have to stop being precious about these things at some point. The juxtaposition of the two contrasting designs against each other, imo, would work.

[Auxodium]

i agree with dallas there, i mean if you look at it...it does resemble a church steeple/spire... that in my view of it looks awesome.

And when i go on my holiday to NYC and see as dallas has said the old and the new i will say to myself "if it is done in NYC, it surely can be done in Perth!"

the Citibank tower in New York stands out in my mind as a classic example of including old and new. Too bad it nearly fell over! XD

[desperaterobots]

Originally Posted by dallastexjr

What exactly would look sympathetic next to an old church though? There are only two ways I can think of when approaching the task of building next to a historic design - bland and complementary, such as a square stumpy, or a sharp contrast.

That church was built in the city at a time when Perth was a small town. Perth will always grow taller, and at some point SOMETHING will have to go next to that church. Again, the choice is short and stumpy, or ultra-modern. Which of those is going to show up the church's historic architecture the best? A boring washed out building or a fabulous glass tower?

New York is filled with beautiful old buildings (the NY Library, the old church opp Ground Zero) surrounded by skyscrapers - and although these buildings are somewhat lost in their surrounds, they also stand out because they are small in a sea of tall, and the contrast to their neighbours draws attention to them.

We are going to have to stop being precious about these things at some point. The juxtaposition of the two contrasting designs against each other, imo, would work.

I agree with you in general terms but I think it's disingenuous to compare Perth and it's abundant underdeveloped warehouse/shed lots with down town New York. We have to stop being precious about these things at some point, but I wouldn't agree that the time has already come.

I can understand the councils decision to neg this one because it encroaches on a heritage site with a design that ain't exactly inspirational, plus it's only likely to inflame a vocal minority. Let's face it, this tower could probably be happily plonked on any other wedge of land in the city with both of these issues not even factoring.

And I don't think you can talk about sympathetic designs in the black and white terms you laid out; there are a vast number of design choices that could better integrate the new with the old. If the design was really something great, really something to behold, really something different, I'm not sure we'd be having this conversation.

That tower for me stands as a cold, geometric R&I throwback with some modern floursishes. I would absolutely love to see it built (I mean, put it where Durack2 is and I'd be all over it!) but given the broader context I can see why the council negged it.

[GAbE27]

Bring back art deco!!!