[COM] Festival Plaza Tower 1 | 115m | 27 Levels | Office

[SRW]

Look, at a time where any design that doesn't have blank walls is by default better-designed, the building itself looks not that bad.

It's just ludicrously overscaled for its position.

And although I'm resigned to it now as a fait accompli, I still reserve the right to grumble about into perpetuity. Oh what could have been!

This post may or may not be red wine-tinged.

[Nathan]

Look, at a time where any design that doesn't have blank walls is by default better-designed, the building itself looks not that bad.

It's just ludicrously overscaled for its position.

And although I'm resigned to it now as a fait accompli, I still reserve the right to grumble about into perpetuity. Oh what could have been!

This post may or may not be red wine-tinged.

I agree, it doesn't look bad, and in fact it would be welcomed almost anywhere else in the city. I don't even think the scale is (that much of) a problem. It's just that it's lacking that little something that a building in such a prominent location should have.

Even if it was something as simple as running those open balcony levels in a spiral progressively up and around the building, rather than the seemingly hap-hazard placement.

[SRW]

I can abide the aesthetic as I think iconic architecture is rarely achieved whereas clean lines (and glass) are enduringly inoffensive. If they had designed something successfully rarified that would have been great, but the design proposed is serviceable for The Building That We Had To Have to allow the plaza upgrade. It is specifically the scale that bothers me: it is out of proportion with and domineering in the space its entire purpose is to improve.

And btw, does anyone else see echoes of Brisbane Square?

[how good is he]

I think the govt should have just declared the building for itself and designed something iconic (& not held hostage to a developers budget). In Brisbane the state govt has just finished 1 William St & consolidated all their govt depts. I still don't get why the govt. chooses to lease it (+hospital etc) from a developer. I know you can say it's better financially or the govt is broke - but you would think if the govt can't afford to build on its own land, what chance have we got?

[Ben]

Just showed my mate. His words "it's boring". It's just bland. For a postcard shot a plain box. How uninspiring.

[ml69]

Just showed my mate. His words "it's boring". It's just bland. For a postcard shot a plain box. How uninspiring.

Although like others I don't like the boxy shape of the tower, the twin tower appearance from the northern (plaza) end is an improvement from the earlier concepts.

When looking at the details of the podium and tower, I think it is actually quite well detailed and the glazing is well-proportioned. There is some texture to the glass facade with the use of protruding 300mm aluminium "fins".

It's the overall shape and appearance that I think could be improved on with a few minor design tweaks:

* First, some kind of angular shaping to finish off the top of the taller tower to give it a more distinctive appearance, given the high visibility of the site. It would have been great to have an observation deck and cafe/restaurant stop the tower too, but that doesn't seem likely anymore.
* Second, the recessed windows are a nice touch to break up the vertical mass of the tower. I think the appearance would be improved by continuing the recessed windows across both parts of the tower on the same level ... it would make both parts of the tower look more integrated.

[Blimp]

Very boxy. Like others have said, any other location and this would be applauded, however in such a prominent site it is abit underwhelming. As others have also raised there's a missed opportunity to incorporate some form of rooftop bar/restaurant. All things considered I think this will be a neat addition to the skyline.

This will also block out the my budget building, can't complain about that!!

[Splashmo]

It's not amazing but we've seen worse. After the issues with the Adelaide Uni medical building I'll just be curious to see if it looks like the render.

[noted]

It's not amazing but we've seen worse. After the issues with the Adelaide Uni medical building I'll just be curious to see if it looks like the render.

I actually think the UoA medical building looks a lot better than the render. Was never a huge fan of the original proposal but quite like how it has turned out- I can appreciate why this causes frustration though.

Not sure if others see it, but for me this building looks a bit like a modern take on the state administration centre.

[Alyx]

A couple of artist's impressions which hadn't yet been posted here:





And, the accompanying article from The Advertiser:

A DETAILED proposal for the Festival Plaza redevelopment revealing a 27-storey office tower — three storeys higher than originally pitched — is set to be approved by the state’s planning body.

While Walker Corp’s proposed 108m-high office tower has been commended by the Government Architect for its “high-quality design”, the Environment Department believes it “dramatically ... diminishes” the surrounding heritage buildings.

The Development Assessment Commission will consider the plans on Thursday but, despite the heritage concerns, the report prepared for members recommends granting building consent.

After four years of talks with Sydney property tycoon Lang Walker, in May the Government backed his plans, which were understood to include a 24-storey office tower, underground carpark and two-storey retail and entertainment complex.

But the DAC report shows a 27-level office tower with 40,000sq m of commercial space and a retail building that varies in height from one level with a rooftop to three levels designed as a series of connected pavilions.

The office tower would be the city’s second-tallest building, behind the 31-storey Westpac building, which is 132m high.

The office tower would also be home to 3363sq m of retail space on the ground floor, allowing public access to all new buildings on the plaza.

The proposal also has details of the 1646-space carpark across covers five basement levels, which would replace the dilapidated Festival Centre carpark.

The plans include:

DEMOLITION of portions of the existing plaza including Station Rd, the amphitheatre, Festival Drive and parts of the northern walkway.

EXTENSION of the plaza over the top of the redesigned Festival Drive.

CREATING Parliament Garden.

ONE hundred publicly accessible bike parks on the plaza and 327 bicycle parks within the new carpark as well as “end of trip” facilities including 24 showers, 414 lockers and changing rooms.

RELOCATION of art works.

A 4.5m-deep walkway connecting the retail building with the plaza would provide weather protection through a steel and glazed canopy, 8m above the plaza.

The plans coincide with a Property Council push to raise building height limits on the edge of the CBD. The change would allow taller office buildings to ring the city, providing views out onto the parklands.

The State Government is reviewing its capital city planning guidelines and called for public submissions, which closed last week.

The DAC report details the proposed basement carpark, retail building and office development within a 27 level tower on the Adelaide Festival Plaza to be “consistent with the desired land uses” and would improve the area for the public.

Adelaide Airport raised no objections to the height from an airport safety perspective.

The zoning only allows 20 storeys in that area but additional height “can be contemplated for exemplary development”.

The State Heritage Unit, part of the Environment Department, provided a submission which states that the proposal directly affects the “fabric” of the state heritage-listed Adelaide Festival Centre and Parliament House.

“In brief, the SHU is not supportive of the demolition of a sizeable portion of the northern section of the plaza which will result in the irreversible loss of fabric and design attributes of ‘Considerable’ and ‘Exceptional’ significance,” the report states.

“The height and physical presence of the tower which will crowd the immediate setting of the heritage places; and the impact on the views to the state heritage places from the vantage points within the precinct.

“The proposed tower’s height and physical presence is a dramatic intervention into the low-scale heritage precinct of unusually high integrity.

“The proposal also diminishes the visual presence of the four state heritage places within their context, through the dramatic contrast in scale between the tower building and the low-scale heritage buildings.”

While the report recommends granting consent, there would be further control over building materials, the facade of the retail spaces and further consultation with a heritage architect on the design along Parliament lane.

Property Council SA executive director Daniel Gannon has suggested relaxing height restrictions for buildings surrounding the city parklands to create a “Central Park-style skyline”.

The change would encourage development along East, West and South terraces in particular, Mr Gannon said.

Central Park spans 340 hectares in the centre of Manhattan island.

The popular green space is ringed by skyscrapers, including along the famous Fifth Ave to the East, which have views over the expanse of trees and ponds.

The renowned urban park attracts about 40 million visitors a year.

The Adelaide CBD and surrounds boast 930 hectares of parklands.

Adelaide City Council figures record 8.9 million visits to the parklands each year.

“Much like New York’s Central Park, the Property Council can see great potential in ‘green-lighting’ some development that would maximise views for residents and commercial office building tenants, without impacting on the use ... of the parklands,” Mr Gannon’s submission argues.

“To restrict buildings to moderate heights with parkland frontage, we believe, is a wasted opportunity to bring new business, residents and atmosphere into the (city).

“High quality development with parklands views would deliver obvious residential benefits but could also attract headquartered offices at a time when South Australia desperately needs demand.”

Planning Minister John Rau said that, given he is the ultimate decision maker on any changes, it would be “inappropriate” to comment at this stage.

Source: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 7fb309bf65

[Patrick_27]

Based on the design and the way the renders have displayed it, I can see the hospitality aspect of the plaza becoming quite tacky. Adelaide has enough bistros and generic (Cibo style) cafes; I'm not saying they need to go high-end dining because it should be within everyone's price point, but something that's not just the standard would be good to see.

[Matt]

After rifling through the plans/renders, I'm loving the 3 storey food/retail building.
Looks to be well designed and if true to render (and the tenants are decent), should be a great addition to the plaza

The office building, however, is hideous.
While I don't necessarily disagree with having a building in that particular spot (especially if it's a necessary evil to unlock funding for the car park and plaza), the bulk of this design is completely over the top. It's just so... chunky.

Also, still really annoyed that there's no restaurant/bar at the top. To me, it seems a massive missed opportunity - imagine that view?
By opening part of it up to the public, it might have gone some way to placating some of the complaints/concerns of sticking a private office building on public land.

[ml69]

Also, still really annoyed that there's no restaurant/bar at the top. To me, it seems a massive missed opportunity - imagine that view?
By opening part of it up to the public, it might have gone some way to placating some of the complaints/concerns of sticking a private office building on public land.

Could. Not. Agree. More.

It's gonna be the second tallest building in the city, in the best location in the city for views ... FFS public access to a rooftop restaurant/bar/observation deck should be a no-brainer, especially in an emerging tourist precinct.

For me, this is the government's fault. They should have been demanding this of the developer from the beginning.

[crawf]

Also, still really annoyed that there's no restaurant/bar at the top. To me, it seems a massive missed opportunity - imagine that view?
By opening part of it up to the public, it might have gone some way to placating some of the complaints/concerns of sticking a private office building on public land.

Could. Not. Agree. More.

It's gonna be the second tallest building in the city, in the best location in the city for views ... FFS public access to a rooftop restaurant/bar/observation deck should be a no-brainer, especially in an emerging tourist precinct.

For me, this is the government's fault. They should have been demanding this of the developer from the beginning.

Including the current other proposals, this will be the sixth tallest building in Adelaide. I definitely agree with the motion of a restaurant/observation deck on the top floor, the views of the riverbank precinct would be stunning.

The office tower is okay, slowly going on me. Though for such a prominent location, it looks way too boxy and needs some curves or some interesting architectural features. This office tower needs to be a timeless design built with quality materials. The last thing we need is a City Central style box along the riverbank.

The dining/retail precinct however looks really good.

[Ben]

Article in yesterdays paper saying Santos are looking to move here and are looking at naming rights, but it said only 3 levels as they are downsizing.