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

[Patrick_27]

Everything around parliament except government house and the train station building is out of place compared.
Is someone going to seriously say the Intercontinental fits in?
Or the new casino extension?
Or the festival theater?
Oe the crap across the road?
How about the riverside centre?

The out of place argument bolted a long long time ago.

So yeah, let's just make it worse because why not?

[rev]

While I agree with your points the reality is that all the buildings there have been built at very different times throughout history. The buildings you mention are built and reflect the 1900s, 1970, 1980s, 1990s, 2020 etc. Combine this with different owners/stakeholders all with different agendas and all in a confined environment and I can't see much alternative to the outcome we have got.

This is a good point.

The railway station and parliament house were both built at the outset of the 1900s? Before many modern building technologies and styles were introduced. For a newer building to not be "out of place" would cost a tonne to match the materials used back in the day, and we'd continue have a city full of buildings no higher, innovative or livable than those originally built during Adelaide's settlement..

The only way to stop new buildings being "out of place" is to not build them at all... or for buildings to be designed more sympathetically with heritage in mind? I am not sure what people exactly mean when they say something is out of place?

Its all in a poor location, and there is overall poor planning or lack of. Which is a constant theme here in Adelaide.

Ideally you'd have the gardens of government house continuing around the parliament. Even better would be for parliament to be perhaps where the parade ground is and the gardens continuing that way.
Heck why don't they build a new parliament there? What have we got to lose at this point its not like this state is moving forward. Perhaps a small reset is what's needed. Could use the exterior of the current parliament to build a hotel tower above or some office space or appartments.

A shake up wouldnt be a bad thing, either nothing much will change or we will start moving forwards again with a renewed confidence that most od us have never seen in our time in SA.

[Norman]

Some posts have been moved to the Beer Garden. Let's get back on topic.

Does anyone know who the tenant(s) of the office tower are?

[SRW]

Does anyone know who the tenant(s) of the office tower are?

I hope it's someone like SGIC or the state government. I think it would deeply unseemly for a big miner (e.g. SANTOS) or big developer to have naming rights towering over parliament; with the casino right beside, it would be a pretty shocking visual metaphor of the influence of corporate money over power.

I note that Treasury Wine Estates is looking to demerge the Penfolds brand into a separate and larger company. I know there are arguments both ways about whether it's a good use of money, but I think the state government should be pitching for them to based here. It'd be cool to see either of those names promiently on the skyline.

[claybro]

Does anyone know who the tenant(s) of the office tower are?

I hope it's someone like SGIC or the state government. I think it would deeply unseemly for a big miner (e.g. SANTOS) or big developer to have naming rights towering over parliament; with the casino right beside, it would be a pretty shocking visual metaphor of the influence of corporate money over power.

I note that Treasury Wine Estates is looking to demerge the Penfolds brand into a separate and larger company. I know there are arguments both ways about whether it's a good use of money, but I think the state government should be pitching for them to based here. It'd be cool to see either of those names promiently on the skyline.

So a mining company is a bad look, but a large wine company is ok? Not sure I understand the logic. Don't fret about SANTOS being up there to be a "bad look" BTW.. they are moving most of their operations to Brisbane where presumably they have no such concerns.

[SRW]

Does anyone know who the tenant(s) of the office tower are?

I hope it's someone like SGIC or the state government. I think it would deeply unseemly for a big miner (e.g. SANTOS) or big developer to have naming rights towering over parliament; with the casino right beside, it would be a pretty shocking visual metaphor of the influence of corporate money over power.

I note that Treasury Wine Estates is looking to demerge the Penfolds brand into a separate and larger company. I know there are arguments both ways about whether it's a good use of money, but I think the state government should be pitching for them to based here. It'd be cool to see either of those names prominently on the skyline.

So a mining company is a bad look, but a large wine company is ok? Not sure I understand the logic. Don't fret about SANTOS being up there to be a "bad look" BTW.. they are moving most of their operations to Brisbane where presumably they have no such concerns.

Yes. The two biggest legislative fights in SA at the moment (and in recent times) relate to mining and development, and even a quick perusal of declared political donations and the lobbyist register will indicate who's doing the leaning. But, as I said, it's my opinion of what's unseemly and hope to avoid it, not the measure by which the building will actually be tenanted.

[claybro]

I hope it's someone like SGIC or the state government. I think it would deeply unseemly for a big miner (e.g. SANTOS) or big developer to have naming rights towering over parliament; with the casino right beside, it would be a pretty shocking visual metaphor of the influence of corporate money over power.

I note that Treasury Wine Estates is looking to demerge the Penfolds brand into a separate and larger company. I know there are arguments both ways about whether it's a good use of money, but I think the state government should be pitching for them to based here. It'd be cool to see either of those names prominently on the skyline.

So a mining company is a bad look, but a large wine company is ok? Not sure I understand the logic. Don't fret about SANTOS being up there to be a "bad look" BTW.. they are moving most of their operations to Brisbane where presumably they have no such concerns.

Yes. The two biggest legislative fights in SA at the moment (and in recent times) relate to mining and development, and even a quick perusal of declared political donations and the lobbyist register will indicate who's doing the leaning. But, as I said, it's my opinion of what's unseemly and hope to avoid it, not the measure by which the building will actually be tenanted.

God forbid SA should be troubled by too much mining influence. But sure... let's fill this building with public servants and hangers on, less anyone should think there was something shonky going on.

[rev]

Why does the building need naming rights, or a big logo at the top?
I think it would be a lot more visually appealing if lights were left on inside the building at night.

[Algernon]

Does anyone know who the tenant(s) of the office tower are?

I hope it's someone like SGIC or the state government. I think it would deeply unseemly for a big miner (e.g. SANTOS) or big developer to have naming rights towering over parliament; with the casino right beside, it would be a pretty shocking visual metaphor of the influence of corporate money over power.

Back in the day there was a big 'my budget' sign on the building over the road from parliament and it was a pretty fkn apt visual metaphor

[SRW]

So a mining company is a bad look, but a large wine company is ok? Not sure I understand the logic. Don't fret about SANTOS being up there to be a "bad look" BTW.. they are moving most of their operations to Brisbane where presumably they have no such concerns.

Yes. The two biggest legislative fights in SA at the moment (and in recent times) relate to mining and development, and even a quick perusal of declared political donations and the lobbyist register will indicate who's doing the leaning. But, as I said, it's my opinion of what's unseemly and hope to avoid it, not the measure by which the building will actually be tenanted.

God forbid SA should be troubled by too much mining influence. But sure... let's fill this building with public servants and hangers on, less anyone should think there was something shonky going on.

Oh, so this is your idea of logic

[ChillyPhilly]

I wonder if ABC, Channel 44 and other tenants would be keen to shift out of Collinswood...

[citywatcher]

Yes. The two biggest legislative fights in SA at the moment (and in recent times) relate to mining and development, and even a quick perusal of declared political donations and the lobbyist register will indicate who's doing the leaning. But, as I said, it's my opinion of what's unseemly and hope to avoid it, not the measure by which the building will actually be tenanted.

God forbid SA should be troubled by too much mining influence. But sure... let's fill this building with public servants and hangers on, less anyone should think there was something shonky going on.

Oh, so this is your idea of logic

X2

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

[cmet]

Why does the building need naming rights, or a big logo at the top?
I think it would be a lot more visually appealing if lights were left on inside the building at night.

Because the tenants pay good money for it.

[Jaymz]

I for one definitely hope any type of Govt. Department doesn't take up space in the new tower, although sadly, it seems like a given in Adelaide to get a major office tower off the ground, aka City Central 2 and 3 (ATO and Attorney Generals Office).

[claybro]

God forbid SA should be troubled by too much mining influence. But sure... let's fill this building with public servants and hangers on, less anyone should think there was something shonky going on.

Oh, so this is your idea of logic

X2

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

So you would actually rather a new tower filled with public servants, costing additional millions in rent for you the taxpayer, rather than have a mining company pay to rent the office space and have its logo on top in case there is a conflict of interest.? If that kind of anti mining sentiment is the norm over there, no wonder SANTOS is packing up for Brisbane.