[SWP] Festival Plaza Tower 2 | 160m | 38 Levels | Office

[rev]

I used to agree, but I have slightly warmed up to them after my international travels. Our parklands are incredibly unique and important. There is nothing quite like flying into Adelaide and seeing a city poking out from the trees.The Parklands Preservation Group are just a group of people who serve that principle. That is rare these days, and I respect them for that. Sure they can be annoying, but I genuinely don't think theyr'e "anti-development". Just an accountability mechanism for an industry that sometimes needs it.

Personally I think they are the ultra nimby hiding behind the parklands as an excuse to try maintain the status quo they feel comfortable in.

Sure lets not only protect the parklands, but make better use of them.
But this site is not parklands. Unless we've entered a parallel reality where concrete built form is a parkland.

[dsriggs]

It is very important that the roof of the Festival Centre Car Park is kept as pristine as it was when Colonel Light first gazed upon it.

[Patrick_27]

This is the precedent set by the state government with these land handouts both here and in Lot 14. We can't expect anything too remarkable for corner site on one of the busiest intersections in the Adelaide CBD with nearby parking and an abundance of PT options, be it a hotel or commercial office building, I'm talking about the 73-75 KWS Hotel proposal. However, the moment the state government puts a call out to "build on our land for free, the only catch is you need to help fund the minimal public realm surrounding your building and build a carpark that will ultimately benefit those who tenant your building", the developers line up with their incredible proposals pushing the height and design ceiling that this city has long struggled overcome, and furthermore commercial tenants line up one by one to get in on it. There is truly nothing remarkable about the offerings at Festival Plaza for a prospective tenant other perhaps than visibility of the building's naming rights OR the landlord behind the building (Walker) is one that you have commercial tenancy arrangements with elsewhere in Australia. Anyone who cannot see the issue here might want to take another look. It's isn't about whether or not this area is parklands (which technically based on legislation, it is) which I agree with Rev, this chunk of land hasn't been 'parkland' (the green kind) for decades and even then it was an extension of Elder Park wrapped around the government printing office (it's carpark and the city baths; it's about the fact that this land is public land that has been handed over to a private consortium to profit from with no gain to those who technically own it (us, the taxpayer) and the same can be said about SkyCity casino and the InterContinental. We can talk all about Adelaide's signature postcard image evolving, but had these sorts of developments been concentrated around Victoria Square or even on the southern side of North Terrace, that postcard image would still have shown a city that's evolving but not at the expense SA taxpayer land.

Is Adelaide's mindset still so far behind the 8-ball that we consider development of this kind to be progressive? Because in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, they have already and continue to buy private land/buildings on the CBD grid wherever they can to create public realm, or in the case of Circular Quay masterplan burying raised freeways and train lines to create open space. If this building was ten storey's high, you'd had lost Viny, he'd spend a month complaining it wasn't tall enough. and then probably joined ranks with those of us voicing our concerns over the location of this build. So let's look at the reality, people are only excited by this because of its size and it's glassy renders, that's all because that's all there is to this.

[Mpol02]

This is the precedent set by the state government with these land handouts both here and in Lot 14. We can't expect anything too remarkable for corner site on one of the busiest intersections in the Adelaide CBD with nearby parking and an abundance of PT options, be it a hotel or commercial office building, I'm talking about the 73-75 KWS Hotel proposal. However, the moment the state government puts a call out to "build on our land for free, the only catch is you need to help fund the minimal public realm surrounding your building and build a carpark that will ultimately benefit those who tenant your building", the developers line up with their incredible proposals pushing the height and design ceiling that this city has long struggled overcome, and furthermore commercial tenants line up one by one to get in on it. There is truly nothing remarkable about the offerings at Festival Plaza for a prospective tenant other perhaps than visibility of the building's naming rights OR the landlord behind the building (Walker) is one that you have commercial tenancy arrangements with elsewhere in Australia. Anyone who cannot see the issue here might want to take another look. It's isn't about whether or not this area is parklands (which technically based on legislation, it is) which I agree with Rev, this chunk of land hasn't been 'parkland' (the green kind) for decades and even then it was an extension of Elder Park wrapped around the government printing office (it's carpark and the city baths; it's about the fact that this land is public land that has been handed over to a private consortium to profit from with no gain to those who technically own it (us, the taxpayer) and the same can be said about SkyCity casino and the InterContinental. We can talk all about Adelaide's signature postcard image evolving, but had these sorts of developments been concentrated around Victoria Square or even on the southern side of North Terrace, that postcard image would still have shown a city that's evolving but not at the expense SA taxpayer land.

Is Adelaide's mindset still so far behind the 8-ball that we consider development of this kind to be progressive? Because in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, they have already and continue to buy private land/buildings on the CBD grid wherever they can to create public realm, or in the case of Circular Quay masterplan burying raised freeways and train lines to create open space. If this building was ten storey's high, you'd had lost Viny, he'd spend a month complaining it wasn't tall enough. and then probably joined ranks with those of us voicing our concerns over the location of this build. So let's look at the reality, people are only excited by this because of its size and it's glassy renders, that's all because that's all there is to this.

[VinyTapestry849]

. If this building was ten storey's high, you'd had lost Viny, he'd spend a month complaining it wasn't tall enough. and then probably joined ranks with those of us voicing our concerns over the location of this build.

So true

. There is truly nothing remarkable about the offerings at Festival Plaza for a prospective tenant other perhaps than visibility of the building's naming rights OR the landlord behind the building (Walker) is one that you have commercial tenancy arrangements with elsewhere in Australia.

I’m sorry but this is so UN-true. The shear speed at which major companies flocked and wrestled to get into festival tower is enough to debunk your argument. This is prime real estate on the cities premiere boulevard, and our cities global image.

Arguably I expect there will be an even fiercer rush and fight among companies to establish themselves in this new tower.

Also someone message a moderator and change this thread name to “King William Tower”, that’s its proper name.

[rev]

This is the precedent set by the state government with these land handouts both here and in Lot 14. We can't expect anything too remarkable for corner site on one of the busiest intersections in the Adelaide CBD with nearby parking and an abundance of PT options, be it a hotel or commercial office building, I'm talking about the 73-75 KWS Hotel proposal. However, the moment the state government puts a call out to "build on our land for free, the only catch is you need to help fund the minimal public realm surrounding your building and build a carpark that will ultimately benefit those who tenant your building", the developers line up with their incredible proposals pushing the height and design ceiling that this city has long struggled overcome, and furthermore commercial tenants line up one by one to get in on it. There is truly nothing remarkable about the offerings at Festival Plaza for a prospective tenant other perhaps than visibility of the building's naming rights OR the landlord behind the building (Walker) is one that you have commercial tenancy arrangements with elsewhere in Australia. Anyone who cannot see the issue here might want to take another look. It's isn't about whether or not this area is parklands (which technically based on legislation, it is) which I agree with Rev, this chunk of land hasn't been 'parkland' (the green kind) for decades and even then it was an extension of Elder Park wrapped around the government printing office (it's carpark and the city baths; it's about the fact that this land is public land that has been handed over to a private consortium to profit from with no gain to those who technically own it (us, the taxpayer) and the same can be said about SkyCity casino and the InterContinental. We can talk all about Adelaide's signature postcard image evolving, but had these sorts of developments been concentrated around Victoria Square or even on the southern side of North Terrace, that postcard image would still have shown a city that's evolving but not at the expense SA taxpayer land.

Is Adelaide's mindset still so far behind the 8-ball that we consider development of this kind to be progressive? Because in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, they have already and continue to buy private land/buildings on the CBD grid wherever they can to create public realm, or in the case of Circular Quay masterplan burying raised freeways and train lines to create open space. If this building was ten storey's high, you'd had lost Viny, he'd spend a month complaining it wasn't tall enough. and then probably joined ranks with those of us voicing our concerns over the location of this build. So let's look at the reality, people are only excited by this because of its size and it's glassy renders, that's all because that's all there is to this.

On the other side of the coin for public spaces is, what's the point on investing tens of millions of tax payer dollars to spruce up these public spaces when they are barely used by said public?
Walker has done up what's left of the plaza, and it was put to great use for the FIFA womens world cup. Great, public funds weren't used to do up the plaza to host one event (an event that cost public funds).
Before that what was the last time it was used in a major way, during fringe for what was it Bario or Lolas?

Another fine example is Victoria Square. Half of it has been done up. When is it used? For the Tour Down Under, the Christmas tree and Tasting Australia and a few cultural festivals? Was used for the Glendi festival during covid and I think a few Indian festivals? It's a place for the homeless to gather around the public toilet block there, they camp out there.
It's barely used outside of that. Putting a few office towers there wouldn't impede the foot traffic through the square - NO I'm not suggesting building on Vic Square lol.

I'm all for these large public spaces, but lets be honest they are hardly used for anything other then foot traffic walking through them.

I think some context should be kept in mind. Ok a part of the public plaza is no longer public. But what benefit would there have been keeping it as a public plaza if that public plaza isn't used and costs tax payers?

[gnrc_louis]

This is the precedent set by the state government with these land handouts both here and in Lot 14. We can't expect anything too remarkable for corner site on one of the busiest intersections in the Adelaide CBD with nearby parking and an abundance of PT options, be it a hotel or commercial office building, I'm talking about the 73-75 KWS Hotel proposal. However, the moment the state government puts a call out to "build on our land for free, the only catch is you need to help fund the minimal public realm surrounding your building and build a carpark that will ultimately benefit those who tenant your building", the developers line up with their incredible proposals pushing the height and design ceiling that this city has long struggled overcome, and furthermore commercial tenants line up one by one to get in on it. There is truly nothing remarkable about the offerings at Festival Plaza for a prospective tenant other perhaps than visibility of the building's naming rights OR the landlord behind the building (Walker) is one that you have commercial tenancy arrangements with elsewhere in Australia. Anyone who cannot see the issue here might want to take another look. It's isn't about whether or not this area is parklands (which technically based on legislation, it is) which I agree with Rev, this chunk of land hasn't been 'parkland' (the green kind) for decades and even then it was an extension of Elder Park wrapped around the government printing office (it's carpark and the city baths; it's about the fact that this land is public land that has been handed over to a private consortium to profit from with no gain to those who technically own it (us, the taxpayer) and the same can be said about SkyCity casino and the InterContinental. We can talk all about Adelaide's signature postcard image evolving, but had these sorts of developments been concentrated around Victoria Square or even on the southern side of North Terrace, that postcard image would still have shown a city that's evolving but not at the expense SA taxpayer land.

Is Adelaide's mindset still so far behind the 8-ball that we consider development of this kind to be progressive? Because in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, they have already and continue to buy private land/buildings on the CBD grid wherever they can to create public realm, or in the case of Circular Quay masterplan burying raised freeways and train lines to create open space. If this building was ten storey's high, you'd had lost Viny, he'd spend a month complaining it wasn't tall enough. and then probably joined ranks with those of us voicing our concerns over the location of this build. So let's look at the reality, people are only excited by this because of its size and it's glassy renders, that's all because that's all there is to this.

On the other side of the coin for public spaces is, what's the point on investing tens of millions of tax payer dollars to spruce up these public spaces when they are barely used by said public?
Walker has done up what's left of the plaza, and it was put to great use for the FIFA womens world cup. Great, public funds weren't used to do up the plaza to host one event (an event that cost public funds).
Before that what was the last time it was used in a major way, during fringe for what was it Bario or Lolas?

Another fine example is Victoria Square. Half of it has been done up. When is it used? For the Tour Down Under, the Christmas tree and Tasting Australia and a few cultural festivals? Was used for the Glendi festival during covid and I think a few Indian festivals? It's a place for the homeless to gather around the public toilet block there, they camp out there.
It's barely used outside of that. Putting a few office towers there wouldn't impede the foot traffic through the square - NO I'm not suggesting building on Vic Square lol.

I'm all for these large public spaces, but lets be honest they are hardly used for anything other then foot traffic walking through them.

I think some context should be kept in mind. Ok a part of the public plaza is no longer public. But what benefit would there have been keeping it as a public plaza if that public plaza isn't used and costs tax payers?

Victoria square actually gets a pretty decent amount of people there at lunchtime during the week.

[rev]

This is the precedent set by the state government with these land handouts both here and in Lot 14. We can't expect anything too remarkable for corner site on one of the busiest intersections in the Adelaide CBD with nearby parking and an abundance of PT options, be it a hotel or commercial office building, I'm talking about the 73-75 KWS Hotel proposal. However, the moment the state government puts a call out to "build on our land for free, the only catch is you need to help fund the minimal public realm surrounding your building and build a carpark that will ultimately benefit those who tenant your building", the developers line up with their incredible proposals pushing the height and design ceiling that this city has long struggled overcome, and furthermore commercial tenants line up one by one to get in on it. There is truly nothing remarkable about the offerings at Festival Plaza for a prospective tenant other perhaps than visibility of the building's naming rights OR the landlord behind the building (Walker) is one that you have commercial tenancy arrangements with elsewhere in Australia. Anyone who cannot see the issue here might want to take another look. It's isn't about whether or not this area is parklands (which technically based on legislation, it is) which I agree with Rev, this chunk of land hasn't been 'parkland' (the green kind) for decades and even then it was an extension of Elder Park wrapped around the government printing office (it's carpark and the city baths; it's about the fact that this land is public land that has been handed over to a private consortium to profit from with no gain to those who technically own it (us, the taxpayer) and the same can be said about SkyCity casino and the InterContinental. We can talk all about Adelaide's signature postcard image evolving, but had these sorts of developments been concentrated around Victoria Square or even on the southern side of North Terrace, that postcard image would still have shown a city that's evolving but not at the expense SA taxpayer land.

Is Adelaide's mindset still so far behind the 8-ball that we consider development of this kind to be progressive? Because in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, they have already and continue to buy private land/buildings on the CBD grid wherever they can to create public realm, or in the case of Circular Quay masterplan burying raised freeways and train lines to create open space. If this building was ten storey's high, you'd had lost Viny, he'd spend a month complaining it wasn't tall enough. and then probably joined ranks with those of us voicing our concerns over the location of this build. So let's look at the reality, people are only excited by this because of its size and it's glassy renders, that's all because that's all there is to this.

On the other side of the coin for public spaces is, what's the point on investing tens of millions of tax payer dollars to spruce up these public spaces when they are barely used by said public?
Walker has done up what's left of the plaza, and it was put to great use for the FIFA womens world cup. Great, public funds weren't used to do up the plaza to host one event (an event that cost public funds).
Before that what was the last time it was used in a major way, during fringe for what was it Bario or Lolas?

Another fine example is Victoria Square. Half of it has been done up. When is it used? For the Tour Down Under, the Christmas tree and Tasting Australia and a few cultural festivals? Was used for the Glendi festival during covid and I think a few Indian festivals? It's a place for the homeless to gather around the public toilet block there, they camp out there.
It's barely used outside of that. Putting a few office towers there wouldn't impede the foot traffic through the square - NO I'm not suggesting building on Vic Square lol.

I'm all for these large public spaces, but lets be honest they are hardly used for anything other then foot traffic walking through them.

I think some context should be kept in mind. Ok a part of the public plaza is no longer public. But what benefit would there have been keeping it as a public plaza if that public plaza isn't used and costs tax payers?

Victoria square actually gets a pretty decent amount of people there at lunchtime during the week.

Cool I stand corrected, I've just never seen it every time at various times throughout the day.

[Jaymz]

I'll just chime in here to say I much prefer the version with the angled roof. It's only a small thing but I think it makes a huge difference to the look of the building

[VinyTapestry849]

I'll just chime in here to say I much prefer the version with the angled roof. It's only a small thing but I think it makes a huge difference to the look of the building

This updated design allegedly allows for more floor space apparently. A more levelled roof means more room inside.

[Mpol02]

I'll just chime in here to say I much prefer the version with the angled roof. It's only a small thing but I think it makes a huge difference to the look of the building

I agree it’s striking and adds more to the skyline.

[Spotto]

I'll just chime in here to say I much prefer the version with the angled roof. It's only a small thing but I think it makes a huge difference to the look of the building

This updated design allegedly allows for more floor space apparently. A more levelled roof means more room inside.

It’s hard to judge from the artwork, but it looks like that top portion may end up as a large open atrium anyway.

An angled roof would make little difference if that were the case.

[rev]

I'll just chime in here to say I much prefer the version with the angled roof. It's only a small thing but I think it makes a huge difference to the look of the building

This updated design allegedly allows for more floor space apparently. A more levelled roof means more room inside.

I reckon the original design with the more angled roof but slanting in in the opposite direction down towards King William would look better.
Either way, hopefully they light it up at night. Would look great when the Strikers are playing at Adelaide Oval, they can light it up in blue like the AO roof and foot bridge.

[VinyTapestry849]

I'll just chime in here to say I much prefer the version with the angled roof. It's only a small thing but I think it makes a huge difference to the look of the building

This updated design allegedly allows for more floor space apparently. A more levelled roof means more room inside.

I reckon the original design with the more angled roof but slanting in in the opposite direction down towards King William would look better.
Either way, hopefully they light it up at night. Would look great when the Strikers are playing at Adelaide Oval, they can light it up in blue like the AO roof and foot bridge.

Yes, that sounds like what they’re going for. Will look great with both Keystone tower and this tower lighting up colourfully.

I know I’ve posted this photo a couple a times, but boy this angle looks good




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VinyTapestry849]

I have an idea... What do you all think.