Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
-
Ben
- VIP Member

- Posts: 7719
- Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:46 am
- Location: Adelaide
#406
Post
by Ben » Wed May 28, 2025 8:39 am
Algernon wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 12:34 am
saw this and thought: "typical adelaide bullshit"
one person does, 20 people bitch and waaaaah
build it on this basis alone
"oh but (cray wank) it was a secretive process!" ACTUALLY READ THE PLANNING DOCS. It was there from the very beginning. READ. THE. PUBLICALY. AVAILABLE. DOCUMENTS. FROM. 7. YEARS. AGO.
the amount of cry wanking bullshit that goes on, but that's understandable: gotta get your degree from the hairy armpits somehow. Oh, the fuckin building is all one of the 57 genders. it's tall and thin! that makes it an EVIL MAN DICK! i feel that that eh 37th gender which hover over a toilet and cocks its leg at a 36 degree angle with its non gender fanny apendange was violently attacked by a tall building. now where is my degree? C = it was genderish, d = bad man hd = i just made up the 112th gender - this building is a ZHUNG!
600 metres down from uni, can't half tell can you
oooh fuckin tall building with windows, look at the peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenis
you'd have a dart stressing out at this shit if a pack didn't cost you 8,000 dollars in the Nanny State Est. 1998
A Tuesday night bender?
Other than the phalic argument which I must agree is ridiculous and has no merit. The other arguments I largely agree with, in that this building should not be commencing site works - it has not been approved, the building is going to be a private building in a public space, yes it wasn’t activated before but this rules that out for the next 100+ years. The original plan was hospitality venues to bring people to the area. An office building will bring people to the area yes, but only those that have permission to work in the building and these people will be relocating from the cbd proper. Rather than bringing vitality to the cbd through unique hospitality venues it’s going to kill parts by sucking the workers out and leave this as nothing more than a thoroughfare.
-
A-Town
- High Rise Poster!
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:14 am
#407
Post
by A-Town » Wed May 28, 2025 12:41 pm
Algernon wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 12:34 am
saw this and thought: "typical adelaide bullshit"
one person does, 20 people bitch and waaaaah
build it on this basis alone
"oh but (cray wank) it was a secretive process!" ACTUALLY READ THE PLANNING DOCS. It was there from the very beginning. READ. THE. PUBLICALY. AVAILABLE. DOCUMENTS. FROM. 7. YEARS. AGO.
the amount of cry wanking bullshit that goes on, but that's understandable: gotta get your degree from the hairy armpits somehow. Oh, the fuckin building is all one of the 57 genders. it's tall and thin! that makes it an EVIL MAN DICK! i feel that that eh 37th gender which hover over a toilet and cocks its leg at a 36 degree angle with its non gender fanny apendange was violently attacked by a tall building. now where is my degree? C = it was genderish, d = bad man hd = i just made up the 112th gender - this building is a ZHUNG!
600 metres down from uni, can't half tell can you
oooh fuckin tall building with windows, look at the peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenis
you'd have a dart stressing out at this shit if a pack didn't cost you 8,000 dollars in the Nanny State Est. 1998
This is brilliant
-
shaun
- Donating Member

- Posts: 5548
- Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
- Location: Adelaide
#408
Post
by shaun » Wed May 28, 2025 1:02 pm
Ben wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 8:39 am
A Tuesday night bender?
Other than the phalic argument which I must agree is ridiculous and has no merit. The other arguments I largely agree with, in that this building should not be commencing site works - it has not been approved, the building is going to be a private building in a public space, yes it wasn’t activated before but this rules that out for the next 100+ years. The original plan was hospitality venues to bring people to the area. An office building will bring people to the area yes, but only those that have permission to work in the building and these people will be relocating from the cbd proper. Rather than bringing vitality to the cbd through unique hospitality venues it’s going to kill parts by sucking the workers out and leave this as nothing more than a thoroughfare.
Agree with all of this.

-
rev
- SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
- Posts: 6643
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
#409
Post
by rev » Wed May 28, 2025 2:13 pm
In 1894, the parliament passed world-first laws allowing women to both vote and stand for election. Aboriginal women were also enfranchised – although they faced multiple barriers.
“The word is spreading about the significance of the site [as] the place where full democracy first occurred,” he said.
“It was here that the democratic ideals of all men and women having the right to vote, secret ballots, and one person/one vote were first introduced,” its listing reads.
Wait, what?
What does the plaza have to do with what laws were passed in the parliament building?
-
Algernon
- Super Size Scraper Poster!
- Posts: 1661
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:46 pm
- Location: Moravia
#410
Post
by Algernon » Thu May 29, 2025 5:43 am
Ben wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 8:39 am
Algernon wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 12:34 am
saw this and thought: "typical adelaide bullshit"
one person does, 20 people bitch and waaaaah
build it on this basis alone
"oh but (cray wank) it was a secretive process!" ACTUALLY READ THE PLANNING DOCS. It was there from the very beginning. READ. THE. PUBLICALY. AVAILABLE. DOCUMENTS. FROM. 7. YEARS. AGO.
the amount of cry wanking bullshit that goes on, but that's understandable: gotta get your degree from the hairy armpits somehow. Oh, the fuckin building is all one of the 57 genders. it's tall and thin! that makes it an EVIL MAN DICK! i feel that that eh 37th gender which hover over a toilet and cocks its leg at a 36 degree angle with its non gender fanny apendange was violently attacked by a tall building. now where is my degree? C = it was genderish, d = bad man hd = i just made up the 112th gender - this building is a ZHUNG!
600 metres down from uni, can't half tell can you
oooh fuckin tall building with windows, look at the peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenis
you'd have a dart stressing out at this shit if a pack didn't cost you 8,000 dollars in the Nanny State Est. 1998
A Tuesday night bender?
Other than the phalic argument which I must agree is ridiculous and has no merit. The other arguments I largely agree with, in that this building should not be commencing site works - it has not been approved, the building is going to be a private building in a public space, yes it wasn’t activated before but this rules that out for the next 100+ years. The original plan was hospitality venues to bring people to the area. An office building will bring people to the area yes, but only those that have permission to work in the building and these people will be relocating from the cbd proper. Rather than bringing vitality to the cbd through unique hospitality venues it’s going to kill parts by sucking the workers out and leave this as nothing more than a thoroughfare.
Tuesday/Wednesday
-
Howie
- VIP Member

- Posts: 4896
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
- Location: Adelaide
-
Contact:
#411
Post
by Howie » Thu May 29, 2025 7:51 am
Deleted offensive posts that are considered homophobic, please keep this discussion on topic or we’ll be banning members.
-
Mpol02
- Legendary Member!
- Posts: 702
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:06 am
#412
Post
by Mpol02 » Thu May 29, 2025 8:41 am
-
rev
- SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
- Posts: 6643
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
#413
Post
by rev » Thu May 29, 2025 8:46 am
Mpol02 wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 8:41 am
The image from the above article has curved finishing at the podium. Was that still the case for the redesign.
I don't think so. Looks like they just grabbed whatever image they found first and ran with it. It's The Guardian after all.
-
Prodical
- Legendary Member!
- Posts: 693
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 5:10 pm
#414
Post
by Prodical » Thu May 29, 2025 9:21 am
The Guardian is a predictable rag for a predictable readership. The exciting thing is that this building will actually happen and give Adelaide its first skyscraper - nothing about SCAP approval yet but great that the early works are happening.
I imagine there will be a fair amount of prefabrication for this one given the crowded site and the short build time.
-
gnrc_louis
- Legendary Member!
- Posts: 1015
- Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:04 pm
- Location: Adelaide
#415
Post
by gnrc_louis » Thu May 29, 2025 9:53 am
Prodical wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 9:21 am
The Guardian is a predictable rag for a predictable readership. The exciting thing is that this building will actually happen and give Adelaide its first skyscraper - nothing about SCAP approval yet but great that the early works are happening.
I imagine there will be a fair amount of prefabrication for this one given the crowded site and the short build time.
There's nothing wrong with trying to bring transparency to government decision making.
-
ChillyPhilly
- Super Size Scraper Poster!
- Posts: 2880
- Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
- Location: Kaurna Land.
-
Contact:
#416
Post
by ChillyPhilly » Thu May 29, 2025 10:11 am
gnrc_louis wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 9:53 am
Prodical wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 9:21 am
The Guardian is a predictable rag for a predictable readership. The exciting thing is that this building will actually happen and give Adelaide its first skyscraper - nothing about SCAP approval yet but great that the early works are happening.
I imagine there will be a fair amount of prefabrication for this one given the crowded site and the short build time.
There's nothing wrong with trying to bring transparency to government decision making.
Agree - most criticisms I have seen aren't about the structure itself (other than suggestions for improvement) but about the lack of transparency, appropriate/sufficient activation of the Plaza, and the debate of public vs. private land.
Our state, our city, our future.
All views expressed on this forum are my own.
-
HiTouch
- Legendary Member!
- Posts: 860
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:40 pm
#417
Post
by HiTouch » Thu May 29, 2025 12:01 pm
The Guardian can be just as sensationalist as the Advertiser. The design has never been the problem. It is such a distraction to the real issues. I do hear of corporations investing into manufactured outrage to gain attention. Now, I am no conspiracy theorist but I wouldn't be surprised if such developers do this as well.
Jetfuel dont melt steel beams
-
Llessur2002
- Super Size Scraper Poster!
- Posts: 2163
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:59 pm
- Location: Inner West
#418
Post
by Llessur2002 » Fri May 30, 2025 10:43 am
I was a regular Guardian reader for years until I came to the conclusion that it was every bit as sensationalist and biased as the Murdoch press, just dressed up in a more apparently respectable package.
Maybe that's just middle age hitting me.
-
Prodical
- Legendary Member!
- Posts: 693
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 5:10 pm
#419
Post
by Prodical » Wed Jun 04, 2025 2:41 pm
Finally, this building is on the SCAP agenda for approval next Wednesday

-
Nort
- Super Size Scraper Poster!
- Posts: 2377
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm
#420
Post
by Nort » Wed Jun 04, 2025 3:41 pm
Prodical wrote: ↑Wed Jun 04, 2025 2:41 pm
Finally, this building is on the SCAP agenda for approval next Wednesday
The State Government has already made it clear they will ensure it gets through, but my god can you imagine the fireworks if the "independent" assessment found something objectionable about it after they have already started building the damn thing.

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ben, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 14 guests