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

[rev]

Realistically with hindsight the whole area is a dud.

Instead of individual proposals/developments, Walker and SkyCity should have built a joint development and created a whole new entertainment precinct. One big/long building/platform across that general area, several levels, underground parking, public plazas on top, and a tower for a new casino and office tower, or perhaps hotel.
Perhaps in a joint development of an entertainment precinct Walker wouldnt be so desperate to build a huge office tower.
Perhaps with a new purpose built entertainment & casino facility the old railway station building could have been restored and put to better use. Guess we'll never know.

[how good is he]

SRW, the commercial reality is a leasehold property is worth significantly less than a freehold property and so the security is worth far less. It also depends of the terms of the agreement but the lease could be null and void and revert to the landlord [the Govt] if the tenant ever went broke so then there is no security. I would say for such a large scale development a developer would need deep pockets ie plenty of other security and possibly Govt sweeteners to make it work commercially. I think that was the choice the Govt made. So the question is why didn't the Govt just develop it themselves? I think at the time they said for every $1 of Govt money the developer was investing/spending $3 and say creating 2,000 constructions jobs, 800 on-going jobs blah blah blah... so getting more bang for their buck then doing it themselves and taking far less risk. I'm not saying I agree with it but am just giving a possible explanation/balanced perspective.

Rev, I would say that they would probably have different agendas, wouldn't want to work with anybody else and are big/rich enough that they don't need/have to. Maybe also try to to explain to Skycity shareholders which has a monopoly/casino license why they would want to share their Casino/hotel profits or investment monies or be answerable to anyone else? Similarly with Walker with his developments.

[SRW]

SRW, the commercial reality is a leasehold property is worth significantly less than a freehold property and so the security is worth far less. It also depends of the terms of the agreement but the lease could be null and void and revert to the landlord [the Govt] if the tenant ever went broke so then there is no security. I would say for such a large scale development a developer would need deep pockets ie plenty of other security and possibly Govt sweeteners to make it work commercially. I think that was the choice the Govt made. So the question is why didn't the Govt just develop it themselves? I think at the time they said for every $1 of Govt money the developer was investing/spending $3 and say creating 2,000 constructions jobs, 800 on going jobs blah blah blah..so maybe getting more bang for the buck then doing it themselves. I'm not saying I agree with it but am just giving a possible explanation/balanced perspective.

Yeah, I appreciate the insight. Ultimately, the lack of transparency on the part of both parties here makes it hard to assess. My view is that it's a dereliction of our inheritance and legacy for the government not to extract maximum public benefit. Given the government has theoretically unlimited credit, my suspicion is the decision to offload development to the private sector in the first place probably reflects the false narrative around debt & deficit that's infected our politics this century. It just seems like another missed opportunity.

[how good is he]

I think at the very least it should have gone out to [international] tender. I think now there are probity rules that require this after Gillman. I mean the Govt and/or developers will say its commercially sensitive information so can't be released blah blah blah. The Govt could also say, "would you have preferred say a $600m development done just by the Govt and taken the whole risk" or say a $1.6 billion dollar development with Walker with the same $600m investment and risk by the Govt?

[Patrick_27]

Goes to show how flawed the whole Riverside precinct was from the get go. They still haven't resolved the flow of the area, the fact that there are still stairs required to access certain parts of this who strip, when before all these newer buildings were in place the area was relatively flat. These are the sorts of issues that would have been ironed out had they involved all the stakeholders and including the general public.

[how good is he]

Yes while I agree I am wondering if factors like a massive 5 storey underground carpark, the water table, being close to a river were also engineering issues that dictated the different levels and how it all turned out. Add that to a hotch-potch of different stakeholders all with different needs/agendas and all in the same close vicinity and this is maybe the likely (best?) outcome.

[rev]

Rev, I would say that they would probably have different agendas, wouldn't want to work with anybody else and are big/rich enough that they don't need/have to. Maybe also try to to explain to Skycity shareholders which has a monopoly/casino license why they would want to share their Casino/hotel profits or investment monies or be answerable to anyone else? Similarly with Walker with his developments.

So they couldn't have worked together, in some shape or form, maybe not directly in concert with each other but with say a government body perhaps one created for the whole riverbank area development?
Why couldn't there be one large building stretching across a large part of the area, with public plazas, underground parking, say no more then 3-5 levels above ground, acting as a podium for two towers, one being for the casino/hotel and another for the Walker office tower? With that podium filled with entertainment/night life..

It's not like SkyCity and Walker are competing businesses.

[how good is he]

Yes they could have worked together & agree with your vision of a main podium stretching along the riverbank etc. Its just that it has taken them this long just to agree/move forward despite each having quite separate buildings areas. So I’m thinking, imagine how long it could take to get their initial and then ongoing consensus for potentially every decision with a shared podium structure?

[claybro]

Rev, I would say that they would probably have different agendas, wouldn't want to work with anybody else and are big/rich enough that they don't need/have to. Maybe also try to to explain to Skycity shareholders which has a monopoly/casino license why they would want to share their Casino/hotel profits or investment monies or be answerable to anyone else? Similarly with Walker with his developments.

So they couldn't have worked together, in some shape or form, maybe not directly in concert with each other but with say a government body perhaps one created for the whole riverbank area development?
Why couldn't there be one large building stretching across a large part of the area, with public plazas, underground parking, say no more then 3-5 levels above ground, acting as a podium for two towers, one being for the casino/hotel and another for the Walker office tower? With that podium filled with entertainment/night life..

It's not like SkyCity and Walker are competing businesses.

This idea I like, and would have avoided the complete mess of competing spaces and designs we will end up with. If SA politicians weren't so inept and lazy, they would have facilitated this. Legally it was more than possible to require the interested parties to work together given it is all crown land they are developing.

[Norman]

Rev, I would say that they would probably have different agendas, wouldn't want to work with anybody else and are big/rich enough that they don't need/have to. Maybe also try to to explain to Skycity shareholders which has a monopoly/casino license why they would want to share their Casino/hotel profits or investment monies or be answerable to anyone else? Similarly with Walker with his developments.

So they couldn't have worked together, in some shape or form, maybe not directly in concert with each other but with say a government body perhaps one created for the whole riverbank area development?
Why couldn't there be one large building stretching across a large part of the area, with public plazas, underground parking, say no more then 3-5 levels above ground, acting as a podium for two towers, one being for the casino/hotel and another for the Walker office tower? With that podium filled with entertainment/night life..

It's not like SkyCity and Walker are competing businesses.

This idea I like, and would have avoided the complete mess of competing spaces and designs we will end up with. If SA politicians weren't so inept and lazy, they would have facilitated this. Legally it was more than possible to require the interested parties to work together given it is all crown land they are developing.

I'm sure they would have all worked together to come up with the plan they have now. But they (the private and the public sector) would be coming in looking to spend as little as possbile. For Walker and Skycity it would be a case of knowing that this would not be one of their landmark projects, and the state government going in trying to get as much "bang for their buck" to make themselves look good politically and not risk being called exhuberant and overspending by the local conservative media rag.

[rev]

So they couldn't have worked together, in some shape or form, maybe not directly in concert with each other but with say a government body perhaps one created for the whole riverbank area development?
Why couldn't there be one large building stretching across a large part of the area, with public plazas, underground parking, say no more then 3-5 levels above ground, acting as a podium for two towers, one being for the casino/hotel and another for the Walker office tower? With that podium filled with entertainment/night life..

It's not like SkyCity and Walker are competing businesses.

This idea I like, and would have avoided the complete mess of competing spaces and designs we will end up with. If SA politicians weren't so inept and lazy, they would have facilitated this. Legally it was more than possible to require the interested parties to work together given it is all crown land they are developing.

I'm sure they would have all worked together to come up with the plan they have now. But they (the private and the public sector) would be coming in looking to spend as little as possbile. For Walker and Skycity it would be a case of knowing that this would not be one of their landmark projects, and the state government going in trying to get as much "bang for their buck" to make themselves look good politically and not risk being called exhuberant and overspending by the local conservative media rag.

No offence intended to you directly Norman, but this right here, this is part of why SA lags so far behind and struggles to kick start it self.
There's always a negative attitude to everything. Always a negative, a downside, a reason why something can't happen.
The constant "never can" attitude is what prevails in this state.

[Neko Neko Peko Peko]

This idea I like, and would have avoided the complete mess of competing spaces and designs we will end up with. If SA politicians weren't so inept and lazy, they would have facilitated this. Legally it was more than possible to require the interested parties to work together given it is all crown land they are developing.

I'm sure they would have all worked together to come up with the plan they have now. But they (the private and the public sector) would be coming in looking to spend as little as possbile. For Walker and Skycity it would be a case of knowing that this would not be one of their landmark projects, and the state government going in trying to get as much "bang for their buck" to make themselves look good politically and not risk being called exhuberant and overspending by the local conservative media rag.

No offence intended to you directly Norman, but this right here, this is part of why SA lags so far behind and struggles to kick start it self.
There's always a negative attitude to everything. Always a negative, a downside, a reason why something can't happen.
The constant "never can" attitude is what prevails in this state.

I think this is one of the projects the public would like to see money spent on and have it done right. This is Adelaide's prime public location that's meant to stand up with the river precinct in Melbourne and Circular Key in Sydney (on a smaller scale of course).

Negative attitudes, and doing cheap uncoordinated half jobs is what is holding Adelaide back.

[Joelmark]

I'm sure they would have all worked together to come up with the plan they have now. But they (the private and the public sector) would be coming in looking to spend as little as possbile. For Walker and Skycity it would be a case of knowing that this would not be one of their landmark projects, and the state government going in trying to get as much "bang for their buck" to make themselves look good politically and not risk being called exhuberant and overspending by the local conservative media rag.

No offence intended to you directly Norman, but this right here, this is part of why SA lags so far behind and struggles to kick start it self.
There's always a negative attitude to everything. Always a negative, a downside, a reason why something can't happen.
The constant "never can" attitude is what prevails in this state.

I think this is one of the projects the public would like to see money spent on and have it done right. This is Adelaide's prime public location that's meant to stand up with the river precinct in Melbourne and Circular Key in Sydney (on a smaller scale of course).

Negative attitudes, and doing cheap uncoordinated half jobs is what is holding Adelaide back.

We always do things in halves in Adelaide - think Southern Expressway, rail electrification, tramline extensions, Victoria Square...

[Norman]

This idea I like, and would have avoided the complete mess of competing spaces and designs we will end up with. If SA politicians weren't so inept and lazy, they would have facilitated this. Legally it was more than possible to require the interested parties to work together given it is all crown land they are developing.

I'm sure they would have all worked together to come up with the plan they have now. But they (the private and the public sector) would be coming in looking to spend as little as possbile. For Walker and Skycity it would be a case of knowing that this would not be one of their landmark projects, and the state government going in trying to get as much "bang for their buck" to make themselves look good politically and not risk being called exhuberant and overspending by the local conservative media rag.

No offence intended to you directly Norman, but this right here, this is part of why SA lags so far behind and struggles to kick start it self.
There's always a negative attitude to everything. Always a negative, a downside, a reason why something can't happen.
The constant "never can" attitude is what prevails in this state.

But that's my point, the government is just too risk averse and don't like doing big things or doing them properly. Look at the difference between federally funded projects and state funded projects, they are miles apart in quality. We need to stop penny pinching and do things properly.

[Patrick_27]

I think this is one of the projects the public would like to see money spent on and have it done right. This is Adelaide's prime public location that's meant to stand up with the river precinct in Melbourne and Circular Key in Sydney (on a smaller scale of course).

Negative attitudes, and doing cheap uncoordinated half jobs is what is holding Adelaide back.

I would have rather see the state government spend $1.5b of its own money here, and let the private section guide the future of the O-RAH site (obviously with some limitations on how much footprint they can build on). I think the problem with this area is timing. The Labor government had years to consider this site, but chose right when they started planning for the O-RAH site and whilst they had the ACC asking for a handout re: Victoria Square. I realise that AO was the catalyst for all of this, and the Convention Centre upgrade. But I guess that was my one issue with the previous Labor government; they were great at kick starting projects and getting things done but they always bit off more than they could chew (perhaps because they weren't sure of how long they would remain in government?) which left more to be desired for the finished product of certain developments.