[COM] Adelaide Convention Centre - Stage 3 | $350m

[Matt]

as opposed to the restaurant atop the Gherkin which is members only.

Members? Who occupies the Gherkin, matt?

And how lucky are you to work in London, from an architectural POV anyway. Never a dull moment.

I'm not sure who is in there now, all sorts of people... a lot of it used to be insurance based (Swiss Re, Allianz, etc) because it's in the heart of the insurance district.

Tenants of the building can dine up there, as well as private members of the "dining club" (Google "Searcy's" or "40/30" if you're interested in that sort of thing) - generally aimed at corporate schmoozing rather than tourism, which is a shame for such a spectacular building.

I blagged my way up there for dinner a few months back (friend works for an estate company that leases out floors), and it was pretty cool... amazing views, as you'd imagine.

Still think something like this would be great for Adelaide - something with a 360 degree view of the city, Adelaide Oval, hills, etc, could be fantastic.

[stumpjumper]

Still think something like this would be great for Adelaide - something with a 360 degree view of the city, Adelaide Oval, hills, etc, could be fantastic.

I agree, but I have reservations about the site.

I'm not just being a naysayer here. There are a few risks, especially if it's true that the project is being driven by private development interests. If true, that raises the obvious questions of what is good planning versus what construction and what sites are good for the 'development interests', and what influence the developers have over, say, Pat Conlon's department of enthusiastic would-be builders. To an extent, allowing developers to design the city according to their narrow interests is not a recipe for the best outcome. The development industry is not required to consider the public good in the way that Planning SA is.

If the building goes ahead, it may tend to pull the centre of gravity of the city to the north. Could be OK, but it should be thought over carefully. With the completion of the NRAH, the whole of the southern side of the Torrens from Hackney Road to Port Road will be more or less built out. A drive along North Terrace from the Newmarket pub to the Botanic, but especially from the Newmarket to King William Street, will be a drive between buildings on either side, with no vistas of the river or Park Lands. The fact that no money changes hands before building on what was originally largely Park Lands is also a concern. What's the site behind Parliament House worth? No-one will have to buy it.

The RNAH will be built on Park Lands until recently leased to Trans Adelaide, and many of the buildings it replaces (the existing RAH) will remain. So the addition of a 'second row' of development behind Parliament House will only increase the density of buildings on the original Park Lands along North Terrace.

We should balance what we might lose by further developing the northern edge of the city, and what we might gain. My concern is that such a discussion is being lost in the drive to build, especially on such cheap and well located land.

What about some brilliant architecture (at all scales) within the 'square mile'?

[russo92]

Just been thinking if they do this tower thing it NEEDS to be a new tallest, 140 - 160m . They should do whatever they need to do to get it passed , height restrictions and what not, easier said than done I know especially in the economic climate, getting tenants etc. If it turns out to be a 19 level Rundle Plaza or City central type glass box building then it would be a complete waste of opportunity and they should just not bother. If the city wants to be taken seriously then it needs to start with its image which it definitely is doing with the whole riverbank development, and a tower would further assist this.

[iTouch]

I wouldn't mind if the tower was a 100m building gherkin style. It'd truly make the riverbank look like a flower with a bulb

[metro]

like others have said, any tower on the riverbank has to be good, i'd hate to see another ugly brown concrete stump like the intercontinental ruining our skyline, also do not i want to an ordinary CityCentral glass box in such a prime location.

something iconic and tall would be perfect. perhaps use the state's icons...Opal Tower? Sturt Desert Pea tower? or even a giant farmers union iced coffee carton?

[SRW]

Going against the grain, I realise, but I couldn't tolerate losing another slice of our riverfront to a private development; just because that public space isn't working now doesn't mean it can't with appropriate investments. There's a whole square mile of locations for office towers, many vastly better suited for a new tallest.

[iTouch]

Going against the grain, I realise, but I couldn't tolerate losing another slice of our riverfront to a private development; just because that public space isn't working now doesn't mean it can't with appropriate investments. There's a whole square mile of locations for office towers, many vastly better suited for a new tallest.

mmm yeah you make a point

[skyliner]

Far better than what is there however.Like others have said, It would have to be something pretty impressive in that part of the city however - it could have a highly positive or negative first impact on those entering the city CBD from the north.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[stumpjumper]

What about the gateway from the northwest, ie Port Road? Instead of the boxy Unisa buildings on the right and the vista over the river to the left, the NRAH will make the West Terrace/Port Road/North Terrace corner the start of a long drive between buildings either side. When you get to Parliament House, it will be dwarfed by a tower behind it to the north. 'City In A Park'? I don't think so.

Meanwhile numerous city development sites (which admittedly you have to pay for, no matter how well you know Pat Conlon) are well below 'highest and best use'. There are dozens of them.

[believesinadsy]

the NRAH will make the West Terrace/Port Road/North Terrace corner the start of a long drive between buildings either side

I know, it will be awesome

[ml69]

Just been thinking if they do this tower thing it NEEDS to be a new tallest, 140 - 160m . They should do whatever they need to do to get it passed , height restrictions and what not, easier said than done I know especially in the economic climate, getting tenants etc. If it turns out to be a 19 level Rundle Plaza or City central type glass box building then it would be a complete waste of opportunity and they should just not bother. If the city wants to be taken seriously then it needs to start with its image which it definitely is doing with the whole riverbank development, and a tower would further assist this.

+1
Agreed it needs to be an iconic stunning design, a new tallest, incorporate a rooftop observation deck for the public. Adelaide's version of Eureka Tower (in concept, I don't mean appearance). Perfect tourist location. Would do wonders for our backwards image. Residential apartments in such a unique, unrepeatable location could go off. Are we bold enough?

[stumpjumper]

I believe that the Festival Plaza development currently under discussion originated in Colliers' office.

The Riverside Centre (between the Intercontinental and the Exhibition Centre, with a recently refurbished entrance) sold in 2010 for about $66 million. That's an interesting sale considering the mooted Festival Plaza building will be about the same area - 20,000sqm, although the Riverside Centre is A Grade and the Festival Centre one would possibly be Premium Grade accommodation. There's not a lot of difference in yields though. Initial yield of the Riverside Centre at $66 mill is 8.75%. Gross face rents at Riverside are about $500/sqm.

For reference, another building of 20,000sqm (the area mentioned for the mixed use Festival Plaza building) is 1 King William Street.

Regardless, I suggest that a better use of the Festival Plaza site is for a development of public space which will draw people to it. Look at the crowds around Circular Quay in Sydney on weeknights - the combination of water, food and alcohol (and coffee) works brilliantly, but what is needed is space to move around and accessibility.

There are a lot of barrackers for tall buildings on this forum, but there are planning questions for which a tall building is not the answer. I think this is one of them.

I vote bars and lots of them, seriously, with the whole area landscaped down to the river.

[AG]

My thoughts are similar to stumpjumper on this one, this isn't an appropriate site for a very tall structure. This space needs to be about drawing people to the waterfront area, and that can be achieved by providing easily accessible space, interesting public space and a variety of experiences including events, restaurants and bars. That's not going to be achieved by building an office or residential building in the space.

[believesinadsy]

...what conlon said however about introducing apartments to the area would result in the cafes and restaurants along the riverfront being used all wk long, rather than just matchdays, was true though. like previous people have stated, if it does happen, i would hope for something inspirational .

i'm leaving adelaide in two weeks for a uni exchange program and will return in around 2 years so should be interesting to come back and see everything that has changed. airport carpark, train yard area, flinders st etc. lookingfwd.

[stumpjumper]

2 years

Dream on - we'll still be arguing!

it NEEDS to be a new tallest, 140 - 160m . They should do whatever they need to do to get it passed

It's not as easy as that. Market conditions and risk management - vacancy rates, lending environment etc - have a lot to do with decisions about what to build, and whether to build. At the moment for example, speculative building is probably not a goer. You need a tenant before you start.