Sensational-Adelaide.com

It’s already double the height of what was meant to be built there.

Whatever happens, any extra commercial value he squeezes out of public land above what was originally agreed should result in a commensurate increase to his public realm contribution. Public land is not free.

If Walker is so convinced that the plan for the area is no good then we should encourage him to pass the project onto another developer. I'm sure we could find one who would be happy to have their name on a landmark public space rather than just seeing it as free CBD land.

I've never been convinced that Walker's proposal was ever going to do anything beneficial for the area; hell, the casino development is more likely to pull people in. The first office tower is out of scale for the area, and there has been no comment or guarantee that it will have a major tenant by the time it is complete, and the three level building next to it was nothing more than an uninspired café/restaurant hub, what is actually going to entice people to go this public space? Fed Square for instance has the Moving Image Gallery, offices and restaurants... I'm still have the opinion that they should build a concert hall on the site, in-keeping with the festival theatre next door and then have an alleyway(s) of restaurants and cafés. Create something similar to the Arts Centre in Melbourne only with more public space.

I agree with all the earlier comments and wonder why the former Govt agreement with Walker has never been made public? I remember reading Walker would be paying for 2/3 of the public/civic area and 1/3 by Govt. Not sure if Walker actually now has a long term leasehold over all the land and can dictate terms? Seems unbelievable at the 11th hour he can even try to add another tower. Btw, I think it is a hotel he is trying to add (facing KW Rd).

I think this image is new; haven't seen it before.

From: https://www.festivalsquare.com.au/

^ is that the approved tower?

if that's the newest render then it looks like the interesting trellis structures have been turned into basic trees.

Further reinforces the idea that they are just trying to make as much money from the space as they can.

Compare that to this:

This is why I'd rather see more public attractions (gallery, concert hall etc) built here instead, so it's not basically just a nicer version of the little plaza next to Grenfell Centre between all the office towers. I mean, I understand the arguments about office workers providing a daytime population, but there's a city full of them just across the road -- it seems mad to then plonk a generic tower in the prime cultural area beside the riverbank.

Nort wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:04 pm

If Walker is so convinced that the plan for the area is no good then we should encourage him to pass the project onto another developer. I'm sure we could find one who would be happy to have their name on a landmark public space rather than just seeing it as free CBD land.

Could someone please explain why the government allowed commercial development on this piece of public land? How is it that the Walker Corporation was given the rights to disrupt and profit from such a prominent public site?

dbl96 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:53 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:04 pm

If Walker is so convinced that the plan for the area is no good then we should encourage him to pass the project onto another developer. I'm sure we could find one who would be happy to have their name on a landmark public space rather than just seeing it as free CBD land.

Could someone please explain why the government allowed commercial development on this piece of public land? How is it that the Walker Corporation was given the rights to disrupt and profit from such a prominent public site?

We've never been made privy to the terms of the deal. All hidden behind that Orwellian 'commercial-in-confidence' phrase. However, the basic premise was that Walker Corp would fund the rebuild of the carpark and plaza in return for rights to commercial development above. Given the taxpayer is still contributing $200+ million to the precinct, I'm not all that confident he's really making a fair contribution for the public land value he's been gifted.

BradJC wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:06 pm

I think this image is new; haven't seen it before.

From: https://www.festivalsquare.com.au/

This wouldn't be awful in other pockets of the city, the old bus terminal on Grote/Franklin Street(s) for example, but in this location it just looks cold.

And you know those trees would be planted as saplings, so give it close to a 5-10 years before you would get anything close to that amount of greenery.

Am I the only one who thinks this tower looks superb, and isn’t taking up too much space as long as a second one isn’t built?

cmet wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:47 pm

Am I the only one who thinks this tower looks superb, and isn’t taking up too much space as long as a second one isn’t built?

No I also think this is a great looking building in an ideal location that will start to change our skyline as we enter the city from the North and give more vibrancy to the riverbank.

It's an ok building for somewhere else, but in this location it has zero response to its location. I see it as pretty analogous to the Brisbane Square building, which I don't much rate, but at least respect the attempt they've made to do something interesting at plaza level. It seems barely considered here.