Sensational-Adelaide.com

Awesome looking building it compliments the law courts beautifully, my only critisism is it should have been twice the height.

Queen Anne wrote:

monotonehell wrote:I think perhaps you should reserve judgement until you see it in person....

Anyway, I've ranted enough. I'm going to try to wait and see how things turn out, ultimately. Hopefully, the end result will be an improvement on current indications.

Queenie, I take back some of what I said.

I was down that way today and walked past. Last time I inspected the site they hadn't finalised the glazing. Now that they have I can see that what I thought were to be doors into the northern end's tenancy are all flat glass walls. The entrance is alongside the Northern foyer's security doors. So the entire western face is just glass at the pedestrian level. Not the best thing for it. Hopefully it becomes a cafe and they utilise the space outside. Or something....!

All is not lost though! There was a professional photo shoot going on inside that zigzag area under the building. ... that's some kind of ... something...

ynotsfables wrote:Awesome looking building it compliments the law courts beautifully, my only critisism is it should have been twice the height.

Are you willing to occupy those extra 12 levels and pay the lease? If you are perhaps you should get the project managers to tack them on top. like I've said before. If you want taller buildings you need to find the tenants to pay for the extra floorspace.

If the building is attractive enough i believe the tennants will come. However our conservative attitude in this city won't allow us to take those sort of chances though its just so un Adelaide.

ynotsfables wrote:If the building is attractive enough i believe the tennants will come. However our conservative attitude in this city won't allow us to take those sort of chances though its just so un Adelaide.

"Built it and they will come" isn't a normal business practice. Most buildings have pre-signed lease arrangements with their tenants before site prep goes ahead. Not many investors will pony up with out an actual return in sight.

That attitude isn't just in Adelaide, it's standard business practice.

Thats exactly right standard business practice.

ynotsfables wrote:Thats exactly right standard business practice.

It's their money -- they can be as conservative with it as they want. They're understandably shy from the lesson learnt from '90s where half of Adelaide's office space was empty for years after the early '90's construction boom. No one wants to flood the market and get low returns.

monotonehell wrote:

ynotsfables wrote:Thats exactly right standard business practice.

It's their money -- they can be as conservative with it as they want. They're understandably shy from the lesson learnt from '90s where half of Adelaide's office space was empty for years after the early '90's construction boom. No one wants to flood the market and get low returns.

You are right, however the early nineties boom was cursed by our then state bank colapse. WA inc colapsed at the same time and if i remeber right the Victorian State bank did too. All this happened during "The recession we had to have".
The other two states recovered faster, and we lagged behind.
My point is we may be in a better situation today to take risks that could benefit us in the long run. After all the vacant office space of the nineties no longer exists meaning that eventually there will be a demand. Our boom today i believe is proof of that, companies will be looking for office space in our cbd in the not too distant future. Now could be the time.

Even if a group wanted to take the risk and develop speculatively, they would not be able to get the funding to carry out the job.

I am aware of the sale of several investment properties here and interstate that have fallen through due to purchaser's not being able to secure finance.

Just to reiterate how tight credit is at the moment, I am talking about quality, tenanted buildings that aren't selling because no-one can get finance. Let alone someone wanting to improve a patch of dirt without a tenant in sight.

Until the banks get things straightened out, we wont be seeing much development activity... here or interstate...

I had a good look at this building today and I've got to say it looks hideous. I'm usually all for new development here in Adelaide, but this thing is terrible.

bender222 wrote:I had a good look at this building today and I've got to say it looks hideous. I'm usually all for new development here in Adelaide, but this thing is terrible.

Oh my god

You are certainly entitled to an opinion, but is there is any reasoning to your dislikening, or why you have focused on this rather than some other developments that have caused debate like Coglin St, Spark apartments, or some of the little horrid office blocks of the 1970s or 80s that are all over Adelaide. Maybe we should recreate some of these 70s and 80s office towers as new developments so they dont create such a stir in Adelaide.

Architecture is subjective and the more daring, the more controversy and interest. I like this building. We all have different tastes in music, clothing, or whatever, but that doesnt mean I think your taste in music, clothing or architecture is hideous or terrible, just because I dont love it.

ynotsfables wrote:Awesome looking building it compliments the law courts beautifully, my only critisism is it should have been twice the height.

Mt thoughts exactly. Great design but VSQ needs the highest buildings IMO, but shadows are an issue as well as artificial microclimates. 20 level plus buildings may be less pedestrian/activity friendly in the square. (Methinks shades of the 'pyramid' approach here of the 1975 City Of Adelaide Plan - IMO far too contrived as a concept overall).

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

skyliner wrote:

ynotsfables wrote:Awesome looking building it compliments the law courts beautifully, my only critisism is it should have been twice the height.

Mt thoughts exactly. Great design but VSQ needs the highest buildings IMO, but shadows are an issue as well as artificial microclimates. 20 level plus buildings may be less pedestrian/activity friendly in the square. (Methinks shades of the 'pyramid' approach here of the 1975 City Of Adelaide Plan - IMO far too contrived as a concept overall).

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

I'd rather lower buildings on the Square and stepping out higher behind.

That would look good too. Victoria Square needs a good backdrop all the way around to add more dimension and atmosphere, and give it more of an inner city hub feel about it.

I'm personally not a fan of it- that blue thing stuck to the front I really don't like. BUT with that said, I would prefer that there be bold architecture and have me not like a few than have every building be unexceptional.

I have just been told a cafe is soon to be opened in this building called Funk Cafe - we have one at work run by the same owner and they do a fantastic job. Not sure when its opening though but I am sure they will have chairs and tables outside for the public...