SAPOL Headquarters | 40m | 11lvls | Office

Message

Pistol · #31 Post by **Pistol** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:15 pm

With this picture of doom and gloom that Will is painting, I can see that they will build one of these buildings in the first stage when demand is strong and not build the other two for a decade due to lack of demand. Just build one 40 storey building - at least then we would know that it will all go ahead.

I do like this project though. Can anyone tell me where the 3rd building is? I think my eyesight is going.

#32 Post by **UrbanSG** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:26 pm

Although this project does appear to be very well designed and of a high standard I am not in favour of it. There are now too many office projects out in the market. This one definately has the potential to flood the market with too much space. 60,000 square metres all up. That is crazy! Although a number of new towers, SA Water, CC1 and CC2 have pre commitments there are a number of other proposals out now as well, hopefully they won't be built speculatively which is starting to occur in other states. This always happens with the market cycles. We get good office office take up and then every developer wants in and the market ends up getting flooded and we don't see anymore office development for another 10-15 years. Sure the mining boom may help a bit and the flight to high quality office space but there is only so much that can be constructed and absorbed.

Secondly the position is terrible for such a large office complex. Resiidential would be far better. Large offices should only be built in the real core CBD area or along the south of King William Street, like some of the other proposals. It is not as though Adelaide has a lack of prime inner CBD land. This will do nothing to improve Adelaide's ageing northern skyline. One good thing is it isn't in the suburbs. But really the public transport is pathetic along Pultney Street compared to the more central Adelaide streets of King William, Grenfell and North Terrace. If this office complex was to be filled it would have around 3,000 workers. It would need far better transport services nearby. They have mentioned TransportSA as a possible tenant, if they move in that goes against all transport policies!

I hate to sound so negative, believe me I am all for office developments but this one is setting a worrying trend. Sometimes we have to keep our heads screwed on and realise some developments could have negative impacts overall. I would much rather see 60,000 square metres constructed along southern Currie Street or parts of King William Street. They could still have large floor plates but more of an impact on the skyline too.

Edit: Sorry I didn't see all the posts before this, I opened the wrong part. Looks like most agree as well then.

#33 Post by **Will** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:03 pm

Pistol78 wrote:With this picture of doom and gloom that Will is painting, I can see that they will build one of these buildings in the first stage when demand is strong and not build the other two for a decade due to lack of demand. Just build one 40 storey building - at least then we would know that it will all go ahead.

I do like this project though. Can anyone tell me where the 3rd building is? I think my eyesight is going.

I recommend you read an interstate newspaper or visit the ABS website. The Advertiser does not tell us the truth. To say I was shocked when I saw that SA recorded economic growth similar to the 'recession' states of NSW and Victoria, is an understatement. Supposedly our economy is 'booming', but in reality we are sliding towards a recession!

I am opposed to this building, because 60 000 sqm2 of office space will kill off many office developments, and flood the market.
We have to ask ourselves, whether we want a huge monolithic 10 level building or taller buildings with smaller floorplates. For example Santos House has 30 000sqm2, which is half of this project. If there is sufficient demand for a 10 level 60 000sqm2, there is therefore demand for a slender 64 level 60 000sqm2 tower!

bva · #34 Post by **bva** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:19 pm

there might be demand but there is much more developer's profit to be made in a 10 storey groundscraper than a twently storey tower if land prices are reasonable

while i like more towers in the skyline i think the cbd will only get more flesh on the bones b4 any more tall towers are built

Snorkie · #35 Post by **Snorkie** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:02 am

Wow, hasnt my small little comment escalated into a massive debate...
I think you can look at this project two ways. Firstly there are those who are for height over density. Now i must admit i am probably one of those, and in reality would much prefer seeing this project abandoned if it means we dont get other projects such as 115kws and 105 waymouth, cause these two will make a massive difference in our skyline.
Then there are those who prefer density. Our CBD is basically confined to running down north terrace, morphett, franklin, angus and then up pultney. When people say this will make no impact on our skyline, i disagree. At 10 levels it will be around 40m, which aint too far off the height of the comm law courts, which certainly makes an impact. I drove past the site and it literally takes up almost half of the northern side of angus between pultney and vic square. As such it will make a massive difference in terms of density, and believe me, it wont be an invisible groundscraper. I guess the question is really density over height, and which you would prefer to see...
So in reality all this talk about a massive building boom is a load of crap cause apart from CC and the precinct we havent relly got too much else to show from it, cause if this one goes ahead i cant see too much else being built for a while, what a load of talked up crap, pisses me off... end rant...

#36 Post by **Ben** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:56 am

A bit off topic, but commercial and general who will be constructing this site have left a mixed use apartment and office development on goodwood road about 30% complete with no action there in the last two months. I don't know if this is their fault or what is going on but it's not very professional which worries me.

#37 Post by **AtD** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:36 pm

That could be for a number of reasons, ranging from council problems to union problems.

Captain Howdy · #38 Post by **Captain Howdy** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:48 pm

Snorkie wrote:Wow, hasnt my small little comment escalated into a massive debate...
I think you can look at this project two ways. Firstly there are those who are for height over density. Now i must admit i am probably one of those, and in reality would much prefer seeing this project abandoned if it means we dont get other projects such as 115kws and 105 waymouth, cause these two will make a massive difference in our skyline.
Then there are those who prefer density. Our CBD is basically confined to running down north terrace, morphett, franklin, angus and then up pultney. When people say this will make no impact on our skyline, i disagree. At 10 levels it will be around 40m, which aint too far off the height of the comm law courts, which certainly makes an impact. I drove past the site and it literally takes up almost half of the northern side of angus between pultney and vic square. As such it will make a massive difference in terms of density, and believe me, it wont be an invisible groundscraper. I guess the question is really density over height, and which you would prefer to see...
So in reality all this talk about a massive building boom is a load of crap cause apart from CC and the precinct we havent relly got too much else to show from it, cause if this one goes ahead i cant see too much else being built for a while, what a load of talked up crap, pisses me off... end rant...

Personally I hope it gets axed. I'd perfer to see other developments go ahead. Just mo.

Pistol · #39 Post by **Pistol** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:55 pm

Wow its not many times that you see such bitter feelings towards a development in Adelaide. But I think rightly so - 60000 sqm is HUGE.

#40 Post by **Ben** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:59 pm

I think the economy is better then you think. A couple of years ago when I walked from the bus to my work there were empty shops everywhere now they are few and far between.

On the office space front I don't think this will make too much difference but I know of 2 financial instiutions moving from Perth to Adelaide within the next 4 years because it is too expensive to have head offices in Perth. Alltogether there will be between 90 and 110 jobs which isn't a great deal but maybe a sign of things to come? I don't see demand for offices falling anytime soon and it is better to have an over suply than under and miss out on opportunities like Perth has.

Captain Howdy · #41 Post by **Captain Howdy** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:38 pm

I think that's an area Adelaide should really pick up on. Melbourne and Sydney especially are ridiculously expensive. Is there being much done to market Adelaide as an affordable and inviting place to base big multinational corporations?

#42 Post by **UrbanSG** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:42 pm

Beamer85, you are right 90-110 jobs isn't a great deal! We are talking about a complex that caters for 3,000 workers! The SA economy isn't that great a the moment. Don't believe all the political hype. It is in better shape than the 90's but that ain't saying much. Defence industry hasn't started yet and the mining boom won't kick in properly for at least another 5 years or so and by that time commodity prices may have crashed anyway. GDP growth in NSW, Vic and SA is verging on 0 if it goes below this will equal recession for these states. If it wasn't for WA and Qld this country would most likely be heading into a recession now. I hate to get too political but the Federal Government has done nothing in terms of economics for our country. They have ridden on the back of the previous Labor government's economic reforms in the 80's which created a recession but which eventually lead to Australia being more competitive internaitonally. This government should have been investing in education and we wouldn't have such a skills crisis instead of trying to develop work place reforms! Sorry to go off topic a bit but it all ties into the current economic situation. By the way I am not pro-labor either federally as they are almost as bad as the coalition.

Anyway it is very simple Adelaide's office market cannot deal with a 60,000 square metre development on top of all the other proposals. Whilst we are lucky not to be in short supply like Perth an oversupply is a much worse position to be in.

#43 Post by **Ben** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:48 pm

Yeh they have started "Think Adelaide" campaign for business.

http://www.southaustralia.biz/home_page.htm

"Build and they will come" ??? I am trying to be positive anyway.

#44 Post by **UrbanSG** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:00 pm

This one is now up on the ACC website for public notification complete with more plans/renders and a DAR. Some of the new renders are interesting. Love the aerial photo of Adelaide showing CC1, new Santos and SGIC, southern side of Adelaide is really getting a nice glass effect. Not keen on this development, too campus like for Adelaide, way too much office space.

http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/scri ... :pc=PC_125

Follow the links. 98-140 Angas Street. Or try the direct link, might not work though.

http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/netc ... attID=1021

#45 Post by **Howie** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:30 pm

Very nice aerial! Gotta love seeing that bulk. Thanks UrbanSG.

[COM] SAPOL Headquarters | 40m | 11lvls | Office

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

[COM]

Who is online