[APP] Central Market Arcade Redevelopment | 124m | 38 levels

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
User avatar
Algernon
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1303
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Moravia

[APP] Re: Central Market Arcade Redevelopment | ~ 135m | 35 levels

Post by Algernon »

Nort wrote:
Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:57 pm
Notice it says 39 levels, not 35. Slight height increase or shorter levels?
I think the initial articles were bs. Initial reports said 35 levels including podium, but you could count almost that number in the tower proper in the accompanying render. Until we see the DA, we won't know for certain.
I Follow PAFC
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 7:23 pm

[APP] Re: Central Market Arcade Redevelopment | ~ 135m | 35 levels

Post by I Follow PAFC »

Behind a paywall.
CHINESE INVESTOR ABANDONS TOWER PROJECT
CENTRAL MARKET A key player in the $400m Adelaide Central Market Arcade redevelopment has pulled out over negative public comments about its links to China.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 93e0e3d476
I Follow The Port Adelaide Football Club
https://www.facebook.com/IFollowThePAFC/
Alyx
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:49 pm
Location: Adelaide

[APP] Re: Central Market Arcade Redevelopment | ~ 135m | 35 levels

Post by Alyx »

I Follow PAFC wrote:
Wed Nov 04, 2020 10:12 am
Behind a paywall.
CHINESE INVESTOR ABANDONS TOWER PROJECT
CENTRAL MARKET A key player in the $400m Adelaide Central Market Arcade redevelopment has pulled out over negative public comments about its links to China.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 93e0e3d476
The Advertiser wrote:A Chinese-backed investment company has pulled out of the $400m redevelopment of the Adelaide Central Market Arcade, with the developer vowing the project will proceed.

ICD Property said the decision by Nanshan Singapore followed negative public commentary about the conglomerate’s alleged links to the Chinese government.

Adelaide City councillor Phillip Martin questioned the relationship between former chairman Song Zuowen and the Chinese Communist Party during council meetings and radio interviews in September.

This followed Nanshan becoming a 10 per cent investor in a joint venture between ICD and Adelaide City Council to build two towers on the existing Central Market Arcade site.

ICD Property managing director Matt Khoo on Wednesday morning confirmed the Singapore-based company had withdrawn from the project.

“Nanshan Singapore’s withdrawal comes following negative public statements in various forms which misrepresented their character and brand,” he said.

“As a huge disappointment to South Australia, they have decided to withdraw from the project and focus their energy on the eastern seaboard.

“At a time when the local economy, more than ever, needs strong, consistent investment in the state to drive job growth and retention, this is a regrettable result.”

Mr Khoo described Nanshan Singapore as a “minority equity partner” in the project, which includes 11,172 sqm of retail space, a central hall, public rooftop, child care centre, a 38-storey tower containing a hotel and apartments and another tower with offices.

“This minority investment withdrawal will not impact the project,” said Mr Khoo.

“We are already in conversations with other potential investors to fulfil Nanshan’s previous minority investment commitments.

“However, if necessary, ICD Property will fulfil Nanshan’s previous investment commitment ourselves.”

Mr Khoo said that, “regardless of the outcome”, ICD Property was “fully equipped and able to complete the Central Market Arcade redevelopment in accordance with our obligations as set out under the project delivery agreement entered into with the City of Adelaide”.

A council spokesman said the council would continue working with ICD Property to redevelop the arcade.

“We have developed a trusted and valued partnership with ICD Property throughout the entire process to date,” he said.

“As far as we are concerned it’s all systems go on this city-shaping project and ICD has confirmed its commitment to equity funding.”
Ben
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 7117
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Adelaide

[APP] Re: Central Market Arcade Redevelopment | ~ 135m | 35 levels

Post by Ben »

Seems like a nothing article to me.
citywatcher
Legendary Member!
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:51 pm

[APP] Re: [PRO] Re: Central Market Arcade Redevelopment | ~ 135m | 35 levels

Post by citywatcher »

Ben wrote:Seems like a nothing article to me.
$40m. is not " nothing ".
The Federal government could buy $4m. worth of land with that .

Sent from my SM-A515F using Tapatalk

User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4863
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

[APP] Re: Central Market Arcade Redevelopment | ~ 135m | 35 levels

Post by rev »

Chinese developer backed out. Good, the less CCP backed investors the better.
User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 3030
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: City

[APP] Re: [PRO] Re: Central Market Arcade Redevelopment | ~ 135m | 35 levels

Post by SRW »

citywatcher wrote:
Wed Nov 04, 2020 12:50 pm
Ben wrote:Seems like a nothing article to me.
$40m. is not " nothing ".
The Federal government could buy $4m. worth of land with that .
:lol:
Keep Adelaide Weird
User avatar
Algernon
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1303
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Moravia

[APP] Re: Central Market Arcade Redevelopment | ~ 135m | 35 levels

Post by Algernon »

I Follow PAFC wrote:
Wed Nov 04, 2020 10:12 am
Behind a paywall.
CHINESE INVESTOR ABANDONS TOWER PROJECT
CENTRAL MARKET A key player in the $400m Adelaide Central Market Arcade redevelopment has pulled out over negative public comments about its links to China.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 93e0e3d476
35lqnh5xrfb51.png
User avatar
[Shuz]
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2740
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm

[APP] Re: Central Market Arcade Redevelopment | ~ 135m | 35 levels

Post by [Shuz] »

Worst case scenario, they just cut 10% of the building off. Who cares about the CCP. We are not going to be bullied into economic coercion.
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.
Nort
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1535
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm

[APP] Re: [PRO] Re: Central Market Arcade Redevelopment | ~ 135m | 35 levels

Post by Nort »

citywatcher wrote:
Wed Nov 04, 2020 12:50 pm
Ben wrote:Seems like a nothing article to me.
$40m. is not " nothing ".
The Federal government could buy $4m. worth of land with that .

Sent from my SM-A515F using Tapatalk
:lol: :lol:
dbl96
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:31 pm

[APP] Re: Central Market Arcade Redevelopment | ~ 135m | 35 levels

Post by dbl96 »

[Shuz] wrote:
Thu Nov 05, 2020 7:02 am
Worst case scenario, they just cut 10% of the building off. Who cares about the CCP. We are not going to be bullied into economic coercion.
rev wrote:
Wed Nov 04, 2020 2:31 pm
Chinese developer backed out. Good, the less CCP backed investors the better.
This is precisely the kind of attitude that has cost us this investment and may well cost us further investment in the future.

Who cares if this project is partly funded by the CCP? This is a commercial development, with absolutely no relevance to Australia's national security.

Australia needs to snap out of this hysteria about China that it has got itself into over the last couple of years. It is completely counterproductive. Yes, we need to defend our values and national security, but we need to be diplomatic about it, rather than saying things that we know will offend, and thereby costing ourselves investment.

Where there is no reason to imagine that either our values or national security will be compromised by an investment, it is completely non-nonsensical to bring those issues up.
User avatar
Algernon
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1303
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Moravia

[APP] Re: Central Market Arcade Redevelopment | ~ 135m | 35 levels

Post by Algernon »

dbl96 wrote:
Fri Nov 06, 2020 6:16 pm
This is precisely the kind of attitude that has cost us this investment and may well cost us further investment in the future.
Bull.

Shit.

Money doesn't have feelings to be hurt. The investor was never going to come good and found whatever face saving option to get out of the deal.
Jaymz
Legendary Member!
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:12 pm

[APP] Re: Central Market Arcade Redevelopment | ~ 135m | 35 levels

Post by Jaymz »

Australia: We love buying your cheap t-shirts, electronics and cars
China: No worries that's what we do
Australia: Cool, we have more money left over in our pocket
China: Okay, we'd like to invest money in your country
Australia: No you can't, because you're Chinese

:?:
User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4863
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

[APP] Re: Central Market Arcade Redevelopment | ~ 135m | 35 levels

Post by rev »

dbl96 wrote:
Fri Nov 06, 2020 6:16 pm
[Shuz] wrote:
Thu Nov 05, 2020 7:02 am
Worst case scenario, they just cut 10% of the building off. Who cares about the CCP. We are not going to be bullied into economic coercion.
rev wrote:
Wed Nov 04, 2020 2:31 pm
Chinese developer backed out. Good, the less CCP backed investors the better.
This is precisely the kind of attitude that has cost us this investment and may well cost us further investment in the future.

Who cares if this project is partly funded by the CCP? This is a commercial development, with absolutely no relevance to Australia's national security.

Australia needs to snap out of this hysteria about China that it has got itself into over the last couple of years. It is completely counterproductive. Yes, we need to defend our values and national security, but we need to be diplomatic about it, rather than saying things that we know will offend, and thereby costing ourselves investment.

Where there is no reason to imagine that either our values or national security will be compromised by an investment, it is completely non-nonsensical to bring those issues up.
We don't need foriegn dictatorships that obviously don't share our values for freedom and democratic principles, investing in our country.

All ccp linked investments should be nullified and forfeited.
dbl96
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:31 pm

[APP] Re: Central Market Arcade Redevelopment | ~ 135m | 35 levels

Post by dbl96 »

Algernon wrote:
Fri Nov 06, 2020 6:24 pm
dbl96 wrote:
Fri Nov 06, 2020 6:16 pm
This is precisely the kind of attitude that has cost us this investment and may well cost us further investment in the future.
Bull.

Shit.

Money doesn't have feelings to be hurt. The investor was never going to come good and found whatever face saving option to get out of the deal.
Possibly.

But you can't deny that feelings and emotion are a big part of business. Yes, people normally claim to be economically rational when making business decisions, but in reality they are not. When people become emotional, they react irrationally, even against their own interests.

This is the whole reason why people put effort into developing and maintaining business relationships. It is particularly the case for business in China, where the line between personal and professional lives is much more blurred than it is here.

The situation is compounded for many Chinese businesses because of the complex relationship between business and the state. A business might privately agree with what Councillor Martin said, but they may still act outraged and withdraw from the deal, because if they don't do so, they fear they may face repercussions from the Chinese government. Businesses operating in China have to develop close relationships with the government there, because the government has the power to either put them on the gravy train or give them the cold shoulder. In that sense, it makes rational economic sense for businesses like this to toe the party line, even if they aren't offended themselves.

We have to be aware that there are certain things that really piss off the Chinese government, Chinese businesses and probably the majority of Chinese individuals. We shouldn't tiptoe around discussing the real problems that exist in China, but we also shouldn't deliberately say things that we know (or should know) will piss the Chinese off, when there is no rational reason for doing so.

In the present matter, there is no rational reason to hassle the developer over its Chinese government links. As I said previously, this is a commercial development with no implications for our national security or our values of freedom and democracy.

rev wrote:
Sat Nov 07, 2020 1:39 pm

We don't need foreign dictatorships that obviously don't share our values for freedom and democratic principles, investing in our country.

All ccp linked investments should be nullified and forfeited.
Rev's comments here are a perfect example of, as I discussed previously, how the emotional can trump the rational in economic decision making. The lack of democracy in China may infuriate Australians, but it is of no logical relevance to a decision about whether to exclude commercial investment from China. The fact that money used to buy some steel and cement comes from undemocratic China does not mean that it will magically destroy Australian democracy. It is just money used to buy steel and cement.

On the other hand, it would completely economically irrational to do as Rev suggests and nullify and forfeit all CCP linked investments. A huge amount of investment in Australia, and specifically in Adelaide, comes from Chinese-backed sources. What would we gain by excluding this investment? Absolutely nothing. Excluding Chinese investment would simply result in more sluggish economic growth rates and increased unemployment for South Australia. How is that desirable in any way?

If we want to prevent our democracy being eroded, we need to focus on strengthening our institutions to prevent corruption generally, not by introducing an irrational ban on all things Chinese.
Post Reply