Sensational-Adelaide.com

Algernon wrote: ↑

Wed May 28, 2025 12:34 am

AndyWelsh wrote: ↑

Tue May 27, 2025 11:42 pm

The Guardian today “Adelaide’s first skyscraper criticised as ‘profound mistake’ and ‘hugely questionable’ by opponents”




https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... us_threads


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

saw this and thought: "typical adelaide bullshit"

one person does, 20 people bitch and waaaaah

build it on this basis alone

"oh but (cray wank) it was a secretive process!" ACTUALLY READ THE PLANNING DOCS. It was there from the very beginning. READ. THE. PUBLICALY. AVAILABLE. DOCUMENTS. FROM. 7. YEARS. AGO.

the amount of cry wanking bullshit that goes on, but that's understandable: gotta get your degree from the hairy armpits somehow. Oh, the fuckin building is all one of the 57 genders. it's tall and thin! that makes it an EVIL MAN DICK! i feel that that eh 37th gender which hover over a toilet and cocks its leg at a 36 degree angle with its non gender fanny apendange was violently attacked by a tall building. now where is my degree? C = it was genderish, d = bad man hd = i just made up the 112th gender - this building is a ZHUNG!

600 metres down from uni, can't half tell can you

oooh fuckin tall building with windows, look at the peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenis

you'd have a dart stressing out at this shit if a pack didn't cost you 8,000 dollars in the Nanny State Est. 1998

Algernon wrote: ↑

Wed May 28, 2025 12:34 am

saw this and thought: "typical adelaide bullshit"

one person does, 20 people bitch and waaaaah

build it on this basis alone

"oh but (cray wank) it was a secretive process!" ACTUALLY READ THE PLANNING DOCS. It was there from the very beginning. READ. THE. PUBLICALY. AVAILABLE. DOCUMENTS. FROM. 7. YEARS. AGO.

the amount of cry wanking bullshit that goes on, but that's understandable: gotta get your degree from the hairy armpits somehow. Oh, the fuckin building is all one of the 57 genders. it's tall and thin! that makes it an EVIL MAN DICK! i feel that that eh 37th gender which hover over a toilet and cocks its leg at a 36 degree angle with its non gender fanny apendange was violently attacked by a tall building. now where is my degree? C = it was genderish, d = bad man hd = i just made up the 112th gender - this building is a ZHUNG!

600 metres down from uni, can't half tell can you

oooh fuckin tall building with windows, look at the peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenis

you'd have a dart stressing out at this shit if a pack didn't cost you 8,000 dollars in the Nanny State Est. 1998

Ben wrote: ↑

Wed May 28, 2025 8:39 am

A Tuesday night bender?

Other than the phalic argument which I must agree is ridiculous and has no merit. The other arguments I largely agree with, in that this building should not be commencing site works - it has not been approved, the building is going to be a private building in a public space, yes it wasn’t activated before but this rules that out for the next 100+ years. The original plan was hospitality venues to bring people to the area. An office building will bring people to the area yes, but only those that have permission to work in the building and these people will be relocating from the cbd proper. Rather than bringing vitality to the cbd through unique hospitality venues it’s going to kill parts by sucking the workers out and leave this as nothing more than a thoroughfare.

In 1894, the parliament passed world-first laws allowing women to both vote and stand for election. Aboriginal women were also enfranchised – although they faced multiple barriers.

“The word is spreading about the significance of the site [as] the place where full democracy first occurred,” he said.

“It was here that the democratic ideals of all men and women having the right to vote, secret ballots, and one person/one vote were first introduced,” its listing reads.

Ben wrote: ↑

Wed May 28, 2025 8:39 am

Algernon wrote: ↑

Wed May 28, 2025 12:34 am

AndyWelsh wrote: ↑

Tue May 27, 2025 11:42 pm

The Guardian today “Adelaide’s first skyscraper criticised as ‘profound mistake’ and ‘hugely questionable’ by opponents”




https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... us_threads


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

saw this and thought: "typical adelaide bullshit"

one person does, 20 people bitch and waaaaah

build it on this basis alone

"oh but (cray wank) it was a secretive process!" ACTUALLY READ THE PLANNING DOCS. It was there from the very beginning. READ. THE. PUBLICALY. AVAILABLE. DOCUMENTS. FROM. 7. YEARS. AGO.

the amount of cry wanking bullshit that goes on, but that's understandable: gotta get your degree from the hairy armpits somehow. Oh, the fuckin building is all one of the 57 genders. it's tall and thin! that makes it an EVIL MAN DICK! i feel that that eh 37th gender which hover over a toilet and cocks its leg at a 36 degree angle with its non gender fanny apendange was violently attacked by a tall building. now where is my degree? C = it was genderish, d = bad man hd = i just made up the 112th gender - this building is a ZHUNG!

600 metres down from uni, can't half tell can you

oooh fuckin tall building with windows, look at the peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenis

you'd have a dart stressing out at this shit if a pack didn't cost you 8,000 dollars in the Nanny State Est. 1998

A Tuesday night bender?

Other than the phalic argument which I must agree is ridiculous and has no merit. The other arguments I largely agree with, in that this building should not be commencing site works - it has not been approved, the building is going to be a private building in a public space, yes it wasn’t activated before but this rules that out for the next 100+ years. The original plan was hospitality venues to bring people to the area. An office building will bring people to the area yes, but only those that have permission to work in the building and these people will be relocating from the cbd proper. Rather than bringing vitality to the cbd through unique hospitality venues it’s going to kill parts by sucking the workers out and leave this as nothing more than a thoroughfare.

Mpol02 wrote: ↑

Thu May 29, 2025 8:41 am

The image from the above article has curved finishing at the podium. Was that still the case for the redesign.

Prodical wrote: ↑

Thu May 29, 2025 9:21 am

The Guardian is a predictable rag for a predictable readership. The exciting thing is that this building will actually happen and give Adelaide its first skyscraper - nothing about SCAP approval yet but great that the early works are happening.

I imagine there will be a fair amount of prefabrication for this one given the crowded site and the short build time.

gnrc_louis wrote: ↑

Thu May 29, 2025 9:53 am

Prodical wrote: ↑

Thu May 29, 2025 9:21 am

The Guardian is a predictable rag for a predictable readership. The exciting thing is that this building will actually happen and give Adelaide its first skyscraper - nothing about SCAP approval yet but great that the early works are happening.

I imagine there will be a fair amount of prefabrication for this one given the crowded site and the short build time.

There's nothing wrong with trying to bring transparency to government decision making.

Prodical wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 04, 2025 2:41 pm

Finally, this building is on the SCAP agenda for approval next Wednesday