By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Plans for a Trump Tower on Australia’s Gold Coast have been abruptly canceled just three months after their announcement. The developer, Altus Property Group, cited the US president’s “toxic brand” and the Iran war as reasons for the project’s collapse. However, the Trump Organization disputes this, claiming the developer failed to meet basic financial obligations. Local officials suggest the fallout stems from disagreements over profit margins rather than political factors.
Read the original article here
Plans for a significant Trump Tower development on Australia’s Gold Coast, a project valued at approximately A$1.5 billion, have been unexpectedly scrapped just three months after their initial announcement. The developer, Altus Property Group, has cited the US president’s “toxic brand” and more recently, the Iran war, as the primary reasons behind the project’s collapse.
The chief executive of Altus Property Group, David Young, specifically highlighted how the Iran war had created an increasingly challenging environment for associating with the Trump brand in Australia. He candidly stated that, “Let’s just say that with the Iran war and everything else, the Trump brand was increasingly toxic in Australia.” This sentiment suggests that pre-existing issues with the brand’s image were exacerbated by recent geopolitical events.
Many Australians, it appears, shared a negative view of the Trump brand long before the Iran war became a factor. The idea that the brand was “toxic before the Iran war too, but still better late than never I guess” reflects a common sentiment. It’s widely believed that Trump is almost universally disliked in Australia, making any association with his name a difficult proposition.
The prospect of a Trump Tower being built was, for many, always questionable. There’s a strong undercurrent of opinion that the project was more of a “grift by the developer” than a genuine plan. This view is supported by the developer’s alleged history of bankruptcies and a perceived lack of experience in undertaking projects of such a large scale, leading to the conclusion that it was “never going to be built in the first place.”
The developer’s move to announce the project might have been a strategic PR maneuver to gain attention, rather than a concrete business plan. The observation that “It was never going to happen anyway. It was just a way for the developer to get their name in the news, they had no experience doing anything close to a high rise” points to a suspicion of insincere intentions. Furthermore, potential opposition from unions is also mentioned as a factor that would have complicated the construction process.
The idea that Trump should focus his ventures in countries with closer ties to his political leanings, such as those that “speak Russian in their native tongues,” highlights the perceived disconnect between Trump’s brand and international markets like Australia. The suggestion of an alternate, more wishful headline, “Trump scrapped in United States over ‘toxic’ brand image,” underscores the widespread desire to see the brand’s negative perception extend beyond international borders.
Expressions like “Crocodiaper Donpee” and “Hope his image gets more tarnished and toxic” reveal a strong, albeit crude, desire for the negative perception of Trump to intensify. The relieved sentiment of “Thank. Fuck. And stay out” clearly articulates a desire for the Trump brand to be kept away from Australia. This feeling of relief is shared by many who believe Trump is unpopular everywhere except in specific regions of America.
The notion of Australia becoming the “52nd state” seems to be a sarcastic jab, implying that attempts to align with American political figures or brands are a sign of subservience, which is clearly not the desired outcome for many Australians. The mention of potential tariffs, followed by the sarcastic remark “You just know that’s what he’ll do,” alludes to a fear of retaliatory actions often associated with Trump’s business and political dealings.
The comparison of the brand’s image to that of historical negative entities, like “the real problem with the nazis was the brand image,” while extreme, illustrates the depth of negative association some people feel with the Trump brand. The positive reaction of “Beautiful” and “Finally some good news” signifies immense relief and celebration among those who opposed the project and what it represented.
The fervent hope that “America will have many, many such forcibly-labelled objects being scrapped soon” and the encouragement for Australia to “do it joyfully – celebrate your freedom, and let this remind you to never let it fade” suggests a broader sentiment of liberation from a perceived negative influence. The planned “De-Trumpstein festivities” to replace “sinister, threatening mugshots with new, uplifting tributes” further emphasizes a desire for a positive national renewal.
The mention of the Trump organization attempting to build a tower in Tbilisi and the hope that it also fails indicates a widespread international skepticism towards Trump’s development projects. The observation that “Looks like the ‘Art of the Deal’ didn’t translate well to Australian” is a witty dismissal of the project’s viability, suggesting the developer’s tactics were ineffective in the Australian context.
The question “What, they don’t want a fascist ivory tower?” is a rhetorical and critical comment on the perceived nature of such developments. The strong negative reaction to the idea of naming buildings after controversial figures, with the rhetorical question “And they thou f it putting a rapists name on a building was a good idea?” and the call to “Release the Epstein files” links the Trump brand to other deeply problematic figures and controversies.
The question “It’s always been toxic. What changed?” implies that the developer’s acknowledgement of toxicity is belated, suggesting the brand’s negative qualities were evident from the outset. The repeated refrain of “Good. Australia wins again. How can we handle this much winning?” is a playful and triumphant expression of national pride and satisfaction in rejecting the Trump brand.
The sentiment that “I hope this stings for him. Because he’s unlikely to ever see the inside of a prison, at least seeing the brand he spent his life building become a toxic brand that no one wants to touch may be the most personally damaging thing that he realistically will see” highlights a desire for personal accountability, even if it comes in the form of reputational damage rather than legal consequence.
The extreme comparison of “Trump is America’s Hitler, in that Hitler is universally regarded as an evil figure and no one would ever put his name on a building” illustrates the profound negative perception some hold, equating the brand’s impact with historical atrocities. The statement that “This was an over the top PR stunt by the developer that the media just picked up and ran with for the sake of clicks” suggests a cynical view of the media’s role and the developer’s motives, implying the cancellation was part of the initial stunt.
The pointed question, “You mean they don’t want to be associated with Epstein’s partner?” directly links Trump to the controversial figure Jeffrey Epstein, highlighting a significant ethical concern for many. The comment “It’s ok the idiots in America still worship the fat pedo. He’ll be ok” expresses a dismissive and critical view of Trump supporters in the US.
The “Incoming aircraft carrier group. You know that’s right!” is a sarcastic and exaggerated response to the idea of Trump retaliating against Australia for rejecting his project, a common fear associated with his past actions. The mention of “Dutton tried to lean away from the Temu Trump thing but just the vibes still got him a shellacking” alludes to the negative political impact of perceived association with Trump-like figures or sentiments in Australia.
The observation that it is “strange that they’d give a timestamp on when they thought it went too far,” followed by a list of serious allegations like “Proven sexual assault? Fine. Stealing from a children’s cancer foundation? Fine. 34 fraud felonies? Fine. I am glad they finally drew the line at the murder of 180 children and teachers though,” highlights a cynical and critical perspective on how certain lines are drawn regarding ethical boundaries. The example of Toronto renaming their Trump property back in 2017 further reinforces the idea of a growing international trend of distancing from the Trump brand.
The strong assertion, “Increasingly toxic FF FFS Trump is viewed as a psychopath monster here in Australia. We don’t want anything to do with that pos and his family,” encapsulates the intense negative sentiment towards Trump and his brand in Australia. The observation that “Nothing about morals, just complaining it’s hard to make money off the brand” suggests a pragmatic, rather than purely ethical, reason for the cancellation from the developer’s perspective. The Gold Coast being referred to as “the MAGA Florida of Australia” draws a parallel between perceived political leanings in both locations.
The triumphant exclamation, “Good! Australia wins again. How can we handle this much winning?” is a playful expression of national pride and satisfaction. The acknowledgment that “It turns out the Emoluments Clause is there to protect his businesses too, but since this shitbag had too much ego, his businesses deserve to be targeted, sanctioned and boycotted for every action he does” indicates a belief that Trump’s business dealings should be subject to scrutiny and consequences for his actions. The darkly humorous threat, “Guess he’ll nuke Australia then,” is a sarcastic nod to Trump’s perceived volatile nature.
The statement, “Trump has been toxic his entire life. Just happens that adorant supporters.are recently exposed as toxic as well,” suggests a long-standing assessment of Trump’s character and a broader view of his supporters’ traits. Finally, the assertion that “if he wasn’t president he’d be banned from entry alone for poor character and confirmed criminal ties. That’s not a joke, we ban people for these things, most recently candice owens, tim allen historically, how Fucker Carlson got past customs is beyond me though” implies that, in many countries, Trump would not be welcome due to his character and alleged criminal connections, drawing parallels to individuals who have faced entry restrictions.