News & Discussion: Height Limits

[stumpjumper]

Look through my tourist photos? Ha ha. They're all of foreign girls doing strange things in hotel rooms... (you can take that out, can't you Howie?)

Thank you for the answer, well, an answer. The case for tall buildings in Adelaide at least for some is not economic, but psychological, even spiritual. That's a valid reason, btw. As mentioned, they're the arguments (in addition to political ones) that created cathedrals.

[Howie]

Look through my tourist photos? Ha ha. They're all of foreign girls doing strange things in hotel rooms... (you can take that out, can't you Howie?)

haha.. sure just let me run a filter over that

[Shuz]

Cathedral, or simply churches were always built to be the 'tallest point' of the city. If you visit Strathalbyn and Victor Harbor, the church was always built on top of the city's highest hill or point to elevate its focus above the city. Even in Adelaide's case, St Peter's was purposedly built at the axis of KWS on the hill so that it would be seen. As I said before, it has merely transformed into the modern-day office building as a symbol of the city's socio-economic prosperity.

[Just build it]

My memory is hazy on this but when talking about height limits in the CBD and what's possible haven't we already had approval for a 200m high building in Adelaide? The observation tower/restaurant or whatever it was.

If approved surely it was cleared with the airport as OK or didn't it get that far?

[Shuz]

My memory is hazy on this but when talking about height limits in the CBD and what's possible haven't we already had approval for a 200m high building in Adelaide? The observation tower/restaurant or whatever it was.

If approved surely it was cleared with the airport as OK or didn't it get that far?

That would be the Capital City Observation Tower project which was mooted as part of the redevelopment of the David Jones/John Martins site back in 1998?
Yes, it did get approved by all authorities, ACC, AAL, CASA at the time and even required for the flight path to be changed - which I think meant the AAL were planning to go-ahead with the 2nd parallel runway. Anyway, the Asian stock maket collapse was responsible for the death of the project because the financiers were heavily liquidated as a result. Now that was 10 years ago... So I can't really say what's to happen now considering many things have changed since.

[raulduke]

"Yet, developers should be able to look at serious height, whether that be 15 or 20 storey buildings – something that allows commercial property to be built there as well as residential."

lol - 15 or 20 storey buildings are not "serious height" - get real Kevin, we want 40+

[Norman]

He means out in the suburbs.

[Shuz]

"Yet, developers should be able to look at serious height, whether that be 15 or 20 storey buildings – something that allows commercial property to be built there as well as residential."

lol - 15 or 20 storey buildings are not "serious height" - get real Kevin, we want 40+

15-20 storey buildings in the suburbs is serious height. We're talking 50-70m here, any buildings developed here will be taller than the Glenelg or Port Adelaide/West Lakes clusters.

[Just build it]

That would be the Capital City Observation Tower project which was mooted as part of the redevelopment of the David Jones/John Martins site back in 1998?
Yes, it did get approved by all authorities, ACC, AAL, CASA at the time and even required for the flight path to be changed - which I think meant the AAL were planning to go-ahead with the 2nd parallel runway. Anyway, the Asian stock maket collapse was responsible for the death of the project because the financiers were heavily liquidated as a result. Now that was 10 years ago... So I can't really say what's to happen now considering many things have changed since.

Thanks Shuz, yeah that's the one. It kind of makes me think developers were as much to blame for our 20 years of stagnate skyline as much as the ACC were, but developers can only build if there's money to be made so....

If there was a solution to the airspace problem back then surely there'd be another solution in the future. Maybe the airport isn't as big a problem as we think either. I live in hope anyway.

[rev]

The airport has just been a convenient excuse.

I present to you Phoenix, Arizona.



As you can see, in the top centre, the Phoenix CBD. In the bottom right corner, you can see three runways. The airport in Phoenix has FOUR terminals, not one like ours. It has 41 million people pass through yearly, not a minor league 6.3 million like AIA.
Yet our CBD has three buildings over 100m in height only.
Phoenix's tallest fifteen are over 100m.
The distances are roughly the same(straight line)3-4kmish in both cities from the end of the runway to the cbd.
It is not a matter of safety, as you can see how close that one runway's flight path is parallel to the CBD. It is the attitudes in Adelaide which have prevented height.

Notice in this image the passenger aircraft.


The view from the runway at Phoenix, and the view from the runway at Adelaide..



And Phoenix even has an inner city stadium, I think even a second smaller one.

[Wayno]

it appears from the image that the tallest Phoenix building also 30-35stories? true?

[Jim]

I agree the airport is just a convenient excuse!

[rev]

Close, 40fl, 147m.

[omada]

A very conclusive argument there Rev, much props!

[Wayno]

hmmm, this is indeed interesting. Phoenix airport is 3.4km from runway to CBD, Adelaide is 4.4km.

How long has the Phoenix airport been there? has it always had jumbo air traffic? and when were the buildings over 30 stories erected?