News & Discussion: Height Limits

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Message
Author
User avatar
skyliner
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: fassifern (near Brisbane)

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#256 Post by skyliner » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:45 am

THe interesting thing about all this is the proximity of Bris. airport to the CBD -used by similar planes to here I understand - and all using flightpaths as well - have 'somehow' got the planes to fly in a different direction than over the CBD - can someone explain why this has not happened long ago here? I'm thinking beurocratic tape, lack of co-ordinated informed decision making across all relevant bodies involved.Jusy too hard!

As well, I have read on this site that the planes never get close down to the CBD and that very few go over the CBD.

Now also note - 289M in Bris as against Adelaides 135m before the real screaming match starts (all for airport at a similar from distance from the CBD).

I'm getting confused. The more you look into this, the harder it gets. :mrgreen:

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE
Jack.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#257 Post by Wayno » Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:10 pm

With the ACC now effectively out of the loop on approving tall buildings, perhaps we should send a letter to Pat C requesting that he "gently persuade" AAL, CASA, DOTARS, etc to publicise in clear/plain english the PANS-OPS height limitations across the entire CBD (as well as Nth Adelaide, and the Torrens River district in between)...
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2678
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#258 Post by Ho Really » Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:46 pm

skyliner wrote:...As well, I have read on this site that the planes never get close down to the CBD and that very few go over the CBD...
Maybe not low enough but they do fly over it, like right above the corner of Grenfell and King William Streets. These are usually the smaller jets (mostly 737s). I've never seen a 747, A330 or 777 do this (as most would bank on a larger turn and fly on a route that would take them over the southern part of Norwood such as Cathay Pacific to Melbourne).

As I have said before it is definitely a radar matter. I would presume the line-of-sight issue is in regards to the radar at the top of Greenhill Road (off Ridge Road).

Cheers
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.

User avatar
skyliner
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: fassifern (near Brisbane)

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#259 Post by skyliner » Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:57 pm

I forgot about the radar issue - thanks Ho Really.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE
Jack.

User avatar
Shuz
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Glandore

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#260 Post by Shuz » Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:02 pm

I was disappointed to hear that height limitations remain unaffected, because they are still pursuant to the Development Act, which is what the new IDAC will assess all developments by. However, I think we will start seeing a lot more developments approved that are in variance to the Act - because essentially that is what the State Government can alter through legislative measures, and with Rann's majority, it'll seem likely so until the Development Act is revised. After all, that is the State Government's intention to make Adelaide more attractive to developers.

User avatar
bm7500
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 901
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:04 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#261 Post by bm7500 » Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:33 pm

Ho Really wrote:
skyliner wrote:...As well, I have read on this site that the planes never get close down to the CBD and that very few go over the CBD...
Maybe not low enough but they do fly over it, like right above the corner of Grenfell and King William Streets. These are usually the smaller jets (mostly 737s). I've never seen a 747, A330 or 777 do this (as most would bank on a larger turn and fly on a route that would take them over the southern part of Norwood such as Cathay Pacific to Melbourne).

As I have said before it is definitely a radar matter. I would presume the line-of-sight issue is in regards to the radar at the top of Greenhill Road (off Ridge Road).

Cheers
I have flown on both Boeing 737's & Airbus A330's that have tracked directly accross the top of Westpac house! It was like taking a helicopter flight over the city :D

The fact is that they do not have to track accross the City on their departure BUT, they may have to if they have an 'Engine Out' event on takeoff.

EDIT: About half a dozen approved Departure Paths for aircraft out of Adelaide Airport track over the city..
ADELAIDE SINGAPORE LONDON BERLIN AMSTERDAM PARIS TOKYO AUCKLAND DOHA DUBLIN HONG KONG BANGKOK REYKJAVIK ROME MADRID BUDAPEST COPENHAGEN ZURICH BRUSSELS VIENNA PRAGUE STOCKHOLM LUXEMBOURG BRATISLAVA NASSAU DUBAI BAHRAIN KUALA LUMPUR HELSINKI GENEVA

jlimty
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#262 Post by jlimty » Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:41 pm

Hi guys,

Ok this is what I understand of the height restrictions due to the the location of Adelaide Airport.

The definition of the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) from MOS Part 139 is as follows: "The OLS are conceptual (imaginary) surfaces associated with a runway, which identify the lower limits of the aerodrome airspace above which objects become obstacles to aircraft operations, and must be reported to CASA".

The OLS is calculated from the ground up and I believe that dispensations can be sought for buildings which penetrate the OLS. Once the OLS is penetrated, certain buildings in close proximity to the initial building might not be considered to penetrate the OLS (depending on the distance apart and height of the other buildings).

The PANS-OPS is something that is calculated from air to ground and it relates to the emergency flight paths of planes that need to return to the airport after take off. For example, if a plane loses an engine straight after take off it would need to circle back for landing. My initial thought was that the PANS-OPS cannot be penetrated by any buildings. However, section 7.1.8.5 of MOS Part 139 states that "Any object that may penetrate the PANS-OPS surface, as per advice from the procedure designer, must be forwarded to the Airservices Australia Procedure Design Section". I am still unsure of the context of the statement as I haven't had time to read through the whole section on the obstacle restriction and limitation in MOS.

Hope that made sense :wink:

User avatar
joshzxzx
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:17 pm

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#263 Post by joshzxzx » Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:10 pm

Lets face it guys it seems the airport and the planes flight paths may limit us on have massive buildings. My question is why cant we have more the size of Westpac house around Westpac house as apposed to filling every little gap that we have with 14-20 stort buildings.

We need to utelise the available room that we have and built to the available hight limit. In other words if the height restriction is 120m for a certain arean WE BUILD a building that hight! 8)

Hope fully with Powers being stripped from the concervative counsil we will see some change
South Australia the Festival State

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#264 Post by Wayno » Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:51 pm

joshzxzx wrote:Lets face it guys it seems the airport and the planes flight paths may limit us on have massive buildings. My question is why cant we have more the size of Westpac house around Westpac house as apposed to filling every little gap that we have with 14-20 stort buildings.

We need to utelise the available room that we have and built to the available hight limit. In other words if the height restriction is 120m for a certain arean WE BUILD a building that hight! 8)

Hope fully with Powers being stripped from the concervative counsil we will see some change
Taller buildings can be built, if they are East of Westpac House. The ACC (and now the Govt) just need Developers to buy CBD land, and seriously propose such buildings!!!
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
duke
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:15 pm

No more height restrictions in Adelaide?!

#265 Post by duke » Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:07 am

Foley backs a high-rise Adelaide
Article from: The Advertiser

* Font size: Decrease Increase
* Email article: Email
* Print article: Print
* Submit comment: Submit comment

July 19, 2008 12:30am

SOUTH Australians should "not be afraid to embrace height" in any proposed developments, Deputy Premier Kevin Foley says.
Mr Foley said a "modern city like Adelaide needs height" in order to progress and attract commercial and residentialinterest.

He said new transport-oriented development zones, such as the 10ha Clipsal site at Bowden, will have height and density.
High rise: See the options http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/files/buildings.pdf

"We will allow serious height on that (Clipsal) site," he told The Advertiser yesterday.

"But I am not suggesting we are going to have massive skyscrapers there.

"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."

Mr Foley said given Adelaide's population and geographical size, there were a lot of 15 to 20 storey buildings being built.

"Personally, I like height. I think this city should not be afraid to embrace height," he said. "That's why, since Labor has come to office, there has been a number of projects that have been given major project status.

"In that way, we have been able to accelerate development and not have it stymied."

Mr Foley said initial advice was for unlimited height at the Clipsal site, and while he personally was not opposed to that, it was not something to which the Government could agree.

"We need to come to an agreement with the council and residents, if we can, about what they would accept," he said.

Sites such as the one at Bowden provided an opportunity to "house thousands of South Australians in affordable accommodation on transport links, relatively close to the city".

"It gives us a good opportunity to cater for our population growth without having the suburbs falling too far north and too far south," Mr Foley said.

Earlier this week, during a speech at a property industry function, Mr Foley said development at Bowden would be unlike anything seen before in Adelaide.

Colliers International has been enlisted to sell the 10.2ha site but its industrial zoning must be changed before any mixed-used development can occur.

Under a State Government review, Urban Development and Planning Minister Paul Holloway would have responsibility for the rezoning taking it out of the hands of the Charles Sturt City Council and classifying it as a "state significant development".

John O'Neill, part owner of the nearby Brompton Hotel, said removing height or density restrictions on the old Clipsal site would be a great "step forward"
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 01,00.html


wtf.. where did this come from??

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 6422
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: No more height restrictions in Adelaide?!

#266 Post by Norman » Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:24 am

Woo! *head spins out of control*

Another step forward for the state. Excellent news.

Just build it
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:12 pm

Re: No more height restrictions in Adelaide?!

#267 Post by Just build it » Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:54 am

Awesome. It's finally happening, the mood has changed.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

Re: No more height restrictions in Adelaide?!

#268 Post by Wayno » Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:35 am

Great news.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
Shuz
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Glandore

Re: No more height restrictions in Adelaide?!

#269 Post by Shuz » Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:01 am

Wow. I'm just blown away by the news of late, planning overhauls, the ACC, the transport revolution, and this. Like it's huge, and is sending a serious message out there.

How cool will Adelaide be in a decade's time, we'll have quite the few mini-skylines around. CBD, Bowden, West Lakes, Port, Mawson Lakes, Glenelg and all the other TOD's. Who would have thought this just a year ago?

The AdelaideNow poll shows promising insight into the issue. Up yours, North Adelaide!
Image

Labor's securely got my vote in this state until 2018 (Rann's resignation date).
Last edited by Shuz on Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bm7500
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 901
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:04 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: No more height restrictions in Adelaide?!

#270 Post by bm7500 » Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:43 am

New Licence Plates for Adelaide should read:

ADELAIDE - ONWARDS & UPWARDS

Awesome news!
ADELAIDE SINGAPORE LONDON BERLIN AMSTERDAM PARIS TOKYO AUCKLAND DOHA DUBLIN HONG KONG BANGKOK REYKJAVIK ROME MADRID BUDAPEST COPENHAGEN ZURICH BRUSSELS VIENNA PRAGUE STOCKHOLM LUXEMBOURG BRATISLAVA NASSAU DUBAI BAHRAIN KUALA LUMPUR HELSINKI GENEVA

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests