Sensational-Adelaide.com

Just as a general comment, reflecting on all of the 'city central' developments, I would have to say it's been a little disappointing. The existing and proposed developments are certainly rejuvenating the entire block (vastly better than the decaying old buildings in their place) and the ground level activation etc looks great.

I'm not even that bothered by the similar height of most of the buildings although it does make it all look like one big single building from several angles. I just hope the colours as indicated in the renders don't somehow end up looking greenish because frankly there's already way too much of that in city central!

Uninspired yet serviceable, I guess the City Central cluster was never destined to incorporate anything particularly memorable or iconic. Nevertheless, I'm not as disillusioned as I might otherwise be, due to the recent spread and height increases of projects beyond the CBD core (thus creating new "cores" in different areas). I just wish these other projects would get started and fill in the gaps, especially after Vue shot up quicker than most of us expected by Adelaide standards.

Article in today's paper this one was approved and they want to start asap. They plan to be on site first quarter of next year.

Ben wrote:Article in today's paper this one was approved and they want to start asap. They plan to be on site first quarter of next year.

Do you know which one they want to build first? The short one, the tall one, or both simultaneously? I wonder who the tenant is?

The 15 story Gpo is first. They said they have had strong interest but did not name any names. A few places have been look lately. CBA, Telstra (their lease is up 2020) and some government agencies.

This has gone from 60m (in the header) to 107.8m?!
Or am I missing something...

Ben wrote:I know this comes up all the time but I think the CBD is around 35m above sea level? Therefore the taller tower is about 95m?

Also this is expected to be approved today.

The proposals incorporate two towers, being; Stage 1: 107.8m AHD (15 storeys, including plant); and Stage 2: 130.75m AHD (22 storeys, including plant).

It is noted that the airspace study allows for an additional 3 metres in height to allow for plant - therefore the applicant is seeking approval from Adelaide Airport for a height of 110.8m AHD and 132.5m AHD. This will provide the applicant with some scope for additional structures on the roof in the future without a referral required to AAL.

The height quoted is a AHD (Australian Height Datum, effectively sea level) number. The central Adelaide CBD sits approximately 45m above sea level, so take that number off the quoted height.

Matt wrote:This has gone from 60m (in the header) to 107.8m?!
Or am I missing something...

Ben wrote:I know this comes up all the time but I think the CBD is around 35m above sea level? Therefore the taller tower is about 95m?

Also this is expected to be approved today.

The proposals incorporate two towers, being; Stage 1: 107.8m AHD (15 storeys, including plant); and Stage 2: 130.75m AHD (22 storeys, including plant).

It is noted that the airspace study allows for an additional 3 metres in height to allow for plant - therefore the applicant is seeking approval from Adelaide Airport for a height of 110.8m AHD and 132.5m AHD. This will provide the applicant with some scope for additional structures on the roof in the future without a referral required to AAL.

This space really calls for something special, its really the perfect place for something really big (150m and upwards). Of course people will complain and say it looks out of place.(maybe it will at first) But if you want to have an impressive skyline you have to start somewhere. other buildings will follow.

The centre of the city is the obvious location for some of the biggest buildings.

Also, I myself love the feel of a large open space (Victoria square) surrounded by huge buildings. Think central park or some parts of hong kong

Why not even make it something huge and architecturally stunning and iconic. I cant help feeling an iconic Adelaide building, something amazing would go a long way to solving this states image problem.

there is no tangible relation between tall (150m+) buildings and liveable/vibrant cities. In my opinion I would even go as far as suggesting the opposite. Take Tokyo, for example, where the best areas of the city could be anywhere between 3 and 6 stories and usually no more than 10-15 stories whereas the 'down town' type areas with skyscrapers were often very bland, grey and cold due to the large amounts of concrete and glass.

To become a vibrant city, Adelaide needs to dramatically increase the permanent population of people actually living in the city. Adelaide, compared to other city's doesn't have much density. I would love to see Adelaide become a 24 hour city. Similar to Melbourne.

I understand that to much high rise can be a bad thing. I'm not suggesting that Adelaide becomes Hong Kong or Tokyo. But it would be nice to live in a city that actually feels more like a city.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thecityguy wrote:To become a vibrant city, Adelaide needs to dramatically increase the permanent population of people actually living in the city. Adelaide, compared to other city's doesn't have much density. I would love to see Adelaide become a 24 hour city. Similar to Melbourne.

I understand that to much high rise can be a bad thing. I'm not suggesting that Adelaide becomes Hong Kong or Tokyo. But it would be nice to live in a city that actually feels more like a city.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you want to live in a place that feels more like a city, why not move to Melbourne?
Melbourne is a terrible city to model our prospective growth to; Victoria's former planning minister Matthew Guy approved almost every high-rise building that went before him during his term and completely disregarded poor design, excessive height and proximity. Now you see average looking 150-200m high-rise buildings filling up Southbank, and getting closer and closer to each other; in some parts it looks genuinely awful.

Adelaide could use more height, yes. But to suggest that we must have it because of the CBD's need to increase it's population is rubbish; (obviously taking into account that living standards are far more luxurious now as to how they were back in 1915) do remember that the CBD once had 43,000 residents in single/two story buildings. Not saying I necessary want this but Adelaide CBD could sure enough meet a population of 43,000 again by simply constructing four story apartment buildings throughout the grid, whilst retaining the surrounding heritage elements.

I get what you're trying to say, but perhaps it's time government planners actually sat down and mapped out where they'd like to see height growth in the city and if so what kind of design elements they'd like to see.

I think a city should look and feel like a city, and to me that means tall buildings, if done right and the layout and quality of architecture is good then it can become and extremely vibrant and desirable place to live. The city lifestyle isn't for everyone. But if you don't like it, it's ok because Adelaide has beautiful suburbs that are only a short drive from the city.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Adelaide doesn't need any buildings over 150 metres tall, they would look a bit silly in our skyline. In a perfect world, 2 glass
buildings at around 150 metres, and a dozen or so new 80 - 130m scattered around the core CBD would be the perfect result.
Just got back from Perth yesterday, and while their few tallies are quite imposing, it really does lack density. Density is one
area where Adelaide does okay and we should continue down that path.

I don't agree that buildings over 150 meters would look silly in Adelaide. Maybe if there was just one, but if you had a few it would be fine.

I mean isn't Westpac 130m anyway. What's an extra 20m?

I just think a few more tall buildings to minimise the impact of the ugly Westpac building would be great


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jaymz wrote:Adelaide doesn't need any buildings over 150 metres tall, they would look a bit silly in our skyline. In a perfect world, 2 glass
buildings at around 150 metres, and a dozen or so new 80 - 130m scattered around the core CBD would be the perfect result.
Just got back from Perth yesterday, and while their few tallies are quite imposing, it really does lack density. Density is one
area where Adelaide does okay and we should continue down that path.

This is the typical South Australian conservative cautious, careful careful, approach of being too scared of your own shadow to be bold and rock the boat.
Never know, you might actually succeed...oh but you know, there's a chance you might fail, so best to not have a go and instead lets just maintain the status quo and stagnate and wither away.


Doesn't need buildings 150 m or higher? Who are you to dictate? The skyline police?
What do you think, that the current disgusting disgraceful pathetic cluster of "tall buildings" in Adelaide around Westpac House were all built simultaneously?

In a perfect world we would have only 2 glass buildings around 150m? And only a dozen buildings around 80-130m?
So once we reach a dozen buildings in that range, plus your very generous allowance of 2 glass towers at 150m, what, do we tell developers, the market, the populace who wants to live in apartment buildings, that they can't?


Seriously I can not believe what I've read.