News & Discussion: Height Limits

[Maximus]

So, why do we want to increase height limits for the CBD? Well, I'm sure we're all for a taller and more interesting skyline for Adelaide, but surely this argument has to do with urban sprawl as well...?

I would have thought that the CBD as a living space is seriously under-utilised and probably (hopefully) in the future it will have a much higher population than now. Of course, the taller the building, the more people who can live on a given square metre of land. Which I think is very important, because Adelaide is already extremely spread out for a city of a million people and there isn't even proper infrastructure in some of these areas (e.g. doctor shortage in and lack of public transport to Aldinga, which is arguably now a suburb). To slow or halt this trend, we need more people living in the city and, given its arguably under-utilised nature, the CBD. I don't know about you, but I don't want suburbs all the way to Victor Harbor in 50 years' time, because I think this would be an absolute tragedy. I think it's in everyone's interests to have as many people living in (and near to) the CBD as possible -- specifically thinking of shorter commute times, which equals less pollution, etc, etc.

[Joely]

What I don't understand (in Adelaide as well as San Jose) is why aircraft in distress would be using an emergency route located directly over the most densely populated square mile in the state! Does anyone else besides me reckon this is ridiculous?

[AtD]

What I don't understand (in Adelaide as well as San Jose) is why aircraft in distress would be using an emergency route located directly over the most densely populated square mile in the state! Does anyone else besides me reckon this is ridiculous?

It's an emergency route, for use in emergencies. When you have 300 tonnes of aircraft to land, but only one engine, shorter paths are better.

[Ho Really]

What I don't understand (in Adelaide as well as San Jose) is why aircraft in distress would be using an emergency route located directly over the most densely populated square mile in the state! Does anyone else besides me reckon this is ridiculous?

It's an emergency route, for use in emergencies. When you have 300 tonnes of aircraft to land, but only one engine, shorter paths are better.

What about taking off in the northeasterly direction and the right engine failing?

Cheers

[Wayno]

What about taking off in the northeasterly direction and the right engine failing?
Cheers

land on pit straight in victoria park!

[bm7500]

The issues of planes flying over the City has been covered before in the "CBD Height Limits Map" thread. My answer in that thread is posted below;

The main reasons that there are height restrictions on the city is so aircraft taking off from Adelaide airport have enough space to execute a 'missed approach' or emergency go around should they have an engine failue on take off. The airports also have what they call an Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) & Precision Approach Navigation Surfaces (PANS-OPS). These are invisible surfaces associated with aircraft approach & departure and are aligned to each runway strip at an airport. OLS and PANS-OPS identify the lower limits of the airport airspace which need to be maintained free from obstacles.

The actual maps showing heights etc can be found on pages 21 & 22 here: http://www.aal.com.au/pdfs/AAL_Master_Plan_04_App.pdf

[adelaideguy88]

So, why do we want to increase height limits for the CBD? Well, I'm sure we're all for a taller and more interesting skyline for Adelaide, but surely this argument has to do with urban sprawl as well...?

I'm with Maximus, I don't see what the rush is to increase the building height in a hurry. When you look towards the city from a distance, you will realise that the Santos building is the tallest, with other buildings graduating downwards in height (the outlier being the Optus Building on South Tce). Building larger buildings brings more issues, such as parking, pollution and changing the character of the city. Are all these factors being considered when planning new developments?

[Wayno]

So, why do we want to increase height limits for the CBD? Well, I'm sure we're all for a taller and more interesting skyline for Adelaide, but surely this argument has to do with urban sprawl as well...?

I'm with Maximus, I don't see what the rush is to increase the building height in a hurry. When you look towards the city from a distance, you will realise that the Santos building is the tallest, with other buildings graduating downwards in height (the outlier being the Optus Building on South Tce). Building larger buildings brings more issues, such as parking, pollution and changing the character of the city. Are all these factors being considered when planning new developments?

g'day adelaideguy88, welcome to S-A!

I think maximus is pro-taller buildings, but wants to ensure we discuss tangible reasons for having them, beyond skyline aesthetics. I agree with his stated example, which is to reduce urban sprawl.

We need the ACC to allow taller buildings in the city now because we are deep in the midst of a construction boom. All booms end, the next one may not come along for 20years, and it would be a HUGE shame not to vertically grow our city at this time.

Yes having several taller buildings bring a few more issues, but that is outweighed by the benefits such as:

• * vast increase in the use of public transport
  * sufficient people working density in the CBD to increase and improve its cultural appeal
  * more residents to the CBD, again increasing/improving its cultural appeal
  * less pollution (again due to increased use of PT, more residents in the city.....)
  * snowballing investment (seeing big investments occur attracts more investors)
  * a whole bunch of soft benefits such as skyline aesthetics, improved sense of prosperity by the greater community...
  * i'm sure there are several more benefits, but i'm hungry now and heading off to have my dinner and a beer!

[Edgar]

So, why do we want to increase height limits for the CBD? Well, I'm sure we're all for a taller and more interesting skyline for Adelaide, but surely this argument has to do with urban sprawl as well...?

I'm with Maximus, I don't see what the rush is to increase the building height in a hurry. When you look towards the city from a distance, you will realise that the Santos building is the tallest, with other buildings graduating downwards in height (the outlier being the Optus Building on South Tce). Building larger buildings brings more issues, such as parking, pollution and changing the character of the city. Are all these factors being considered when planning new developments?

From my own point of view, there is a rush to increase height limits in the CBD, why?

1) Spaces are running out in the CBD core areas where high-rise buildings are allowed.
2) If the current height restriction stays in place, developer are restricted by the limitations to build higher buildings.
3) As a result, we are left with short little glass boxes with uninspiring building design.
4) With no height restriction, developers will have the desire to showcase their architectural creativity.

With less restriction, we would see more innovative buildings like the latest planned 20-22 Currie St with the 'wave' factor, with limited height restriction on place, we get the much disappointed 'City Central' buildings.

And I am sure you don't want the rest of the high-rise buildings being built in the CBD to look like City Central design, which we are already witnessing from the up coming plans. And when all valuable spaces in the CBD are being developed into these ugly glass boxes, it would be too late and we will then know that it was a mistake to have such restriction in place when Adelaide itself is booming, with so much potential now, and many developers are willing to pour in millions and billions of dollar to construct high-rise in Adelaide.

[Maximus]

Yes, I'm definitely PRO tall buildings. (As much as I love Westpac and think it's a beautiful building, I'll be disappointed if we don't end up with at least one taller tower at the end of this current construction boom.) I was just interested to see that this discussion had started without a concurrent discussion about WHY we want to increase CBD height limits. I certainly agree that our skyline needs taller buildings, but that's largely a subjective and emotive argument. If we're going to increase height limits and build taller buildings, we need solid and objective reasons why this should be done -- which is what Edgar and Wayno have provided. Urban sprawl, to me, is also an important issue, because (for many reasons) I really don't like how spread-out our city is becoming.

[frank1]

Yes, I'm definitely PRO tall buildings. (As much as I love Westpac and think it's a beautiful building, I'll be disappointed if we don't end up with at least one taller tower at the end of this current construction boom.) I was just interested to see that this discussion had started without a concurrent discussion about WHY we want to increase CBD height limits. I certainly agree that our skyline needs taller buildings, but that's largely a subjective and emotive argument. If we're going to increase height limits and build taller buildings, we need solid and objective reasons why this should be done -- which is what Edgar and Wayno have provided. Urban sprawl, to me, is also an important issue, because (for many reasons) I really don't like how spread-out our city is becoming.

So true. If Adelaide built a few tall residential buildings at least 50 stories, it would soak up alot of urban sprawl as not everyone wants a huge house in the suburbs. I personally like city apartment living.

[Shuz]

I think any lift in height restrictions needs to be tied in with a more sustainable and logical approach to combating urban sprawl. Because of the way politics works, with the State Goverment (Planning SA) in charge of the growth boundary, and the ACC in charge of the CBD, the variations in policies do little to offset one set of standards from the other.

Either the ACC needs to amalmagate with other councils, and form a uniform greater Adelaide council (which extends to an urban boundary of sustainable proportions) or their planning regulations given up into the State Goverments hands. Then we should start to see some results then.

[AtD]

Well said, shuz.

[monotonehell]

Raise height restrictions just so we can have tall buildings for tall buildings' sake?

Hell no.


Raise height restrictions in a planned manner while considering a city wide plan with vision, aesthetics, shadow patterns, sustainability, residential needs, social effects, localised effects on micro climate and individual design merit?

Hell YES!

[Plasmatron]

How about having them for tall buildings' sake and all the other stuff you said?

Like Maximus I would also be dissapointed if our friend Mr Westpac Tower wasn't superseded during this construction boom... and for a city of over one million people, it's somewhat surprising it hasn't already happened. Then again, we're seemingly more cautious/stringent about building heights compared to other big cities. Spire and the Currie Street "Wave" building come close, but no cigar. At least the density is always going up. And everyone loves a bit of density, right? Hmmm...

One thing I don't understand about the height limit map is the bigger height in the middle and lesser height around the CBD edges. If it's mainly due to airport proximity, shouldn't it get even higher going East? Like, popping a couple of 100m+ towers on Hutt Street? If anyone mentions anything about trying to maintain a pyramid-shaped skyline, I think my head might explode.