Sensational-Adelaide.com

As far as I can find out, the airport has been there since 1935 at least.

Here is the tallest 15 in Phoenix

01. Chase Tower 147 m 1972 40fl
02. US Bank Center 124 m 1976 31fl
03. Qwest Tower 121 m 1989 25fl
04. 44 Monroe 116 m 2008 34fl
05. Viad Tower 114 m 1991 24fl
06. Two Renaissance Squar.. 113 m 1990 28fl
07. Wells Fargo Plaza 113 m 1971 27fl
08. Phoenix City Hall 112 m 1994 20fl
09. Sheraton Phoenix Down.. 110 m 2008 32fl
10. Bank of America Tower 110 m 2000 23fl 23fl
11. 3300 North Central Av.. 109 m 1980 27fl
12. One Renaissance Squar.. 106 m 1986 26fl
13. Phoenix Corporate Cen.. 104 m 1960 26fl
14. Phoenix Plaza II 101 m 1990 20fl
15. Phoenix Plaza I 101 m 1988 20fl


And in addition, and I can't believe I've never thought of this or heard it before, but how can they use the airport flight path as an excuse to not allow taller developments, sighting safety concerns, when the bloody planes are flying directly over peoples homes at extremely low altitudes on the landing approach?!

Another example is Herndon Orlando Florida airport which is 3.6km from the CBD, and more directly under the flightpath than Adelaide (again a reminder that our CBD is an extra km more distant at 4.4km from the airport).

The tallest building in Orlando is the Suntrust Center at 134m (Westpac house is 135m)

Google Maps Reference ==> http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.54097 ... &t=h&hl=en

what about San Diego CA airport which is right next to the CBD, albeit to the side. Their tallest building is 152m (One
America Plaza)...

Google maps reference ==> http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.72186 ... &t=h&hl=en

stumpjumper wrote:The Mayor of Paris proposed dropping the 37m height limit that applies except at La Defense. The reason is the huge demand for floor space and the skyrocketing rents. About 2/3rds of Paris residents are opposed (no doubt they're the ones with a Paris property or tenancy already).

I'd support changing the height restrictions in Adelaide, but Paris is a bit different I think.
Far more heritage value is preserved by those height restrictions, anyone who's seen Paris (in the flesh or in a photo) should be able to see the special quality that the city as a whole has. There are probably quite a few locations in Paris that might look alright with taller buildings, and of course it depends on the building they put up, but I would think most of the city looks great because of the height restrictions there. Just my opinion.

Please build any tall buildings to obscure the hideous Westpac. It's like the awful reminder of how Adelaide got stuck in the 80's, and unfortunately we can't throw it in the tip like many people have thrown away all that horrible brown 80's Tupperware.

Rob5089 wrote:Please build any tall buildings to obscure the hideous Westpac. It's like the awful reminder of how Adelaide got stuck in the 80's, and unfortunately we can't throw it in the tip like many people have thrown away all that horrible brown 80's Tupperware.

The Westpac tower is actually very nice inside, the lobby is amazing, and the elevators have like little tv screens in them, and its probably got the best view of the city, being the tallest. also just because something is from the 1980's (late 80's, completed in 1988, i think ) doesn't make it hideous, it still looks fairly good but, it won't ever be the same once 20-22 Currie St is built which will completely block out any view of the Westpac tower from the North Adelaide.

But we're stuck with the westpac till round 2010-2015 until something taller can be designed, proposed, approved, built and finally finished.

Walking along Grenfell, Pirie and Currie Streets and their surrounding thoroughfares today highlighted the nonsensically-limited area of our most-generous height limit. That Telstra House can rise 104 metres above Pirie St. yet literally fifteen seconds' walk eastwards towards the Planet site immediately hacks 30m off the allowable height is amusingly pointless, especially when buildings progressively east of KWS are further away from any normal Adelaide Airport runway approach or 'Whoops, Convenient Total Engine Failure Directly Above The CBD, I'll Just Aim Right At All The Buildings' route.

I would imagine it to be more difficult for a developer to afford higher-quality design, fixtures, fittings and materials (read: more expensive) when limited to a building of a relatively small size; unable to spread the cost of a more-impressive lobby, higher-quality external cladding and glass, or more intricate facades across a greater leaseable area (or saleable, in the case of apartment buildings) achieveable through greater height. Speculation on my part, of course, but there might be some logic in there.

Lifting height restriction is one thing, putting restriction on building design must be highly taken into consideration as well. At this stage of development in Adelaide with Urban Construct infested design, I am not into lifting the height restriction any further. If they are going to build these ugly buildings all along, I would love to have a 50M limit imposed for each of the them.

Until someone can produce architectural designs that can match the 20-22 Currie St, or even better, then we can talk about lifting height restriction.

Edgar wrote:Lifting height restriction is one thing, putting restriction on building design must be highly taken into consideration as well. At this stage of development in Adelaide with Urban Construct infested design, I am not into lifting the height restriction any further. If they are going to build these ugly buildings all along, I would love to have a 50M limit imposed for each of the them.

Until someone can produce architectural designs that can match the 20-22 Currie St, or even better, then we can talk about lifting height restriction.

I am under the impression that if you increase height limits you also increase the value of the land, as it can potentially deliver you more profits. As such, the reason why so mnay of our new buildings are boxy and bland may indeed be due to the severe height limitations imposed, which limits the profits that a developer can make. As such in order to make a decent return, the develoeprs have to sacrifice architectural interest.

Düsseldorfer wrote: The Westpac tower is actually very nice inside, the lobby is amazing, and the elevators have like little tv screens in them, and its probably got the best view of the city, being the tallest. also just because something is from the 1980's (late 80's, completed in 1988, i think ) doesn't make it hideous, it still looks fairly good but, it won't ever be the same once 20-22 Currie St is built which will completely block out any view of the Westpac tower from the North Adelaide.

But we're stuck with the westpac till round 2010-2015 until something taller can be designed, proposed, approved, built and finally finished.

I can't talk about the inside of Westpac as I've never been in. The outside is nothing spectacular. Considering something like Rialto Towers in Melbourne is 2 years older and still is fabulous to look at. I also have the pleasure of working in there and its lobby is pretty nice and has lifts with LCD screens in them. This is a subjective argument, to each their own. I just feel that Adelaide needs something new in the skyline that is a symbol of moving on. Hell it doesn't have to be an office building it can be any tall modern structure that people will come and visit and see as a symbol of the people. ie, redo Victoria Square!

Don't get me wrong I'm an Adelaide boy and not one of those Melbourne is better people. I rather Adelaide look nothing like Melbourne, and I'm a passionate about getting old misconceptions about Adelaide out of peoples minds... it's hard work over here.

And here - though things are slowly changing.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

Will wrote:

Edgar wrote:Lifting height restriction is one thing, putting restriction on building design must be highly taken into consideration as well. At this stage of development in Adelaide with Urban Construct infested design, I am not into lifting the height restriction any further. If they are going to build these ugly buildings all along, I would love to have a 50M limit imposed for each of the them.

Until someone can produce architectural designs that can match the 20-22 Currie St, or even better, then we can talk about lifting height restriction.

I am under the impression that if you increase height limits you also increase the value of the land, as it can potentially deliver you more profits. As such, the reason why so mnay of our new buildings are boxy and bland may indeed be due to the severe height limitations imposed, which limits the profits that a developer can make. As such in order to make a decent return, the develoeprs have to sacrifice architectural interest.

Architectural design of a building can return a high demand in interest, which is also, another way to increase the value. My sister is a well known architect currently working in UAE, although there are no height restriction being applied in those emirates, there are however importance being placed on its mid-rise buildings as they need to look good too.

A simple angle adjustment of a building can make a lot of difference, every new buildings build currently do not have to have its angle corner matching the angle corner of the street. The reason why many people still likes the Westpac building despite its age is because it wasn't build with a square design, it hasn't got a flat north-facing facade, nor is south facade, they are all angled slightly to the east.

As plain and flat the Wespac building is, with its slight angle facades actually makes it stand out more, it gives the skyline a slightly different looks to it. Not every building in Adelaide should have each of its corner facing only North-South-East-West, and is a trend I am seeing right now.

skyliner wrote: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.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

A bit of late-night searching has uncovered a possible answer. The 2003 Brisbane Airport Master Plan (pages 232 and 233) reveals that the airport is surrounded by a circular OLS of approximately 30km in diameter, which encompasses all of the CBD and allows for 152.5m AHD. The most interesting part of all, however, is that the PANS-OPS diagram (that has been modified to include the proposed second east/west runway parallel to the existing one) does not appear to impose any height restrictions at all upon the Brisbane CBD. That would explain why CASA and the BAC could only recommend courses of action for Vision's developers (such as adding lights to the highest part of the structure) and to the relevant development assessment body, as breaches of OLS allows, rather than use a breach of PANS-OPS to forcibly limit the height.

Those who saw the hastily-scribbled Adelaide Airport PANS-OPS diagram (pages 21 and 22) would do well to compare it to the Brisbane Airport equivalent, to see just how unclear our restrictions really are. Even allowing for the hasty scribble, of course, comparing the two shows how our CBD is very much at the mercy of airspace restrictions, whereas Brisbane's is remarkably clear.

Omicron wrote:A bit of late-night searching has uncovered a possible answer. The 2003 Brisbane Airport Master Plan (pages 232 and 233) reveals that the airport is surrounded by a circular OLS of approximately 30km in diameter, which encompasses all of the CBD and allows for 152.5m AHD. The most interesting part of all, however, is that the PANS-OPS diagram (that has been modified to include the proposed second east/west runway parallel to the existing one) does not appear to impose any height restrictions at all upon the Brisbane CBD. That would explain why CASA and the BAC could only recommend courses of action for Vision's developers (such as adding lights to the highest part of the structure) and to the relevant development assessment body, as breaches of OLS allows, rather than use a breach of PANS-OPS to forcibly limit the height.

Those who saw the hastily-scribbled Adelaide Airport PANS-OPS diagram (pages 21 and 22) would do well to compare it to the Brisbane Airport equivalent, to see just how unclear our restrictions really are. Even allowing for the hasty scribble, of course, comparing the two shows how our CBD is very much at the mercy of airspace restrictions, whereas Brisbane's is remarkably clear.

I think the main issue with comparing Brisbane & Adelaide is the airport distance from the CBD (Brisbane 10km, Adelaide 4.4km). Regulations become more relaxed with every extra km.

Interestingly Adelaide's PANS-OPS limitation appears to be more relaxed than Brisbane's at ~5km (Adelaide = 159.7AHD, Brisbane = 98.75AHD). Of course I must tilt my head, close my left eye, and squint with the other to try and interpret the images. We must also remember that AHD is measured from sea level.

Question: how does Brisbane CBD's height above sea level compare to the Adelaide CBD?

Edgar wrote:As plain and flat the Wespac building is, with its slight angle facades actually makes it stand out more, it gives the skyline a slightly different looks to it. Not every building in Adelaide should have each of its corner facing only North-South-East-West, and is a trend I am seeing right now.

Good observation Edgar. Agreed! With everything all facing the same way it just looks like a bunch of square lego blocks from above and nothing really stands out. Just a slight angle really does make things stand out.