News & Discussion: Height Limits

Message

crawf · #31 Post by **crawf** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:10 pm

JAKJ wrote:
crawf wrote:A observation tower should be built on the Mount Lofty Summit.
There were plans, as well as a chair lift but all shot down... oh well...

Yeah I saw a article in the tiser about it 2 years ago, plus there was a hotel and the observation deck was close to the ground - god i wish they built that tower and chairlift.

The views would of been awesome, looking towards the Piccadilly Valley or all of the Adelaide Metropolitan and Yorke Peninsula.

Looked pretty impressive as well, dam those nimbys

shuza · #32 Post by **shuza** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:17 pm

Thanks for the AAL limits map.
Well, its reassuring to know that the limit over the CBD is 200m. This is a reasonable height limit that I can live with, and it doesnt make sense why the ACC cannot shift limits to the 200m AAL limit.

bm7500 · #33 Post by **bm7500** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:24 pm

shuza wrote:Thanks for the AAL limits map.
Well, its reassuring to know that the limit over the CBD is 200m. This is a reasonable height limit that I can live with, and it doesnt make sense why the ACC cannot shift limits to the 200m AAL limit.

I agree! I think an architectually pleasing & unique tower is just what Adelaide needs... and 200m should do it nicely!

littledyl16 · #34 Post by **littledyl16** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:21 pm

God, these restrictions are ridiculous, i suppose thats the consequence of having an international airport so close to the CBD, while other cities like Melbourne have their main aiport on the outskirts of the city.

rhino · #35 Post by **rhino** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:31 pm

You win on the roundabout, you lose on the swing.

If we got a new airport way out near the Gawler River, we would need a freeway to get there. Money earned by selling off the prime residential land where the airport now sits would be spent buying cheaper land for the new airport, and also buying land for said freeway (and for flood-proofing the new airport). And for what benefit? Taller buildings in the CBD?

crawf · #36 Post by **crawf** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:50 pm

I can see the Airport moving out of the city in the future.

rhino · #37 Post by **rhino** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:05 pm

Yes, but how far into the future? I think it will move when the available space is too small to take the large aircraft of the day, or when air traffic flows mean we need more runways. I can't see either of these scenarios playing out in the near future. This new terminal we've got will be in use for the next 20 years at least.

rhino · #38 Post by **rhino** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:33 pm

The Northern Expressway is being built primarily to get heavy transport coming from the north (Broken Hill way) and northeast (Riverland/Sydney) to Port Adelaide and the LeFevre Peninsula without impacting on the Main North Road traffic through Elizabeth and Salisbury. It won't go anywhere near the City Centre, in fact it will finish where Taylor Road meets the Port Wakefield Road out in the Boonies.

While you may not find the Main North Road hard to navigate, the Gawler River District (and I can't see it being any closer than that) is way out at one extremity of the metro area, approx 80km from the other extremity and 40km from the centre. It will need a freeway or we (Adelaide) will be laughed at. What other Aussie city has an airport so far out and only clogged up arterial roads for access?

Where did I say that we want taller buildings in the city just for aesthetic value? What I am saying is that if, to get taller buildings, we have to move Adelaide Airport, then the tall buildings are not justified. Horses for courses. Adelaide sits on a long, narrow coastal plain and our airport is in a place that suits the long, narrow nature of the metro area.

littledyl16 · #39 Post by **littledyl16** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:38 pm

it would be great if parafield airport could handle domestic and some international flights, its further from the cbd, but it would also mean even worse traffic problems along main north rd.

shuza · #40 Post by **shuza** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:53 pm

Parafield only has room for one international-length runway along its current alignments. Even that flight path is closer to the CBD. Talk about bad planning for one airport - take two for Adelaide.

littledyl16 · #41 Post by **littledyl16** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:00 pm

Geez, Adel Airport is too close to the CBD, Parafield is not large enough, WOW, they certainly planned for the future (not!). I have to agree and say the best location definetely would have been Adelaide Plains, for an airport, plenty of open space. But its just one blow after another for adelaide, and the 2050 plan says they want a population of 1.5 mil for Adelaide in 40 years time, we've got alot of changing to be done to the city.

#42 Post by **Pikey** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:01 pm

Guys, the debate surrounding moving the airport is pointless. It isn't going to happen, they've just spent $260m on the new airport, and if the only reason to move it is to increase height limits, it just won't happen. Have a look at what percentage of the City mile is covered in highrise. Once the city is totally full of 119-200m towers, and there is no room to go but up, maybe then. But I don't think that will happen in any time soon, dont you??

shuza · #43 Post by **shuza** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:09 pm

I think the argument lies within the way the limits are enforced, not by the actual limits in place. Many would have noticed the structure of the height limits is pyramidical. Spinal structure (down KWS) or city-wide standard height limits should be enforced as a better means of relaxing the constraints, whilst complying with the boundaries affecting so.

Pistol · #44 Post by **Pistol** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:48 pm

I think that you can see from this image that probably back when the airport was built, there was no understanding that tall buildings would impede the free flow of air traffic into and out of the airport. I think that we are lucky to have an airport that is so close and should not worry about the height restrictions until the city square is filled out like Pikey said.

crawf · #45 Post by **crawf** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:48 pm

rhino wrote:Yes, but how far into the future? I think it will move when the available space is too small to take the large aircraft of the day, or when air traffic flows mean we need more runways. I can't see either of these scenarios playing out in the near future. This new terminal we've got will be in use for the next 20 years at least.

I would say after 20 years. The airport is eventually going to run out of room, especially now with land sold of for Harbourtown, Business Park etc... (short-sighted decision IMHO)

News & Discussion: Height Limits

Who is online