News & Discussion: Height Limits

[shuza]

I liked the original masterplan concept that was in place for Adelaide Airport, where the addition of a 3rd runway in future was proposed, and the extension of the NW-SE runway.

[Tom]

Well let us all be happy the Government of the day didnt go with the Victoria Park Airport Idea.....my god....that would of been bad

[crawf]

Lol Victoria Park. The current airport is as large as the CBD.

[bm7500]

I'm sorry, I just have to go back and qualify something here. I actually agree with the idea that we should leave the airport alone until we have some serious high rise activity in the cbd. But:

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.

So your saying we can only have tall building if the airport is close to the cbd? I'll let that speak for itself. And why is the airport's position so perfect for the long narrow nature of our city's geography? You say we'd get laughed at if we moved the airport out north and didn't have a freeway to get people into town. We'll I don't know if you've flown jetstar to melbourne lately.. but they have a freeway from Avalon to Melbourne and I still laughed pretty hard when I saw the tin shed they call a terminal @ Avalon.

I don't think rhino was saying that at all. His point was; why would you go to all the trouble / expense of relocating the airport just so that you could have a few taller buildings in the CBD. Who would pay for it??

Even if ADL was closed and operations were relocated to an existing field, say Edinburgh or Parafield, the cost of the infrastructure required before even the first passenger service operated would be enormus! Not to mention the 270 + millions dollars worth of infrastructure that would in the most part be made redundant.

[Bulldozer]

Which is why the new terminal shouldn't have been built there. Instead, they should have started constructing a new airport out at Monarto. There's already a freeway and railway out there and there's nobody around - no more curfew!

[bm7500]

Which is why the new terminal shouldn't have been built there. Instead, they should have started constructing a new airport out at Monarto. There's already a freeway and railway out there and there's nobody around - no more curfew!

Once again, why would you move the airport 70kms from the city just so you can have some tall buildings????

[crawf]

Which is why the new terminal shouldn't have been built there. Instead, they should have started constructing a new airport out at Monarto. There's already a freeway and railway out there and there's nobody around - no more curfew!

Thats just ridiculous, if that happened SA wouldn't be enjoying the current influx of domestic and international visitors as it would be way to far from the CBD and the rest of Adelaide, which would be hell expensive for people using taxi's.

You know if the state government really wanted to allow taller buildings, they could just build a SW runway or extend the NW runway and close of the current main runway - but it will be pretty pointless to do all that, just for a few taller buildings.

Though because of the shortsighted decision to sell of the land for Harbourtown, Business Park etc..., it will be just a dream. Then again if it wasn't for the sale of the airport land, we probably wouldn't have a world class state of the art airport terminal.

[shuza]

Well, don't know if anyone remembers from my idiotic days - but another alternative plan would be for AAL to buy off the land of the Kooyonga and Glenelg Golf Courses to construct a N/S runway. I think someone at the time mentioned something about wind patterns affecting such.

[Pikey]

The argument is pointless, There won't be a change in flight paths, directions of runways etc purely for the reason of creating taller buildings. It just won't happen. The sooner some people on here realise this the better.

[Mants]

is there even the demand for 200m+ buildings in Adelaide??

no

[Bulldozer]

Thats just ridiculous, if that happened SA wouldn't be enjoying the current influx of domestic and international visitors as it would be way to far from the CBD and the rest of Adelaide, which would be hell expensive for people using taxi's.

That's a load of horseshit. A taxi from Brisbane Airport to the city costs about $40, or you can hop on the Airtrain and $12 and 20 minutes later you're getting off the train in Central. In Melbourne it's like $50 to get a taxi to the airport or you can catch a shuttle bus for $15. I can't speak for Sydney, but I bet it'd be more expensive than Melbourne.

A fast train service to Adelaide would be ideal. It could run express or stop at Mt Barker on the way too. Catch a taxi from central to wherever else you're going. Imagine paying $10 or $15 for a ticket then hooting along at 150km/h and viewing the city as you descend the hills.

The freeway, rail link and lack of curfew would also be an advantage for freight - especially for exporting fresh and live produce. That's not to mention all the happy people who don't have to listen to jets, freeing up of a huge amount of valuable inner-metropolitan land and shifting of pollution away from the city.

Think big people!

[crawf]

That's a load of horseshit. A taxi from Brisbane Airport to the city costs about $40, or you can hop on the Airtrain and $12 and 20 minutes later you're getting off the train in Central. In Melbourne it's like $50 to get a taxi to the airport or you can catch a shuttle bus for $15. I can't speak for Sydney, but I bet it'd be more expensive than Melbourne.

A fast train service to Adelaide would be ideal. It could run express or stop at Mt Barker on the way too. Catch a taxi from central to wherever else you're going. Imagine paying $10 or $15 for a ticket then hooting along at 150km/h and viewing the city as you descend the hills.

The freeway, rail link and lack of curfew would also be an advantage for freight - especially for exporting fresh and live produce. That's not to mention all the happy people who don't have to listen to jets, freeing up of a huge amount of valuable inner-metropolitan land and shifting of pollution away from the city.

Think big people!

Those cities are allot closer to a major airport. If a Airport was built at Monarto it will be at least be 60km from the CBD.

I think you need to get out of the clouds and be realistic. The airport is in a very central location for all Adelaidians.

[urban]

Not if you live in the southern or northern most suburbs!

I challenge anyone to come up with a location that better suits both these areas than the current airport.

Parafield would be a nightmare for Southern residents.

Monarto would be a nightmare for both.

The current location's only drawback is the curfew. (I say to local residents buyer beware. If you don't like the sound of planes don't buy a house near an airport.)

ps Bulldozer, from memory Sydney's airport is very handy to the CBD which is why they had to pay for acoustic insulation to a lot of houses.

[shuza]

Well all things considered - If you were in charge, what would your height limit be?

Due to airspace limitations and the 'european look' of Adelaide, I would still probably keep it pretty reasonable. I think 213.5m (700ft) is a good benchmark to suit Adelaide, as it gives possibility of a 'tall' building for its own standards. Not too big, nor too small.

The Currie Street proposal is 123m or 400ft to put into perspective. Anyone agree or has other preferences?

[Ho Really]

You'll never know, maybe one day planes will take off vertically and the current flight paths made redundant. Until then though, I think we should focus on the quality and looks of our new buildings instead of a hypothetical height-limit around the 200-odd metre mark.

******

Cheers