[CAN] 207 Pulteney Street | 180m | 55 Levels | Mixed Use

[Patrick_27]

Thank God thats only a mock up image...

[rev]

Based on that article it looks like that journalist reads this forum!

Or, the journalist who wrote that article, is a poster on this forum..

[CDJ]

Almost everything in the article is wrong. The Advertiser clearly hasn't received their information from anyone involved in the project. That 'mock-up' image they've produced is comically bad - did they get the work experience kid to produce it using google?

[Mpol03]

Almost everything in the article is wrong. The Advertiser clearly hasn't received their information from anyone involved in the project. That 'mock-up' image they've produced is comically bad - did they get the work experience kid to produce it using google?

So the final design looks nada like this?
And thank you for confirming the stupidity behind the article.

[HiTouch]

Almost everything in the article is wrong. The Advertiser clearly hasn't received their information from anyone involved in the project. That 'mock-up' image they've produced is comically bad - did they get the work experience kid to produce it using google?

Another thing that doesn't make sense in that article is that they state the airport says that the 230m building was too tall and size needed to be reduced 35m but then later in the article, it states that the airport "doesn't necessarily care about size", it just needs approval from the relevant bodies.

Why state any height when nothing has been confirmed? Or has 1990crow *cough* excuse me *cough* I mean the journalist just looked at the title and assumed.

[Patrick_27]

Almost everything in the article is wrong. The Advertiser clearly hasn't received their information from anyone involved in the project. That 'mock-up' image they've produced is comically bad - did they get the work experience kid to produce it using google?

So the final design looks nada like this?
And thank you for confirming the stupidity behind the article.

C'mon CDJ, spill the beans.

[Algernon]

Almost everything in the article is wrong. The Advertiser clearly hasn't received their information from anyone involved in the project. That 'mock-up' image they've produced is comically bad - did they get the work experience kid to produce it using google?

Another thing that doesn't make sense in that article is that they state the airport says that the 230m building was too tall and size needed to be reduced 35m but then later in the article, it states that the airport "doesn't necessarily care about size", it just needs approval from the relevant bodies.

Why state any height when nothing has been confirmed? Or has 1990crow *cough* excuse me *cough* I mean the journalist just looked at the title and assumed.

The initial confusion was whether the purported heights were expressed as AHD or height above street. It's quite embarrassing to see how the Advertiser 'journalist' spins that into some apparent high level board discussion where the height of the building was 'reduced'.

[crawf]

What was the point of this article?

[ml69]

Why state any height when nothing has been confirmed? Or has 1990crow *cough* excuse me *cough* I mean the journalist just looked at the title and assumed.

Think you nailed it HiTouch : )

[1990crow]

Why state any height when nothing has been confirmed? Or has 1990crow *cough* excuse me *cough* I mean the journalist just looked at the title and assumed.

Think you nailed it HiTouch : )

Engineer in Ballina, NSW but close!

[citywatcher]

I think personally it's in the wrong place

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

[CDJ]

I personally think it's in exactly the right place. Furthest distance from the airport while remaining within the Capital City Zone for planning and being at the corner of two main thoroughfares. The centre of the skyline will have to start moving east now that height is being constrained by airspace.

[HiTouch]

I personally think it's in exactly the right place. Furthest distance from the airport while remaining within the Capital City Zone for planning and being at the corner of two main thoroughfares. The centre of the skyline will have to start moving east now that height is being constrained by airspace.

I agree. As long as it's in the square mile, it's in a good spot. This spot won't make the skyline look awkward anyway.
From all viewpoints, it will look like it's in between Kodo and Adelaidean/Realm and that's not a bad thing.

[Mpol03]

I personally think it's in exactly the right place. Furthest distance from the airport while remaining within the Capital City Zone for planning and being at the corner of two main thoroughfares. The centre of the skyline will have to start moving east now that height is being constrained by airspace.

Yes I agree. And from street level it will make a wonderful impact to the area.
Any confirmation of the model used in the article is the design being put forward?

[Goodsy]

It doesn't look too bad when the perspective is fixed