Moving the airport to a less populated area

[brizzlar]

it is literally the reason why the city centre is finding it so hard to go more vertical.

It may be contributory, but it is not the reason.

Any thoughts on what is the reason Nathan?

From all the reading and questioning of various authorities, it seems that CASA has been responsible for restricting towers beyond 134m. Apparently the Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Aircraft Operations is the specific cause.

[SBD]

it is literally the reason why the city centre is finding it so hard to go more vertical.

It may be contributory, but it is not the reason.

Any thoughts on what is the reason Nathan?

From all the reading and questioning of various authorities, it seems that CASA has been responsible for restricting towers beyond 134m. Apparently the Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Aircraft Operations is the specific cause.

We have a nice central airport. Perhaps instead of concentrating more activity in the Adelaide CBD and moving the airport past the outer suburbs, we should look the other way round. How many cities the size of Adelaide have only one "downtown" area? Maybe we should encourage more development at Elizabeth and Tonsley or O'Halloran Hill. Having more people able to live and work closer to each other would reduce the load on the key arterial routes, and increase the desirability of more cross-suburban routes.

[brizzlar]

Not a fan of multiple CBD's to be honest - I remember landing in Toronto airport and seeing random towers all over the metro area - it looked terrible. Ascetics aside, I don't think suburban areas are designed to handle the kind of traffic/instrastructure demands that are required for CBD's to exist either. From a cultural point of view, I think the great benefit of a single CBD is that it provides a city with a heart/soul. The thing that I think Canberra lacks is just that - and I put it down to the authorities spreading out all the offices throughout the metro area. 'Civic' never really stood a chance to give the city what Adelaide/Perth/Brisbane/Melbourne/Sydney CBDS give to their respective metro areas.

How many cities the size of Adelaide have multiple CBD's? Not that many as far as I know. Consider much bigger cities like Perth and Brisbane in Aus... or Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston in the US... to the best of my knowledge, non of them have developed alternative CBD's. Given that Adelaide is far smaller than all of those, I can't see the need for a second CBD in Adelaide. What most cities are considering/doing is building smaller nodes with multistory development in key suburbs. This I do support, provided high rise towers aren't built. All that's needed is 5-7 story buildings in key suburbs to encourage work/rest/play centers. What do you think?

[SBD]

Not a fan of multiple CBD's to be honest - I remember landing in Toronto airport and seeing random towers all over the metro area - it looked terrible. Ascetics aside, I don't think suburban areas are designed to handle the kind of traffic/instrastructure demands that are required for CBD's to exist either. From a cultural point of view, I think the great benefit of a single CBD is that it provides a city with a heart/soul. The thing that I think Canberra lacks is just that - and I put it down to the authorities spreading out all the offices throughout the metro area. 'Civic' never really stood a chance to give the city what Adelaide/Perth/Brisbane/Melbourne/Sydney CBDS give to their respective metro areas.

How many cities the size of Adelaide have multiple CBD's? Not that many as far as I know. Consider much bigger cities like Perth and Brisbane in Aus... or Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston in the US... to the best of my knowledge, non of them have developed alternative CBD's. Given that Adelaide is far smaller than all of those, I can't see the need for a second CBD in Adelaide. What most cities are considering/doing is building smaller nodes with multistory development in key suburbs. This I do support, provided high rise towers aren't built. All that's needed is 5-7 story buildings in key suburbs to encourage work/rest/play centers. What do you think?

I'm not sure how much larger the area of metro Sydney is than Metro Adelaide. Sydney east-west looks similar to Adelaide north-south, but a bit thicker in the other dimension. Parramatta has 8 buildings over 100m tall, if that's a measure of business activity. Chatswood has another 7.

Melbourne has Dandenong, but then Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo are separate cities not too far away.

[brizzlar]

"I'm not sure how much larger the area of metro Sydney is than Metro Adelaide. Sydney east-west looks similar to Adelaide north-south, but a bit thicker in the other dimension. Parramatta has 8 buildings over 100m tall, if that's a measure of business activity. Chatswood has another 7.

Melbourne has Dandenong, but then Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo are separate cities not too far away.
[/quote]

I should clarify what I was trying to say.

At no point was I referring to the geographical size of Adelaide or other cities. I was referring to their respective populations.

Adelaide sits at about 1.35 million.

Cities with significantly more people (eg Chicago at nearly 10 million and Philly at 7million) haven't gone down the path of Sydney or Toronto.

Therefore, why does Adelaide need to?

And even if the above cities were to, perhaps it could partially be justified due to their enormous populations.

But Adelaide is far from being the same league as large global cities.

As you know, it's a small global city and therefore in my view doesn't require the same infrastructure/urban layout as Melbourne, Sydney, or Toronto.

As for Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo - they are far from being other CBDs within Melbourne.

Geelong CBD is 78kms from Melbourne. Ballarat CBD is about 90kms from Melbourne. Bendigo CBD is about 150km from Melbourne.

None of them are in a conurbation with Melbourne and therefore aren't of relevance to the discussion.

You're right in saying that Dandenong is a satellite CBD within Melbourne. Box Hill has recently surpassed it in height (125m towers) - something I find unnecessary and disappointing.

I don't mean to shut down your argument, just pointing the facts as I see them.

[AndyWelsh]

Not a fan of multiple CBD's to be honest - I remember landing in Toronto airport and seeing random towers all over the metro area - it looked terrible. Ascetics aside, I don't think suburban areas are designed to handle the kind of traffic/instrastructure demands that are required for CBD's to exist either. From a cultural point of view, I think the great benefit of a single CBD is that it provides a city with a heart/soul. The thing that I think Canberra lacks is just that - and I put it down to the authorities spreading out all the offices throughout the metro area. 'Civic' never really stood a chance to give the city what Adelaide/Perth/Brisbane/Melbourne/Sydney CBDS give to their respective metro areas.

How many cities the size of Adelaide have multiple CBD's? Not that many as far as I know. Consider much bigger cities like Perth and Brisbane in Aus... or Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston in the US... to the best of my knowledge, non of them have developed alternative CBD's. Given that Adelaide is far smaller than all of those, I can't see the need for a second CBD in Adelaide. What most cities are considering/doing is building smaller nodes with multistory development in key suburbs. This I do support, provided high rise towers aren't built. All that's needed is 5-7 story buildings in key suburbs to encourage work/rest/play centers. What do you think?

Totally agree with your point about Canberra. As much as I loved living there, my next move was to Adelaide and it was so nice being back in a city where I could just walk between so many of the city attractions. Loved living in Melbourne for that same reason too, although obviously that’s on a larger scale. I’ve always been a big fan of this kind of density in one location if possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SBD]

I don't mean to shut down your argument, just pointing the facts as I see them.

I don't feel shut down. Thank you for your comments.

My underlying point is that we should not be trying to encourage people to want to commute 40km from outer suburbs to the CBD. People who live in the outer suburbs should be encouraged to also work in the outer suburbs and near country. I think the census data I looked at for Virginia showed that to be the case - a higher percentage walk to work than the metro average. A third of the people who live in Adelaide CBD walk to work, so somewhere in between, people don't walk.

Not many of Adelaide's industrial suburbs have much public transport. I don't know if there is a reason for that. People who work in those places and have to drive anyway should be encouraged to be the people who buy houses in the nearby suburbs.

[brizzlar]

I don't mean to shut down your argument, just pointing the facts as I see them.

I don't feel shut down. Thank you for your comments.

My underlying point is that we should not be trying to encourage people to want to commute 40km from outer suburbs to the CBD. People who live in the outer suburbs should be encouraged to also work in the outer suburbs and near country. I think the census data I looked at for Virginia showed that to be the case - a higher percentage walk to work than the metro average. A third of the people who live in Adelaide CBD walk to work, so somewhere in between, people don't walk.

Not many of Adelaide's industrial suburbs have much public transport. I don't know if there is a reason for that. People who work in those places and have to drive anyway should be encouraged to be the people who buy houses in the nearby suburbs.

Ah ok, I see your point there SBD. I also agree that it's not ideal for people 40km out of the city to have to commute in. So we're on the same page there. I'm also big on public transport and think our cities could do more in that space - if you're not already across it, check out the BRT concept (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit) - Brisbane is creating something like this as we speak.

I think you're goal can be achieved by making small hubs in places like Noarlunga, Elizabeth etc that have multi story buildings (eg 3-5 stories..) that serve to create places of high amenity - they can have a big high street or indoor/outdoor shopping centre where people can work, rest and play. We don't need high rises to in such centres and don't need to make them actual CBD's like that of Adelaide CBD.

A great example of this in Melbourne is a hub suburb called Ringwood. It's got a huge shopping centre called Eastland at it's core. Surrounding the shopping complex is a series of small offices and apartment buildings. This has provided people in the outer east with great amenity, without buildings that rise into the clouds.

[SBD]

I don't mean to shut down your argument, just pointing the facts as I see them.

I don't feel shut down. Thank you for your comments.

My underlying point is that we should not be trying to encourage people to want to commute 40km from outer suburbs to the CBD. People who live in the outer suburbs should be encouraged to also work in the outer suburbs and near country. I think the census data I looked at for Virginia showed that to be the case - a higher percentage walk to work than the metro average. A third of the people who live in Adelaide CBD walk to work, so somewhere in between, people don't walk.

Not many of Adelaide's industrial suburbs have much public transport. I don't know if there is a reason for that. People who work in those places and have to drive anyway should be encouraged to be the people who buy houses in the nearby suburbs.

Ah ok, I see your point there SBD. I also agree that it's not ideal for people 40km out of the city to have to commute in. So we're on the same page there. I'm also big on public transport and think our cities could do more in that space - if you're not already across it, check out the BRT concept (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit) - Brisbane is creating something like this as we speak.

I think you're goal can be achieved by making small hubs in places like Noarlunga, Elizabeth etc that have multi story buildings (eg 3-5 stories..) that serve to create places of high amenity - they can have a big high street or indoor/outdoor shopping centre where people can work, rest and play. We don't need high rises to in such centres and don't need to make them actual CBD's like that of Adelaide CBD.

A great example of this in Melbourne is a hub suburb called Ringwood. It's got a huge shopping centre called Eastland at it's core. Surrounding the shopping complex is a series of small offices and apartment buildings. This has provided people in the outer east with great amenity, without buildings that rise into the clouds.

How high is built depends on how many offices/residences/whatever someone has the interest in building on a block of land. At the moment, I think Mawson Lakes is taller than Salisbury or Elizabeth, not sure how tall the new hotel in Elizabeth will be. Even Lyell McEwin Hospital is only three or four storeys I think. There are a couple of aging apartment blocks that might be four or five storeys near the Elizabeth shopping centre. I don't know what leads to a desire to build taller instead of wider in the first place.

[brizzlar]

I don't feel shut down. Thank you for your comments.

My underlying point is that we should not be trying to encourage people to want to commute 40km from outer suburbs to the CBD. People who live in the outer suburbs should be encouraged to also work in the outer suburbs and near country. I think the census data I looked at for Virginia showed that to be the case - a higher percentage walk to work than the metro average. A third of the people who live in Adelaide CBD walk to work, so somewhere in between, people don't walk.

Not many of Adelaide's industrial suburbs have much public transport. I don't know if there is a reason for that. People who work in those places and have to drive anyway should be encouraged to be the people who buy houses in the nearby suburbs.

Ah ok, I see your point there SBD. I also agree that it's not ideal for people 40km out of the city to have to commute in. So we're on the same page there. I'm also big on public transport and think our cities could do more in that space - if you're not already across it, check out the BRT concept (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit) - Brisbane is creating something like this as we speak.

I think you're goal can be achieved by making small hubs in places like Noarlunga, Elizabeth etc that have multi story buildings (eg 3-5 stories..) that serve to create places of high amenity - they can have a big high street or indoor/outdoor shopping centre where people can work, rest and play. We don't need high rises to in such centres and don't need to make them actual CBD's like that of Adelaide CBD.

A great example of this in Melbourne is a hub suburb called Ringwood. It's got a huge shopping centre called Eastland at it's core. Surrounding the shopping complex is a series of small offices and apartment buildings. This has provided people in the outer east with great amenity, without buildings that rise into the clouds.

How high is built depends on how many offices/residences/whatever someone has the interest in building on a block of land. At the moment, I think Mawson Lakes is taller than Salisbury or Elizabeth, not sure how tall the new hotel in Elizabeth will be. Even Lyell McEwin Hospital is only three or four storeys I think. There are a couple of aging apartment blocks that might be four or five storeys near the Elizabeth shopping centre. I don't know what leads to a desire to build taller instead of wider in the first place.

Good point - I think Mawson Lakes has the tallest buildings outside of the CBD/Inner City suburbs. I think the logic is that if you go up, it will encourage a range of secondary businesses to want to set up shop and the flow-on effect is more people being willing to then move into neighboring apartments. But I think a false dichotomy has been created. Your point about wide buildings is a good one.

Really large wide buildings are now known as landscapers.

Buildings like the new Google HQ in London would be far more fitting for outer suburban areas in our Australian cities.

Check out the building here: archdaily.com/872689/google-unveils-images-of-its-new-big-and-heatherwick-designed-london-campus