Vision: Light Square Tower - 100f / 500m

[Tyler_Durden]

Tyler_Durdin, havent you just contradicted your argument. This kind of development would be an iconic symbol if the design and placement was right. If you showed any people the skyline of Dubai, yes most people would not know where it was but show them the Burg-Al-Arab and I bet that they would know exactly where you are talking about. Its not about having a lot of tall towers but iconic towers. And yes a tower this size would be iconic.

I joined this discussion when someone wrote that we could have or perhaps should have a skyline like Perth or Brisbane which to me are far from iconic and not something we should be looking to recreate for the sake of it. Although, if we need to build bigger to fit everything then I have no problem with it, but I don't see it as essential. I'd like to see us build things a bit more interesting.

I wasn't talking about this particular proposal which isn't going to happen so I don't really care about it. I am more interested in realistic possibilities for our city.

[Hippodamus]

now now people, let us not all get carried away here...

to put it simply, there are some people who would love to see skyscrapers one day soon, punctuate our simple yet improving skyline. others, still don't warm to the idea, or don't think we are ready for this next step. to those people, time i say that just suck it up, and stop being that annoying whimper you hear constantly in the background when a proposal or vision is released.

a proposal like this, if it ever did come to fruition, would definitely transform Adelaide, placing possibly the most iconic structure in the city, due to it's sheer size and dominance over the skyline. but not only physically, but mentally. people forget that skyscrapers in smaller cities mean much more to its 'encouraging' citizens and overal population, because they build confidence and self esteem in the economy, making them feel more proud of their city and having something more to connect Adelaide to rather than just pie-floaters, frog cakes and the malls balls (love all of those, but come on guys, they are not international icons that people really care and travel to Adelaide to see...)

plus, in true Adelaide fashion, it would be great having a 100-storey building to shove it up to those Victorians...LOL

[thechap]

plus, in true Adelaide fashion, it would be great having a 100-storey building to shove it up to those Victorians...LOL

Now that part I will charge a glass of coopers pale to!

[Shuz]

Those Victorians would get the double whammy, seeing as we'd get our Grollo and they didn't.

[frank1]

Actually, i don't think the Vics would really care as they have many nationally recognized tall buildings. they would probably just think we blew all the states money on it trying to show them up. Adelaide doesn't exactly scare Melbourne, as Melbourne always compare to big fish like Sydney not small fish like Adelaide.

[rhino]

Actually, i don't think the Vics would really care as they have many nationally recognized tall buildings. they would probably just think we blew all the states money on it trying to show them up. Adelaide doesn't exactly scare Melbourne, as Melbourne always compare to big fish like Sydney not small fish like Adelaide.

Actually, I think they look both ways. You're right, Adelaide doesn't exactly scare Melbourne, but they tend to comfort themselves by looking at us, and when we get something they haven't got, they use their wealth to steal it from Adelaide, like a Grand Prix. Thankfully we South Aussies just shrug it off and go get something else, like an international cycle race that we can afford to run for a lot longer than they can afford to run the Grand Prix or a car race that puts Sanddown to shame.

[urban]

Hippodamus, I think you have missed the point of Tyler_Durden's posts.

If market forces dictate that we need a 500m tower that's great and it should be designed as an iconic tower.

HOWEVER we shouldn't be trying to build one just so that we can have an iconic tower. In the absence of the need for a 500m tower we should concentrate on making sure that our other buildings are brilliant. A building doesn't have to be tall to build confidence and self esteem in the economy.

The Guggenheim museum in Bilbao, Spain is only a couple of storeys high but it has turned an industrial wasteland of a town into a tourism hot spot.

[Hippodamus]

hey guys

firstly, there is not denying that melbourne does get intimidated by Adelaide. they are intimidated by our passion, which many South Aussies have about their state and in particular Adelaide. my friend from Victoria was shocked to see that I had the south aussie flag hanging up my window which fronts the street, and that my dad had for seven years or something, a "Sensational Adelaide" banner on our back shed, one that he ripped off from a light at a street party in Adelaide back in 1995... people used to always comment about it at bbq's...

and from another perspective, of course melbourne is intimidated by us with developments and major events, not to mention even culture!! a city which is four times smaller, having a more successful sports car event (Clipsal 500's), not to mention that renowned formula one drivers from around the world still talk about the track in Adelaide being one of the finest street circuits in the world... hello!! they always try to disguise it though, and play that whole big city attitude which i am quick to chop down on anyone who tries it on me. with the formula one in adelaide, the whole city stopped to celebrate. in melb, they would be lucky if people on the other block knew what was going on..

anyway, back to the other point that was made by urban in support of Tyler_Durden's posts. i totally agree with you. but of course there is a but. i will use two examples. firstly in Perth, they borrowed millions upon millions to build some of their tallest skyscrapers, it did cost tax payers in the end, but the end result is that the mining took off, perth was a well recongised and idylic city to attract and hold business in, and it reaped the rewards in the end. furthermore, Paris, when they built the Eiffel Tower back in the day, the Parisians hated it!! there actually was one point when they wanted to pull it down because they thought it was soooo ugly and that it didn't fit into the overall urban fabric of the city... weren't they wrong, and thankfully those d!@# heads were quickly dismissed and they kept what would be one of the world's most recongisable structures.

the point i'm trying to make is that we should take more risks. can you imagine the prime minister that pushed something like that through... he would either be crucified or celebrated as one of the most prominent and influential south australians in history. this is what we are lacking people, not neccessarily the tall buildings, but that bloody will, drive, passion and above all THE DECISEVNESS TO MAKE A BLOODY DECISION in south australia.

THE SKY IS THE LIMIT.

[paul]

Hi All

Firstly, just want to say want to say how much I enjoy reading this forum - as a south aussie currently based overseas I love to keep up to date with what's going on back home. There's been a lot of good news lately but it seems the same old barriers to change are firmly in place - namely an unrepresentative city council and an indecisive state government (don't get me started on Jane Lomax-Smith or Anne Moran).
I'm very much in favour of raising the height limits in the city as Adelaide's rather tame skyline seems to reinforce the view of Adelaide been more of a regional centre as opposed to a major commercial centre that competes with the other capitals (Adelaide is by no means small with a population of 1.1m).
Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere in the forum, but can someone tell me for certain whether the height restrictions are non negotiable (I understand it's only a problem for aircraft departing over the city)?? I believe there was a proposal a few years back for a tower development on the John Martin's site which would have resulted in a change to the flight path? Surely if there is scope to at least review altering the flight path, then the onus is on the government and the city council to explain why they are holding back growth of the city's skyline......

A couple of 50 storey towers would do wonders for the skyline and make a powerful statement with respect to the state's future prosperity..

Cheers

[Shuz]

Well heres the AAL height limits map. Now, the trajectory of all flight paths is directly over North Adelaide (the big band with the 120/130/140 markings) on it. What I don't understand is why a deviation has been allowed for the southern side (closer to the CBD) with the 140/153.5 markings and none for the northern approach?

Having experienced landing from the airports NE-SW runway alignment, approach over the city, planes usually finishes deviating the hills (from Melbourne or Sydney) and begins aligning straight somewhere over Holden Hill, where it begins its descent to the runway. This could be the reason why the southern deviation has been set aside for late incoming planes who need further time to re-align into the runway path (as they are coming from the southern index).

IMO, regulations should be changed to declare the city a no-fly zone, and the southern deviant reversed to the north. Melbourne/Sydney inbound planes are able to land on the shorter runway from the SE/NW alignment. (But they can't take off on the same length). My proposal would be that all MEL/SYD flights taking off goes to the SW to circle the city from the south, and land from the SE or SW. Brisbane/Darwin/International flights should be able to take off to the NE, however, since they fly north, their approach and take-off would come in from a more northerly direction (hence why I propose reversing the deviations) so they align away and into the current runway alignment. Perth flights would be unaffected as they can land from the NW on the shorter alignment or, takeoff/land from the SW alignment. Other international flights to the west can just takeoff as per usual to the SW.

As for SYD/MEL flights, it could help if they extend the SE/NW runway to the vacant land across Tapleys Hill Road so takeoffs are possible using that alignment to the SE. However, I think this could be possibly hindered by the Burbridge Industrial Park development? Digging to the past, It could really have helped us now if they built the parallel runway on the SW/NE axis whilst they had the land to do so, same applies for the SE/NW runway extension (you can see the land reserved for that in your street directories)

Amongst all of this, It could help in some way or another to relax the height limits in the CBD.
There's bound to be a flaw, or several - so feel free to justify any mistakes.

[Hippodamus]

hi paul, i just want to say that i totally agree with you. being a south aussie living overseas, this is the window into what is going on at home.

i'm also surprised that there are so many passionate people out there, who are proud of their city and share their thoughts and opinions with others with the same passion.

Go South Australia!!

[paul]

Cheers momentkiller - that's pretty much how I understand it too. Seems to me that flying over the city is basically a short cut for departing aircraft instead of continuing on the same heading which would take you over Holden Hill?? If that's the case then I can see no reason why the government couldn't request that the city be declared a no fly zone. Surely the only impact is that it may add a few minutes to certain flights heading to the east coast?
I'm very curious to know what the 'official line' is on height limits - I suspect there simply isn't the will on behalf of the council/state government to have them changed. Hmmmn, maybe it's time for an email to the Premier's office!!

[Cruise]

I dont think it is much of "short cut" but moreso for an emergency reason

[paul]

A short cut in a sense that it's only actively used as a flight path in that regard, but yes I accept that the limit is in place as an emergency route. Surely though other airports have managed with no fly zones? Does anyone rember that proposal for a hotel and observation tower development on the old John Martin's site? I'm sure there were plans to realign the flight path......... I guess that's what leads me to believe that there is scope to amend the flight path and therefore allow taller buildings in the city. Maybe my memory's failing me.....