News & Discussion: Height Limits

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Message
Author
User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#196 Post by AtD » Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:03 pm

You're looking at the ACC's limits, ie, urban planning based. The Airport limits have been posted around the place a few times, and as you said, get higher in the east.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#197 Post by monotonehell » Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:28 pm

Plasmatron wrote:How about having them for tall buildings' sake and all the other stuff you said? :wink:
I know you're just joking.But tall for tall's sake ends up a pissing competition that no one wins. Every metre needs to be justified by all the measures I listed above and more. It's interesting how a lot of the truly phallic buildings around the World often have large unoccupied spaces. Westpac House currently is between 20% and 30% empty, depending on who you believe.

I like tall buildings, I saw the Twin Towers in NYC before 2001, truly impressive (I didn't like the aesthetics though - I'm more of a Mies van der Rohe / Bauhaus kinda guy :) ) but the race for height is a very 20th cent ideal. We should be thinking more along the lines of sustainability, and if height factors into that they YAY! \O/
Plasmatron wrote:One thing I don't understand about the height limit map is the bigger height in the middle and lesser height around the CBD edges. If it's mainly due to airport proximity, shouldn't it get even higher going East? Like, popping a couple of 100m+ towers on Hutt Street? If anyone mentions anything about trying to maintain a pyramid-shaped skyline, I think my head might explode.
I think you'll find that the East is generally zoned residential and under the current paradigm that means medium rise to flat buildings.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
Omicron
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 pm

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#198 Post by Omicron » Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:18 am

monotonehell wrote:
Plasmatron wrote:How about having them for tall buildings' sake and all the other stuff you said? :wink:
I know you're just joking.But tall for tall's sake ends up a pissing competition that no one wins. Every metre needs to be justified by all the measures I listed above and more. It's interesting how a lot of the truly phallic buildings around the World often have large unoccupied spaces. Westpac House currently is between 20% and 30% empty, depending on who you believe.

I like tall buildings, I saw the Twin Towers in NYC before 2001, truly impressive (I didn't like the aesthetics though - I'm more of a Mies van der Rohe / Bauhaus kinda guy :) ) but the race for height is a very 20th cent ideal. We should be thinking more along the lines of sustainability, and if height factors into that they YAY! \O/
Seagram Building! His Barcelona Pavilion is just exquisite, too.

ozisnowman
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:34 pm

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#199 Post by ozisnowman » Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:26 am

Has anyone seen the plan for the vision building in brisbane
it is supposed to have 20 odd floors of hotel followed by
20 odd floors of offices followed by 20 odd floors of appartments

Now why cant we have a similar design philosophy to allow
a new CBD icon tower to be built....

urban
Legendary Member!
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:59 am
Location: City of Unley

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#200 Post by urban » Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:39 am

ozisnowman wrote:Has anyone seen the plan for the vision building in brisbane
it is supposed to have 20 odd floors of hotel followed by
20 odd floors of offices followed by 20 odd floors of appartments

Now why cant we have a similar design philosophy to allow
a new CBD icon tower to be built....
What would have a more beneficial impact on Hindmarsh Sq, the 3 projects currently underway or those 3 rolled into one big building on one of those sites?

I think 3 buildings would do more to improve the Square than 1.

User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2715
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#201 Post by Ho Really » Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:24 pm

urban wrote:What would have a more beneficial impact on Hindmarsh Sq, the 3 projects currently underway or those 3 rolled into one big building on one of those sites?

I think 3 buildings would do more to improve the Square than 1.
I agree with you urban and with all that has been said previously (Edgar, Maximus, Shuz, monotonehell, etc...). Now, just expand the CBD core, raise the height limit by 20 metres and let the market decide where to build those buildings within the new regulations... :) :wink:

Cheers
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.

User avatar
Shuz
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Glandore

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#202 Post by Shuz » Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:21 am

Ho Really wrote:
I agree with you urban and with all that has been said previously (Edgar, Maximus, Shuz, monotonehell, etc...). Now, just expand the CBD core, raise the height limit by 20 metres and let the market decide where to build those buildings within the new regulations... :) :wink:

Cheers
Just 20m? Ahem... a little bit more thanks.

User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2715
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#203 Post by Ho Really » Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:21 pm

Shuz wrote:Just 20m? Ahem... a little bit more thanks.
I know how you feel Shuz, but that's roughly what was proposed (a 5-storey incease). Would be good if we got that now. The rest may come later. We'll have to be patient.

Cheers
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.

User avatar
wilkiebarkid
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:19 am
Location: Adelaide

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#204 Post by wilkiebarkid » Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:28 pm

Some interesting info on building heights from several US cities of approximately 1.1 million to 1.2m people in city/metro area.

Memphis, Tennessee - top five height to roof only - 131metres, 122m, 121m, 111m, 104m
Raleigh, NC (Capital) - 2 above 100m...121m and 119m
Grand Rapids, Michigan - top four height to roof - 124m, 105m, 97m, 83m
Rochester, NY - top five to roof only - 135m, 122m, 120m, 104m, 104m

As you can see, Adelaide is not all that different with it's building heights in relation to similar size cities in a country where the skyscraper was born.

We certainly shouldn't compare ourselves to Seattle 3.6 million or the like.

Having said that it would be nice to see some more 100 metre plus buildings in the next ten years.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#205 Post by monotonehell » Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:42 pm

wilkiebarkid wrote:Some interesting info on building heights from several US cities of approximately 1.1 million to 1.2m people in city/metro area.

Memphis, Tennessee - top five height to roof only - 131metres, 122m, 121m, 111m, 104m
Raleigh, NC (Capital) - 2 above 100m...121m and 119m
Grand Rapids, Michigan - top four height to roof - 124m, 105m, 97m, 83m
Rochester, NY - top five to roof only - 135m, 122m, 120m, 104m, 104m

As you can see, Adelaide is not all that different with it's building heights in relation to similar size cities in a country where the skyscraper was born.

We certainly shouldn't compare ourselves to Seattle 3.6 million or the like.

Having said that it would be nice to see some more 100 metre plus buildings in the next ten years.
Placating comparisons are one thing, but our future should not be based on the past. Especially considering energy efficiency, climate change, etc etc, and the desire to move away from sprawl and toward more efficient high density. In fact we should stop comparing the size of our peni... buildings with all the other cities at the urinal and work toward building heights that make sense in the context of environmental and societal needs.

I don't know whether that means 1Km high Babel Towers or something with a larger footprint and more monoblock in design, but perhaps building compliance should be focusing less on height alone and more on sustainability, self energy generating and other more innovative designs that are popping up around the World.

There's an element of this in some of the buildings proposed currently, which is good, but MOAR PLZ!.

Speaking of height restrictions, has anyone seen this far off proposal for London?
http://www.popularchitecture.com/supertower/
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
wilkiebarkid
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:19 am
Location: Adelaide

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#206 Post by wilkiebarkid » Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:05 pm

monotonehell wrote:
wilkiebarkid wrote:Some interesting info on building heights from several US cities of approximately 1.1 million to 1.2m people in city/metro area.

Memphis, Tennessee - top five height to roof only - 131metres, 122m, 121m, 111m, 104m
Raleigh, NC (Capital) - 2 above 100m...121m and 119m
Grand Rapids, Michigan - top four height to roof - 124m, 105m, 97m, 83m
Rochester, NY - top five to roof only - 135m, 122m, 120m, 104m, 104m

As you can see, Adelaide is not all that different with it's building heights in relation to similar size cities in a country where the skyscraper was born.

We certainly shouldn't compare ourselves to Seattle 3.6 million or the like.

Having said that it would be nice to see some more 100 metre plus buildings in the next ten years.
Placating comparisons are one thing, but our future should not be based on the past. Especially considering energy efficiency, climate change, etc etc, and the desire to move away from sprawl and toward more efficient high density. In fact we should stop comparing the size of our peni... buildings with all the other cities at the urinal and work toward building heights that make sense in the context of environmental and societal needs.

I don't know whether that means 1Km high Babel Towers or something with a larger footprint and more monoblock in design, but perhaps building compliance should be focusing less on height alone and more on sustainability, self energy generating and other more innovative designs that are popping up around the World.

There's an element of this in some of the buildings proposed currently, which is good, but MOAR PLZ!.

Speaking of height restrictions, has anyone seen this far off proposal for London?
http://www.popularchitecture.com/supertower/
Sorry,

It was just some interesting info!

I'll have what he's having thanks!!........and I don't think London would accept a giant Swiss Cheese Stick for an Iconic building!

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#207 Post by monotonehell » Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:12 pm

wilkiebarkid wrote:Sorry,

It was just some interesting info!

I'll have what he's having thanks!!........and I don't think London would accept a giant Swiss Cheese Stick for an Iconic building!
I wasn't having a go at you barkid. :) just pointing out the current short sightedness in designs that make it up to application we have at the moment while the pressing issues of energy, water and etc.

Why not a swiss cheese stick? They already have a Gerkin ;)
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
wilkiebarkid
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:19 am
Location: Adelaide

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#208 Post by wilkiebarkid » Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:34 pm

monotonehell wrote:
wilkiebarkid wrote:Sorry,

It was just some interesting info!

I'll have what he's having thanks!!........and I don't think London would accept a giant Swiss Cheese Stick for an Iconic building!
I wasn't having a go at you barkid. :) just pointing out the current short sightedness in designs that make it up to application we have at the moment while the pressing issues of energy, water and etc.

Why not a swiss cheese stick? They already have a Gerkin ;)
I really didn't think you were, however I think we sometimes forget (me included) that we are not that big in the scheme of things and everything is relevant to our size and sustainability for the amount of commercial/office buildings the CBD can accommodate. Residential is a bit different, because there is no doubt that the scope for attracting people to live in a vibarant, pulsating, energetic (have I missed an adjective?) CBD is limitless if the relevant authorities allow the appropriate developments to occur. I think Vancouver is an excellent example of a City area furnished with apartment towers that stimulate an exciting environment to live.....and I believe it has recently won the tag of most liveable city in the world...or something very similar.

adelaideguy88
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:47 pm

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#209 Post by adelaideguy88 » Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:56 pm

Plasmatron wrote:If anyone mentions anything about trying to maintain a pyramid-shaped skyline, I think my head might explode.
LOL, I already did :oops:

User avatar
shiftaling
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Modbury

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#210 Post by shiftaling » Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:26 pm

Plasmatron wrote:If anyone mentions anything about trying to maintain a pyramid-shaped skyline, I think my head might explode.
I get that everyone's not happy with the pyramid idea, but I gotta say, there's nothing worse than a skyline with a big gap in the middle

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests