Sensational-Adelaide.com

Maximus wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:44 am

CDJ wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:49 pm

Many thanks to you normh for the info you provided - this is really valuable. I've been trying to find the airspace study for Realm. It is interesting that the report indicates that AAL specifically blocked any application to temporarily breach RTCC/PANS-OPS. Firstly, they don,t have the authority to do this. Secondly this is not aligned with interstate precedent.

I read this as simply a case of poor wording. The protection of airspace regulations require the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure to "have regard to" the opinion of the airport operator company (and CASA and Airservices, etc) in relation to penetrations of the PANS-OPS. In reality, the Secretary would be highly unlikely to make a decision contrary to these opinions, and the airport would also be highly unlikely to express an opinion contrary to CASA or Airservices. So, in practical terms, the airport almost does have the authority to 'block' applications.

Not quite sure about interstate precedent, but suggest you have a look at Skytower in Brisbane and building heights in the Brisbane CBD more generally. Brisbane Airport and Brisbane City Council have been at loggerheads for a number of years now over raising the maximum permissible height of buildings (currently 275m, I think). The airport doesn't support any increase in building heights.

Thanks Maximus - good commentary and yes it is probably just inaccurate wording. I'm very familiar with the Skytower issues. It is worth noting that one of the RTCC sectors in Brisbane was shifted and this allowed taller development along the river. However this isn't what I was referring to. I'm just referring to the general precedent interstate of allowing 3-month (typically) temporary breaches of PANS-OPS for cranes. It's certainly not guaranteed and needs to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to assess which procedures are affected, but it has been granted on many projects in Sydney and Melbourne. In this context it seems unreasonable to simply say no breach of PANS-OPS will be considered - in fact this contradicts AAL's own guidelines for considering cranes.

The final floor and roof level are now being formed with pre fab panels. One thing is for sure there is hardly any moving space between the hook and the top floor slab, they're running super tight tolerances. Seems insane that there couldn't be a temporary RTCC clearance, even just for safety sake.

Pikey wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:40 am

The final floor and roof level are now being formed with pre fab panels. One thing is for sure there is hardly any moving space between the hook and the top floor slab, they're running super tight tolerances. Seems insane that there couldn't be a temporary RTCC clearance, even just for safety sake.

based off that mate it looks as if westpac will still be the highest

I don't know if this sounds silly or not, but has anyone wondered if the Westpac Building may actually be taller than 132m? Compared to Adelaidian, it just seems to have a taller presence to me?

Not sure if it is taller than 132 metres or not, but from a distance it still looks like it might maintain at least the perception of being taller to me.

Neko Neko Peko Peko wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:48 pm

I don't know if this sounds silly or not, but has anyone wondered if the Westpac Building may actually be taller than 132m? Compared to Adelaidian, it just seems to have a taller presence to me?

Interesting thought. I was always of the impression that the State Bank building (then SANTOS and now Westpac), was actually 135 metres. Then it was mentioned here in this forum and on Emporis etc., that it was 132 metres officially. Either way it must be the height of the terrain that makes Westpac House look taller.

Cheers

Whilst this tower will be the tallest above ground by three meters, when using AHD (Australian Height Datum, or height above sea level) data, Westpac will still be slightly taller (I believe by less than a meter.)

The positioning of the two towers make height comparisons difficult. The view from the south directly from the Blythewood round about is a great whole East to west skyline perspective, and from this view the two towers look almost identical in height. Stuck in traffic heading down the hill both towers almost mined up perfectly on the horizon.

Ultimately we need something to markedly break through the 135m barrier to really claim skyline bragging rights.

That's something I've been wondering for a while myself... Westpac House still looks slightly bigger from most vantage points. The ground elevation change is subtle but clearly big enough to make a difference.

PS. The Twin St tower is going to slot in very nicely from that angle (if it ever goes ahead).

From the N-S Motorway, north of Grand Junction Road, both Adelaidean and Realm certainly look close to the height of Westpac. Both are visibly taller than Grenfell Centre by a significant margin.

Both these new developments look great coming down the Parade.

Just to clear up what may be a point of confusion here:

- Aviation surfaces/heights are measured above height datum, not above ground (stating the obvious).
- The limits on building height in Adelaide CBD are effectively set by aviation. The lowest aviation surface (which is governing building height for the east half of the city) is the RTCC which matches the top of the tallest antenna on Westpac.
- The antennae are about 3m high which explains the discrepancy between the Westpac roof height and the RTCC.
- So a building next to Westpac (e.g. 74 King William) could in theory have roof height 3m taller than Westpac's roof, without change to aviation surfaces.
- Of course this ignores the challenges of how to actually build the roof and upper levels if the crane isn't permitted to temporarily pass through the RTCC.

It is absurd for a developer to be told they have no option to pursue a permit for cranes to temporarily pass through the RTCC or PANS-OPS. Westpac was constructed with two luffing cranes which penetrated about 50m into the RTCC and PANS-OPS. There are numerous recent interstate precedents for temporary permits to penetrate airspace.

Not my photo. Taken from the ABC building in Collinswood.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:36 pm

Not my photo. Taken from the ABC building in Collinswood.

That shot definitely makes Adelaidean look more prominent than Westpac. Can't wait for Sofitel to pop its head up on the right side.
Adelaide's growing up

CDJ wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:01 pm

It is absurd for a developer to be told they have no option to pursue a permit for cranes to temporarily pass through the RTCC or PANS-OPS. Westpac was constructed with two luffing cranes which penetrated about 50m into the RTCC and PANS-OPS. There are numerous recent interstate precedents for temporary permits to penetrate airspace.

Wasn't Westpac (1988) built before the airspace regulations (RTCC) came into effect?

Theres more info here, sounds like temporary approvals up to three months are allowed.

https://www.adelaideairport.com.au/corp ... approvals/