Sensational-Adelaide.com

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.

Plasmatron wrote:How about having them for tall buildings' sake and all the other stuff you said?

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.

monotonehell wrote:

Plasmatron wrote:How about having them for tall buildings' sake and all the other stuff you said?

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.

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....

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.

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...

Cheers

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...

Cheers

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

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

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.

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/

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!

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

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.

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

LOL, I already did

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