[CAN] 207 Pulteney Street | 180m | 55 Levels | Mixed Use

[brizzlar]

It has to say something about the Advertiser's employee demographic that for the mockup of a building to potentially be built 2019> they choose one that was made in the early 90s.

Says something about the average Advertiser reader that one guy in the talkback said Adelaide can't have tall buildings because of earthquakes

While it is true that Adelaide is susceptible to earthquakes, that doesn't give any justification for the city to ban skyscrapers from being developed.

The particular part of the 'Indo-Australian' plate that Adelaide sits on is subject to tectonic stress release every so often.

This results in earthquakes usually under magnitude 5.

The largest in modern history was a 5.5 in 1954.

No one died and hardly any damage occurred in the CBD - just a damaged town hall clock and a statue.

Both San Francisco and LA exist next to the San Andreas Fault Line - they are due to get an 7.8+ earthquake.. and both have recently built super-talls of 300m+ with technology that will help those towers to survive such an event.

If those cities can built towers of that size in a FAR more dangerous region, I think Adelaide has no issues.

[Nort]

It has to say something about the Advertiser's employee demographic that for the mockup of a building to potentially be built 2019> they choose one that was made in the early 90s.

Says something about the average Advertiser reader that one guy in the talkback said Adelaide can't have tall buildings because of earthquakes

While it is true that Adelaide is susceptible to earthquakes, that doesn't give any justification for the city to ban skyscrapers from being developed.

The particular part of the 'Indo-Australian' plate that Adelaide sits on is subject to tectonic stress release every so often.

This results in earthquakes usually under magnitude 5.

The largest in modern history was a 5.5 in 1954.

No one died and hardly any damage occurred in the CBD - just a damaged town hall clock and a statue.

Both San Francisco and LA exist next to the San Andreas Fault Line - they are due to get an 7.8+ earthquake.. and both have recently built super-talls of 300m+ with technology that will help those towers to survive such an event.

If those cities can built towers of that size in a FAR more dangerous region, I think Adelaide has no issues.

I got excited seeing this thread bumped, thank you for the disappointment.

Wonder if we'll ever see what this plan was, seems safe to assume it's very dead at this point.

[brizzlar]

Does anyone know if there's a replacement for this development, or another of it's kind that's on the cards for Adelaide?

[Nort]

Does anyone know if there's a replacement for this development, or another of it's kind that's on the cards for Adelaide?

[[Shuz]]

Does anyone know if there's a replacement for this development, or another of it's kind that's on the cards for Adelaide?

If some one knew and was authorised to say something, they would've. Can you please not bump threads for no fucking reason.

[citywatcher]

Hey you the thread police ?
Let people ask !

Sent from my SM-A515F using Tapatalk

[CDJ]

The project is still alive - just moving forward carefully. Significant news will likely be in Dec. Will provide info when I can, but that will likely be at the same time as some information is public anyway.

Just to chip in on the discussion earlier about earthquake: one of the common public misconceptions about tall buildings is that earthquake is the governing consideration for the lateral stability system. In most cases it isn't. Occupant comfort under wind loading is usually the governing consideration. This is why many tall buildings have damping systems (usually tuned liquid damper tanks) - to reduce lateral acceleration below limits of human perception. Earthquake tends to govern for shorter structures - the higher natural frequency is closer to earthquake frequency and therefore the forces are amplified by resonance. Tall buildings have lower natural frequency which is usually misaligned with earthquake frequency so seismic forces increase less than proportionally with height, whereas wind forces increase more than proportionally with height. Structural design of tall buildings is all about wind. What do I mean by 'tall'? Well it's subjective, but in this context from a structural engineering perspective it would typically be anything over about 120m.

[brizzlar]

Does anyone know if there's a replacement for this development, or another of it's kind that's on the cards for Adelaide?

If some one knew and was authorised to say something, they would've. Can you please not bump threads for no fucking reason.

Hey Shuz, guessing you were having a bad day or something - doubt you'd usually speak that way to someone you don't know. No offence taken friend. Peace.

[brizzlar]

The project is still alive - just moving forward carefully. Significant news will likely be in Dec. Will provide info when I can, but that will likely be at the same time as some information is public anyway.

Just to chip in on the discussion earlier about earthquake: one of the common public misconceptions about tall buildings is that earthquake is the governing consideration for the lateral stability system. In most cases it isn't. Occupant comfort under wind loading is usually the governing consideration. This is why many tall buildings have damping systems (usually tuned liquid damper tanks) - to reduce lateral acceleration below limits of human perception. Earthquake tends to govern for shorter structures - the higher natural frequency is closer to earthquake frequency and therefore the forces are amplified by resonance. Tall buildings have lower natural frequency which is usually misaligned with earthquake frequency so seismic forces increase less than proportionally with height, whereas wind forces increase more than proportionally with height. Structural design of tall buildings is all about wind. What do I mean by 'tall'? Well it's subjective, but in this context from a structural engineering perspective it would typically be anything over about 120m.

Thanks for the update CDJ.

Thanks for the structural engineer perspective on high-rise towers and how they're impacted by earthquakes. Given that that both LA and SF now have super-tall's... and that they exist in a far more dangerous seismic zone, I'd assume this can't be a legit barrier for development for a 150m+ tower in Adelaide right? Like maybe in the past, but surely now that other cities with a higher risk profile are putting up 300m+ towers, ADL could get away with something at least half as big?

Feel free to PM me as I don't think people want anyone talking on here unless there's an official announcement about a future tower.

[Algernon]

The project is still alive - just moving forward carefully. Significant news will likely be in Dec. Will provide info when I can, but that will likely be at the same time as some information is public anyway.

Just to chip in on the discussion earlier about earthquake: one of the common public misconceptions about tall buildings is that earthquake is the governing consideration for the lateral stability system. In most cases it isn't. Occupant comfort under wind loading is usually the governing consideration. This is why many tall buildings have damping systems (usually tuned liquid damper tanks) - to reduce lateral acceleration below limits of human perception. Earthquake tends to govern for shorter structures - the higher natural frequency is closer to earthquake frequency and therefore the forces are amplified by resonance. Tall buildings have lower natural frequency which is usually misaligned with earthquake frequency so seismic forces increase less than proportionally with height, whereas wind forces increase more than proportionally with height. Structural design of tall buildings is all about wind. What do I mean by 'tall'? Well it's subjective, but in this context from a structural engineering perspective it would typically be anything over about 120m.

Thanks for the update CDJ.

Thanks for the structural engineer perspective on high-rise towers and how they're impacted by earthquakes. Given that that both LA and SF now have super-tall's... and that they exist in a far more dangerous seismic zone, I'd assume this can't be a legit barrier for development for a 150m+ tower in Adelaide right? Like maybe in the past, but surely now that other cities with a higher risk profile are putting up 300m+ towers, ADL could get away with something at least half as big?

Feel free to PM me as I don't think people want anyone talking on here unless there's an official announcement about a future tower.

Thread already bumped, doesn't make a difference now.

Seismic activity in Adelaide doesn't prevent supertalls.

See: Japan.

[Ben]

Officially lodged.

Looks like it will be close to the 200m mark

207-209 PULTENEY ST ADELAIDE SA 5000
UNDER ASSESSMENT

Reference number
21042343
Applicant
JWDT Land Pty Ltd (as Trustee for JWDT Land Unit Trust), C/- Future Urban Pty Ltd

Description
Change of use of the subject land and construction of a fifty-five (55) level mixed-use development incorporating three hundred and twenty-two (322) dwellings, three (3) restaurants, tourist accommodation incorporating one hundred and sixty (160) rooms and associated car parking

[cmet]

Wow!

[HiTouch]

Great to hear! I have no doubt this one will go up in current economic conditions! This road desperately needs a tram line

[Howie]

That’s phenomenal, thanks for the update

[Prodical]

A game changer if it goes ahead - will test the PANOPS limit and pave the way for others