Sensational-Adelaide.com

Post directed at whoevers response in previous thread....

Someone brought up this idea quite some time ago, and from memory for any change in the limitations to occur, I think the flight path would have to be modified at an angle of 12 degrees, which isnt viable because, there just isn't the safety clearance for such a change to occur.

I should also point out that the current alignment is in a 'safety net' because any changes to its trajectory is going to impact either the CBD or Glenelg regardless.

What were are trying to resolve is that the current restrictions imposed by the ACC fall way clear of the AAL regulations (which they itself can be cleared) and that they actually can go much further than what is imposed.

This may be a silly question in regards to the height limit on our CBD. It seems that the ACC blames the height restrictions on the flight path to the Adelaide airport. How hard would it be to change the angle of the landing strip maybe 1-5 degrees? so it does not impose a "Supposed" danger to the city. This way the ACC would NOT be able to blame anyone bar themselfs as there would only be the other restrictions mentioned in other posts limiting the constraction of something exciting.

This is a question for people to ponder. If there were to be a reform of height limitations across the CBD, what model would you support?

Zonal, Transitional, or Uniform limitations?

Shuz wrote:This is a question for people to ponder. If there were to be a reform of height limitations across the CBD, what model would you support?

Zonal, Transitional, or Uniform limitations?

You forgot free-for -all.

Cheers

P.S. But not in the southeastern corner or else...(add your own comments here).

Shuz wrote:This is a question for people to ponder. If there were to be a reform of height limitations across the CBD, what model would you support?

Zonal, Transitional, or Uniform limitations?

Not uniform as that just leads to a US style free for all with no harmony across the CBD, but a combination of zonal with transitional considerations. For example the CBD should be allowed heights up to PANS-OPS, except where those buildings would adversely affect the squares or similar spaces that benefit from sunlight. Residential areas should be generally low to medium rise in a planned manner that makes good use of space without creating a lot of tacky boxes or some kind of cell block feel.

Just aiming for a pyramid shape or similar overall shape without any consideration of the components that make up that shape is a folly. That's aiming for unnatural harmony without contrast, if you want that you may as well build a giant Blake's 7-esque monoblock dome.

I'm curious to find out if anyone has ever contacted Air Services Australia to find out if they would be prepared to modify the flight path upon request from the state government/city council in order to allow taller buildings in the city? I say this because a few years back when John Martins closed in the city there was a plan to build in its place a new hotel with a huge spire on top which required a change to the flight path. For some reason it seemed possible back then....

It's a real shame that raising height limits in the city isn't a more high profile issue for the city council or the major parties. Just one 45 or 50 storey tower would make a huge impact on the skyline and make a very powerful statement about the city's future prosperity (similar to the impact the bank west tower made on the perth skyline in the 80s). I suspect it would also have a particularly positive impact on the way South Aussies perceive their city and it's future...

paul wrote:I'm curious to find out if anyone has ever contacted Air Services Australia to find out if they would be prepared to modify the flight path upon request from the state government/city council in order to allow taller buildings in the city? I say this because a few years back when John Martins closed in the city there was a plan to build in its place a new hotel with a huge spire on top which required a change to the flight path. For some reason it seemed possible back then....

It's a real shame that raising height limits in the city isn't a more high profile issue for the city council or the major parties. Just one 45 or 50 storey tower would make a huge impact on the skyline and make a very powerful statement about the city's future prosperity (similar to the impact the bank west tower made on the perth skyline in the 80s). I suspect it would also have a particularly positive impact on the way South Aussies perceive their city and it's future...

it's not the flight path, even moving it 30degrees won't help. An aircraft that experiences problems on take off must be able to circle back very quickly, which could take it through CBD airspace. Last thing you want is a tall buildings in the way.

That being said, monotonehell and I are working to determine the maximum theoretical cbd building height. We are currently in contact with the AAL, and may to speak with DOTARS/CASA/Others as well...

Wayno wrote:

paul wrote:I'm curious to find out if anyone has ever contacted Air Services Australia to find out if they would be prepared to modify the flight path upon request from the state government/city council in order to allow taller buildings in the city? I say this because a few years back when John Martins closed in the city there was a plan to build in its place a new hotel with a huge spire on top which required a change to the flight path. For some reason it seemed possible back then....

It's a real shame that raising height limits in the city isn't a more high profile issue for the city council or the major parties. Just one 45 or 50 storey tower would make a huge impact on the skyline and make a very powerful statement about the city's future prosperity (similar to the impact the bank west tower made on the perth skyline in the 80s). I suspect it would also have a particularly positive impact on the way South Aussies perceive their city and it's future...

it's not the flight path, even moving it 30degrees won't help. An aircraft that experiences problems on take off must be able to circle back very quickly, which could take it through CBD airspace. Last thing you want is a tall buildings in the way.

That being said, monotonehell and I are working to determine the maximum theoretical cbd building height. We are currently in contact with the AAL, and may to speak with DOTARS/CASA/Others as well...

I look forward to hearing more about this topic. Its good to see someone doing something about this problem

Wayno wrote:

paul wrote:I'm curious to find out if anyone has ever contacted Air Services Australia to find out if they would be prepared to modify the flight path upon request from the state government/city council in order to allow taller buildings in the city? I say this because a few years back when John Martins closed in the city there was a plan to build in its place a new hotel with a huge spire on top which required a change to the flight path. For some reason it seemed possible back then....

It's a real shame that raising height limits in the city isn't a more high profile issue for the city council or the major parties. Just one 45 or 50 storey tower would make a huge impact on the skyline and make a very powerful statement about the city's future prosperity (similar to the impact the bank west tower made on the perth skyline in the 80s). I suspect it would also have a particularly positive impact on the way South Aussies perceive their city and it's future...

it's not the flight path, even moving it 30degrees won't help. An aircraft that experiences problems on take off must be able to circle back very quickly, which could take it through CBD airspace. Last thing you want is a tall buildings in the way.

That being said, monotonehell and I are working to determine the maximum theoretical cbd building height. We are currently in contact with the AAL, and may to speak with DOTARS/CASA/Others as well...

Now this is where I get totally confused - there's quite a few examples overseas where airports are located within close proximity of CBDs but they don't seem to have height restrictions to the extent we do (a few examples would be San Diego, London City, Naples)! Anyhow, best of luck with your research. It would be great to have some clarity on this so we can accurately distinguish between limits imposed by the council and those due to the airport (incuding what is 'non negotiable' from the point of view of the avaiation authorities). Ultimately I'd like to see the wider community have a greater say in limits imposed soley by the council. I'm sure most people would opt for a taller skyline if given the choice

But London City Airport is tiny, and not the main airport.

paul wrote:Now this is where I get totally confused - there's quite a few examples overseas where airports are located within close proximity of CBDs but they don't seem to have height restrictions to the extent we do (a few examples would be San Diego, London City, Naples)! Anyhow, best of luck with your research. It would be great to have some clarity on this so we can accurately distinguish between limits imposed by the council and those due to the airport (incuding what is 'non negotiable' from the point of view of the avaiation authorities). Ultimately I'd like to see the wider community have a greater say in limits imposed soley by the council. I'm sure most people would opt for a taller skyline if given the choice

San Diego's airport is way down south of the CBD, it's past Candlestick Park and sitting on the edge of the bay.
London City is way down past the flood barrier in the docklands, and that's hardly a major airport. Heathrow is miles to the west of the CBD, and amongst suburbia and industry.
I've not been to Naples (sob sob) but from the map it seems to be between a lot of green fields and a valley. No high rise anywhere near by.

We're not quite there with all the data (PANS-OPS is proving a bitch to get) But so far the only part of Adelaide that is adversely affected by the flight paths so far seems to be the West Tce area and North Adelaide (which falls right under the glide path).

Wanyo's doing a great job calling certain authorities right now, and for the most part they are cooperating. It's more a technical difficulty getting what we want than the authorities stonewalling.

Stay tuned!

monotonehell wrote:

paul wrote:Now this is where I get totally confused - there's quite a few examples overseas where airports are located within close proximity of CBDs but they don't seem to have height restrictions to the extent we do (a few examples would be San Diego, London City, Naples)! Anyhow, best of luck with your research. It would be great to have some clarity on this so we can accurately distinguish between limits imposed by the council and those due to the airport (incuding what is 'non negotiable' from the point of view of the avaiation authorities). Ultimately I'd like to see the wider community have a greater say in limits imposed soley by the council. I'm sure most people would opt for a taller skyline if given the choice

San Diego's airport is way down south of the CBD, it's past Candlestick Park and sitting on the edge of the bay.
London City is way down past the flood barrier in the docklands, and that's hardly a major airport. Heathrow is miles to the west of the CBD, and amongst suburbia and industry.
I've not been to Naples (sob sob) but from the map it seems to be between a lot of green fields and a valley. No high rise anywhere near by.

We're not quite there with all the data (PANS-OPS is proving a bitch to get) But so far the only part of Adelaide that is adversely affected by the flight paths so far seems to be the West Tce area and North Adelaide (which falls right under the glide path).

Wanyo's doing a great job calling certain authorities right now, and for the most part they are cooperating. It's more a technical difficulty getting what we want than the authorities stonewalling.

Stay tuned!

Any idea how far 'way down' is in km's from the CBD?

monotonehell wrote:San Diego's airport is way down south of the CBD, it's past Candlestick Park and sitting on the edge of the bay.

San Diego's airport is immediately NW of the CBD and bloody close to it. San Diego has approximately 10 buildings around 150m.



I think Mr Hell is referring to San Francisco and it's airport.

About as far as a piece of string is long

wilkiebarkid wrote:

monotonehell wrote:San Diego's airport is way down south of the CBD, it's past Candlestick Park and sitting on the edge of the bay.

San Diego's airport is immediately NW of the CBD and bloody close to it. San Diego has approximately 10 buildings around 150m.



I think Mr Hell is referring to San Francisco and it's airport.

BOING! LOL totally wrong side of LA