Sensational-Adelaide.com

monotonehell wrote:

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

A bit late, but I was going to say that Candlestick Park (now called Monster Park) is the home of the San Francisco 49ers. Also the Giants used to play there but they moved out in 2000.

In San Diego it seems they fly pretty close to the CBD. At about 150m max height, I reckon that's pretty much obtainable here in Adelaide.

Cheers

For those of you wanting a more detailed read-in into airport restrictions on height limits across the CBD.
http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/adcc ... ations.pdf

Did you guys obtain that information regarding the PAN-OPS limitations?

This is my awareness of the height limit situation at the moment.
The AAL's OLS surface limitation map indicates limitations to which if a development penetrates the limit, it has to be referred to the AAL to recieve approval, as well as the ACC's approval. Regarding PAN-OPS, the OLS on West Terrace has been mentioned to be very close to the PAN-OPS limitation, with Westpac in place - it wouldn't have been constructed if it violated (all developments which exceed PAN-OPS are automatically rejected, therefore acts as a final frontier). Clearly this indicates that within the area, Westpac height is allowed (maybe higher?), and with the development approval granted, but not eventuated for the John Martins' observation tower, 200m is allowed further in that area (maybe higher?). My impression is that the OLS gradient across the CBD is quite shallow, but the PAN-OPS gradient is much steeper, which means that there is definite possibility for 200m+ structures to be built in the East End.

Now, if I could just know the fine print....

It seems a lot of the discussion in this thread has already been covered here: http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... ?f=1&t=766

Also, regarding PAN-OPS & OLS. The actual maps showing heights etc can be found on pages 21 & 22 here: http://www.aal.com.au/pdfs/AAL_Master_Plan_04_App.pdf

Cheers!

Finally some clarification! Thanks mate.
So it seems, PAN-OPS maximum limitation for the Adelaide CBD is 200mAHD.
This covers a sizable portion of the East End (surround Hindmarsh Sq and due east of Pulteney St.)

(See coloured area in red)

However, the bad news is.... AHD is above sea level limitation. So Adelaide will NEVER ever see a 200m structure (or until the airport is relocated).
To give you an idea, Hindmarsh Square is about 60m above sea level. Therefore the maximum height for a structure surrounding the area would be 140m.

However, as I say that - Westpac falls outside of the 200m range (I think its covered by the 159.7m limit) and is 65m above ground. Meaning it breaches PAN-OPS!... which can't be right. Okay, can someone help me out here. I'm confused....

Shuz, due to all the inconsistencies etc I asked this Q about W pac bldg. some time ago and found two things
A. State gov't got it through - somewhat like its who you know, not what you know!.
B. Air space can be purchased and built in - at a cost. (has happened with the western most apartments on Nth. Tce just east of Victoria Br). Hope this helps. Might have to ask the airport what air space ionvolvements are.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

Sighs. Maybe this argument really has gotten the better of me in the end.
What I believe Sensational-Adelaide should do as an organisation is to submit another 'petition' letter and such, regarding height limitations. The compromising factor of this argument though is the varying perspectives - I for one, believe they should be enforced to PAN-OPS city-wide, irrespective of locality. Developers will not jump at the chance to building a large apartment or office tower in the middle of nowhere -Perth is a really good example of this as high-rise development has been contained to a section of the city, even though it is at developer's will to build a 300m tower on the other side - so there should be no fear in taking this substantial step forward, and actually resolving the issue once and for all, to a limitation where it is resolute.

Also Adelaide is only 40m AHD that might make a difference?

once again South Australia makes a balls up - should have shifted the airport to parafield and bulldozed the old one!

raulduke wrote:Once again South Australia makes a balls up - should have shifted the airport to parafield and bulldozed the old one!

I don't think so... Yes it would be nice to have taller buildings but do we really want a skyline like Perth's... 2 big buildings and no density. That is what would've happened. Increasing height limits will not effect the amount of buildings going up on the size of them. If Adelaide needs 100,000sqm of office space instead of 5 x 20,000 sqm ones we'll get 1 x 100,000 like Perth.

Density is better then height. Now that Adelaide has density we can start looking at height although there are still some areas which needs more density.

I would rather have our skyline, then Perth's anyday and on top of this we have the closest airport to any CBD in the country this is a positive not a negative.

i strongly disagree, perth has a far more impressive skyline - have you stood in Kings Park or South Perth at night and looked?

A number of projects are proposed or in planning that will see buildings of a similar size to Bankwest and Central Park added to the skyline, including for example (125 St Georges Terrace) being developed my MPX and the Waterfront Project.

Adelaide's skyline looks ok from a plane or elder park, but is fairly unimpressive looking from anywhere else.

Regarding the airport, anyone can see that there are far better uses for that land than an airport.

raulduke wrote:Regarding the airport, anyone can see that there are far better uses for that land than an airport.

EG?

anything from a golf course or nature reserve to a major mixed use development, reduce urban sprawl

or heres another idea! reallocate the parklands (or soccer ovals) depending on how you look at it, to where the airport is

raulduke wrote:anything from a golf course or nature reserve to a major mixed use development, reduce urban sprawl

or heres another idea! reallocate the parklands (or soccer ovals) depending on how you look at it, to where the airport is

Just as I thought...

Ben wrote:

raulduke wrote:anything from a golf course or nature reserve to a major mixed use development, reduce urban sprawl

or heres another idea! reallocate the parklands (or soccer ovals) depending on how you look at it, to where the airport is

Just as I thought...

? what would you suggest then