Sensational-Adelaide.com

Would it be worth the economical benefit by relocating the airport, to facilitate the economical productivity within the CBD, by allowing taller buildings?

I don't understand just quite how complex economics is, but to me, if we spent $6b on building an entirely new airport from scratch, plus operational costs, seems outweighed by the benefit by constructing 15x $500m 150m tall towers being built in the CBD, plus its sales revenue, leases, retail turnover generated over its lifetime, if you get what I mean?

Sorry to bring up the airport issue again, but unfortunately if we're ever seriously going to want and have tall buildings, the airport has to be moved, no arguments. The flight paths cannot be reconfigured at all, because of the urban infill enveloping the entire site.

Councillor Yarwood is spot on. Leaving the Westpac Building or the State Bank Building as our tallest forever, as which would be the case if our archaic height limitations were to remain, is incredibly damaging to the Adelaide psyche. The building which is forever linked to the State Bank disaster, if allowed to stay as our tallest forever serves as a beacon reminding South Australian's of the worst event in our history as well as the exact point as to when a long period of decline and stagnation began.

We need a new tallest. It would be a tremendous boost to the Adelaide psyche, as it would serve to become a beacon of the new Adelaide. An Adelaide which has shrugged off its negative stigma, and is announcing to Australia that we are back.

I strongly feel, that part of the reason why Brisbane and Perth have been able to shrug of their 'backwater, big-country town' images that they had has been largely due to them having modern skylines.

For those of you who feel that we should not take part in some 'dick comparing contest', after looking at the below images from 1989, don't you feel at-least slighty embarrassed? Yes, I realise that the city has changes considerably at ground level, but from afar, for those not into development it looks largely the same.

Wow, its hard confronting demons. I cant believe that was what Adelaide was like in the 80s... nothings changed :S I feel dirty

On a good note, if the media backs Yarwood and development up, its a great thing right?

iTouch(myself) wrote:Wow, its hard confronting demons. I cant believe that was what Adelaide was like in the 80s... nothings changed :S I feel dirty

On a good note, if the media backs Yarwood and development up, its a great thing right?

Yea gotta be a good thing

Shuz wrote:Would it be worth the economical benefit by relocating the airport, to facilitate the economical productivity within the CBD, by allowing taller buildings?

For the 10th time, no.

iTouch(myself) wrote:Wow, its hard confronting demons. I cant believe that was what Adelaide was like in the 80s... nothings changed :S I feel dirty

On a good note, if the media backs Yarwood and development up, its a great thing right?

Yes, it is an excellent thing. The fact that we are talking about this is the great thing, as it will hopefully spark public debate and cause the same momentum which made the state government do its backflip and favour Adelaide Oval instead of AAMI Stadium as the future of stadia in SA.

It just seems to me that the capital (one-off - okay maybe not exactly, but there is a finite expenditure) cost of constructing a new airport would be regarded as an down payment to the economical benefit that stands to occur by having more development potential in the CBD, therefore resulting in an (theoretically) infinite return of investment thereafter? Surely such an investment would be returned offloading the capital cost, producing a net return within a medium-term timeframe (10-15 years?)

Someone really needs to explain economics to me, because I feel I may have the wrong impression - either that - or I've severely underestimated the capital expenditure required to build an entirely new airport, that wouldn't produce an economical return for a long time (30+ years?)...

I'm trying to be as much of a realist as possible. I still maintain my opinion that the airport's relocation has more to gain for Adelaide, than we have to lose by not doing so? At the end of the day, we are not going to see anything taller than 170m+ under the current regime, and I hope that this is not the destiny we wish to set ourselves up for? As a pro-development advocate, I stand for a far better outcome, not a sorely compromised one.

Will wrote:For those of you who feel that we should not take part in some 'dick comparing contest', after looking at the below images from 1989, don't you feel at-least slighty embarrassed? Yes, I realise that the city has changes considerably at ground level, but from afar, for those not into development it looks largely the same.

Well, by comparison, here's the Bilbao skyline. When this photo was taken, the Guggenheim and the "Bilbao miracle" were 10 years old. Can you see the Guggenheim in this shot?



This one shows it, over on the left. It's no taller than the typical Bilbao building, roughly 6 storeys - the taller stuff is all office towers that are capturing nobody's imagination.



The lesson - it doesn't have to be big if it's good. Design isn't additive, you don't get to outstanding by piling on mediocrity. Bilbao's skyline is largely unchanged over the last 30 years, and it doesn't matter. Visitors only want to see the building that changed how people felt about architecture. I want the people, I want the density, but height isn't a precondition for helping people feel differently about the city. I'll take an awesome shorter building over another giant Toblerone shaped one any day.

[Edit: mis-spelled "Toblerone"]

Shuz wrote:It just seems to me that the capital (one-off - okay maybe not exactly, but there is a finite expenditure) cost of constructing a new airport would be regarded as an down payment to the economical benefit that stands to occur by having more development potential in the CBD, therefore resulting in an (theoretically) infinite return of investment thereafter? Surely such an investment would be returned offloading the capital cost, producing a net return within a medium-term timeframe (10-15 years?)

Firstly, development potential in the CBD is not the limiting factor. 'Tis not as if we're anywhere near running out of sites to build on in the City. And nor is the City the only suitable place for such development - Keswick has enormous potential.

Secondly, you have severely underestimated the capital expenditure required to build an entirely new airport. Plus the lack of suitable sites. And before you bring it up again, Dry Creek is not a suitable site.

Thirdly, even if you hadn't, your theoretically infinite return on investment wouldn't translate to a very high actual rate of investment. And the benefits would accrue only to some City landowners. Owners of existing tall buildings would actually be worse off, as it would make them less easily accessible from interstate. It would be difficult for the government to recoup its investment.

At the end of the day, we are not going to see anything taller than 170m+ under the current regime

Do you realise how trivial that restriction is? London has plenty of skyscrapers, but so far only five of them are taller than that!

Anyway, why should it matter? Queensland's tallest building isn't in Brisbane. SA's tallest building doesn't have to be in Adelaide.

Will wrote:Councillor Yarwood is spot on. Leaving the Westpac Building or the State Bank Building as our tallest forever, as which would be the case if our archaic height limitations were to remain, is incredibly damaging to the Adelaide psyche. The building which is forever linked to the State Bank disaster, if allowed to stay as our tallest forever serves as a beacon reminding South Australian's of the worst event in our history as well as the exact point as to when a long period of decline and stagnation began.

All we need is a (well designed) building to the east of the core, several metres higher than Westpac and we've got it solved!

Cheers

Prince George wrote:

Will wrote:For those of you who feel that we should not take part in some 'dick comparing contest', after looking at the below images from 1989, don't you feel at-least slighty embarrassed? Yes, I realise that the city has changes considerably at ground level, but from afar, for those not into development it looks largely the same.

The lesson - it doesn't have to be big if it's good. Design isn't additive, you don't get to outstanding by piling on mediocrity.

Agreed. Adelaide doesn't need to compete with Perth, Brisbane or any other Aussie city in the height stakes. Having height limits slightly higher than those currently (maybe set at a max of 250m AHD) but still lower than the other state capitals is not a bad thing. The bad thing is if we can't compete or be the best in design and functionality. Size doesn't always matter.

Cheers

If anythings to go by the cost/benefit analysis produced in this report about the relocation of Adelaide Airport; study data deriving from 1989.
http://www.prres.net/Papers/Burns_Measu ... _noise.pdf

ESTIMATED -BENEFITS
1. Elimination of costs currently imposed upon households by aircraft noise and airport proximity;
$25m - $30m ('89) $43.1m - $51.7m ('09)
2. Net increase in value of airport land, incorporating value of time and travel cost due to new residents;
$400m - $700m ('89) $689.7m - $1.20b ('09)
3. Gain due to urban consolidation considerations;
$100m - $150m ('89) $172.4m - $258.6m ('09)

Total Identifiable Benefits
$450m - $840m ('89) $775.9m - $1.45b ('09)

ESTIMATED COSTS
1. Present value of increase in time and travel costs to existing users of the airport;
$800m - $1.20b ('89) $1.37b - $2.07b ('09)
2. Cost of replicating existing facilities, including purchase of land;
$650m - $800m ('89) $1.22b-$1.38b ('09)

Total Identifiable Costs
$1.45b-$2.00b ('89) $2.50b-$3.44b ('09)

Net Loss
$1.00b - $1.16b ('89) $1.72b - $2.00b ('09)

This doesn't even in factor in the dramatic change in land values in that time frame; but if I'm to make a quick assumption based on the fact that the Adelaide median house price is $382,500 as of Q4 2009, and house prices "generally" tend to double every 7 years, going back to 1988, the average home would have been $47,812. (Let's just go with that, since I can't find any stats for the median home prices in '89) That's something like a 750% percent increase over that timeframe. The value of the airport land is realistically, far higher than the $1.20b figure - and would actually be worth around $9.0b dollars. That is a goldmine of a figure, which I believe would be enough to recoup the investment many times over. This would put the relocation of the airport as being economically feasible, producing a positive cost/benefit result, rather than a negative one it produced in 1989.

That's just the economical impact from establishing the new airport; let alone any investment into the CBD from development potential.

Thank goodness for that Horton fellow. 'Smarter' buildings, not 'higher'.

Now only if he could inspire his Institute's membership to deliver them.

Prince George wrote:

Will wrote:For those of you who feel that we should not take part in some 'dick comparing contest', after looking at the below images from 1989, don't you feel at-least slighty embarrassed? Yes, I realise that the city has changes considerably at ground level, but from afar, for those not into development it looks largely the same.

Well, by comparison, here's the Bilbao skyline. When this photo was taken, the Guggenheim and the "Bilbao miracle" were 10 years old. Can you see the Guggenheim in this shot?



This one shows it, over on the left. It's no taller than the typical Bilbao building, roughly 6 storeys - the taller stuff is all office towers that are capturing nobody's imagination.



The lesson - it doesn't have to be big if it's good. Design isn't additive, you don't get to outstanding by piling on mediocrity. Bilbao's skyline is largely unchanged over the last 30 years, and it doesn't matter. Visitors only want to see the building that changed how people felt about architecture. I want the people, I want the density, but height isn't a precondition for helping people feel differently about the city. I'll take an awesome shorter building over another giant Toblerone shaped one any day.

[Edit: mis-spelled "Toblerone"]

But Prince George, this discussion is not about building an 'iconic' building. I agree, that a building doesn't have to be tall to be iconic.

This discussion is about creating a modern skyline for Adelaide. And to create a modern skyline, you do not necessarily need avantgarde iconic towers.

Will wrote:But Prince George, this discussion is not about building an 'iconic' building. I agree, that a building doesn't have to be tall to be iconic.

This discussion is about creating a modern skyline for Adelaide. And to create a modern skyline, you do not necessarily need avantgarde iconic towers.

I understand what you were meaning, that's why I was stressing that Bilbao's appearance is largely unchanged and yet they are regarded as a city that turned itself around. Other than the Guggenheim and a Santiago Calatrava bridge, you could sell 30 year old postcards of Bilbao and struggle to tell the difference.