Sensational-Adelaide.com

crawf wrote:Yes, the telstra office building

No, it's the building opposite on the western corner of Peel and Grenfell Streets with the Polites sign.

Cheers

This looks like it will be great for the skyline. But a question to the politicians and the powers that be who run the whole height restrictions thing, what are the restrictions for anyway? i don't see that many planes flying just above the height of the tallest building in the city (which its name now btw, Stantos House, Westpac Tower??).

I do hope this building gets built because it should start the trend going of better architecture than we already have. Even though I'm not living in Adelaide any more i still have hope for it because it was where i was born and raised and someday i might return. When it is completed it should win an architecture award or something.

Totally agree mate what the hell do they need these stupid height restrictions for??????

In Hong Kong the airport was that close to the buildings that the planes used to appear to almost skim the roof tops and yet Hong Kong is still one of the most busiest airports in the world???? I'm sure theres heaps of airports and cities around the world that have obsticles, even mountains?? So why the hell do they make such a big deal about it in Adelaide?

Its these type of stupid rules that keep holding Adelaide back..

i thought it was wespac house, but in news articles and everywhere else its called waspac tower

Düsseldorfer wrote:...But a question to the politicians and the powers that be who run the whole height restrictions thing, what are the restrictions for anyway? i don't see that many planes flying just above the height of the tallest building in the city (which its name now btw, Stantos House, Westpac Tower??)...

Unfortunately planes do fly right over this proposed development and the Westpac Tower (ex-SANTOS House). What I and many others here would like to see is flightpath changes. Planes of all kinds except emergency helicopters and those with government permission should be prohibited from flying over the square mile.

Paulns wrote:In Hong Kong the airport was that close to the buildings that the planes used to appear to almost skim the roof tops and yet Hong Kong is still one of the most busiest airports in the world????...

What you saw in Hong Kong were planes landing at the old airport of Kai Tak on the mainland (Kowloon) opposite Hong Kong Island and the CBD. Take a look at some pics here. Even in Adelaide planes fly close to houses when they land. The new airport is at Chek Lap Kok, Lantau a fair distance from Hong Kong's CBD.

Cheers

Ho Really, what then is causing such rigid and prolonged flight path options. Is there no other way to approach Adelaide airport? Is it the prevailing wind direction, landing strip orientation, visuals etc etc??? I'd really like to understand this as it is causing Adelaide many developmental issues, such as with the project under discussion.

] heard that Santos' height was allowed in the face of the stringent airport requirements. Surely this can be done again - and if so, what of landing/takeoff trajectories then? If a precedent is laid down with the Curri St bldg,(as already with Santos) what then? The whole thing seems full of anomelies and contradictions - a morass of mines.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

skyliner wrote:Ho Really, what then is causing such rigid and prolonged flight path options. Is there no other way to approach Adelaide airport? Is it the prevailing wind direction, landing strip orientation, visuals etc etc??? I'd really like to understand this as it is causing Adelaide many developmental issues, such as with the project under discussion.

] heard that Santos' height was allowed in the face of the stringent airport requirements. Surely this can be done again - and if so, what of landing/takeoff trajectories then? If a precedent is laid down with the Curri St bldg,(as already with Santos) what then? The whole thing seems full of anomelies and contradictions - a morass of mines.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

I really don't think the height limits are enforced by AAL but the ACC. There is talk of an 8 story hotel on the airport site. ACC wants a "Pyramid" shape skyline and wants to maintain the character of the CBD and minimise shading issues. Yes AAL needs to be informed of proposals over a certain height but I think you'll find upon investigation it is purely the council that is restraining the heights of city buildings. (Infact this was actually brought up in the DAP meeting I went to for this building), The architects said that the height of this building will keep in line with the councils Pyramid skyline vision for the city.

This pyramid skyline idea is bizarre. I can't see how it produces a better city. Anyone with ideas let me know.

Everyone keep your eyes out for the next Adelaide Development Plan Community Consultation and post it on this website so that we can all provide feedback on the absurdity.

urban wrote:Everyone keep your eyes out for the next Adelaide Development Plan Community Consultation and post it on this website so that we can all provide feedback on the absurdity.

I believe it will not be that far off maybe a few months after the council elections.

Isn't the potential hirise towers on City Central and Renaissance Arcade, going to ruin it?

I hope the ACC axe this plan, because the city skyline is starting to have pymind shape from some angles and its not a good look.

this pyramid shape comes from 'TheCity Of Adelaide Plan' in 1974 as published by Urban Systems Corporation PTY LTD for th ACC. Robert Clampett Lord mayor at the time.

IMO it is so restrictive and caused so many problems for developers that the aesthetic gain is a waste of time. It is breached in all kinds of locations as it is and only really seems to come into play when development might make Adelaide look bigger than current pet ideas held. But I sse the poiunt that it really is the ACC that is the culprit.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE.

Check out what this nimby wrote to the messenger we should all write in and tell them "Adelaide's majestic skyline" is not meant to stagnate but grow with time.

ahahahahahaha

Unless all of a sudden, the sun will shine light from below the cantilevered section, there's no way it'd be reflected down onto the road - what a fuckwit.

D Wilden fails at physics. And obviously has no qualifications as an energy rating expert... so really he should shut his trap and build a bridge.