Sensational-Adelaide.com

Aidan, no offence. That's just pathetically wishful thinking, one which would not be realised for decades, yet. And last time I checked, underground means under the ground. If Sydney can build an underground without knocking over a few handfuls of buildings (except those where the stations are to be built) then I'm pretty sure Adelaide can too. Technology is improving consistently as is construction methods, etc.

And do remind me again, why is this spot, of the whole city a best place to have an underground?

Aidan wrote:

AtD wrote:Drawing lines in MS Paint does not make you a transport engineer.

Of course it doesn't, but a UniSA degree in Civil Engineering does.

I graduate this month.

omada wrote:Are you having a laff? Seriously ? An underground railway! HAHAHAHHA

I'm entirely serious. Adelaide is the biggest city in Australia without one, and with only a single station to serve the entire CBD (located on the edge of it) we're more in need of one than Melbourne ever was.

Not taking such a vital project seriously is an example of the mentality that Adelaide has to shake off if it's going to thrive.

Aidan, congrats on your upcoming graduation, but you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think that obtaining an undergraduate degree in civil engineering makes you a transport engineer!

I would be very interested to hear a few more reasons why you believe we need an underground rail system. Im sorry, but just because Adelaide is the biggest city in oz without one just doesn't cut it for me.

Firstly, the building design looks great, and I hope it gets built!!
Nice work on the design, it would be great to see something of this scale getting off the ground.

Secondly, Aiden's idea of an underground rails system is great, why the negativity? or maybe it's not negativity,
and you're just being really practical and don't want anything to threaten this development... fair enough I suppose

I've lived in cities with underground rail and its awesome!! seriously the best way to get around a city area. If
you don't believe me, try it if you get the chance!!
Imagine maximum 5 minute waits, and on time trains zipping under the city...

the next best option is an east west tram of some kind...

anyway i can't help feeling like we got off topic, so, great building, lets do it.

Aidan wrote:As fantastic as this building is, an underground railway is more important than any Adelaide building, and I'm opposed to any development that would prevent one getting constructed.

hi aiden, i'd be interested to hear more about this - perhaps in one of the relevant vision/suggestion threads?

An observation: to the south of this proposal, down Gawler Place (north of the current SA Police HQ) there's and empty block and access to an underground carpark. I am just wondering what this southern facade will be, mainly bare or the same as the other two we've seen in the rendering? Also the western facade will have a portion bordering the ING Building that will have to be fireproofed. How much of that will be bare? Would be interesting to see those aspects as well.

Cheers

Aidan wrote:As fantastic as this building is, an underground railway is more important than any Adelaide building, and I'm opposed to any development that would prevent one getting constructed.

Aidan, that area of the city is already home to some of the city's tallest towers. The real barrier to getting an underground in Adelaide is the fact that our CBD and inner metro area are no where near dense enough to support such a system. It would never pass the cost-benefit analysis.

I will, as Wayno suggested, start a thread in the Visions and Suggestions section, but it won't be ready until tomorrow, and possibly not for a few days. I will post a link when I've done so, but meanwhile I'll address the issues raised here:

Ho Really wrote: P.S. As for Aidan and his underground railway, forget Pirie Street and Gawler Place. If there ever was going to be any Metro it would have been down King William Street or any of the much wider streets east or west.

A King William Street tunnel would not be as convenient for much of the City, and would be much more difficult to link with the existing railway.

Pikey wrote:What's next, opposing towers in case cars start flying??

If a city had no airport but needed one and had the land for one available, would you support construction of a skyscraper at the end of the runway?

Shuz wrote: Aidan, no offence. That's just pathetically wishful thinking, one which would not be realised for decades, yet. And last time I checked, underground means under the ground. If Sydney can build an underground without knocking over a few handfuls of buildings (except those where the stations are to be built) then I'm pretty sure Adelaide can too. Technology is improving consistently as is construction methods, etc.

We need not wait decades, but even if we do, we should safeguard a route.

Sydney is mostly built on rock. Adelaide is mostly built on clay. Therefore we need deeper foundations under tall buildings.

The proliferation of tall buildings has meant that there are not many practical routes for an underground railway left. This building location is over where the line would turn from under Gawler Place towards Victoria Square. I'll explain more when I start a new thread.

loud wrote: Aidan, congrats on your upcoming graduation, but you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think that obtaining an undergraduate degree in civil engineering makes you a transport engineer!

What would you think is required then?

I would be very interested to hear a few more reasons why you believe we need an underground rail system. Im sorry, but just because Adelaide is the biggest city in oz without one just doesn't cut it for me.

Consider the Noarlunga Line, it wastes time going past the City, then all the passengers have to get off at a station that's only near the destination of a few of them.

Do you understand yet?

monotonehell wrote: Aidan, that area of the city is already home to some of the city's tallest towers. The real barrier to getting an underground in Adelaide is the fact that our CBD and inner metro area are no where near dense enough to support such a system. It would never pass the cost-benefit analysis.

I'm not suggesting a completely new line, just an underground extension to the existing railway so that it can better serve the City. In my Investigation Project last year, I calculated that the improved access it gives to the City would increase passenger numbers on the Noarlunga Line by over a third, and they'd increase by almost a third on the Gawler Line too. And considering the reduction in traffic and the reduced need for City parking, the case for it is actually quite good.

Aidan, tunnels are still technically possible even if the surrounding areas are occupied with building foundations. The property is in the hands of the private sector, not the government, so whoever owns it has the right to do what they want with it (within given restrictions of course). It's easy to get lost in the technical detail and forget that there are other economic and social impacts that are also important (I know a few engineers who also think like this).

If you get the chance, search up on what Tokyo's soil profiles are like, and then look at the extensive infrastructure that the city has managed to construct despite the technical difficulties. It's supposedly some of the worst soil to be building on or through in the world, yet there are 13 subway lines successfully squeezed throughout the city centre, including districts crammed with tall buildings.

I've started a new thread in Visions & Suggestions under the topic Adelaide CBD and Underground Railways for any discussion relating to Aidan's posts here. I hope that's OK Aidan. You can always start another thread if you wish.

Cheers

I have a further observation regarding this building. If it is 115 metres in height, it will be 1 metre taller than the Grenfell Centre with TV repeater (the grey antenna). A good place to get the right perspective of the future height is from Air Apartments at Eastwood. One question arises though. Will this building interrupt signals to the southeastern Adelaide foothills? Or maybe one of those spires (aerials) in the sketch is a new repeater. It's possible you know. And that could mean a further 10 metres or so of height (wishful thinking?).

Cheers

Hey im a new member, i saw this building and thought it looks very similar to proposed 75 storey building in New York, What do you think?

Looks like this is dead. It has been deleted of the architects website..

I hope that's not the case. It could be being revised, as they do have projects that did not proceed in their portfolio (meaning whether it is on the site or not isn't necessary an indicator of it's status).

Ben wrote:Looks like this is dead. It has been deleted of the architects website..

This isn't really surprising considering the economic circumstances.

Thread cleaned up... that's 20 minutes of my life i won't get back. Please don't do that again Shuz.