News & Discussion: Height Limits

[Howie]

I know of no other city in the world which has no height restrictions on development.

Dubai, Brisbane, Shanghai, KL?

[Wayno]

this is unlikely - Clipsal is directly under the flight path, and closer to the airport than the CBD. I don't have the OLS data for this area - i think we'll be lucky to have 12 levels before breaching safety limits...

Actually the CBD is 4.02kms from the airport, and the clipsal site is 6.40kms from the airport. Conservatively speaking the height limits should be around 150m for this region, maybe a tad more.

oops - sorry, my mistake.

[stumpjumper]

You're right Howie, but on the other hand I should have qualified my statement to something like

'No city comparable to Adelaide has abandoned height limits'

OK, 'comparable' can be subjective, but in this case I mean points like the following that would distinguish Adelaide from other cities which ha ve no limits:

For example, Brisbane: greater Brisbane (effectively the SW corner of Qld) needs 250 new houses per week to house its immigrant population. The area for which height limits have been abandoned will need 575,000 new dwellings (or more, given the trend to smaller households) over the next 20 years, plus all the commercial support such an influx requires. In other words, as in the classic case of Chicago after its CBD was gutted in 1871, the need for more height is being driven by a demand for land.

Naturally, Adelaide is always mentioned in the same breath as Shanghai, KL and so on.

A cost benefit analysis of removing building height limits in Adelaide, where there is no great pressure on CBD land, would be an interesting excercise. Who benefits and who pays? I suspect the present landowners would be the main beneficiary. I know of a site in Gilbert St site (max developed height 4 stories) bought in 2006 for a million and a half reflecting its potential to take about 8 two level townhouses would suddenly be worth multiples of that. So given the absence of high demand for CBD land, any call in Adelaide for easing or abandonment of building height limits is likely to be driven by speculation of price increase of vacant land, in other words, by the present owners of the land.

The above is not the case in any of the large world cities you mentioned.

Apart from anything else, Adelaide's proximity to its airport could be a bit of a problem.

What about Paris, by the way? Height limit of around five stories across 95% of the cities. To think that Adelaide is on a par with Dubai, KL etc is the height of self-delusion.

I consider myself open minded, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument for abandoning height limits in the Adelaide CBD other than doing so to increase the value of existing holdings. Where is/are the argument/s based on good urban design?

I like big buildings, but I cannot see how they are Adelaide's best future.

I'm not even sure my argument is right, but I'm happy to be convinced yours is. I've just never seen a convincing argument for it,

[Howie]

I understand where you're coming from. Just a couple of comments i've got to make.

What about Paris, by the way? Height limit of around five stories across 95% of the cities. To think that Adelaide is on a par with Dubai, KL etc is the height of self-delusion.

Paris has just dropped those height limits in recent weeks.

Adelaide could be mentioned in the same sentence as Dubai and KL. Adelaide and Dubai in 1995 had similar populations. That's not too long ago. They were able to turn it into a tourism hotspot and the fastest growing population in the world... we remained the same.

KL is not 'that' much bigger than Adelaide. It's probably on par with Melbourne in terms of regional size and populations. Besides KL Tower and Petronas Twin Towers, their skylines wouldn't be all that much different to most cities in Australia. But that just goes to show, isn't it wonderful what a handful of supertalls have done for KL?

[stumpjumper]

The Mayor of Paris proposed dropping the 37m height limit that applies except at La Defense. The reason is the huge demand for floor space and the skyrocketing rents. About 2/3rds of Paris residents are opposed (no doubt they're the ones with a Paris property or tenancy already).

At least they have the right to discuss it. If they were residents of Adelaide and the projects proposed were $10 mill + they as locals, and even as owners of local land would be excluded from the debate.

As for KL, again, you're right. Petronas Towers do bring a lot of attention to KL because they are the world's tallest buildings (subject to arguments about spires and antennae etc), at least until the Chinese knock them off. I wonder if (presuming our geotechnical conditions would support such a building) we could find the tenants (and the developer) for a Wprld's Tallest Building?

What really interests me about this debate is not the buildings themselves, although buildings are my trade.

I'm interested in two other aspects of tall buildings - the psychology of their fans (well represented here) and the economic microclimate they bring with them. (As do shopping malls etc, but in a different way).

The psychology is interesting, once you get past 'phallic appeal' etc.

Fans of tall buildings might ask themselves, 'Why exactly is taller better? Is a big building better to work in that a shorter one? Is the ideal philosophy of urban design really 'Big = good; small = bad', with the following very brief planning legislation: 'Yes'.

What is behind the push for tall buildings? Will they make our lives better? Will we have more money, or more friends or more sex?

I'm not suggesting that their is no advantage to tall buildings - for example where land is scarce and demand is high, they are literally the only way out. But I'm still wondering, as ever, why tgehy are the best solution for Adelaide's problem. Further, what that problem is is not usually explained. Exactly what problem does Adelaide have which would be solved by building tall buildings?

We already have an example (a short building, this time) of a built solution for which there was no problem - the National Wine Centre. For what problem in Adelaide (other than scarcity of land which is not the case here) are tall buildings the answer?

[Wayno]

For what problem in Adelaide (other than scarcity of land which is not the case here) are tall buildings the answer?

I consider skyscrapers to be the equivalent of ancient religious temples (which were skyscrapers at their time of construction). But unlike temples which focus on the existence of imaginary friends (aka gods), skyscrapers are a source of modern day pride as they portray our social and economic prosperity. This thinking is core to human nature, especially in the western world (of which Adelaide is firmly a part, no matter what the vocal minority think).

Stumpjumper, i presume you have vacationed domestically & possibly internationally? Look through your own tourist photos. There will be pictures of natural beauty, as well as man-made marvels that typically include tall architecturaly pleasing buildings (intentionally chosen as the photo background) as they play an important role in identifying a city, and act as markers for your travel memories.

[Professor]

Did I make a mistake in sending in my last post (no pun intended!) on this topic around 2 hours ago>

Seems to have disappeared.

[Shuz]

The temple thing makes a lot of sense, people would "look up" to their gods, so to speak. The sky has always been a focal point of human interaction to the universe or to a 'divine' being. It is interesting to note, that the anit-religious, or athiests have adopted this relgious principle and converted into architectural context. In our modern world, buildings are our "gods" so to speak, we look up to the sky and what we see is a symbol of life, of prosperity, of important value. This message has been strongly conveyed into the 20th century, and will continue to dominate into the 21st. They are a source of one's pride, and unfortunately in Adelaide's case Westpac is our icon. Cities the world over will continue to utilise tall buildings in this way.

[Cruise]

i don't look up to the gods, i look up to Kevin Foley

[Norman]

i don't look up to the gods, i look up to Kevin Foley

Because he's a Power supporter?

[Cruise]

No, Just because he knows whats better for the state than any of us do, ask him, he'll tell you how awesome he is.

[Wayno]

No, Just because he knows whats better for the state than any of us do, ask him, he'll tell you how awesome he is.

FIGJAM

[Professor]

I would think that 50-55 levels would be a suitable upper limit for Adelaide.

The airport is far enough away and the technology / engine capacity of aircraft to climb / avoid buildings gets better all the time.

The skyline is pretty boring for the past decade, a couple of decent sized buildings would be great.

And the height for the Clipsal site could easily be set at 10-15 levels, if designed well. The adjacent steep hill up into north adelaide would account for 10 building levels at least, so would have little impact on the flight path.

[Ho Really]

I would think that 50-55 levels would be a suitable upper limit for Adelaide...

Better if you can quantify it in metres (like 200-225 metres).

Cheers

[Shuz]

I'm with you Professor - I've always believed that 700ft (213.5m) should be the limit Adelaide should aim for in the long term. Because of the situation still not 'picture' clear regarding PANS-OPS, I do know that 150-160m now is definetly possible. But as you said, aviation technology improves all the time, and over time, that will impact on the height we can achieve.