Sensational-Adelaide.com

Isn't it then just a case really of then building new antennae for the RTCC atop a new tallest building?

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:57 pm

Isn't it then just a case really of then building new antennae for the RTCC atop a new tallest building?

No. I may have confused you. The fact that the tallest point of Westpac happens to be an antenna isn't important in this context - it could be a lift overrun or a tank. It just happens to be the tallest point which was used to arbitrarily set the RTCC level a long time ago. Now we're stuck with it, for no other reason than there didn't happen to be a taller point in the city when it was set. If Westpac had instead been 100m tall, the RTCC would have been set at 100m. There's no operational basis for it in relation to airspace.

Billions of dollars of potential development in our city is currently not permitted due to an arbitrary decision in the 1980s, now enforced by bureaucrats who have no incentive to change it. There was no need to challenge it previously as ACC were blocking everything tall anyway. But since that changed and heights have gradually crept upwards, we've finally reached the point where the RTCC is limiting development. Expect to see it challenged soon.

So RTCC can just simply be changed at the stroke of a pen then.

Goes back to my point about there being so much useless and now that you mention it, arbitrary, bureaucracy. It's madness.

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:01 pm

So RTCC can just simply be changed at the stroke of a pen then.

Goes back to my point about there being so much useless and now that you mention it, arbitrary, bureaucracy. It's madness.

Well it's not useless, more that it's focused on air safety. If it can be easily updated though it probably should be.

edit: It's still not as simple as saying "just make one standard" though, what would actually happen is something more like this:

If there were 1 standard then we'd be bound by the lowest allowable limit - OLS. Anything above that would involve some sort of "bureaucracy".

The airport has been the least of our concerns for a long time. We never had the demand that warranted changing limits, and the previous major obstacle of the ACC was a bigger height limiting obstacle than anything an airport could throw up. 15 years ago most of the square mile had a 3-5 level limit ffs.

Ultimately all these airspace protection laws, while grounded in a technical reality, can be negotiated if there is ever a need.

Algernon wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:28 am

If there were 1 standard then we'd be bound by the lowest allowable limit - OLS. Anything above that would involve some sort of "bureaucracy".

The airport has been the least of our concerns for a long time. We never had the demand that warranted changing limits, and the previous major obstacle of the ACC was a bigger height limiting obstacle than anything an airport could throw up. 15 years ago most of the square mile had a 3-5 level limit ffs.

Ultimately all these airspace protection laws, while grounded in a technical reality, can be negotiated if there is ever a need.

Well the ACC is trying to get it's planning powers back that Labor took from them, let's hope the Liberal government has the sense to not only not give them those planning powers back, but strips them of more planning powers.

rev wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:01 am

Algernon wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:28 am

If there were 1 standard then we'd be bound by the lowest allowable limit - OLS. Anything above that would involve some sort of "bureaucracy".

The airport has been the least of our concerns for a long time. We never had the demand that warranted changing limits, and the previous major obstacle of the ACC was a bigger height limiting obstacle than anything an airport could throw up. 15 years ago most of the square mile had a 3-5 level limit ffs.

Ultimately all these airspace protection laws, while grounded in a technical reality, can be negotiated if there is ever a need.

Well the ACC is trying to get it's planning powers back that Labor took from them, let's hope the Liberal government has the sense to not only not give them those planning powers back, but strips them of more planning powers.

They've already confirmed that this is the case.

Sorry for bumping the thread but this might be relevant...

https://www.afr.com/real-estate/chip-en ... 704-h127ua (from July 4, 2018)

States that the intent is to build a hotel. I can't be bothered reading all the pages of this thread to know whether it is the same developer or not but it suggests something might actually still be planned for this site.

phenom wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:34 pm

[...]

I can't be bothered reading all the pages of this thread to know whether it is the same developer or not but it suggests something might actually still be planned for this site.

Yes, Chip Eng Seng is the same Singaporean developer interested in building a hotel on the site.

Cheers

According to the Park Hotel Group website:

Coming Soon
Located in Adelaide’s Central Business District, the new-build Park Hotel Adelaide is a 20 minutes’ drive from Adelaide International Airport. The Adelaide Railway Station and Central Bus Station is also a stone’s throw away. Designed by award-winning GHD Woodhead, the hotel will integrate modern spaces into one of the city’s most iconic heritage landmarks. In addition to 250 modern city-view rooms and suites, Park Hotel Adelaide offers a concept café and bar as well as a gymnasium and swimming pool.

Cheers

I hope it's still 153 metres.

timtam20292 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:15 am

I hope it's still 153 metres.

My impression is it will be around the 105~115 metres. If someone has the measurements of the block we could do an approximation. Its footprint could be similar to the Sofitel in Currie Street. The 250 rooms is also a clue. Put your thinking hats on.

Cheers

Matches the 250 rooms in the original article.

Fingers crossed!

https://investadelaide.com.au/news/51-p ... s-of-hotel

Can some one please send me a wake up email when there is a crane on site.