Spire Living | 107m | 37lvls | Residential

Message

#16 Post by **Pikey** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:42 am

Yeah I know, but I only had the render from one side, it's more to give an idea of the bulk it will add to the skyline

Thunderstruck · #17 Post by **Thunderstruck** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 9:49 am

Yeah, looks good from that angle will certainly add bulk. Time this baby and all the others are up as I think Pikey said in another thread, our skyline will look damn sexy from the south and west!

#18 Post by **Pikey** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:25 am

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION RECIEVED FOR BENTHAM AT 35 LEVELS!!!

DA/443/2005 has been lodged. - Watch this space for more info!

#19 Post by **Howie** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:08 am

NEAT!!

Thunderstruck · #20 Post by **Thunderstruck** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:08 am

EEEEEEEEXCELLENT news!!!!

petermaloney · #21 Post by **petermaloney** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:45 am

its all falling into place

#22 Post by **Pikey** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:57 am

According to the 'Tiser, the towers official height is 107m!

Thunderstruck · #23 Post by **Thunderstruck** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:21 pm

Yer saw that yesterday, page 3 said 33 levels but 107m???? Not sure if thats reliable or not but whatever it is that building is serious porn. Nice and slender which gives it quite a commanding appearance.

Algernon · #24 Post by **Algernon** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:18 pm

107m is probably the RL height, not the building height.

#25 Post by **Pikey** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 2:10 pm

Edit: No redesign - still the same design that we got the scoop on. Just a cock up with the numbers that were given to Cul. The official numbers, evidently, are 33 levels and 107m. - Straight from Rothe.

shuzstar · #26 Post by **shuzstar** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 3:07 pm

so im getting all confused here.... is it 33 levels or 35 levels? is it 105m or 107m? and it would make more sense that the more floors it has would be a taller height. eg: 35 floors to 107m, and 33 floors to 105m. not 33 floors to 107m and 35 floors to 105m as sources have provided us with.

btw this is a REALLY great site, only just found out about it!

#27 Post by **Pikey** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:05 pm

Might want to confirm this, but drove down Franklin last night and had at CC1 etc, and it looked like the delivery mob where this jobbie will sit looks like it's gone? Can anyone confirm this?

#28 Post by **Will** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:24 pm

I have good and band news about this development.

The good news is that it will be approved by the ACC DAP on the meeting that will be held on Monday November 7.

However the bad news is that due to the Protection of airspace regulations Act of 1996, the building that will be constructed on the site is significantly shorter than what we expected.

Due to the Act the building will no longer be the 108m originally planned, and it will no-longer be 35 levels in height.

The blades have been eliminated from the design, as have 2 building levels.

The new building will have a total height of 97.1m, and a height of 91.9m to the top of the tallest residential apartment. The building will now have 33 levels.

The tower will have a total of 96 apartments and 99 on-site car-parks.

So instead of getting a second tallest building we will unfortunately now only be getting a 4th tallest. However what worries me is that because of the Airspace Act, Adelaide will probably never get a 100m+ building.

Thunderstruck · #29 Post by **Thunderstruck** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:05 pm

Will wrote:I have good and band news about this development.

The good news is that it will be approved by the ACC DAP on the meeting that will be held on Monday November 7.

However the bad news is that due to the Protection of airspace regulations Act of 1996, the building that will be constructed on the site is significantly shorter than what we expected.

Due to the Act the building will no longer be the 108m originally planned, and it will no-longer be 35 levels in height.

The blades have been eliminated from the design, as have 2 building levels.

The new building will have a total height of 97.1m, and a height of 91.9m to the top of the tallest residential apartment. The building will now have 33 levels.

The tower will have a total of 96 apartments and 99 on-site car-parks.

So instead of getting a second tallest building we will unfortunately now only be getting a 4th tallest. However what worries me is that because of the Airspace Act, Adelaide will probably never get a 100m+ building.

FUCK. Bloody f'ing airspace regulations, ffs.

*end rant*

At least it is getting the go ahead, cheers for the info mate.

#30 Post by AG » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:21 pm

The airspace regulations make little sense. The airport is 6-7km west and the north-eastern approach is some 3km north of where this site is. Santos House is closer to the flight path than this would be and it would still be 30m higher. Around this area, planes would still be several thousand feet above the ground, and these buildings are only a few hundred feet high. Take a look at Logan International Airport's location in Boston. The airport is directly across the bay from its downtown area, yet it has a handful of buildings over 200m high.

If thats the case, than the north-western part of the CBD can't really go much higher than about 80-90m above ground, and to the most extreme north-west, above 55-60m. Anything higher would have to go further east or further south.

[CAN] Spire Living | 107m | 37lvls | Residential

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

Who is online