CBD Development Plan

[Shuz]

I was going to say everyone, but if not, an overwhelming majority of participants on this forum have indicated at one point in time or another the need to amend and revise the city's development plan through a number of variants. My key focus - Height Limits.

If you'll amuse yourself to a visual interpretation of this word being zoomed into, with its glorious white letters and the sound of thunder crackling along with the Star Wars theme.
Height Limits

In a galaxy, far, far away.....
It's evident that height limits are the forefront of the development plan's issues. Personally, I think a sensible and sustainable compromise that will produce a result which doesnt compromise Adelaide's character, but elevates its vertical element to a new level would be to impose a maximum limitation of around 700ft [213m] - similar in height to Brisbane's Aurora. The rest of the CBD should be covered under a zonal limitation model, with the exception of Victoria Square, all the CBD squares and its adjacent properties would instead be protected under a transitional limitation model with respect to sunlight access.

I think the ACC's plan to amend the minimum maximum height limit from 2-3 stories to 7 stories, is an appropriate step forward in increasing the city's vertical element particularly to its southwestern and southeastern localities. This change represents over a 100% increase in the limit which will adversely impact the streetscape and transform the city's image particularly in areas of lower recognition.

In a bit more detail, all properties adjacent to the parklands on the city's western, eastern and southern edges should be limited at 7 stories. The 2 southern city squares should be protected under a transitional zonal model - allowing sunlight in. Because development has already impacted on the 2 northern city squares, the same principle would apply that would allow sunlight in to the southern portion of the square (south of Currie/Grenfell streets). The city core height limit should be based around Victoria Square, expanding right up to the boundaries of the 4 city squares (Except to the north where it bounds North Terrace directly). The city's far east, west, and southern (KWS) precincts should be protected under a smaller limitation to the core, around 300ft [91m]. The city's far south-western and south-eastern precincts should be protected under a smaller limitation to the previous, around 100ft.

In a sense, yes this still retains an element of the pyramid model, however with the expansion of the CBD core it would appear otherwise (particularly in the case that you had a 213m building directly adjacent the 91m zone). The current model where developments are assessed on merit in the event they conflict with development regulations should be retained, allowing for variability throughout the city.

Thoughts?

[monotonehell]

Hey Shuz-eh, this is a bug bear that pops up a lot on S-A. Myself and Wayno are looking into it. What we've discovered so far is that the ACC's height limits in two spots (West Tce and Vic Square) are just under the max allowed by the Commonwealth already. The trouble is that the info we need is hard to obtain, we're still looking into it and hope to be able to produce some kind of model that shows the max height (OLS & PANS-OPS) as compared to the ACC's development plan heights so we can see if and where we can campaign for them to be raised, or whether we just look silly calling for the impossible.

We've found out some interesting things so far, but nothing concrete as yet. Wayno's overseas for a week so things are on hold a bit. But watch this space, as soon as we get to the bottom (or top?) of the matter we'll present our findings to the whole S-A community.

[Wayno]

Hey Shuz-eh, this is a bug bear that pops up a lot on S-A. Myself and Wayno are looking into it. What we've discovered so far is that the ACC's height limits in two spots (West Tce and Vic Square) are just under the max allowed by the Commonwealth already. The trouble is that the info we need is hard to obtain, we're still looking into it and hope to be able to produce some kind of model that shows the max height (OLS & PANS-OPS) as compared to the ACC's development plan heights so we can see if and where we can campaign for them to be raised, or whether we just look silly calling for the impossible.

We've found out some interesting things so far, but nothing concrete as yet. Wayno's overseas for a week so things are on hold a bit. But watch this space, as soon as we get to the bottom (or top?) of the matter we'll present our findings to the whole S-A community.

Just got back from OS yesterday. Will focus on this with Mono again shortly. Unfortunately too many boozey business dinners, early starts and long work days saw me arrive home with a bad head cold - groan...and standing in the wind/rain at Unley Oval yesterday probably did not help my health much either at least the Blues whipped Port Adelaide!

[Shuz]

Well, I just may jump on board with this. See where Google takes me

Basically, our starting point is here. The ACC limits are found on very first page of thread, AAL limits are found on the last page of thread (p.9) Apparently I've learnt something new (well moreso I skipped between the lines and didn't read the fine print). The AAL limits are actually -44m lower than designated on map because they are measured AHD (above sea level) rather than above ground level. The CBD is 44m above ground, so yeah... Basically the rule is, that any building which exceeds the AAL limits has to be approved by them also - keep in note, its more of a pre-cautionary guideline, so that they know which buildings to plonk on thier radar screens that violate the airspace... I would very highly doubt that the AAL would reject a development (unless theres an example which has?)

http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... &sk=t&sd=a

At the moment, I may be onto something regarding PAN-OPS.

[monotonehell]

Well, I just may jump on board with this. See where Google takes me

Basically, our starting point is here. The ACC limits are found on very first page of thread, AAL limits are found on the last page of thread (p.9) Apparently I've learnt something new (well moreso I skipped between the lines and didn't read the fine print). The AAL limits are actually -44m lower than designated on map because they are measured AHD (above sea level) rather than above ground level. The CBD is 44m above ground, so yeah... Basically the rule is, that any building which exceeds the AAL limits has to be approved by them also - keep in note, its more of a pre-cautionary guideline, so that they know which buildings to plonk on thier radar screens that violate the airspace... I would very highly doubt that the AAL would reject a development (unless theres an example which has?)

http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... &sk=t&sd=a

At the moment, I may be onto something regarding PAN-OPS.

We've gone through all this Shuz babe - Wayno posted our findings a few pages back. The cute little diagram with the airplane ^_^

EDIT: Finally found the post .. http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... 122#p37122


What we're currently lacking is a decent PANS-OPS chart - the one we have is near impossible to read. We're approaching AAL to see how much it's going to cost Wayno ( ) to buy a better chart.

[Shuz]

Shuz-eh, Shuz-babe... I sense someone's hitting on me?

Yes, I did see the cute little diagram that Wayno provided, I was merely trying to find out more information about the PAN-OPS scenario. But, alas my Google search did nothing to help. And I was sort of reiterating and clarifying the situation concerning the AAL, anyways. I'll step aside and let you two tackle this one...

[monotonehell]

Shuz-eh, Shuz-babe... I sense someone's hitting on me?

Yes, I did see the cute little diagram that Wayno provided, I was merely trying to find out more information about the PAN-OPS scenario. But, alas my Google search did nothing to help. And I was sort of reiterating and clarifying the situation concerning the AAL, anyways. I'll step aside and let you two tackle this one...

No need to stop Shuz-love-pet-...darlllll (okay now I'm just messing with you) I didn't mean it to sound like that. I was just pointing you to what we'd already worked out so you didn't have to do all the research again. PANS-OPS indeed is THE limit. There's OLS and council below that, but those are just heights where you need permission from the relevant bodies. PANS-OPS is pretty much an upper height that you can't pierce by law.

If Wanyo manages to squeeze a clearer chart out of AAL we'll produce some kind of diagram that compares the three different ceilings across the square mile (and N.Adelaide) so we can see where it's possible to raise ACC's heights. (or if!) Already we've seen a couple of spot examples where the ACC's height is only one or two metres under OLS. So who knows until we get the data.

If you're interested in the nitty gritties I've dug up the appropriate legislation and so on. PM me - I wont post it here, it's long and boring.