[PRO] Masonic Lodge | 183m | 37 Levels | Mixed Use
[PRO] Re: Masonic Lodge | 160m | 39lvls | Mixed Use | NEW TALLEST
I understand why this has been labelled a Vision in context of this site's classifications, but it's a lot further advanced than that. A lot of work has gone into it, including in respect of settling on a height that is expected to obtain all necessary approvals.
No guarantee it's going to get built, but it's more than just a site-use concept.
No guarantee it's going to get built, but it's more than just a site-use concept.
[PRO] Re: Masonic Lodge | 160m | 39lvls | Mixed Use | NEW TALLEST
Do you have any clarification on the airspace limits, does this mean they have already indicated on it being ok to break the previous height limits?Pants wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 1:41 pmI understand why this has been labelled a Vision in context of this site's classifications, but it's a lot further advanced than that. A lot of work has gone into it, including in respect of settling on a height that is expected to obtain all necessary approvals.
No guarantee it's going to get built, but it's more than just a site-use concept.
[PRO] Re: Masonic Lodge | 160m | 39lvls | Mixed Use | NEW TALLEST
But those renders are so non-description though
[PRO] Re: Masonic Lodge | 160m | 39lvls | Mixed Use | NEW TALLEST
Because they're not a DA, they're presenting a business case for approval to a private board. If theyget the go ahead, this thing will likely look nothing like the renders nor have the same mix of uses if it finally gets to market.
With regard to speculation ofwhat it means that they're proposing this height, it probably means something along these lines: they asked someone from Sydney or Melbourne what the secret is, said someone looked things over and said "wait, you're still basically limited to OLS?", then they probably laughed and collapsed on the floor for a bit, then replied that it's something that's negotiable - it just needs a motivated party to have that conversation with the authorities (something which never happened because nobody ever tried in Adelaide, unlike every other major mainland capital).
If anyone has any doubts of whether it's technically possible to build somethig an approaching supertall in Adelaide, just consider this.When you take off from DXB, some paths after lift off actualy take you around the Burj Khalifa. Like, you look out the window and you are flying around it, not over it. It's the exact same EK flight that is about to land at ADL 14 hours later. The plane/pilot/airline hasn't changed, the regulations and radar equipment at the airport has.
Last edited by Algernon on Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
[PRO] Re: Masonic Lodge | 160m | 39lvls | Mixed Use | NEW TALLEST
CDJ has made quite a few posts over the years suggesting that people were trying to have those discussions unsuccessfully, if they're finally happening that's great.Algernon wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:31 pmWith regard to speculation ofwhat it means that they're proposing this height, it probably means something along these lines: they asked someone from Sydney or Melbourne what the secret is, said someone looked things over and said "wait, you're still basically limited to OLS?", then they probably laughed and collapsed on the floor for a bit, then replied that it's something that's negotiable - it just needs a motivated party to have that conversation with the authorities (something which never happened because nobody ever tried in Adelaide, unlike every other major mainland capital).
[PRO] Re: Masonic Lodge | 160m | 39lvls | Mixed Use | NEW TALLEST
But what if, by the time this is built, they change the definition of skyscraper to a building greater that 161m height - what will you do then? It won’t be a skyscraper will it?cmet wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 12:01 amSkyscraper = Building over 150m in height where over the 50% of the height are habitable floors - As defined by the Council on Tall Building and Urban Habitats. We have no skyscrapers by the actual definition.rhino wrote:WTF? We had our fist skyscraper in 1925 - the T&G Building on the corner of King William and Grenfell. Then in the 1960s the AMP Building on the corner of King William and North Tce was a skyscraper. You think this will be a skyscraper, but in a couple of generations it won't be considered one. It certainly isn't our first, just our first by current standards.VinyTapestry849 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:32 pmI want this so much! We'll have our official first skyscraper.
[PRO] Re: Masonic Lodge | 160m | 39lvls | Mixed Use | NEW TALLEST
What will I do? … probably go about my life in the same way I guessjordan85 wrote:But what if, by the time this is built, they change the definition of skyscraper to a building greater that 161m height - what will you do then? It won’t be a skyscraper will it?cmet wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 12:01 amSkyscraper = Building over 150m in height where over the 50% of the height are habitable floors - As defined by the Council on Tall Building and Urban Habitats. We have no skyscrapers by the actual definition.rhino wrote: WTF? We had our fist skyscraper in 1925 - the T&G Building on the corner of King William and Grenfell. Then in the 1960s the AMP Building on the corner of King William and North Tce was a skyscraper. You think this will be a skyscraper, but in a couple of generations it won't be considered one. It certainly isn't our first, just our first by current standards.
[PRO] Re: Masonic Lodge | 160m | 39lvls | Mixed Use | NEW TALLEST
Wouldn't stress too much on what the definition of a skyscraper is as this thing, if something gets built, will be reduced in height anyway.
-
- Super Size Scraper Poster!
- Posts: 2436
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:41 pm
- Location: Adelaide CBD, SA
[PRO] Re: Masonic Lodge | 160m | 39lvls | Mixed Use | NEW TALLEST
I have more faith in this going ahead that certain other developments... An organisation are desperately trying to raise capital, so there's one good enough motivation to get this off the ground. I remember that what is now the Realm, a mammoth was made some 15 years ago and went quiet for ages (and I even am of the understanding that a similarly large proposal was made for that site back in the 70s or 80s) then seven or so years ago they came forward with a shorter version of what is now Realm and then due to demand, that proposal grew into what is now on the site. So with that in mind, I remember a mid-rise proposal for this site surfacing about 10 years ago and it went quiet, so if this is coming forward now, based on aforementioned turn of events with the Realm site, I'm fairly confident this will get up some point of another, even if the current momentum dies off once again.
[PRO] Re: Masonic Lodge | 160m | 39lvls | Mixed Use | NEW TALLEST
Realm (well, the site) went through a change of hands at some point I think. About 15 years ago there was a fairly large (for the times) proposal there. Large as in fat, not tall (but for those days, still pretty tall compared to the 15 years of stagnation before it). The intent was to basically FIFO chinese labour and slap the thing up nice and dodgy. Union boys made sure that never saw the light of day.Patrick_27 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 5:44 pmI have more faith in this going ahead that certain other developments... An organisation are desperately trying to raise capital, so there's one good enough motivation to get this off the ground. I remember that what is now the Realm, a mammoth was made some 15 years ago and went quiet for ages (and I even am of the understanding that a similarly large proposal was made for that site back in the 70s or 80s) then seven or so years ago they came forward with a shorter version of what is now Realm and then due to demand, that proposal grew into what is now on the site. So with that in mind, I remember a mid-rise proposal for this site surfacing about 10 years ago and it went quiet, so if this is coming forward now, based on aforementioned turn of events with the Realm site, I'm fairly confident this will get up some point of another, even if the current momentum dies off once again.
[PRO] Re: Masonic Lodge | 160m | 39lvls | Mixed Use | NEW TALLEST
According to the gentleman being interviewed about the proposal, the 160m height they're aiming for is the max for that part of the CBD. This tells me that CASA have given this the green light.Nort wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:48 pmDo you have any clarification on the airspace limits, does this mean they have already indicated on it being ok to break the previous height limits?Pants wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 1:41 pmI understand why this has been labelled a Vision in context of this site's classifications, but it's a lot further advanced than that. A lot of work has gone into it, including in respect of settling on a height that is expected to obtain all necessary approvals.
No guarantee it's going to get built, but it's more than just a site-use concept.
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/adelaide/p ... t/13414262
[PRO] Re: Masonic Lodge | 160m | 39lvls | Mixed Use | NEW TALLEST
I think it's worth caring about - this will be a historic moment for the city. The whole world recognise 150m as the minimum height.
Even if they scale it down 10m, it will still allow Adelaide to break this record and join the club of world cities that have skyscrapers.
[PRO] Re: Masonic Lodge | 160m | 39lvls | Mixed Use | NEW TALLEST
It's not likely to change any time soon - but sure, in theory it could haha.jordan85 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 9:36 amBut what if, by the time this is built, they change the definition of skyscraper to a building greater that 161m height - what will you do then? It won’t be a skyscraper will it?cmet wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 12:01 amSkyscraper = Building over 150m in height where over the 50% of the height are habitable floors - As defined by the Council on Tall Building and Urban Habitats. We have no skyscrapers by the actual definition.rhino wrote:
WTF? We had our fist skyscraper in 1925 - the T&G Building on the corner of King William and Grenfell. Then in the 1960s the AMP Building on the corner of King William and North Tce was a skyscraper. You think this will be a skyscraper, but in a couple of generations it won't be considered one. It certainly isn't our first, just our first by current standards.
[PRO] Re: Masonic Lodge | 160m | 39lvls | Mixed Use | NEW TALLEST
That's interesting. So are you saying that the big height limit could actually be lifted with more advanced Airport tech?Algernon wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:31 pmBecause they're not a DA, they're presenting a business case for approval to a private board. If theyget the go ahead, this thing will likely look nothing like the renders nor have the same mix of uses if it finally gets to market.
With regard to speculation ofwhat it means that they're proposing this height, it probably means something along these lines: they asked someone from Sydney or Melbourne what the secret is, said someone looked things over and said "wait, you're still basically limited to OLS?", then they probably laughed and collapsed on the floor for a bit, then replied that it's something that's negotiable - it just needs a motivated party to have that conversation with the authorities (something which never happened because nobody ever tried in Adelaide, unlike every other major mainland capital).
If anyone has any doubts of whether it's technically possible to build somethig an approaching supertall in Adelaide, just consider this.When you take off from DXB, some paths after lift off actualy take you around the Burj Khalifa. Like, you look out the window and you are flying around it, not over it. It's the exact same EK flight that is about to land at ADL 14 hours later. The plane/pilot/airline hasn't changed, the regulations and radar equipment at the airport has.
[PRO] Re: Masonic Lodge | 160m | 39lvls | Mixed Use | NEW TALLEST
The PANSOPS height limit at this location is 159.7m. They've gone as high as they can possibly go.
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests