[PRO] Masonic Lodge | 183m | 37 Levels | Mixed Use

[Nort]

Adelaide almost certainly could accommodate much higher towers if there was sufficient demand, but assessing where heights could be raised to the point you can declare the rules "stupid and entirely unethical" certainly requires more than plotting the average path of incoming aircraft and declaring that there is plenty of space between that line and a building site.

A ton of work has to be done to ensure there is margin for aircraft to operate safely in a range of different scenarios, approaching and leaving from the all the different runways, and operating around it in a variety of conditions. Then if deemed safe there is a bunch of documentation, charts, and procedures that have to be updated and given time to be widely adopted.

There are definitely steps in the process that could be made easier or less teeth-grindingly slow, which aspects of that will your petition be addressing?

[VinyTapestry849]

Adelaide almost certainly could accommodate much higher towers if there was sufficient demand, but assessing where heights could be raised to the point you can declare the rules "stupid and entirely unethical" certainly requires more than plotting the average path of incoming aircraft and declaring that there is plenty of space between that line and a building site.

A ton of work has to be done to ensure there is margin for aircraft to operate safely in a range of different scenarios, approaching and leaving from the all the different runways, and operating around it in a variety of conditions. Then if deemed safe there is a bunch of documentation, charts, and procedures that have to be updated and given time to be widely adopted.

There are definitely steps in the process that could be made easier or less teeth-grindingly slow, which aspects of that will your petition be addressing?

I will gather my evidence and possibly talk to some city planners about it for advice, and finalize the points. I believe there is demand for higher towers. Kyren Group (Adelaidean), and Maxcon (Realm) both hinted they would have built higher had the limitations not been in place. In addition, the Freemasons and the Central Market developments (82% of apartments already been preordered for the central market, aren't even officially on sale until next year though!) have both been 'completely exhausted' with offers and interest from legal, commercial, retail, residential, and hotel firms that they're booked out; which tells me there is demand for space in the CBD.

What puzzles me is why aren't the vacant properties in the CBD being snatched up by these countless firms. It may be that they need more space or facilities, but it could be down to the fact that having the address of 'Central Market Tower 1' and 'Freemason Hall Tower' is more attractive. Therefore If higher and more prestigious developments like market square and freemason hall tower could be approved, it may drive activity and CBD occupancy rates up.

[gnrc_louis]

Adelaide almost certainly could accommodate much higher towers if there was sufficient demand, but assessing where heights could be raised to the point you can declare the rules "stupid and entirely unethical" certainly requires more than plotting the average path of incoming aircraft and declaring that there is plenty of space between that line and a building site.

A ton of work has to be done to ensure there is margin for aircraft to operate safely in a range of different scenarios, approaching and leaving from the all the different runways, and operating around it in a variety of conditions. Then if deemed safe there is a bunch of documentation, charts, and procedures that have to be updated and given time to be widely adopted.

There are definitely steps in the process that could be made easier or less teeth-grindingly slow, which aspects of that will your petition be addressing?

I will gather my evidence and possibly talk to some city planners about it for advice, and finalize the points. I believe there is demand for higher towers. Kyren Group (Adelaidean), and Maxcon (Realm) both hinted they would have built higher had the limitations not been in place, and in addition the Freemasons and the Market square developments have both been 'completely exhausted' with offers and interest from legal, commercial, retail, residential, and hotel firms that they're booked out; which tells me there is extreme demand for space in the CBD. What puzzles me is why aren't the vacant properties in the CBD being snatched up by these countless firms. It may be that they need more space or facilities, but it could be down to the fact that having the address of 'Central Market Tower 1' and 'Freemason Hall Tower' is more attractive. Therefore If higher and more prestigious developments like market square and freemason hall tower could be approved, it may drive activity and CBD occupancy rates up.

There’s not “extreme demand” in the CBD though, that’s reflected by the fact many proposals haven’t yet got up. There’s definitely demand for high quality developments, but high quality doesn’t necessarily equal taller.

[dbl96]

There’s not “extreme demand” in the CBD though, that’s reflected by the fact many proposals haven’t yet got up. There’s definitely demand for high quality developments, but high quality doesn’t necessarily equal taller.

Exactly, the Adelaide CBD still has a huge supply of easily developable and appropriately zoned land, probably more such land than any of the other state/territory capitals, due to the large area of the Adelaide CBD (especially relative to Adelaide's population and economic stature).

[rev]

I will gather my evidence and possibly talk to some city planners about it for advice, and finalize the points. I believe there is demand for higher towers. Kyren Group (Adelaidean), and Maxcon (Realm) both hinted they would have built higher had the limitations not been in place. In addition, the Freemasons and the Central Market developments (82% of apartments already been preordered for the central market, aren't even officially on sale until next year though!) have both been 'completely exhausted' with offers and interest from legal, commercial, retail, residential, and hotel firms that they're booked out; which tells me there is demand for space in the CBD.

What puzzles me is why aren't the vacant properties in the CBD being snatched up by these countless firms. It may be that they need more space or facilities, but it could be down to the fact that having the address of 'Central Market Tower 1' and 'Freemason Hall Tower' is more attractive. Therefore If higher and more prestigious developments like market square and freemason hall tower could be approved, it may drive activity and CBD occupancy rates up.

There's no population or economic base to support these super talls you imagine will be built here.

[Mpol02]

I will gather my evidence and possibly talk to some city planners about it for advice, and finalize the points. I believe there is demand for higher towers. Kyren Group (Adelaidean), and Maxcon (Realm) both hinted they would have built higher had the limitations not been in place. In addition, the Freemasons and the Central Market developments (82% of apartments already been preordered for the central market, aren't even officially on sale until next year though!) have both been 'completely exhausted' with offers and interest from legal, commercial, retail, residential, and hotel firms that they're booked out; which tells me there is demand for space in the CBD.

What puzzles me is why aren't the vacant properties in the CBD being snatched up by these countless firms. It may be that they need more space or facilities, but it could be down to the fact that having the address of 'Central Market Tower 1' and 'Freemason Hall Tower' is more attractive. Therefore If higher and more prestigious developments like market square and freemason hall tower could be approved, it may drive activity and CBD occupancy rates up.

There's no population or economic base to support these supertalls you imagine will be built here.

Supertalls are buildings exceeding 300+ metres. VinyTapestry849 is asking for the current limit of 130m to be lifted so we can hit slightly higher peaks and grow from tehre. There may not be a demand for several 150+ buildings to go up but there seems to be enough of a demand that it is stunting the height of a few previous and now possible future developments. If we can push past this limit then in the coming years it opens our skyline to grow higher. It won't be a boom but a slow creep up in height. As of now, Adelaide can't do that and we should be able to.

[HiTouch]

I will gather my evidence and possibly talk to some city planners about it for advice, and finalize the points. I believe there is demand for higher towers. Kyren Group (Adelaidean), and Maxcon (Realm) both hinted they would have built higher had the limitations not been in place. In addition, the Freemasons and the Central Market developments (82% of apartments already been preordered for the central market, aren't even officially on sale until next year though!) have both been 'completely exhausted' with offers and interest from legal, commercial, retail, residential, and hotel firms that they're booked out; which tells me there is demand for space in the CBD.

What puzzles me is why aren't the vacant properties in the CBD being snatched up by these countless firms. It may be that they need more space or facilities, but it could be down to the fact that having the address of 'Central Market Tower 1' and 'Freemason Hall Tower' is more attractive. Therefore If higher and more prestigious developments like market square and freemason hall tower could be approved, it may drive activity and CBD occupancy rates up.

There's no population or economic base to support these supertalls you imagine will be built here.

Supertalls are buildings exceeding 300+ metres. VinyTapestry849 is asking for the current limit of 130m to be lifted so we can hit slightly higher peaks and grow from tehre. There may not be a demand for several 150+ buildings to go up but there seems to be enough of a demand that it is stunting the height of a few previous and now possible future developments. If we can push past this limit then in the coming years it opens our skyline to grow higher. It won't be a boom but a slow creep up in height. As of now, Adelaide can't do that and we should be able to.

Lol supertalls

[rev]

I will gather my evidence and possibly talk to some city planners about it for advice, and finalize the points. I believe there is demand for higher towers. Kyren Group (Adelaidean), and Maxcon (Realm) both hinted they would have built higher had the limitations not been in place. In addition, the Freemasons and the Central Market developments (82% of apartments already been preordered for the central market, aren't even officially on sale until next year though!) have both been 'completely exhausted' with offers and interest from legal, commercial, retail, residential, and hotel firms that they're booked out; which tells me there is demand for space in the CBD.

What puzzles me is why aren't the vacant properties in the CBD being snatched up by these countless firms. It may be that they need more space or facilities, but it could be down to the fact that having the address of 'Central Market Tower 1' and 'Freemason Hall Tower' is more attractive. Therefore If higher and more prestigious developments like market square and freemason hall tower could be approved, it may drive activity and CBD occupancy rates up.

There's no population or economic base to support these supertalls you imagine will be built here.

Supertalls are buildings exceeding 300+ metres. VinyTapestry849 is asking for the current limit of 130m to be lifted so we can hit slightly higher peaks and grow from tehre. There may not be a demand for several 150+ buildings to go up but there seems to be enough of a demand that it is stunting the height of a few previous and now possible future developments. If we can push past this limit then in the coming years it opens our skyline to grow higher. It won't be a boom but a slow creep up in height. As of now, Adelaide can't do that and we should be able to.

Demand. Sure.
Images courtesy of the Property Council of Australia.

[A-Town]

I will gather my evidence and possibly talk to some city planners about it for advice, and finalize the points. I believe there is demand for higher towers. Kyren Group (Adelaidean), and Maxcon (Realm) both hinted they would have built higher had the limitations not been in place. In addition, the Freemasons and the Central Market developments (82% of apartments already been preordered for the central market, aren't even officially on sale until next year though!) have both been 'completely exhausted' with offers and interest from legal, commercial, retail, residential, and hotel firms that they're booked out; which tells me there is demand for space in the CBD.

What puzzles me is why aren't the vacant properties in the CBD being snatched up by these countless firms. It may be that they need more space or facilities, but it could be down to the fact that having the address of 'Central Market Tower 1' and 'Freemason Hall Tower' is more attractive. Therefore If higher and more prestigious developments like market square and freemason hall tower could be approved, it may drive activity and CBD occupancy rates up.

There's no population or economic base to support these supertalls you imagine will be built here.

Supertalls are buildings exceeding 300+ metres. VinyTapestry849 is asking for the current limit of 130m to be lifted so we can hit slightly higher peaks and grow from tehre. There may not be a demand for several 150+ buildings to go up but there seems to be enough of a demand that it is stunting the height of a few previous and now possible future developments. If we can push past this limit then in the coming years it opens our skyline to grow higher. It won't be a boom but a slow creep up in height. As of now, Adelaide can't do that and we should be able to.

Absolutely. There isn't demand in Adelaide for supertalls, but there absolutely is for 150-200m tall buildings, if not taller. The existing height limits are embarrassing for the city.

[VinyTapestry849]

I'm glad some people understand what I'm saying. All I want is for the current height limits to be removed. I reiterate there is NO need to go above a maximum of 230m, but there is a demand to reach the 150 - 200 .
I'm also glad that the masonic hall lodge will challenge these restrictions. There is NO DOUBT that these height limits are reducing economic growth and construction jobs within the CBD.
They MUST be removed.

[gnrc_louis]

I'm glad some people understand what I'm saying. All I want is for the current height limits to be removed. I reiterate there is NO need to go above a maximum of 230m, but there is a demand to reach the 150 - 200 .
I'm also glad that the masonic hall lodge will challenge these restrictions. There is NO DOUBT that these height limits are reducing economic growth and construction jobs within the CBD.
They MUST be removed.

What do you mean by 'No doubt" reducing economic growth and construction jobs within the CBD? Can you expand upon this please - are you saying potential developments aren't happening because the current height limits?

[VinyTapestry849]

I'm glad some people understand what I'm saying. All I want is for the current height limits to be removed. I reiterate there is NO need to go above a maximum of 230m, but there is a demand to reach the 150 - 200 .
I'm also glad that the masonic hall lodge will challenge these restrictions. There is NO DOUBT that these height limits are reducing economic growth and construction jobs within the CBD.
They MUST be removed.

What do you mean by 'No doubt" reducing economic growth and construction jobs within the CBD? Can you expand upon this please - are you saying potential developments aren't happening because the current height limits?

Basically. Developers are bypassing the city due to the restrictions, therefore not investing in the city of Adelaide for their developments, therefore reducing economic growth.

[Nort]

I'm glad some people understand what I'm saying. All I want is for the current height limits to be removed. I reiterate there is NO need to go above a maximum of 230m, but there is a demand to reach the 150 - 200 .
I'm also glad that the masonic hall lodge will challenge these restrictions. There is NO DOUBT that these height limits are reducing economic growth and construction jobs within the CBD.
They MUST be removed.

What do you think the PAN OPS and OLS heights should be for Adelaide?

[gnrc_louis]

I'm glad some people understand what I'm saying. All I want is for the current height limits to be removed. I reiterate there is NO need to go above a maximum of 230m, but there is a demand to reach the 150 - 200 .
I'm also glad that the masonic hall lodge will challenge these restrictions. There is NO DOUBT that these height limits are reducing economic growth and construction jobs within the CBD.
They MUST be removed.

What do you mean by 'No doubt" reducing economic growth and construction jobs within the CBD? Can you expand upon this please - are you saying potential developments aren't happening because the current height limits?

Basically. Developers are bypassing the city due to the restrictions, therefore not investing in the city of Adelaide for their developments, therefore reducing economic growth.

Fair enough. Is there actually any evidence that developers are "bypassing" the city though or is it just anecdotal? If we look at recent developments, some of the bigger Australian property developers like Charter Hall, CBUS and (soon) Walker Group will all have projects simultaneously happening.

I would be surprised if developers look at Adelaide and say "that height limited is stopping me from investing." If anything, they know projects can be difficult to get off the ground in Adelaide due to range of factors - of which I don't think height limitations is a major one.

[rev]

Basically. Developers are bypassing the city due to the restrictions, therefore not investing in the city of Adelaide for their developments, therefore reducing economic growth.

Is this an actual fact that you can show supporting evidence, or an assumption because Adelaide's skyline isn't filled with cranes?

Do you actually think that removing heigh limits is going to result in developers pouring billions into Adelaide?

Do you not think that things like economic development, growth, which will lead to population growth, would make Adelaide a more attractive place to invest in?