[VIS] 207 Pulteney Street | 195m | 60 Levels | Mixed Use

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Message
Author
brizzlar
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:50 pm

[VIS] Re: 207 Pulteney Street | 195m | 60 Levels | Mixed Use

#196 Post by brizzlar » Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:36 am

Algernon wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:13 am
Ser Noit of Loit wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:03 pm
It has to say something about the Advertiser's employee demographic that for the mockup of a building to potentially be built 2019> they choose one that was made in the early 90s.
Says something about the average Advertiser reader that one guy in the talkback said Adelaide can't have tall buildings because of earthquakes
While it is true that Adelaide is susceptible to earthquakes, that doesn't give any justification for the city to ban skyscrapers from being developed.

The particular part of the 'Indo-Australian' plate that Adelaide sits on is subject to tectonic stress release every so often.

This results in earthquakes usually under magnitude 5.

The largest in modern history was a 5.5 in 1954.

No one died and hardly any damage occurred in the CBD - just a damaged town hall clock and a statue.

Both San Francisco and LA exist next to the San Andreas Fault Line - they are due to get an 7.8+ earthquake.. and both have recently built super-talls of 300m+ with technology that will help those towers to survive such an event.

If those cities can built towers of that size in a FAR more dangerous region, I think Adelaide has no issues.

Nort
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1635
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm

[VIS] Re: 207 Pulteney Street | 195m | 60 Levels | Mixed Use

#197 Post by Nort » Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:50 am

brizzlar wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:36 am
Algernon wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:13 am
Ser Noit of Loit wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:03 pm
It has to say something about the Advertiser's employee demographic that for the mockup of a building to potentially be built 2019> they choose one that was made in the early 90s.
Says something about the average Advertiser reader that one guy in the talkback said Adelaide can't have tall buildings because of earthquakes
While it is true that Adelaide is susceptible to earthquakes, that doesn't give any justification for the city to ban skyscrapers from being developed.

The particular part of the 'Indo-Australian' plate that Adelaide sits on is subject to tectonic stress release every so often.

This results in earthquakes usually under magnitude 5.

The largest in modern history was a 5.5 in 1954.

No one died and hardly any damage occurred in the CBD - just a damaged town hall clock and a statue.

Both San Francisco and LA exist next to the San Andreas Fault Line - they are due to get an 7.8+ earthquake.. and both have recently built super-talls of 300m+ with technology that will help those towers to survive such an event.

If those cities can built towers of that size in a FAR more dangerous region, I think Adelaide has no issues.
I got excited seeing this thread bumped, thank you for the disappointment. :lol:

Wonder if we'll ever see what this plan was, seems safe to assume it's very dead at this point.

brizzlar
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:50 pm

[VIS] Re: 207 Pulteney Street | 195m | 60 Levels | Mixed Use

#198 Post by brizzlar » Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:25 am

Does anyone know if there's a replacement for this development, or another of it's kind that's on the cards for Adelaide?

Nort
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1635
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm

[VIS] Re: 207 Pulteney Street | 195m | 60 Levels | Mixed Use

#199 Post by Nort » Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:52 am

brizzlar wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:25 am
Does anyone know if there's a replacement for this development, or another of it's kind that's on the cards for Adelaide?
:wallbash:

User avatar
[Shuz]
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2803
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm

[VIS] Re: 207 Pulteney Street | 195m | 60 Levels | Mixed Use

#200 Post by [Shuz] » Thu Sep 09, 2021 12:28 pm

brizzlar wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:25 am
Does anyone know if there's a replacement for this development, or another of it's kind that's on the cards for Adelaide?
If some one knew and was authorised to say something, they would've. Can you please not bump threads for no fucking reason.
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.

citywatcher
Legendary Member!
Posts: 815
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:51 pm

[VIS] Re: 207 Pulteney Street | 195m | 60 Levels | Mixed Use

#201 Post by citywatcher » Thu Sep 09, 2021 12:54 pm

Hey you the thread police ?
Let people ask !

Sent from my SM-A515F using Tapatalk


CDJ
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:30 pm

[VIS] Re: 207 Pulteney Street | 195m | 60 Levels | Mixed Use

#202 Post by CDJ » Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:02 pm

The project is still alive - just moving forward carefully. Significant news will likely be in Dec. Will provide info when I can, but that will likely be at the same time as some information is public anyway.

Just to chip in on the discussion earlier about earthquake: one of the common public misconceptions about tall buildings is that earthquake is the governing consideration for the lateral stability system. In most cases it isn't. Occupant comfort under wind loading is usually the governing consideration. This is why many tall buildings have damping systems (usually tuned liquid damper tanks) - to reduce lateral acceleration below limits of human perception. Earthquake tends to govern for shorter structures - the higher natural frequency is closer to earthquake frequency and therefore the forces are amplified by resonance. Tall buildings have lower natural frequency which is usually misaligned with earthquake frequency so seismic forces increase less than proportionally with height, whereas wind forces increase more than proportionally with height. Structural design of tall buildings is all about wind. What do I mean by 'tall'? Well it's subjective, but in this context from a structural engineering perspective it would typically be anything over about 120m.

brizzlar
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:50 pm

[VIS] Re: 207 Pulteney Street | 195m | 60 Levels | Mixed Use

#203 Post by brizzlar » Tue Sep 21, 2021 4:02 pm

[Shuz] wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 12:28 pm
brizzlar wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:25 am
Does anyone know if there's a replacement for this development, or another of it's kind that's on the cards for Adelaide?
If some one knew and was authorised to say something, they would've. Can you please not bump threads for no fucking reason.
Hey Shuz, guessing you were having a bad day or something - doubt you'd usually speak that way to someone you don't know. No offence taken friend. Peace.

brizzlar
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:50 pm

[VIS] Re: 207 Pulteney Street | 195m | 60 Levels | Mixed Use

#204 Post by brizzlar » Tue Sep 21, 2021 4:05 pm

CDJ wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:02 pm
The project is still alive - just moving forward carefully. Significant news will likely be in Dec. Will provide info when I can, but that will likely be at the same time as some information is public anyway.

Just to chip in on the discussion earlier about earthquake: one of the common public misconceptions about tall buildings is that earthquake is the governing consideration for the lateral stability system. In most cases it isn't. Occupant comfort under wind loading is usually the governing consideration. This is why many tall buildings have damping systems (usually tuned liquid damper tanks) - to reduce lateral acceleration below limits of human perception. Earthquake tends to govern for shorter structures - the higher natural frequency is closer to earthquake frequency and therefore the forces are amplified by resonance. Tall buildings have lower natural frequency which is usually misaligned with earthquake frequency so seismic forces increase less than proportionally with height, whereas wind forces increase more than proportionally with height. Structural design of tall buildings is all about wind. What do I mean by 'tall'? Well it's subjective, but in this context from a structural engineering perspective it would typically be anything over about 120m.
Thanks for the update CDJ.

Thanks for the structural engineer perspective on high-rise towers and how they're impacted by earthquakes. Given that that both LA and SF now have super-tall's... and that they exist in a far more dangerous seismic zone, I'd assume this can't be a legit barrier for development for a 150m+ tower in Adelaide right? Like maybe in the past, but surely now that other cities with a higher risk profile are putting up 300m+ towers, ADL could get away with something at least half as big?

Feel free to PM me as I don't think people want anyone talking on here unless there's an official announcement about a future tower.

User avatar
Algernon
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Moravia

[VIS] Re: 207 Pulteney Street | 195m | 60 Levels | Mixed Use

#205 Post by Algernon » Tue Sep 21, 2021 4:41 pm

brizzlar wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 4:05 pm
CDJ wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:02 pm
The project is still alive - just moving forward carefully. Significant news will likely be in Dec. Will provide info when I can, but that will likely be at the same time as some information is public anyway.

Just to chip in on the discussion earlier about earthquake: one of the common public misconceptions about tall buildings is that earthquake is the governing consideration for the lateral stability system. In most cases it isn't. Occupant comfort under wind loading is usually the governing consideration. This is why many tall buildings have damping systems (usually tuned liquid damper tanks) - to reduce lateral acceleration below limits of human perception. Earthquake tends to govern for shorter structures - the higher natural frequency is closer to earthquake frequency and therefore the forces are amplified by resonance. Tall buildings have lower natural frequency which is usually misaligned with earthquake frequency so seismic forces increase less than proportionally with height, whereas wind forces increase more than proportionally with height. Structural design of tall buildings is all about wind. What do I mean by 'tall'? Well it's subjective, but in this context from a structural engineering perspective it would typically be anything over about 120m.
Thanks for the update CDJ.

Thanks for the structural engineer perspective on high-rise towers and how they're impacted by earthquakes. Given that that both LA and SF now have super-tall's... and that they exist in a far more dangerous seismic zone, I'd assume this can't be a legit barrier for development for a 150m+ tower in Adelaide right? Like maybe in the past, but surely now that other cities with a higher risk profile are putting up 300m+ towers, ADL could get away with something at least half as big?

Feel free to PM me as I don't think people want anyone talking on here unless there's an official announcement about a future tower.
Thread already bumped, doesn't make a difference now.

Seismic activity in Adelaide doesn't prevent supertalls.

See: Japan.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests