Spire Living | 107m | 37lvls | Residential

Message

Ho Really · #76 Post by **Ho Really** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:31 pm

Will wrote:...and the fears that planes would crash into the building.

I have always found this a ridiculous notion, since a plane taking-off or landing could easily crash anywhere in a wide arc northeast or southwest of our airport.

Anyway, I don't see why they can't fly a path around the CBD (when they take-off in a northeasterly direction) avoiding this issue completely.

As for the height of "Spire", the OLS (Obstacle Limitation Surface) contours show that the Bentham street development is allowed to have a maximum height of approximately 100 metres (or give or take a few metres). I can only assume that AAL (Adelaide Airport Limited) has given the go ahead for "Spire" to be 105 metres in height.

Cheers

#77 Post by **AtD** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:02 pm

Ho Really wrote:
Will wrote:...and the fears that planes would crash into the building.
I have always found this a ridiculous notion, since a plane taking-off or landing could easily crash anywhere in a wide arc northeast or southwest of our airport.

Not to mention the existing 135m building next to it!

Ho Really · #78 Post by **Ho Really** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:41 pm

AtD wrote:Not to mention the existing 135m building next to it!

Yep, I agree. Does anyone know why the then State Bank building was granted a dispensation (for a better word)? Did the then state premier Bannon have a say in it? Memory fading...

Cheers

#79 Post by Al » Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:28 pm

I thought Santos (State Bank) was built before Bannon came into office.

#80 Post by **Will** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:30 pm

Al wrote:I thought Santos (State Bank) was built before Bannon came into office.

Santos was built between 1986-1988 and John Bannon was premier from 1982-1992.

#81 Post by Al » Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:11 pm

Right thanks.

Maximus_Marc · #82 Post by **Maximus_Marc** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:53 pm

Does anyone know the offical height or is it something that will change over time until they finally complete the building?

Because on Wikipedia, the height is stated at 105m and on Emporis its 98m and on here there seems to be a mixture of both.

#83 Post by **AtD** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:01 pm

Maximus: Read Will's and beamer's posts above.

stelaras · #84 Post by **stelaras** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:25 pm

all i want to say is.............bring on the tall buildings!!!!

more tall buildings against our picturesque parklands/ovals and river makes for a mighty fine city

l3etelgeuse · #85 Post by **l3etelgeuse** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:14 pm

I don't get why the state government doesn't do something about this height restriction. Every other city in the world seems to work around their flight path issues yet Adelaide still has this cap on it. If they want to know why Adelaide isn't a more popular tourist destination and why it's sometimes regarded as a bit of a joke that's your reason. It looks ridiculous having this sprawl of low rises with the lone Santos building sticking up in the middle of it. It doesn't look too impressive on a postcard.

#86 Post by **Will** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:36 pm

l3etelgeuse wrote:I don't get why the state government doesn't do something about this height restriction. Every other city in the world seems to work around their flight path issues yet Adelaide still has this cap on it. If they want to know why Adelaide isn't a more popular tourist destination and why it's sometimes regarded as a bit of a joke that's your reason. It looks ridiculous having this sprawl of low rises with the lone Santos building sticking up in the middle of it. It doesn't look too impressive on a postcard.

:wank:

Because we all know people travel to see skyscrapers....

Using this logic no-one would go to Europe!

Maximus_Marc · #87 Post by **Maximus_Marc** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:02 pm

i don't have any biff with you l3etelgeuse but Will that is such a good comeback!

shaun · #88 Post by **shaun** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:03 am

yea, nice comeback

.::G!oRgOs::. · #89 Post by **.::G!oRgOs::.** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:42 am

Will wrote:
l3etelgeuse wrote:I don't get why the state government doesn't do something about this height restriction. Every other city in the world seems to work around their flight path issues yet Adelaide still has this cap on it. If they want to know why Adelaide isn't a more popular tourist destination and why it's sometimes regarded as a bit of a joke that's your reason. It looks ridiculous having this sprawl of low rises with the lone Santos building sticking up in the middle of it. It doesn't look too impressive on a postcard.

:wank:

Because we all know people travel to see skyscrapers....

A city does need skyscrapers for vanity purposes, though I agree l3etelgeuse's view is abit extreme.

l3etelgeuse · #90 Post by **l3etelgeuse** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:16 pm

Will wrote:
l3etelgeuse wrote:I don't get why the state government doesn't do something about this height restriction. Every other city in the world seems to work around their flight path issues yet Adelaide still has this cap on it. If they want to know why Adelaide isn't a more popular tourist destination and why it's sometimes regarded as a bit of a joke that's your reason. It looks ridiculous having this sprawl of low rises with the lone Santos building sticking up in the middle of it. It doesn't look too impressive on a postcard.

:wank:

Because we all know people travel to see skyscrapers....

Using this logic no-one would go to Europe!

Erm, Europe has a fuckload of history and gorgeous architecture people will travel to see. It'll never be considered a joke. Adelaide is kinda stuck out in the donga with a reputation that nearly drives people away. It is considered a bit of a joke and it's skyline does look completely ridiculous. Just say you're about to travel to Australia and you're wondering which cities to visit, having a look at aerial shots of the capitals yoÃƒÂº probably wouldn't think twice about Adelaide. Considering Adelaide doesn't have a whole lot to offer a tourist it'd certainly help it's cause to look a bit more picturesque.

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

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

[CAN]

Who is online