SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 637 Posts

·
Sydney: World's best city
Joined
·
40,696 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What is wrong with building so tall near the airport. These scrapers are not directly under the flightpath :bash:

What a bunch of NIMBY's :bash:

From The Daily Telegraph
Safety issues ignored
By MARK SKELSEY Urban Affairs Editor
August 23, 2004

SKYSCRAPERS are being approved around the fringes of Sydney Airport, despite objections from the airport's owner over safety.

The towers, some up to 21 storeys high, need to be fitted with red flashing warning lights because they are located in the airport's airspace.

Five residential buildings, which intrude into the 51m high obstacle height limit around the airport, have been approved since 1998.

Another two are awaiting approval.

Three of the approved buildings are at Zetland – one at the Victoria Park development site, another on South Dowling St and a third at the former Email site at 13 Joynton Ave.

A 21-storey unit block at Arncliffe, which has been completed and occupied, comes complete with a red warning light on its roof to warn approaching pilots.

A 12-storey apartment block above the Southpoint shopping centre at Hillsdale, currently under construction, will also intrude into the airspace.

The clash between the airport and the residential towers highlights the difficulties that Sydney's rampant urban consolidation is creating for aviation operations.

For the first time, residential developers keen to capitalise on the popularity of inner-Sydney apartment living are trying to break through the height limit set by the Federal Government.

The Sydney Airport Corporation objected to each of these developments, on the basis that "buildings should not penetrate the obstacle limitation surface".

An airport spokeswoman said the airport objected to all developments which intruded into its airspace.

"We think they reduce airport flexibility and safety," she said.

None of the buildings are located on the approaches to the runways.

But they are located within 4.5km of the airport, where buildings located either in the approaches or above 51m need approval from the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services.

A departmental statement said the buildings were approved because it was found they would not "interfere with the safety, efficiency or regularity of existing or future air transport operations into or out of the airport concerned".

The statement said the obstacle limitation ceiling was not a strict rule but merely a trigger to more closely examine whether a building should be approved.

Two more developments in the Green Square area have been submitted to the department for approval.

Another developer has a proposal before Sydney City Council for a 30-storey tower in Epsom Rd, Zetland, reaching a height of 121m, which will make a 70m incursion into the airport's airspace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,590 Posts
Here we go again. :nuts:

Must be a slow news day.

If there were planes flying lower than 51m at Zetland and Green Sq, then I would be concerned.

BTW Where is it written about objections from dorky NIMBYs in the article? Was some of the article left out? I read objections form the Airport Corp.

There are the current objections from NIMBYs against the Green Sq developments - fools, don't they know it will bring more transport, entertainment and services to their currently tragic area.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73,265 Posts
yeah pretty tragic beating up a story like this.

the 30storey on Epsom rd sounds huge! 121m/400ft! i wonder what miss moore thinks of that one.
kiss that goodbye
 

·
Galactic Ruler
Joined
·
6,855 Posts
Its about time CASA and the airport got over themselves. They need to take a look at some of the major international airports overseas.
 

·
, , and , Fade to Black.
Joined
·
7,945 Posts
"None of the buildings are located on the approaches to the runways."

Now that should be in the title and what they want a 4.5km circle around the airport of nothing over 50 meters you must be kidding !
 

·
Sydney: World's best city
Joined
·
40,696 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Muse said:
Here we go again. :nuts:

Must be a slow news day.

If there were planes flying lower than 51m at Zetland and Green Sq, then I would be concerned.

BTW Where is it written about objections from dorky NIMBYs in the article? Was some of the article left out? I read objections form the Airport Corp.

There are the current objections from NIMBYs against the Green Sq developments - fools, don't they know it will bring more transport, entertainment and services to their currently tragic area.

I branded the airport guys as NIMBY's. There is nothing wrong with the scrapers being built that close to the airport as long as they are away from the flightpaths. Wolli Creek despite being it's close location to the airport is not any under flightpaths. Green Square & Hillsdale aren't any directly under flight paths either.

Marboura and even Kingsford are directly under the flightpath yet talls are allowed in those suburbs. The same two suburbs happen to be within the same distance from the airport as Green Square. If these two suburbs under a flightpath have no problems with talls, then developments should be permitted in the suburbs concerned.

If a scraper was to be built directly under a flight path very close to the aiport ie Mascot then I would have reservations.

The article never made mention of the peaky NIMBY's at Green Square.
 

·
, , and , Fade to Black.
Joined
·
7,945 Posts
are the flight paths set to change any time soon ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
345 Posts
Well if labor gets in "Mount Kirribilli" will probably dissapear, but that doesnt really affect that buffer zone.
 

·
Streetwalker
Joined
·
7,025 Posts
Obviously nothing much in the news today :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
540 Posts
51m! that is just crap! even sydney harbour bridge is higher than that, i would be concerned to if a plane was flying at 51m above me!(what are the chances anyway?)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
139 Posts
The development around SKS will continue well into the 21st century...Flight paths/noise are always going to be a problem while SKS is open.

I have always been an advocate for the closure of SKS, and construct a new 21st century airport on an man-made island off Malabar, adjacent to the golf courses. No flight path/noise complaints here, only cost.
 

·
Яandwicked
Joined
·
690 Posts
ShayPlan said:
The development around SKS will continue well into the 21st century...Flight paths/noise are always going to be a problem while SKS is open.

I have always been an advocate for the closure of SKS, and construct a new 21st century airport on an man-made island off Malabar, adjacent to the golf courses. No flight path/noise complaints here, only cost.
Has anyone ever constructed an artificial island in completely exposed ocean before? Not that I'm aware of. They get five metre swell there on a regular basis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,002 Posts
All this fear of planes plunging into tall buildings, except when done deliberately, is nonsense. How often have planes come in that low, ever. If the plane is in trouble and going to crash then it doesn't matter how high the buildings are they are going to get demolished. And anyone who ever flew into the old Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong/ Kowloon - now, that was exciting!!! - will know that there isn't a problem, a challenge maybe, but not a problem. This is particularly relevant to the CBD where the air authorities have had influence on city skyscraper heights.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,950 Posts
^^Yes, but how far did the height limit extend from the airport? The Epsom Rd, Zetland site where the 30 storey tower is proposed is about 3.5km northeast of the airport and not under a flight path!
 

·
Sydney: World's best city
Joined
·
40,696 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
testuser said:
All this fear of planes plunging into tall buildings, except when done deliberately, is nonsense. How often have planes come in that low, ever. If the plane is in trouble and going to crash then it doesn't matter how high the buildings are they are going to get demolished. And anyone who ever flew into the old Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong/ Kowloon - now, that was exciting!!! - will know that there isn't a problem, a challenge maybe, but not a problem. This is particularly relevant to the CBD where the air authorities have had influence on city skyscraper heights.
Planes do come fairly low over Sydenham if if the North-South runway is open. Sometimes they do come in very low over Rockdale (which has highrise but not directly under the flightpath at present). Developers aren't stupid in where to place them near the airport and they have done the right thing by staying away from the flightpaths.
 

·
Galactic Ruler
Joined
·
6,855 Posts
testuser said:
All this fear of planes plunging into tall buildings, except when done deliberately, is nonsense. How often have planes come in that low, ever. If the plane is in trouble and going to crash then it doesn't matter how high the buildings are they are going to get demolished. And anyone who ever flew into the old Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong/ Kowloon - now, that was exciting!!! - will know that there isn't a problem, a challenge maybe, but not a problem. This is particularly relevant to the CBD where the air authorities have had influence on city skyscraper heights.
I agree it was an awesome landing but it was not so much the buildings that caused a problem but the mountanous terrain leading into the airport.

Pilots are paid good money to do a job, most would be hopeful in thinking they could actually fly a plane without hitting a building, damn even I could fly one without running it directly into a skyscraper I think. The old HK airport was a challenge to land at (as pointed out) but pilots need challenges to keep them on their toes IMO.
 

·
, , and , Fade to Black.
Joined
·
7,945 Posts
and how many near misses were there at that airport !
Really we are no where near that stage yet but measures hould be taken to avoid it as much as possible, But these are not these measure and as said are just from slow news days and people with nothing better to do
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
139 Posts
Randwicked said:
Has anyone ever constructed an artificial island in completely exposed ocean before? Not that I'm aware of. They get five metre swell there on a regular basis.
Hong Kong InternationaL...Seoul (Incheon) International...Kansai International...Central Japan Interantional...

They all are world class airports. Urban development has been the main stimulent behind their original airports' closure and rebuilding one on an island.

Obviously, the island (off Malabar) would have to be at least 30 metres above sea level (for the predicted mother king tide every 2 years or so). This is the height of the adjacent rock cliffs along Long Bay to Cape Banks.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
139 Posts
From the previous posts, are we only considering the island airport (with no noise or flight paths over buildings) if there is a major catastrophe? :bash:
C'Mon, that sounds ridiculous. Fair enough, the project sounds near impossible but it has been done before. However, it has not been done before with 50 metre sea depths...but i'm sure engineering island airports throughout the world could plan for deeper depths and currents.
 
1 - 20 of 637 Posts
Top