Thinking big

Anything goes here.. :) Now with Beer Garden for our smoking patrons.
Message
Author
User avatar
Cruise
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Bay 115, Football Park

Re: Thinking big

#31 Post by Cruise » Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:53 pm

Here's my plan for the parklands

Image

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5427
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 329 times

Re: Thinking big

#32 Post by crawf » Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:03 pm

Shuz wrote:Well, there could be a river or lake in Keswick. Dubai did it, so can we!
Whats the point of building a lake/river when we can't even fill up the Torrens!

User avatar
Prince George
Legendary Member!
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Melrose Park

Re: Thinking big

#33 Post by Prince George » Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:46 am

Cruise wrote:Here's my plan for the parklands <inspiring aerial shot of the future of Adelaide>
Hmm, maybe if you also got rid of those nasty yellow lines within the city, you might be onto something ...

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

Re: Thinking big

#34 Post by monotonehell » Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:19 am

Cruise wrote:Here's my plan for the parklands
Now that's thinking big. The size of the 4X4s that fit those bays must be HOOOOOGE. They already take up two parks in most carparks I worked in, so why not cater for them?
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
Omicron
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 pm

Re: Thinking big

#35 Post by Omicron » Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:40 am

monotonehell wrote:
Cruise wrote:Here's my plan for the parklands
Now that's thinking big. The size of the 4X4s that fit those bays must be HOOOOOGE. They already take up two parks in most carparks I worked in, so why not cater for them?
Sports Utility Vehicles, dear Mono, are far too sporty and utilitarian to bother with common carparks - their inbuilt Street Parking feature allows them to simply stop in the middle of any street and invent parking spaces of their own. Common carparks are for the drug dealers and the communists.

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Thinking big

#36 Post by AtD » Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:35 pm

You should link the car park with the CBD via a huge monorail, with a station on the roof of Westpac.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2075
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Thinking big

#37 Post by Aidan » Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:44 pm

Cam wrote:
Shuz wrote:Building on Prince George's idea,

Maybe the airport's not the problem. Maybe it's the city. What if we relocated the city 'centre', to Port Adelaide?
Exactly, it should be Port Adelaide.
Take the image of Brisbane City and bridges and overlay it on Port Adelaide to get an idea..
Sorry, I don't follow your logic. Do you think the CBD needs to be flanked by a navigable river? If so, why?

And while you have those images of Brisbane and Port Adelaide to hand, zoom out a bit. Notice how the sea restricts the catchment area? See how much further you have to zoom out from Brisbane before you can see the sea?
also in regards to water,
We need to have the greatest Nation Building infrastructure of all time with Water Pipelines from the North.

Only through development of Water Resources that South Australia will be able to Prosper in an Organic sense.
Who exactly do you mean by "we"? Adelaide can get water more cheaply by a combination of desalination, stormwater harvesting, a new reservoir on the North Para, and water recycling for irrigation and industry.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2075
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Thinking big

#38 Post by Aidan » Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:55 pm

crawf wrote: There is no river in Keswick.
Actually one of the Patawalonga's major tributaries runs through Keswick Barracks.

Unfortunately it's dry most of the time, but there's still scope for making a feature of it.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

User avatar
Prince George
Legendary Member!
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Melrose Park

Re: Thinking big

#39 Post by Prince George » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:29 am

Here's a couple more.

The Queen and I toyed with the idea of a change in the planning approval process to allow the community the specific responsibility of approving the street-level of the design; the lower two levels, for example. Current processes can still determine the suitability of the other factors of the design - the size, the uses, etc - but the parts that have the most impact on the community have to be approved by them. After some amount of time, if no decision can be reached then it reverts to the official planning body again (to avoid this becoming an absolute veto), but that delay gives an incentive for the developers to work with the communities to get outcomes that will satisfy them. It encourages building up on a smaller block - a lower percentage of the building falls into the scope of the pesky meddling public; if that tilts the balance away from single-level shopping centres and big floor plate mid-rise like 374-400 KW st, so much the better. It also gives a new role for the architects and planners, to meet, work with, and educate people that are currently rather removed from what they do.

Small business make a contribution to a city that is out of proportion to their size: you can open all the Just Jeans stores you want, they will never make people as interested as a couple of places that make their own jeans, or t-shirts, or furniture, or whatever. Even when you don't shop there, their presence is enough to send you the right signals about a city. One idea that has sprung up here in the States since the late '80s is the "incubation centre" - they're a little like a self-storage facility, with areas that are somewhat larger. Very simple, very utilitarian, very cheap, they don't offer much more than an empty room with utilities (electricity, water, phone) for the occupant to fit out as whatever workshop they need.

The incubation centres that are already around Adelaide seem to be aimed at white-collar businesses (eg at the Adelaide Business Centre, or the Todd Street Business Chambers) What I'm thinking of is aimed more at manufacturing, textile, furniture, services industries. The professional centres have some features that would be useful to include in these new centres - shared services like reception and security, and access to training and mentoring. I feel like offering this kind of support to these kinds of businesses can be a way to help youth-unemployment; not by looking to target jobs to the young, but by encouraging them to employ themselves.

I was reading some stuff about new materials technology, and I want to see someone build a house out of aerogel. Astonishing insulation, translucent, incredibly light and still strong, what's not to like? (Ok, ok, outrageously expensive, a little brittle, cut me some slack - I'm day-dreaming here). We protect the outside with a sheet of graphene or buckypaper, and tether it down with carbon nanotubes to stop it blowing away in a strong wind.

And speaking of carbon nanotubes, let's put our hands up to rejoin the space race by making remote SA the starting point for the Space Elevator. Basically, it's an incredibly long rope ladder for delivering materials into low-earth orbit. Rather than fighting gravity by burning fuel, the system lifts payloads into space using a climber that ascends the elevator line; you carry a much smaller rocket up to the top of the elevator and then fly from there to your final destination at a much lower fuel cost. Why build this thing? In that Wiki article, we get this quote:
West Australian co-author of the book "Leaving the Planet by Space Elevator", Philip Ragan, states that "The first country to deploy a space elevator will have a 95 per cent cost advantage and could potentially control all space activities."

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Thinking big

#40 Post by AtD » Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:35 am

A space elevator can only be built on the equator as the counterweight must be in geostationary orbit.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: Thinking big

#41 Post by Wayno » Sat Mar 07, 2009 10:22 am

Prince George wrote:Here's a couple more.

The Queen and I toyed with the idea of a change in the planning approval process to allow the community the specific responsibility of approving the street-level of the design; the lower two levels, for example. Current processes can still determine the suitability of the other factors of the design - the size, the uses, etc - but the parts that have the most impact on the community have to be approved by them. After some amount of time, if no decision can be reached then it reverts to the official planning body again (to avoid this becoming an absolute veto), but that delay gives an incentive for the developers to work with the communities to get outcomes that will satisfy them. It encourages building up on a smaller block - a lower percentage of the building falls into the scope of the pesky meddling public; if that tilts the balance away from single-level shopping centres and big floor plate mid-rise like 374-400 KW st, so much the better. It also gives a new role for the architects and planners, to meet, work with, and educate people that are currently rather removed from what they do.
Hmm, interesting. The ACC recently collected public input for their Adelaide 2030 vision. It would be nice to believe this info feeds directly into the street level design criteria for new buildings - but perhaps that was more of a macro-level exercise.

Maybe the planning approval process should require the Developer/Architect to canvas significant public feedback BEFORE putting forward a building design proposal to the council? But the public would soon tire of reviewing proposals, esp since many never actually get built.

And who would collect/collate/analyse the public input? The Developers - they will dilute/dismiss much feedback to keep a lid of building costs. The Council - they will be portrayed by developers and the media as being too intrusive/picky and anti-development. Perhaps better placed would be an independent body (Architects?) who can translate public feedback into real world designs...

In another thread we talked about the need in SA for a Chief Architect - maybe this is what we require? The CA could run an annual process of gathering public input which Developers must consider for the next round of developments, thus allowing for the public to actively comment & contribute as the city evolves.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
Prince George
Legendary Member!
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Melrose Park

Re: Thinking big

#42 Post by Prince George » Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:53 am

AtD wrote:A space elevator can only be built on the equator as the counterweight must be in geostationary orbit.
It is true that the counterweight needs to be over the equator, but it seems that does not mean that the tether point must be there too. For example, look at this article from New Scientist discussing what to do about the Van Allen belt's radiation (which is strongest at the equator). One of the options they discuss is what if the cable was tethered at MIT (at 45 deg N); the drawback being that the cable travels further through the atmosphere before reaching space, which may expose it to more weather-related stress.

User avatar
Prince George
Legendary Member!
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Melrose Park

Re: Thinking big

#43 Post by Prince George » Sat Mar 07, 2009 5:11 pm

Wayno wrote:And who would collect/collate/analyse the public input? The Developers - they will dilute/dismiss much feedback to keep a lid of building costs. The Council - they will be portrayed by developers and the media as being too intrusive/picky and anti-development. Perhaps better placed would be an independent body (Architects?) who can translate public feedback into real world designs...
Architects get paid by developers, they have too much of a vested interest to say that they can clearly represent the wider public on this matter. I could imagine someone hesitating to demand changes to a building if they thought it could affect their next commission, especially when there's a limited pool of developers for you to do business with. And would we put it past them to collude with each other? I was thinking something more in line with NYC's community boards - direct representation in some form, not just plugging input into some nameless, faceless process.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: Thinking big

#44 Post by Wayno » Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:42 am

Prince George wrote:
Wayno wrote:And who would collect/collate/analyse the public input? The Developers - they will dilute/dismiss much feedback to keep a lid of building costs. The Council - they will be portrayed by developers and the media as being too intrusive/picky and anti-development. Perhaps better placed would be an independent body (Architects?) who can translate public feedback into real world designs...
Architects get paid by developers, they have too much of a vested interest to say that they can clearly represent the wider public on this matter. I could imagine someone hesitating to demand changes to a building if they thought it could affect their next commission, especially when there's a limited pool of developers for you to do business with. And would we put it past them to collude with each other? I was thinking something more in line with NYC's community boards - direct representation in some form, not just plugging input into some nameless, faceless process.
and what are your thoughts on a Chief Architect? I believe SA is the only state without one.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
Prince George
Legendary Member!
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Melrose Park

Re: Thinking big

#45 Post by Prince George » Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:52 pm

Wayno wrote:and what are your thoughts on a Chief Architect? I believe SA is the only state without one.
To tell the truth, I have no idea what the role of the chief architect is in the other states. But I think what I'm looking for is a more direct involvement for people in their area's development, especially in the ways that affect them the most - "what does it look like, what will it do for me?"

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests