Of all Sydney's landmark's, the most plain and drab looking, happens to be the tallest. That is, Sydney Centrepoint Tower. I think it looks old not 21st century like. I would like to see restored or better yet re-built.

Re-building it to form a world class icon, and naming it Federation Tower, or something like that. Of course, it is a bold plan, but imagine this, Federation was 1901 and settlement was 1788. By taking a leaf out of the WTC reconstruction process, built a tower that is either 1788 or 1901 feet!! So that any future buildings can be significantly lower than the city's tallest structure.

As it stands now, in Sydney any building must be lower than the Sydney Tower which is a mere 313metres (smallish by world standards). Having a structure either 1788 or 1901 feet would ensure no building would come two-thirds of the height of the New 'Federation Tower'.

I know 1788 feet or 545 metres and 1901 feet or 580 metres would make Sydney's new Tower the third world icon (along with the bridge and opera house)!

It may sound crazy now, but plans around the world are proposing similar height projects.

A possible feasible way in HOW it could be constructed without disrupting the Pitt Street Mall would probably prove the toughest test!?

I love ya tastes in projects. Love it!

I really want the tower to be illuminated from the podium upwards. Just like Eiffel Tower.

Ridiculous...It is already a world-class landmark....It is better than half a dozen taller towers in Asia, US and Europe....Centrepoint is one of Sydney's icons and should be heritage listed! :) :)

i dont see whats wrong with centrepoint as it is - its aged exceptionally well, but maybe if they "re-continued to build it" lol, like add onto it using the method they used to build it

Ridiculous...It is already a world-class landmark....It is better than half a dozen taller towers in Asia, US and Europe....Centrepoint is one of Sydney's icons and should be heritage listed! :) :)

Asia - Pearl Orient TV Tower in shanghai (modern sleek design)
Europoe - Effiel Tower ,Paris (old, but still looks good in skyline)
America - Screw them, they dont even ahve any good ones!

As for centrepoint! Destroy it! It's ugly and old, esp the gold painted parts, while if they do reconstuct it, it's up to westfield (they own it ). The long cables supporting it looks pretty cool but the buiulding is aging fast.

Go for taller try this on for size...

here are three variants for my archives of old designs...
http://home.iprimus.com.au/allicit/sydney.06.jpg
http://home.iprimus.com.au/allicit/sydney4.gif
http://home.iprimus.com.au/allicit/images/sydney.skyline.02.jpg

^No complaints about height from me. We don't want a CN Tower here to shrink our skyline! Perhaps they could give the shaft a coat of paint. At the moment it's exposed, rusted steel (yuck). Or maybe they could paint the cables silver or something...

Ridiculous...It is already a world-class landmark....It is better than half a dozen taller towers in Asia, US and Europe....Centrepoint is one of Sydney's icons and should be heritage listed! :) :)


It is a passe yardstick holding our city back - if we dont get rid of it soon we our city will be destined low-rise mediocrity from now until eternity.

eh Av, a mirrored Guvnah Phil and MLC doesn't look too bad.

lol @ the stacked turrets.

Classic Avism.

Whats wrong with Sydney Tower? It looks great IMO with its shimmering golden turrent. It has a great composition and is quite a unique looking tower, when people see it in a skyline they automatically know its Sydney. It's a great symbol for a skyline because most people would recognise a simple drawing of a few boxy shapes and a turret sticking out and know its Sydney. Most cities would love to have such an icon in their skyline. Let it be!

It might be iconic - but it has little architectual merit, has an abominable base design and lacks the most important ingredient for a teletower... height!

If the tower is easily obstructed by buildings in close proximity it is quite simply a failure and past its usefulness. We need a much taller tower that works as the focal locus of the city rather than some half built-out excuse for an icon. The tower is so short and ridiculous that MLC blocks most of the views people want to see - its time it was replaced or redeveloped with additional height.

It might be iconic - but it has little architectual merit, has an abominable base design and lacks the most important ingredient for a teletower... height!

If the tower is easily obstructed by buildings in close proximity it is quite simply a failure and past its usefulness. We need a much taller tower that works as the focal locus of the city rather than some half built-out excuse for an icon. The tower is so short and ridiculous that MLC blocks most of the views people want to see - its time it was replaced or redeveloped with additional height.

couldn't agree more

Of all Sydney's landmark's, the most plain and drab looking, happens to be the tallest. That is, Sydney Centrepoint Tower. I think it looks old not 21st century like. I would like to see restored or better yet re-built.

Re-building it to form a world class icon, and naming it Federation Tower, or something like that. Of course, it is a bold plan, but imagine this, Federation was 1901 and settlement was 1788. By taking a leaf out of the WTC reconstruction process, built a tower that is either 1788 or 1901 feet!! So that any future buildings can be significantly lower than the city's tallest structure.

As it stands now, in Sydney any building must be lower than the Sydney Tower which is a mere 313metres (smallish by world standards). Having a structure either 1788 or 1901 feet would ensure no building would come two-thirds of the height of the New 'Federation Tower'.

I know 1788 feet or 545 metres and 1901 feet or 580 metres would make Sydney's new Tower the third world icon (along with the bridge and opera house)!

It may sound crazy now, but plans around the world are proposing similar height projects.

A possible feasible way in HOW it could be constructed without disrupting the Pitt Street Mall would probably prove the toughest test!?
Sydney tower is 309m tall! it is a world class icon. i bet most cities in the world would like a 1000ft tower! It has the shortest spire for a communication tower (30m) but one of the highest turrets!-(240m-276m).
so no probs with views.
I think everyone has to "get over" adding height to it as Sydney has height limitation of RL330m enforced by CASA!! end of story!!
hey we all love tall bldgs and always want higher ones! i know i do.but sometimes you have to get back to reality.
also the name of Sydney Tower should be have its original name of Centrepoint Tower. nothing else.
There are tall projects planned around the world of 500-700m due to there cities having large populations! Sydney is small on world standards. NYC and Hong Kong and many China cities have many millions of people. thats why there getting massive buildings! makes sense? We live in Australia with pop of only 20mil! our cities are too small to accomodate superatall skyscrapers or towers of half a km high.
anyway back to reality>>

Cul, isn't CASA's limitation only a limitation imposed due to aviation? I thought there was provision for the heights to be lifted for special purpose buildings on application. There is no reason why a 500m tower could not gain approval. CASA is far too strict in its limits even with close proximity to the airport - Sydney rarely has inclement weather or fog and the limitation seems ludicrous.

Actually Hong Kong's population is not massive by world standards, but land area is scarce and look how close Kai Tak was to the CBD?!

im pretty sure the 330m RL height limit is for the entire Sydney Metro area due to airport access.

Leave it alone. It's one of the city's most recognisable icons. Sydney's skyline would never be the same without it.

The 1788ft tower can go at the northern end of town with the other biggies.

lol @ the stacked turrets. ( agree )
The Base of Center point is horrid and it needs to be re done with out a douth. The tower it self well yes shame it limits the height of some of the others but no worries it is fine for now and is in no need of redevelopment. Would the tower work if it had other taller around it. Would it even have the same merit ?
While I do want this i dont think we are at this stage yet. And also some time in the future ( when the time and demand calls for it ) many of a Taller mid rises will have to redeveoped. Sydney will push and break through the roof but let this happen in its own time. I do want upgrade for the tower of Sydney's tallest. You must admit that it is world class for its time and has now has its grand history to add to that.
I say wait it out you may get what you want in good time. For me a few nice 300M block towers would not be a bad thing. But there is much to do to fill in gaps and add more to the density first.

( if only it has done higher when it was built )

I dont mind SYdney tower although it would be nice if Westfield and the COuncil allowed for the gold panels to be replaced with nice new silver panels plus blue lighting at night. Wouldn't cost much. They could do it when the stick the new platform thingy up there.

Yeah! Good idea! PLEASE take advantage of the installation of the "skywalk" to do something about those gold panels!

I dont mind SYdney tower although it would be nice if Westfield and the COuncil allowed for the gold panels to be replaced with nice new silver panels plus blue lighting at night. Wouldn't cost much. They could do it when the stick the new platform thingy up there.

Yes silver would have been much better than gold but I don't see anything being done - what I have a problem with is the lack of height, the ugly base, and stupid plans to add cantelivered sections to the top for amusement. If they want to do this type of thing the whole turret should be rebuilt.

I don't think it would be impossible for them to modify the tower by removing the turret adding to the stalk and building a new much taller turret with much taller spire. I have a preference for the removal of the tower altogether and have it relocated to Parramatta, a great yardstick for one of Sydney's emerging CDBs, imagine the view of the west and the added impetus to growth it would add. Then Sydney city could concern itself with a replacement many times higher and many times more appropriate for the times - hopefully this time with some vision to the future and the tower's longevity.

Those who say landmarks cannot be replaced - well the WTC will be one example where there was no choice but to erase the famous icon from people's mindset - the redevelopment of Centrepoint would see a new landmark and one far more deserving the honour.

move the whole tower theres an idea
how would you even remove reconstruct this tower or redevelop it ?

when i went on the centerpoint tour thingy (before they let you go up now) they said that the towers viewing deck is at the height where you cant see any further (as in view) because of the earths curvature... hence, apart from asthetics, theres no real reason to have built it any higher... sounds logical.

Using that logic would mean that travelling in the space shuttle while in orbit would mean you could only see a 100km radius of the earth. Well you know what I mean, this is a poor reason for not building taller. For god sake, right now forget seeing that much of the northern CBD, as a hefty section is blocked by MLC.

The higher you build the more your can see - that seems infintely more logical - sure the earth's curvature is an obstacle but by increasing the height obviously the ability to see further is expected.

I'm only saying that Sydney and Australia should be part of the skyscraper-era, and the current Sydney Tower limits ALL future building heights!

I'm not saying to built a concrete tower 545 m in the sky! But to look into possibilities to 'extend' to a certain height that Australian could all know! Let's face it no-one in Australia knew the Sydney Tower is 309m (from a previous reply), but if it was 1788 feet tall, they will know it as the year of settlement of Australia.

I AM saying that Sydney Tower is a weak attempt at showing the world our tallest structure to date!

And also, I am aware that as 20 million people we are small nation, but I feel as generations go by, we will see our empty land of 2 persons/sq. km be shaken up to 25 to 30 persons/sq. km!! A radical idea I'll like Australia open its doors to more people, and not to be close minded to other cultures!

that said we are one of the most urbanised places with ever one in a just a few metros
density for the eastern states capitials I am sure is very high

im pretty sure the 330m RL height limit is for the entire Sydney Metro area due to airport access.

Yeah but look at Q1, I don't think it's that hard to get an exemption for a stick. Extending the spire to 300m above ground level is all it needs so it regains the title of tallest freestanding structure in the southern hemisphere :-)

Danubis,

That reason doesn't make any sense to me at all!

As avatar said, the higher you go, the FURTHER you can see. Of course, it gets to a point where going any higher will only yield very miniscule gains, but we're talking outer space here, no ~250m above sea level. ;)

As for Sydney Tower itself, I don't particularly mind it the way it is. The design, while a bit dated, isn't all that bad. I guess the main negative is that it does limit the potential height of scrapers in Sydney. My guess is that Sydney would've had a few 300m scrapers by now. I mean, I don't think it's coincidence that Sydney has a number of scrapers 'stuck' at the 200m - 230m mark.

hey, im not claiming ownership over that explanation, thats what they bloody said ok. maybe centrepoint should stop hiring arts degree students to conduct the tours so they can give better explanations to hapless tourists. jesus.

If Sydney has a height limit of 300m, then I presume there'll be heaps of 300m skyscrapers. Look at Singapore, so many big buildings around 280m which is also the height limit.

If Sydney has a height limit of 300m, then I presume there'll be heaps of 300m skyscrapers. Look at Singapore, so many big buildings around 280m which is also the height limit.

Same with Hong Kong , near the old airport (kai-tak) all buildings surroinding it was in the 50m height limit(i think) and nearly all buildings aorund it were at 50m with flat concrete tops (these were mainly built during 1960's- 1990)
While the airport is now unused (due to new airport) they are being slowed destroyed and being redeveloped. And maybe Sydney Tower should ahve the same thing done to it?

But i do think that the height limit in sydney is a little too low... 300m is alright to me. consdering that HK had a 50m right next to the airport (the runways are heading towards a harbour)

Plus, Singapore's airport is so close to the city and still have 280~m height limit.

Yeah but look at Q1, I don't think it's that hard to get an exemption for a stick. Extending the spire to 300m above ground level is all it needs so it regains the title of tallest freestanding structure in the southern hemisphere :-)
lol, nah the 330m height limit is maximum height of a structure, that includes lightning rods antennas ect. absolutley nothing above 330m.RL.
@syd-hk- lol, I think everyone goes on too much about razing Sydney Tower. To me its like saying ,lets get rid of Opera House and build something better! it just doesnt make sense? Sydney tower is now part of Sydney!
Sydney tower is a perfect height for Sydney and its design is timeless. I still think its one of the worlds best looking towers. Imagine if it had an exposed concrete shaft which almost every tall tower around the world has?? Im very happy with its unique thin shaft and crisscross guyed wires.

If Sydney has a height limit of 300m, then I presume there'll be heaps of 300m skyscrapers. Look at Singapore, so many big buildings around 280m which is also the height limit.

If we did build up to 300 m it would surely limit the view from Sydney Tower's obbservation deck. That is my point! You can not build any buildings up to 300 m as any futher development would encroach the Sydney Tower's views.

The only option, I think, is t extend the tower, not build another one to replace it, but build it tower with its existing tiers.

This is the only way Sydney's skyline would ever improve ( or grow taller). With extending the Tower, you could then build 'heaps of 300m skyscraper, but still having Sydney Tower as the tallest at 1788 feet.

But what I'd like like know that whether or not it could even be possible to extend an existing tower to nearly twice its height, without closing down the CBD ( Pitt street) during construction.?

LOL twice it's height on the existing foundation?

Aesthetically speaking it may be a catastrophe, from an engineering point it might also be a catastrophe. If they wanted to use the existing design, then they should, like my images above modify it with turrets all the way up and a massive spire to claim height without the need to place the turret waaaay up a new stem. Sure the turret needs to be alot higher but 400-450 metres would suffice for now - with a massive spire taking the towers height up even further. This would then provide the focal status the tower deserves and distance it from the buildings below - a new height limit of about 330m could be imposed on new skyscrapers depending on the height of the new turret.

I don't like to say this but...

I think Sydney Tower is a waste of prime space. Having a multi-purpose (hotel, commercial, retail), will be more efficient use of it. Having a big lolly-pop stick is not what I call it a great use.

OK lets JUST SAY in dreams of dreams that if others came up over 300meters would the tower still be a draw and some use as commincations ?
Enough to make long term mataince cost effective and to what degree
all this is reall y moot point as it is not going to happen

Imagine looking at the Sydney skyline without Sydney Tower. Perish the thought. This tower makes Sydney's skyline and provides a central focal point to guage and compare all the other towers. I love it as it is. Beyond refurbishment, I doubt this tower will be touched for years to come. We can only hope Westfields proposal for the mini towers around it's podium are scrapped if this has not already happened.

Regards
RMM

Imagine looking at the Sydney skyline without Sydney Tower. Perish the thought. This tower makes Sydney's skyline and provides a central focal point to guage and compare all the other towers. I love it as it is. Beyond refurbishment, I doubt this tower will be touched for years to come. We can only hope Westfields proposal for the mini towers around it's podium are scrapped if this has not already happened.

Regards
RMM

i would be imagaining the syd tower destroyed and a new 300m+ tower or observation tower to be our newer landmark!

@cull yes the opera house should be smashed down too! (joking)

Imagine looking at the Sydney skyline without Sydney Tower. Perish the thought. This tower makes Sydney's skyline and provides a central focal point to guage and compare all the other towers. I love it as it is. Beyond refurbishment, I doubt this tower will be touched for years to come. We can only hope Westfields proposal for the mini towers around it's podium are scrapped if this has not already happened.

Regards
RMM

The NSW Heritage Council is recommending that despite the towers young age, it should be placed on the Heritage Regsiter "on the basis of rare technical achievement". Under this listing, it would be protected forever and it would place very strict conditions on any alterations made to the building itself. It's a good idea. The tower should remain untouched because any alteration will wreck the features that make the tower what it is at present

I happened to take some model pics of the city skyline minus Sydney Tower. It just isn't the same without it and it's proven in those shots. It highlights the importance it has in shaping the skyline into what it is today. Without it, Sydney's skyline would appear to ordinary. Even building a 300 metre skyscraper won't do any justice for removing the tower.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid51/p2a26af0abf1b67ec080513a4a8115b6d/fc9dfae1.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid51/p01b29cef696cf6a627f2fa979533ec01/fc9dfaec.jpg

The fact that it is a central focal point is helped by the location itself - It's right in the centre of the CBD. When you look at any shot of the Sydney skyline ( in particular from the east or west), the towers rise up from the north and south. Sydney Tower the tallest rises out of the middle. That makes for a perfect skyline.

the view from Sydney tower would be one of the finest in the world!!
250m up. i dont think 300m would make much of a difference.

http://www.8ung.at/ehweiner/photogallery/Sydney/Sydney%20Tower%20Inside%201.jpg

such an elegant structure!!
http://www.8ung.at/ehweiner/photogallery/Sydney/Sydney%20Tower%201.jpg
very familiar structure now for past 25 years. most people identify Sydney tower instantly with Sydney!

http://www.8ung.at/ehweiner/photogallery/Sydney/Sydney%20Panorama.jpg

Imagine looking at the Sydney skyline without Sydney Tower. Perish the thought. This tower makes Sydney's skyline and provides a central focal point to guage and compare all the other towers. I love it as it is. Beyond refurbishment, I doubt this tower will be touched for years to come. We can only hope Westfields proposal for the mini towers around it's podium are scrapped if this has not already happened.

Regards
RMM

Let's just call the reconstuction, REINCARNATION or REBIRTH.

To rise from the ashes to pierce the heavens again.

You see emptiness, I see potential.

lets just call it-- reality! ;-)

Why so many here percieve as if Sydney Tower is a Statue of Liberty?

Why so many here percieve as if Sydney Tower is a Statue of Liberty?

The reason is because it is a feature which people would associate the city with. People would associate the Statue of Liberty with New York City. After the Harbour bridge and Opera house, Sydney Tower is the third most recognised icon in Sydney. :)

agree fab, its better than statue of liberty! its taller :banana: ;)

Why cant they completely light up Sydney Tower from the base of the podium to the top? In other words coloured lighting.
The Skytower Auckland and Empire State building in NYC are good examples of subtle, yet creative lighting that "show off" their icons.
Is SCC too conservative to do such a thing here??

Once again it seems time to have all of the SCC councellors removed from office and new blood injected (no pun intended) into the city - with a new tower - removal of height restrictions, reflectivity codes and CASA given a swift kick in the pants. IMO opinion the SSC panders to residents and is forgetting about big business and Australia's capital of commerce.

To those that consider Sydney Tower an icon - get real, most people throughtout the world would not have a clue all they see is an observation deck and I'd bet most from overseas would not even notice if it was replaced by CCTV tower, Menara Tower or the Stratosphere as examples. It might be an icon but the semanitically speaking it is not the tower's design but rather the stereotypical nature of telecommunications towers that people recognise - it is distinctive but not enough for most to non architectuarl types to notice (from a distance the cables cannot be seen anyway and are hidden from most views).

Once again it seems time to have all of the SCC councellors removed from office and new blood injected (no pun intended) into the city - with a new tower - removal of height restrictions, reflectivity codes and CASA given a swift kick in the pants. IMO opinion the SSC panders to residents and is forgetting about big business and Australia's capital of commerce.

Why don't you run for mayor at the next election. We'd be happy to lend you a hand.

To those that consider Sydney Tower an icon - get real, most people throughtout the world would not have a clue all they see is an observation deck and I'd bet most from overseas would not even notice if it was replaced by CCTV tower, Menara Tower or the Stratosphere as examples. It might be an icon but the semanitically speaking it is not the tower's design but rather the stereotypical nature of telecommunications towers that people recognise - it is distinctive but not enough for most to non architectuarl types to notice (from a distance the cables cannot be seen anyway and are hidden from most views).

People like observation towers because of their distinctive designs. It's a standout on the skyline of any city. It's a Sydney icon for this reason. It stand's out on our skyline and helps shape it.

I believe the design has shaped it into a Sydney icon. Sydney Tower is different to many observation towers overseas, and is designed quite differently to others. There are a number of features that make the tower unique one being the cables running vertically along it's shaft.

LOL helping me into office would be a scary thought for the nimbys, environmentalist and anyone that dislikes reflective post-modern design.

I was in darling harbour tonight - yes the tower is distinctive and it can look fantastic, the night hides a multiude of sins and it appears quite elegant, shame about no lighting on the cables (as some of you mention). I did notice as usual that the tower is not nearly tall enough, and the spire is also too stumpy. While I have never loved the design it does have some merit. If the tower had been taller and a little more attention paid to perfecting the design we might have ended up with something much more grand. Alot more could be made of the tower with lighting, lasers and continuous skyshows everynight - if people want it to be an icon it should act like one.

they need to just clean the turrent abit and build patronas style development in redfern to extend the cbd

LOL a petronas like development in redfern would be awesome but I think you are dreaming too :)

haha yeh petronas-like. people these days have high hopes. lol

i'm just tryin to revive the NSW forum. been dead for a LONG time

hey its dead because its holidays! no work on any projects.wait another 1-2 weeks.
the much awaited SKYWALK atop Sydney tower will be completed for Easter opening.

Oh what a mistake that one will be :(

When something as prominent as the tower no longer serves as it was intended it seems ridiculous to keep adding to it... just knock it down and start again. This new skywalk is not aesthetically appealing and will alter the lines of the tower in an unfortunate way. The only place in the world they get away with this type of thing is vegas... where the stratosphere has had new amusement rides added in recent times.

The amusement rides were always planned. Stratosphere Tower is nothing but a giant tourist attraction, meant to bring people to a hotel/casino built away from the two major casino districts.

yes and what would your call Sydney Tower? Sydney tower was designed to bring people into the city to shop and function as a tourist attraction. One difference however is that the Stratosphere actually has decent rides and it is taller overall than sydney Tower... we go stuck with a major dud of a tower and its depressing.

Best observation tower is Seattle Space Needle. I recognise it.

No offense to sydney but i agree with avatar and others. Its old, tacky and short.
It honestly doesnt help the skyline. GPT, Aurora, AMP, World Tower and Chifley help the skyline, but Sydney tower is hardly noticeable in some shots.

It is a basic design. Shanghai and Seattle have the only real unique towers i can think of. They dont have slight differences from the norm as sydneys does.

knock it down!

Sydney tower is ok. 300m is high enough for a small city such as Sydney. 200m is too short, 400m is too tall.
It looks like it will be heritage listed soon, so better get used to it!! lol

I will be voicing my opinion on the heritage listing of a disgusting 1970s design that is single handedly ruining Sydney's international ambition.

I don't know how they can expect to list something with so little merit. The tower won't be there forever, heritage listing or not - it will come down and be replaced eventually.

Haha.. You do that avatar.

They should demolish the turret.. and then extend the stick until like 350-ish then build a brand new turret (a better looking one). That'll be better!

it may have good views, but it is a horrid looking tower, so dated, if they heritage list that, they are mad.

Westfield now own the tower and wanted to add towers to podium but that was quickly quashed by L&E court. So they did right thing and will now build there landmark 150m tower next door.Sydney Tower is now part of Sydney's cityscape, just like Opera House or Bridge. It will never be demolished just to simply make a taller tower? Its iconic 70s' design and unique structural makeup will ensure it will be here for a very long time.If the city's height limit is 235m, well a 300m+ tower is perfect height? yes.?

Sure it's iconic, I won't argue there, but I feel that a skyline with the class of Sydney's needs an icon that's an architecural standout. It really does need to be at least the tallest in the country, and it should have the highest ob deck. A skywalk in a new tower is a good idea - but not for the existing centrepoint. 'twould look too strange. I will also admit that the design does have some merit - but I agree with Avatar on the point that more attention needed to be paid to it... The tower needed to be something that had the class, grace and elegance of the other two well-known landmarks of Sydney - the Harbour Bridge and the Opera House. Unfortunately it falls flat on that premise.

I personally feel that if Sydney's to have an observation tower as its tallest structure, it has to be dominant on the skyline from all angles, which the tower currently isn't. Something about 360-380m would suffice for now - and resetting the height limits down at a higher level would be good (and kicking CASA around would be good too - the current absolute max is far too restrictive for a city as dynamic as Sydney..

If the tower was to be pulled down, it'd be best replaced by another ob tower.
Sydney these days has a very modern skyline. Something that looked slightly futuristic probably wouldn't look out of place. It would need to have clean lines and look imposing on the skyline.

Hypothetically the tower could be modernised, but it'd probably be easier to start again and give architects a clean slate to work with.

If it's not replaced, it definitely needs a clean - urgently...

^^
On your "sydney biggest in aus, needs tallest structure" - thats not noessacarily true. NY doesnt have the tallest structure in the US but it is never denied that its a great city.

That said - Kick sydneys max height up to 300m and make the new centrepint tower 380m +

Theres nothing wrong with Sydney Towers height or design. It still looks futuristic, no other tower like it. 309m is a good height.especially its sea level height of 327m which is how you see it anyway!!! right?
hey,theres still no other city in Australia with a bldg or structure over 300m!!!
give it some credit.
Sydney's height limit wont go away. The skyline is and will be one of finest in world. thank god council have enforced some planning regualtions or it would look like same old clusterfuck like many OS cities.

I did this today just as a sample... not really what I'd like to see as I don't like the colours and i prefer the gold supports slightly convex rather than concave (did this to give it more relevance to the existing design. Also note the stem is black like the existing one - but it graduates into reflective chrome up the top. The trurret is huge but elegant with a massive glass overhang. While not perfect I'd rather see something at least as progressive as this take the place of what we have now.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/allicit/Images/centrepoint.0301.jpg

Or if they wanted to go all out why not something as fullon and unusual as this...

http://home.iprimus.com.au/allicit/Images/centrepoint.0302.jpg

:uh: u think the 2nd design will have a chance? lol the 1st one looks alright but it wouldn't happen

LOL not really but i have to say it is rather different from the present crop of tower around the world.

This one aint too bad either...
http://home.iprimus.com.au/allicit/Images/centrepoint.0303.jpg

Boy this one is tall... with holographic tinting on the turrets!
http://home.iprimus.com.au/allicit/Images/centrepoint.0304.jpg

I could churn out concept forms for new towers all day... original and IMO more interesting than what we have now.

it may have good views, but it is a horrid looking tower, so dated, if they heritage list that, they are mad.

Sydney Tower's design is timeless!!!! :) The tower hasn't dated at all. Really it can be considered as an addition to make a typical 1970's scraper look great. It could of easily been built yesterday. Heritage listing it ensures that this icon will remain around forever and be preserved in it's current state. It's not mad at all. It's only mad when you propose to redevelop it ie Westfield Towers which transforms the way it looks forever. That was why I proposed redevelopment of the complex.

309metres isn't too bad for height. It results in a perfectly balanced skyline with towers rising in height both from the north and south towards the tower. It' location right in the middle of the CBD adds to this. Any taller and it would wreck the balance and appear too overpowering and spoil the balance.

Oh what a mistake that one will be :(

When something as prominent as the tower no longer serves as it was intended it seems ridiculous to keep adding to it... just knock it down and start again. This new skywalk is not aesthetically appealing and will alter the lines of the tower in an unfortunate way. The only place in the world they get away with this type of thing is vegas... where the stratosphere has had new amusement rides added in recent times.

I don't think it will impact too much on asthetics, possibly except when up close. I don't think most people will even notice that it is there.

Sydney towers 277m roof height is one of the highest of all ob towers around the world. Its 30m spire is probably the shortest, so it really could have easily another 60m of spire like some of the towers in Europe, which would make it 360-370m high! would that make everyone more happy then? nah, doesnt need a spire extension.

I agree Culwulla that it does deserve credit.
What irks me and most of my friends is the gold which makes it look a bit dowdy and uninspiring, something it was built to BE in the first place. I dont know anyone who LOVES the look of it. Something built 20-30 yrs ago cant look good forever ( apart from the opera house)
Westfield should-
1- update the gold or even better redo it in shimmering silver.Cost bugger all.
2- then make it better lit at night
I think Westfield are too scared to even criticise the look of it and suggest enhancemenys because they are scared of negative publicity. Once it gets heritage listed we are all f*cked.

further brainwave on my bit above. get GROCON to order a bit more gold glass for top of Eureka and then ship it up to Syd to reclad centrepoints top. That will freshen it up for sure. Add better night lighting and wullu an easy + cheap fix up !!!!!!

recladding in silver and adding a 70m spire would help the cause but it still doesn't really answer the need for a new tower... this one is tired, short and lacks impact within the city and on the skyline.

Avatar, even a nieve git like me knows this just aint gonna happen unless Jihad gets involved, a cosmetic makeover is the best chance of anything happening.

even god doesnt like it >>>>
http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1076548141344_2004/02/12/550_storm3,0.jpg

I agree Culwulla that it does deserve credit.
What irks me and most of my friends is the gold which makes it look a bit dowdy and uninspiring, something it was built to BE in the first place. I dont know anyone who LOVES the look of it. Something built 20-30 yrs ago cant look good forever ( apart from the opera house)
Westfield should-
1- update the gold or even better redo it in shimmering silver.Cost bugger all.
2- then make it better lit at night
I think Westfield are too scared to even criticise the look of it and suggest enhancemenys because they are scared of negative publicity. Once it gets heritage listed we are all f*cked.

Were not going to be f**ked if it's heritage listed. It's going to do nothing to the tower itself, other than preserving it as a Sydney icon. It deserves the same treatment as other significant buildings in the city.

I have no problems with the lighting. I'd be nice if they lit up in different colours when special events are on ie Pink for Mardi Gras and Green for St Patricks day.

recladding in silver and adding a 70m spire would help the cause but it still doesn't really answer the need for a new tower... this one is tired, short and lacks impact within the city and on the skyline.

I've seen the Sydney model minus Sydney Tower and the skyline would look ordinary without it. Sydney Tower makes our skyline stand out from the others and therefore it has made an impact on the skyline.

Cool photo christarrant!

BTW like ya first design avatar (no offence to you in anyway whatsoever) but its the only design of yours that ive ever liked...

Syd Tower doesn't bother me...i like it - i don't see anything really wrong with it. It wouldbe nice if it was a smidgen taller, or the spre a bit taller (lol, raise it up so it can cover all of sydney..)

and EXCELLENT idea fabian, lol, it actual makes it wseem like an icon! and they could have green and red for christmas....but the tower would have to be silver or white for it to be fairly effective.

LOL Noonos thanks for that... not

I have produced quite a few designs on here and the only one you like is a normalish one? you are so not avant-guard. :colgate: Well i happen to like futurism so I wont be changing, hehe.

Thanks anyways :)

I can't understand the people on this board who want the tower knocked down and rebuilt or completely made over. Why because it looks dated and old or because they think it is now too short and doesn't stand out enough?

This is the same kind of additude people have always had (especially developers), and it is this additude that has caused a great number of classic irreplaceable buildings to be destroyed and replaced by something more modern.

For example I am sure in the 1960's and 1970's art deco was dated, tacky and old. Yet today there would be a uproar if someone proposed to demolish an original art deco building, to replace it with something more modern. Yet back in the 1960's and 1970's most people didn't gave a damn. Just because something is looking a little run down, doesnt mean it should be demolished or changed to make it unrecognisable. Especially if the building is a landmark or has a history to it.

^ hey you hit it on head! Look what happened to melbournes APA bldg in 1980. the beautiful 12storey queen Anne architecture style boom scraper from 1889 was demolished because it looked "too old' and in poor condition.That was one of biggest mistakes in melbournes history.
Sydney tower is a 1000ft structure which rises above a shopping centre podium in the centre of a busy city. what perfect planning.The towers guyed wires are a perfect element which rises up to a turret which isnt too over the top with flashy additions like some of the OS towers. its a simple turret and head which doents overpower the cityscape.Its nestled amongst the modern scrapers nicely.and even its 30m spire which is simplistic as they come doesnt scream out "look at moi". I remember reading parissians wanted Eiffel tower pulled down after its 2 year exhibit. man what a mistake that would of been.

i agree dont change the tower itself. just put some huge intelligent lighting on it to change its colour/appearence at night. over then that its perfect.

yay

http://img150.exs.cx/img150/5813/sydtowernew4yi.jpg

Thats great Malt. :okay: An easy way to boost the height of the tower without affecting the existing design of the tower to a major extent. It would look great from further out. We should suggest this to management.

i attempted to make it silver too lol. really turned out like i faded it but oh well

^Actually that would be a great makeover and solves all probs!
Good job Malt :applause:

Malt you MUST send this to Westfield and Syd Council !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is what Ive been talking about. :) :) :) :)

I can't understand the people on this board who want the tower knocked down and rebuilt or completely made over. Why because it looks dated and old or because they think it is now too short and doesn't stand out enough?

This is the same kind of additude people have always had (especially developers), and it is this additude that has caused a great number of classic irreplaceable buildings to be destroyed and replaced by something more modern.

For example I am sure in the 1960's and 1970's art deco was dated, tacky and old. Yet today there would be a uproar if someone proposed to demolish an original art deco building, to replace it with something more modern. Yet back in the 1960's and 1970's most people didn't gave a damn. Just because something is looking a little run down, doesnt mean it should be demolished or changed to make it unrecognisable. Especially if the building is a landmark or has a history to it.

There is a difference here. The tower was designed by someone whom none of us can greatly recall at a time when architecture was moving between movements and was not greatly artistic is expression. It is far from a standout architectural design - the only reason it has stood as a monument and icon is through the height and prominance it has had. Without the prominance (in the city) and with many towers around the world showing their original and superior design it is hardly acceptable anymore for it to stay as is. It is a let down to Sydney and the people iof Australia, it must go.

Should we accept average designs and expect them to compete with world respected works such as the SOH and SHB? No, I think not. Not when it should define the city as the central third element.

It is not a terrible piece of design but it is more about form following function with the structural and engineering elements of the design featuring as an expression of its art. It could be reworked and modernised but there is little point now - in a world of obselecence and in throw-away society the only things sometimes worth keeping are those from a more distant when, those buildings created well. Sydney Tower was never on par with the QVB and some other much older and more sound remants of the past - sure many buildings have been destroyed in the past and replaced with tawdry examples of the present (Penn street station in NYC comes to mind) - to rid the city of this tower is not a regressive step but a step toward the city's future and our way forward.

One day the height limits will be lifted and when they do the tower will have no relevance - the real important thing here is to keep the city and its icons relevant. We don't want to end up with a tower akin to Calgary tower where it has become a joke that has no power or focal importance in context; the same will be true of Sydney Tower and is already partially a reality now. Any telecommunications tower that serves as a observation deck and icon for a city must be tall and dominate the skyline with its height. Right now this is not the case, we have a stumpy tower that cannot even be seen from North Sydney. It's a tired tower with a fussy, cluttered appearance and a disjointed, stuck on look that doesn't flow well. The spire is far too short to be significant and the desig far too average to be great. I is very simply a tower trying to represent itself way beyond what it is capable of.

Fashion aside - the tower will not look good in 70 years - where the empire state and chrysler do... this is fad architecture on a scale not much better than a regional carnival. Observation towers can be created well and can serve as more than mere carnival rides - but unfortunately at present ours acheives very little; other than to limit city growth and disallow for the continued expansion of the CBD in a fitting way.

I don't really like what i have done with this but here is a cheaper makeover alot like Malt's...

Go tacky Westfield! AMP still have a few years on their signage lease so it wont be rebranded anytime soon. It would be better if the government owned something like this IMO.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/allicit/Images/sydney.tower.new.jpg

awesome!!! ^^^

Nice one Av but I think the Westfield logo should go. I think for the tower to have signage of any kind is vandalism.

I am with Avatar on this one. His long entry on the tower's relative lack of virtues was pretty much spot on. Even at the time it was built, it was considered very ordinary design and ordinary it remains.
Barry Humphries quipped: "It looks like a gigantic plunger and one day the hand of God will come down from the sky, push it down and flush all the shit out of Sydney." Which just about sums it up.
I think retaining the structure in its current form is more a case of vandalism (ref Fabian) than any unfortunate signage that some egotist might stick on it.

There is a difference here. The tower was designed by someone whom none of us can greatly recall at a time when architecture was moving between movements and was not greatly artistic is expression. It is far from a standout architectural design - the only reason it has stood as a monument and icon is through the height and prominance it has had. Without the prominance (in the city) and with many towers around the world showing their original and superior design it is hardly acceptable anymore for it to stay as is. It is a let down to Sydney and the people iof Australia, it must go.

Should we accept average designs as expect them to compete with world respected works such as the SOH and SHB? No, I think not. Not when it should define the city as the central third element.

It is not a terrible piece of design but it is more about form following function with the structural and engineering elements of the design featuring as an expression of its art. It could be reworked and modernised but there is little point now - in a world of obselecence and in throw-away society the only things sometimes worth keeping are those from a more distant when, those buildings created well. Sydney Tower was never on par with the QVB and some other much older and more sound remants of the past - sure many buildings have been destroyed in the past and replaced with tawdry examples of the present (Penn street station in NYC comes to mind) - to rid the city of this tower is not a regressive step but a step toward the city's future and our way forward.

It's interesting to note that the design for Centrepoint was conceived at a dinnerparty in the late 1960's. Donald Crone and his guests were joked around about an observation tower for Sydney and he drew what would be the eventual design on a piece of tissue paper. I agree that it's not artistic but I think Sydney Tower's design is fairly original, taking a different and unique approach to it's design and moving away from overseas trends. The design is also an expression of the "way things are done here" in regards to architecture. Crone therefore deserves full praise for his design.

I think Centrepoint is on par with other landmark buildings in the City including those from the 19th century. It's one of the best examples of modern architecture in Sydney which is a symbol of the evolution of tall structures in Sydney and the progress of Sydney as a world city. Any book on Sydney architecture is bound to have Sydney Tower in it.

I am with Avatar on this one. His long entry on the tower's relative lack of virtues was pretty much spot on. Even at the time it was built, it was considered very ordinary design and ordinary it remains.
Barry Humphries quipped: "It looks like a gigantic plunger and one day the hand of God will come down from the sky, push it down and flush all the shit out of Sydney." Which just about sums it up.
I think retaining the structure in its current form is more a case of vandalism (ref Fabian) than any unfortunate signage that some egotist might stick on it.

How could you be vandalising a building or anything if it's in it's current form? If you do something to it that alters it's look , it is then vandalism.

Hey this one is marginally better than my earlier one...

Imagine the satellite like clear panels with lasers projected onto them at night with the ability to slowly rotate in opposition to the revolving floor. All the exterior of the building covered in 100% refective silver glass so no floor levels are obvious... and the underside of the turret slightly covered with a new glass cone to hide the ugly mess that's there now. Above the existing turret a few more floor levels and a new high observation deck (only tiny) but at least its high!

http://home.iprimus.com.au/allicit/Images/sydney.tower.new.02.jpg

Avatar you 1st one is ugly but the second one i like

Second one is ok but laser = tacky. Also if i could suggest making the spire slightly thinner it should be about the same thickness as the 'stick' and gradually getting thinner.

What i think Malt's and your does show is the possibility of solving problems, something i wish SCC would be looking at doing instead of just rejecting everything :)

Maybe they could be semi transparent solar collectors to power the LED displays under parts of the glass... then the tower could be lit partially for free.

As Westfield owns so much of the block, and if they decided to raze all the current buildings, how high could they take a skyscraper (building) as opposed to a structure?

Thats even better but i think the clear panels would spoil it and detract from the beauty of the tower.

agree wholeheartedly with avatar on this one - IMHO Sydney Tower is already irrelevant with towers like WT and even when MLC was built, it already looked silly. It's now poor height, lack of architectural or aesthetic merit, boring podium, dated design. Podiums can be fixed up no worries, sydney's height restrictions can be lifted once Sydney tower is removed or raised. All we need is either a new telecomms tower design or a kickarse BUILDING to replace the current tower. I'm more in favour of either removing it altogether to be replaced with a new superscraper or building around it using the current lift shafts. Is that possible from an engineering point of view? Probably not given the pivotal role played by the suspension cables (no pun intended!).

Avatar's designs cannot do anything about the fact that the observation pod is currently too low!!! To be honest, the views aren't even that good from Sydney Tower and I feel ripped off every time I go!!!

yeh i feel it should be done up and soon...is there any way the shaft can be extended? As well as having a new observation deck on top? It has to be done sooner or later..

move it to north sydney and replace it with a "cityone style" scraper thats 450m tall. god im a genious!

move it to north sydney and replace it with a "cityone style" scraper thats 450m tall. god im a genious!

lol

lol@ avatars first design.....how true!....dont like ur second design tho...to fat and looks heaps tacky in my opinion....ur first design is ok....just need to thin the spire out and move the higher rings down a bit, but i get the idea that your working towards... also the bottom thingy is too far down....but that second design is so tacky lol

i like malts design.....just a quick fixup....


also, you guys seem to forget about overshadowing....i dont care, id prefer a sunny park any day no matter how tall a building is. i mean afterall, sydney tower was only built because it was so skinny, otherwise it would have been rejected....you could actually build something tall more in the centre of the cbd or a but to the west but it would still cast shadows

Interesting thread while searching, considering the new 22 hectares of waterfrontage at Patrick Stevedore is more likely to be the new 21 century centre of Sydney.

Sydney Tower has long been Sydney's (and Australia's) tallest structure for decades now...to be eclipsed by Q1...then Eureka...now return to Sydney, but at the old Stevedore site...

agree wholeheartedly with avatar on this one - IMHO Sydney Tower is already irrelevant with towers like WT and even when MLC was built, it already looked silly. It's now poor height, lack of architectural or aesthetic merit, boring podium, dated design. Podiums can be fixed up no worries, sydney's height restrictions can be lifted once Sydney tower is removed or raised. All we need is either a new telecomms tower design or a kickarse BUILDING to replace the current tower. I'm more in favour of either removing it altogether to be replaced with a new superscraper or building around it using the current lift shafts. Is that possible from an engineering point of view? Probably not given the pivotal role played by the suspension cables (no pun intended!).

Avatar's designs cannot do anything about the fact that the observation pod is currently too low!!! To be honest, the views aren't even that good from Sydney Tower and I feel ripped off every time I go!!!
ya gotta be fucin kiddin blab?
nothing wrong at all with design of Sydney tower! my only qualm is that 30m spire is too short.
the views from ob deck are probably finest in the world!!! 250m above the direct centre of a major CBD!!! not many cities can say that! most cities that have ob towers are just out of city or suburbs.
Sydney tower has great architectural merit! absolutley nothing wrong with design.especially for early 1970's! leave it alone i say!
just add a new spire that goes to 382m or RL400m.lol

http://img260.echo.cx/img260/8462/sydneytowers8gu.jpg


what a view!!
http://www.nachohat.org/p/sydney_oct2001/centerpoint/P1010026.jpg

I like what you have done with the spire Cul but I disagree with your statements

views from ob deck are probably finest in the world

I think it is one of the most medicocre observation decks in the world. Many of the observation towers I have been to around the world are within the CBDs and every tower was higher and had broader and more unimpeded views. The tower has served its useful life and should be replaced by something more extravagant and something much taller. MLC and its proximity and height compared with the tower illustrate the problems we have with the tower as it stands.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/allicit/Images/centrepoint.0301.jpg
Sorry I had to repost it :)

wat are the chances of sydney tower getting a facelift in the next few years?

zero

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/5/2001/05/126194.jpg



=


http://img260.echo.cx/img260/8462/sydneytowers8gu.jpg

http://home.iprimus.com.au/allicit/Images/centrepoint.0301.jpg
Sorry I had to repost it :)

A bit of Seattle Space Needle?

LOL it shares very little in common with its much shorter friend in Seattle - It does however take styling cues from the existing Sydney Tower and a few styling cues from other towers like the space needle. I think this one would be less inclined to date as it doesn't embody the 60's version of the future as seen in the space needle. This one is just generic futurism ... but with a life and breath all it's own.

we cant change the look of Sydney tower because then it wouldnt look like Sydney tower.make sense? its no good making it look like a generic tower from overseas?
its a very unique head section! also wire design. i agree with what Westfield want to do with 12storey podium. It will be refited and rebuilt externally.So it will look modern and up to date. but tower should stay same. its like any structure really, why would you want to redo a design that was futuristic when built? In 50 years it will be a great heritage item.

^ yup make's sense. Sydney tower is awesome! I love it from this angle and prolly will for a long time. I think that people who live in the same place get sick of this tower becuase they get so used to it, and thats why they want to change it. If a tourist comes to sydney and see's this tower, they would think (and get to see )how fantastic it really is. And it is!!!! :)

can they just give the spire a little more height

Firstly I'll say that Sydney Tower is a dated building trying to look good. It looks dirty from most angles and very cheap with those cables and the rusty elevator core. Especially with that stumpy turret it ruins the visual and rhythmic vertical flow of the building, reducing the aesthetic power to nothing. We have a cheap stick holding our city back.


It is known as Centrepoint Tower. "Centrepoint" Tower. "Centre" "Point". The name gives us the impression that the building is the main focal point and visual attraction, which it undoubtedly is not. While the cables may form a beautiful shape and nice rhythmic architectural flow, the turret prevents this flow, blocking it and reducing the aesthetic power of the building. The turret is wayyy too high for the design. The turret ruins, I mean RUINS the vertical thrust of the building, reducing it to 0. The turret contributes NOTHING to the cables, it blocks everything off, completely cancelling out what the cables have made. T

See what I mean?

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/3037/476492sv4.jpg

Sydney is a world-famous city, the most well-known and sometimes most important city on the continent. Our skyline is, well, should be, famous. And this is what we have as our main representative of the skyline:

http://national.atdw.com.au/multimedia/tnsw/o8337_p.jpg

IT LOOKS LIKE SHIT! It looks like some kindergarten kid has made it out of carboard, paper and glue and the antenna made from pipe cleaners!

Sydney Tower is like the pyramids of Egypt, the Eiffel Tower of Paris or the ESB for New York. It is the structure people look up to and it should be a small taste of what the city really is like. If we have a shithouse 1970s gold bucket on a stick our international status is not going anywhere anytime soon. Especially if it is holding the rest of our city back.

Please knock down this trash, it is embarassing me. Avatar's designs are always sensational, please let him design the replacement of Sydney Tower that is a world landmark, the lighthouse of Sydney.

Good day.

reminds me of those old WWI battle ships...

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1036/ussarizonabb3905jpgpz1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

can't find a better render, but this london proposal was cool. vortex.
would look good.....

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/5820/60vortexpic1xe7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I actually like that Vortex. It continues the vertical flow as I was talking about in my previous post. There is no interruptions in the flow like that hideous gold turret in Sydney Tower. I just don't think we should build it as it would look far too much like the one in Guangzhou and I don't like the colours anyway.

But good find g.m.n.y.! :)

Sydney restrictions are stupid as hell.

In Seattle they decided to build above their 'observation' tower:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/195/498172120_71f4490483.jpg?v=1182986894

even if they added an extra 200m on top its not like buildings would get any taller; demand and supply, rather than high restrictions blocking is what is blocking 230m+ towers.

Height restrictions stop those lofty developers from proposing grand (in height) attention seeking projects. It's ridiculous to claim that Sydney doesn't have the demand for tall buildings just because in actuality rarely anything gets built to the 235m limit.

It's a case of red tape and less availability of land to build a tower of this height in Sydney then in the other 3 capitals (or the Gold Coast).

I mean you can't tell me that World Tower, proposed and during the the housing boom. Would have been a nonviable project if it was allowed and went to around 300m like two other residential towers did?

hey i don't like it! I just don't believe that their is such a great demand for 235m+ buildings.

the average sydney resident would see no difference between 235m and 300m or know that Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane and the Gold Coast all have taller buildings (planned or otherwise). and if they did know why would they care 235m seems tall enough.

i think the floor to height ratio has a bigger impact on the height of the city rather then centerpoint tower.

if getting rid of center point tomorrow meant that we would start getting 300m buildings, i would be all for it.

i dont think devlopers would be lined up to build 300m buildings. we are lucky to get a 100m these days.
the height limits will stay as long as Sydney airport is there. remove the airport. the height restrictions will go. cant see it happening in our lifetime.
sydney towers fine. i love the design.
BTW-Seattle space needle was built for the worlds fair, not to be the main landmark tower in centre of the CBD.
They havent a airport closeby either.i think its 20km away, similar to Tullamarine from melb?

i dont think devlopers would be lined up to build 300m buildings. we are lucky to get a 100m these days.
the height limits will stay as long as Sydney airport is there. remove the airport. the height restrictions will go. cant see it happening in our lifetime.
sydney towers fine. i love the design.
BTW-Seattle space needle was built for the worlds fair, not to be the main landmark tower in centre of the CBD.
They havent a airport closeby either.i think its 20km away, similar to Tullamarine from melb?

Maybe not in your lifetime, but it will definitely happen in mine. And if noone else makes it happen then I will. By the time I die Sydney will have 500m+ highrises, trust me.

You believe it but you don't know it. Wait for it to happen before you commit yourself irrevocably: saying 'trust me' is either naive or indicates a lack of trustworthiness - it's just one of those phrases these days, such as, 'to be frank' = he's lying.
Be careful what you proclaim but don't give up your dreams.