And we have our first individual proposal for Barangaroo South!!

Working Name - C4 Tower
Height - 178m
No. stories - 43
Total GFA - 109,964 sq m
Commercial GFA - 97,411 sq m
Retail GFA - 10,683 sq m
Community Use GFA - 1,870 sq m
No. carparks - 181
No. bike spaces - 708

Source: http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=3800

The following was posted by Cul in the Barangaroo thread. We thought it'd be a good idea to separate it out for individual discussion and leave the Barangaroo thread to talk about the concept plan, Barangaroo Central and the Headland Park.

C4 TOWER!!
96,000SQM!
178m above street level/
43floors

yellow framing

large pic of heights
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1390/5162417909_33158f7651_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1095/5162411467_810ca7ce6d_o.jpg
more elevations later

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1366/5163020606_ee29394c1f_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4129/5163019426_b53178a9e0_b.jpg

Some renders of the base of the tower from: http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/page/project-sectors/residential--commercial---retail/?action=view_job&job_id=3800

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/412/c41ui.jpg

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/70/c42v.jpg

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/1280/c43d.jpg

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/796/c44v.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Wow, that has Rogers all over it! I was wondering whether or not he would leave his trademark because the concept showed plain glass. Interesting. You can see the similarities to Goodsell.

I'm happy with it. The yellow bracing is superb. A thumbs up for the skygardens.

96 000 sq/m would make it the largest office building in Australia.

I was failing to see the excitement and wondered if you had all lost your minds, but the renders of the base give me some hope, I like the colour, otherwise I am not excited.

I am. It looks terrific with the forms moving in varying directions, the variation in detail & material and the lightness of the structure belying its size.

time to pop the champagne!

although this building does remind me of some of the stuff that's splattered along the waterfront in Barcelona... a bit early 90's

what's the rough timeline for this baby?

It looks like a standard block to me with some yellow bracing tacked onto it

Here are some really good looking renders from afar;

All from http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/files/63446/34a.%20Appendix%20HH_View%20Analysis.pdf

FROM SOUTH;
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/4100/c4tower.jpg (http://img507.imageshack.us/i/c4tower.jpg/)

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/3730/c4towerfromsouth1.jpg (http://img87.imageshack.us/i/c4towerfromsouth1.jpg/)

FROM EAST;
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/5196/c4towerfromeast1.jpg (http://img825.imageshack.us/i/c4towerfromeast1.jpg/)

FROM NORTH;
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4599/c4towerfromnorth1.jpg (http://img199.imageshack.us/i/c4towerfromnorth1.jpg/)

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4599/c4towerfromnorth1.jpg (http://img13.imageshack.us/i/c4towerfromnorth1.jpg/)

FROM WEST;
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/4889/c4towerfromwest.jpg (http://img143.imageshack.us/i/c4towerfromwest.jpg/)

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/6653/c4towerfromwest1.jpg (http://img258.imageshack.us/i/c4towerfromwest1.jpg/)


THE SAME VIEW AS PER ENVELOPES ATTACKED BY NIMBYS; (notice the smaller size and how much better it looks as a building than an envelope, NIMBYs)
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/7760/c4towerandenvelope.jpg (http://img21.imageshack.us/i/c4towerandenvelope.jpg/)

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5773/c4tower1.jpg (http://img201.imageshack.us/i/c4tower1.jpg/)

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/4431/42298028.jpg (http://img607.imageshack.us/i/42298028.jpg/)

Fantastic!!! You've been a busy boy! Thanks.

It's going to be a pretty boring building once the yellow bracing is replaced with silver (for the same reasons the yellow bracing on the Goodsell tower has been replaced).

No probs!!

My interest in Barangaroo was waning because of the trickle of information we were receiving but it has been revived by this first proposal!! It is great to see progress on something we have all been arguing and fighting for for almost 12 months!

Whilst the building itself is far from architecturally groundbreaking, it looks good, obviously has the floorplate size that tenants are looking for and will be the first step towards the Rogersization of the western waterfront. It is far from an eyesore and only really stands out from the west and south - but only because there is nothing next to it (yet)! From the north it looks just about perfect, gels with the existing skyline and instead of it trickling off from the talls in the north-east of the CBD, it extends the height and shape of the skyline to the west. The hint of industry is evident in the piping on the northern side of the building and whilst this is trademark Rogers it is also fitting for the industrial history of the site!

Good effort. It doesn't look too bad at all. I just hope both other commercial towers step up from it rather than having another one that is exactly the same size, and potentially the same look too.

Delighted to see more detail on the first building, and a great milestone. The height is good, but the design could be better. A bit square (in every sense of the word) for my liking. Not a stunner, but hopefully just adding context so the next ones can blow our minds away!

Eternal optimist.

10 november 2010 | Sydney's world leading Barangaroo development unveils model for future office buildings

http://barangaroosouth.com.au/10-November-2010---/default.aspx

The public exhibition of the first of the three major office buildings at Barangaroo South commenced today, unveiling a new model for offices of the future.

The first office building is the middle tower of three that form the commercial heart of Barangaroo. It fits within the approved building envelope of the existing 2009 Concept Plan, so it can progress with its planning application ahead of the proposed Concept Plan Amendment, which is currently being considered by the NSW Department of Planning.

This first commercial office building was designed by Ivan Harbour and Lord Richard Rogers, of the internationally acclaimed architects, Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners of London. Other design contributors included award-winning Australian architect Ken Maher, international authority on office and future workplace design Frank Duffy, and world leading environmental engineer Guy Battle.

The three Barangaroo South office buildings will enhance Sydney as a global city and a leading financial services centre.

The buildings have been designed with the best architectural, urban design and sustainability principles to meet the needs and requirements of the world’s most progressive businesses, including:
• large, clear and open floor plates that improve productivity and communication
• healthier and more attractive environments with abundant natural light that provide great places to work and to visit
• connected and accessible locations that offer immediate access to quality amenities
• flexible workspace that is adapted to the latest working practices and business models
• buildings that deliver the most advanced environmental and sustainability outcomes
• the latest information technology to assist businesses be more efficient and productive

When compared to typical Sydney office buildings, the Barangaroo South office buildings will use 75% less energy, recycle all water, and divert over 80% of their operational waste away from landfill.
 
David Hutton, Group Head of Development at Lend Lease, commented; “We’re setting new standards in terms of world class design at Barangaroo, producing workspaces and workplaces that meet and exceed the needs of leading global businesses. The current 6 Star Green Star benchmark is just a starting point for our buildings which take advantage of shared, precinct-wide infrastructure and services to deliver a carbon neutral, water positive and zero waste outcome. Barangaroo South will set new sustainability benchmarks, not just for Sydney or Australia, but for commercial developments anywhere in the world.”

All buildings at Barangaroo South will benefit from an innovative shared basement design. The technology and infrastructure included in these basements will play a key role in achieving new environmental benchmarks. An additional benefit of the shared basement structure is that delivery and service vehicles will access the site and buildings via the basement level. This will reduce congestion at ground level and provide priority for pedestrians in surrounding streets and laneways.

A variety of shops, services and a childcare centre at podium levels of the first commercial building will ensure the surrounding areas are activated.

Mr Hutton concluded: “Once completed, the first office building – together with its two sibling buildings at Barangaroo South – will define the heart of this green extension to Sydney’s CBD.

“Barangaroo South will help create a new, vibrant waterfront, showcase Australia’s sustainability leadership and support Sydney’s economy and its position as a major south-east Asian financial centre. In short, it will help define Sydney as a leading 21st century world city providing for jobs, economic growth and great public places for Sydneysiders and visitors alike.”

The detailed planning application documents will be available for people to view and comment on at the Department of Planning’s Information Centre, 23-33 Bridge Street, Sydney and online at www.planning.nsw.gov.au. The public exhibition runs from 10 November 2010 until 10 December.

Not bad at all. The first render caused me to gasp a bit in horror, but the following ones put me a bit more at ease... the beauty will be in the finishes and detail I think. It's also a big ugly bitch looking from the north, so hopefully the tower immediately next to it is higher, built soon (to block that plain section - maybe the core- that runs the entire height), and a bit prettier. Hopefully they pull out the big guns and make the tallest one the most showy one.

I'm assuming no roof feature is intentional so it doesn't steal focus from the hotel or the tower to the north that I assume/hope will be 20 - 50m higher??

^^

The building to the north will be about 30m taller but probably a similar size (in terms of width). However, the bulk of the tallest tower will be somewhat broken up by the residential towers that are built to the north of it. The tallest is ~170-175m on the southern edge of the cove whilst the other two I think are 150m and 130m on the northern side of the cove. I agree in hoping that they really go after the tallest with some architectural bite - some may look at it as competing with the hotel but on the flip side it could be seen as a complimentary effect.

There is no roof feature because there is a large photovoltaic feature on top of the roof. Probably will be similar for the other two office towers.

I certainly like the 'bulkness' of the building. So far OK but I was hoping for a design with a bit more of an edge to it. ;)

It's the envelope...with yellow braces. I'd hardly call it inspiring or special. In fact, I'm actually pretty disappointed, particularly with the base of it.

Worst is the side that you see from the West. What is up with the giant white stripes up the side of it? Looks bloody horrible!

^bit harsh. i think its a good design for australias most massive skyscraper! 97,000sqm??? fark
realistically youy wont see much of it. it will be hidden by a 220m bohemoth to its north and maybe a tower of same size to south, so doesnt mater what it looks like right?
thanks for posting all that guys. ive been too busy and away from work.
it looks fab. looks funny all by itself, i suppose will be like it for a year or two.
the C5 tower will hopefully go to full 209m height enevlope and the most southern tower C5 maybe twin at 180m.but council want it 140m. i would rather 140m BUT only if C5 goes to 230m.but who knows what will eventuate.
I was told detailed model of C3 will come in soon.
also try to visit the city model and checkout the new park. its awesome

Great design, very much Lord RR!

Love it!... Will this be the tallest building in the Barangaroo project or will there be higher?

this will be 2nd tallest. the C5 tower just north will be 209m or 10floors higher min.

Barangaroo developer unveils plan
Matthew Moore
November 11, 2010

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/barangaroo-developer-unveils-plan-20101110-17npc.html

'Articulated' . . . Lend Lease has released the first drawings of Lord Richard Rogers's design for the main tower at Barangaroo, known as C4.

LEND LEASE has shaved the length and reduced the mass of the first of three giant office towers planned for Barangaroo in a bid to defuse opposition to the controversial development.

Plans for the 43-storey tower to sit in the middle of three commercial buildings at East Darling Harbour show 90-metre long walls have been trimmed by five metres and the building has been ''articulated'' to break up its bulk from having floors of 2500 square metres, bigger than almost all comparable buildings in Sydney.

Designs for the waterfront tower by British architects Ivan Harbour and Lord Richard Rogers from Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners have been submitted to the Department of Planning for approval and will go on display today in a timetable that David Hutton from Lend Lease expects will see it approved before the March election.

''It could be approved by the end of the first quarter of next year … the reason we are doing this now is we are seeking to start construction next year to complete in 2014,'' Mr Hutton said.

A great deal of work had gone into designing an ''absolutely world-class building'' and especially into moderating the bulk or ''visual massing'' of the building called C4, as seen from the south, he said.

C4 would be the ''greenest business address in the world'' using 75 per cent less energy than the average Sydney office building, recycling all water and offering only 188 car spaces compared with parking for 708 bicycles.

Despite such credentials and design changes, the plans are unlikely to satisfy critics, including the City of Sydney which has called for the top third of all three office towers to be slashed in size with floors of only 1400 square metres to reduce bulk and the loss of winter sun at Darling Harbour.

Lend Lease has also irritated critics by lodging development applications for the earthworks and the tower before the Planning Minister has approved a separate application to vary the overall planning regime. Barangaroo needs the change to allow construction of a hotel in the harbour and 15 per cent more floor space.

The president of the Barangaroo Action Group, Ian Campbell, said it was absurd for the government to consider individual development applications before it had settled on the concept plan for the site and has already foreshadowed a legal challenge to the project.

Mr Hutton said there was no basis for a challenge and Lend Lease had spent a lot of time to ensure it complies.


Seriously how dumb is that? It has been made blatantly obvious that this building has been submitted for approval first because it ALREADY COMPLIES WITH THE EXISTING CONCEPT PLAN FOR BARANGAROO. Yet BAG still thinks it can go to court and take down Lend Lease...they are really clutching at straws if they think this is the case.

''We think it's a stunning building,'' he said.

Lend Lease are within their rights to lodge D/A's for earthworks like any normal development. It's part and parcel for D/A's for a building to be amended as excavation and earthworks take place.

from todays teleg
looks fab. really imressived with this tower. they got height wrong though.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1183/5164500041_17fff3daff_o.jpg

from todays teleg
looks fab. really imressived with this tower. they got height wrong though.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1183/5164500041_17fff3daff_o.jpg

I think that the building as way to fat and the yellow bracing should be more pronounced for the size of it, a taller more slender tower would have looked a lot nicer imo but I know we have no chance of going any taller.

Also, why is the height stated as 208m in that article???

It is slender.its only 20m wide.but 85m east/west .these days you need large floors. gone are the days of small floor plates.no one is interested.
its the middle of three towers, the big one C3 is taller.

^ just because it's what business wants doesn't make it a nice building. it is such a pity.

^ just because it's what business wants doesn't make it a nice building. it is such a pity.

It does mean the supply of the building meets demand though, so it actually gets built. I think it's good to be finally getting some decent sized floorplates in Australian cities, which are actually high-rise and not campus-style office parks!

Resi towers will maintain the tall slender look in skyscrapers.

Then again, you could have office towers with massive floorplates and are slender if the buildings were even taller!

more about C4
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1262/5165630888_3f4d826e1f_o.jpg

I wish one of the online databases I can access through university had the AFR online for viewing.

The print edition had the same renders but even sharper than what has been posted here.

The render in today's telegraph is much better. Certainly provides more detail on the exterior look of the building. Im starting to warm to the design. :)

I'm happy with it. The yellow bracing is superb. A thumbs up for the skygardens.

96 000 sq/m would make it the largest office building in Australia.


That is Gross Floor Area. Leasable Floor Area is usually at least 25% less. Rialto has a Gross Floor Area of 147,000m²

It's the envelope...with yellow braces. I'd hardly call it inspiring or special. In fact, I'm actually pretty disappointed, particularly with the base of it.

Worst is the side that you see from the West. What is up with the giant white stripes up the side of it? Looks bloody horrible!

totally agree.
it's hideous.
a relic from 1977 on top of a westfield shoppingtown.

i am also amazed at how many people swallow the 'financial services need these floorplates' line.
it is rubbish.
the fact is this: the higher the ratio of floorplate to facade, the greater the profit for the developer.
so guess what? developers tell everyone that there is an urgent need for this type of building.

hmm.

sydney's lost tha plot... wtf is this crap? it's jut a block??

barangaroo needs more curves...

It is slender.its only 20m wide.but 85m east/west .these days you need large floors. gone are the days of small floor plates.no one is interested.
its the middle of three towers, the big one C3 is taller.

incorrect. it's 23m at its narrowest. over 50m wide at its widest.
the plans are on the department of planning website.

and who says no one is interested in small floor plates.
where is the proof of this convenient (for developers) line?

^i was estimating width. ive doe so many models ranging from 19-25m.
as for wide elevation.. its 85m east /west trust me.it was 90m but they reduced it.
regarding small floor plates. this is feedback from developers and city planners i get everyday at work.
ask melbourne forumers when a large/tall office tower was built last?
the last few big ones have been massive lowrise buildings in docklands.
anyway

as for next barangaroo tower,its a twin!
C5 will have red trimming and same height!

and it actually is 180m!! according to LendLease and Richard Rogers anyway.

^180mRL or above sea level.
It sits at 2m RL on hickson road, thus 178m above ground ;)

We are not the only ones who are fully aware of BAG's presumptions and false claims. Here is a cycling forum and most of the posters support the idea of increased bike parking (over car parking) and comment on the false claims of BAG

http://www.sydneycyclist.com/forum/topics/bike-parking-at-barangaroo?commentId=1321712%3AComment%3A212802&xg_source=activity

That is Gross Floor Area. Leasable Floor Area is usually at least 25% less. Rialto has a Gross Floor Area of 147,000m²

im sure C4 has more then rialto? surely? C4s floors are service free and meausre 85m x25m. thats over 2500sqm each or 97,000sqm in total? i though rialto had 86,000sqm? where did you get 147,000sqm? now im really confused,

Those new renders make it look very nice indeed. Agreed that it is bulky, but it does work. A lot of buildings i saw in North America have that kind of bulk. I think in Australia we tend to build on smaller blocks.

Look forward to seeing the entire site.

Worst is the side that you see from the West. What is up with the giant white stripes up the side of it? Looks bloody horrible!I like most of the design elements, but those white stripes running up the core really are uncomplementary to the rest of the facade. Otherwise I think its great. It sure is a big bitch though.

im sure C4 has more then rialto? surely? C4s floors are service free and meausre 85m x25m. thats over 2500sqm each or 97,000sqm in total? i though rialto had 86,000sqm? where did you get 147,000sqm? now im really confused,Well according to this source (http://www.rialto.com.au/jd/jadehttp.dll?EbdMulti_www_01=&H01=5003&H04=50011&_jadeReferenceClass=EbdHtmlClassMaster001&_jadeReferenceDocument=EbdHtmlClassMaster001) Rialto Towers has 147,000sqm Gross Floor Area and 84,206sqm Net Lettable Area. And the C4 proposal has 109,964sqm GFA, but remains to be seen what its NLA is - maybe it could be more then Railto?

I dont dislike it and I am quite fond of the external elevator shafts with their silver facade. I'd hope that the windows on the rest of the tower have slightly more reflective tinting ... currently the renders suggest zero reflectivity. Not a fan of the greening of the tower with trees and whatnot, they look too 'green and gold' against the yellow bracing.

^ I doubt you'll get your reflective glass. It's already been stated that the building is designed to appear "see-through".

^^
That sucks.

Most of windows will be covered by blinds and they look ugly from outside.
You can't use PC in the sunlight.

guys, I’ve no idea on the actual numbers, but a NLA to GFA efficiency would be targeted at over 85% (over 90% is nearly impossible).

it would be interesting to see if the services are actually exposed and if this gets them greater efficiency than a typical building

I like most of the design elements, but those white stripes running up the core really are uncomplementary to the rest of the facade. Otherwise I think its great. It sure is a big bitch though.

Well according to this source (http://www.rialto.com.au/jd/jadehttp.dll?EbdMulti_www_01=&H01=5003&H04=50011&_jadeReferenceClass=EbdHtmlClassMaster001&_jadeReferenceDocument=EbdHtmlClassMaster001) Rialto Towers has 147,000sqm Gross Floor Area and 84,206sqm Net Lettable Area. And the C4 proposal has 109,964sqm GFA, but remains to be seen what its NLA is - maybe it could be more then Railto?
i thought C4s net floor area was 97,000sqm?

^^
That sucks.

Most of windows will be covered by blinds and they look ugly from outside.
You can't use PC in the sunlight.

Exactly ... the final result will be hideous with blinds and random internal devices to stop glare. reflective window create a cohesive internal appearance. Even if the windows were mildly reflective it would help go some way to improving the appearance while also maintaining the openess of the design.

I dont dislike it and I am quite fond of the external elevator shafts with their silver facade. I'd hope that the windows on the rest of the tower have slightly more reflective tinting ... currently the renders suggest zero reflectivity. Not a fan of the greening of the tower with trees and whatnot, they look too 'green and gold' against the yellow bracing.

I find this to be a silly question to ask - What is your issue with the skygardens? What makes them bad?

I am sure that the reflectivity will meet your standards in reality once it's built - think 420 George for instance. Did anyone think the glass would turn out to be quite reflective after all?

i thought C4s net floor area was 97,000sqm?Cool. Although if you're looking at the figures posted at the start of the thread, that figure of 97,411sqm is, from what I understand, the GFA of the office component (total GFA minus retail and community use GFA), not the NLA of office space available for lease.

I don't like green, esp with yellow ... it's a vile combination of colour. I'd rather skygardens be behind glass rather then exposed to the view. I think this idea of skygardens and nature within the city detract from the skyline. I don't want to see skscrapers covered in vast swaths of green unless it's really integrated in a aesthetically pleasing manner, reconciling the the man-made and natural.

I don't really think that the skygardens are noticeable and considering the building will be bordered by other towers of similar height in a few years, they will certainly not be noticeable then. Central Park features much more apparent skygardens and climbing vegetation.

Don't forget guys that this first building, as with the concept plan, is on public exhibition which means we can write in comments about the new building. The NIMBY social and GET UP sites seem to have gone quiet - a majority of positive submissions would be great to drill our message home and show our support for not just this building but the overall scheme!!

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/page/project-sectors/residential--commercial---retail/?action=view_job&job_id=3800

Green game changer or sun blocker?
Kelsey Munro and Matthew Moore
November 13, 2010

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/green-game-changer-or-sun-blocker-20101112-17rae.html

Architects' bold claims have not silenced critics.

Sydney's newest building promises the lot: vertical villages for architectural interest, breakout places for workers to socialise, a garden on the roof of the 43rd storey gazing over the harbour and more bike parking than anywhere this side of Amsterdam.

The developer, Lend Lease, promotes it as ''a concept for office buildings of the future'', a minimum six star-rated environmentally friendly tower that promises the ''greenest business address in arguably the world's greenest business district'', and a ''game-changer that starts where other buildings leave off''.

And C4, as it is known, comes with high-level credentials, designed by the British Pritzker Prize winner, Richard Rogers, and his partner Ivan Harbour along with Australian Ken Maher, a winner of the highest award given by the Australian Institute of Architects, the gold medal.

Lend Lease promises that Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners will also design two ''sibling'' towers to the north and south of C4, so the development application lodged this week gives the first real glimpses of how Barangaroo will look a few years from now.

Despite the building's architectural pedigree, and a promise that it will be carbon neutral, the green-tinged lord mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, is not impressed.

''It hasn't changed our position at all; it's still too big,'' Cr Moore said. It is not the height of the 180-metre tower that the City objects to, it is the width Lend Lease needs for the big floorplates its finance company tenants demand.

C4, the first of three planned Barangaroo office towers, will have floors of 2500 square metres compared with 1800-2000 square metres in Grosvenor Place, 1300-1700 in Chifley Tower and 1400-1600 in Governor Macquarie Tower.

To get them, the long sides of the rectangular building run 85 metres east to west, 30 metres longer than most other office towers and, if you believe the city planners, big enough to block winter sun to the building's south.

To let in more sun, the City wants the top third of all three towers tapered. Lend Lease has declined, adding to the growing list of disputes mainly about size, in what is becoming an increasingly frantic and impenetrable planning process.

Lend Lease has applied to build C4 under the existing concept plan for Barangaroo even though it has already requested that plan be varied to allow it to build bigger and in the water.

While the company has the right to apply under the existing plan, critics say that it is doing things back to front and the only logical planning process is to resolve the concept plan first before deciding what goes in it.

It is not Lend Lease's only application under the existing plan.

This week the Planning Minister, Tony Kelly, approved the company's request to dig a vast hole for parking 880 cars, even though the plan that will determine what can go on top of it has not been approved.

Because the site was polluted by the gasworks once located there, Lend Lease will have to build an impermeable wall around its hole to keep out polluted groundwater. A Greens MP, David Shoebridge, and other critics say that pollution on the site should be fixed as part of an overall plan and that digging will shatter sandstone, risking the flow of polluted water into the harbour.

Whether these gripes from critics have any substance appears certain to become an issue for the Land and Environment Court.

The president of the Barangaroo Action Group, Ian Campbell, is ready to move.

''The most likely next development is a legal challenge to the excavation and to the concept plan,'' he said.

And as lawyers prepare to debate the legality of the project, architects have already begun to argue about the aesthetic appeal of Barangaroo's first tower.

THE ARCHITECTS' VERDICTS
Ed Lippmann, Lippmann Partnership

It sets a benchmark of quality design. Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners is very well qualified. We've worked with them for 10 years. It's very dynamic,legible architecture, which is what one would expect from Rogers' office. The idea is to connect Kent Street and Wynyard down to the harbour and, because of the orientation of the building, there will be these view corridors between C4 and the future office buildings.

Forty storeys is not that tall compared to other city buildings, and the strategy of tall towers is a good idea. Fewer buildings that are taller is better than a lot of squat buildings - that is consistent with urban planning trends worldwide. It will … create a very vibrant pedestrian precinct and protect the rest of Barangaroo as a green precinct. The alternative is to encourage vast low-rise sprawling developments. That is not a good idea. The debate is very good. East Circular Quay was a bad example of what can happen, so discussion before the event is a good thing.

Tony Caro, Tony Caro Architecture

It's a typically accomplished Richard Rogers building. For many years he's been a pre-eminent architect on the world stage, with his signature buildings like Lloyds of London, and it continues that high-tech modern design philosophy he's renowned for. When the original competition brief was written it was mandated that half the site would be a park, and there's also extensive public space within the urban precinct to the south of the site. What that inevitably means is you're going to have tall buildings. My limited understanding is that the gross floor space ratio over the entire 22-hectare site is going to be in the order of 3:1. Most central Sydney development is over 10:1. So by that measure it isn't too dense; in fact it's way less dense compared to other city development.

Chris Johnson, former government architect, member of the Barangaroo design excellence review panel

The approach that Richard Rogers and team use is to externalise the structure and the way a building is put together. That leads to a much more interesting building than a simple glass skin with nothing else. It's looking an incredibly interesting building. Putting the lifts in three rises on the outside of the building gives it another dynamic in terms of breaking down the form of what's a fairly long building, in an interesting way. The way that it relates to the podium at the base of the building is also pretty good.
Phillip Cox, Cox Architects

The scale of the building is totally incompatible with the delicate scales of King Street Wharf and Macquarie Complex which observe the balance between the waterfront and the CBD. The building completely overshadows the public domain of King Street Wharf in winter during the lunch period. Curiously, this building has its lift cores on the northern side yet it claims to be environmentally sensitive. The pedestrian domain and the creation of an urban typology of sheltered walks and promenades seem not to exist. The treatment of facades appears not to address varying orientation such as the western sun penetration. Bulk is still the main problem. And painted yellow steel doesn't quite ring true on Sydney Harbour - it's more attuned to the northern skies.

Stephen Buzacott, Buzacott Architects and author of the NSW branch of the Australian Institute of Architects submission on Barangaroo

It's a startling representation of the proposed first office building in south Barangaroo. Not only is it portrayed with no context, it's part of a plan that's yet to be approved. It's a breathtaking display of what the AIA fears, the lack of appropriate context on which to judge this development. The planning process has been dysfunctional. We're not worried about height, it's the bulk of the buildings that is the main issue, in that location on the harbour. High-rise on the water at Barangaroo is going to overshadow the very waterfront it is meant to be celebrating - that is the context.

John de Manincor, De Manincor Russell Architecture Workshop and Sydney editor of Architectural Review Australia

An office design by RSH is a no-risk option. A bigger risk for Sydney is the widely publicised hotel in the harbour, which deploys a similar (if not the same) aesthetic. If, and only if, the government agrees to let Lend Lease build in the harbour, the architectural response needs to take far greater risks - the city deserves it. The proposal repeats the aesthetics of any number of RSH office towers: the machine aesthetic with a splash of primary colour. RSH's reputation and that of the practices likely to document the project suggest this will be an elegantly detailed building, yet formally it's clumsy. The lift towers to the north (signature Rogers) help disguise the enormous expanses of glass to the south (carefully avoided in published images). It is form follows function where function is limited to a utilitarian brief: make me money! The sustainability agenda is laudable: a machine for production of power and water. The wider city has been forgotten. The users are not only the thousands of people that will occupy it, but also the millions of people who will experience it in the round. In this regard it is a missed opportunity for Sydney.

I read that in the print edition about 30 minutes ago. I am glad that Clover Moore has no issue with the heights, but not impressed with the 'too fat' argument. What she doesn't understand is other cities allow such buildings as the norm.

And the yellow steel allowed in northern hemisphere? Like many parts of the northern hemisphere, Sydney has a temperate climate. Not many Sydney buildings feature yellow and I have no issues because it's different to the colour schemes of other city buildings.

Here are some model shots of the C4 Tower at the Planning NSW office.

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/6798/img2618n.jpg

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/7025/img2619o.jpg

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/2856/img2615v.jpg

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/2733/img2617k.jpg

thanks fab. that model will be added to our model at council in 30 days time.
looks good.

I was hoping to see a detailed model on the Sydney City Council model but thanks for the update.

the model you saw IS for our model in 30days apparently

Lovely. Cannot wait for that then.

Despite the building's architectural pedigree, and a promise that it will be carbon neutral, the green-tinged lord mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, is not impressed.

''It hasn't changed our position at all; it's still too big,'' Cr Moore said. It is not the height of the 180-metre tower that the City objects to, it is the width Lend Lease needs for the big floorplates its finance company tenants demand.

Ah you can always rely on Clover Whore to come up with a stupid comment like the one above. :lol:

Has she seriously forgotten that financial corporations are highly important to Sydney's claim to being a global city? I suppose she wants them all to relocate to the burbs ..... or better, perhaps she would like them all to shift to Melbourne :crazy:

Where is John "Maccas" McInerney? Ever since becoming a general member of council, he has been quiet. I thought he liked tall buildings.

Clover Moore likes modelling Sydney on overseas cities, but according to her fat buildings aren't part of it despite it being standard practice. Double standards there.

I honestly think that Clover Moore has no interest in Sydney as a financial / business hub at all. I think she would rather a backwater Copenhagen style city based on aesthetics only. Seriously. To her, the corporates are just getting in her way.

^^ I think you've got the hole in one in describing Clover's mentality. The sooner we get rid of her the better, before she starts screwing this city up as a real global hub.

McInerery has been one of the most vocal & public critics of Barangaroo, much to my disgust. Moore tried, at least for a while, to be 'involved' & make a contribution, but McInerery has made no effort to see any view but his own & I suspect he was one of the main councillors who badgered Moore into opting out of the BDA. He is a major disappointment.

I don't care who designs the buildings as long as they are top designs and work together asthetically as a group. If Rogers can do it by using variation within a theme, then fine. I'd rather that than each building doing a 'lookame! lookame!' visual performance.
One of the reasons I was disappointed with the Foster scheme was that it looked like everyone had a go at a different building and then they stuck them all together = no cohesion.

''It hasn't changed our position at all; it's still too big,'' Cr Moore said. It is not the height of the 180-metre tower that the City objects to, it is the width Lend Lease needs for the big floorplates its finance company tenants demand.


What a stupid bitch. This sums Clover up perfectly. Not at all interested in attracting new business, and is quite happy to jeopardise the financial viability of the whole project by turning off potential tennants, all so she can get her bloody nose in on the design process and bugger it all up some more.

McInerery has been one of the most vocal & public critics of Barangaroo, much to my disgust. Moore tried, at least for a while, to be 'involved' & make a contribution, but McInerery has made no effort to see any view but his own & I suspect he was one of the main councillors who badgered Moore into opting out of the BDA. He is a major disappointment.


You're being exceedingly generous there Briz. She tried to meddle the project while under the guise of being there for the little guy. As soon as she realised public opinion on her involvement reached a tipping point she bailed out and claimed it was because of some tenuous reason that could suddenly not be resolved. She's a self serving idiot who's interested in the self preservation of her position as lord mayor and has no business meddling with the city of Sydney.

Then she may have misread the temperature of public opinion and was lead astray by the traditional vocal minority. On the other hand, she was under enormous pressure from other councillors, and other unknown persons, I'll bet, to act as she did. Politicians of all persuasions are only interested in public opinion when it accords with their own and when an election is coming up.

What a stupid bitch. This sums Clover up perfectly. Not at all interested in attracting new business, and is quite happy to jeopardise the financial viability of the whole project by turning off potential tennants, all so she can get her bloody nose in on the design process and bugger it all up some more.

Big Business is ignoring her.

She's a bitch and she's got to go. I hope this is her death knell. She can be summoned to hell, that's where she belongs.

It won't be Barangaroo that sends her down, but other matters such as the cycleways.

Not really cycleways either. It will be a combination of things because her politics of trying to appease each individual special interest group is starting to piss off every other special interest group. And I'd say it's her battle against the beer barons that will probably bring her down most, along with her anti big business attitude.

Big Business is ignoring her.

Fabian, its not just big business but also the NSW government is ignoring and side-stepping her. She is becoming another costly hinderance in a state and a city that is economically faltering and fast asleep on its deathbed ......

will balance the city nicely
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1029/5180133310_ef658755b4_o.jpg

ive made a block model of C4 for city model
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1276/5180561766_51d7e8cf12_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1422/5179962857_1cf150dbaa_b.jpg

I like how the view line will be maintained along the curve in Napoleon Street as you drive or walk down to Barangaroo between the C4 and C5 towers. I think those in Cityone will also get that view as well.

Wow, Banga with the Broadway site really does make the CBD and skyline look a lot larger. I think Darling Harbour might look like our own version of Marina Bay when the two projects are finished. The view will be impressive.

And btw, looking at that most recent post on getup, I think the NIMBYs are pretty shocked to find out about this forum (if they haven't already). They haven't posted much in days. A nasty surprise :lol:

^ Maybe they haven't posted on GetUp because they have been busy posting here - http://www.streetcorner.com.au/news/showPost.cfm?bid=19292&mycomm=SC

The Bigfella is a complete tosser!

I have mixed feelings after attending the meeting tonight. It was the same old gaggle of serapaxed out septeganians. Funnily enough I understand where some of them are coming from.

I'd rather they just leave this whole precinct alone until they redefine the entire central spine of the city and the area around central and broadway where large floor plate buildings could eventually be getting built but at far greater heights. Until we have a couple of towers like 2IFC sitting in along the central spine and some vastly taller larger floorplace buildings filling in the shallow gaps between midtown and wynyard this proposal will always look ridiculous. It's akin to mixing duplo blocks with traditional lego ... its just doesn't work. Barangaroo totally unbalances the skyline and reduces the scope and stature of what we already have. Such large bulky buildings on such massive floorplates erode any benefit we have of scale ... in effect making the entire city look much shorter and smaller.

The vast sums of money going into recreating the naturalistic headland is plainly stupidity. BTW lets put the entire cultural centre under a massive mound of dirt and then find a way to let lots of natural light in. Maybe they can just ask switzerland to send over 200 tones of swiss cheese and dump it on the headland.

The entire project still retains it's complete mismash of ideas and precincts ... with little flow and no possibility that it will suceed as an active and inclusive space for people to enjoy. It has Darling Harbour mk II fail written all over it.

Every second word the presenters uttered was sustainability this and that and lend lease have gone to such great lengths to sell the environmental aspects that they seem to have forgotten contextual relevance. Their contrived office space was decked out with tokenistic recycled timber detailing. It's overzealous with too much emphasis on 'world-leading' sustainability practices ... personally I think this overarching issue is reducing the potential for more avant-garde architecture.

I detest the entire proposal and I'd rather see it all put on ice for at least 15 years when we can actually develop something more integrated.

^^ i agree. Unfortunately i think even a sports stadium would have been a much more appealing proposal it serves a purpose and would look asthetically amazing a REAL worlds first a sports stadium on the edge of a city by the water.

Other BETTER ideas include:

*A Very interactive ferry terminal with shops (a mini fish market) another circular quay i guess. kiosks etc

*A REAL and definig cultural center. A grand one im talking. I.e. Disney Hall, etc. The Boomerang proposal was amazing.

*A Fashion Merchant's district. (Think a mix of the Meat packing district and the Fashion district in Downtown LA) They could hold Sydney Fashion week there, film festivals, etc.

* High-rise residential towers (build a whole new neighborhood mixing historic sandstone elements with skyscrapers) and cafes, shops, etc below. No office towers as it is a high-rise neighborhood.

If you did build any of this, there would be no need to appease people with parks and waste space. Dont get me wrong a park would be nice but not to this scale, where it almost defines the whole area and has no purpose really more than just appeasing 150 complainers. Very VERY silly that is not how to build cities - Paris, new york would not be what they are today if they tried to please a handful of people.

I even think if the park was build like Central park in the middle and surrounded by the towers in a U shape it would be more asthetically pleasing and people would use the park more.

Its such a shame. As a scraper fan it is quite pleasing we are getting like 6 towers over 150m in ONE development which is unheard of in OZ thus far but as a city boy and a very well traveled one it is not the best.

Sadly those 150 whingers don't think the park is enough. Lend Lease have been brave to get this far and with State Government help.

Thanks for attending Avatar. What else did they say about the office building in relation to it's features? What did you think about the models?

ive remodelled C5 identical as C4. next up is C3.
3 towers with over 300,000sqm of space? wow

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4124/5186217324_f1d568414d_b.jpg

According to evening meeting these towers should accommodate 45% of office space demands over the next 15 years.

the 55storey C3 tower will have 120,000sqm of office space and easily be australias largest office tower when completed in a few years time.

What is the staging like for the rest of the buildings Cul? If C4 is approved and under construction by mid 2011, what is the next building in line for B South?

If the hotel is not supposed to be ready until 2014 I suppose it won't start until 2012?

im only guessing but i think after C4, will be C5 then C3. also hotel will start next year.

Cheers to sky for posting ze link!

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y286/kakamesh/3.jpg

love the exploding towers!

Lend Lease have stated completion of the final towers is based on demand, C4 is already substantially spoken for. DA for C5 would come though soon.

correct

C4 will fill up quickly and they have more than a decade to fill up all the space in each tower. I rather have one tower rise at a time and have it full upon completion then start all them at roughly the same time and have large patches of each building empty.

^^ this is true. it also (hopefully) means the tower designs will all be slightly different, assuming RR will be respectable enough to push for updated designs as style changes

the towers are basically using the same "chassis" if you will. massive 2500sqm floor plates. they just dress up the exterior diferently. rogers seems to use this is all his new big towers around the world. he think towards future trends.

Phased construction has the advantage of modifications to future buildings on the site and also allows for changes in technology and construction.

Darling Harbour didn't go up overnight - It took over a decade to truely establish itself as a destination.

Darling Harbour didn't go up overnight - It took over a decade to truely establish itself as a destination.

It's still trying fabs. ;)

Still trying? I wonder where you have been all these years?

I still just can't understand why the two smaller towers weren't combined into one 350m high tower. It would look far less bulky and would provide more open space at ground level.

maybe because of height limit and a 350m tower unbalance the skyline.

They've had enough trouble trying to get the 209m one accepted! Thought maybe a 350m tower proposal would cause such shockhorrorfear&loathing in the nimby set it'd clear a few of them out so-to-speak.

(at council meeting/nimbys) did i say 209m? gee i ment 309m. oops.

maybe because of height limit and a 350m tower unbalance the skyline.

C'mon, if the decision was completely up to you would you refuse a 350m tower on this site just because it would unbalance the skyline?

Unbalanced skyline sounds like a nimby comment. What a load of ...

Less planning is more, unbalanced isnt necessarily a bad thing

Balanced skyline means balanced society and a more harmonious identity out there in the community leading to the proper balance between cyclists, dogs, dog-owners, the kinky, and goths. It also makes for greater convergence and community cohesion on election day.

I'd approve the 350 metre tower for the sake of having at least one building push the boundaries.

C'mon, if the decision was completely up to you would you refuse a 350m tower on this site just because it would unbalance the skyline?

tallest. in. oz.

of course he would jump at the opportunity :)

id love the shard located near the central precinct
it would get approval even under council,
its roof is 235m high and glass steel frame "architectural feature" reaches 310m. slap a 15m spire on top and there you ahve a new tallest for oz @ 325m.
http://listicles.thelmagazine.com/wp-content/upload/glassshardlondon.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5001/5199653298_79aa53f473_o.jpg

Less planning is more, unbalanced isnt necessarily a bad thing


If it means filling the rest of the city to balance it out. 350 on the fringes would then require 500 along the spine IMO. ;)

Sounds like a plan...

A good reason to bring back CBD 1 and Skytower.

Balanced skyline argument is such a joke. Go and ask New Yorkers if the down town Manhattan skyline looks better without the former WTC twin towers and most of them will say no. They would prefer their skyline with protruding mega-talls that do not fit in with the surrounding buildings.

the bad thing about the towers at barangaroo which LL cant do anything about is that they will shadow themselves and everything south of the site.shadows are an issue in winter months which scc enforce.something NYc ignore which makes many of there streets dark and windswept.very predestrian unfriendly.

^ It's good to see you are still towing the party line. WD!

well only when it comes to sun access onto parks and public areas.
no good having dark windswept CBD no one likes to hangout in.
gota protect sunny areas for as long as we can.

And something about some unbalanced skyline or some other similar irrelevant clowncil ideal. I agree with some of the sun access protections but FFS, it's starting to go too far. Parkland and trees to some extent ok but fcking buildings to the south and a small part of a wharf? Shit man, tell 'em to FOFF!

And something about some unbalanced skyline or some other similar irrelevant clowncil ideal. I agree with some of the sun access protections but FFS, it's starting to go too far. Parkland and trees to some extent ok but fcking buildings to the south and a small part of a wharf? Shit man, tell 'em to FOFF!

Not convinced at all. People don't go to the CBD to bask in sunlight. They go to work and shop.

Sure, keep the parks sunlit, but the rest doesn't matter.

Never heard of the deserted streets of the world's major cities - watching the tumbleweeds blow down Broadway or Piccadilly because they got a bit of shade some times of the day :bash:

^^

plus this whole shadowing effect in Australian CBD's is a joke because compared to North American and European winters, Australian winters are hardly cold by comparative standards.

the clowncils should come to calgary - it was minus 24 degrees today.

At last word Australia has the worst incidence of skin cancer.

Winters of 15 degrees may be 'harsh' to us, but not harsh in most parts of the world.

Fair enough for the need to consider overshadowing, but I think it is taken too seriously in cities such as Sydney.

Tuesdays edition of The Inner West Courier reports that C4 will have 103 000 sq/m of office space.

Guys don't forget to write a submission to the Department of Planning (however brief) in support of the first tower. It is important that our voices are heard, and now that the NIMBYs are on the back foot it is time to drive home our advantage.

Here is the link...expecting to see more submissions in support than in opposition...
http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=3800

Submissions close 10 December 2010

^^

plus this whole shadowing effect in Australian CBD's is a joke because compared to North American and European winters, Australian winters are hardly cold by comparative standards.

the clowncils should come to calgary - it was minus 24 degrees today.
you missed point. its SUN ACCESS ,nothing to do with temperature.
scc are trying to protect what sunlight is l;eft for parks and public space in CBD.nothing worse then having lunch in a park on winter day in shade when they could be sunlight.poor trees and grass.

Yet another submission now sent by me. I've sent so many I wait daily for the invite to the Xmas party!

you missed point. its SUN ACCESS ,nothing to do with temperature.
scc are trying to protect what sunlight is l;eft for parks and public space in CBD.nothing worse then having lunch in a park on winter day in shade when they could be sunlight.poor trees and grass.

But what is so wrong about winter shade except for a persons perception of cold? I would prefer a sheltered, shaded area for lunch in winter, than one that has sun access but is exposed to strong winds for example.

Now when you look at the average max. temp in Sydney during the coldest time of the year, it is still a warm 16c!

Melbourne is a cooler 13c, Auckland 13c, Canberra 11c, Perth 17c. Internationally NYC 3c, London 6c, HK 17c, LA 18c, Frankfurt 3c, Tokyo 8c, etc etc.

Other than the SCC trying to give itself some relevance what makes Sydney so special that it needs this excessive bureaucratic intervention?

Can someone tell me where the poor trees and grass is south of the proposed towers? What a load of crock!

King Street Wharf doesn't have much vegetation at all. Sussex Street has some trees but that is it.

lance-, shade and sun access for bangaroo isnt an issue with parks ect. its all has to do with public areas, current resturants and units.
the planned towers shade everyhting south of the towers.
you will feel like your in melbourne on a sunny arvo instead of sydney.lol

^ rubbish!

^its true. studies have been done. but dont think its gonna make any dif. its all goining ahead as planned.

you missed point. its SUN ACCESS ,nothing to do with temperature.
scc are trying to protect what sunlight is l;eft for parks and public space in CBD.nothing worse then having lunch in a park on winter day in shade when they could be sunlight.poor trees and grass.

and my point is even without sun in sydney, it is not that bad compared to north american cities or europe cities.

you starting to sound like a nimby just because you want to eat your pork pies in the sunshine of a major "global" city.

Cul, don't get captured by the modelling. I have more sympathy for residential owners missing out on some sun than I do for streetscapes. The CBD is mostly commercial and most of them have trouble keeping their aircon bills down, so I wouldn't worry about a bit of shade.

I'd be craving for as much shade with the humid weather as of late.

you guys have missed the point. its about protecting existing sun access.
hey i dont give a fuck about protecting views ect. but protecting sun access to parkland for futire is important.
fortunately there are no parks effected at barangaroo by new towers so i say build them.

There is a group that wants to lodge a legal injunction against the Barangaroo redevelopment concerned that toxic chemicals could leak into Sydney Harbour. This has been reported on 2GB this morning.

lol

Apparently only six submissions were received. Mine is not there for starters. :(

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=3800

has anyone read any of them?

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/files/70433/Public%20submission%201.pdf


point #9 would have to be my favourite

^^ also fabs they've collated a lot of the submissions such that there is only about 5 or 6 files, but there are many submissions in each

ok also...

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/files/70434/Public%20submission%202.pdf

head down to page 14 for some serious lols

has anyone read any of them?

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/files/70433/Public%20submission%201.pdf


point #9 would have to be my favourite

:banana::banana::banana:
:lol::lol::lol:

I know this is mature, but I won't be pranking their number ever..

It is Opposite day >: )

^^ also fabs they've collated a lot of the submissions such that there is only about 5 or 6 files, but there are many submissions in each

I went through the files but it appeared as if there was just the one. Thankyou though for finding them extra ones. However mine is still not there.

Hey guys, the yes4barangaroo twitter campaign now has 134 followers.

I've also written a couple of articles on Street Corner - the first one has attracted some comments you might be interested in reading and replying to.

1st article;
http://www.streetcorner.com.au/news/showPost.cfm?bid=20571&mycomm=SC

2nd article;
http://www.streetcorner.com.au/news/showPost.cfm?bid=20582&mycomm=SC

Boy, Sky, a few of those anti-Barangaroo posters are a bit adrift! I mean, seriously adrift.
That guy/gal who just posted doesn't seem to understand we're dealing with a city CBD, not a village. The chosen name (-rooted-) and interpretation of comments and info are revealing: serious anger/aggression/tolerance problems there.

RSH&P have responded to submissions on C4 and the building has been redesigned somewhat. I must say that what was a solid submission (but nothing particularly exciting) has been turned into something sexy, curvaceous and pretty stunning!! I love it!!

I still like the use of colour - blue/yellow/green and that the lifts/piping has been cleaned up somewhat on the northern face.

All pics from http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/files/70784/C.%20Supplementary%20Urban%20Design%20Report.pdf

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/7972/c46qt.jpg (http://img24.imageshack.us/i/c46qt.jpg/)

^^ Elevations (from left) from west, north and south

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1627/c42xi.jpg (http://img20.imageshack.us/i/c42xi.jpg/)

^^ From north-west

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/7316/c43l.jpg (http://img560.imageshack.us/i/c43l.jpg/)

^^ Pretty good, huh?

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/6442/c41t.jpg (http://img841.imageshack.us/i/c41t.jpg/)

^^ My favourite view, the glass will be drool worthy

Nice!

Some more renders;
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/1541/c45d.jpg (http://img43.imageshack.us/i/c45d.jpg/)

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/570/c44jw.jpg (http://img268.imageshack.us/i/c44jw.jpg/)

^^ View from West

http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/7654/c47x.jpg (http://img810.imageshack.us/i/c47x.jpg/)

^^ View from North

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1477/c48z.jpg (http://img822.imageshack.us/i/c48z.jpg/)

^^ View from South

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/4494/c4podium.jpg (http://img43.imageshack.us/i/c4podium.jpg/)

^^ Podium Shots

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7691/c4podium2.jpg (http://img4.imageshack.us/i/c4podium2.jpg/)

^^ Some more podium shots

Don't know about you guys but overall, I love it! It's simple and elegant, got nice curves and should have some hot glass. One thing that I preferred from the original was the podium - the new podium looks like a remix of Norman Foster's concept. Don't know that it goes particularly well with the tower, but perhaps its trying to play on the Sydney sandstone theme?

I agree, this works for me. The podium, after looking a second time, I liked it but I think I prefer the previous design too. I like the curve appeal and looks more comfortable within the skyline.

Wow, much better. It's amazing what a difference a few rounded corners make. Unfortunately, the podium looks like a suburban Westfield Shoppingtown.

^ Agreed, the podium is very suburban dull. But the tower itself looks good, although still not tall enough. :(

The refinements to the design are very good and yes I am glad they have gone for some curves as well. The facade looks brighter and more eye catching which will help it to standout from the other talls.

The podium is good too. It is contemporary but also has the elegance as well.

a huge improvement the tower, but I'm not sure if I like the podium at all. I was hoping for more glass, more like Westfield Sydney's

Thanks, Sky. What a busy little tacker you are! But I'm very grateful.
I think I like the greater solidity, more varied character of the podium though there is quite a visual disconnect between it and the tower, which I guess was deliberate. It does have a more sandstone, more 'European' look to it.

Wow, much much better! I wasn't a fan of the original design. It was too busy especially the lift cores. It looks much more elegant now.

Really like. Great improvement!!!
Can someone clarify how the podium flows into the other low rise buildings around the development? Is it stand alone in its own little block or will the other low rise buildings surround/blend with it?
Also is this new design open for submissions? Sorry don't really know how that all works.

But yeah a change overall for the good!!! Will look really amazing on the skyline from some angles!

Edit: Did a bit of looking around and it looks like it is stand alone. Naha for some reason I was imagining this big block of low rise podium with the 3 buildings coming out:)

Looks wxxwllemt..still 18om?

^^

So good you're creating new words aye Cul? haha

Thanks, Sky. What a busy little tacker you are! But I'm very grateful.
I think I like the greater solidity, more varied character of the podium though there is quite a visual disconnect between it and the tower, which I guess was deliberate. It does have a more sandstone, more 'European' look to it.

That's what happens when you are filling in time waiting for uni to start again and have no part time job to fill in your time!! No probs!

Really like. Great improvement!!!
Can someone clarify how the podium flows into the other low rise buildings around the development? Is it stand alone in its own little block or will the other low rise buildings surround/blend with it?
Also is this new design open for submissions? Sorry don't really know how that all works.

But yeah a change overall for the good!!! Will look really amazing on the skyline from some angles!

Edit: Did a bit of looking around and it looks like it is stand alone. Naha for some reason I was imagining this big block of low rise podium with the 3 buildings coming out:)

^^
This building is standalone, I think I have plans saved somewhere on my comp for the approved version. If I can find them, I'll post them here and you can see how it will relate to the rest of the buildings.

This new design has come out of the response to submissions, it should be approved by the DoP within a month now (and feel the wrath of the NIMBYs who say all approvals should be held over until the new government is formed...pointless if you ask me because the new government will approve it anyway).

^^ Thanks. Yeah I looked at that document you linked a few posts up and it showed how it would blend in. Looks good. Getting excited about Barangaroo again!!! Hope construction starts ASAP.

I'm in love with the curves!
Fantastic update to the design, very exciting!

sky, was on train with android phone. buttons to small. is yellow cage now above 178m?

wow, nearly 2500sqm per floor! massive
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5173/5430571030_db5cbfac22_o.jpg

So does the architectural feature count as part of the official height or do we still go to the roof?

EDIT: see that the thread title has already been altered so I guess we are going with 193m

sorry, found more accurate plans here>
http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/files/70785/Da.%20Architectural%20Drawings_podium%20and%20tower.pdf

toejam also quoted 185m/
top of LMR=RL180m or 178m
top of cage features RL187.75m or 185.25m above hickson rd.
thats awesome. over 600ft high!
skyislimit-offical height will definatley be 185m, but to council or NSW planning its 178m. this is becasuse architectural features mean nothing.
hopefully they will be backlit at night. will look cool

Love the rounded edges! Makes the building far more palatable.

Another picture of C4 from Barangaroo South website;
http://www.barangaroosouth.com.au/C4-Commercial-Building/default.aspx


http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/4910/rrc4.jpg (http://img585.imageshack.us/i/rrc4.jpg/)
C4 commercial building

The designs for the first of the three office towers at Barangaroo South have been further refined. Its tapered and curved profile create a more elegant and streamlined appearance, improves the spaces and relationship between the towers and the views through and from within the buildings.

The building’s designers, Ivan Harbour and Lord Richard Rogers, of the internationally acclaimed architectural firm, Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners of London, together with input from Australian architect Ken Maher, Chairman of Hassell, have taken the plans forward to create a truly world class building.

The refined design for building C4 forms part of Lend Lease’s Preferred Project Report (PPR), which sets out the refinements, explanations and undertakings that have been made in response to the questions and issues raised during the public exhibition period. A total of 19 submissions were received from members of the public, half of which were in support of the C4 Project Application. Seven submissions were also received from government agencies, including one from the City of Sydney.

Barangaroo South is designed to strengthen Sydney’s reputation as an innovative professional and financial services hub. It is destined to become Australia’s premier – and most sustainable – business address, as well as one of the most dynamic and attractive places to work.

The C4 Commercial building represents a new model for offices of the future designed to meet the needs of the world’s most progressive businesses including:

* large, clear and open floor plates that improve productivity and communication;
* healthier and more attractive environments that provide great places to be and to work;
* connected and accessible locations that offer immediate access to quality amenities;
* flexible workspace that is adapted to the latest working practices and business models;
* the most advanced environmental and sustainability outcomes.

The C4 Commercial building will achieve a 6-Star Green Star rating and take advantage of shared, precinct-wide infrastructure and services to deliver a carbon neutral, water positive and zero waste outcome. Its sustainability ambitions will be achieved by aspects such as the positioning of lift cores and ‘vertical village’ communal spaces on the external northern elevation of the building which improves energy consumption, provision for green planting spaces at various levels of the building, and photovoltaic panels which will sit above the open rooftop terrace.

C4 and Barangaroo South benefit from an innovative shared basement design. The technology and infrastructure included in these basements will improve environmental outcomes and allow C4 to be 100% carbon neutral, including new off-site renewable energy and use 75% less energy; recycle all of its water; and, direct 80% of its waste away from landfill when compared to a typical Sydney office building.

The PPR is available to view on the Department of Planning website at www.planning.nsw.gov.au.


----
It also says height to roof is 176m (42 storeys), 98 514 sq m building with 7,010 sq m retail (was 10,000+), 88,582 sq m office, 916 sq m lobby, 2,006 sq m childcare centre & scheduled completion is 2014.


I reckon this will be one of the finest skyscrapers to ever be built in Sydney, and probably Australia. It is right up there with One One One Eagle Street (my favourite Brisbane skyscraper) and Prima Pearl (IMO the nicest going up in Melbourne) as the best of the new generation of glass towers. I can't WAIT to see what Rogers has in store for the rest of Barangaroo, particularly C3 and the hotel. I reckon it could be the defining point in his career!!

^yes roof is 176m (main roof 172m) and LMR 178m. yellow features 185m.

Lol:

Barangaroo is shrinking - city tower is cut down to size
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/barangaroo-is-shrinking-city-tower-is-cut-down-to-size/story-e6freuzi-1226003997950

yup, it's shrinking...
should we tell them?

^^

Have a go...everytime I comment on Daily Telegraph it never gets published

The Daily Telegraph need to get their facts right. Doesn't look any smaller to me.

its great. let the nimbys think its cutdown. ill be making a block model of latest scheme hopefully today so ill post a pic if i get time.

But they still show the old design. Idiots!

i think office space now totals 88,582sqm, for the tower. old proposal was 98,000sqm?
still a big mofo

^ It does seem reduced in GFA. I wonder if the other towers will compensate?

From very first post -

And we have our first individual proposal for Barangaroo South!!

Working Name - C4 Tower
Height - 178m
No. stories - 43
Total GFA - 109,964 sq m
Commercial GFA - 97,411 sq m
Retail GFA - 10,683 sq m
Community Use GFA - 1,870 sq m
No. carparks - 181
No. bike spaces - 708

Source: http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=3800

I'd say the new areas are the NLA (net lettable area) as opposed to the GFA (Gross floor area).
Lend Lease would be more likely to advertise NLA, whereas the DA might require GFA, not sure on that tho.

On the Barangaroo South site they have released another news article and they say:

"A total of 20 submissions were received from members of the public, eight of which were in support of the C4 Project Application. Seven submissions were also received from government agencies and councils, including one from the City of Sydney."

Its different to the article 'Sky' posted a few above.
We need to get that 8 to atleast above 10! for the next buildings DA.

http://www.barangaroosouth.com.au/10-February-2011---/default.aspx

Happened to stumble upon that daily telegraph article saying the tower has been cut down to size, but apparently they changed the picture. It looks incredible. Wonder where they got it?

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2011/02/10/1226004/002819-barangaroo.jpg

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/goliath-office-tower-is-cut-down-to-size/story-fn6b3v4f-1226004003507

^^ Hmmm. wishing even this can be at least 1/3 taller.

OMG that is HOT!!
That is the hottest picture of Barangaroo so far - it looks fab!!
The hotel looks amazing - let's hope the next picture we stumble across is at night with some serious LED lighting on the hotel ala the Eiffel Tower!!


Thanks for posting :)

Sunset? A bit magic!!!

loverly
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/3993/33421909.jpg

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/554/c4side.jpg

Nice! How tall to the top of the feature?

185m

Bewdiful! Those curves really make it.

posted by brizer
"Rogers Pen Explosive Sounding Sydney Tower
Published on 12-02-2011 by Skyscrapernews.com

The latest design from Rogers, Stirk, Harbour & Partners is C4, a 185 metre tall tower planned for the Australian city of Sydney that definitely has nothing to do with explosives, and instead refers to the plot number it would stand on.

The 185 metre tall, 42-storey proposal features typical design flares from the firm that virtually invented the architectural language of modern structural expressionism. The northern elevation contained external lift shafts running up the building with colourful yellow cross-bracing that overrun the roof level in a manner that is perhaps reminiscent of 88 Wood Street in London.

In a practical sense this means much of the vertical transportation on the tower can be put outside the typical floor freeing up space allowing for floors in excess of 2,384 square metres each meaning that the building and compete with other such towers in Sydney like Grosvenor Place. On the upper levels there are less elevators required, so the floors can expand slightly into the space that would be otherwise be taken by them further down the building.

On the southern side of the building too there is yellow structural crossbracing, that connects the building to the ground serving as a placemarker for the main lobby entrance. It then runs up the middle of the tower adding visual detail, and projects over the top of it working both to connect it with the other side of the building visually, as well as provide the roof with a distinctive peak that could be easily identified in amongst the busy Sydney skyline.

One more subtle effect on the building is the curved corners. These exist not for aesthetics but to provide a more aerodynamic shape that reduces wind loads on the main structure of the tower.

The tower element of C4 is also split horizontally into three main sections with recesses allowing plant levels, as well as greenery. On the east and west sides of all the office floors will be controllable louvres to help regulate solar penetration and shading.

C4 is being developed by Lend Lease, and currently being considered by Sydney's local government."

managed to make a block model of c4
comparison with original DA

the main roof is same hieght but top features reach higher.
so much better
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9112/3bearso.jpg

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/3180/5bears.jpg

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/6018/p1030432eh.jpg

Looks like you're lying down on the job there, Cul.
Think I've dislocated C5 - no pun intended - but thanks.

Thurs: Eureka!

stupid imageshack wont turn them right way. weird

all fixed

In that comparison shot (the last one) its amazing how slimmer and taller it looks just with some curves and a little bit of neatening up!

stupid imageshack wont turn them right way. weird

Do any rotation of images before you upload them because when I use imageshack to rotate images they will not accept any rotations.

The curves simply make it look more generic ... not a fan of any of them TBH. Red or blue would have been better than yellow too IMO.

The podium is revolting, glass is the only thing that should appear so close to water. It all looks so incongruous with the location and the tower, just a mismatch of design aesthetics. The hard edged of the podium look at total odds with the new curves on the tower too.

^ we've been waiting for your reply. But green and gold are Aussie colours now aren't they? ;)

The curves simply make it look more generic ... not a fan of any of them TBH. Red or blue would have been better than yellow too IMO.

The podium is revolting, glass is the only thing that should appear so close to water. It all looks so incongruous with the location and the tower, just a mismatch of design aesthetics. The hard edged of the podium look at total odds with the new curves on the tower too.

Not even the glass makes you happy???:ohno:

And we are Seriously Shocked to discover you do not approve of it in any single consideration!!!

The curves simply make it look more generic ... not a fan of any of them TBH.


:nuts: Nothing is more generic than boxes with sharp corners.....

^^
You'll soon come to realise that Avatar is to Sydney proposals what an opposition leader is to the government.

^^

lol possibly true, but nothing I see is particularly orgasmic.

I'd probably have preferred something like Trump World Tower repeated there, and that is truely generic. The buildings just look overly fussy with little wow factor IMO. Colour for the sake of it, rounded corners because they can and sandstone base beacuse that is very sydney and we must have some of that. It's looking 1960s to me, i'd rather something that looks like it belongs in this century.

Unlike most of you I don't lower my standards when i'm horny and do charity sex. A dog is a dog, and it will still be a dog if i pop a few pills or down 10 vodkas. If the hole aint hot i'm not going to get myself wet. You have all got your doodles drowning in it.

Colour is good.

Each tower has a different colour key.

If you can do colours and curves you should, boxes are boring and belong in the two decades architecture forgot, 50s and 60s.

Mornnb: two decades architecture forgot, 50s and 60s.

I don't think so!

The bulk of the building in any period is rubbish, at best feeble attempts at copies of the leading designers, and the Post-WWII period produced some bloody criminal garbage that we can only hope is soon to be demolished.
BUT:
Consider the architecture of Mies van der Rohe, SOM (Skidmore Owings & Merrill), Le Corbusier, Perkins & Will, for starters, - they produced some of the best architecture of the C.20th.
Even in Oz, some of the work of Harry Seidler & Bates Smart & McCutcheon, for instance, is not without merit.

I disagree, it was a time of ugly brutalism and square boring boxes, there are some good examples from the time, but more often than not buildings were ugly.


Anyway Avatar, remember the C4 Tower is part of a set of buildings, and the hotel will be the centrepiece. C4 is not meant to be the stand out. If the hotel ends up looking close to this render, it will be iconic.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1154/4725174863_bfb9878985_b.jpg

the 50s and 60s were a time of experimenting and pioneering skyscraper design. basically you could only build square boxes. but some of these are timeless.
we should try to protect what ever examples we have of this style.
these days archietcts design away from box design. most have curves and slopped roofs.

The bulk of the building in any period is rubbish, at best feeble attempts at copies of the leading designers, and the Post-WWII period produced some bloody criminal garbage that we can only hope is soon to be demolished.


Good buildings in the 50s and 60s are the exception, since the 1980s good buildings are the norm, great ones are still rare but more common.

Consider the architecture of Mies van der Rohe, SOM (Skidmore Owings & Merrill), Le Corbusier, Perkins & Will, for starters, - they produced some of the best architecture of the C.20th.
Even in Oz, some of the work of Harry Seidler & Bates Smart & McCutcheon, for instance, is not without merit.

True, Australia Square is an example of the best in Australia of that time. MetLife building in New York is a good example.

I hate the hotel tower even more. It subverts the entire project, again too many curves and would look more at home in Dalian, China. It's a z-grade overly fussy building in the vernacular of a 3rd rate chinese city. We should have been going for Shanghai type brilliance not this 2nd rate architecture. I am now disappointed we didn't get the brilliance that was the original design with the red bracing. It was a complex, and thoughtful design and worthy of being iconic.

Straight lines aren't the beall end all approach to fine design.

Curved towers go in well in any city and for cities like Sydney, even more so. Do you even understand the jusitifcation for the curved design?

He hates curves as much as I hate straight lines, funny that. I think the hotel is awesome and will be one of the best buildings in the city if built. An unusual, beautiful futuristic design.
The red bracing design was boring and not very extreme.

I hate the hotel tower even more. It subverts the entire project, again too many curves and would look more at home in Dalian, China. It's a z-grade overly fussy building in the vernacular of a 3rd rate chinese city. We should have been going for Shanghai type brilliance not this 2nd rate architecture. I am now disappointed we didn't get the brilliance that was the orginal design with the red bracing. It was a complex, and thoughtful design and worthy of being iconic.

Even more than what? I thought you said the headland park was the worst part?

More than the curves in the C4, yeah it is true I despise headland park :).

It's certainly my most most hated part of the project and the biggest waste of finances.

He hates curves as much as I hate straight lines, funny that. I think the hotel is awesome and will be one of the best buildings in the city if built. An unusual, beautiful futuristic design.
The red bracing design was boring and not very extreme.

LOL it's not futuristic. It will look no better than Seattle's space needle in a couple of years. Dated. I think we can be a bit more creative with buildings on the harbour and designed along a futuristic theme. It's just some blobs on a stick.

at the end of the day, it willjust be another skyscraper amongst the lot (provided the nimby/green/fuckwit alliance doesnt derail the whole thing) and people will make their judgements on it and move on

Lend Lease emailed me this morning with the following news...

C4 at Barangaroo South has been;





http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/7258/approvedx.jpg (http://img710.imageshack.us/i/approvedx.jpg/)




Great news!!

Early works will now commence with major works scheduled to commence in the second half of this year (July onwards). Completion is expected towards the end of 2014.

http://www.jeffcaceres.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/homer_woohoo.jpg
eat shit nimbys

^^

x2 :banana::banana:

Can you change the thread title to approved Cul? I'm not able to change it :nuts:

oke

Hallelujah!!!

About time! w00t!!

Good stuff. :okay:

178m, 90m wide.
That's almost as wide as metlife in NY. One bulky building.
And C3 is going to be even bigger at 209m.

So when's C4 expected to start and when can we expect C3 to be proposed?

^^
Major works on C4 are expected to begin in the second half of this year. Sources say anywhere between July and September.

DGRs are yet to be issued for C3 so I wouldn't think it'll be proposed before mid year.

If DGRs are an indication of Lend Lease's progress through development at Barangaroo, C1, C2, C5, C6, R8 and R9 are the next cabs off the rank

Site preparation works and the archological digging are underway to get the site ready for the tower.

The twin of c4 is c3? If so thats next tower. Not sure wjen the biggrst tower wilm start.depends on tennent intetrst

^^
That's C5.

Ok.yes c5 is next.sjould be similar to c3.but red.

love this shot from a while back. i think C5 will now be 160m not 180m. which is better i think
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2011/02/10/1226004/002819-barangaroo.jpg

Just thought I'd point out this little extract from the SMH RE. C4

Mr Hutton said the agreement meant Australians for Sustainable Development would immediately withdraw other legal challenges to the basement and first commercial tower, known as C4.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/back-to-the-drawing-board-20110512-1ekt9.html#ixzz1MQnoR2qU

I don't think major construction work will be starting as soon as we originally thought due to the review and what not, but I think that C4 will see major works commence by the end of the year.

checkout proposal for 20 Times Square,NYC
height-260m
architects- Rogers/stirk/Harbour

http://www.greenbuildingsnyc.com/2008/11/17/richardrogers20timessquare/

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/images/thumb/LHIDOIE6W2WX4PKG98WD.jpg

That's the same as ours! How rude

It means that Rogers have based the towers on that design.

Based? It's the same. And I thought ours only came about due to the specific requirements of the site and the re-iterations. Maybe he knows something we don't about the success, or otherwise, of his design actually coming together so he wants all his effort to actually come together somewhere on this planet. Or, he was just lazy. I don't like this at all.

If you scroll back several pages to the renders of C4, you can see the some of the differences between the New York design and C4 for instance yellow bracing and tends to be more curved.

Also architects work with signature themes or styles and do not come up with something totally different for each project. I'd have been surprised if the NY tower were markedly different and wonder what happened to the house style.
Think of it as a gradually changing, evolving, adapting variation on a theme with an overall integrity of character.
It's like artists whose works have an homogeneity of style which may change over time or as the result of some dramatic event/experience/apotheosis! but you can still see the similarities, sometimes more obvious, sometimes not so obvious.

i just wish we just had its height. the signature rogers strik harbour design is excellent. better then boring slabs that litter skylines.

The NYC proposal was for a tower on top of the existing Port Authority Bus Terminal shown below. It has been postponed due to the CC and I am pretty sure if works do not start very soon the developer will loose their building rights. Reading up, a lack of a major anchor tenant has been the sticking point.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Port-authority-terminal.jpg/800px-Port-authority-terminal.jpg

The federal government is funding a feasibility study for a heliport in Bangaroo, hopefully we might get one in the city at last!

curves ;)

^^

Apa?

curves ;)

Was that just to bump the thread up or will there really be some modifications?

all 3 soon lodged. curves and sun shades. all good.

Hope it's this week!!

We'll have an explosion of activity/new threads in the NSW Forum :cheers:

todays teleg and fin rev show renders of new design.
curved corners and sunshades. looks excellent

love the last paragraph
we need cranes on sydneys skyline

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6106/6280904777_67d763293f_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6240/6281422340_259d3e3f4f_b.jpg

That is definitely the best line! Awesome news!!!

Should the title of this thread be changed to Under Construction or Excavation?? :D

maybe

It should be excavation, because the focus now is the shared basements.

MODIFICATIONS

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=4985

I don't mind the next two renders of the podium, they somewhat compliment the tower above.

The tower itself (sorry no good renders of the tower in isolation, only these of the podium and at a distance) looks quite good, though I don't know why they've gone for red and yellow bracing in some of the renders...

http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/7153/19662613.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/805/19662613.jpg/)

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/6711/76053644.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/12/76053644.jpg/)

But I absolutely hate the next two renders of the podium - it looks awful :ohno:
Far too many competing elements - what ever happened to keeping it simple :(

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/9600/13174175.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/844/13174175.jpg/)

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/9539/97740942.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/408/97740942.jpg/)

Also the retail component has been seriously shaved - from the 10,000 sq m+ in the original DA with a supermarket and childcare centre, to 7,010 sq m in the approved DA (without the supermarket), now they are proposing to slash it to less than 3,000 sq m of retail (without the childcare centre and retail will be confined to the ground level).

At this rate Barangaroo South (remember the hotel, community facility in the hotel podium, cultural building etc are suspect now that the hotel is being negotiated) is going to be nothing more than a glorified office park. The approved concept plan allows for 39,000 sq m GFA for retail...if the major towers all have similar GFA (~3,000 sq m), there won't be anything like 39,000 sq m.