new DA has been lodged for cnr bathurst/casthereagh streets
small pic. ill get a better one eventually.
DA should be on system soon.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5176/5490805640_be9a463b6f_b.jpg

ARCHITECT-Tony Owen
mixed use dev.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5017/5492416765_250ef398c8_b.jpg

First impressions are good. At least some apartments will have some views of Hyde Park.

Its actually a great location O

It's handy when it comes to Hyde Park and Town Hall station is just two blocks away.

Reserving judgement until I get a clearer idea of the architecture, though I wouldn't be overly fussed by the idea of living next door to Fire Brigade HQ, otherwise location has a lot going for it.

^^

x2.

Looking forward to seeing some renders

ill try tomoz to get renders and more info

ive edited in render

That looks sensational. All they need is some 'Tron' like lighting scheme at night and i'm sold!

Nice work, Tony Owen. And a good job by the renderer to hide the awful Euro Tower...

I just wish the council should change their policy on awnings and ban them; they never look good!

OK, I'm reasonably impressed - it's kind of interesting and a little bit kinky which appeals to the likes of me.

It's a very ultra modern and eye catching design. I like the variations in the facade particularly the use of colours. The retail at street level looks good and would enliven that corner if they can get the right tenants.

Prefer this to 302 Pitt Street by the same architect however the awnings look fairly tacky.

Fair bit of development activity seems to be stirring in the southern CBD!!

^^yes lots of residential development. some large resi developments are being planned in bathurst street. some could be real tall.;-)

Still don't get why there's a 55m height limit on one block but right across the street in the next block west, the height limit is far higher, I mean significantly higher. If a tower on the east side of Pitt Street would cast nasty, life-denying shadows in June, why isn't that a problem for a tower 3 or 4 times that height on the west side of Pitt Street?
Think these planners drink too much coffee sometimes and get hyper and make Really Dumb decisions.

Here we go:

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Development/DAsOnExhibition/details.asp?tpk=998977

Application Number D/2011/273
Location:
141-149 Bathurst Street SYDNEY NSW 2000

Description:
Demolition of existing building and construction of an 18 storey mixed use development containing 70 apartments, 4 ground floor retail tenancies, 2 levels of basement parking (25 spaces) and a new vehicular entrance from Castlereagh Street.

Estimated Cost of Work:
$16,200,547

Applicant:
TONY OWEN PARTNERS

http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/6352/p1030758x.jpg

The current site.

http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/2042/dscf9766.jpg

I think I prefer what's there currently

I think I prefer what's there currently

Existing building looks pretty fugly to me! Not that the replacement is amazing, but overall not a big loss.

There's nothing wrong with the existing one that a refurbishment can't fix. A new lick of paint, replace the windows so they don't stick out in their current mismatched way and remove those little block things. The last suggestion leads to an instant improvement IMO.

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/3830/bathurst.jpg

Perhaps it is a matter of issues other than cosmetic, such as construction, facilities and function - it's changing from office to residential - and it's doubtless a matter of potential return on investment.

Why is this only 55m? That's not even going to be that much taller than what's there at the moment. Just down the street there's a 235m being proposed and yet this one is less than a quarter of that.

Totally agree in liking the current over the proposed ... its a nice building... total waste to demolish a building with some historic significance and replace it with something not much different in scale. Plus the design architecturally is total crap.

The current one is way better than the suggested cheapo taken from some Kazakhstan (no offense) or North Korea.

I hope the new investor can work with the current structure and attach a few "transparent" glassy floors on top.

Presumably the 55m limit is due to the site being absolutely tiny. It actually sits in an area subject to the Hyde Park sun access plane, but, as you can see in this diagram, is very close to the 235m area (blue).

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k160/papervagina/141-Bathurst-HeightLimit.gif

The proposed building might not be a giant, but it must be almost twice as tall as the existing one. Remember, kids: just because a building is old, doesn't mean it has any heritage value. Don't stand in the one of progress, you wimps.

It is a building that is undistinguished architecturally, has no established historical significance and is rather 'old-fashioned' for a building of that date showing no signs of the prevailing style. It could be prettied up but looking pretty is not the problem as has been indicated earlier.

Amended da lodged today.dif facade, 2 more floors added

model
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6215/6310703312_2152463fe6_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6093/6310181733_d13f298efb_z.jpg

new DA and former DA at right
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6052/6310701262_a38ff8b1f4_z.jpg

It does look alot better now. :)

GROOVY! Imagine this one and the upcoming waterboard site tower behind it :cheers:


http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5017/5492416765_250ef398c8_b.jpg[/QUOTE]

AAA: that's the superceded design. We haven't got an image of the new version yet.

I think I prefer the old design. Random holes every where just isn't appealing. Though I can't really judge very well without seeing a render.

I agree with aussie dude and im amazed by the attitudes of some people on here. Sure, the existing building is not the QVB but it is a 7 story period building. If buildings like these keep getting demolished for stumpy shite you lose history and gain negligable density - a true lose lose situation. If you keep demolishing buildings like this the city starts to lose its history and its character if the replacement buiding provides neither density or an improvement in style - just think of hong kong except with office park style density. Brilliant! (NOT!). Seriously though the design is not really bad its just my belief is that if youre going to demolish reasonably imposing old buildings (were talking 7 not 2 stories here) the only way it can be justified is if you build something suitably denser!...and Brizer, the anthony horderns building didnt suit the desired function back in the 80s, same with Melbournes first skyscraper (who's name escapes me right now). They were of course both demolished. Did you agree with these actions too?

model

new DA and former DA at right


Cul, the building to the west of the proposal in the model does not appear to reflect the actual building constructed there (Euro Apartments or something?)

I agree with aussie dude and im amazed by the attitudes of some people on here. Sure, the existing building is not the QVB but it is a 7 story period building. If buildings like these keep getting demolished for stumpy shite you lose history and gain negligable density - a true lose lose situation. If you keep demolishing buildings like this the city starts to lose its history and its character if the replacement buiding provides neither density or an improvement in style - just think of hong kong except with office park style density. Brilliant! (NOT!). Seriously though the design is not really bad its just my belief is that if youre going to demolish reasonably imposing old buildings (were talking 7 not 2 stories here) the only way it can be justified is if you build something suitably denser!...and Brizer, the anthony horderns building didnt suit the desired function back in the 80s, same with Melbournes first skyscraper (who's name escapes me right now). They were of course both demolished. Did you agree with these actions too?

This building is pretty ordinary and unexceptional, it is not a big loss. If we preserve everything of the past, we'll end up with a CBD that is a museum and not a functional vibrant city centre.
We have a rapidly growing city and a great need of more residential buildings.
And yes I agree with anthony horderns destruction. Beautiful building, but it was replaced with something equally beautiful that's more appropriate to modern needs. Also anthony horderns as a heritage example of historical retail, was a bit redundant as we also have Mark Foys and QVB. We can not preserve every single piece of history if we are to build a future as grand as the past.

Sadly, the Anthony Hordern's building had fallen into some neglect in the years after the collapse of the Anthony Hordern's business. Also, although it looked quite grand to the casual viewer on the outside, it was poorly built, with a series of poorly connected additions until it took up the whole block (to a northern back lane) but this ad hoc construction was masked by the outside. If it hadn't been demolished it would have fallen down.
The interior was a rabbit warren of byzantine proportions, with lots of ups and downs from ill-joined levels, floors sloped noticeably and creaked audibly as it was all a bit of a shambles structurally.
Fortunately, Mark Foy's, a far superior building architecturally and structurally, is preserved though it is a shamethat as it is now law courts it is no longer as accessible to the general public. On the bright side, it's still there, and we can enjoy its idiosyncratic exterior.

As Mornnb says, we can't preserve everything, perhaps unfortunately, but we have lost some far more significant 'treasures' than the Anthony Hordern's building.

One of my Most Missed Buildings is the former Bank of NSW building on the SW corner of King & George which was a small beauty of High Victorian 'palazzo' style banking chambers. It was replaced by a particularly undistinguished, but taller office building by Kann Finch & Ptn (?) in the 1960s.
Fate is fickle, however, and this building met its just end when it was more recently replaced by what is now the Apple building/store, a better piece of design than its predecessor but, not so fine as the C.19th 'original'.

We must always acknowledge and respect the past but be selective and understand that 'old is not necessarily good' anymore than 'new is always better'. Harking back to the late Anthony Hordern's building, the company motto was "While I live I grow", and while it didn't quite work out for the famous Anthony Hordern's tree, shopping empire or main city home, it is true of cities: if you stop growing and changing, you atrophy and atrophy for a living organism is death.

I think one of the biggest losses was the old stock exchange building, replaced with that rather unexceptional brutalist 70s tower on the corner of Pitt and Bridge Street, very poor compensation.
Here's what used to be there, Sydney Stock Exchange.
http://www.baum.com.au/Dr_J_Baum/archiv_foto/small/cd-n8u/Image7609.tifA.jpg

Agree! Though the replacement wasn't 'Brutalist' but a weird, very ordinary Modernist rectangular box with odd 'scuptured', tiled spandrels in a sort of purplish brown, by Peddle Thorp & Walker. It has since been stipped of its tiled panels and 'smartened up' with an anonymous coloured renovation. Either way, an insult compared to the Victorian Stock Exchange.

That's the Post War Period of Modernism for you: lots of gems lost to a crass form of Modernism in the hands of lesser talents. Interestingly, the small, Liner House just west along Bridge Street is a good example of that period of Modernism, though it has more recently been 'modernised' threatening its heritage status (yes, it has one).

At that time, 1950s through to 1970s, PTW designed almost everything but lacked the talent of some of the top Melbourne architects of the period, such as Bates Smart & McCutcheon.
Both of these firms are still with us, PTW has improved its design but is not quite so ubiquitous, and BSM is now the still excellent Bates Smart.

wow the new proposed building looks real ugly.

The current building imo is not the greatest either but it sure isn't as ugly as the proposed one. I don't see why they don't refurbish it and add more decore to each level. It would look great.

I agree... the existing structure would make a wonderful classy boutique apartment building once renovated..possibly something parasitic on top to add that layer of density !!

Last semester, my masters studio focused on the importance of understanding our current urban fabric, adding new layers, ultimately giving structures a second life. I added a nasty looking parasitic extension to the Culwulla Chambers ") speculative obviously, ugly maybe ;) but still... really different perspective to the current thoughts that are coming from developers atm.

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q237/AussieDude11/12b-1.jpg

Unfortunally the wreking ball is on its way for the little guy on bathurst street :(

Unfortunately, if you put anything heavier than a bar fridge on that building, it would collapse. The structural problems and deficiences of the existing building that prevent it from simply being renovated and gussied up were discussed some time back.
It is not a heritage building, it is not a good example of the period and it is structrually incapable of being adapted.
I've walked past that building any number of times and in real life it's a tired old thing which photographs better than it is in reality. (I wish I could say the same for me.)
Efforts to preserve heritage buildings should be directed at worthier candidates.

Unfortunately, if you put anything heavier than a bar fridge on that building, it would collapse. The structural problems and deficiences of the existing building that prevent it from simply being renovated and gussied up were discussed some time back.


What would you say to keeping it's facade as part of a new building?

The building design quality is not significant enough for such an exercise. It is a very mediocre building, was never meant to be anything above the ordinary and retention of the façade would trivialise any new design.
As I said before, we should concentrate our efforts toward preservation to those buildings and environments that deserve it.

the bldg is quite bland. but people who buy a unit in it arent buying a unit for how it looks on outside. they are buying a unit due to its fab location , intyeriors and views.

The current building reminds me of Communist China - it's how I picture Li Cunxin's dance school from Mao's Last Dancer, just minus the Mandarin writing :lol:

I'm not fussed either way.

Ohh indeed. It does have a style that's quite a lot like old Shanghai.

DA now on exhibition:

Application Number D/2011/1779

Location:
141-149 Bathurst Street SYDNEY NSW 2000

Description:
Demolition of existing building and construction of a new 16 storey mixed use bulding comprising 1 basement level, retail at ground level, 4 commercial levels and 42 apartments within the upper 11 levels.

Estimated Cost of Work:
$15,765,595

Applicant:
INGHAM PLANNING

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Development/DAsOnExhibition/details.asp?tpk=1032337

i like it
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6100/6329473177_2e6314ca65_b.jpg

Yikes. Not liking it. Maybe for Parra but not for the CBD.....

Given the limitations of the site and the zoning, it's not a bad outcome.

It's not bad and I think better than the previous proposal but what is with this 60/70's revival architecture!?

Ugly brown full of random holes.... with a 60s almost brutalist looking base. Horrible. Bring back the previous design.

It's an unusual design for Tony Owen - the bottom part and the back wall look more like a building designed by Candalepas (more so than the awful Candalepas-designed Euro Tower two doors down!). The screening isn't too bad, but the parts where it meets the windows might need a bit of work so that it doesn't end up looking unfinished and cheap (like the Garland building in Victoria Park).

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k160/papervagina/149-BathurstStreet-Sydney-2.jpg

Candalepas designed Euro next door to 141 and the as yet unbuilt 18 storey tower on the west side of Euro, so 2 Candalepas designs in a row - if the 2nd is built.

The podium is a big winner for me. Overall - pretty good. :)

It's not bad and I think better than the previous proposal but what is with this 60/70's revival architecture!?

!!!!

The podium is exceedingly boring and ugly.


The upper levels look good though.

Just realised the podium is a visual link around the corner with the glassy windows linking to the fire station's glass wall while the more solid, shaped framing links around to the 'sculptural' solidity of the Euro building.

I think one of the biggest losses was the old stock exchange building, replaced with that rather unexceptional brutalist 70s tower on the corner of Pitt and Bridge Street, very poor compensation.
Here's what used to be there, Sydney Stock Exchange.
http://www.baum.com.au/Dr_J_Baum/archiv_foto/small/cd-n8u/Image7609.tifA.jpg

What I find odd, is they demolished the old stock exchange but kept the roof sculpture which now sits on the same location at street level. It almost feels like a taunt by Sydney Exchange Company who built the $hit box at 56 Pitt Street, reminding you what they took away. Because apparently at the time there was a big outcry from the general public at the loss of The Royal Exchange building.

141 Bathurst Street: cited for APPROVAL at CofS meeting 26 March.

Cheers for the update. Seeing these renders for the first time - pretty uninspiring. Hopefully in real life it'll look a little nicer.

Don't imagine anything will be happening with this one soon. A DA has been approved (with conditions) for change of use to place of public worship on levels 1 to 6.

My bad...

On the same day that the DA for a place of worship was approved, the residential tower was also approved. Requires thread title change :)

Still, wonder how long before construction starts?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSUcvgqJ3bI0Clqs53X8wMfam4YbILFhAp82K3AW6vMfCvxOAiMm2eJA4P5GA

Oh I am surprised. I didn't think it would get through as they were pushing for Heritage Listing

the other one around the corner on pitt st /300 pitt was refused.

^^
How come?

CARIAD: this is it. The replacement of Porter House.

This is not the one, 203 Castlereagh St is Porter House

DA has come in for a modification to the approved project - change of use for levels 1 to 4 from commercial to residential. This will result in an additional 16 apartments and takes the total number of apartments to 54

http://cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Development/DAsOnExhibition/details.asp?tpk=1061392

Unfortunately, this won't see any changes to the podium facade. Please excuse me while I attempt to not projectile vomit.

Now it has a name according to the banner strung up on the existing building:

The Castlereagh.

Not sold on the name. There's a boutique hotel on Castlereagh Street that goes by the same name.

Here's a pic of the sign;
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/7623/img1937f.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/706/img1937f.jpg/)

And here are two pics from the website;
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/4435/screenshot20120912at623.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/831/screenshot20120912at623.png/)

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/8376/screenshot20120912at624.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/812/screenshot20120912at624.png/)

http://thecastlereaghsydney.com.au/

Anyone know if the height has changed at all?

Not sold on the name. There's a boutique hotel on Castlereagh Street that goes by the same name.

It calls itself the 'The Castlereagh Boutique Hotel' so I think it is different enough. You can't have a sole business entity with exclusive street-name usage for a major CBD road.

Display center is open this weekend 1-4pm at 209 CASTLEREAGH ST

They are saying completion is due early 2014

this would only take 12months to complete.

Matching the median, The Castlereagh Sydney half-sold after two weeks
By Nicola Trotman
Wednesday, 14 November 2012

CBRE has sold more than half of the apartments in new Lenland complex The Castlereagh Sydney, which hit the market two weeks ago.

Thus far some 26 of the 50 one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments have sold.

Located on the corner of Castlereagh and Bathurst streets, the upper floors of the 15-storey Tony Owen-designed building have distinctive bronze-coloured louvres.

Some upper floors overlooks the iconic Hyde Park.

Owen has designed two other apartment buildings in the Sydney CBD: the Ceerose Hyde Park prestige dress circle development, and Eliza in Elizabeth Street, which has an expected completion date of mid-2013.

The 22 one-bedroom apartments in the Castlereagh start from $560,000, with sizes between 50 to 60 square metres.

Its 26 two-bedroom apartments have a starting price of $820,000 and range from 82 to 90 square metres.

There are only two three-bedroom apartments, which have 111 square metres of space and start from $1.25 million.

The Eliza apartment complex has 83-square-metre two-bedroom apartments costing $1.7 million.

RP Data indicates the median sale price for a unit in the Sydney CBD is $530,000. This is 0.5% lower than it was a year ago.

The median rental price is $650 a week, with an indicative gross rental yield of 6.4%.

The ground level of The Castlereagh Sydney complex will be a lively retail precinct of restaurants, cafes and designer shops.

The upper levels have bronze-coloured louvres, which were designed to control sun and privacy and create an animated urban façade.

An atrium is located in the centre of the building, acting as a ventilation shaft as it draws out hot air.

Apartments located on the third level will have winter gardens, and the higher levels will have balconies.

Each apartment will have hardwood floors, European kitchen appliances and floor to ceiling windows.

“Residents of The Castlereagh Sydney will enjoy a privileged lifestyle on the edge of Hyde Park, surrounded by world-class restaurants, fashion boutiques, shopping and facilities,” said Ben Stewart of CBRE.

“As well as owner-occupiers, the apartments will appeal to astute investors seeking to take advantage of the CBD’s lure with tenants.”

The marketing agents noted The Castlereagh Sydney will offer low strata levies as there are no costly communal facilities.

CBRE forecasts them to be $382 quarterly for one-bedroom apartments, $585 for two-bedroom apartments and $798 for a three-bedroom apartment, per quarter.

There is no car parking offered on site to apartments buyers.

“The Castlereagh Sydney is in the heart of the city so we deemed expensive in-house facilities unnecessary,” said James Chryssafis, Managing Director of Integrated Project Services, which is overseeing the project for Lenland Property Development.

The existing 1925 building, Bathurst House was bought by Lenland for $15.45 million in 2010. It sold in 2006 at $14.25 million. Lenland's managing director Harvard Shen sais the company had previously undertaken residential development on Sydney's north shore at Killara and St Ives.

The building - close to the NSW Fire Brigade HQ -will be demolished next March with construction to start in May.

The Castlereagh Sydney - which had an estimated $16 million construction cost in its City of Sydney development application - is expected to be completed by late 2014.

Of the 26 early sales, only a few have been to investors, with others including CBD workers as well as empty nesters.

The display suite is at 209 Castlereagh Street.

http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/developments/mirroring-the-median-the-castlereagh-sydney-half-sold-after-two-weeks-on-the-market/2012111357804/Page-2

Demolition starts March 2013 according to Central Magazine

Looks like this one was held up slightly on a dispute over the use of levels 1 to 4. Gained approval for commercial, wanted to change it to residential. The change to residential has been court approved so I guess construction can't be too far away from starting...

http://development.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/DASearch/Detail.aspx?id=1061392

:bash:

^^
Think this should be in ANZ Centre, 161 Castlereagh Street, Fabian.
This thread is for the corner of Castlereagh and Bathurst.