# Sydney OFFICE/resi markets

[CULWULLA]

positive news guys!!!
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/500/126sydneybooms.jpg

no wonder JB tower is going to be office. we need big office towers asap!

[below-0]

Thanks for the scan CULWULLA! have you got slightly larger version? -- that print is super small :)

I've been thinking a lot lately about the skrapers in the cbd recently being mainly residential. I think a balance is good. However what will happen in the future when the height restrictions are lifted due to space concerns (already an issue) and they can't demolish the residential blocks that are regarded low-medium height.

So much more reason to continue building tall commercial towers like the City One project!

[MILIUX]

Prepare for a new golden age!

This should concrete Sydney as the global city.

[Muse]

Hope you don't mind CULWULLA. I took the liberty @ below-0's request.

BTW It is from today's The Australian's Primespace lift-out ie Nov. 11, 2004.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/509/379sydneyoffcereport1.jpg

The caption under the pic reads....

"Parra matters: Space equivalent to four Parramatta CBDs might just sate Sydney's hunger for office space in the next seven years"

[finn]

I agree with the problems where important regional centres are split between councils. this is a big issue in Hurstville where the railway line divides the CBD and is controlled by Hurstville City Council on the north side, and the more conservative Kogarah Council on the south side.

This is particularly pertinent when the proposal for the Supercentre redevelopment is considered, as it sits over the railway, meaning that both Hurstville and Kogarah councils have to agree on the proposal! Supercentre scheme model photo courtesy of Fabian:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v28/Fabian/HurstvilleModel.jpg

[dynamoultraclean]

Now if there wasn't that stupid height limit...

[CULWULLA]

Now if there wasn't that stupid height limit...
im not sure if height limit has anything to do with it? if height limit was 300m, Sydney would still wouldnt have a DA ready to go. 235m is still a massive skyscraper! just until this year, Australia only had 1 235m+ skyscraper which is Rialto. And we still dont have any office towers planned to surpass Rialto any time soon. The only towers higher will be resi towers- ie- Eureka, Q1,.
The only 235m+ towers (to roof) currently planned in Australia is 240m Soul, 246m Vision.
So a 60storey office tower is a rarity.
Sydney might end up being leanient with areas for 235m., ie-outside of CBD. surry hills and south. That would be cool.
I know ms Moore wants CBD to extend to eventually Green Square! and this means taller bldgs at this end and slowly reducing to 20storeys.

[James Saito]

Great news! It's about time to densify the regional centres!
Especially Parra, it needs more tallies.

[below-0]

cheers muse! :]

I still have my hopes and sights for City One tower which would look superb from pyrmont or darling harbour, giving a good height impression towards Wynard. My concern is towards the height limit is if there's no more room as they're predicting the only logical way to increase space is vertically.

Perhaps if they built CBD-1 then the height limit would have to be on par with that. Skytower proposed was also a nice 400m tops.

[James Saito]

The PCA will release its "Initiatives for the Hunter" in February 2005 and then begin work on an Illawarra strategy.

What is "Illawarra strategy"??

[Maxtor]

However I bet that bitch Clover Moore will fuck it all up nicely ...... :)

[below-0]

send her an email or phone - and tell her :bash: you want to live in a penthouse in a commercial skraper above 400m :)

[christarrant]

235m is just the maximum height limit isnt it ???? just think how much office space COULD be built in the SYD CBD if there wasnt those stupid silly little height limits all around the place eg the western side of the city and down near chinatown where its like 60m , 80m, 100m etc. Im sure there could be another million sqm built if it these were lifted.

[MILIUX]

I won't want another Hong Kong style planning where the city is just a wind tunnel overshadowing parks. Parks will become dead. Imagine, ya having ya lunch break in a park and all of a sudden it's just dark and miserable.

[AG]

I won't want another Hong Kong style planning where the city is just a wind tunnel overshadowing parks. Parks will become dead. Imagine, ya having ya lunch break in a park and all of a sudden it's just dark and miserable.

It felt all dark and miserable in some parts of Hyde Park when I was there in January, particularly the southern end. Whether this has anything to do with overshadowing of neighbouring buildings or not I do not know. Maybe it's just me. :?

[below-0]

How about having supreme public parks on the top of skrapers. That would have to be serviced by very fast large lifts.

[Avatar]

I won't want another Hong Kong style planning where the city is just a wind tunnel overshadowing parks. Parks will become dead. Imagine, ya having ya lunch break in a park and all of a sudden it's just dark and miserable.

I think I'd actually like that... Anyway Hong Kong for all its volume still has some nice parks and areas in Wanchai to eat your lunch. There is always the waterfront too. The city isn't about parks, it's about business - I couldn't give a plop if it was shadowed and wind-tunnelled, maybe if it was we would start to feel like we actually had a real city in this country. Sydney can be so much better, so much more dense and tall and still be well-planned.

I wish we could achieve the hustle and bustle of some of the world's largest cities, now that would be truely awesome. I don't see too much wrong with desecrating the natural environment in one small setion of our country, its better than sprawling the city on for hundreds of kilometres IMO. We have no Piccadilly Circus, Times Square or Nathan Road... it is about time planners and our city fathers took it upon themselves to make our city internationally moded with decent amenity - the creation of these areas and the fostering of the larger parks that already exist like the Botanic Gardens have far more worth than a few tiny parks dotted around the CBD IMO. Anyway it really doesn't take too long to escape the downtown area even for lunch if you really want it - although most people eat in the underground eateries anyway.

[James Saito]

I won't want another Hong Kong style planning where the city is just a wind tunnel overshadowing parks. Parks will become dead. Imagine, ya having ya lunch break in a park and all of a sudden it's just dark and miserable.

So you prefer Adelaid over Sydney?

[CULWULLA]

i asked a city planner today that if Sydney's height limit was lifted would we see more 235m+ towers, and he said of course not. Tp get a large office tower of resi tower of 200m+, its needs to be economically viable.This is what i thought.Sydney has recenty acquired a height limit scraper (WT) and its been many years for melbourne to get one also, the last 200m+ scraper was the 1991 boom.If it wasnt for Grollo, and his money melb would still be waiting for a scraper higher then rialto.Just think only FWP is over 200m and then thats basically it. the rest are 150-160m towers.
So height issue isnt a factor. its the economy!
Our next BIG ONE will be John Boyd tower at 50st/188m. thats after completion of KENS and 126 Phillip street next year. thats pretty good going i reckon.

[below-0]

Nice to see some optimism CULWULLA and you're on the money and Sydney has had quite a good number of decent projects. As I see it there's many new scrapers of increadible architecture being introduced into China's cities as their population, high density urban structure, large population and a rising economy is a cocktail is showing signs of Skyscraper fertilizer.

I am however sadened that Sydney is slowly lagging behind in tallest buildings, I remember when centrepoint was still in tallest books and posters. By 2009 there will be quite a few 400+ towers and a couple of 600+ scrapers around different parts of the world. We do however have some great new ones which are still respectively tall and I'm already a fan of the World Tower :)

[cammo2004]

I won't want another Hong Kong style planning where the city is just a wind tunnel overshadowing parks. Parks will become dead. Imagine, ya having ya lunch break in a park and all of a sudden it's just dark and miserable.
Well, whether you like it or not, Sydney's going to build up, and not just in the CBD either, going from the sounds of this article. Wollongong, (which is primarily what the article means when it refers to the Illawarra) Newcastle (the centre of the Hunter) look to be in the firing line. It makes some sense too - It would make sense to encourage Central Coast commuters to work in Newy (takes SOME stress off the lower F3) and Wollongong (takes SOME stress of roads into the city) as it's quite feasible for Sutherland Shire residents such as myself to be get there (the centre of the 'Gong is only about an hour's drive from here). It's not THAT far from here, really. BTW the shire has about 215,000 ppl).

The larger parks are a FAR better idea than having a hotch-potch of parks around... A larger park is also easier to enforce.

It's time to shift overall planning from local government to some sort of a metropolitan planning authority (MPA). This would be better than a statewide body because regional/rural planning has different concerns to urban and suburban planning. You'd probably have a Regional Planning Authority (RPA).

Local government could be the enforcers (and recieve a share of breach fines), the regional/metropolitan planning authorities could be funded by the government.

And it's time to get serious about adding PT into the planning mix.

What makes me worry is that Carr was saying he's worried about the growth of Sydney (even going so far as to define a Greater Sydney Metropolitan area comprising of Wollongong, Sydney, Central Coast and Newcastle - and this does, at least in economic terms, exist), and yet they're taking this approach...

I get the feeling though that this is another way of the State government weaseling out on PT expenditure though (if you create centres away from the city that are convenient, they'll be used, whereas increasing capacity in the CBD area would help the PT problems dramatically).

The south side of Syd definitely needs a defining centre though.

Anyway, most of this post was spur-of-the-moment ideas, so feel free to criticise them...

[Hitesh]

Paramatta, Kograh and all these other far out suburbs should not be counted as part of Sydney, theyre ridiculously far and seperated by great masses os suburban housing.
Its like saying New York City is present day nyc with new jersey and connecticut combined ,or hong kong is present day hong kong combined with macau, shenzen and guangzhou.
all of those areas are closer together than sydney's cbd is to some of these far out places.

[MILIUX]

I think I'd actually like that... Anyway Hong Kong for all its volume still has some nice parks and areas in Wanchai to eat your lunch. There is always the waterfront too. The city isn't about parks, it's about business - I couldn't give a plop if it was shadowed and wind-tunnelled, maybe if it was we would start to feel like we actually had a real city in this country. Sydney can be so much better, so much more dense and tall and still be well-planned.

I wish we could achieve the hustle and bustle of some of the world's largest cities, now that would be truely awesome. I don't see too much wrong with desecrating the natural environment in one small setion of our country, its better than sprawling the city on for hundreds of kilometres IMO. We have no Piccadilly Circus, Times Square or Nathan Road... it is about time planners and our city fathers took it upon themselves to make our city internationally moded with decent amenity - the creation of these areas and the fostering of the larger parks that already exist like the Botanic Gardens have far more worth than a few tiny parks dotted around the CBD IMO. Anyway it really doesn't take too long to escape the downtown area even for lunch if you really want it - although most people eat in the underground eateries anyway.

I'd hate to see Hong Kong apartments. Those cubicles in Sydney city. It's like Blue Point Tower scattered in CBD. Plus, larger base for Hong Kong's floor which means higher buildings.

Height Restrictions are there coz of environmental sustainability.

[dynamoultraclean]

How about having supreme public parks on the top of skrapers. That would have to be serviced by very fast large lifts.

And sky bridges connecting them!

[zulu69]

Paramatta, Kograh and all these other far out suburbs should not be counted as part of Sydney, theyre ridiculously far and seperated by great masses os suburban housing.
Its like saying New York City is present day nyc with new jersey and connecticut combined ,or hong kong is present day hong kong combined with macau, shenzen and guangzhou.
all of those areas are closer together than sydney's cbd is to some of these far out places.

Are you serious??? Paramatta too far??? You honestly havent been to big cities around the world. Go to Paris, madrid and you will see that most global cities are sprawls. As for NYC with Jersey and connecticut-> they are different states.. i dont know what your on about there, borders have to start somewhere
doesnt matter if its close to NYC ... its like saying luxemburg is way to close to france and spain so it should just be part of them.. this applies to alomst all european countries

Anyways the article is great news and really not suprising. I actually see a lot more 230m buildings going up as a result. The comparison made with paramatta is unbelieveable esp since para is the 4th largest cdb area in OZ (or did i read that wrong?). I honestly like the restriction, it will force the skyline to central and fill it up real quick a la manhaTTan style with plenty of 200m bulk goodness. BTW with overshadowing, couldnt they build some a really tall building near the centre of the city... the shadow would fall upon other buildings and i really dont see any prob with that. But its all great news and if this means city one will see the day then thats amazing. JB is done i reckon just now for more proposals. When theres demand theres supply...

I agree with Matixvolta, although HK has its fair share of gems it has an abundance of crappy res buildings that luckily are covered up by the nicer taller buildings. I think for sydney to have the bussle of other palces Avatar mentioned it will need more than just a place, it needs to change the lifestyle of the city, thats the difference.

[Avatar]

LOL Guangzhou takes a fair while by car to get to from Hong Kong!
Its about 174 Kms on freeways. Shenzhen is 35km from HK.

So Guandong is all relatively close together. the landform is complex with mountains, the peral river delta etc providing difficulties with travel in some respects. The new territories in HK are quite a hilly and all over the place too.
Shenzhen is as flat as a pancake though.

[fro]

This is great news. It's good to see that the expansion of Sydney is pretty much continuing unabated. I suppose coming from a planning field, I see it very interesting how the State Government will manage this growth. cammo2004 makes valid points about public transport infrastructre and funding (or lack thereof).

And regardless of what happens in the near future, I believe the issue of height restrictions in Sydney's main CBD must be addressed. Not necessarily to raise them, but just to see whether or not we can sustain the demand with it still in place.

[below-0]

The comparison made with paramatta is unbelieveable esp since para is the 4th largest cdb area in OZ (or did i read that wrong?).

Parramatta is Australia's second oldest town right after Sydney. It soon became a great farming community that supplied food to the settlements. I don't know what you mean by largest? amount of high-rise buildings perhaps.. then Parramatta would be up on the list except I have doubts it would be 4th! In my eyes of density and urban largeness I see; Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart, Parramatta, Wollongong, Chatswood, Hurstville, Bondi Junction, Darlinghurst-Kings Cross and Darwin.

[christarrant]

i asked a city planner today that if Sydney's height limit was lifted would we see more 235m+ towers, and he said of course not. Tp get a large office tower of resi tower of 200m+, its needs to be economically viable.This is what i thought.Sydney has recenty acquired a height limit scraper (WT) and its been many years for melbourne to get one also, the last 200m+ scraper was the 1991 boom.If it wasnt for Grollo, and his money melb would still be waiting for a scraper higher then rialto.Just think only FWP is over 200m and then thats basically it. the rest are 150-160m towers.
So height issue isnt a factor. its the economy!
Our next BIG ONE will be John Boyd tower at 50st/188m. thats after completion of KENS and 126 Phillip street next year. thats pretty good going i reckon.


I hear what youre saying Culwulla, but take a look at Melbourne CBD for example and pretty much the entire CBD can take a 150m+ tower where as Sydney only has a fraction of space capable of taking one based on planning rules. Same applies to 200+ areas. Sydney is stifled by rules meaning that only a few spots can take them, hence it is MAJORLY restricted with future office space.Melbourne is where the possibilities are much brighter for the future.

[Randwicked]

I hear what youre saying Culwulla, but take a look at Melbourne CBD for example and pretty much the entire CBD can take a 150m+ tower where as Sydney only has a fraction of space capable of taking one based on planning rules. Same applies to 200+ areas. Sydney is stifled by rules meaning that only a few spots can take them, hence it is MAJORLY restricted with future office space.Melbourne is where the possibilities are much brighter for the future.

Planning 'rules' only last until they start to impact in the council's income. Trust me we will see a big relaxation down the line.

[zulu69]

Planning 'rules' only last until they start to impact in the council's income. Trust me we will see a big relaxation down the line.

Exactly. Ppl have to remember that the rules are only there to preserve our sunlight. NYC went through the same thing in the 30's and it has had little impact on its growth. If anything i think it actually makes buildings taller ( a paradox for sure but most things are) as a developer must make full use of the site that they have. Also it causes developers to look for sites near clusters that are run down/low cost and hence extend the cbd (look at North Sydney for an example- not thats its run down ;) Therefore things get really dense, like the situation is with sydney. I agree though that having a little strip with 235m is a little extreme and i think a revised floor/height ratio should be introduced. Most US cities have much more laxed ratio's even NYC. I really dont see why the current res ratio cant be adopted for a commerical building. Makes no sense at all. I mean if a building can be built to that height does it matter if its for biz or living? its still going to cause the same shadow.

Ultimately though the news is just stating the obvious (the GOOD obvious though) and the future looks brighter (or darker if you are in the CBD *insert evil laugh*)

[Avatar]

Paramatta, Kograh and all these other far out suburbs should not be counted as part of Sydney, theyre ridiculously far and seperated by great masses os suburban housing.
Its like saying New York City is present day nyc with new jersey and connecticut combined ,or hong kong is present day hong kong combined with macau, shenzen and guangzhou.
all of those areas are closer together than sydney's cbd is to some of these far out places.

Well the biggest difference is that all the outlying suburbs you mention are in fact Sydney.

Hong Kong if you havent forgotten was and still is bordered, now the SAR. Hong Kong annexed the New Territories as it expanded and this together with the Island and the Kowloon peninsula + some islands is HK. Macau was never part of Hong Kong and was founded by the Portugues. Shenzhen was a recent addition to the mix with the set-up in China of another special economic zone developed to mimic HKs success and bridge the gaps between Communism and Capitalism (also bordered from the rest of China and Hong Kong), Canton City now Guangzhou was always a large separate city and the distance reflects this... not much exists on the freeways between Shenzhen and Guangzhou excepting a few houses and some factories. HK is different in that HK is self sufficent - it had to be, it was separate entity leased from China by the UK until mid 1997. Sydney is one whole, dependent on many parts of the great city for prosperity.

New York is sometimes referred to as the tristate or tricity area - hmmm this to me says that New York does in fact sometimes take under its wing parts of NJ and much of Conneticut, after all these areas rely heavily on the powerbase that is the borough of Manhattan. They are not directly New York but they are part of the urban megalopolis. State Zones help to differentiate but New York has more than spilled over the Hudson and claimed a section of NJ for itself. If I was living in Hoboken or Weehawken I would think I'd call myself a New Yorker.

Sydney as part of its nature annexes as far north as Newcastle and as far south as Wollongong as part of its urban megalopolis, I find it strange that you would exclude Parramatta and other .places from the mix... after all the city has engulfed them and they rely heavily on the CBD powerbase.

[Hitesh]

i realise there are borders seperating hong kong from mainland china and state borders seperating new york city from jersey and connecticut.
the point i was making was that paramatta should not be considered as part of sydney. i realise that it is and saying it shouldn't does not achieve anything. that does not change the fact that are kilometres of suburban housing seperating the two. its cheating.

[Syd-Hk]

as long as it exists inside teh sprawl of sydney, i should be part of sydney...

but whats ur reason for not accept parra as part of sydney?

[MILIUX]

It'll be great if there is a huge sprawl running down from CBD to Botany Bay Port.

However, I don't like the idea of inflicting too much environmental damage to suburban houses.

[Muse]

Just been walking around town and boy oh boy!!, :eek: there are a still a lot of opportunities left.

Heaps of non-heritage crapola that could go in an instant. Silly little one storey banks thrown up in the 60s and 70s. Non-descript office buildings sitting on prime land just begging for new developments.

It's a real no-brainer. I know it's not as simple as such, far from it...but truly, it don't take a rocket scientist to see the potential that's around.

[finn]

i realise there are borders seperating hong kong from mainland china and state borders seperating new york city from jersey and connecticut.
the point i was making was that paramatta should not be considered as part of sydney. i realise that it is and saying it shouldn't does not achieve anything. that does not change the fact that are kilometres of suburban housing seperating the two. its cheating.

There is absolutely no gap in urban development whatsoever between Sydney and Parramatta. They are not surrounded entirely by suburban housing, but also numerous major suburban centres with high density development (including commercial/retail as well as high-rise residential) like Glebe, Camperdown, Ashfield, Burwood, Strathfield, Auburn, Homebush, Rhodes, Harris Park etc etc.

Where exactly would you draw the line between Sydney and Parramatta?? At what point does it change from one to the other? :dunno:

[christarrant]

woops

[christarrant]

Exactly. Ppl have to remember that the rules are only there to preserve our sunlight. NYC went through the same thing in the 30's and it has had little impact on its growth. If anything i think it actually makes buildings taller ( a paradox for sure but most things are) as a developer must make full use of the site that they have. Also it causes developers to look for sites near clusters that are run down/low cost and hence extend the cbd (look at North Sydney for an example- not thats its run down ;) Therefore things get really dense, like the situation is with sydney. I agree though that having a little strip with 235m is a little extreme and i think a revised floor/height ratio should be introduced. Most US cities have much more laxed ratio's even NYC. I really dont see why the current res ratio cant be adopted for a commerical building. Makes no sense at all. I mean if a building can be built to that height does it matter if its for biz or living? its still going to cause the same shadow.

Ultimately though the news is just stating the obvious (the GOOD obvious though) and the future looks brighter (or darker if you are in the CBD *insert evil laugh*)

all I know is that Sydney has over regulated everything to do with tall buildings making them virtually extinct while places like Melbourne and Gold Coast embrace them. Sydney is going to rapidly fall away in the Australian and world wide rankings in the skyline stakes because developers have been strangled by dumb rules. Melbourne is the future whether you like it or not.

[CULWULLA]

i dont know if putting a 235m height limit will hinder developement in Sydney? 235m is a bloody tall bldg!!! up unitl this year Australia only had one!-Rialto . now it only has 2 more. Q1 and Eureka. so it doesnt mean we will loose the skyscraper title.
there are no 235m+ skuyscrapers planned for melbourne over next decadde or so.
GC will get one-Soul and brisbane will get one- Vision. and thats it! Brisbanes Vision will proabbaly be the only 235m+ scraper the city will get. most will be 200m high.
I think GC will be the 200m+ capital with supertalls being the norm up there over next decade.
Sydney will get one (height limit scraper)within a decade. we get one every cycle. MLC in 1977, GPT in 1993, WT in 2004. ect..

[Randwicked]

all I know is that Sydney has over regulated everything to do with tall buildings making them virtually extinct while places like Melbourne and Gold Coast embrace them. Sydney is going to rapidly fall away in the Australian and world wide rankings in the skyline stakes because developers have been strangled by dumb rules. Melbourne is the future whether you like it or not.

I'll say it again. Those rules WILL NOT LAST if they ever threaten Sydney's preeminence.

[Avatar]

They are threatening it now... sun access, reflectivity and height restrictions... where will it end?

[Avatar]

i dont know if putting a 235m height limit will hinder developement in Sydney? 235m is a bloody tall bldg!!! up unitl this year Australia only had one!-Rialto . now it only has 2 more. Q1 and Eureka. so it doesnt mean we will loose the skyscraper title.
there are no 235m+ skuyscrapers planned for melbourne over next decadde or so.
GC will get one-Soul and brisbane will get one- Vision. and thats it! Brisbanes Vision will proabbaly be the only 235m+ scraper the city will get. most will be 200m high.
I think GC will be the 200m+ capital with supertalls being the norm up there over next decade.
Sydney will get one (height limit scraper)within a decade. we get one every cycle. MLC in 1977, GPT in 1993, WT in 2004. ect..

Cul I disagree :colgate:... I'm sorry but 235m is not a tall building by world standards, and it's increasingly becoming a joke of a limit, esp when in the very near future 100s of nameless Chinese cities have taller buildings than Sydney.

IMO Sydney has in the past prided itself on its skyline, icons and harbour - there is only so long the two icons and a harbour can carry you in the eye of the world - eventually they will become increasingly mundane and lacking in wow factor. To stay at the top and to maintain a view on the world stage Sydney has to grow it must be up... We need bigger more powerful icons, phat infrastructure that captures world attention.

Sydney is sinking into over regulated boredom at present. Someone should sack the entire council and the state government for running this city into shit.

Sydney is an embarassment, it should look like Australia's leading metropolis and Australia's answer to New York. Heck Singapore is on our doorstep and it seems SSC council just dont care?

[zulu69]

all I know is that Sydney has over regulated everything to do with tall buildings making them virtually extinct while places like Melbourne and Gold Coast embrace them. Sydney is going to rapidly fall away in the Australian and world wide rankings in the skyline stakes because developers have been strangled by dumb rules. Melbourne is the future whether you like it or not.

While i agree with some things you say, i dont agree with the whole ideal. Honestly i think you are being a tad pessimistic. The is a small lull in the development and everyone is thinking the sky is going to fall or something. We just had a MASSIVE growth and just by the point of this thread alone, it looks like to continue. Rules and regulations are funnily enough actually can encourage more height. It seems really silly when people talk about tall buildings and such when one actually visits the other cities in OZ (like i have) and realises the HUGE difference between Syd and the rest. And just so ppl dont just start flaming me, ppl from other cities tell me the same too. Now of course tall buildings to roof is another matter but i agree with the rational thinking of Randwicked that the rules can and probably will change (it happened in res buildings).

I really dont see the fuss though, but thats because i prefer actual density to height, of course i would prefer both but i city needs undergrowth. Lets just say that the big D (Dallas) in the states has NO regulations at all, and yes tall buildings have been built, but how many ppl would say that it has meant NYC (very regulated) is doomed??? None. Same with Chicago, if you look at the height of buildings alone, then Chicago wins, but even though i love chi town i wont say that it has a better skyline than NY.
Anyways the moral of the story is that height is only a PART of a skyline not the whole thing. If cities want to beat Sydney's skyline then they have to build a harbour, a bridge and a landmark, afterall the skyline is second and enhanced greatly by its settings, so to say that Sydney will fall away is really only being obessed with height and forgetting what makes sydney Sydney.

[finn]

Increasingly I'm realising how irrelevant a skyline is to the importance of a city on the global stage. What difference does it really make? If people want taller buildings for their own personal interest and aesthetic pleasure then so be it, but there's no point directly correlating the height of the buildings in a city with it's importance to the state/country world because they are very loosely connected.

[MILIUX]

Well said.

[zulu69]

Increasingly I'm realising how irrelevant a skyline is to the importance of a city on the global stage. What difference does it really make? If people want taller buildings for their own personal interest and aesthetic pleasure then so be it, but there's no point directly correlating the height of the buildings in a city with it's importance to the state/country world because they are very loosely connected.

Exactly. Avatar even mentioned that a 'in the very near future 100s of nameless Chinese cities have taller buildings than Sydney.' just proves the point even more. The thing is becoming so overdone nowadays it really doesnt catch the same attention in the golden days of the 30's when it actually meant something to build tall....tall buildings dont make a global center they just try to.

[Avatar]

It's not about being overdone, it's about having a landmark to define the city that befits the city... Sydney Tower is too short and so is our height limit, we don't have to have the tallest orthe biggest, a decent landmark skyscraper or two would go down a treat, esp in the 400m range. It would complete the skyline and help to procure a little more vision from developers and architects.

[finn]

Sydney Opera House does that quite nicely...few world cities have such a recognisable icon. But personally, my suburban life has been helping me to realise lately that the world's greatest cities have great places to live...amazing, dense inner-ctiy neighbourhoods with high amenity and intruiging, fascinating, diverse, vibrant surroundings and people. Oh how I wish I could afford to live in one of those places - if I gave up my bi-annual overseas trips then maybe I could manage it, lol! ;)

[Avatar]

LOL yeah well if they coated it with reflective mirror tiles it would do it even better. Extreme makeover never hurt anyone. :colgate:

[CULWULLA]

Cul I disagree :colgate:... I'm sorry but 235m is not a tall building by world standards, and it's increasingly becoming a joke of a limit, esp when in the very near future 100s of nameless Chinese cities have taller buildings than Sydney.

IMO Sydney has in the past prided itself on its skyline, icons and harbour - there is only so long the two icons and a harbour can carry you in the eye of the world - eventually they will become increasingly mundane and lacking in wow factor. To stay at the top and to maintain a view on the world stage Sydney has to grow it must be up... We need bigger more powerful icons, phat infrastructure that captures world attention.

Sydney is sinking into over regulated boredom at present. Someone should sack the entire council and the state government for running this city into shit.

Sydney is an embarassment, it should look like Australia's leading metropolis and Australia's answer to New York. Heck Singapore is on our doorstep and it seems SSC council just dont care?
lol, who cares about world standards? as finn reinterated, lets just concentrate on Australia. were too far away from everyone anyway for them to worry about how we look.
sydney and rest of oz are doing ok in our reletively young citys and small populations. we should never be compared to os cities like nyc or hongkong as they have overpopulated massive cities . they deserve all the dark canyons and crappy highrise.
235m is a tall building.
:runaway:

[fro]

^ Well said Cul. I think the issue is more about landmark structures rather than tall buildings. Let's look at Sydney for a minute. I mean, really, what does the word "Sydney" conjure up? Simple: The Opera House, the Harbour and the Bridge. Now, we've ridden on those three things for a bloody long time, and it's my opinion that we've got to do something more, something daring and exciting and grand and contemporary that will refocus Sydney once more. Whether or not that this "grand structure" is a tall building is a moot point. Tall buildings are grand and symbolic jsut due to their size and form. IMHO it's a bit of an easy way out to just build a massively tall building just to achieve what? International Landmark status? More like National Landmark Status...

I want Sydney to create something akin to the Federation Square project in Melbourne. Something that's different and will create an exhillerating public space. My option: bulldoze east Darling harbour where old Sega World etc... and do something special.

[MILIUX]

I want Sydney to create something akin to the Federation Square project in Melbourne. Something that's different and will create an exhillerating public space. My option: bulldoze east Darling harbour where old Sega World etc... and do something special.

Build an indoor nightclub which is a shape of a stadium. We need to impove Sydney's nightlife.

[christarrant]

plse forgive me if you think Im being overly critical but its what I think......im not talking about 235m landmarks here Im talking about the stock standard 200m towers that syd needs to continually punch out every few years ala Singapore if it is to keep up with demand.

examples of what Im talking about.......im a developer and I want to build a 200m tower eg idenitcal Melbournes Bunnings site proposal and I have bought land in the following parts of the city-
1- chinatown area
2- cussex and Kent St area
3 - currey Hills area behind AMEX
4- george St near the Hilton
5- anywhere around Central
6- King St wharf
7 - anywhere around Chifley tower area
8 - anywhere around Hyde Pk
9 - anywhere around Centreopoint
10- Broadway near CUB
11- anywhere near the Rocks
12- anywhere near town hall
13- pyrmont and Ultimo
14- eastern subs
15- Liverpool, Parramatta, Chatswood etc etc etc etc etc


I cant build anything anwhere with a 200m roof can I ??????????? In most of these places Id struggle to do a 150m job. This is what Im talking about.

WHERE CAN I build my 200m Bunnings type tower in syd is more like the question and the answer is in bugger all spots. This is why Syd will keep becoming a non descript city full of buildings built to artificial heights where everything looks like lego blocks while places like Melb will take the lead and open up the gap over Syd in the years to come. Syd has the best opportunity to have a wonderful skyline because of its world city status but it has cut itself off at the knees big time because it HAS NOT embraced the scraper like Melbourne, CHicago, Singapore, Gold coast, Dubai, London etc etc

[gtc]

i dont know if putting a 235m height limit will hinder developement in Sydney? 235m is a bloody tall bldg!!! up unitl this year Australia only had one!-Rialto . now it only has 2 more. Q1 and Eureka. so it doesnt mean we will loose the skyscraper title.
there are no 235m+ skuyscrapers planned for melbourne over next decadde or so.
GC will get one-Soul and brisbane will get one- Vision. and thats it! Brisbanes Vision will proabbaly be the only 235m+ scraper the city will get. most will be 200m high.
I think GC will be the 200m+ capital with supertalls being the norm up there over next decade.
Sydney will get one (height limit scraper)within a decade. we get one every cycle. MLC in 1977, GPT in 1993, WT in 2004. ect..

I've been skulking around here for a while and I have a couple of questions about heights.

1) Can you tell me what the height limit is in the CBD? I can't work out if it is height to roof or to top of structure and whether its RL height or height above ground. I ask because Chifley Tower and Citigroup Centre are listed on Emporis as being taller than World Tower and the height limit because of their attachments.

2) What does RL stand for and where is the 0 RL set (is it sea level)? I know its a measure of absolute height so that a 10 storey building in St Leonards might have a higher RL than a 20 storey building in town.

Thanks.

[fro]

10- Broadway near CUB

Things were looking good until Clover Moore stepped in... :bash: Her intervention would have been understandable in an established residential area, but on a site so close to the city!? Unfathomable.

[MILIUX]

I think 100m construction/proposals looks great. These designs somehow sums up what Sydney 'design' is really is.

Just the big ones doesn't look that great...especially GPT.

[CULWULLA]

I've been skulking around here for a while and I have a couple of questions about heights.

1) Can you tell me what the height limit is in the CBD? I can't work out if it is height to roof or to top of structure and whether its RL height or height above ground. I ask because Chifley Tower and Citigroup Centre are listed on Emporis as being taller than World Tower and the height limit because of their attachments.

2) What does RL stand for and where is the 0 RL set (is it sea level)? I know its a measure of absolute height so that a 10 storey building in St Leonards might have a higher RL than a 20 storey building in town.

Thanks.
hi there gtc.
1. the height limit is 235m to roof.a spire or architectural feature can go higher.

The official way of measuring bldgs includes spires if its part of intregal structure. thats why Chifley is 244m (roof 216m) and Citigroup is 243m (roof 206m).
2.RL= height above sea level or sometimes quoted as AHD= Australian height datum.Its a agreed relative leval for whole of Australia.
yes so a 10storey bldg in st leonards which is located 100m high has a higher Rl then a 30storey in CBD. its all relative
regards

[Avatar]

I think 100m construction/proposals looks great. These designs somehow sums up what Sydney 'design' is really is.

Just the big ones doesn't look that great...especially GPT.

Yes I agree nothing stands out, there is nothing earth shattering about skyscraper design in this city, and that gets me mad. Even with some notable new buildings by world reknown architects nothing screams style and presence - maybe only chifley has a bit of style about it.

Many are lack lustre and not in keeping with Sydney's worldly position and ambition. Sure we have the Opera House and the Bridge but a couple of nice signature towers would add to the scene. not that many are not nice, they are nice that is the problem just not grand or exceptional in any way, they are generic, boring and the skyline is actually not distinctive apart from the
tower. A slightly more distinctive skyline with some taller and more iconic towers would sit nicely within the city, building upon what is there with more difference and adding far more interest.

Sydney is anti buildings and it is a shame considering it once held the crown for Australia, many from overseas would still think this is the case and for the number of towers it is... the height and quality are a big let down however.

[MILIUX]

Yes I agree nothing stands out, there is nothing earth shattering about skyscraper design in this city, and that gets me mad. Even with some notable new buildings by world reknown architects nothing screams style and presence - maybe only chifley has a bit of style about it.

Many are lack lustre and not in keeping with Sydney's worldly position and ambition. Sure we have the Opera House and the Bridge but a couple of nice signature towers would add to the scene. not that many are not nice, they are nice that is the problem just not grand or exceptional in any way, they are generic, boring and the skyline is actually not distinctive apart from the
tower. A slightly more distinctive skyline with some taller and more iconic towers would sit nicely within the city, building upon what is there with more difference and adding far more interest.

Sydney is anti buildings and it is a shame considering it once held the crown for Australia, many from overseas would still think this is the case and for the number of towers it is... the height and quality are a big let down however.


I think we can't have iconic buildings because of how compressed the CBD is. The look of having tall (300m+) buildings don't look so great because of the distance between buildings (i.e gap).

On an optimistic note, i think these 100m projects will change how the CBD will feel 'inside'.

LOL, reflective builings...plenty here. Just look at CBD from Darling Harbour.

[below-0]

I think the tall buildings is what makes Sydney's skyline significant (not forgetting harbour bridge & opera house). There's not that many old historic buildings, the city is one of the youngest and has been doing well in the last 2 decades in appearance of height and density.

World's top ranked cities are Paris & Prague, not many tall buildings there! Then again you can't really compete with centuries of age, art and architecture, something that's lacking in todays modern style. Don't forget New York city is the grandmaster of skyscrapers, they'll always have a passion and image to show the world that they're the best and tallest. In Australia Sydney is often compared to New York bearing similarities, I don't think Sydney is that low population 5 million is getting quite large. NYC is 8million i think? and 18million the whole area.

[Muse]

Sydney is and will continue to be an inyteresting combo of your typical U.S. city with a specific downtown area (CBD) and somewhere like Tokyo.

Tokyo has many "downtowns" similar to Sydney's satellite CBDs. To go in a tall building in Tokyo is similar to what you see of Sydney at heights ie pockets of talls where main business centres have evolved over the decades, centuries even.

Sydney alone is unlike a typical U.S. city.

[James Saito]

I wouldn't say Sydney is similar to Tokyo...

[Muse]

...and.... :?

In the respect that different business centres have established themsleves over just one core.

Of course a lot of the urban fabric is different, but in some respects (mainly the one outlined), it is indeed very similar.

[CULWULLA]

Yes I agree nothing stands out, there is nothing earth shattering about skyscraper design in this city, and that gets me mad. Even with some notable new buildings by world reknown architects nothing screams style and presence - maybe only chifley has a bit of style about it.

Many are lack lustre and not in keeping with Sydney's worldly position and ambition. Sure we have the Opera House and the Bridge but a couple of nice signature towers would add to the scene. not that many are not nice, they are nice that is the problem just not grand or exceptional in any way, they are generic, boring and the skyline is actually not distinctive apart from the
tower. A slightly more distinctive skyline with some taller and more iconic towers would sit nicely within the city, building upon what is there with more difference and adding far more interest.

Sydney is anti buildings and it is a shame considering it once held the crown for Australia, many from overseas would still think this is the case and for the number of towers it is... the height and quality are a big let down however.
I think 126 phillip st will a "world class" skyscraper! Aurora already is.KENS will also be a "manhattan" size structure which is getting there!
The WORLD SQUARE site is a nice tower complex that would look great anywhere in the world!!! lots of landmark qualities!!
I think Sydney post 2000 has received many quality landmark towers!!!!
many more to come!!

[Homeroids]

I wouldn't say Sydney is similar to Tokyo...

Possibly Frisco? I've been to both and I see many similarities in what I think is probably the most beautiful city in the USA - San Francisco.

[Avatar]

I think james was refering to the development and how it has occured. Many US cities have a central locus and the city radiates out from it reducing in density levels. Tokyo unlike some US cities is more a collection of CBDs and the density is spread through distinct districts. Many US cities don't have cluster CBDs and several secondary districts of high-rise clusters. Over-time Sydney may be more like Tokyo than we think.

[finn]

I think james was refering to the development and how it has occured. Many US cities have a central locus and the city radiates out from it reducing in density levels. Tokyo unlike some US cities is more a collection of CBDs and the density is spread through distinct districts. Many US cities don't have cluster CBDs and several secondary districts of high-rise clusters. Over-time Sydney may be more like Tokyo than we think.

This could be the case especially along corridors like the CBD-Airport, Parramatta Rd and Pacific Highway, which consist of mini-CBD's linked by long stretches of higher than average density development. i.e. North Sydney/St.Leonards/Chatswood/Artarmon high-rise clusters etc linked by multi-storey office and apartment buildings which are not as dense as the actual mini-CBD's but still more than the surrounding suburbs.

[cammo2004]

This could be the case especially along corridors like the CBD-Airport, Parramatta Rd and Pacific Highway, which consist of mini-CBD's linked by long stretches of higher than average density development. i.e. North Sydney/St.Leonards/Chatswood/Artarmon high-rise clusters etc linked by multi-storey office and apartment buildings which are not as dense as the actual mini-CBD's but still more than the surrounding suburbs.

I think the crushing on the trains is enough evidence of that... All we need is a government that will actually consider investing in the system. It needs it - otherwise Sydney will come to a grinding halt and commute times will rapidly escalate to over 2 hours from most areas.

In this scenario, Sydney will become far more american-esque in character (many of their cities have shocking MT systems).

[Muse]

I think james was refering to the development and how it has occured.LOL I'm glad you could pick that up from his one basic sentence.

[MILIUX]

Looks like the State Gov't have a long set of "To Do" List.

New water system
New power stations
New investment in rail
Revamping the Redfern Green Square area
Continous urban sprawl

Our gov't can't afford all these in a decade and yet public are whinging as if they're sitting on a gold mine and have money to burn.

[cammo2004]

Looks like the State Gov't have a long set of "To Do" List.

New water system
New power stations
New investment in rail
Revamping the Redfern Green Square area
Continous urban sprawl

Our gov't can't afford all these in a decade and yet public are whinging as if they're sitting on a gold mine and have money to burn.

Maybe true, but consider this:

For starters, the rail network has needed significant investment for years. Rail is really the only form of public transport that you can use to get cross-city, and hence provides an important role in the MT mix.... Duplication of the Cronulla branch would be a start... it's long overdue.

Continuous urban sprawl: well really, the State Government should seriously consider increasing density in Sydney. It would help the utilisation of the rail network and help to make it lose less money.

New power stations: they're considering covering that with a levy (was on the news tonight).

Whether or not they like it, something has to be done. Sydney's infrastructure is struggling, and the public knows it. It's going to cost them the election.

Parts of the Redfern-Green Square project may end up funding themselves.

[MILIUX]

Sounds like simcity at work!

I like ya area of densifying the city/satellite city area. Long live the suburbs!

[climbing_crane]

tweed heads wasnt ikt

[Blue_Copper]

arnt they making a solar power station out past picton thats like 1km tall?

[zulu69]

arnt they making a solar power station out past picton thats like 1km tall?

yeah but thats very far away, on the border of nsw and vic actually. Hopefully more renewable and eco friendly energy sources are persued more.

[CULWULLA]

The Enviromission project will be located in NSW town of Buronga, some 25km northeast of Mildura.The 1000m high concrete shell rises through a 7km diametre plastic tent which collects hot air and rises through stack to run turbines which in turn creates electricty for approx 200,000 homes. he project has been given State gov approval and Midura Mayor and people are behind it. Enviromisison need $800mil to proceed. Got a buck?
go to > www.enviromission.com.au to find out more.

[Blue_Copper]

thanks for that guys

[iron_monkey]

Instead of adding office space the equivalent of 4 parramatta CBDs, why not multiply the office space in Parramatta's CBD by 5 times instead.

Parramatta is smack bang in the middle of greater sydney. Great Sydney metropolitan area needs a more central CBD. Increasing Sydney's CBD will only increase the already bad traffic congestion, put more stress in the frailing public transport systems, and increase pollution as people living in the far west and far fringes have to get all the way to Sydney CBD. Sydney urban sprawl is in the west.

[KhApZ!]

Yeh i reakon a proportion perhaps? 3 more CBD's in Parra and & 2 more in the City...Maybe it could stretch down to north sydney past chatswood? heading to lane cove and the Maquarie center area (northern suburbs)

[Avatar]

LOL why dont we just build it all the way to Tweed Heads and be done with it :colgate:

[Blue_Copper]

iron monkey the pollution would be worse if they build it in parramatta....in the morning the pollution in sydney get created then by noon it moves to liverpool parramatta, cambelltown then in the afternoon and evening it moves to blacktown,Penrith and the hawksbury. if you built it in parramatta there would be air pollution in the entire cbd for the entire day/night :runaway: . :cheers:

[iron_monkey]

iron monkey the pollution would be worse if they build it in parramatta....in the morning the pollution in sydney get created then by noon it moves to liverpool parramatta, cambelltown then in the afternoon and evening it moves to blacktown,Penrith and the hawksbury. if you built it in parramatta there would be air pollution in the entire cbd for the entire day/night :runaway: . :cheers:

I dont get what you are saying. How would there be less pollution in the entire CBD if Sydney is the choice?

The pollution we are talking about comes from roads, not CBDs. If you invest in Parramatta, then generally people would drive less than otherwise, leading to less pollution and more productivity. Its very simple.

[Blue_Copper]

read my post carefully ...not less,"worse" you cant generalise that the entire population lives in parra anyway people still have to drive. reread it please. its very simple> :cheers:

[iron_monkey]

you cant generalise that the entire population lives in parra anyway people still have to drive.

I never implied that. I based my opinion on the very simple fact that parramatta is in the middle of Sydney metro area and that Sydney's growth is in the west thus Parramattta should be upgraded to service that growth.

ive reread your post, still dont understand what you are trying to say.

[Blue_Copper]

lol i was only talking about the pollution.... not anything else.

[rob.m]

Syd has the best opportunity to have a wonderful skyline because of its world city status but it has cut itself off at the knees big time because it HAS NOT embraced the scraper like Melbourne, CHicago, Singapore, Gold coast, Dubai, London etc etc

I totally agree with you 100%.

Sydney just can't keep selling the harbour, the bridge and the Opera House to the world forever.

[CULWULLA]

being only 5km from a major airport doesnt help thus the 330m height limit imposed by CASA. Is Sydney airport the closest major airport in the world to a major city? maybe it should of been built at woop woop like Tullarmarine?

[rob.m]

maybe it should of been built at woop woop like Tullarmarine?

I wish that was the case. :rant:

[Avatar]

I know I have said this 100 times but...

Aviation Authorities in other nations don't seem to have a problem with tall buildings, In Vegas for example - the 40 floor Mandalay Bay is built opposite the airport and the Stratosphere (taller than Sydney Tower is not that far down the strip. If a 40 floor tower can exist right on an airport there is IMO no reason why we can't have taller buildings in the CBD - it is just another example of Australia's love of overregulation and stagnation.

Think of Hong Kong and the old airport in Kowloon (Kai Tak)... it wasn't as if it was a great distance from Wanchai, Mongkok or TST.

CASA has no excuse for imposing limits on Sydney's CBD - Contrary to popular belief, pilots are trained to avoid buildings.

[CULWULLA]

http://img129.exs.cx/img129/6230/offcesydney7tl.jpg

[fro]

"...net absorption for the market is expected to have been excess of new supply."

[Brizer]

The words are English but the meaning is at best, obscure and elusive!
Is there a special school where people learn this dialect of English or do you just have to be not quite bright enough combined with an inflated sense of your own intellect?

[CULWULLA]

lol, i think it basically means,2005 will say idle and in 2006 we will start to see new offices towers again.

[CULWULLA]

Sydney is still going ok with 11% but absorption is positive. parramatta isnt going as good.
North Sydney is getting worse yet theres 2 big office towers going up atm. i cant work it out??

http://img202.exs.cx/img202/4883/officesydneysupply2sc.jpg

[Trances]

Had no idea chatswood was so high

[CULWULLA]

^ now you know why no offices are being built, just highrise apartments.

[Blue_Copper]

is this bad companed to over seAS MARKETS?

[CULWULLA]

ive changed tite of thread to property market. I think it would be good to have a thread where we can post articles on Sydney's property market. keeps us updated in latest figures ect.
Dis anyone see today s fin review? Theres was an article on the SALE OF CHIFLEY TOWER. Anyone got $750 mil? They also said that the 1980's property markets are only now being reached. Chifley hasnt made much money if you want to purchase it.

[citiboy]

yes i read it in the afr today. they say it is worth $750million to day which would be the largest sale in australia at around that price . but the owners have spent up to
$1billion on it or more . so far there is one buyer for it
singapore investment corporation( sic ) they think sic have made direct approaches to them . or though any deal will likely involve more than one buyer at this price the
owner is matsushita investment and development corp who sold the ana hotel three months ago on the gold coast to rapits group

[CULWULLA]

looks like unit sales have not only hit Sydney hard.
Melbourne and even Brisbane also are about to dive.

http://img182.exs.cx/img182/673/unitsales8io.jpg

[CULWULLA]

another office tower to start in 2005! 34storey 51,000sqm MID CITY CENTRE>>>
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=3517111#post3517111

[rob_]

just another opinion little different to others kinda, just get so many of these articles that flood me when i have to look through them, put one up that is on topic ;p

Savills looks into Sydney’s CBD prospects
Chris Freeman*
March 16, 2005

In the year to January 2005, the market posted its first period of positive net absorption since July 2001.

This rebound in absorption is primarily due to workspace ratios tightening significantly over recent years, which has led companies requiring additional workspace for new employees as opposed to simply filling unutilized space within existing tenancies.

Despite the long awaited return of a positive leasing outcome, the market has nevertheless experienced a rise in vacancy levels, as positive absorption has been insufficient to account for vacant space created by the current development cycle.

The results from the January 2005 Prime Full Floor Availability Report highlight the wealth of leasing options open to tenants in today’s market and give insight into the high level of rental incentives offered by landlords at present.

With 243 floors and 346,012 sqm available for lease in the Prime grade, which represents 15.1% of the market analysed, competition is high to secure larger tenants.

Premium buildings with some of the highest levels of availability in the market at present include; Chifley Tower with 18 floors that will be vacated by Westpac and Allens Arthur Robinson upon completion of the Kens development and 126 Phillip Street respectively and Grosvernor Place with 5 floors available when Deutsche move to 126 Phillip Street.

In Premium buildings under construction, 126 Phillip Street has only 4 floors remaining for pre-lease and 8 high rise floors remain in Darling Park 3.

In Grade A buildings; 259 George Street will seek to fill a total of 23 floors that will be vacated in 2006 with the relocations of AAP and Qantas, 321 Kent Street is seeking to fill 12 floors following the relocation of Ernst & Young, 6 floors remain available in the former KPMG headquarters at 45 Clarence Street, Civic Tower has 16 floors remaining to be leased, 255 Elizabeth Street will seek to fill 13 floors following the relocation of Phillips Fox and the pending relocation of Westpac.

Despite a soft rental market, demand for CBD office assets remains strong.

However, with CBD rentals tipped to turn, current owners are proving reluctant to part with assets; especially given the difficulty of attaining replacement stock. With such a hindrance on stock for sale, the volume of transactions has fallen sharply from 2002.

Over the 2004 year, Savills recorded 22 sales of office assets over $5m with a total consideration of $963.9m. While the number of sales is on par with 2003, it Is well below 2002 which recorded 37 sales over $5m.

On present evidence, Prime office yields in the Sydney CBD are now estimated to be ranging from 6.25% to 7.00%, with IRR s tightening to 9.25% to 9.50% Secondary grade office buildings are trading in the 7.50% to 8.75% yield band, with IRR s ranging between 9.50% to 9.75%.

Whilst the number of sales during 2004 was slightly higher than 2003, the year was not buoyed by sales of major assets worth over $100m as was 2003. As such, the total volume of dollars transacted fell sharply as highlighted in the chart below. Institutions remained the dominant purchasers over 2004, accounting for 69% of transactional volume, private investors were also active with 22%.

In 2005, the number of sales is again likely to be subdued, the offering of Chifley
Tower to the market is likely to see transactional values increase should the landmark tower be sold.

The 2004 year played out very much in line with Savills forecasts, with net absorption finally returning to the market but being counteracted by additional supply.

Due to this, we see little reason to change our overall stance from 2004; that being rentals remaining virtually stagnant until post 2006 when the bulk of supply is accounted for and strong net absorption begins to tighten vacancy levels significantly.

In the near term, it appears likely for 2005 to post a reduction in vacancy levels as net absorption for the year (forecast to be circa 60,000 sqm) should outstrip net supply and downsizing/consolidation activity.

We forecast a tightening in the vacancy level of around 1% over the 2005 year.

During 2006 however, white collar growth is forecast to be more subdued, and with the bulk of construction coming on line creating a plethora of vacancies in backfill affected buildings, vacancy levels are likely return to present levels.

With 243 floors available for lease over this period in the prime grade alone, it is apparent that supply issues may take longer to overcome than many have been forecasting.

Nevertheless, in a market capable of posting net absorption levels close to 300,000 sqm, vacancy levels could rebound sharply should tenant demand approach these levels.

In the long run, the supply outlook for the Sydney CBD is fundamentally restrained.

Current CBD development sites mooted for construction are facing significant zoning or consolidation issues that must be overcome before they can offer a feasible prime office product. With such a restricted long term supply outlook, the long run feasibility of investment in the Sydney CBD office market seems assured.

*Chris Freeman is the Research Manager for leading property advisers Savills.

[CULWULLA]

its all g00d!

[CULWULLA]

http://img185.exs.cx/img185/5558/oldbldgs2sy.jpg

[Blue_Copper]

this is good news hopefully some will be pulled down add new ones put up

[rob_]

this is good news hopefully some will be pulled down add new ones put up

that would be great. what would also be good is if they built things that did not date so quickly

[rob_]

Under lock and key
March 29, 2005

Australand says the city's strict development rules all but barricaded it out of the CUB site, but the reality is more complex, writes Elizabeth Farrelly.

Ain't that just like a boy? Let everyone slag off the Lord Mayor as anti-development then, soon as it starts to seem a popular stance, fall in behind like an eager puppy. Pant, pant, woof, been here all the time.

The Premier, Bob Carr's support for Clover Moore's ruthless and unrepentant fairness regarding the Carlton & United brewery site on Broadway is as touching as it is unexpected. The 5.7-hectare site always had a shaggy dog kind of look, speaking of canines - and there was that change of city government, although this, as you will see, is probably little more than a handy excuse.

"It's got absolutely zip to do with the apartment market," said Australand's Brendan Crotty, having trashed his $203 million option on the site. Crotty blames "delay and uncertainty" for his decision to walk, and the City of Sydney Council's supposedly unreasonable planning constraints - restricted car parking, requirements for child care, open space etc. But it's a leaky old story. The delay has been principally Australand's, with the council sitting on its hands for more than a year while Australand laboured over its promised conservation management plan, unavailable even now. As for uncertainty, Australand's disgruntlement seems to be more about the opposite, namely Clover's insistence on not bending the rules to suit.

Advertisement
AdvertisementBack under the old regime, when city development rules behaved like bits of old knicker-elastic, Crotty sounded positively relaxed. "We're happy with the process," he said in late 2003. "I have no doubt that a design competition will produce the best solution. If you have three first-class architects, and take the best elements of all three, you'll end up with a best-of-the-best amalgam." That was then, despite the contradictory limits on the site, (a 5:1 floor-space ratio versus a 15-storey height maximum) and the propensity of Sydney competition winners to flout such rules in any case. Hardly what you'd call a model of certainty.

So you'd have to say Clover's explanation is the more plausible. That is, Australand's walk-out owes more to a pre-planned market-downtown exit-strategy than any cruel or unusual planning discipline. And what of the Premier's uncharacteristic support, just when it seemed he had the perfect excuse for flicking the site over to his new Redfern-Waterloo development as part of its airport-to-CBD gentri-push?

Well, he could hardly do anything else, for one thing, after his very public anti-ugly drive. Then there's the fact that unbendiness of rule is precisely his Government's defence of choice in the continuing Orange Grove comedy. Of course, he's reading the mood of the moment: "I think," said Carr on air, "[that] the public wants to have very tight design and heritage and planning and environmental guidelines applied to the development sector. There was too much shoddy, lousy development thrown up in the past without those guidelines, and the industry should be mature enough to work with the regulations."

Even more to the point, though, is this. The entire planning and consent process for the brewery site has actually been government-controlled, managed as it is by the Central Sydney Planning Committee. The committee undertakes all strategic planning in the city and makes all consent decisions over $50 million; despite a majority of government appointees, its decisions - get this - are legally council's. Handy, since it means the Lord Mayor, as chairwoman, can be rolled any time and still legally wears the decision. But it also means Government criticism of the brewery-site process would blow straight back home to Government.

While Carr, in puppy-behind-the-throne mode, exhorted councils "not to change the goalposts", his Government continued its practice of talking green while making distinctly brown decisions. Promising natural gas buses then canning them; promising rail but delivering roads; promising a metropolitan plan - indeed, tossing the entire planning system into disarray for that purpose - and delivering, uh, press releases. The latest of which tells us not even to expect a metro strategy, after all this palaver; just dribs and drabs - a road here, a press release there. Maybe even a whole set, stapled together and called policy.

Same goes for the long-promised freight strategy. In anticipation of which the Government refuses to make any decision on the proposed road-rail freight interchange at Ingleburn - then tells the ports expansion inquiry that no such strategy will actually eventuate.

Hmph, you might shrug. What's new? Well the admission is new. The public recognition that producing plans is not something the vast Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Natural Resources can be expected to do. No planning. No infrastructure. And on the natural resources front, you'd have to say, they had help.

Still, the do-nothingness of it all sits comfortably with the department's age-old proclivity for planning after the event. Indeed it's a disease that's starting to look infectious, if the city's long-awaited city pools strategy is anything to go by. While the strategy itself, or Draft Aquatic Leisure Study, is still weeks or maybe months from publication, three of the city's four existing pools are already in the throes of makeover madness. Victoria Park is having a total-refit mode (months of mud and mess to produce a new pump, boilers and filtration system, and toddlers' pool); contracts have been let on the proposed Seidler-designed, wave-roofed Ian Thorpe Aquatic Centre in Ultimo, completion late '06; and Prince Alfred Park is having the protracted community-workshop treatment. The question? To move or not to move the pool - out of the way, onto the tennis courts. But at least, it seems, the best pool in town (personal view) will stay.

Back in the bad days, when the council was trying to close the pool by stealth because none of the users lived in the city area, public meetings were secret affairs, and you had to register before being told the venue. That's one way of keeping the ratbags out. At least the current council's public meetings are actually public, unlike previously; and at least they actually act, unlike the Government. Consensus on Prince Alfred is unclear, except that people want it open-air, unyuppified and open year-round. Seems good to me.

Over at Glebe, a further controversy is cooking that should test the Government's tram-shed-destruction policy, as noted in recent weeks (Tempe, Cremorne and now Harold Park) and the planning committee's resolve. The NSW Harness Racing Club bought the Maxwell Road site for a dollar some years ago from - yep - the Government. Now they want to replace the heritage-listed sheds, on land zoned open-space reserve, with 122 apartments and 222 car spaces. I'd say apply the brewery-site restrictions without fear or favour - half a car space per flat - but the worry for the planning committee is legal advice: that rejecting the proposal, on that particular zoning, could render them (the council, that is, not the committee ) liable for compensation. Icky business.

If all that hasn't depressed you enough as to even the possibility of serious decision-making in this town, cop this. In 2002 Sydney Airport was sold by the Federal Government to Southern Cross Airports Corporation Holdings (aka Macquarie Bank) on a 99-year lease. Macquarie Bank, being what they are, want to develop; tripling passenger numbers and adding a small CBD's worth of office space with 8000 cars. This amounts to a serious Edge City proposal - with the potential to destroy Green Square and the recovering downtown commercial market for years to come. But the site, being federal land, is exempt from all planning control. So even if the state were decision-capable, it'd be helpless to act. It's exactly the loophole that lobbed the Horizon into two-storeyed Darlinghurst.

In an exact analogy of playground bully syndrome, the state undermines the city and is undermined in turn by the feds. No wonder they can't take planning Sydney seriously.

[rob_]

Tenants on move in central Sydney
By Carolyn Cummins, Commercial Property Editor
March 30, 2005

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
A number of large sales and leasing deals are tipped for the next few months, including Chifley Tower in Sydney, as investors and fund managers reassess their portfolios.

There has been a noticeable shift of office space occupation from the mid-town area near Martin Place to the northern end of the CBD, but landlords remain confident the floors will be backfilled with new tenants.

Yesterday, Merrill Lynch relocated to Governor Phillip Tower, leaving four floors vacant at MLC Centre, owned by General Property Trust and Queensland Investment Corp.

Merrill Lynch has taken floors 37-39 and 41 and joins Goldman Sachs JBWere and UBS at the address, which is owned by GPT and DB Reef.

In June 2007, however, UBS leaves for Chifley Tower, which is close to being sold.

The Japanese owner of Chifley Tower, Matsushita Investment and Development Corp, is in discussions with a number of parties. One is said to be Commonwealth Property Office Fund, with an asking price of close to $800 million.

AdvertisementBut it remains unlikely that the Commonwealth fund will be the buyer, as it is in the process of refurbishing and leasing its AAP Centre at 259 George Street. AAP and Qantas will leave the centre in the next couple of months.

Other buyers from offshore are also looking at the Chifley site, previously owned by Alan Bond's Bond Corp, which hit financial trouble before the skyscraper was built. It sat as one of Sydney's black holes until the Japanese group came in with a cheque.

But now the owners have hit hard times and are keen to offload the asset, which will be left almost empty when its core tenants, law firm Allen Arthur Robinson and Westpac, move out later this year.

It will leave the building with a 41 per cent vacancy rate, which compares with the under construction Darling Park 3 site, where the anchor tenant is the US-based Marsh Group.

The lawyers are going to Investa's new 126 Phillip Street to join anchor tenant Deutsche Bank, while Westpac is moving to its Kens Project in the western corridor of the CBD.

There could be further sales on the horizon if troubles at Germany-based Deka group's parent continue.

Although the head of Deka's international property operations, Johannes Haug, has said the focus is on rebuilding support among investors, there are suggestions that if the problems persist the company will be forced to sell some Australian assets. The group has a portfolio of prestigious local properties such as 20 Bridge Street, the home of the Australian Stock Exchange, and 35 Clarence Street.

Analysts said the trust would be reluctant to sell such properties, but the market is keeping a close eye on the parent's problems.

Savills' national head of research, Chris Freeman, said in a report on the CBD that there was a 14.9 per cent prime full-floor availability across the city, of which about 12 per cent was in prime buildings.

The highest level of space available for rent is in the mid-town core, including Chifley and extending to Australia Square, which has a 19 per cent vacancy rate following the relocation of Lend Lease and GPT.

In his report, Mr Freeman said the average net rent, after outgoings, for prime Sydney CBD was $535 per square metre with a 20 per cent incentive level.

In North Sydney, the average rent stands at $380/sqm with a 25 per cent incentive, while in Parramatta office space rent is $255/sqm with a 15 per cent incentive.

41% vacancy rate in chifley is huge, building is classy! not too sure what my work pays for rent here, but with such a lack of future tennants, im thinking its a rip off ;p

[CULWULLA]

from yesterday fin rev
E&Y tower is now 90% filled!
besides E&Y, other large firms in tower are AAPT & Austereo.

[CULWULLA]

http://img8.echo.cx/img8/3569/sydstruggles5ei.jpg

[Muse]

Apart from the larger projects, Sydney is having so much office space coming onto the market in adequate doses; the 8-level base of Rialto, the offices in the huge World Sq podium, Hilton Hotel podium.

Even though not as obvious as the larger projects, they certainly add to the glutinous amount of space released out onto the market.

Brisbane as we know is on a high atm.

[CULWULLA]

http://img72.echo.cx/img72/7180/floors2253sk.jpg

[CULWULLA]

well sydney's vacancy rate has impoved by over 1%. which is good. parramattas is a bit of a worry still


http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3829/offciemarkets6yb.jpg

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/5893/sydneyoffcie27dw.jpg

[wowsim]

Sydney on the move as big tenants scout around
Kathryn House
475 words
16 September 2005
Australian Financial Review


Incentives remain high and the city's vacancy rate is still in double figures. But a wave of new tenant inquiries has led to renewed optimism that the Sydney office leasing market could finally be in recovery mode.

Suncorp, Telstra and the Australian Taxation Office have all gone to the market in recent weeks, each wanting more than 15,000 square metres of space.

Many smaller inquiries have also emerged, including an 8000 sq m brief from Caltex, which is presently housed in the MLC Centre.

The key for the market will be whether those inquiries translate into new lease commitments.

However, Savills' NSW divisional director of commercial leasing, Michael Andrews, said market sentiment had clearly improved.

While he didn't expect Sydney's recovery to be anywhere near as dramatic as Brisbane, Mr Andrews said the market should tighten considerably in the next 12 months, particularly for prime office space. What had emerged in the Sydney CBD was a two-tier market.

For larger space users of more than 10,000 sq m there were now very limited options, which could make it challenging for some tenants who were scouting for space.

But Mr Andrews said smaller tenants of between 1000 sq m and 3000 sq m still had numerous options and some landlords were still offering aggressive incentives to secure deals.

Combined, the larger new inquiries represent the most demand the city has seen in some time. Telstra is one of the newest to come to the market, with a 15,000 sq m to 17,000 sq m brief.

It is understood the requirement relates to staff now at 175 Liverpool Street. A Telstra spokesman declined to comment other than to say the company was constantly reviewing its office requirements.

The brief is expected to put some pressure on 175 Liverpool Street's owner, Singapore's GIC Real Estate, which already faces the prospect of losing major tenant American Express.

Amex is thought to be considering a number of alternatives for its 22,000 sq m headquarters, including sites at Pyrmont and North Ryde.

Other big tenants include the Australian Taxation Office, which is considering a move from Westfield's Centrepoint complex. The ATO's brief is for 22,000 sq m to 24,000 sq m of CBD space.

Some mid-sized tenants are also on the move, and there is growing speculation that Challenger Financial Services will soon vacate its high-priced offices in the ABN Amro Tower.

Challenger is believed to be taking a close look at the new Hilton office building.

Apple Computer is also tipped to relocate to more than 3000 sq m in the Hilton building, which was recently acquired by the Industry Superannuation Property Trust.

[wowsim]

Space shrinking in Brisbane, Perth
Kathryn House
768 words
16 September 2005
Australian Financial Review


National CBD availability
Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Perth Total
Total prime NLA* (sqm) 2,328,568 2,216,294 780,599 689,309 6,014,770
Total prime occupied stock (sq m) 2,085,541 2,108,914 759,213 657,038 5,610,705
Prime full-floor availability (sq m) 243,027 107,380 21,386 32,271 404,064
Prime full-floor availability 12.70% 4.80% 2.70% 4.70% 6.70%
Prime floors available 193 86 19 31 329
Prime total contiguous 163 57 14 18 252
Prime max contiguous 14 10 10 5 14
*Net lettable area

The Brisbane office leasing market has emerged as by far the strongest in the country in the past 12 months.

But just how far ahead of competing markets, such as Sydney, it has run has been thrown into sharp relief by a new Savills survey, which shows the city has just 19 full floors of prime office space available for lease.

Compare that with Sydney, where tenants have 193 prime office floors to choose from, or Melbourne, where 86 floors of space are up for grabs.

And the chronic shortage of space is only going to get worse in Brisbane according to Savills Queensland research manager Paul Day. Of the 19 floors available, 14 are in the recently completed Riparian Plaza development and negotiations are already in train on two of those floors.

Mr Day said there were also strong rumours that BHP Billiton was closely assessing Riparian for its 8000 square metre lease requirement a deal that would leave just 11 floors of available prime space in the city.

No new stock is due to come on stream until the second half of 2006 when the 55,000 square metre Brisbane Square development is completed.

But that building is fully precommitted to Brisbane City Council and Suncorp so only backfill space from those tenants would become available for lease.

Tenants wanting new office space would, Mr Day said, have to wait until the next construction cycle in 2007 or early 2008.

"Clearly, the Brisbane CBD office market is going to get very tight during this period and the CBD will lose some tenants to the 'fringe' suburbs", Mr Day said.

The Savills report assesses how many full floors of prime office space are actually available for lease within major CBD markets, not just areas that are physically vacant.

The report was first compiled for Sydney 18 months ago but has now been expanded to Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth.

Savills' head of research, Chris Freeman, argues the report gives a truer representation of market conditions than standard vacancy surveys by taking into account backfill space where the tenants have yet to relocate as well as new office space under construction.

The figures paint a relatively grim picture for Sydney, which has 12.7 per cent of its full floors of office space available for lease. Melbourne has the next largest stock of available space 86 full floors or 4.8 per cent of its total stock.

Perth is next on the rankings with 31 full floors 4.7 per cent of its stock followed by Brisbane, where just 2.7 per cent of the city's prime office floors is available for lease.

Mr Freeman said the wide discrepancy between Sydney and Brisbane had been reflected in rental movements. While rents had remained static in Sydney in the first half of the year, effective rentals in Brisbane had spiked by more than 12 per cent over the same period.

Perth has also been strong, with the Savills report showing the market has continued to tighten since official vacancy figures were released by the Property Council of Australia.

While the PCA data pointed to a 9.5 per cent vacancy rate in Perth, Savills' West Australian divisional director of commercial leasing,Graham Postma, said the agency's report showed only three premium grade office floors were available in Perth, all in Central Park.

A-grade space was also in limited supply. While the largest number of available floors were in 45 St Georges Terrace, the five office levels there would not be vacated until February 2007.

Mr Postma said the only other options available for larger tenants were just over 3000 square metres over three floors in The Forrest Centre and three floors in The Quadrant.

KEY POINTS

* A Savills report finds available space in the Brisbane office market has fallen dramatically.

* Perth has the next tightest office market, says the report.

[Ipggi]

Space race spurs tall storeys
Paddy Manning and Maurice Dunlevy
September 20, 2005

DEVELOPERS are dusting off office tower plans around the country with 13 CBD sites that could yield 368,000sqm of new office space on the drawing board in Sydney alone.

Although the city's office leasing market remains patchy, with vacancy rates hovering around 10 per cent, there are now few options for tenants with big requirements.

American Express, Suncorp, the Australian Taxation Office and Telstra are all looking for more than 10,000sqm of office space in Sydney.

Colliers International's national director major investments, Vince Kernahan, said new office developments would become viable in the short-to-medium term.

Mr Kernahan said Colliers was tracking 13 CBD development sites north of Sydney's Park Street, with the capacity to yield more than 368,000sqm in office space over the next five to seven years.

Mr Kernahan warned of potential oversupply, with the NSW Government planning up to 300,000sqm of office space accommodating 25,000 workers at the massive 22-hectare East Darling Harbour site, to be vacated by Patrick Stevedores next year.

"If the Government does that badly, they'll kill off the western sector for a decade," Mr Kernahan said.

Investa Property Group portfolio manager Michael Cook said East Darling Harbour was a "release valve" for the city's office market and was important to Sydney's status as the nation's financial hub.

"If we don't have the development, we'll get rents to a level that they displace tenants from the state. Then no one wins," he said.

Mr Cook said the new supply there was five to 10 years away and would tap a "totally different tenant base" to the core CBD.

Investa plans to develop a 32-storey, 22,456sqm office tower on its Kindersley House site at 33 Bligh Street.

The company has momentum after its successful development of 126 Phillip Street, Sydney, but Mr Cook said while the market was "almost at the crossroads", he would not say when the Kindersley House project would commence.

Mr Cook said development had been mooted on the site for decades, constrained by its small size and limited views.

He said Kindersley House, like the Sir Norman Foster-designed 126 Phillip, required a clean architectural solution.

At Kindersley House, local architects Rice-Daubney proposed to raise the building as much as nine storeys to ensure every floor had views over the adjacent buildings.

While this was expensive Mr Cook said it was the only way to develop the site properly, and required a tenant willing to pay the necessary rents.

Investa was receiving good holding income from existing tenants, he said, adding: "We won't be rushing in without a pre-commitment. Our view is not to compromise the asset. If the market's not there, don't build it."

One of the first major projects to commence will be Colonial First State's extensive $95 million refurbishment of the AAP Centre at 259 George Street.

Commonwealth Property Office Fund portfolio manager Charles Moore said the top levels occupied by JPMorgan had already been refurbished, and work would start on the 19 levels formerly occupied by Qantas when tenants vacated next April.

Meanwhile, Perth has the nation's largest planned office project, an 85,000sqm proposal by Multiplex to redevelop the Westralia Square site, once owned by Kerry Packer. According to Multiplex, the 125-137 St Georges Terrace project, now known as City Square, is likely to start next year as demand for CBD office space continues to grow.

The project has been stuck on the drawing board as construction costs in the West Australian capital escalate.

At the end of a development cycle in which about a dozen towers have been added to the city skyline, Melbourne still has three of Australia's 10 biggest mooted office projects.

Softdrink millionaire Spiro Stamoulis, C-bus development arm Australian Super Developments and joint venture partners Multiplex and Babcock & Brown all figure in Melbourne proposals which, if they proceed, will add 142,000sqm to CBD office stock.

The Stamoulis family's 559-587 Collins Street proposal is the largest, where a 56,000sqm, $180 million office building is planned on vacant land adjoining the Enterprise House site.

ASD is still without a pre-commitment for a 44,000sqm building it wants to construct at the Grand Central Gardens site at the corner of William and Bourke streets.

Sites are few and far between in the Brisbane CBD, but one of the largest is QIC's 70-80 Eagle Street Central Plaza 3 site, where an 11,500sqm building is planned.

Adelaide is punching above its weight, with seven CBD office buildings already under construction and five more planned.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16656003%255E25658,00.html

[CULWULLA]

beat me to it.lol
amazing how Perth has largest planned office bldg! good stuff.
Sydney's 33 Bligh is going to be great. 32storets doesnt sound tall, but its standing on a 50m stilts with tall top section reaching 188m with spire 219m. not bad.

heres the 2nd page of report
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/3517/sydneyspace29or.jpg

[CULWULLA]

bump

[CULWULLA]

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/2605/boom4ns.jpg

[papervagina]

Where did Clover Moore get this idea that Ciy of Sydney means the CBD? The CBD might not be able to take too many more residents, but there's plenty of room within the rest of the council's boundarys - remember Green Square, Clover?

[Brizer]

Good old semantics let us down every time. When someone says things such as "Sydney", "the city", "central Sydney", "city centre", etc., it can be a bloody minefield. All these can refer to a range of ideas and places, and then context becomes a bit crucial! In Clover's favour, in this case, I think we have to assume she meant the CBD, as I know she is aware of Green Square as I have seen her in it. And she spoke positively of the Macquarie-City-Airport development arc, curve, sweep...

[CULWULLA]

not sure what will come on this potential bldg or site. i catually love the brutal 60;s facade. the Goodsell bldg is 84m tall and its site can go to 120m.

http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/1466/goodsell0el.jpg

[CULWULLA]

finally the tower next to KPMG is about to start.more office for sydney which is good news
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid200/p8fd10bd18995d65d36c071327ce53047/f084aad2.jpg

[Aussie Steve]

Great news for Sydney. :D

[christarrant]

finally the tower next to KPMG is about to start.more office for sydney which is good news
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid200/p8fd10bd18995d65d36c071327ce53047/f084aad2.jpg

That's AMEX isn't it ? It's going to be a big 12 storey brick, but hopefully it will look nice like KPMG. Still a brick is a brick.......:(

[Mephisto]

another king street dwharf?

[CULWULLA]

lol, well this side of KPMG is limited 50m BUT north side of KPMG has a 300m height limit. ;-):cucumber:

[Mephisto]

lol, well this side of KPMG is limited 50m BUT north side of KPMG has a 300m height limit. ;-):cucumber:
And lets hope they end up utilising some of that height in EDH.
I have a feeling though that EDH will be 2x 160m towers and the rest of the buildings will be low rise.

[CULWULLA]

trust me, there will be some rather large towers for edh.

[ParraMan]

That's good news, will do more for the immediate area, and Amex have chosen o remain in the cbd, rather than opting for a business park setting (don't know if that was ever an option). This part of Sydney is unrecognisable from 5 years ago, and I have faith that EDH will add to this in a positive way!

[CULWULLA]

the buzz down this part of town was so evident yesterday when i checked out kens. Not only is Dupain and Pheonix dev Uc but now the new Amex tower willl start next to KPMG. theres also new energy oz substation (cnr sussex/erskine) and with Westpac about to open the precinct is b00ming. EDH will fit right in adjacent with some MLC size office towers and huge parkland areas. cant wait.

[christarrant]

thanks for your continued 'positivity' Cul. I must admit that I do get a bit cynical and cheesed off sometimes but all in all Sydney does really kick butt

[christarrant]

Also, www.propertyweb.com.au reports that a legal firm has just entered the market seeking "significant new PURPOSE BUILT office space in the CBD". My guess is that want a fair whack of space in the northern CBD ( where all the legal eagles are ) which could mean that those Bligh St proposals could be a goer ! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

[Westonian]

the buzz down this part of town was so evident yesterday when i checked out kens. Not only is Dupain and Pheonix dev Uc but now the new Amex tower willl start next to KPMG. theres also new energy oz substation (cnr sussex/erskine) and with Westpac about to open the precinct is b00ming. EDH will fit right in adjacent with some MLC size office towers and huge parkland areas. cant wait.
I pray to God, Allah, Buddah and even Mab that you are correct!

[Muse]

Well, word is out that ANZ is looking for between 20,000 - 25,000 sqm of office space and will vacate its Martin Place building. The poor thing down on the corner (pic below) has become redundant, after 35 years. Not even a fancy podium makeover a few years ago could save this one. I do hope they don't pull it down though, as Sydney hardly has any of these international style slabs. It just needs a full renovation (and upgrading of wiring etc where necessary), internally & externally.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/509/379ANZ.jpg

...

[CULWULLA]

^even if they pulled it down it could only be replaced with a same size bldg due to shadow restrictions on martin pl. i think it will stay which is a good thing

[Muse]

My only concern is that sometimes the financiers find it more economically viable to construct a newer building than spend squillions on a spruce up. Nothing to do with height CULWULLA.

[zach24]

the buzz down this part of town was so evident yesterday when i checked out kens. Not only is Dupain and Pheonix dev Uc but now the new Amex tower willl start next to KPMG. theres also new energy oz substation (cnr sussex/erskine) and with Westpac about to open the precinct is b00ming. EDH will fit right in adjacent with some MLC size office towers and huge parkland areas. cant wait.


I just read that Pheonix will no longer be a residential - multiplex has ditched the 13 storey apartment tower and is now planning to develop an office building on the partly done site.
apparently feel victim to slowing apartment sales in city - there were expressions of interest for just 20 of the apartments out of 194.

office tower is much better than residential in my view anyway so this is great news

[CULWULLA]

^ now im confused. multiplex are going to go ahead with the 13storey DA next to KPMG which is adjacent to Pheonix.?

looks like ATO have found a new home in site c @ world square!
todays fin rev

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/1858/ato1fh.jpg

[Muse]

Huh? Last reports had the W.S. East site's building at 13,000 sqm but the ATO want to let 20,000 sqm in a 22,000 sq m project? Sombody has got their wires crossed. Probably me....but 22,000 sqm is the same size as lettable space in 100 Pacific Hwy, which has a huge foortprint and twice the height. I know the East site's footprint is rather long however...

Anyway, it has to vacate the Centrepoint podium office levels while the big refurb happens. Sooner the better, so roll on 2007.

[finn]

Huh? Last reports had the W.S. East site's building at 13,000 sqm but the ATO want to let 20,000 sqm in a 22,000 sq m project? Sombody has got their wires crossed. Probably me....but 22,000 sqm is the same size as lettable space in 100 Pacific Hwy, which has a huge foortprint and twice the height. I know the East site's footprint is rather long however...

Anyway, it has to vacate the Centrepoint podium office levels while the big refurb happens. Sooner the better, so roll on 2007.

I think 13,000sqm was the size of Amex's requirement rather than the size of the World Square building.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on getting Centrepoint cleared out so there aren't any hold-ups in redevelopment! Centrepoint office levels currently look horrendous.

Most forum members probably wish some of these leasing deals were happening in the bigger proposed towers, but I think this is all a good thing. Soaking up the space in these low-rise developments leaves fewer options for those looking for space and means they will consider the big towers. If companies want big floorplates then the alternative to developments like King St Wharf and World Square may have been suburban office campuses, so at least it's keeping them in the CBD!

[CULWULLA]

from todays australian
doh
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7779/westpacc6sn.jpg

[Cariad]

I have friends in the 60 MP building and they were meant to be moving, the reason they are told that they are keeping this building was because there was no approriate place they could be located as a dept effectively meaning there was no room for them. Needless to say they are very dissapointed as they were excited about moving.

[Muse]

Great. Westpac still needs more space. I'm glad it's leaving its presence on Martin Place felt though as I feared that it would pull out altogether. We saw one bank close up shop for good on the strip (as it closed up shop), so another one completely leaving would just disperse it all.

I think 13,000sqm was the size of Amex's requirement rather than the size of the World Square building.True. I went to the city model last week and the East office componenet certainly has a very laaaaaaarge footprint. It's mega.

...

[CULWULLA]

ok, more stuff from todays PROPERTY AUSTRALIA!

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/9018/boomtime7bv.jpg

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/2707/boomtime29mv.jpg

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/1566/boomtime37zv.jpg

[CULWULLA]

things are looking good
http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/7567/syddemand1lr.jpg

[Mr Centrepoint]

If this doesn't end up making a 250m proposal... THEN THEY'RE ALL STUPID AND SHOULD BE SLAPPED!!

[Gargarensis]

are john boyd, 33 bligh, and midcity all waiting for tenant pre-commitments? i wonder if the state of the office market will help push these hopefully up-and-coming major cbd projects off the drawing boards and into cold, hard, skyscraping reality.

[CULWULLA]

well ANZ are looking for 25,000sqm and 33 bligh st is 25,400sqm. perfect!!
ive been told John boyd WILL happen but not this year.yes it will require some precommittment but it wont take long for companies to realize there on a good thing with john boyd tower.its views and location is excellent.
Also Mid shity centre will probably start 2007. there are some compa