#Approved : 1 Richard Johnson Square - 30st/205m/office (CBD north)

[CULWULLA]

These were the two winners of the office towers planned for the Kindersley House site in Oconnell St, Sydney earlier this year. apparently next year the ew proposala will be coming in again! these two werent good enough! both 180m tall.

rice/daubney tower had a north slab rising to 202m +40m spire=242m.
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid42/pb42aff57f5ccd91ab6f8e3b0224afbf2/fcf0a608.jpg


i liked this one the best with the fishnet look! the spire went to 230m also.
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid42/p4908d36ac7ce0348d34f7c959ea988b4/fcf0a60a.jpg

[Fabian]

I liked the fishnet one. I would of liked to see more renderings of that design. That should of been the winner as it was much better than the rice/daubney tower which looked a bit like Norwich House up the road.

I hope the new design competition contains even better designs than the ones we have here.

Anyway Culwulla, how is progress with the new schemes for the site?

[CULWULLA]

the competition is hapeneing early next year so , ill let you know progress as it happens!;)

[SinCity]

Should be agreat design once complete, hoever I would like it to be up to tha roof at 235m like that previous proposal which was excellent.

[Fabian]

Culwulla posted about a month or two ago that there is one 235 metre proposal for the site but did not give further details. There are 150 metre tall proposals for the site too.

[rondeez]

fishnet one looks nice and unique!

is there anything like it in the country?

[Fabian]

I don't think so Rondeez. I'd be a pretty unique building if built here.

[Noonos]

who here reckons foster copied that design for swiss re? haha oh well at least the same design got built ;)

[Fabian]

He wouldn't of stolen it Noonos. This proposal for Kindersley came up after the designs for Swiss RE had been finalised.

[Noonos]

ah, I see, maybe it was vice versa...Oh well i like the design and im going to britain in october so i will definately take some pics ;)

[CULWULLA]

big news from todays Fin review!

Principal Office Fund who are bldg 126 phillip street want to develope the Kindersley House site!!:banana:
POF are engaging Bovis lend lease to build the 50 storey office tower!!
il let you guys know when models/heights are known!
cheers

[SinCity]

50 stories = 180m+ ........ Sounds good to me ......

[finn]

Yeah, I read the blurb on AFR this morning, and thought it must be Kindersley!

When is the new design competition for this proposal supposed to come through?

I am really hoping that 50 storeys is all above ground - although I am doubtful - most likely 10 underground and 40 above ground or something. If it was 50 storeys above ground, then a height >180m would be a given.

Oh well, they might do something on the roof (i.e. structural crown, big spire) that could bring it up, and balance the tower with the other big boys up that end of town.

[Grollo]

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by CULWULLA </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>big news from todays Fin review!

Principal Office Fund who are bldg 126 phillip street want to develope the Kindersley House site!!:banana:
POF are engaging Bovis lend lease to build the 50 storey office tower!!
il let you guys know when models/heights are known!
cheers</td></tr>
</table>

There was a drawing of the tower with the article and it looked only 30-40 levels at the most, but it was a really crap drawing :-)

If they proposed a 30 level tower on this site they should reject it as not high enough! Sydney really needs to max out all of these available sites to meet demand or rents in the long term will be pushed up way too high.

[spazpecker]

I have the article in front of me. It looks significantly taller than Mulpha House (right next to it ) and it also has a spire.
My guess is 170m to roof.
The most positive thing about the article was that the developers are keen to go ahead in the next development cycle given "strong tenant interest" in it !!

[CULWULLA]

The height we have as a stage 1 DA model is 178m high. It is allowed an architectural feature and spire which will certainly take the height to over 200m!
should be interesting over next few months with the design comp happening again!
:D

[Fabian]

Good news!

I wish the tower was a bit taller itself. The site has alot of potential seeing it is in the financial district, where the big boys want to be.

[spazpecker]

Here is the AFR pic- with some associated Spaz scribble !
You can see it sitting hard against Mulpha House,which is 35 stories and 127m.
When you compare Kindersley vs Mulpha it looks to be about 45-50 stories and around 160-170m to roof.
However, as Cul said its 178m to roof so I'll take it !

http://members.fortunecity.com/pistol2/EEEeast.jpg

[CULWULLA]

Spaz,
thats 178m from OConnell street which is 6metres lower from Bligh st which is the pic view! thus 172m from Bligh st!
cheers

[Fabian]

Good rendering. It looks like it has a sloping roof.

[Noonos]

no it doesnt :|

this is excellent news cul, cant wait for the possibilty of a architecural feature and spire!:guns1:

[routemarker]

should be a great addition to sydneys dense CBD

[CULWULLA]

the rendering that spaz posted is the same as the model i posted ! its the same bldg! its just a basic drawing. hopefully a design comp will happen soon!;)

[spazpecker]

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by CULWULLA </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>the rendering that spaz posted is the same as the model i posted ! ;)</td></tr>
</table>

Sorry Cul, are you talking about the Rice Daubney model ( the first one in this thread ?).

[CULWULLA]

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by spazpecker </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top><table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by CULWULLA </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>the rendering that spaz posted is the same as the model i posted ! ;)</td></tr>
</table>

Sorry Cul, are you talking about the Rice Daubney model ( the first one in this thread ?).</td></tr>
</table>
yeah, the render just left off the details. But what ever POF will build i can assure you it will be big and at least 178m! thats the good news! hope they get Foster to assist in drawings! lol

[finn]

If I was at home, I'd post one of the renderings I have of the site drawn from the same angle...but with the 235m Bligh Apartments rising above it! I don't think we should really mention that proposal anymore...its too depressing. :(

[Fabian]

I know it's depressing Finn!, but wouldn't be nice to post it for other's who may be interested in seeing the rendering such as myself.

[CULWULLA]

well its not good news for us "taller is better" fans! The latest Kindersley House model (now known as 33 Bligh st) has come down in height and now its approx same height as adjacent 127m Mulpha house! :bleep: the 'void" has been removed so its lost 50m of height!. The tower has plant room structures that go to140mapprox.
BT Tower people apparently are to develope the bldg in next construction cycle.
So its been approved as a 235m residential tower and probably end up a 130m office tower!! thats nearly 100metres dif!!:bash:

[SinCity]

Bloody SHITS! :mad:

[Fabian]

Very disappointing to see it scaled down again:(

It's not even going to impact on the skyline.

I hope they scale up the project and add some more floors.

[spazpecker]

So, taking John Boyd into consideration, what is there proposed that is over 150m ?

[Tony P]

:bleep: :mad: :bleep: :mad: :bleep: :mad: :bleep: :mad: :bleep: :mad: :bleep: :mad: :bleep: :mad: :bleep: :mad: :bleep: :mad: :bleep: :mad: :bleep: :mad: :bleep: :mad: :bleep: :mad: :bleep: :mad: :bleep: :mad: :bleep:

Sydney is going to have the biggest collection of "490 footers" in the world pretty soon...

[CULWULLA]

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by spazpecker </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>So, taking John Boyd into consideration, what is there proposed that is over 150m ?</td></tr>
</table>
1.besides KENS which its weather beacon will go to 170m,
2.the 150m+ 101 bathurst.
3.the 140m Mid City might have a architectural feature which goes to 150m+.
4.Maybe Wynyards mystery tower?

[Fabian]

With Wynyard, thats if they get the height scaled up again.

[CULWULLA]

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by Fabian </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>With Wynyard, thats if they get the height scaled up again.</td></tr>
</table>
the scaled down height was always going to be 110-150m high!
lets hope they warm to 150m scheme.

[CULWULLA]

well heres the latest news!! The city planner hates how the latest proposal is only as high as Mulpha House! So she ie going to recommend to developer that it has landmark status! thus it has to go to 170m!!No one would want to develope the site if it gets post amongst other 20-30storied bldgs.

Also probably the biggest bit of news (its hush hush at moment) but a large city residential builder has expressed interest in developing the site!!!!
:eek:
remebering residential can go to 235m!!!!!!;)

[Fabian]

Why a separate height limit for residential and one for office. I find that to be crazy. The height limit for an office tower on the site should go to 235 metres because it enables more development and office space on the site.

[CULWULLA]

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by Fabian </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>Why a separate height limit for residential and one for office. I find that to be crazy. The height limit for an office tower on the site should go to 235 metres because it enables more development and office space on the site.</td></tr>
</table>
remember fab! the floor space ratio allowed for office towers in Sydney is 12;1. ratio for residential is 17;1- thus a taller bldg!!!

[Fabian]

12:1 for office. Thats a bit low.

Do any of you think that this should be increased to provide incentive for developers?

[finn]

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by CULWULLA </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>well heres the latest news!! The city planner hates how the latest proposal is only as high as Mulpha House! So she ie going to recommend to developer that it has landmark status! thus it has to go to 170m!!No one would want to develope the site if it gets post amongst other 20-30storied bldgs.

Also probably the biggest bit of news (its hush hush at moment) but a large city residential builder has expressed interest in developing the site!!!!
:eek:
remebering residential can go to 235m!!!!!!;)</td></tr>
</table>

Well, with the possible potential for a residential full-height (fingers crossed) if things work out ideally, I will post the rendering of the Bligh Apartments tower!

Look at this soaring, stunning proposal!

http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/~afindlay/bligh.jpg

[CULWULLA]

great render Finn!!! the planner was spewing when this one was shelved! heres a pic i took today of 140m scheme. It goes to CSPC for talks tommorrow!

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid53/pc769d9e939135d21b8dc7a98c57930b3/fc8ce656.jpg

Fabian, the 12;1 ratio is set in concrete! it cant be increased -period! Its a planning rule brought in by CSPC back in 1990's.
the reason why the Bligh Apartments got approval at 235m is this--
-the tower has a 60m high stilts
-the floor plates are very narrow
-the top 50m is plant and concrete blade!
So really its only 125m/40storeys of residential use!
This is how it got to its extreme height!
Its 235m above Oconnel or 229m above Bligh street!

[Fabian]

Great one Finn. It's one of the most realistic renderings I've ever seen. Looks very impressive.

They should also buy out the buildings on Hunter St to provide even more space for a tall tower.

And that last scheme. It's the worst so far. Don't you agree?

[finn]

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by Fabian </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>Great one Finn. It's one of the most realistic renderings I've ever seen. Looks very impressive.

They should also buy out the buildings on Hunter St to provide even more space for a tall tower.

And that last scheme. It's the worst so far. Don't you agree?</td></tr>
</table>

Actually, the current 140m proposal kinda represents the designs for the site coming around full circle.

I remember seeing renderings for the site of very similar proposals (both in height/proportion/design) way back in 1997/98, for a similar office tower scheme.

Culwulla showed this when he was displaying the progression of proposals for the site in model-form, in the little glass case to the side, next to the Town Hall model.

After these initial proposals, the scheme suddenly rocketed to a 235m residential tower! Then back to office, at heights of around 180m (with spires to 235m), and now we're back at the beginning with this lame proposal. :(

We can only hope that the proposal cycle starts again, and this time stops on a full-height tower (residential if that's what it takes), and it actually gets built!

[Fabian]

Here is a picture showing the evolution of the proposal from a tower about 130 metres to a slender 235m tower.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid29/pb063389e037ec5de54efcc387ac4fa7a/fd595301.jpg

Were either now going to see it shrink further and further, or it will be a merry ground where it will go up or down.

[CULWULLA]

Well it has to be a first! the council rejected the latest proposal for kindersley house in saying it was 'too short"! They want the winning scheme to be altered slightly to at least 170m high

winning scheme-
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid42/pb42aff57f5ccd91ab6f8e3b0224afbf2/fcf0a608.jpg



Also just on the potential developers, MERITON are enquiring about the site!
;)
If they want to build the approved 60storey/235m BLIGH APARTMENTS they have until May to express interest or that DA is gone forever!! But they are also interested in developing the site as office use!!
So it will be interesting over next few moths.

Finns render- 235m Bligh Apartments- "it might make a comeback"??

http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/~afindlay/bligh.jpg

[SinCity]

Wow that last render is fantastic. I really hope for its return, so lets hope Harry T can pull a swifty .... ;)

[fro]

Fabian, that render is bloody fantasticI wonder where u got that from? Anyway, let's hope meriton get's in on the act and can finance this tower. Imagine if it goes ahead...

*sigh* I better settle down... no use dreaming is there...?

But, DAMN!

[SinCity]

I always wondered as to why World Tower never went to the max of 235m but stayed at 230m. Surely they could have whacked on some 5m high rubbish on the roof to get that maximum.

I have always suspected that HarryT wanted to keep that gap so as to develop a next Sydney Tallest, even they it would only be by a few metres.

I hope they by up the site, it would be a great site for the city's next tallest, even if it is by a few shitty metres ;)

[Mar]

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by CULWULLA </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>Well it has to be a first! the council rejected the latest proposal for kindersley house in saying it was 'too short"! They want the winning scheme to be altered slightly to at least 170m high</td></tr>
</table>

LIES! I can't believe it! It can't be true! SCC is meant to be evil remember?

Seriously though, this is fantastic news. I also hope that the 235m tower gets built. It looks amazing.

[Fabian]

A dramatic turn in events. Why a change of heart?

Also great to hear that the 235 metre proposal may be considered as well.

[Noonos]

WOW! so much has happened when you dont veiw a thread. I never realised that Bligh Apts was so thin! almost like (Pangas?) House!

I really hope trigaboff gets his wanker act together and builds sydneys 2 tallest!

[MrTall]

The 235m proposal for Bligh Apartments is pure goodness. But this would have to be an expensive tower and I'm not sure whether Meriton can pull off a Mirvac.

[finn]

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by fro </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>Fabian, that render is bloody fantasticI wonder where u got that from? Anyway, let's hope meriton get's in on the act and can finance this tower. Imagine if it goes ahead...

*sigh* I better settle down... no use dreaming is there...?

But, DAMN!</td></tr>
</table>

Actually, I (being finn ;)) got the render out of an Annual Report brochure from Sydney City Council. As the picture says, the scheme was listed under "Approved" at the time the report was released.

The tower proposal was called "Bligh Apartments" and as Noonos mentioned, was really thin from the angle shown there!

Previously, I would never have pinned any hope on Meriton picking this one up and building it to the quality it is - but now that they've been doing such a beautiful job with World Tower, I think it is a possibility!

The current design has about 250 apartments in it, so if Meriton screw around with the internal layout a bit they can probably bring the apartment count up to 350-400 apartments, and make it a viable project (by their definition of "viable" ;))!

Here is a picture of the tower in Sydney's northern CBD - back in the day when it was the current DA for the site and was expected to be built:

http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/~afindlay/blighmod.jpg

You can also note Foster's original design for 126 Phillip St in the picture, and Aurora Place still under construction! :)

[Noonos]

WOWSERS! BT's been around for ages! and approved for ages! it looks as the the cage was encloded by glass? im glad we wainted till now!

[hk-star]

Oh. Oh yes. re that 235m proposal. And what a great sign that the planner rejected the little midget building! Culwulla does this signal some kind of internal shift at the council? Politics? Does the outgoing Sartor administration want to go out with a bang or something?

God I love the "stilts" on that 235m tower. Gives it this real unique and quite high tech look. And makes the land look real valuable for them to be jamming everything possible onto it. I know this corner well and would just love to see that building!

Culwulla use your influence! Tell the planner the "word on the street" is that if the 235m resi tower isn't built there is likely to be civil upheaval, riots etc..

And the best thing is, that tower is about as far as you can get from that awful, omnipresent beach sand colour "fat girl" tower you see everywhere around here

hkstar

[Fabian]

More model pictures. I took these myself

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid25/p8eba1403c26cd2f34c316e2ffac9f036/fd8ca213.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid25/pf14735f00eb89df5318adf1797ae4cee/fd8ca367.jpg

It's impact on the skyline

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid25/p0556d9d0fcad1104dd203898963ae402/fd8ca21f.jpg

[Noonos]

notice, you cant see centerpoint behind it, so maybe a 225m option would be considered? but im happy with 235!
:)

[Fabian]

Thats the only downside to building a 235metre tower on the site. The loss of Centrepoint and MLC.

Read Culwulla's post from earlier, Meriton could build Bligh Apartments, but the clock is ticking

tick..tick...tick...

[Grollo]

Sounds like the Sydney City Council took my advice hehe. 140 metres is a ridiculous waste of such a rare prime site in the middle of the CBD.

How large are the floorplates for each of the office proposals? Maybe the developer doesn't want to build the winning office scheme because the floorplates are too small?

I know floorplates under 1500 square metres are very unpopular at the moment with most new towers having floorplates around 2000 square metres.

So if they can't have a fat office tower, maybe (hopefully) a tall apartment tower would be a more economically viable use of the site.

[finn]

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by Grollo </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>Sounds like the Sydney City Council took my advice hehe. 140 metres is a ridiculous waste of such a rare prime site in the middle of the CBD.

How large are the floorplates for each of the office proposals? Maybe the developer doesn't want to build the winning office scheme because the floorplates are too small?

I know floorplates under 1500 square metres are very unpopular at the moment with most new towers having floorplates around 2000 square metres.

So if they can't have a fat office tower, maybe (hopefully) a tall apartment tower would be a more economically viable use of the site.</td></tr>
</table>

Yeah, I am of the same thought pattern as you on that one Grollo!

The total floor space for the tower was sitting at only 23,000sq.m I think! The current shorter office tower proposal (140m) and the previous taller one (170m) had the same floor space, its just that the taller one was on stilts, creating an amazing lobby space at its base.

[CULWULLA]

The 235m Bligh Apartments have a floor dimension of only 19m deep x 55m wide. So its about 1000sqm per floor.

Bligh Apartments RL is 247m.
Sydneys highest above se alevel-

Sydney tower-331m (roof-295m)
MLC-250m
Bligh Apts-247m
World Tower-246m
GPT-244m
Chifley-242m (spire-267m)
Citigroup-228m (spire 265m)
126 phillipst-224m (spires-267m)
Qantas-204m
AMP-203m


:)

[Noonos]

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by CULWULLA </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>The 235m Bligh Apartments have a floor dimension of only 19m deep x 55m wide. So its about 1000sqm per floor.

Bligh Apartments RL is 247m.
Sydneys highest above se alevel-

Sydney tower-331m (roof-295m)
MLC-250m
Bligh Apts-247m
World Tower-246m
GPT-244m
Chifley-242m (spire-267m)
Citigroup-228m (spire 265m)
126 phillipst-224m (spires-267m)
Qantas-204m
AMP-203m


:)</td></tr>
</table>

im surprised GPT has a lower RL then WT, i guess the fact that its so tall and on a small hill gives you a high RL impression

[CULWULLA]

this went to council again last night to negotiate with developers. Thye want to build 30storey/143m tower but council want them to build the competition winner from last year.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid42/pb42aff57f5ccd91ab6f8e3b0224afbf2/fcf0a608.jpg

its not to bad.
heights-
45storeys
height to roof-184m
height to north blade -202m
height to architectural spire-242m
So its as high as BT Tower, Chfley & Citigroup Tower!!!

ill let yu know over next few months want the outcome is.

[SinCity]

Thanks for the news Cul, anything as close as possible to the Bligh House design would be fantastic, esp considering height. It is a prominent spot and thus looking from the harbour this building would be a great "gap filler" on the skyline ........

[Fabian]

Not too bad height wise with Sydney possibly getting another 200 m plus tower.

The design is definately better than a rectanglar building but the fishnet one would of been better.

[CULWULLA]

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by Fabian </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>Not too bad height wise with Sydney possibly getting another 200 m plus tower.

The design is definately better than a rectanglar building but the fishnet one would of been better.</td></tr>
</table>
I talked to planner today, and things are looking more positive for the taller proposal. the LM said NO to the shorter cheaper version! I asked about the "curved fishnet" design which had landmark qualities. the planner said it also was everyone favs but "money" was the factor with that one! it was just too expensive to build! bummer.

[AltiusAltiusAltius]

Not good enough! Hope it gets rejected hehe

Blight St Apartments were the only decent one......:moods:

Everything else proposed for that site has been such a mediocre design and not tall enough....

Maybe in the next development cycle?? ;)

[finn]

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by AltiusAltiusAltius </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>Not good enough! Hope it gets rejected hehe

Blight St Apartments were the only decent one......:moods:

Everything else proposed for that site has been such a mediocre design and not tall enough....

Maybe in the next development cycle?? ;)</td></tr>
</table>

I agree! I'd rather they don't build anything on that site for the time being, than build that ugly design!

Then, when someone with some sense of what an attractive tower is, and some recognition of just how valuable the height limit potential of that site is (and there are aren't too many of these sites around!) comes along, they can build something at least as nice (and tall ;)) as the Bligh Apartments were! :)

[Fabian]

RIP to Bligh Apartments, 1999-2003.

This residential tower was to radically alter the Sydney skyline at 235 metres tall and would of towered over Bligh St in the heart of the Sydney CBD. Will be sadly missed by us all.

[Sydguy1]

Fabian what was the point of that post.You are always stating the fucking obvious STOP IT :rant: :rant:

[Fabian]

Originally posted by Sydguy1
Fabian what was the point of that post.You are always stating the fucking obvious STOP IT :rant: :rant:

I was making a tribute to this tower.

[CULWULLA]

The group who are developer BT Tower have bougth this site and WILL develope it in next construction cycle!!! they have been told to develope the site as OFFICE and build to 170-80m tall to give the site its fuill potential. A recent meeting sent architects back to drawing board because the bldg submitted was only 120m tall!
They were virtually ordered to build it 180m high! This was conditions by CSPC!"Its landmark status so please design it that way"!!- was a quote by a planner!
there is a god!!lol

[Fabian]

Could they let the building be approved without a void and have it filled with office?

And I don't think the building will be a landmark at 180 metres. It would have to be at least 200-235 metres if it were to stand out.

[CULWULLA]

Originally posted by Fabian
Could they let the building be approved without a void and have it filled with office?

And I don't think the building will be a landmark at 180 metres. It would have to be at least 200-235 metres if it were to stand out.
of course it would be a landmark at 180m!! It would be the tallest in the area! the bldgs either side are only 130m.
The void canyt be filled in. The void is to lift the floor space upwards. (like how capita got its height). the site only gives a certain amount of floor space.The bldg wil be 180m + a spire feature which will take it anywhere from 200-250m.

[Noonos]

FINALLY


CSCP have finally got their minds right! Ensure its tall! lol

Im glad well at least get a 180m tower in the area, i mean it wont block out centrepoint etc, but it'll still make an impact!

[Fabian]

Originally posted by CULWULLA
of course it would be a landmark at 180m!! It would be the tallest in the area! the bldgs either side are only 130m.
The void canyt be filled in. The void is to lift the floor space upwards. (like how capita got its height). the site only gives a certain amount of floor space.The bldg wil be 180m + a spire feature which will take it anywhere from 200-250m.

This building at the corner of Bligh and Hunter Streets has to be razed so a taller tower can be built, not to mention the sheer uglyness of the design and how of place the tower is.

http://www.propertylook.com.au/listings/MJM/MJM_132/300/MJM_132_21005_12624.jpg

[MrTall]

Originally posted by CULWULLA
of course it would be a landmark at 180m!! It would be the tallest in the area! the bldgs either side are only 130m.
The void canyt be filled in. The void is to lift the floor space upwards. (like how capita got its height). the site only gives a certain amount of floor space.The bldg wil be 180m + a spire feature which will take it anywhere from 200-250m.

That is planning gone mad. Let me get this straight- In order to satisfy FSR and height requirements, council is demanding that the developer build the tower off huge columns thereby providing a huge void at the building's base?

Sheer freakin lunacy. :bash:

If the council want a 180m building then they should revise the FSR requirement for the site. Do they have no sense of economic practicality?

[CULWULLA]

Originally posted by Fabian
This building at the corner of Bligh and Hunter Streets has to be razed so a taller tower can be built, not to mention the sheer uglyness of the design and how of place the tower is.

http://www.propertylook.com.au/listings/MJM/MJM_132/300/MJM_132_21005_12624.jpg
50-58 Hunter st isnt part of the site, so it stays!
Mr Tall, this site is an exception and there are many reasons why it has to reach its full height potential!
the "void" or stilts are actually a cheap alternative to office space.
but it all comes down to making the development worth while. And councillors dont think it will work if its just another run of the mill 130m bldg on such a sought after CBD site!

[Fabian]

I know Cul that isn't part of the site. I was suggesting that they should buy it and add it to the development.

[CULWULLA]

kindersleys back!!!
the new latest design is in. its ok design. It has its 50m void/atrium and its taller than mulpha house at least!
ill post a b/w elavation tonight!
heights-
height to main roof-145m
height to blade-152m (this is actual height of building)
height to spire-168m
no of floors -24 (equal to 40 due to atrium)

So its a 500footer at least!
Its 17m higher than mulphas roof.and spire even higher. The blade which runs along north wall that adjoins Mulhpa is 3m thick and 40m wide so its a substantial element! the spire rises above this!
I think this might be the one to be built as its now has landmark qualities and its higher than Mulpha and has a 50 sun access atrium! these were the key points in last meeting!

[Mar]

Bah, what happened to 180m? That just sucks.

[Fabian]

A disgrace!!!. Not a good utlilsation of the site. Bring back the 180metre plus proposals

[CULWULLA]

well there must of been a good reason. anyway ive also contacted rice daubney and they said they are lodging DA within 2 months (which will consist of new model) and new office tower will commence "sometime next year". so this is great news for Sydney's office sector!!

[finn]

Originally posted by CULWULLA
well there must of been a good reason. anyway ive also contacted rice daubney and they said they are lodging DA within 2 months (which will consist of new model) and new office tower will commence "sometime next year". so this is great news for Sydney's office sector!!

Kind of great news for the office sector...except of course, this proposal has even less office space in it than a building like the new KPMG HQ, which is lke 16 storeys. KPMG = ~26,000 sq.m, whereas Kindersley = ~23,000 sq.m!

So it's not exactly a huge vote of confidence in the sector, like KENS is, but I've gotta say it's an excellent height consiidering the small amount of floor space, thanks to the tall void and the small floorplates! :)

[spazpecker]

Mmmmmmm..............:bleep:

I can't remember the last time I spotted Mulpha House in the skyline, so I don't expect to notice this thing either !
The design may have landmark qualities but who the bloody hell is going to see it so that it can be considered a bloody landmark ??

Sure it's a 500 footer but that's 275 feet shorter than what it COULD have been ( 775 feet / 235m) and 90 feet shorter than it SHOULD have atleast been ( 180 feet / 592 metres).

Thanks for the update Cul. I'm very dissapointed though. Yes, it's good that more office space is being added to the CBD but projects like this simply delay a real landmark project ( 200m + )which most of us are hanging out for.

[CULWULLA]

yeah its a shame its not going to be taller.
anyway heres the west elevation. The glass facade will be light bluse glass and steel and concrete structural elemants aka-WT. it actually looks quite good!Its also now known as 33 BLIGH STREET.

https://www.emporis.com/files_transfer/6/2003/09/219605.jpg

[AltiusAltiusAltius]

Hope this 'shortie' never gets approved! :mad:

And maybe some time in the future 200+ proposal will be back (office or residential)....... :D

[finn]

The whole thing has come full circle - this kind of scale was what was first proposed for the site. Then they had to get our hopes up with Bligh Apartments, only to go back to the original and very average scheme. :|

What was the point of the whole exercise I ask?!?! :bleep:

[Tony P]

Better now?!

http://www.urbanaustralia.org/k2.jpg

:guns1:

[CULWULLA]

Originally posted by AltiusAltiusAltius
Hope this 'shortie' never gets approved! :mad:

And maybe some time in the future 200+ proposal will be back (office or residential)....... :D
bad news! this WILL be approved !lol a 500footer is ok. i think we should forget 235m Bligh apartments ever existed! The office proposal had a height limit of 170-180m but apparently this also was amended due to allowed floor space ratio, thus only allowed 23,000 sqm! thus 1000sqm per floor. So the 50m atrium has helped push it to higher than Mulpha. Its a very complicated issue this whole DA process.
lol at tonys design. (we all wish this).

[zulu69]

Man this sucks big time!!! Wasted opportunity might as well now build anything at all and should wait for someone who has the balls (THAKRAL anyone;) to build a truly worthwhile scraper!!!
LANDMARK my ass!!! honestly this would be a landmark 'maybe' in Adelaide (no offence to anyone..but..)

Hey guys on totally unrelated topic. What is that proposed buliding on page 3. The one to the right of the bligh apartment?? Can someone give me the news of it?? it looks great!!

[CULWULLA]

Originally posted by zulu69
Man this sucks big time!!! Wasted opportunity might as well now build anything at all and should wait for someone who has the balls (THAKRAL anyone;) to build a truly worthwhile scraper!!!
LANDMARK my ass!!! honestly this would be a landmark 'maybe' in Adelaide (no offence to anyone..but..)

Hey guys on totally unrelated topic. What is that proposed buliding on page 3. The one to the right of the bligh apartment?? Can someone give me the news of it?? it looks great!!
this one?
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid25/p8eba1403c26cd2f34c316e2ffac9f036/fd8ca213.jpg
its just a foam model i did of ANGEL PLACE DA- 1989. This was the tallest building ever approved in Sydney at 56st/244m to roof!
It was all set to go with ground excavated and then the crash of 1990 happend!!:bash:
heres an elevation. it was going to have similar elements as the Colonial bank (also designed by Dino Burritini).


http://www.skyscrapers.com/files/transfer/6/2003/01/180011.jpg

[Fabian]

Looking at the rendering, it will not be a landmark if the tower's top just pips 25 Bligh.

The council should throw away the planning rules for once and just let a 235 metre on the site or even as I suggested buy the building next door facing Hunter St to add space.

[CULWULLA]

Originally posted by Fabian
Looking at the rendering, it will not be a landmark if the tower's top just pips 25 Bligh.

The council should throw away the planning rules for once and just let a 235 metre on the site or even as I suggested buy the building next door facing Hunter St to add space.

i knew that side elevation would confuse people with what the main roof is. The spire doesnt start from main roof. if you look half way up the roof structure this is the top of the blade. so if you saw this from north or south it puts more of its bulk above Mulpha ! plus the spire would be lite up at night so it will be a rather prominent!

[zulu69]

Wow ok i had no idea that the pic was that ancient. But that proposed tower would have looked great. From the drawings i saw i never knew it looked that nice front on. Always saw it as more of the current angel place.
It does give me an indication of what city one may be postioned tho so it aint that bad.

Why not build that scraper for kindersley house its very nice oh well...sigh.

[Fabian]

Originally posted by CULWULLA
i knew that side elevation would confuse people with what the main roof is. The spire doesnt start from main roof. if you look half way up the roof structure this is the top of the blade. so if you saw this from north or south it puts more of its bulk above Mulpha ! plus the spire would be lite up at night so it will be a rather prominent!

Thats still not enough. 180 metres to roof plus 30 metre spire would make it more recognisible and hence be more of a landmark tower.

But if you really want a landmark tower, it should be 235 metres plus 30 metre spire but even at that height I'd be difficult to spot in the Sydney skyline from many angles.

[CULWULLA]

Originally posted by Fabian
Thats still not enough. 180 metres to roof plus 30 metre spire would make it more recognisible and hence be more of a landmark tower.

But if you really want a landmark tower, it should be 235 metres plus 30 metre spire but even at that height I'd be difficult to spot in the Sydney skyline from many angles.

better get used to the latest version! The councillors approved its "envelope" last week and the DA will be lodged before xmas!
Its a great looking tower from plans/model ive seen.
at least its a 500footer!!

https://www.emporis.com/files_transfer/6/2003/09/219605.jpg



I know all of us me included would rather a 200m+ scraper but sometimes reality bites!!!

[Fabian]

Sydney City Council - hindering the progress of Australia's largest metropolis just because it doesn't want to be flexible with it's planning policies like it should.

It won't be before long that McBain will storm into a meeting with his guns saying "Bye Bye Book" and will blow the book to shreds to our delight.

http://www-atdp.berkeley.edu/1623/students/simon/mcbain.jpg

[Muse]

Gee, i don't know why all interested parties are soooooo surprised. You all knew about the 23,000 sq m back in May @ http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37625

[zulu69]

not intrested... more dissappointed ;)

[Muse]

Regardless, what's done is done.

[Fabian]

Originally posted by Muse
Gee, i don't know why all interested parties are soooooo surprised. You all knew about the 23,000 sq m back in May @ http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37625

Thats nothing when compared to other city scrapers. Hitlon is getting 15 000 sq/m of space over just several floors.

[Muse]

Originally posted by spazpecker
I can't remember the last time I spotted Mulpha House on the skyline....You actually have to be in amongst Sydney's Skyline, say around the Quay end of Castlereagh Street, to enjoy both the non-ex Mulpha House (Mulpha's sign should be coming down by next month I believe) and the yet to be built Kindersley House proposal.

Mulpha (or the soon to be ex-Mulpha) is 127m/417ft to roof.

Alough the new proposal is only 23,000 sq m of lettable space, it will be contructed over stilts and a tall atrium/lobby area...and a relatively tall spire atop to boot!! I'm sure with the spire, it will or should be reaching close to 500ft.

___________________http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/509/379kinderselyhouseproposal1_1_.jpg

[CULWULLA]

Originally posted by Muse
You actually have to be in amongst Sydney's Skyline, say around the Quay end of Castlereagh Street, to enjoy both the non-ex Mulpha House (Mulpha's sign should be coming down by next month I believe) and the yet to be built Kindersley House proposal.

Mulpha (or the soon to be ex-Mulpha) is 127m/417ft to roof.

Alough the new proposal is only 23,000 sq m of lettable space, it will be contructed over stilts and a tall atrium/lobby area...and a relatively tall spire atop to boot!! I'm sure with the spire, it will or should be reaching close to 500ft.

___________________http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/509/379kinderselyhouseproposal1_1_.jpg
all the stats are on ss.com. The height to roof is 145m, height to blade-152m and height to spire-168m. or RL180m which is 2metres higher than nearby 1 OConnell street!

[Fabian]

Originally posted by Muse
You actually have to be in amongst Sydney's Skyline, say around the Quay end of Castlereagh Street, to enjoy both the non-ex Mulpha House (Mulpha's sign should be coming down by next month I believe) and the yet to be built Kindersley House proposal.

Mulpha (or the soon to be ex-Mulpha) is 127m/417ft to roof.

Alough the new proposal is only 23,000 sq m of lettable space, it will be contructed over stilts and a tall atrium/lobby area...and a relatively tall spire atop to boot!! I'm sure with the spire, it will or should be reaching close to 500ft.

___________________http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/509/379kinderselyhouseproposal1_1_.jpg

Spaz you can see it from Circular Quay around Gateway or the Cahill expressway.

[CULWULLA]

Mulpha always looks impressive.
33 Bligh should compliment it nicely!

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/500/126mulpha.jpg

[Muse]

Mulpha just to the above right, peering through the grating on the proposed site of Kindersley House aka 33 Bligh.:

______http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/509/379kindsersleyhouseproposal2-med.jpg

[Fabian]

No tears to be shed when it gets pulled down. It just looks so degrading in this part of town.

[CULWULLA]

stage 1 model is in.
145m to roof-
152m to blade-
168m to spire-

http://www.emporis.co.uk/files/transfer/6/2003/10/225519.jpg

http://www.emporis.co.uk/files/transfer/6/2003/10/225520.jpg

view from Bradfield hwy. you can still see it (spire at least)

http://www.emporis.co.uk/files/transfer/6/2003/10/225521.jpg

just goes to show. a 500footer doesnt really impact our skyline anymore!

http://www.emporis.co.uk/files/transfer/6/2003/10/225522.jpg

[Fabian]

It looks nothing like a landmark tower at all. What a disappointment.

[zulu69]

This is really poor. I mean it looks bland to say the least in the pics but even worse in the model. The original porposal was much much better. I mean really at least they could do a wedding cake type of top, or even another dome type , just something!
It just looks like a box (which i wouldnt mind) but the spire looks like it is connected by sticky tape!! Poor effort. Im pretty sure my dog could design something better.
and to think they raise hell when proposals like city one come up.. i guess they dont want anything that looks half decent....

[CULWULLA]

Originally posted by zulu69
This is really poor. I mean it looks bland to say the least in the pics but even worse in the model. The original porposal was much much better. I mean really at least they could do a wedding cake type of top, or even another dome type , just something!
It just looks like a box (which i wouldnt mind) but the spire looks like it is connected by sticky tape!! Poor effort. Im pretty sure my dog could design something better.
and to think they raise hell when proposals like city one come up.. i guess they dont want anything that looks half decent....

It all comes down to money! Its a sad reality!
they can only have 23,000sqm for its site also!

[fro]

Oh c'mon guys. it aint so bad. At least it adds to the general bulkiness of the upper CBD some what... Yes, it's a shame that it's not a height limit scraper. It ranks along Angel place as one of Sydney's greatest missed opportunities. But all our gnashing and moaning ain't gonna do an iota of difference.

All hail the bulk! BULK BULK!

:baaa:

[Muse]

Regardless....
Originally posted by Muse
You actually have to be in amongst Sydney's Skyline, say around the Quay end of Castlereagh Street, to enjoy both the non-ex Mulpha House (Mulpha's sign should be coming down by next month I believe) and the yet to be built Kindersley House proposal.

[Muse]

BTW I just worked out that to the tip of the spire of the proposed Kindersley House will equal 551ft. :)

[Fabian]

Originally posted by CULWULLA
It all comes down to money! Its a sad reality!
they can only have 23,000sqm for its site also!

The council needs to wake up to themselves and realise the full potential of the site. Scale it back to at least 180 metres they wanted, and add some extra space to maximise the sites potential.

[Muse]

Originally posted by Fabian
The council needs to wake up to themselves and realise the full potential of the site. Scale it back to at least 180 metres they wanted, and add some extra space to maximise the sites potential. I think you meant scale it up to 180m which would equal 590ft.

Once again Fabian, Reality check! Get a grip, will you?

[Fabian]

Originally posted by Muse
I think you meant scale it up to 180m which would equal 590ft.

Once again Fabian, Reality check! Get a grip, will you?

I said that Muse because previous proposals called for a 180 metre tower which the council wanted but no, they scale it down yet again.

The FSR for sites I believe should be increased as I feel that sites are not being used to their full potential, especially in a city where development sites are hard to get.

[Fabian]

Originally posted by Fabian
It looks nothing like a landmark tower at all. What a disappointment.

This picture can back up my claim. It is very difficult to notice on the city skyline.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid88/pe2544572d01111bd6cdc40c1e25b980d/fa92e537.jpg

[Vitriol]

The least they could have done was give it a 'unique' roof. It's just another fucking rectangle block that has no impact on the skyline whatsoever.

Who designs this shit anyway?

[CULWULLA]

Originally posted by Fabian
This picture can back up my claim. It is very difficult to notice on the city skyline.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid88/pe2544572d01111bd6cdc40c1e25b980d/fa92e537.jpg
especially with 1oConnell in the way.
its not too bad.
the roof feature will be a beacon type feature with large spire. so you will notice it.

http://www.emporis.co.uk/files/transfer/6/2003/10/225522.jpg

[Fabian]

Is there any possiblity of a design competition or will this be the final design?

[Trances]

Think is going to stay low impact even with a spire

[Muse]

Originally posted by Trances
Think is going to stay low impact even with a spire Pretty much so, hey?

I would save this one for admiring from street level and taking good ole canyon shots ;)

[CULWULLA]

apparently the DA will be lodged soon. ill let you know when.

[Trances]

Such a long wait!

[CULWULLA]

apparently the DA will be in very soon. ill keep ya posted.

[CULWULLA]

big news!!!! new DA is and its back to being tall- 200mRL!!
the latest and greatest DA has been submitted for 33 Bligh st.
its now back up to near bligh apats height.
The office tower has its 50m void/stilts back again at base and consists of 27 storeys. its roof is 162m, then blades at 174m and side beacon type concrete blade structure tops out at 188m!! a spire then takes total height to 219m!! the RL of spire is an impressive 231m! thats joins the chifley talls club!
ill post a pic of model insitu soon!!
this is great news

[Vitriol]

Finally, a new building to look forward to...

[Fabian]

Thats the landmark tower I was hoping for. :okay:
The old one can go to the bin. It was never going to be the right tower for the site.

Nice to see some big ones proposed for the big end of town, which has virtually missed out on the current wave of scraper activity. It looks like the next wave of scraper activity might be in this part of town. We just need some more sites to come online and I see a few of them ripe and ready for something tall.

I thought any chance of getting something good on that site had gone down the drain completely. Clover and Maccas should be happy with this new proposal. I'm sure this is the kind of stuff they are looking for.

Will it still be 23 000sq/m of space as proposed in the last D/A?

Anyway a reason to celebrate. :cucumber: :pepper: :drunk:
Cmon Cupie, dance :guns1:

[CULWULLA]

i think it will be atleast 23,000sqm. its 1000 per floor and theres 22 office levels.
at 219m it will be Sydney's equal 8th tallest to structural tip!
not a bad list.
all over 200m!!
Chifley-244m
Citigroup-243m
BT Tower-242m UC
WT-230m
MLC-228m
GPT-227m
Latitude-222m
Aurora-219m
33 Bligh-219m prop

[CULWULLA]

heres some model pix>
this pic shows stilt area


http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/southele.jpg


chifley talls club! very impressive group of talls.

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/chifleytallsclub.jpg

excellent crown!

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/fromnorthtop.jpg

love the 4 large blades, very GPT.also a beacon, aka WT. spire aka-chifley. lots of dif types.

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/southtop.jpg

big impact on skyline!
its beacon is RL200m which is as high as AMP & AAPT.


http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/fromnorth.jpg

[Grollo]

Nice design, can't wait to see a rendering. I think Sydney is fast becoming the spire capital of the world, neraly every new proposal has a big spire and other box/blade type features on top.

[SinCity]

This will be a fine addition to this cluster of skyscrapers. Fingers crossed it gets the green light.

[CULWULLA]

i think it will get approved. its basically a colaboration of all the previous approved designs. height is no issue. it has to have "landmark qualities" as planner as indicated. it has allowed office space and it indentifies with ground thru-site link perfectly.

[Brizer]

Inspiring (so to speak!). About bloody time. And the design looks pretty promising to boot!

[Trances]

Love the base and very happy about this has come about !

[Randwicked]

Let's see this one from the Quay!

[gazmo]

Fantastic stilts - and that atrium-like foyer will be awesome. It's got a capital center feel to it too. (to add to the GPT, WT and Chifley influences)

[AltiusAltiusAltius]

This proposal is very good but I wouldn't call it a new landmark or something... I still believe that this site deserves a bit taller building... I was always hoping that amazing residential proposal approved a few years ago might come back! That one was really tall and awe-inspiring...

[andad1]

This proposal is very good but I wouldn't call it a new landmark or something... I still believe that this site deserves a bit taller building... I was always hoping that amazing residential proposal approved a few years back might come back! That one was really tall and awe-inspiring...

Totally agree with this.
I must say I do love the current DA proposal. It's so interesting with the stilts and variation at the top of the roof line.
I too do not think it will impact on the skyline as it's surrounded by the 220m+ club on the eastern border of the CBD.
Is there any reason why that current design could not go up to 235m plus spire????????
Someone whisper in the developers ear please :)

[CULWULLA]

this is maximum height for an office structure! its only allowed 23,000sqm, thus 23 office floors. another couple of plant levels brings height up, then the 50m stilts pushed it up even further.to top also makes maximum use of architectural features.
the Blight apartments were allowed to go higher beacuse of council regualtions with 17;1 site allowance for residential use. office is only allowed 12;1.
so this is as high as office tower can go!
it will get approved. Duetchbank own the site and will commence construction in 2005 after completion of BT Tower.2005 is start of next cycle. hopefully others such as John boyd tower will also commence!

[fro]

Well this news has made my day! AWESOMENESS!! :D

[CULWULLA]

heres the renders. sorry ive cut them a bit due to A3 size scanned on A4 scanner.
its a nice blue glass building with greyish panels and blades.

from oconnel st!
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/33blighstrender.jpg

very GPTish from here. love it!
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/33blighsouthview.jpg

this tower is over 600ft and its amazing how alot of it is hidden due the most densist part of Sydney with 300-500ft bldgs surrounding it.
heres the full 188m view from oconnel st.the spire rises out of pic.

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/33blighoconnelview.jpg

[tayser]

wow - those goat tracks are certainly driving architects to do weird and wonderful things up there!

[CULWULLA]

lol, thats the one thing i love about Bligh st! its bent. so any skyscraper is viewed on an agle which gives it a unique vista.

[Syd-Hk]

Is the hole in the first picture eyecandy or they just made it to show off their archietual skills?

[Fabian]

Great renderings. I love the glassy blue facade which fits in neatly with Mulpha House next door. I love the podium too including the stilts.

It contains touches of not just GPT, but a few other Sydney Towers. The panels running along the middle of the tower add a touch of Citigroup Tower, while the areas that are predominantly glass, is more like that of Latitude.

[CULWULLA]

syd-hk- not sure what you mean? are you talking about the void through the stilt zone? it sure is a hole.

[Noonos]

THis tower wins the awesomeness award! lol
it is a mad looking tower and it does stick out! I mean, look at that first model pic cul has - it looks great for 188 metres height wise, and that giant hole in the bottom - that looks cool, AND i think it is the first ever purpose built wind tunnel! lol

[Fabian]

Here are some shots of how it would look in the skyline. It won't go unnoticed, particularly from the west.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid130/p7b3f25b24acc88c6ac001e0acea836a3/f7ba1caa.jpg

http://img8.photobucket.com/albums/v28/Fabian/P7220063.jpg

http://img8.photobucket.com/albums/v28/Fabian/P7220067.jpg

[Trances]

wow loving the void again what will it be used for it at all ?

[fro]

ahhh... this is my new favourite tower in Sydney. Amazing that its got uninterupted views to the west in this day and age!

[zulu69]

WOW..... back tracking and saw what i missed!!!!! This is insane!!!! Its not even 100% better but more like 10000% better (honestly). This is definately a landmark tower™, great design adn if the materials resemble the render great material and finishing. This is awesome, unbelievable, hope this goes through..

@ Syd-HK, those 'holes' are so the can put the building on stilts so that it can each a greater height and maintian the cap on the floor plates of 23 000sqm.

Man this one is def up there and no doubt my fav building UC. If this can be built it would make up for a lot and not to mention def bulk up the skyline in important 'strategic' views. Its getting hard to just pick 'one' fav building in Syd.

[climbing_crane]

Kind of a cross between GPT and 363 George.

[SinCity]

Good .... another on the horizon! :) I missed this one too.

[SinCity]

I like the design BTW, went down that area yesterday and nothing happening. Do we have a start date?

[fro]

I like the design BTW, went down that area yesterday and nothing happening. Do we have a start date?
It's yet to get planning approval from the Council. Once that happens it should hopefully start sometime in the next 2 years. Cul mentioned this right at the top of this page...!!

[CULWULLA]

The devlopers who are building BT Tower have there eyes on developing 33 Bligh st for the next cycle.they have planned it that way from the begiining. as soon as BT is opened theey will wait to see how maket is fairing and then proceed when time is right. Its not "if" it gets built but "when"! the planner has told me that CSPC are very happy with the latest design!
this one and Johnboyd tower are the only big ones we can look forward too atm.
both 188m tall. not too bad!

[CULWULLA]

heres renders again
from oconnel st!
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/33blighstrender.jpg

very GPTish from here. love it!
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/33blighsouthview.jpg

this tower is over 600ft and its amazing how alot of it is hidden due the most densist part of Sydney with 300-500ft bldgs surrounding it.
heres the full 188m view from oconnel st.the spire rises out of pic.

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/33blighoconnelview.jpg

[andad1]

Yes the building has good form! Not sure it holds 'landmark' status.
It's such a pity however that it could not go up to 235m. If Residential no probs!
What if they made it a mixed use tower? Could it go higher????

[finn]

The devlopers who are building BT Tower have there eyes on developing 33 Bligh st for the next cycle.they have planned it that way from the begiining. as soon as BT is opened theey will wait to see how maket is fairing and then proceed when time is right. Its not "if" it gets built but "when"! the planner has told me that CSPC are very happy with the latest design!
this one and Johnboyd tower are the only big ones we can look forward too atm.
both 188m tall. not too bad!

Sorry to be nit-pickity but since the Australian arm of the company BT (Bankers Trust) is now gone (absorbed by Westpac), we can't refer to them as BT Towers anymore! The current developer is Investa, so they can be called Investa Towers or probably best just by their addresses as the names are sure to change once naming rights are bought. I expect 126 Phillip may become The Deutsche Bank Centre or some such thing since they are the anchor tenants.

[CULWULLA]

dthanks finn. bt is just quicker to write.lol
126 phillip st is probably the best way to name it. names come and go.
cheers

[Blue_Copper]

bump

[zulu69]

Cul any news on this beauty???

The devlopers who are building BT Tower have there eyes on developing 33 Bligh st for the next cycle.they have planned it that way from the begiining. as soon as BT is opened theey will wait to see how maket is fairing and then proceed when time is right. Its not "if" it gets built but "when"! the planner has told me that CSPC are very happy with the latest design!
this one and Johnboyd tower are the only big ones we can look forward too atm.
both 188m tall. not too bad!

Seeing that 126 was such a success in terms of leasing is this looking good?

[finn]

^^I don't know that the leasing has been all that successful so far - has it? :? The anchor tenant (Deutsche Bank) has taken less than half the office space I think. I'm not sure what other tenants have signed up.

[CULWULLA]

this current DA has yet to be approved but it eventually will and maybe 2006 it will start up.

[finn]

^^I don't know that the leasing has been all that successful so far - has it? :? The anchor tenant (Deutsche Bank) has taken less than half the office space I think. I'm not sure what other tenants have signed up.

I'm going to withdraw this statement as the AFR today says that 126 Phillip St is now approximately 85% pre-committed with the signing of a lease for the entire top floor by a group of legal high-flyers. :)

[SinCity]

Cool, another office tower which is what I like best.

[Grollo]

If only they would add 15 floors of residential to make it 235m to top of blades and 266m to top of spire, that would be awesome :-)

[CULWULLA]

yeah it was already approved at 235m in 2000 as Bligh Apartments but developers thought they wouldnt sell so they sold site. then the 2 year DA lapsed. So now its only allowed to 200mRL. or 188m roof.
still should be a fine addition to skyline.

[rob_]

sad they made it smaller, but its better to have a full building then 30% empty one i guess, i hate logic.

[CULWULLA]

BIG NEWS GUYS! planner told me today that DA is going up for final approval on May26 and developers want to commence the project this year!!!

[Muse]

Hooray!! *Does jolly jig*

So it's a certainty! Can't wait for something right next to Mulpha House to be taller than it. Mulpha already looks like a nice big city scraper (black and sheer for a 70s number), even though it's only a mid-riser.

Looking down Castlereagh will be great!

[Gargarensis]

another one for the Chifley Talls Club - well, from the east, that is.

[Muse]

...or "Financial Hill" (lame) as The Australian's property pages tag it.

33 Bligh (http://www.emporis.com/en/il/pc/?id=101303&aid=8)


...

[Muse]

BIG NEWS GUYS! planner told me today that DA is going up for final approval on May26 and developers want to commence the project this year!!!Yeah, I spoke with the developers today.

After the A.O.K. with Stage 2 DA, they are hoping for 50-60% precommitments (which isn't a gigantic amount of space in this case) before commencing construction.

They also want to charge rents almost as high as those of their 126 Phillip St property.

I checked on all of this today because last night I walked by Kindersley House @ 33 Bligh St and to my dismay there were boards outside advertsing office suites to lease.

[CULWULLA]

the AOK is going to happen on may 26 CSPC. i think it will go ok. its a great location.

[Gargarensis]

so what basically happens in the final approval stage we should expect on May 26? I hope there isn't a chance of it falling through.

[CULWULLA]

^its just the formalities now. this design was agreed with by planners months ago.
The current design/shape/bulk/height ect is perfect for the site.Its taken years to compromise its current form.

[Muse]

So it comes down to after May 26, Investa gets those precommitments.

After May 26 (if all goes accordingly), watch the property pages for media releases. I'm sure Investa will want to let the world know that a new signature building is coming to the big ass end of town (If they don't create a little hype in the property world, then there's no hope!).

15-18 levels (THE 50-60%) in a modern high-tech, relatively slender building in a prominent part of town, 3-4 years away for completion should be a synch for 'mid-term planning' companies/businesses/organistations.

Go Investa! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v21/Alex_B/cheer.gif

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/500/379investagroup1.jpg

[CULWULLA]

CSPC gave final approval last night.
http://images.animationfactory.com/animations/web_text_s/stamp_shaking/approved/approved_lg_wm.gif
planner indicates construction will start before end of year!

get to it Investacorp :guns1:

[Blue_Copper]

Looks like cull has a new stamp

[fro]

EXCELLENT!
It's incredible how dense this section of the CBD will get!

[SinCity]

Love the stamp Cul !!! :D More great news! :)

[Fabian]

Awesome. It's been a long process designing this tower but this one they will finally see the light of day. Another landmark tower to be added to such a fantastic part of the CBD.

[CULWULLA]

when i sprayed the model the approved colour i really checkout the design of this one. It really will be a remarkable structure! sort of a cross between Capita & GPT.I love how the 50m stilts will allow sunlight to filter down to foyer area and link between Bligh & Oconnel streets. The top is amazing with the large blades and terminating with a spire reaching 219m high is perfect. Both 33 Bligh & John Boyd wil be 188m and 200m+ above sea level andl both impact the skyline.
These great bldgs will be something to look forward to alright.

[zulu69]

Fantastic news!!!!!!
My new no. 1 for the U/C crew. Does Sydney ever stand still???? (knocks on wood)
This is an amazing desing exactly what cul states- Capita x GPT = Bligh. This area is going to be simply breathtaking..

EDIT
Btw pics aren't showing up.
So check out muse's link below...

thnx Muse. They were showing for me. (strange? probably anti leeching or something)

btw heres how the it will look from the west. Man this area is great :)

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/509/379kensmodel2-med.jpg

[Muse]

^ Hrmmm, I'm getting an error message when clicking on either zulu69.

All the scans for the renders of 33 Bligh that CULWULLA posted on pages 7 & 8 of this thread are all showing :redx: :redx: :redx:

....

[gazmo]

The view from the west is going to rock!

Though it doesn't have the majestic Chifley Talls Club, it will have depth, density and variety!

To think that a tower like 33 Blight, which is essentially on the eastern side of the CBD will be getting some the best views to the west is amazing. The afternoon sun gleaming on the spires of 126 Phillip, the blades of 33 Bligh and GTP and the barometer of Westpac.

Bring it on!

I hope that there will still be glimspes of Capita as I like how I can the flap on it's mast from my window and know how the wind is blowing and to see the triangular truss theme in Capita echoed on a grander scale in 126 Phillip.


Fantastic news!!!!!!
My new no. 1 for the U/C crew. Does Sydney ever stand still???? (knocks on wood)
This is an amazing desing exactly what cul states- Capita x GPT = Bligh. This area is going to be simply breathtaking..

EDIT
Btw pics aren't showing up.
So check out muse's link below...

thnx Muse. They were showing for me. (strange? probably anti leeching or something)

btw heres how the it will look from the west. Man this area is great :)

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/509/379kensmodel2-med.jpg

[rondeez]

219metres is to the tip of the spire?

Should beef up the northern end of the skyline even more, now its time for the gap between MLC and the rather overweight/obese looking Kens! :D

[CULWULLA]

^ yeah 219m or 718ft. sounds bl00dy c00l.Its good that we still have some tallies coming on line.This area has to be the most densest and highest in Australia. 33 Bligh will be 188m or over 600ft but yet really wont impact too much.Its beacon will look great.
BTW. note the 4 funnels of TITANIC at bottom of model pic. i hope that firm that wants to build and sail the copy of Titanic is going to dock in D Harbour.lol

[Muse]

All the scans for the renders of 33 Bligh that CULWULLA posted on pages 7 & 8 of this thread are all showing :redx: :redx: :redx:CULWULLA, due to this, do you think you can scan all of the 33 Bligh renders even yet again as Emporis/ss.com only has a couple of them?

:master:

[Muse]

In the meantime...

For those who want to be reminded or for those who have not yet seen (at least 2 of) the renders yet, click here: 33 Bligh Street (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101303)

[Principes]

Hopefully Theyll keep the windows the way they look int he render, unlike q1 and 126,

[CULWULLA]

bloody good news guys! told ya! NEARLY FULL QUOTA OF TENNANTS!!
from todays fin rev
(only mistake should reaD 30storeyS not 12.lol)

http://img174.echo.cx/img174/8995/investa9jw.jpg

LETS GET THE WRECKERS BALL OUT!!! the 14storey/52 Kindersley House has to bite the dust first.

http://images.animationfactory.com/animations/machines/construction/wrecking_ball/wrecking_ball_lg_wm.gif

[fro]

:)

This is awesome news! Thank goodness for Investa! So construction could possibly start by the end of this year?

[CULWULLA]

^ definately. maybe not construction but demolition and excavations.

[demanjo]

"exceeding the top ratings for greenhouse is that part i like :) Maybe will start to set a trend.

[sirhc8]

From http://www.investa.com.au/investa/investor_newsroom.html


Dear Madam,
Stage 2 Development Approval for Kindersley House
Investa Property Group is pleased to announce that the City of Sydney Planning Committee, at its meeting
of Thursday, May 26, 2005, has given Stage 2 Development Approval for the redevelopment of 33 Bligh
Street, Sydney (Kindersley House).
Located in the heart of the Sydney CBD, the 33 Bligh Street project will comprise 22,400 square metres of
premium quality, consistent regular 1,000m2 floor plates above a dramatic 12 storey lobby which includes a
through-site pedestrian link.
The design of the new project incorporates Investa’s strong commitment to sustainability. It is proposed
that the building will exceed the ABGR’s 5.0 Star ranking as well as exceeding Greenstar's 5.0 Star rating.
Investa and its design team headed by Rice Daubney have produced a premium quality building that
reconciles the needs of tenants, urban and environmental design principles with Investa’s commercial return
criteria.
Chris O’Donnell, Managing Director, said: “The leasing success we have achieved with 126 Phillip Street
after the takeover of the Principal Office Fund in October 2003 has demonstrated Investa’s ability to
develop, lease and manage Premium grade office buildings.
“The project will not be speculative,” according to Portfolio Manager, Michael Cook. “The existing building
has an almost full quota of excellent tenants providing a solid return to the fund. We will only launch the
project once a significant pre-commitment is achieved”.
For further information, please contact Chris O’Donnell on (02) 8226 9301 or Michael Cook on (02) 8226
9413.
Yours faithfully
Brian McGarry
Company Secretary
Tel: (02) 8226 9300
Fax: (02) 8226 9499

[fro]

Excellent news, plus the added bonus of having this building designed and fitout with energy and water conservation in mind.

Thanks cul, demolition is just as fun!!

[Brizer]

Check text again: it says the CURRENT building has almost full quota, NOT the new one. The project WILL ONLY be launched ONCE A SIGNIFICANT PRE-COMMITMENT IS ACHIEVED.
That is, it is still not a firm commitment to build and our hopes could still be dashed should Investa fail to achieve "a significant pre-commitment".
Bugger.

[ParraMan]

Yeah, lol....I don't know how the AFR managed to make that boo-boo, they normally pretty reliable.

[CULWULLA]

yeah the jurno from AFR Ben Wilmot needs to pay more attention. "A 12storey office project" instead of saying "12storey lobby". big difference!

[Brizer]

See SMH today, page 33, Commercial Property, article "CBD office market remains a mixed bag". Includes illustration.

[Muse]

Here it is:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/509/37933bligharticle1.jpg

...

[CULWULLA]

good stuff.
the lack of space in CBd really will get to the property market and these big new towers will proceed. no doubt!

[Muse]

I don't worry about this one not going ahead. The property pages change every week with their predictions depending on the source/s.

As I stated on the previous page, the 15-18 levels (50-60% Investa wants for the pre-commitments) in a high-tech, relatively slender building with not-so-big floorplates in a prominent part of town, 3-4 years away for completion should be a sinch.

In real terms this is only a mid-riser with only 22,000 sq m of space, the size of a regular North Sydney office building.

A lot of small to medium businesses, companies and organisations that have long term plans will be clammering for such a position and a groovy corporate image.

[CULWULLA]

^ thats the thing. its not like its got 60-80,ooosqm of space. its just got 22,000sqm so it has much better chances of proceeding more then a larger bldg. Anyway what planner has told me is even more positive. ;)

[fro]

What's the hot goss Cul?? C'mon, out with it ;)

[CULWULLA]

^ no real hot goss, just that the project will start sooner rather then later.;)

[CULWULLA]

heres a reminder of some renders
http://img85.echo.cx/img85/4956/33blighstrender3gg.jpg

http://img85.echo.cx/img85/4997/33blighsouthview6qv.jpg

http://img85.echo.cx/img85/375/33blighstoconnelview0gv.jpg

[Blue_Copper]

looks nice
this will really make that area a canyon

[Muse]

Already is a canyon down there. This will just add to it!!

[SinCity]

Looks great. Cant wait for it. My new favourite Sydney office tower U/C. :yes:

[Blue_Copper]

the top is like a mix of lattitude and GPT

[CULWULLA]

current tragic bldg
http://img131.echo.cx/img131/4718/kindersleyhouse2yl.jpg

[demanjo]

Very tragic...

[MILIUX]

Any update when will this baby start being constructed?

[CULWULLA]

maybe 2006/7 depending on office markets

[christarrant]

Cul, do you have a CBD model photo of this tower and how its sits within the context of the northern CBD?
Do you think it will it be noticed from the Kirribilli skyline view and the Dover Heights / South Head skyline view ?

[CULWULLA]

heres one from kirribilli but has my 1-9bligh tower infront. but you can see 33 bligh behind 1oconnelst.
i reckon you woulkd start to loose it if you moveeastewards due to all the big ones in way (AMP GPT ect)
http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/3453/235mfromcircquay8oe.jpg

[CULWULLA]

ANZ are currently looking for 20-25,000sqm of new office space in Sydney. 33 Bligh has 25,450sqm.
hello??? earth to anz, earth to anz.
dear god.. please make 33 bligh st the new ANZ HQ!!!
investa- contact ANZ asap.

[gazmo]

Quick, Cul - you and me go halves on the commision :okay:

ANZ are currently looking for 20-25,000sqm of new office space in Sydney. 33 Bligh has 25,450sqm.
hello??? earth to anz, earth to anz.
dear god.. please make 33 bligh st the new ANZ HQ!!!
investa- contact ANZ asap.

[Muse]

ANZ are currently looking for 20-25,000sqm of new office space in Sydney. 33 Bligh has 25,450sqm.
hello??? earth to anz, earth to anz.
dear god.. please make 33 bligh st the new ANZ HQ!!!
investa- contact ANZ asap.Yeah I saw that in the Melbourne "Melbourne Office tower ramblings, pics & misc. info" thread this morn in the Vic. sub-forum. Let's hope that the Sydney ANZ office building @ 20 Martin Place is eventually yoinked down or @ the very least, totally refurbed.

....

[CULWULLA]

i asked the 33 bligh st planner today does he reckon INVESTA GROUP be sniffing out ANZ big wigs? he said for sure! lets hope the developers realize the 33 bligh st will be an amzing new bldg in excellent part of town. mad not to take up idea.
Sydney atm has only 5 major office tower DA approvals
33 bligh- 25000sqm
John Boyd tower-65,000sqm
Mid city-30,000sqm
1-9 bligh st-40,000sqm
120 liverpool st-20,000sqm
total= 180,000sqm.
atm property markets indicate firms in sydney require 300,000sqm of new office space.

[Muse]

i asked the 33 bligh st planner today does he reckon INVESTA GROUP be sniffing out ANZ big wigs? he said for sure! lets hope the developers realize the 33 bligh St will be an amazing new bldg in an excellent part of town. Mad not to take up idea.
Sydney atm has only 5 major office tower DA approvals
33 bligh- 25000sqm
John Boyd tower-65,000sqm
Mid city-30,000sqm
1-9 bligh st-40,000sqm
120 liverpool st-20,000sqm
total= 180,000sqm.
atm property markets indicate firms in sydney require 300,000sqm of new office space.That's great news about Investa sniffing out the ANZ big wigs.

EDH on the Stevadores site will eventually picking up more future space, with even more longer-term commitments?

Sydney is looking promising indeed, esp. for the future!! Yay 'n hoorah. http://www.sayhey.co.uk/invboard/html/emoticons/thumbsup.gif

[ParraMan]

Considering I still have my contacts in ANZ, I could tryto pull some strings for us all....
It's also a great location for them, very close to their major Pitt & Hunter St offices and basically in the financial heart of town. Nonetheless, I fear ANZ will want to go the way of other large banks in Australia and opt for the large floorplates that this building really can't offer- a short 1 Bligh St would probably be their preferred option. Still there's hope!

[CULWULLA]

^ yeah but to have your offices on every floor of a brand new offcie bldg is a developers dream.the floor plates are over 1,000sqm . anyway lets hope they see our idea.

[ParraMan]

And yeah, the floorplates are a reasonable size. I consider ANZ the most image-conscious of the big 4, so this building should suit them perfectly! Hope they see like we do too!

[SinCity]

Fingers crossed. :)

[Muse]

I pray for the day this signage disappears...

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/509/37933BlighStA10May2006.JPG

[Trances]

THis does not seem like good news
refub adds years to a building that should just not be

[Muse]

I think it was refurbed a while back. The problem is they are still advertising space to lease. Maybe it's bit of a ploy to get new tenants for the newer building.

"Oh, sorry. We aren't letting space here anymore but would you like some information on our new proposal? In the meantime, we can let you space across the street or there or here or there."

[CULWULLA]

I hope ANZ decide soon on the new 25000sqm HQ and they chosse 33 bligh. Its such a perfect structure and prime address for the bank.

[Locke]

Whilst looking for stuff on the ANA tower on the Gold Coast I visited the new Cundall (ESD guys) web site, and they had this added for 33 Blight Street:
http://www.cundall.com.au/pjt_cs_33blighst.htm

[Muse]

Thanks Locke. :)

I clicked onto both the links for Investa & Rice Daubney. 33 Bligh has a couple of documents for it, Rice Daubney seems to have nothing yet. I guess the latter is waiitng until Investa et al gives this the final go ahead to add to its portfolio. The main PDF on Investa says they will be looking for a pre-commitment before commencing - old news, eh?

The "Kindersley For Lease" sign as posted above is still there, or @ least it was when I passed it a week ago (It's the first thing I look for when I'm near).

[Brendan]

Looks like a very nice building, thankyou Locke.

[CULWULLA]

yes, its a magnificent building.
cross between capita centre and GPT.
i love its unique 60m stilts and top section. this has been DA since i started at council in 1988.i really want something to happen soon. im loosing interest.
renders
http://img85.echo.cx/img85/4956/33blighstrender3gg.jpg

http://img85.echo.cx/img85/4997/33blighsouthview6qv.jpg

http://img85.echo.cx/img85/375/33blighstoconnelview0gv.jpg

[SYDNEYAHOLIC]

It is a great building.

I've been in love with it ever since I first saw it in the model room at Town Hall all those years ago.....

[finn]

I liked the 235m residential DA approval for the site better, but this one is still a very nice design.

[Fabian]

That would of been pretty good too but then it would of blocked the view of Sydney Tower from the North.

Were lucky to be getting this one :)

[cammo2004]

What's really nice about this one is that it complements everything around it. It is however starting to look like one of those "boomerang" developments that keeps going away... coming back... going away... not good. :bash:

Maybe in 2020.

[SYDNEYAHOLIC]

hope you're wrong.

[CULWULLA]

approved DAs can only hang around for 2 years. if no work has commenced it has to be withdrawn and reapplied for. so interesting times ahead.This current DA was approved by CSPC on May 26,2005.
So i guess if nothing happens in 4 months time, the DA will have to be resubmitted and go thru whole process again.

[A r c h i]

Can't they get an extension to the DA?

[CULWULLA]

^ dont think so. ive chatted to planner about this.
The john boyd tower was weeks away from lapsing., so developers started refurbing a heritage bldg on the site, so its now official commenced and saved it from loosing approval etc.

[A r c h i]

So as long as they do