Hey everyone!
Which skyline do you think is the best in Australia and why, remember also the surrounding suburbs not just the main cbd.

Where are you from?

Depends really, each skyline is different from certain angles. I would probably say Sydney has the best skyline due to the fact that you have the Bridge, Opera House then the continuation into the CBD with GPT, Chiefly, Auroura, Philip St, but equally i have seen some amazing shots of Melbourne and Perth, esp those from far off.

Just check out these from Hacksaw - fantastic!

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=190618

Although I am from Melbourne, I have to say that Sydneys skyline is the most impressive right now. There is just so much density, there are almost no gaps in the skyline, and it stretches for 3kms from one end to another. There is also good variety in the architecture, which is always a bonus, and something that GC is finally starting to get it's head around. ;)

However, after the current construction boom finishes in Melbourne and all the 500fters are finished, dare I say Sydney will have a mighty fight on it's hand to keep the title of the premier Aussie skyline.

Sydney
Perth
Melb

1 Sydney
2 Melbourne
3 Gold Coast
4 Perth
5 Brisbane
6 Chatswood

Sydney but yes Melbourne is catching up and Perth

Melbourne!
But really I'm just pimping my webcam.
http://www.melbournephotos.net/webcam/2005-04-10_0630.jpg

I've always considered Sydney's skyline to be the best in the country. Chatswood, St. Leonards, North Sydney, the Harbour Bridge (and harbour, for that matter), then the CBD itself. Amazing.

I'm not saying it's the best but I've always loved Perth's skyline for its size. I hope they're smart with Swan Panorama and come up with some nice towers that actually fit into the skyline.

If you include the suburbs then I would say it would be crazy to say melbourne is anywhere near Sydney.

Melbourne is only now embracing highrise suburban CBDs, Sydney already has several and the number is continually growing. Chatswood and Parramatta alone have better CBDs than some of Australia's state capitals.

^:cough: Darwin, Hobart, Canberra:cough:

it's gotta be melbourne doesn't it? i know that i'm incredibly biased but sydneys buildings don't particulairly stand out at all and don't really have a focal point...

p.s in my humble opinion, the sydney tower or AMP tower (a.k.a the golden monstrosity) is incredibly ugly!

it's gotta be melbourne doesn't it? i know that i'm incredibly biased but sydneys buildings don't particulairly stand out at all and don't really have a focal point...

p.s in my humble opinion, the sydney tower or AMP tower (a.k.a the golden monstrosity) is incredibly ugly!

To be fair, Melbourne (until E is finished) doesn't really have a focal point either. Yes people will say R, but really, it doesn't particularly stand out in the skyline. I'm sure it's location on the edge of the CBD and the fact that it's located in a dip in Collins St, and hence making it look 'shorter' to the naked eye, doesn't help it's cause. In fact, 120C is almost as tall to roof above sea level as R! (I think something like 245m?) And it's spire reaches 290m above sea level, as opposed to R's 253m. To the average joe, R is just 'another tall building' along with your BPs and MCs and 120Cs and 101Cs...

Sydney Tower is undoutably the focal point in Sydney's CBD. It's located centrally and is clearly the tallest structure in town. Aesthetics of the tower aside (I personally think it's OK, nothing special though) it does stand out as it's gold turret is ~50m higher than the tallest scrapers around it.

Sydney has a great skyline with many skylines surrounding it also! thats something other oz cities dont have.
GC has a fine skyline and now stretching many kms!

In my view Sydney easily takes it. It is large, dense and has some great buildings.

Then Melb, Bris, GC, Perth, Adelaide. The middle a pretty close....

if were going to include suburban centres it is for sure sydney!

Sydney, Perth, Melbourne, Brisbane, GC, Adelaide...

Perth has Crawley, Claremont, and South Perth suburban skylines!

I suppose Brisbane has Kangaroo Point and part of new farm. (i noticed how large KP looked form the citycat going to New Farm yesterday.. And New farm has some medium sized buildings along the river)

And soon to have a skyline at Bretts Wharf/Gateway/whatever

But you really cant compete with Sydney in suburban skylines (in australia at least)

I like the definition in Melbourne's CBD along with the established St Kilda & emerging Docklands zones. I do like that Sydney has a greater suburban pressence challenging its core though. However, as far as city skyline's go, one of Melbourne's great strengths is it doesn't suffer a bad case of 'the klumps.' This results when skylines get so dense in one area, all around a similar height, they loose any sense of form, shape or pattern. Last thing you want is a skyline that screams 'anywhere' with no real distinction or iconic quality. If your skyline becomes a glorified blob with no shape - well, you might as well call your city Ottawa and call it a day.

Melbourne's CBD is interesting in that its really three, soon to be four seperate skylines - and thats just north of the Yarra. St Kilda Road, though not known for the super talls is a nice long stretch of uniform buildings contrasting with the downtown's variances. The only thing I'm not so sure about is how Melbourne's skyline has been evened out by Eureka. I'm so used to it being off kilter like Chicago. The Rialto, like the Sears Tower sort of screamed out I'm the biggie bitch and I stand alone!! LOL Now you've got Eureka in the centre and the views of Melbourne from Port Phillip Bay not quite what I'm used too since the 80's. Even before Rialto, Collins Place offset things to the east. Melbourne's always been an 'unstable old girl' and now she seems so centred. Its weird cause I'm not used to it I guess.

Now if only Dandenong could aspire to become the new Adelaide or Paramatta. Hopefully in the next decade, bogans will take to high rise condo living and drinking latte's at sidewalk cafe's with actual people walking by! God forbid they might even discover "The Met" and loose their cars. LOL All those empty parking lots will make nice 20 to 30 story buildings. Just imagine the views towards Melbourne. Better still, imagine being up Eureka and seeing something in the distance marked by a sign saying ...oh thats Dandenong. Its trying to be Hobart or something but we call it sleepy hollow. Oh, wait a minute - that's Geelong to the right! Those suburbs just all look the same. Just a bunch of mini sized towering wannabees.

1. Sydney-> Huge, dense, tall. No doubt the Australian showcase skyline, and set on that harbour we all wish our other cities enjoyed too... don't fool yourself, no other skyline in Australia can touch it.
2. Melbourne-> Tall, pretty and sophisticated. Some resplendant older architecture blended seemlessly and beautifully in with new towers. All it lacks is a little more density.
3. Brisbane-> The way the towers line the river is A++. New towers are awesome, and it does have good density in the CBD.
4. Perth-> Love the balance here, CP and Bankwest really provide a focal point... very spread out down the one street though.
5. Gold Coast-> Impressive numbers, but at the moment lacks real height and density, and a lot of the towers are ugly mofo's IMHO. Will jump up my list, probably several places, when the quality Q1, Soul, CoC towers add some height and variety.
6. Adelaide-> It has no real height, no stunning designs for towers, or anything like that. However it does have some beautiful buildings at street level and good density in its CBD.

Stu

Melb easily has the best looking individual buildings, large and small.

Syd has the largest and best overall looking skyline.

On a per capita basis ( population eise) the GC and Perth cream everything else.

Brisbane has been dissapointing considering its the 3rd biggest city in OZ however once the new taller towers add more variety of heights and architecture then it will start looking like a 2m person city !

Adelaide is another story all together, its almost impossible to have a desent skyline with only a handful of buildings over 20 stories.

I have to say that I think Sydney leads the pack (for now). Melbourne is catching up at an enormous pace. Once all of the towers in Melbourne have been built and the docklands project nears completion (5 to 7 years) I think the two cities will be neck and neck. I think Melbourne will just be ahead then because the quality of Architecture (apart from some cheap crap going up - which will give the skyline density anyway ) is better than Sydney. Examples:

- Eureka
- Yarra's Edge 5
- Condor
- Vicpoint
- Prima
- New Outrigger

If you're looking beyond the main CBD, Sydney without a doubt, you only need to go as far as North Sydney before you find something almost as impressive as many parts of the main Melbourne or Brisbane CBD. And probably more so than the Perth CBD.

The Gold Coast hits well above it's weight, and looks impressive from the right angles, though the suburbs are lacking abit.

Brisbane is small but dense, which really provides a sense of being 'in the action' throughout. Milton is probably as impressive as it gets close by, and it's really nice, but not the master of height. Perhaps more impressive is that the Gold Coast is often included in the Brisbane Metro.

Melbourne, has a huge area for a CBD, but like a forest that's been logged it's full of holes. Great potential for the future, but people like to cluster, they'd rather build their 110 story building next to a 100 storey building so they can show how good it is rather than out in the open where the added height won't be noticed.

Perth looks nice, but small, a few big buildings unfortunately make the others look smaller than they are.

Shado

I have to disagree - I think the main thing Sydney has over the other cities is the central skyline over the Harbour. Melbourne will in time match this when the Docklands is built. As for density - the Melbourne skyline is getting dense with excellent (and not so excellent buildings).

Sydney will always have the "WOW" factor of the harbour and will stay #1 for a very long time.
Melbourne is a totally different type of city and is improving at a rapid rate.
Perth is the best of the rest but needs many more large buildings to bring it up to the first two.

my "dream" additions ( all hypothetical but not too "out there"...) to skylines in the next building cycle :) -

Melb-
Prima tower at Southbank
220m+ tower at the top of Swanston Walk about 50m west of MC
220m+ tower near Commonwealth Bank tower ( Bunnings site ?)
220m+ tower at Docklands near where Outriggger hotel will go.
Something over 160m up near Vic mkts

Syd-
220m+ tower near Angel Place to plug gap between MLC and BT.
220m+ tower between Citigroup and Centre point
220m+ tower near Peak apartments
220m+ tower over Wynyard stn
Something ( anything ! ) tall at Patrick site.

1. Sydney-> Huge, dense, tall. No doubt the Australian showcase skyline, and set on that harbour we all wish our other cities enjoyed too... don't fool yourself, no other skyline in Australia can touch it.
2. Melbourne-> Tall, pretty and sophisticated. Some resplendant older architecture blended seemlessly and beautifully in with new towers. All it lacks is a little more density.
3. Brisbane-> The way the towers line the river is A++. New towers are awesome, and it does have good density in the CBD.
4. Perth-> Love the balance here, CP and Bankwest really provide a focal point... very spread out down the one street though.
5. Gold Coast-> Impressive numbers, but at the moment lacks real height and density, and a lot of the towers are ugly mofo's IMHO. Will jump up my list, probably several places, when the quality Q1, Soul, CoC towers add some height and variety.
6. Adelaide-> It has no real height, no stunning designs for towers, or anything like that. However it does have some beautiful buildings at street level and good density in its CBD.

Stu



Thats pretty much the best analysis you could have.

Melbourne
Sydney
Brisbane
GC
Perth
Adelaide

1. Sydney
2. Melbourne
3. Gold Coast
4. Aukland
5. Perth
6. Brisbane
7. Wellington
8. Adelaide


:sleepy:

Take out the Harbour and Sydney would not rank ahead of Melbourne. Its individual buildings are not as nice and Melbourne has taller Skyscrapers. Once Docklands is finished Melbourne will have an equal "Wow Factor" - lets be frank the standard of design throughout the docklands is very high because it is a centrally managed development the Harbour was not managed in that way.

1.Sydney
2.Melbourne
3.Brisbane
4.Gold Coast/Perth
5.Adelaide

godl coast chops, why no. 4?

checkout size difference
you can really see how melb is pretty sparce compared to Sydney's CBD

Melb CBD (400 skyscrapers)
http://www.airviewonline.com.au/photos/0409/1808/0409-1808-05.jpg

http://www.airviewonline.com.au/photos/0409/1808/0409-1808-04.jpg

sydney cbd (800 skyscrapers)
http://www.airviewonline.com.au/photos/0401/2911/0401-2911-12.jpg

http://www.airviewonline.com.au/photos/0309/3090/0309-3090-19.jpg

http://www.airviewonline.com.au/photos/0307/0521/0307-0521-30.jpg

Melbourne has a long way to go. But it does have a bit of decent height though! :)

Take out the Harbour and Sydney would not rank ahead of Melbourne. Its individual buildings are not as nice and Melbourne has taller Skyscrapers. Once Docklands is finished Melbourne will have an equal "Wow Factor" - lets be frank the standard of design throughout the docklands is very high because it is a centrally managed development the Harbour was not managed in that way.


Thats far from true. Sydney would still beat Melbourne even if it was in a desert.

^^^^^^^
You Really think so???-

http://www.realestate.com.au/objects/props/4637/102324637ml1112772711.jpg

http://www.realestate.com.au/objects/props/2353/102322353ml1112718047.jpg

http://www.realestate.com.au/objects/props/5690/102325690el1113206172.jpg

Oh and we have Great Beach suburbs too.......

http://www.realestate.com.au/objects/props/1466/102321466ml1112683835.jpg

^ Yes, i do think that.

800 scrapers, double what Melbourne has, and the skyline looks good as well.

Im not insulting melbourne, dont get me wrong.. im just saying ...

yes i also mean that. Melbourne does have a good skyline especially with the new talls. but there needs to be more to create an exceptional one. it seems to have a alot of very tall and alot of very low skyscrapers. needs bulk!
it will look great in 2030, when all docklands and Southbank has more completed. but by then Sydney would have also flourished with stevedores site with potential 200m-300m towers and the redfern area which is soon to boom as part of Sydney's secondary CBD which in turn will extend its skyline another 3km south! by then Sydney' count will be well over 1000 skyscrapers.

Sydney is very fortunate to have a harbour right throught its centre linking with its northern CBd (North Sydney) thus creating a very impressive cityscape! having a bridge nearly 500ft high also assists in scapeshape

how nice does this pic look? its a couple of years old ,some some big ones are missing (WT-uc,Latitude,BT ect)
http://www.hartill.net/Sydney/Images/IMG_0120.jpg

http://www.hartill.net/Sydney/Images/IMG_0130.jpg


http://www.hartill.net/Sydney/Images/IMG_0121.jpg

see my sig.

any pics of gold coast and brisbane and perth

I think density for it's own sake doesn't make a skyline great. Density in the form that it gives a skyline continuity is what is needed.

That said, I do agree with Culs view that Melbourne does need more density if it is to challenge Sydney. A few extra 500fters in the central/northwest section would do wonders for the skyline, it would almost be perfectly balanced IMO.

One thing that the Melb skyline has over Syd is variation in height, especially now with E nearing completion. Because Sydney is so dense with 100 - 150m buildings, you only seem to notice the tops of the 200m+ buildings in the CBD, and they are all pretty much the same height to roof, give or take 20m or so. This is just my own personal opinion, but the Sydney skyline seems to lack a bit of 'contrast' in terms of height variation. I really think Sydney is hurt by the 235m height limit, it's at the stage now where it's screaming out for a couple of 300m giants. But of course, you have Sydney Tower, which would look ridiculous is it was surrounded by 300m scrapers..... time to knock it down perhaps? ;)

In Melbourne a 150m building is actually quite noticeable, so you have distinct scrapers ranging from 150m to 300m. Obviously added density will reduce this contrast somewhat, but I doubt Melbourne will ever be as dense as Sydney, at least not in the next 30 years or so.

From certain angles I think that Melbourne's skyline can look absolutely incredible. The variation in heights, styles and general length of the cbd and now the docklands are making an enormous impression. Taking into account the majestic St Kilda Rd it would be almost unbeatable.
Sydney on the other hand rarely has a bad angle. You can't ignore the harbour, the bridges and the stepped height levels. It almost looks picture perfect from anywhere.
I think for now it's got to be Sydney.

chatwood, parramatta, bondi junction and manly have nice skylines

Shado

I have to disagree - I think the main thing Sydney has over the other cities is the central skyline over the Harbour. Melbourne will in time match this when the Docklands is built. As for density - the Melbourne skyline is getting dense with excellent (and not so excellent buildings).

The Docklands is hardly Sydney harbor. A bunch of residential development isn't going to transform the city magically. Even if it is a big improvment. It's still in the sprawling tradition of Melbourne, can't find any spots to put scrapers that are any better than any other spot within 10km.

The Docklands is hardly Sydney harbor. A bunch of residential development isn't going to transform the city magically. Even if it is a big improvment. It's still in the sprawling tradition of Melbourne, can't find any spots to put scrapers that are any better than any other spot within 10km.

I beg to differ. The change may not be as dramatic, "magical", as you say... but it is more than just a bit of residential development. In essence, it is extending the Melbourne CBD to the waterfront... connection via Bourke and Collins, etc extentions are huge, not to mention projects like the Telstra Dome and SCS that are giving a massive breath of life into an area that was previously wasted.

No, it is not an instant attraction. Give it the 10-15 years it needs to develop and complete and you will be viewing Melbourne in a totally new light. It will indeed be a harbour city, trust me ;)

Stu

Its actually better than Darling Harbour, the design finishes, the street lamps, the landscaping, the quality of venues, if you think HOME is good, think again. The overall concept will come together, and you are right it really is nothing like darling harbour, it has a pinch of Melbourne sophistication and you will see this in 10-15 years time, it will be a harbour city, but a harbour city with class.

Its actually better than Darling Harbour, the design finishes, the street lamps, the landscaping, the quality of venues, if you think HOME is good, think again. The overall concept will come together, and you are right it really is nothing like darling harbour, it has a pinch of Melbourne sophistication and you will see this in 10-15 years time, it will be a harbour city, but a harbour city with class.

mic, agree that Darling Hbr (the Pyrmont side) is nothing special architecturally, although the food is great over there.
I also agree that Docklands will be great for Melbourne.
Fortunately Darling Hbr is only a part of the Sydney CBD waterfront entertainment, if you want some style and atmosphere go to the King St Wharf precinct, Rocks, Quay east, Wooloomooloo, Jones Bay wharf and the brand new Walsh Bay area (up and coming) !

I dont' get it Melb has a river so how can this be a harbour city??, am i missing something here?? As for it being better than Syd's, time will tell. It is well known however that artificial dev never match true natural landscapes. Again time will ultimately tell.
It's funny how Melb in essence is trying to be like Sydney with water etc. They do say imitation is the biggest form of flattery.

^^^ right because Sydney is the only city in the world to embrace its waterfront, and its uniquely a Sydney initiative.....

Also have you heard of Port Phillip Bay at all?

No wowsim, its the quality that is the difference and thats what other cities will be trying to replicate ie Melb with Docklands. Syd's recent CBD waterfront development is a model for other citieis - it has fully embraced the waterfront for dining, recreation and nite life with all the bars, restaurants, clubs and stuff that have opened up in the wharfs and reclaimed waterside sites. Go take a look at the new Jones Bay, Walsh Bay & King St wharf which are right on the edge of the cbd and see for yourself.

I dont' get it Melb has a river so how can this be a harbour city??, am i missing something here?? As for it being better than Syd's, time will tell. It is well known however that artificial dev never match true natural landscapes. Again time will ultimately tell.
It's funny how Melb in essence is trying to be like Sydney with water etc. They do say imitation is the biggest form of flattery.

I don't know where to start... do you realise how bloody insecure you sound?

Melbourne is not trying to become 'Sydney, the harbour city'. The fact is that Docklands use to be exactly that, docks, but since being defunct as a dock it has been a monotonous eyesore. So thank god that now it is being REDEVELOPED. It is a known fact that for the past 15 years Melbourne has been trying to embrace the Yarra, first by developing Southbank, and now with Docklands. I don't see it as anything but a positive thing.

Sure, in terms of natural beauty Docklands will never match Sydney's harbour because it's, as you said, man made. But at least something positive is being done there instead of it being a dump. And I will bet my bottom dollar that architectually Docklands will be streets ahead of what Darling Harbour has to offer.

So I guess *ANY* city that trys to develop a waterfront is IMITATING almighty Sydney? Geez, watch out coastal cities, you don't wanna offend mother Sydney with plagiarism of it's beautiful harbour, do you! :lol:

No wowsim, its the quality that is the difference and thats what other cities will be trying to replicate ie Melb with Docklands. Syd's recent CBD waterfront development is a model for other citieis - it has fully embraced the waterfront for dining, recreation and nite life with all the bars, restaurants, clubs and stuff that have opened up in the wharfs and reclaimed waterside sites. Go take a look at the new Jones Bay, Walsh Bay & King St wharf which are right on the edge of the cbd and see for yourself.

Thanks, i lived in Sydney for 10 years, i'm quite familiar with Darling Harbour, Cockle Bay, King St Wharf etc etc.... but it is a hell of a claim to imply that Melbourne's Dockland developement is a direct attempt at copying Sydney....its speak volumes of the self obsessed nature of Sydney

Totally agree wowsim, what Docklands will definately want to try to replicate is the quality of the day and nite 'vibe' of a Cockle Bay or Rocks. Nothing self obsessed about that, its just smart and i think thats what the other dude is talking about. Any fool can build stuff on the water but it all has to 'work' and thats why developers will look to whats happened in Sydney in the last 15 yrs or so....

^^ Fair enough.

Thanks, i lived in Sydney for 10 years, i'm quite familiar with Darling Harbour, Cockle Bay, King St Wharf etc etc.... but it is a hell of a claim to imply that Melbourne's Dockland developement is a direct attempt at copying Sydney....its speak volumes of the self obsessed nature of Sydney

Oh dear...

Vibe LOL

Resturants LOL-San Marco Della Baia

I don't know where to start... do you realise how bloody insecure you sound?

Melbourne is not trying to become 'Sydney, the harbour city'. The fact is that Docklands use to be exactly that, docks, but since being defunct as a dock it has been a monotonous eyesore. So thank god that now it is being REDEVELOPED. It is a known fact that for the past 15 years Melbourne has been trying to embrace the Yarra, first by developing Southbank, and now with Docklands. I don't see it as anything but a positive thing.

Sure, in terms of natural beauty Docklands will never match Sydney's harbour because it's, as you said, man made. But at least something positive is being done there instead of it being a dump. And I will bet my bottom dollar that architectually Docklands will be streets ahead of what Darling Harbour has to offer.

So I guess *ANY* city that trys to develop a waterfront is IMITATING almighty Sydney? Geez, watch out coastal cities, you don't wanna offend mother Sydney with plagiarism of it's beautiful harbour, do you! :lol:

Hey now wait a minute. I love how ppl on these forums neglect half of the posts.. Its a classic syndrome. Firstly i never compared the Docks with Syd, in fact i was looking forward to it. BUT when you read stupid things like-


I have to disagree - I think the main thing Sydney has over the other cities is the central skyline over the Harbour. Melbourne will in time match this when the Docklands is built. As for density - the Melbourne skyline is getting dense with excellent (and not so excellent buildings).

will see this in 10-15 years time, it will be a harbour city, but a harbour city with class

Not only is it a load of crap but it is just totally insecure and mean spirited.
The only thing i did was put things straight. It seems the trend for someone to bad mouth a city (btw i live in Syd so of course i react-its my home!) and then when someone reacts to the statements ppl go 'gosh! You are insecure'. To use an old 90's proverb- 'i'm keeping it real'. I normally steer clear of crap like this but sometimes enough is enough.

nd I will bet my bottom dollar that architectually Docklands will be streets ahead of what Darling Harbour has to offer.

See what i mean ppl compare it to Darling Harbour (which i may add was opened in 88') and then say man you are insecure? Am i the only one that sees the irony????

Thanks, i lived in Sydney for 10 years, i'm quite familiar with Darling Harbour, Cockle Bay, King St Wharf etc etc.... but it is a hell of a claim to imply that Melbourne's Dockland developement is a direct attempt at copying Sydney....its speak volumes of the self obsessed nature of Sydney


^^ check out the quotes i placed in the post above from melb forumers. It must speak volumes of the self obsessed nature of Melb???

^^ check out the quotes i placed in the post above from melb forumers. It must speak volumes of the self obsessed nature of Melb???
I would totally agree that on a "harbour" city vs "harbour" city basis there is no comparison between Sydney and Melbourne, but i think most of those quote, with one notable exception, are alluding to the fact that the built habitat around Victoria Harbour will ultimately be streets ahead of what is built at Darling Harbour, which i agree with. There is a difference between comparing the waterfront developements of Sydney and Melbourne and saying that "Melbourne is trying to be like Sydney" by building a waterfront precinct, it would be like me saying Dubai is trying to be like Melbourne by building tall residential buildings..... its arrogant.

I would totally agree that on a "harbour" city vs "harbour" city basis there is no comparison between Sydney and Melbourne, but i think most of those quote, with one notable exception, are alluding to the fact that the built habitat around Victoria Harbour will ultimately be streets ahead of what is built at Darling Harbour, which i agree with. There is a difference between comparing the waterfront developements of Sydney and Melbourne and saying that "Melbourne is trying to be like Sydney" by building a waterfront precinct, it would be like me saying Dubai is trying to be like Melbourne by building tall residential buildings..... its arrogant.

I totally agree, and i didnt mean to be arrogant. But understand, those quotes clearly state to some ppl it is a dev that is indeed trying to make Melb like Sydney i.e. a Harbour City. That was the point i was trying to make. The tone was slightly sarcastic in nature and granted it wasn't easy to see. My statement 'It's funny how Melb in essence is trying to be like Sydney with water etc. They do say imitation is the biggest form of flattery.' was honouring the fact that those quotes just craved to be like Sydney, so i took the piss and took them for real (i.e. turn it against their original intent). I mentioned the water beacuse all of a sudden its a 'harbour' (?), lets be frank here we know that they werent alluding to the fact that it was a waterfront precinct, their comments and intent are clear for all to see.
Again no one brought it on except ppl from Melb, can you you see that??

I dont see what you people are fighting about, Melbourne and Sydney are TOTALLY different cities and any comparison is at best spurious.
For starters Melbourne was Planned and Sydney wasnt, Sydney is on a magnificent Harbour, Melbourne is on a river and large Bay.
Sydney is 46 years older than Melbourne.
Melbourne is reasonably flat compared to Sydney that is much more hilly.Etc,etc,etc
Can't you people just get over it and your patent insecurities and admit BOTH are great cities?

I totally agree, and i didnt mean to be arrogant. But understand, those quotes clearly state to some ppl it is a dev that is indeed trying to make Melb like Sydney i.e. a Harbour City. That was the point i was trying to make. The tone was slightly sarcastic in nature and granted it wasn't easy to see. My statement 'It's funny how Melb in essence is trying to be like Sydney with water etc. They do say imitation is the biggest form of flattery.' was honouring the fact that those quotes just craved to be like Sydney, so i took the piss and took them for real (i.e. turn it against their original intent). I mentioned the water beacuse all of a sudden its a 'harbour' (?), lets be frank here we know that they werent alluding to the fact that it was a waterfront precinct, their comments and intent are clear for all to see.
Again no one brought it on except ppl from Melb, can you you see that??

Yep i did see a few things written about Melb and cringe a little....i decided to keep quiet, if you say that you intended that comment to be sarcastic i'll take your word for it, but at the time i decided i couldnt let it slip..he he... =p :)

I dont see what you people are fighting about, Melbourne and Sydney are TOTALLY different cities and any comparison is at best spurious.
For starters Melbourne was Planned and Sydney wasnt, Sydney is on a magnificent Harbour, Melbourne is on a river and large Bay.
Sydney is 46 years older than Melbourne.
Melbourne is reasonably flat compared to Sydney that is much more hilly.Etc,etc,etc
Can't you people just get over it and your patent insecurities and admit BOTH are great cities?

Calm down.... its just debate, and more importantly its remained civil... Trying to stop people from comparing Melbourne and Sydney is like trying to stop the sun from setting.....

which of these cities would have a better skyline in the future. Wollongong or Newcastle?

Newcastle
1. Its much bigger in population and size
2. it already has a bigger skyline then wollongong
3. There are absolutely 100s of developements at the moment being built, many only 12 storeys but still more for the density

Newcastle is basically in the process of building a new water front precinct "honeysuckle" which already has restaurants, board walks, hotels and offices and is in the process of constructing 4 or so 10 to 12 storey apartment buildings, which will be even more of an addition of the skyline

http://www.cronepartners.com/leewharf.html
this is the link to the development taking place

I tell you what, its nice to see a Melb vs Sydney discussion as opposed to a Melb vs Bris discussion. For me, its Sydney all the way, especially when you include the bridge, Nth Sydney, and the most beautiful harbour in the world.

Where I believe Melbourne has a huge advantage, is that it is so flat so all of the buildings look so much taller than they are, even though they are generally huge. THis still doesnt take the title from Sydney though, IMO.

Alot of this is to do with Geographical location and there have been comments that if you took Built Sydney and put it somewhere else it would not be as impressive, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Put any city somewhere else and it wouldnt be the same city by any means so this arguement is pointless.

And as for Melbourne becoming a harbour city because of Victoria Harbour, who are you trying to kid? Yes, Victoria Harbour is comparable to Darling Harbour, but not Sydney Harbour. Melbourne is a bayside city with a river and its connection to the water is nothing like Sydneys is and never will be. Its connection to the water is more like Brisbanes is although with the advantage of being closer to the bay and having Victoria Harbour.

1. Sydney
2. Melbourne
3. Brisbane
4. Gold Coast
5. Perth

does newcastle have a height limit

which of these cities would have a better skyline in the future. Wollongong or Newcastle?

Easily Newcastle, you only have to look at Honeysuckle and all the new developments, if you include Charlestown then Wollongong has no hope. quite a few towers are going up in charelstown around the mall.

BTW Gosford has more taller buildings and a bigger skyline than Wollongong - even The Entrance is giving it a run for its money and has a taller building than anything down there.

Wollongong has a population less than either the Newcastle/Lake Macquarie or the Central Coast and the gap is widening.

Unless some substantial investment takes place in Wollongong I don't see it changing anytime soon. For the most part it's rundown and lacking new initiatives - Newcastle is full steam ahead, with many regeneration projects in the works.

does newcastle have a height limit
I was under the impression that it does have a height limit. Something to do with as old church or town hall or something so new developments stay below the height of it? Can anyone verify this?

Newcastle does indeed have a height limit, I think to preserve the historic character in areas if the city and maintain Christchurch as a feature. The church sits on the hill behind the main area between civic and Newcastle and serves as focal point. It would be great to see them wack up a 200m building but I don't think it will be coming anytime soon.

thats dissapointing it would have been good to have a 200metre buildin there

Sydney from Enfield
http://www.mcgrath.com.au/webimages/properties/ENFIELD/25634/buying/22621/25634_1.jpg

If you include the suburbs then I would say it would be crazy to say melbourne is anywhere near Sydney.

Melbourne is only now embracing highrise suburban CBDs, Sydney already has several and the number is continually growing. Chatswood and Parramatta alone have better CBDs than some of Australia's state capitals.

Hi everyone, this is my first reply but have been reading with interest for some time. I might point out that Sydney's embracing of higher-density suburban living is not necessarily a virtue but a necessity, whereas Melbourne is preparing for more surburban highrises as part of it's 2030 plan - more a policy to stop the sprawling, not absolute physical necessity. In addition, I read somewhere recently that Sydney's population is closer to the 3.3m mark when taking into account it's actual metro area rather than the 12k square mile statistical divison it is contained in. It seems that Sydney's transport infrastructure is in crisis as well. Thus, the two cities are sooooo beyond the comparison that they often attract. just a consideration.

Sydney from Enfield
http://www.mcgrath.com.au/webimages/properties/ENFIELD/25634/buying/22621/25634_1.jpg
Dosent look that good from that angle Cul.

"A lot of this is to do with Geographical location and there have been comments that if you took Built Sydney and put it somewhere else it would not be as impressive, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Put any city somewhere else and it wouldnt be the same city by any means so this arguement is pointless."

What a load of crap if you took the Harbour away from Sydney it woulnt be anything like it is now with no Bridge.no Opera house, no beautifull seascapes it would be pretty ordinary.Its the Harbour that makes Sydney the great city it is! :bash:

brand new here (hi!), but would like to say my two favourite views of Melbourne CBD/ inner city are from Studley Park Rd, Kew (heading toward Collingwood) and Hight St Northcote, Heading toward Clifton Hill.

Melbourne doesn't have too many hills clode to town, so these two spots are stand-outs! (I'll try to get some snaps, unless someone else has any?)