What is happening? Sydney has not had like one skyscraper/high rise constructed for ages, for a city like Sydney you’d think they’d be going up everywhere. I herd there doing some new Sydney Docklands thing (not as big as Melbourne’s though) with a few high rises, but not too much above about 50 stories…the city really needs a new super tall, or dominating tower, the Sydney Tower just looks terribly dated now (especially with wires running down from it), Sydney needs something really tall (and please not a tower), a unique skyscraper, something like the ones on the Gold Coast. Anyone agree, or know of any new info on proposed super tall/high rise structures?

It's because some twat thought Sydney Tower was the most important tower in Sydney and that nothing should be built taller than it. plus you've got shadowing and space issues.

World Tower is quite nice and was bult recently.

That said I wouldn't want stuff like Q1 in Sydney. I live on the Gold Coast and have to say that it may look good in pictures but in person it's nothing special. Circle on Cavill makes up for it though. Now that's a nice building.

nothings wrong with sydney tower. i dont think it looks dated. The cross wires and gold turret are good unique features, better then the normal concrete shaft??
only the 12storey bldg it sits on which is being revamped next year is dated, anyhow with new adjacent 40storey Westfield Tower, should look excellent in 3 years.
yes sydney has a 235m height limit, but this hasnt stopped 235m/70st towers going ahead.You need the office and resi market to be strong to have need to build a height limit scraper.
atm sydney is idling and will start on next cycle next year.
Sydney actually has a 150m skyscraper uc (Aspect) while Melbourne hasnt any (128m Neo is current tallest uc).Verve has topped out and the city is now awaiting its next 150m+ scraper. Gold coast has only 1 skyscraper uc over 150m being 220m ConC.Brisbane has only 1 uc over 150m being 160m Skyline tower.
So forget supertalls, how about we just try to build something above 500ft/150m first??
Sydney has approvals for 2x 188m towers., (33 bligh st & john boyd tower). There is talk of a 200m to replace the Goodsell bldg, but as for 235m+ towers, theres the Thakral tower above Wynyard station which is still on drawing board and maybe a 200m tower for EDH.But we wont see another 150m+ all-resi tower for a while and 200m+ offcie bldg will need asome tennants first?.Com Bank are currently looking for 65,000sqm for there new HQ. i am at the front line here at council and its very quiet, not even a sniff of a any supertall for maybe 10 years.

not sure what you class supertall? especially in Australia but i think anything over 200m.
anyway, looks like Sydney is getting a "supertall", sooner rather then Later. Mirvac is about to lodge an office tower stage 1 DA tommorow. the tower will rise to 211m. will be similar shape to DB Place across the road.

Sydney is starting to get boring.

The door is slowly closing for super tallies. I don't see big ones going up at all.

Just will be replaced with fat but short towers around 150m.

I'm loosing interest in Sydney's skyline, although I still love the city, there is no new exciting projects going on in the city, while Melbourne is getting the full treatment (Melbourne Docklands, huge ferris wheel like the London Eye, marina, wharfs, and more skyscrapers)....Sydney really needs some new skycrapers, the skyline is looking unimpressive and too small for a city like Sydney...I hope those height restrections don't stick around.

Melbourne is getting a "London Eye" type giant wheel?

Melbourne is getting a "London Eye" type giant wheel?

yes, its called the southern star observation wheel last i heard (a while ago)

and also last time i checked some of the pods where built... but it was a while ago so i don't know whats happened since...

it will be a few meters shorter than the london eye and be situated in the melbourne docklands... (i'll go find a render or something...)

http://www.waterfrontcity.com.au/uploads/pics/wfc_attrac_ban_01.jpg

from the main website:

http://www.waterfrontcity.com.au/index.php?id=36

not sure what you class supertall? especially in Australia but i think anything over 200m.
anyway, looks like Sydney is getting a "supertall", sooner rather then Later. Mirvac is about to lodge an office tower stage 1 DA tommorow. the tower will rise to 211m. will be similar shape to DB Place across the road.

211m is nice but the CBD has many of those already and it won't make an impact(unless it's put in exactly the right place). Look at world tower for eg. Good height and structure but it's just blended in with the rest.

I would class a supertall as 300m+. This is what sydney needs but won't get it with that 235m height cap imposed.

Melbourne is getting a "London Eye" type giant wheel?
yes :(
Do you guys want it?

I'm loosing interest in Sydney's skyline, although I still love the city, there is no new exciting projects going on in the city, while Melbourne is getting the full treatment (Melbourne Docklands, huge ferris wheel like the London Eye, marina, wharfs, and more skyscrapers)....Sydney really needs some new skycrapers, the skyline is looking unimpressive and too small for a city like Sydney...I hope those height restrections don't stick around.
fukin serious?
sydney has one of the great skylines.well defined and lots of interesting tops.goes on forever.from Green square -redfern-CBD-Nth syd-St leo-Chatswood.
sydney is getting new skyscrapers.!!! Its entering its next cycle just like melb, Bris and GC.
Sydney will soon start on the 22hec EDH site which will have approx 13 skyscrapers ranging from 15st-60st+. the CUB will also 12 skyscrapers with 2x 100m towers.
2007 will see some great bldgs start.
grantus- yes 300m is a supertall overseas but not in Australia.
anything 200m+ is supertall.they dont come around that often.

I don't know about this Melbourne Wheel - sounds kinda lame.

I am sorry but even with all the positive-thinking known, I have to conceed that to me 200m is anything but 'supertall', more like 'supersmall'. I just don't validate that Australia should have a different rule for percieved tower heights based on a lack of tall buildings. Sydney is indeed getting rather boring. Bring on Chatswood and Parramatta - maybe we are in for some taller treats outside the city with any luck.

I have been bored with sydney for a long time and it's always great to get good designs and density but I would give up all of these 100-200m towers for a single 300+ tower and or something revoultionary and tall. Sydney is complacent as usual. Planning has rendered it this way IMO. The lack of excitement and lack of vision will hopefully be broken by something in the not too distant future that breaks with all the tradition and planning laws and delivers us another icon and monument for the future. I'd give it up too for a rejuvenation plan with some vision, instead of some ordinary plan for EDH. We could have had a worldclass development - what annoys me is a lack of vision and forward thinking, nothing is done to impress or showcase, rather its a a case of 'that will be good enough'. I'd like to to see them rip up half of redfern and broadway and go gangbusters with it, create a new city focus and remove all height limits. Essentially create a new city with promise and future thought rather than another annex to a tired and limited Sydney CBD. There is no point pandering to nimbys and stopping the city reach it full potential due to some out-dated planning schedule. Currently sydney is capped by it's own self-imposed stupidty. What I wouldn't give to go in and burn all our planning laws and legislation and start a fresh. Even if Sydney in't ready for some massive towers it will be one day and we shouldn't put the brakes on now.

On another note, I am glad we are not getting a wheel, this is too cliche 'london-eye'. I know I have said this before but I am obviously not the only one that agrees. Melbourne does not need it to win fans, it has a great thing happening already and IMO this will just cheapen what they have worked so hard with already.

Culwalla, I'm glad I herd that, I guess there is something to look forward to! I just hope people won't start loosing interest in the cities skyline, but I doubt they will with all of those buildings you mentioned, can I have some pictures of the design and so on. Also, do you know of any other major Sydney projects?

not sure what you class supertall? especially in Australia but i think anything over 200m.
anyway, looks like Sydney is getting a "supertall", sooner rather then Later. Mirvac is about to lodge an office tower stage 1 DA tommorow. the tower will rise to 211m. will be similar shape to DB Place across the road.

We either set world's standards, follow world's standards or admit we're not up to world's stadards. Luckily Australia has two supertalls according to most popular definition for supertall, which is 300m+.

And Sydney tower should be just pulled down. I'd do it tomorrow if I could. That's just stupid. A mediocre 70's sculpture having such impact on city's skyline...

I am sorry but even with all the positive-thinking known, I have to conceed that to me 200m is anything but 'supertall', more like 'supersmall'. I just don't validate that Australia should have a different rule for percieved tower heights based on a lack of tall buildings. Sydney is indeed getting rather boring. Bring on Chatswood and Parramatta - maybe we are in for some taller treats outside the city with any luck.

On another note, I am glad we are not getting a wheel, this is too cliche 'london-eye'. I know I have said this before but I am obviously not the only one that agrees. Melbourne does not need it to win fans, it has a great thing happening already and IMO this will just cheapen what they have worked so hard with already.

yeah I gotta agree with you. I don't consider anything under the 200 metre mark a skyscraper. it's just a tall building. A skyscraper is something that stands out above the rest.

I also agree with you on the London eye. They should have thought of something original rather than just ripping off the London Eye.

who cares if a city does not get any tall buildings
I prefer quality over quantity any day!
I think Sydney's height limit has done more good than harm - keep it!

^^
I know what you are saying Zach but IMO it will eventually loose some credibility. Especially in the face of other more minor Australian cities with taller skylines. Sydney is known worldwide as having a skyline and a good one at that but we are going to look rather stupid when Melbourne and Brisbane and Perth overtake it. Why cant we have one or two quality supertalls rather than a glut of good and bad smaller towers. You can't easily market a city on a few 200m towers, i'd rather have something that stands out in my postcards and photos. Enough of generic city already.

I'd like to see a masterplan with balls
Instead of this 'join the dots' type of city development.

i think sydney might have a few suprises up its sleeve in next few years.i think we will get a height limit scraper-235m+ in next 5-10years. sydney is running out of space.most new bldgs now have to have tall bldgs torn down in order to be built. ive heard goss recently that sydeys fsr regulations-12;1 is stunting its growth and the Property Council of Australia might have to raise the fsr so sydney can achieve taller bldgs for each plot.
i think thin tall bldgs are way of future not stumpy large floor plated bldgs, hich are flavour of month atm.

^^ i hope so Cul, it just like I feel there must be more ... if you get my drift. It's like something big must happen eventually! I'd love some tall thin buildings like you mention, this would be a blessing. I'd love to see some planning changes to effect this. Slender buildings always look great and they accentuate the height. Moving down a very slow hong kong path maybe :P

^^
I know what you are saying Zach but IMO it will eventually loose some credibility. Especially in the face of other more minor Australian cities with taller skylines. Sydney is known worldwide as having a skyline and a good one at that but we are going to look rather stupid when Melbourne and Brisbane and Perth overtake it. Why cant we have one or two quality supertalls rather than a glut of good and bad smaller towers. You can't easily market a city on a few 200m towers, i'd rather have something that stands out in my postcards and photos. Enough of generic city already.

I'd like to see a masterplan with balls
Instead of this 'join the dots' type of city development.
how can sydney be ever "overtaken" by melb,bris,gc if they only have half or even 1/4 number of skyscrapers? alot of people ive met say sydney is only "big city" feel city in oz. so dense and tall.everywhere.and its spreading each direction.
as zach said, probably better off with some you-beaut 150m scrapers then a but ugly 300m ones. really tall bldgs can really change city for good or ruin it .i think sydney is going ok atm.just think of some of the tallies we have got in last few years- citigroup,angel pl,aurora,wt,latitude,db place,cove and recently meriton and lumiere.im happy with most.
looks like a fukin nice skyline to me.

http://static.flickr.com/89/265939170_546cb02627_b.jpg

LOL i agree with you on 'the big city feel' and on that you are completely correct. I am talking in the future. It's some of the ones we have missed like Angel Place and and Bond Tower that uspets me. I want Sydney to get back to this type of thinking ... big thinking.

Sydney does look alot better at night though, alot of those towers look alot more mediocre in the day.

how can sydney be ever "overtaken" by melb,bris,gc if they only have half or even 1/4 number of skyscrapers?

Because the number of 12 story buildings is a terrible way to measure a skyline. You can't even *see* a 12 story on the skyline in any capital city in australia.


as zach said, probably better off with some you-beaut 150m scrapers then a but ugly 300m ones. really tall bldgs can really change city for good or ruin it.
Name one bad 240m+ skyscraper in Australia. A 230m height limit does nothing to improve the quality of buildings.

Cul I went down to Sydney and Melbourne earlier this year and I'd say that Melbourne feels just as big as Sydney if not bigger. I know it's not in terms of population, but their CBD is just superb looking these days. It feels so different to how it did 5 years ago. I didn't even recognise southbank. it's like they're building a second skyline there.

All the International studying American's I talk to here at uni on the Gold Coast say that after travelling the East Coast they think that Gold Coast is Australia's Miami, Sydney is Australia's LA and San Francisco and Melbourne is Australia's Chicago and New York.

^sydney is always said to be the NY of australia and melb the chicago.especialy number of highrise wise.sanfrancisco?lol
dan-i knew you would bring that up. lol
i was actually was talking 30-40story bldgs.or 90m-130m. this is the height which tends to bulk up a city.
Sydney has over 30 more then melb. 30x 30-40storey bldgs= a small city.
heres current count for oz cities. really shows size comparisons
OVER 90M
sydney-118 (UC-4)=122/ only cbd, not including Nth syd (5)bondij (2),st leo (2),chatswd.(4 uc-3)
melb-85 (uc-4) =89/ includes cbd,st kilda/docklands/sthbank , all metro
gold coast-52 (uc-9)=61/ includes all gold coast.
brisbane-46 (uc-4)=50/ includes cBd and surrounds
perth-12 (uc-1)=13/ includes cbd and surrounds
adelaide-6 cBD
darwin- 0 (uc-1) cbd

They're talking more about the cultural and visual similarities of the cities. If you think about it makes sense.

San Francisco and Sydney = Both famous harbour cities both with famous bridges, both famous for their gay culture.

LA and Sydney - Sunny weather, Glitzy lifestyle, Entertainment capitols. Both have become an integrated city from several smaller cities.

Melbourne and New York - Art and Culture capitols. Both have an affinity for building tall. Both were the most important cities in their country during the early 20th century but are now lessened in importance by their rival cities LA and Sydney.

Melbourne and Chicago - Both sit next to a huge body of water (Lake Michigan, Port Phillip Bay). Both sports mad. Both on a grid with a river running through them. Both known as being industrial cities.

^^^ I heard Melbourne was once bigger than Sydney in population. Is that true???

And Sydneysiders. Don't feel too left out. Imagine living in Darwin. zero atm and 1 uc! You've got like 120 and a couple uc!!!

They're talking more about the cultural and visual similarities of the cities. If you think about it makes sense.

San Francisco and Sydney = Both famous harbour cities both with famous bridges, both famous for their gay culture.

LA and Sydney - Sunny weather, Glitzy lifestyle, Entertainment capitols. Both have become an integrated city from several smaller cities.

Melbourne and New York - Art and Culture capitols. Both have an affinity for building tall. Both were the most important cities in their country during the early 20th century but are now lessened in importance by their rival cities LA and Sydney.

Melbourne and Chicago - Both sit next to a huge body of water (Lake Michigan, Port Phillip Bay). Both sports mad. Both on a grid with a river running through them. Both known as being industrial cities.

Sorry but Sydney is nothing like LA, and fortunately there isn't any city in Australia that is. Sydney does have some similarities with San Fransisco and New York. San Fransisco in terms of geography and New York in terms of density, attitude and street vibe. Melbourne isn't like New York at all but it is a lot like Chicago. Both are relatively flat cities of similar relative size built on a grid system adjacent to a large body of water with extensive skylines. Both lack natural beauty but make up for it with other attraction such as street life, culture, shopping, museums etc.

I have yet to find a US city that reminds me of Brisbane although Pittsburgh is simlar only in that it is also situated on a bend in a river with a compact but dense skyline. Other than that they are very different cities.

Gold Coast probably is like Miami. Both cities are lacking in soul, character,heritage, have a beach setting, are full of retirees and attracts the 'white trash' brigade.

^^^ I heard Melbourne was once bigger than Sydney in population. Is that true???

During the gold rushes yes. By 1860 Melbourne was almost as big as Chicago with 1/2 million people. While NSW at the time had just over 300,000.

how can sydney be ever "overtaken" by melb,bris,gc if they only have half or even 1/4 number of skyscrapers? alot of people ive met say sydney is only "big city" feel city in oz. so dense and tall.everywhere.and its spreading each direction.
as zach said, probably better off with some you-beaut 150m scrapers then a but ugly 300m ones. really tall bldgs can really change city for good or ruin it .i think sydney is going ok atm.just think of some of the tallies we have got in last few years- citigroup,angel pl,aurora,wt,latitude,db place,cove and recently meriton and lumiere.im happy with most.
looks like a fukin nice skyline to me.


Get ya hand off it tough guy

the whole my city is better then your city is just stupid and happens again and again and again... heh

Melbourne is more like Boston, my god it feels nothing like Chicago or New York. Melbourne simply does not have that international metropolis feel to it yet and no I am not stirring trouble, this is merely an observation.

As for Sydney not being like New York well I beg to differ, Sydney does feel very like Ney York in some aspects just as (to me) it also embodies elements of LA. The only simularity I see with San Fran is the topography and nothing else. San Fran is like a city of uptight nimbys with their turtle necks worn too high. Sydney is like what New York might be like if it had been moved to Southern California IMO.

Get ya hand off it tough guy

its off now.
love posting stats.

Funny, I could swear Melbourne feels like Melbourne, and Sydney certainly felt like Sydney last time I was there.

sydneys getting some real interesting highrise these day.

http://static.flickr.com/118/268290797_1d15147e0e_o.jpg

Yep, i agree with those forummers who perceive 235m as an outdated height limit. Let's face it, 300m is surely the minimum height now to make an impression and be world standard.
When i visit other cities, it is often their supertalls that make the biggest impression. Tapei 101 (for me at least) makes this city worth a visit, and Petronas Towers never fails to impress me whenever i'm in KL (which is every year).
This is the New World Culwulla, there shouldn't need to be Eurostyle height restrictions, as there's no St Pauls etc to overshadow imo.
I'm still devastated that EDH isn't having a supertall on site -what a lost opportunity.

Melbourne is more like Boston, my god it feels nothing like Chicago or New York. Melbourne simply does not have that international metropolis feel to it yet and no I am not stirring trouble, this is merely an observation.
As for Sydney not being like New York well I beg to differ, Sydney does feel very like Ney York in some aspects just as (to me) it also embodies elements of LA. The only simularity I see with San Fran is the topography and nothing else. San Fran is like a city of uptight nimbys with their turtle necks worn too high. Sydney is like what New York might be like if it had been moved to Southern California IMO.


Are you serious...having travelled extensivley is sure as hell does. Really think about it.....

Sydney does too...but I would say it is more west coast american in its BIG CITY ATTITUDE whereas Melbourne is thank god more European in its BIG CITY ATTITUDE.

You dont need 800 25 story bulidings to have a BIG CITY FEEL. An after being to NYC and SF and LA...all of which which have grid streets I can safely tell you Sydney feels more west coast USA than East Coast USA.

Gold Coast probably is like Miami. Both cities are lacking in soul, character,heritage, have a beach setting, are full of retirees and attracts the 'white trash' brigade.

Hmm, hardly matey - Miami is a regional HQ & financial centre for Latin America, has an amazing nightlife, gay scene etc. Check this article out from this week's Economist magazine on Miami's thriving Arts scene:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=8038258

as ive mentioned before, just because theres a 235m height limit doesnt mean its limiting developers from developing bldgs. If sydney's height limit was lifted tommorrow to 300m dont expect the council to be inundated with 300m proposals. atm the resi market is crap and office isnt any better.
sydney is due for another height limit bldg within next 10 years.
MLC-mid 70's
Chifley/GPT-early 90's
WT-mid 2000's
next 2010-1015?

Nope sorry for me Melbourne does not have that big city international feel ... yet. At night it feels like it's lacking a pulse. I still stand by my feeling Melbourne reminds me more of Boston which invariably agrees with your idea that Melbourne is more European in its feeling.

Sydney might have a chaotic street pattern but I still get a strong feeling of New York and if you noticed I said Sydney has a strong Socal feel to it too - this also agrees with what you are saying above. I think Sydney has Stong elements of New York, La and for that matter Asian cities. Whereas Melbourne is slightly less exaggerated with a more Boston - euroesque feel. I am not slamming Melbourne, it's a fine city but I just don't get the same buzz and international city vibe as I do here in Sydney.

Hmm, hardly matey - Miami is a regional HQ & financial centre for Latin America, has an amazing nightlife, gay scene etc. Check this article out from this week's Economist magazine on Miami's thriving Arts scene:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=8038258

Gold Coast is like Miami Beach as distinct from Miami's commercial CBD. I think with time the Gold Coast will shine with greater investment in commerical and a bigger growth in its business potential. The GC suffers from a closeness to Brisbane in this regard and obviously a very strong history of being only a holiday destination.

That's strange Avatar, as even though i live in Sydney, i find Melbourne to 'feel' far more urban and cosmopolitan than Sydney.
It has a proper CBD and grid, wide boulevards, trams and better public transport etc etc.
Sydney is hardly Asian-like, when its centre is dead after 5.30pm - even Borders in Pitt St Mall closes now at 6pm as it wasn't worth them stayting open!

Avatar, I think that could also be the fact that it is very open in Melbourne's CBD; meaning the CBD is very large for the amount of highrises it contains.

^^ not all of Sydney is dead after 5:30! My god open your eyes!

Whoever defined urban as only wide boulevards, gridded street layouts, trams and good public transport? haha.

^^ not all of Sydney is dead after 5:30! My god open your eyes!
City Centre is IMO, that;s why i head to Chinatown or WBJ where Borders is open til 11pm every night:)

^^
I know what you are saying Zach but IMO it will eventually loose some credibility. Especially in the face of other more minor Australian cities with taller skylines. Sydney is known worldwide as having a skyline and a good one at that but we are going to look rather stupid when Melbourne and Brisbane and Perth overtake it. Why cant we have one or two quality supertalls rather than a glut of good and bad smaller towers. You can't easily market a city on a few 200m towers, i'd rather have something that stands out in my postcards and photos. Enough of generic city already.

I'd like to see a masterplan with balls
Instead of this 'join the dots' type of city development.

why do buildings need to be tall?
do people travel to paris and take photos of tall buildings?
a city is a lot more than tall buildings
national parks being 10 minutes from the city, surf beaches being 10 minutes from the city, a fab harbour - what else do we need - tall buildings to give us credibility??

Also what is tall? I had a few friends who were up from Melbourne and they looked at Citigroup building and said wow Sydney buildings are huge! I laughed

OK lets not debate each city, this is really only about Sydney and our lack of newly inspiring, super-tall buildings.

Maybe if I hold my breath long enough i might either...

A) pass out
B) reach a new level of stupidty
C) see a fantastic new plan that calls for a removeal of all Sydney height restrictions.

@Zach24 Paris and a lot of those cities use their heritage. Needless to say that one of the biggest tourist destinations in Paris is the Eiffel Tower, which reaches 300 metres. Sydney Tower had to put a pole on the end to reach that height, and now the rest are being limited to 245.

And Australia (when compared to other areas in the world) has essentially no Urban heritage!

Sydney has placed itself as a skyscraper city and you cannot just switch the button off. We are not Paris. People around the world come here expecting to see a city of the usual suspects such as the SOH, beaches and SHB, they also expect to see buildings. If our buildings don't live up to expectation it looks rather crazy IMO. Sure everyone has a different idea of what a skyline looks like and how tall is tall, but Sydney could do better to keep pace and add a few tallies in - the value we could get from them is worth it. BTW how often does big business see credibilty in beaches and the harbour, the only link would be in the perceived lifestyle available to their employees.

For Sydney with no apparent heritage - I still believe in semantics and the bigger, taller and more profound speaks alot in today's world as it has always done. Icon, index and the semantics of having taller buildings provide a clear message that cannot be misinterpreted. They speak of being up to speed and on the pulse with other world centres - especially when there is little else we can trade on in a business sence. Sydney's skyline is generic and it needs to provide a more defined and clearly recognisable image. I have said it before and I will say it again - Sydney cannot forevere trade on the merits of its two icons (SOH, SHB), the beach and it's harbour. We need new structures and areas to reinvigorate and define the city for the future. It is stale now and new bold visions will bring back the life and interest the city needs. I am talking bigger than EDH which in my mind is really rather craptacular.

Business leaders don’t care about height limits
If this was the case why is Sydney still Australia's leading financial capital?

When Babcock and Brown decided to move their international headquarters from San Francisco to Sydney did they do this with the expectation that height limits would be removed?

When Fidelity had a choice between Syd, Singapore and HK - why did they choose Sydney?

What about Deutsche Bank when they moved their global derivative documentation centre to sydney? Did they have problems with Sydney's heigh limits

^^ lol you are missing some of my point but anyways...

Of course business leader will see beyond a charade of shiny tall buildings. Often the public will not. It's also about perception, raising awareness and inspiring vision. A city with no vision invariably gets stale and in some cases gets left behind.

I think if a city especially like Sydney, does not build supertall, it will not be looked badly upon, but if a city, especially like Sydney, does build up supertall, it will be looked well upon.

It isn't that the city looks bad by not having supertalls, but more that it could look better. Personally I think Sydney has quite a flat skyline with a stick poking up through it.

Yes Brissy I agree. Why would we limit ourselves when it can only make us look better? Girls wear their stilettos to get some height and better show their attributes. Sydney is no different, the height can only add to the spectacle.

A simple thread like how come Sydney's getting no new highrises turns into Has Melbourne or Sydney got more of an international feel to it.

our tallest (to roof) (WT-230m) looks small in this pic. really shows how big cbd is
http://www.realestate.com.au/objects/props/0281/102770281ml1130515272.jpg

^^ hot pic Cul but does it have a vertical stretch? :)

It certainly looks a little elongated to me but that could be a result of lossy jpeg compression or the filter.
Someone has gone ape-shit with the saturation though.

WT never looks like Sydney's tallest, in long photos AMP and GPT always look bigger, not sure why.

Interesting thoughts by everyone. I'm not so sure that Sydney needs supertalls. The backdrop of the harbour, the bridge, and the opera house IMHO is timeless. It could stay that way forever, with the same generic city in the background and people would still flock to see it. Most tourists don't come for anything else but the 3 postcard pefect assests that Sydney is so lucky to have.

Once you turn your back on the harbour though, it's like walking down a street in Cleveland, Ohio, which is a crying shame.

Yes sydney really feels like cleveland Ohio - ummmm - have you been to cleveland? - I take it you havent

what is sydney complaining about? you have one of the most reconisable skylines in the world! who cares if there isnt anything over 235, sydney is practically the hub of australia. id trade that attention for for tallies in brisbane anyday.

Sydney doesn't have one of the most recognisable skylines in the world, but it does have one of the most recognisable bridges/opera house etc. The skyline, with the exception of Sydney tower, takes a backseat to these tourist attractions. Arguably maybe it should stay that way, though I think personally it's overegulated.

Sydney doesn't have one of the most recognisable skylines in the world, but it does have one of the most recognisable bridges/opera house etc. The skyline, with the exception of Sydney tower, takes a backseat to these tourist attractions. Arguably maybe it should stay that way, though I think personally it's overegulated.

Yup I agree with the statement the skyline is not greatly recognisable. The buildings and the skyline are generic and have no quality that sets them apart from some very ordinary skylines IMO. Sydney Tower brings some identity but its not that positive. If you take the skyline out of context you soon realise it has alot less going for it, you have to look no further than the many movies filmed here that use it as a set for 'anytown USA'.

They skyline has always taken a backseat but I don't this should be the status quo. I for one don't want it to remain forever shrouded in the icons of the present which will evetually turn into the icons of the past. Sure we should nurture and keep them, but there is no valid reason why these should be the only attractions or iconic monuments in Sydney.

Yes sydney really feels like cleveland Ohio - ummmm - have you been to cleveland? - I take it you havent

Yes I have. You obviously totally missed the point though.

Yeah I'd rather a point something more like this. Sydney is so so boring atm.

A point not to be missed I guess...

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5828/edhwessex01cg3.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=edhwessex01cg3.jpg)

The funny thing about this conversation is that I really dont think that there are that many cities that have recognisable skylines. NYC, HK, Shanghai, LA and Chicago are the only ones I can think of. Sure you could add Toronto but if you take out CN Tower it looks like any other north american city in the same way that if you take out Sydney Tower Sydney skyline becomes a little generic.

Personally I think the Sydney skyline is up there as one of the top ten in the world, you have to look at the skyline as a whole, not at what it would look like without something, cos that just isnt reality.

I really dont think Sydney needs supertalls any higher than it already has, I like the way Sydney skyline stretches, I like the way you seem to be able to see the skyline from miles and miles away, and I like the way that even when Brisbane joins Melbourne and GC as taller cities, Sydney will still reign supreme.

lots of real crap being said.lol
anyway i feel Sydney has one of the great skylines and is pretty recognizable.
harbour,operahouse,bridge,sydneytower etc.= perfect!

4 Gmac

I know I talk alot of crap but anyway, here is some more.

I want to be seeing it from further away. I also want a clearly defined focus like a real tower from which the city can branch. There are so many arguements for and against.

Generally the cities you mention above have stand out towers that bring a level of iconic realisation with it. SF is rcognisable through the Transamerica Pyramid. New York with its twin spikes in the ESB and Chrysler, not to mention the hundreds of other well known buildings, Shanghai though Jin Mao and the OPT, Hong Kong through 2IFC, Central Plaza, BOC, The Centre etc etc. Sydney really has no stand out towers. Sydney is very much like Toronto - rather mundane, mundane and unremarkable without the teletower.

The skyline does look good but I still say a new telecom tower and some taller buildings along the spine would provide an even greater and more interesting skyline. Space will become a premium and eventually heights will have to rise.

Cities can be like people in that, you do have to look at the things (skyline) as a whole sometimes but to ignore what is going on around the rest of australia and indeed the world is akin to ostritch mentality. You don't ignore the world around you and become complacent just beacuse you believe there is nowhere further to go. There is always room for improvement but where there is too much regulation there is little room to move and for things don't move forward.

really a shame that there is so much pointless negativity

sydney is a great city and most people around the world would be very envious

I mean does a tall building really make a city - it sure didnt in K.L

I don't think it's negativity, many of us still recognise the quality of what we have. It's more a case of wanting to extend what we have and make it even better.

maybe us here in sydney are just uncomfortable with melbourne and brisbane breathing down our necks...

It's the *Sydney* brand that sells the world. When you think of *Sydney* you think of

- High quality architecture with little compromises
- Expressionist and unique
- Top construction technique
- An exclusive city like 21C Venice?
- Weather that cannot be matched

I don't think we live up to its name.

I have to say Sydney looks like a fantastic city, and its skyline would have to be the best in Australia. It may not have height, but it has the density you would expect in any large city. Sydney is fantastic the way it is, but I'm sure with time your height restrictions will be raised, due to lack of space. But just the sheer amount of towers that Sydney has compared to any other Australian city is fantastic.

I think the big action will be outside of Sydney CBD in the future. Satellite cities such as Nth Sydney, Chatswood, Parramatta and Liverpool will take most of office space demands.

That's just my prediction.

I have to say Sydney looks like a fantastic city, and its skyline would have to be the best in Australia. It may not have height, but it has the density you would expect in any large city. Sydney is fantastic the way it is, but I'm sure with time your height restrictions will be raised, due to lack of space. But just the sheer amount of towers that Sydney has compared to any other Australian city is fantastic.

may not have any height? what do you mean?
for a start it has had a 300m tower for last 25 years, unlike other oz cities.
Syd ey now has more over 150m then melbourne!
sydney has 27 with 1 uc .(28).not include sydney tower while melbourne has 26 over 150m.
Also it has 100's more scrapers from 10-30storey mark. so not sure about your height coment? confused.? anyway arguements aside./lol
classic skyline shot from june.
sydney may not have a height like Dubai or NYC but its form and cityscape is very easy on the eye.
http://home.comcast.net/~pazookiland/wsb/media/1788098/site1019.jpg

^^
When I mean it doesn't have the height, I mean it doesn't have the height most SCC forumers would like to see =P, not in general. I'm on your side Cul, the city looks fantastic.

I would LOVE it if Sydney's 235m height limit was uniform across the city and NOT just in VERY SMALL parts of it.
It is almost incorrect to state that Sydney has a 235m height limit. The height limits are actually much much harsher than that !!!!!!
Sydney's skyline would be ABSOUTELY STUNNING if it weren't for a myriad of rules and regulations cutting potential landmark towers towers down to standard generic sizes.
I'd LOVE it if 235m towers could be build anywhere in the CBD, apart from certain areas such as the Rocks and around Hyde Pk !!!!
I'm not saying that developers wouldve made all these recently built towers 235m but they'd surely be taller than than what weve currently got...... eg -
- Meriton tower wasn't governed to 151m
- Lumiere wasn't goverened to 151m
- KENS ( and pretty much everything along the western edge wasn't goverened to very harsh height limits ( ie 110m / 140m ? )
- Cove wasn't cut off at 158m
- BT wasn't cut
- Aurora wasn't cut off at 188m
- Citigroup wasn't cut at 208
- Latitude wasn't cut at 188m
- Civic wasn't cut at 130m
- Rialto wasn't cut at ~130m
- Darling Park's towers weren't cut at 136m.

What about the Wynyard Development, awesome 235 opportunity, will no doubt become a 150m stump, mark my words.
Anything around Haymarket or south of Goulburn will also be very heavily height goverened and therefore just become low to mid rise clusterfuck in 10 years time.
Overshadowing public areas due to height just makes me laugh. I will never accept that as a plausible reason to totally change the face of development in Oz's prime CBD......
Syd's CBD is just too full of stuff, needs the Chicago or NYC "whooop" !

^ wow, so wrong christ.i think you missed the point? all sites in sydney have FSR limitations as well as sun access plane height limits depending on locations.
ill go over list for you>

#Meriton tower site HAS a 150m height limit.
#lumiere HAS a 150m height limit.
#KENS had a 80m height limit, but sartor thought a landmark tower would be better suited, so 140m + 30m beacon=170m, thats impressive!
#Cove reached max FSR for site.
#BT or Deutschbank WAS limited to 150m by sun access plane down to bot gardens, thus the 100m cage above its 150m roof. i thought that was obvious?
#Aurora WAS limited with FSR and sun access plane, thus the angle of roof.
#Citigroup WAS limited by its FSR thus the massive floor plate. developers wanted a larger plate more so then a thinner tower.It was the tallest tower approved for the site.
#Latitude had a 180m height limit due to sun access plane down to Belmore park. thus the see-thur top section and spire.
#Civic was limited to structural engineering and FSR.
#Rialto was built to max FSR.
#DP towers filled max FSR for overall site. Thye were also governed by cityscape form which darling harbour/state gov wanted towers stepping down from CBD to d harbour, so instead of 45m height we got 2x 132m and 93m, which sounds good to me!
#The cityone above wynyard can reach 235m but only with 1000sqm floor plates which no developer is interested in these days. Thakral want to go larger but dont have required FSR.
The main culprit is FSR limitations and height limits.
Id hate for sydney to become wind swept dark dingy streets and dying parks due to over shadowering.Council are correct in providing rules/reg for future.

^^

Council are overzealous and boyed by too much power.

LOL I love the way you get excited over a squat ugly building like Kens.

yeah I gotta agree with you. I don't consider anything under the 200 metre mark a skyscraper. it's just a tall building. A skyscraper is something that stands out above the rest.

I also agree with you on the London eye. They should have thought of something original rather than just ripping off the London Eye.

I could not give a shit about the wheel and it's in a mostly poor location but I would not say it's a London Eye ripp off. Been to Japan lately?

^^

Council are overzealous and boyed by too much power.

LOL I love the way you get excited over a squat ugly building like Kens.

its not squat or ugly.its a great bldg.

Nope sorry for me Melbourne does not have that big city international feel ... yet. At night it feels like it's lacking a pulse. I still stand by my feeling Melbourne reminds me more of Boston which invariably agrees with your idea that Melbourne is more European in its feeling.

Sydney might have a chaotic street pattern but I still get a strong feeling of New York and if you noticed I said Sydney has a strong Socal feel to it too - this also agrees with what you are saying above. I think Sydney has Stong elements of New York, La and for that matter Asian cities. Whereas Melbourne is slightly less exaggerated with a more Boston - euroesque feel. I am not slamming Melbourne, it's a fine city but I just don't get the same buzz and international city vibe as I do here in Sydney.


I've been to all the cities in question here and many many more. Not a single city on earth touches the vibe of NYC, both Sydney and Melbourne when compared are insignificant. Melbourne is most definitely more New England in it's approach than Sydney which I would describe as a combination of LA and San Francisco.

As for the talk of international city buzz... I went to a number of cities that are supposed to be famous for this that didn't even come close to the scene we have in Melbourne.

^^

LOL I am glad to see you are the world's foremost expert on 'international buzz'. :tongue2:

For what it's worth I don't think many cities can compare with the pulse in New York either and I agree Sydney and Melbourne pale by comparison. I do think Sydney was at it's best when the Olympics were on. The vibe, feeling and international pulse was certainly much more pronounced and alive.

I have also been to alot of large well-known cities, many of these left both Sydney and Melbourne in the dust as far as liveliness, internationalism and buzz. At the end of the day everyone has different standards by which they measure this type of thing ... it's pretty much subjective.

^^ Brisbane doesn't even get a mention ;)

I like Sydney's skyline, it sounds like from what I'v been reading on this forum that Sydney will get a few more exciting projects. I don't think it matters about the height limit, look how many 200m+ towers there are, Brisbane currently only has 2, with 2 approved and 1 proposed. I was in Sydney last week for a few days, and walking the streets you definitely notice the difference. Sydney has many skyscraper canyons, and the location of the CBD on the harbour just beats the pants off what we have here in Brisbane.

how can sydney be ever "overtaken" by melb,bris,gc if they only have half or even 1/4 number of skyscrapers? alot of people ive met say sydney is only "big city" feel city in oz. so dense and tall.everywhere.and its spreading each direction.
as zach said, probably better off with some you-beaut 150m scrapers then a but ugly 300m ones. really tall bldgs can really change city for good or ruin it .i think sydney is going ok atm.just think of some of the tallies we have got in last few years- citigroup,angel pl,aurora,wt,latitude,db place,cove and recently meriton and lumiere.im happy with most.
looks like a fukin nice skyline to me.

http://static.flickr.com/89/265939170_546cb02627_b.jpg

I've been to Melbourne and in my view it has a big city feel. It may not have as many scrapers, but a big city feel isnt determined by the skyscrapers that a city has. Ir's the day to day activity that shapes the feel of the city.

Some sections of the Brisbane CBD (around Eagle St and Central Station) have a big city feel. Some streets have 20 storey buildings like many streets in the Sydney CBD.

WT never looks like Sydney's tallest, in long photos AMP and GPT always look bigger, not sure why.

It's the angle that you are viewing it from. From the north it looks smaller because its further away from the South its a beast :D

Monterey (12km south of the city)

http://fabianamuso.fotopic.net/p22083648.html

Even Bondi Junction

http://fabianamuso.fotopic.net/p20438668.html

Sydney's skyline has fantastic density and is quite long which makes it great! To me the Sydney tower is the landmark tower although if I lived overseas I probably wouldn't know of it. I think height doesn't always matter and Sydney's made do with the height limit it's got, still having a great (even though it's not too tall) skyline.

dubai and Singapore are building a wheel aswell so it is not only Melbourne 'ripping off' the london eye

And I also heard somewhere Beijing is building one. They're all the rage! I still think as the original and the location plus being in a massive city with lots of tourists the London Eye will still be most famous.

And I also heard somewhere Beijing is building one. They're all the rage! I still think as the original and the location plus being in a massive city with lots of tourists the London Eye will still be most famous.

Thats great. But I really hope sydney can avoid getting that crap.

dubai and Singapore are building a wheel aswell so it is not only Melbourne 'ripping off' the london eye


We know this but I thought Melbourne was a bit more cultured and alot more imaginative than either Singapore or Dubai.

News Just at hand, Sydney is set to get a new wheel at Baranagaragaradidgeridoo. It will be 150m high with viewing pods shaped like koala dropings. It will be called 'the wheel of even more shit' and will change colours like the rainbow serpent. It will be different in that it will mimic nature and drop the pods at the end of the ride and they will explode and turn white, in a hope they will help to add nutrients and fertility to the concrete. Maybe sydney will grow some buildings.

Having been on the London Eye, those things don't make very good OB decks.

It's okay in London cos there is no where else to view the city, but compared to say the Q1 deck it was a much less interesting experience.

Basically you are stuck in a small plastic scratched pod with a bunch of strangers. You can't move about, can't eat anything/drink anyting, can't enjoy the view for as long as you like and you never go that high anyway. All up it's a bit of a gimmick and a I'd go up a proper OB deck on a skyscraper or tower instead anyday.

It's an awful, awful idea. Just a cheap way for the developers to make waterfront city stand out from the other precincts.

Agree.
The concept of a ferris wheel on the edge of a CBD will very quickly become redundant, tired, ugly and under utilized! I just can't see it working as a stand alone tourist attraction in Melbourne, not with a much higher and more user friendly observation deck only a short distance away.
It also shreiks of un-originality and genericness - something Melbourne prides itself on NOT being.

I give it a year. It'll be a white elephant and an embarrassment for the developers, considering the amount of money they'll spend on it. Stupid idea from the beginning.

i didnt realize the ferris wheel was setback so far from waterfront?
http://www.hassell.com.au/siteImageStore/WFC_02.jpg
how far back is wheel? is there anything back there?

http://www.building.ca/archive05/am05/Waterfront-City.gif

There is nothing much at all back there at the moment. But I think a whole entertainment precinct was going in. Can't remember exactly what stuff was going there but I think there was some kinda unique stuff like ice skating or something. I forget what it was. The sales guy from ING was telling me when I was over there having a look at their models and stuff.

I think their residential part is selling well. Was quite good I remember because he said ING planned it out as a proper 'urban village' kinda thing. People will be able to have pets and BBQ's and stuff there, there's room to kick a footy and so on within the private space.

We know this but I thought Melbourne was a bit more cultured and alot more imaginative than either Singapore or Dubai.

News Just at hand, Sydney is set to get a new wheel at Baranagaragaradidgeridoo. It will be 150m high with viewing pods shaped like koala dropings. It will be called 'the wheel of even more shit' and will change colours like the rainbow serpent. It will be different in that it will mimic nature and drop the pods at the end of the ride and they will explode and turn white, in a hope they will help to add nutrients and fertility to the concrete. Maybe sydney will grow some buildings.

singapore creative? last time I was there - it looked as fake as the gold coast or miami - I definately dont want that for sydney

I don't believe that any building should eclipse Centrepoint. It is one of Sydney's trademarks. I believe the height restriction is ok but should be more uniform.

singapore creative? last time I was there - it looked as fake as the gold coast or miami - I definately dont want that for sydney

Hmmm, obviously you didn't get the humour. Singapore and dubai are about as fake as they come, I was aluding to Melbourne being as unoriginal as these too seemingly superficial places. Singapore is incredibly boring - I don't think anyone would want that for anywhere.

I don't believe that any building should eclipse Centrepoint. It is one of Sydney's trademarks. I believe the height restriction is ok but should be more uniform.

Some of you are so boring and complacent in your thinking. Sydney tower is far from a worthwhile trademark. It looks like a 1970/80s era toilet plunger. The day that thing is heritage listed is the day the Sydney's CBD will die.

With a uniform height restriction we would end up with an even more generic and mundane skyline much like that of Singapore with 3 towers all topping out at the same stupid height and looking damn stupid. Restricting areas to certain heights is a good thing and gives the skyline more shape and dynamicism but those heights should all be raised IMO.

Having been on the London Eye, those things don't make very good OB decks.

It's okay in London cos there is no where else to view the city, but compared to say the Q1 deck it was a much less interesting experience.

Basically you are stuck in a small plastic scratched pod with a bunch of strangers. You can't move about, can't eat anything/drink anyting, can't enjoy the view for as long as you like and you never go that high anyway. All up it's a bit of a gimmick and a I'd go up a proper OB deck on a skyscraper or tower instead anyday.

Luckily when I was there it was quite new and we were alone with only two other people in our carriage so there was heaps and heaps of room to walk round. I liked it in London because you can view all the famous and historical buildings. In Melbourne I don't think it will be as good.

We know this but I thought Melbourne was a bit more cultured and alot more imaginative than either Singapore or Dubai.

News Just at hand, Sydney is set to get a new wheel at Baranagaragaradidgeridoo. It will be 150m high with viewing pods shaped like koala dropings. It will be called 'the wheel of even more shit' and will change colours like the rainbow serpent. It will be different in that it will mimic nature and drop the pods at the end of the ride and they will explode and turn white, in a hope they will help to add nutrients and fertility to the concrete. Maybe sydney will grow some buildings.

lol I can see that you are quite imaginative!

I don't think big skyscrapers would do down well in Sydney. I think it would destroy the natural beauty of the place. It's good just the way it is.

I don't think big skyscrapers would do down well in Sydney. I think it would destroy the natural beauty of the place. It's good just the way it is.

I totally agree....:okay:

I don't think big skyscrapers would do down well in Sydney. I think it would destroy the natural beauty of the place. It's good just the way it is.

It's a damn city not a national park! You all sound like closet nimbys!

Hong Kong is naturally Beautiful too (even if Victoria Peak was once dry and barren) you don't see people over there complaining about taller buildings ruining the natural environment. Sydney is a thriving city, it sounds like some of you would rather a living museum than a dynamic and growning city. What I want to know is why some of you think taller building will ruin the harbour and the natural beauty ... did anyone suggest building a 600m monolith in port jackson? I fail to see any valid reason why taller buildings would ruin what we have. Some majorly taller buildings might challenge the natural environment for a little more notice but other than that i cannot find any reasoning that would lead me to believe how or why a taller skyline would destroy what we have. Sydney Tower sure aint natural or beautiful and to be honest Sydney harbour aint that natural anymore either, some of you forget it's been developed, run as a port and generally been a dumping ground for waste ... ask the fishermen.

A move to taller more mighty buildings might actually stem some of the flow to business parks and the suburbs, thereby helping to preserve tracts of land in outer sydney don't fall prey to groundscrapers. I'd say building taller is actually a means of protecting more of Sydney's natural environs. Anyway Sydney is not just about the harbour it's about a city that stretches over 100km in almost every direction.

It's true Sydney and sydneysiders are becoming complacent - am I the only one that saw this coming?


The chamber is so concerned about the slump it has formed an industry taskforce to overhaul Sydney's flagging brand.

Managing director Patricia Forsythe said Sydney may have been "resting on its laurels'' for too long.

"We're certainly very aware that other cities in the Asia Pacific region are doing a very good job in terms of marketing, and maybe Sydney has taken a bit for granted,'' Ms Forsythe said.

The Bingle ads are the latest in a long line of promotions using sun, surf and Australia's relaxed image to attract tourists, including Paul Hogan's famous "Put another shrimp on the barbie'' series.

However, Ms Forsythe said it may be time for a change of direction.

"The Sydney experience is not easily defined just by the beaches or the harbour,'' she said.

"Maybe we've got to think again about Sydney's image ... something that focuses on the people, as well as the city's significant physical attractions.''

It's a fucking city not a national park! You all sound like closet nimbys!

LOL. Maybe a conspiracy theory? They are from Melbourne and they want to beat us by saying 'Sydney is good as it is'. :|

yes, sydney is a great city just as it is. we don't NEED taller buildings for any reason at all, other than the fact that developers and tenants want space. realistically, if they can't get what they need in the cbd, they will look elsewhere. whether that is in the suburban hubs or in other cities, the danger is the same....the city could loose some of the vitality and buzz that makes it unique in oz.

"lifestyle" is a term which can easily become synonymous with bland, boring middle class conformity. i feel sydney is in danger of falling into this trap.
people fall in love with a place and then want to freeze it in time, as though any change or progress threatens their way of life. witness san francisco.
the city is only now emerging from about 30 years of slumber. nimbys and others, mostly well meaning, managed to keep the city virtually unchanged for years. the entire bay area went through a huge technology revolution, and the city stood still.

is san fran a nice place? sure. is that city's experience something for sydney to emulate? i don't think so.

now, i'm not making a direct comparison between the two cities, just using an example of a city which imposed severe hight restrictions, strangled development, and forced business to look elsewhere. imho, sydney is headed in this direction, as more and more people who "cherish" their city the way it is oppose new development. what they should realize is, the city would never have become what it is if it had not been allowed to DEVELOP into it's current state. without change and growth, cities stagnate and eventually cease to be relevant.

i worry that if sydney does not soon embrace building taller in the cbd, we risk our future vitality and economic prosperity.

that's my two pence!

dbl

i don't think sydney has a problem in regards to not meeting demand for office space / etc.


and height isn't the only way to develop....

The only reason for Sydney to raise height if there is no space left in the CBD. How much potential skyscraper land has the Sydney CBD got left? Because I'm sure they would raise the height limits if it was desperate.

I don't think big skyscrapers would do down well in Sydney. I think it would destroy the natural beauty of the place. It's good just the way it is.

I agree - a city is so much more than an ugly tall building.

Can we just have this tower, please? For Christmas? 610m
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/8579/incheontower3pc.jpg

I fail to see any valid reason why taller buildings would ruin what we have.

What’s the difference between this and a 235m building? zero in my view. Even more so for people who know nothing about skyscrapers and height limits (99.99999% of the population).

[SIZE="4"] A move to taller more mighty buildings might actually stem some of the flow to business parks and the suburbs

Definitely not. Cost and the desire to have large floor plans to accommodate all staff are a compelling reason why these companies are moving to business parks.

They also want these buildings to develop an effective work-life balance (i.e. gyms, childcare centers) - something I doubt could be achieved in tall skyscrapers – and if this work-life balance was developed in high rises the cost would be astronomical. Therefore what is the point when you could develop the something in a business park for half the cost?

Can we just have this tower, please? For Christmas? 610m
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/8579/incheontower3pc.jpg

This looks like it was drawn by a 2 year old
no thanks

Lucky Zach24 and Avatar didn't bring this up while eating hot pot. lol

LOL. Maybe a conspiracy theory? They are from Melbourne and they want to beat us by saying 'Sydney is good as it is'. :|

You got to be kidding..."...conspiracy theory..."...do you think we're all as childish in mentality.
And Avatar....can you please not get personal. This is a forum on skyscrapers not a gutter forum for foul-mouth louts.

yes, sydney is a great city just as it is. we don't NEED taller buildings for any reason at all, other than the fact that developers and tenants want space. realistically, if they can't get what they need in the cbd, they will look elsewhere. whether that is in the suburban hubs or in other cities, the danger is the same....the city could loose some of the vitality and buzz that makes it unique in oz.

"lifestyle" is a term which can easily become synonymous with bland, boring middle class conformity. i feel sydney is in danger of falling into this trap.
people fall in love with a place and then want to freeze it in time, as though any change or progress threatens their way of life. witness san francisco.
the city is only now emerging from about 30 years of slumber. nimbys and others, mostly well meaning, managed to keep the city virtually unchanged for years. the entire bay area went through a huge technology revolution, and the city stood still.

is san fran a nice place? sure. is that city's experience something for sydney to emulate? i don't think so.

now, i'm not making a direct comparison between the two cities, just using an example of a city which imposed severe hight restrictions, strangled development, and forced business to look elsewhere. imho, sydney is headed in this direction, as more and more people who "cherish" their city the way it is oppose new development. what they should realize is, the city would never have become what it is if it had not been allowed to DEVELOP into it's current state. without change and growth, cities stagnate and eventually cease to be relevant.

i worry that if sydney does not soon embrace building taller in the cbd, we risk our future vitality and economic prosperity.

that's my two pence!

A valuable 2p it is G.M.N.Y.

I have to say that some fantastic sites around the city have been wasted over the years. The Kent brewery site on broadway is one such important gateway site in the CBD.
It should have a huge landmark tower on it (glass if need be avatar) that you cant miss as you pass Sydney Uni on approach to the city.
The EDH site, Above the central rail yards, Parts of darling harbour and the haymarket, Even green square could be taller, around darlinghurst, Surry hills, and zetland.
The city should expand and dictate the rules to the airport and others about height limits not the other way around.

I don't think big skyscrapers would do down well in Sydney. I think it would destroy the natural beauty of the place. It's good just the way it is.

I agree.

This looks like it was drawn by a 2 year old
no thanks

WTF? You clearly now a shit about architecture. This is an awesome design as opposed to some weird-shaped cotte-parker style freak towers.

You got to be kidding..."...conspiracy theory..."...do you think we're all as childish in mentality.
And Avatar....can you please not get personal. This is a forum on skyscrapers not a gutter forum for foul-mouth louts.

Cough. Forums are generally for freedom of expression. Nothing said there was intended as personal - calling some forumers closet nimbys was irony, not an insult.

By the way not everything in life is highbrow, Language evolves and sometimes certain words are used to express emphasis. I will modify it to ensure your sensibilities are not offended .. sorry.

Anyway I would rather get back to topic

It's true Sydney and sydneysiders are becoming complacent - am I the only one that saw this coming?No, a few of us can.

I'm more concerned about Sydney's infrastructure, particularly PT in this area. We can't have a tall and dense CBD or city in general without the infrastructure in place to support it. To be fair, there is nothing stopping the 2 progressing side-by-side instead of one after the other.

I notice the NSW Government is running ads on TV ATM to boost the Sydney CBD's business. I guess they are just as valid running them on Sydney's TV as on other states' or even OS's networks.

Avatar: I totally agree with freedom of expression but not as an excuse to use foul language particularly in a general forum such as this. I actually had my young son checking out this forum with me and he was quite bemused by the level of language apparent 'adult's use in this forum.
I just think it's totally unnecessary, but that's just my opinion.
Sorry if this may come across as a bit of a 'lecture' but I'm just exercising my freedom of speech.
Now....back to the topic....cough !!!

WTF? You clearly now a shit about architecture. This is an awesome design as opposed to some weird-shaped cotte-parker style freak towers.
Boring...:sleepy:

Shit!

I've been fequenting the international project update section for quite a while now, and so many interesting and facinating projects going on in the world. Most new projects in Oz are really unexperimantal, staid and conservative compared to the likes of China, Korea, Dubia and Europe - particularly China. Their archtects are going absolutely kerrrazzzy!

Maybe the new wonder of Australia, in par of Sydney Opera House standard would be a supertall?

$$$money$$$$ -os countries seem to have lots of it.

who cares if a city does not get any tall buildings
I prefer quality over quantity any day!
I think Sydney's height limit has done more good than harm - keep it!

I agree for the most part but I believe that a few supertalls should be built (maybe 1 or 2 around the 350m mark???) and i also reckon that the height limit should be increased to maybe the 270m mark.

For the Sydney CBD, most of the old lanes have been lost so there is nothing wrong with building some talller buildings - but where there are historically significant lanes or buildings than devellopment should be on a smaller scale.

The CUB sight will add some tall residential buildings but is being buillt far to dense - densest development in Sydney according to a rumour. Also, there is an old area with lots of lanes the the south of Broadway that will have a major impact with the development.

CUB is what should not happen in Sydney.

Sorry but Sydney is nothing like LA, and fortunately there isn't any city in Australia that is. Sydney does have some similarities with San Fransisco and New York. San Fransisco in terms of geography and New York in terms of density, attitude and street vibe. Melbourne isn't like New York at all but it is a lot like Chicago. Both are relatively flat cities of similar relative size built on a grid system adjacent to a large body of water with extensive skylines. Both lack natural beauty but make up for it with other attraction such as street life, culture, shopping, museums etc.

I have yet to find a US city that reminds me of Brisbane although Pittsburgh is simlar only in that it is also situated on a bend in a river with a compact but dense skyline. Other than that they are very different cities.

Gold Coast probably is like Miami. Both cities are lacking in soul, character,heritage, have a beach setting, are full of retirees and attracts the 'white trash' brigade.


I recently travelled to New York and I have to agree - Melbourne is NOTHING like New York.

I also agree that Sydney is NOTHING like LA and that the Sydney CBD (at least the northern half) is VERY much like teh Financial District of Manhattan.

I agree for the most part but I believe that a few supertalls should be built (maybe 1 or 2 around the 350m mark???) and i also reckon that the height limit should be increased to maybe the 270m mark.

For the Sydney CBD, most of the old lanes have been lost so there is nothing wrong with building some talller buildings - but where there are historically significant lanes or buildings than devellopment should be on a smaller scale.

The CUB sight will add some tall residential buildings but is being buillt far to dense - densest development in Sydney according to a rumour. Also, there is an old area with lots of lanes the the south of Broadway that will have a major impact with the development.

CUB is what should not happen in Sydney.
the height limit of RL330m enforced by CASA will NEVER be removed.
As for Sydney's CBD 235m limit enforced by council, welll theres talk it may go up.but of course this doesnt mean we will get an influx of 250m projects.Sydney atm is in a lull and nothing over 150m is being developed. you need a reason to build large projects. you need the property market to be profitable and office has to be in demand. maybe in 2-3 years some of the approved projects may commenece.

The CUB sight will add some tall residential buildings but is being buillt far to dense - densest development in Sydney according to a rumour. Also, there is an old area with lots of lanes the the south of Broadway that will have a major impact with the development.

CUB is what should not happen in Sydney.


I don't think FSR of 4.3:1 is the densest development in Sydney.

CUB site is happened to be only 400m from the Central station.
This site offers the best public transport infrastructure in Australia.
If you don't build dense here, where else?

It should be even denser IMO. It can support FSR of 5:1 easily.

I'm all FSR'd out ! :(

Why does CASA have the lst say? I know Aviation safety is important but no planes actually fly over the city do they or none I have seen or been on? If the airport is in the same place in 100 years time then surely something would have to be done otherwise there will be urban sprawl to meet demand instead of being able to go up. Seems odd, just bloody fly around, if HK could deal with Kai Tak airport with no disasters then I am sure Sydney will be fine.

I know that the Brissy apartment market is buoyant at present and Sydney's isn't, however when Syd's next CBD boom happens surely we should be able to pull some towers like Brissy's 3 musketeers !! ??? >>>>>>
http://img428.imageshack.us/img428/2368/thethreemusketeersru9.jpg

Those are some grand buildings. :)

.... maybe in 2-3 years some of the approved projects may commence.Huh? What happened to next year Sydney coming back onto line as far as the commencement of new office towers go? egs. 9 Bligh and Westfield on Castlereagh? I can imagine something like 33 Bligh or John Boyd not starting (if they ever do) in 2-3 year's time tho', but I thought the developers of the other 2 wanted to start ASAP, particularly 9 Bligh.

I recently travelled to New York and I have to agree - Melbourne is NOTHING like New York.

I also agree that Sydney is NOTHING like LA and that the Sydney CBD (at least the northern half) is VERY much like teh Financial District of Manhattan.

Sydney is very reminiscent of San Francisco (actually, it should be the other way round - after all, Sydney is older) but it does have a very low population density. We forget that Sydney is not just the CBD and inner suburbs - the vast majority of people live in Kellyville country. In this respect Sydney is very American. (Oh, and Brisane reminds me of a Southern city like Atlanta or Charlotte)

Huh? What happened to next year Sydney coming back onto line as far as the commencement of new office towers go? egs. 9 Bligh and Westfield on Castlereagh? I can imagine something like 33 Bligh or John Boyd not starting (if they ever do) in 2-3 year's time tho', but I thought the developers of the other 2 wanted to start ASAP, particularly 9 Bligh.

yes 9 blighs DA is coming in feb and construction will start midyear, or should i say demolision of existing bldgs. Westfields tower DA will come early next year and construction is set tostart later in year.Also Hyde apartments will commence after demo of current bldg. those 3 are assured.
As for 33 bligh and John boyd, i really hope something happens soon.
ANZ are after 25000sqm which = 33 Bligh st and
Com Bank are after 65000sqm which = John Boyd tower.
Also CUB and EDH will start also ,both will take a decade to build which equates to 36 new skyscrapers.
Maybe Cityone may actually come in.
Summary- so far the tallest bldg which may be built in next 5 years is jon boyd and 33 bligh both 188m. 3 bligh has a spire which reaches 219m.
The tallest EDH tower will be 180m+ also.
So our next building 200m+ could be a decade away? they seem to come every 10 years.

Cul, thanks for that.
Thakral's website says they are still working with the NSW Govt and City Council on the Wynyard project and have it marked as a priority. Makes me think that any relaxation of FSR's might enable City One to climb above 150m and closer to 200m, given that the DA probably won't come in for a while yet so will fall within the new regulations ?
I also think that the news that the City of Syd is reviewing FSR's and heights will put a stop to some DA's as developers will hold off to see if they can milk more floor space from their sites.....so maybe once the new regulations are applied there will be some nice DA's coming in.

^^Thems fighting words lol

Those buildings in Brisbane aren't too exciting - and their not to pretty either...

WTF !!!!!! :bash: :bash: :bash:

^^
He's just trolling.

dont worry about him. he will realise soon all his posts are gone.
if nothing good to say dont say anything at all, my mother used to say.

I would like a 320m to the roof all glass building shooting up near MLC please. Something sharp and powerful with dominance. We NEED supertalls AND near MLC. MLC is like, alone atm.

Yeah.