From The Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au)

Brewery site's future lies between developer and council
By Sean Nicholls
September 12, 2003

A battle of wills is looming over the future of the Kent Brewery site on Broadway.

The property developer Australand had agreed to buy the site from Carlton and United Breweries for $203 million, it was announced yesterday.

The expected conversion of the 5.7-hectare site into a major commercial and residential precinct would significantly affect the city council's Gateways program.

But finalisation of the sale relies on the developer agreeing to a council plan outlining permissible uses for site.

The Lord Mayor of Sydney, Lucy Turnbull, said any plan would have to include "mixed uses balancing educational, residential and commercial uses".

The managing director of Australand, Brendan Crotty, said: "I think it's an interesting concept, but we're not in the education business".

A design competition for the site would be completed by the end of the year, Cr Turnbull said.

The council will also produce a local environment plan for the development. The current zoning limits buildings to 12 storeys, and any development must retain heritage items such as the smokestack and brewery gates.

Mr Crotty hinted that Australand might seek permission for taller buildings in return for providing more open space.

Australand's $170 million development of commercial and retail space and 240 residential units, at the corner of Wattle Street and Broadway, is nearly complete.

I recall Cul saying that the City of Sydney had a vision of a tower on the CUB site of a similar height to the neighbouring UTS tower, to reduce its overall impact.
That would mean 25-30 levels of apartments ? Maybe there is a glimmer of hope that the restirictive planning guidelines ( no more than 12 stories) may change...

There was a design concept from students from the Uni of N.S.W. with a generic looking stucture at the N.S.W. Planning Dept. in the Henry Deane Centre @ Central Square that was on a display board. It was really just the 30-odd storey height envelope for an office structure. Similar in height to the UTS building.

finn let us know about it. I have to head that way later and if it is still up, I will take a pic of it. No guarantee though.

im currently involved with doing massing models for the kent brewery site in syd. some developers have towers 120m high and others are all lowrise. maybe they might end up permitting one or two tall bldgs with lots of terrace type structures. The magificent 54m chimney stack is currently in centre of site and will probably be set in an open park/square in final design.Its Australia's 4th tallest brick stack! :)
The site should be great creat a new gateway to the city.

Originally posted by CULWULLA
Maybe they might end up permitting one or two tall bldgs with lots of terrace type structures.

Maybe something like Zenix at Erskineville, where they were allowed to build taller because they left more open space in the complex.

I serioulsy doubt that they'll let anything above the 12 storey height evelope. Not with Turnbull in council.

But we can only hope.

Regardless, good design doesn't necessarily mean tall skyscrapers. Good design can be low rise. Whatever happens, it'll be a boon for the area. A real classy gateway for Sydney, enhancing the planned beautification of upper Broadway

Originally posted by CULWULLA
im currently involved with doing massing models for the kent brewery site in syd. some developers have towers 120m high and others are all lowrise. maybe they might end up permitting one or two tall bldgs with lots of terrace type structures. The magificent 54m chimney stack is currently in centre of site and will probably be set in an open park/square in final design.Its Australia's 4th tallest brick stack! :)
The site should be great creat a new gateway to the city.

The needs to some some sort of balance. If you want to build tall 120 metre towers, make sure there are some 40 - 60 metre towers to ensure a balance and to reduce the overpowering effect of any tall tower/s.

Originally posted by Fabian
The needs to some some sort of balance. If you want to build tall 120 metre towers, make sure there are some 40 - 60 metre towers to ensure a balance and to reduce the overpowering effect of any tall tower/s.
thats obvious!
also i think it might be a tad to ealry to have an "official" thread as the site doesnt get vacated til 2005 and then the designs will come in 2006 and work will begin probably 2007. so the thread would of probably be deleted by then!lol

Originally posted by museumb
There was a design concept from students from the Uni of N.S.W. with a generic looking stucture at the N.S.W. Planning Dept. in the Henry Deane Centre @ Central Square that was on a display board. It was really just the 30-odd storey height envelope for an office structure. Similar in height to the UTS building.Unfortunately the concept boards went back to the Uni of N.S.W. I have the direct number for the Uni. and will make an appointment to go there on Wednesday to get pics of it/them.

Originally posted by CULWULLA
thats obvious!
also i think it might be a tad to ealry to have an "official" thread as the site doesnt get vacated til 2005 and then the designs will come in 2006 and work will begin probably 2007. so the thread would of probably be deleted by then!lol

I don't know...time is money for developers Cul! I reckon they'll be working out masterplans and getting DA's approved before the site is actually vacated, and then starting constuction (or demolition at least) within a year of the brewery closing!

Just my opinion, but that's what I'd push for if I worked for Australand! ;)

And that will be cool muse! I really liked the building mass/envelope concepts of that scheme! :)

Originally posted by CULWULLA
thats obvious!
also i think it might be a tad to ealry to have an "official" thread as the site doesnt get vacated til 2005 and then the designs will come in 2006 and work will begin probably 2007. so the thread would of probably be deleted by then!lol

If we have to bump this thread, we will do it.

But hopefully there is plenty out there to keep us occupied until then.

Australand snatches up CUB’s Broadway site
Carlton & United has announced the $203 million sale of the high profile Kent Brewery site on Sydney’s Broadway to Australand. The sale is one of Australia’s largest residential sales this year and is a graphic indication of the heat in the development market.

Australand has made settlement conditional on approval for a new Local Environment Plan over the 5.7 site. Sydney City Council has called for an architectural and urban planning design competition to participate in drafting the plan.

The site will be sold in three parcels over a seven year period and CUB will keep the two pubs which front Broadway – the Australian and County Clare Hotels, with an option for CUB to lease back the administration building. CUB will retain the licensing and gaming rights to the hotels.

Australand Managing Director, Mr. Brendan Crotty said, "Australand has a good understanding of the property market on the southern fringe of the Sydney CBD through its development of three office buildings at Henry Deane Place adjacent to Central Railway station and its Quadrant residential project at Broadway.

"We are very committed to transforming the 5.7 hectare Kent Brewery site into a high quality urban community which will meet a substantial part of Sydney’s medium to long term residential and commercial property demand.

In accordance with the company’s existing capital and risk management policies, Australand is considering placing the residential component of the development into a joint venture.

Sydney council, CUB or Australand would be drawn on the eventual development mix, although it is expected to be primarily residential.

Even CUB was surprised by the sale price, which was pushed well beyond estimates by intense developer competition including Harry Triguboff’s Meriton Apartments. Carlton United Breweries at this stage looks set to keep the current New South Wales head office on site as it is developed with Australand's The Quadrant Off Broadway.

Who didn't see Elizabeth Farrelly's article in Tuesday's SMH on this development?

Originally posted by brizer
Who didn't see Elizabeth Farrelly's article in Tuesday's SMH on this development?

I haven't seen it, and can't find it on the site. Please post!
cheers
d

100 metres is the official height limit by the look of it! (dunno if this is good or bad news, but it's heaps better than what I thought it'd be).
There appear to be a couple of towers that can go this high - maybe Australand can go taller and match the height of UTS, over the road, if they're smart about it ??

The City of Sydney is now in 'public consultation' mode re: the master plan for the site. Check it out here >>>>
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/cubsite/pdf/CUB_Presentation.pdf

Here's some indicative diagrams. I like the open space facing Braodway. >>>>>
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/cubsite/html/large/slide28.jpg
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/cubsite/html/large/slide30.jpg

yeah im soon to be doing some mass modelling! Ive already made 'twin Towers' for the area opposite UTS. Up to 120m high. The planners actually want the "gateway" look.
There are as many as 15 bldgs of over 12storeys or more, so it really boosts the count on ss.com!!
The landmark 54m chimney will be situated in an urban park with units surrounding it. he onlt spot for the 100m+ scrapers looks like being on Broadway op UTS.
You might notice on our city model the area near CUB is missing. ive had to update the entire area with Quadrant and 485 wattle st,and others. Appaarently in December there will be alot of meetings with planners/devlopers/architetcs ect.

More details in relationto the development. Locals aren't too happy

From The Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au)

City brewery site receives tall order
By Jonathan Pearlman
November 25, 2003

Two high-rise buildings and about 2000 apartments have been earmarked for the former Carlton United Brewery site at Broadway.

The redeveloped site may include two buildings, up to 100 metres tall, across the road from the UTS building, says a preliminary planning study commissioned by the City of Sydney and prepared by architects Hill Thalis.

The Lord Mayor, Lucy Turnbull, said she would seek the city council's agreement to have planning controls for the 5.7-hectare site reviewed to encourage the developer to provide public open space. Current controls require a 5:1 residential to commercial area floorspace use and a blanket 15-storey height limit.

"The current height controls will make Soviet Moscow look friendly," Cr Turnbull said in a statement on the council's website.

Cr Turnbull is also keen to ensure the plan includes buildings for student housing, computer labs or other educational facilities.

Some residents are concerned the new high-rise buildings will turn the area into a second CBD.

"Chippendale currently has very little open green space, yet the size and location of the green space provided in the plan does nothing to alleviate this situation," a Chippendale residents' group said in a statement yesterday.

The Save Our Suburb (CUB Community Working Group) group said it was concerned residents had been given insufficient time to present submissions.

"The council has agreed to accept submissions until December 1. The council allows 28 days for comment on a simple residential DA, yet this potentially billion-dollar project can be examined and commented on within a quarter of that time," the group said.

A group member, Lindsay Charles, said a council planner told residents at a meeting last week that the site would include about 2000 apartments.

Developer Australand entered an agreement to purchase the site from CUB earlier this year for $203 million to be paid over 10 years. Australand has agreed to hold a design competition for the site and proposes to redevelop it for a mix of residential, commercial, retail and educational uses.

The city's planning subcommittee is expected to approve the planning study within the next two weeks. Competition entries will be due early next year and will be judged by three judges nominated by Australand and three nominated by the city.

Sorry guys, didn't see the other thread- Cul, do you want to merge this one or just delete it ?

no probs! merged!:D

I hope the two towers go ahead. Even if there's only one tower, I just hope that it's near the 120m mark. It'll be great to see the UTS tower paired alongside another tower of similar height.

But even if the towers don't go ahead, I'd really like heaps more public access to that land. To be all private would be a complete waste. I also hope they get rid of that car yard which is just a bit down Broadway... that doesn't belong in this area anymore!

I can't believe some people in Chippendale are talking as if it's a very outer suburb. They live right in the city! They indeed need some green space, but they will get that; towers or no towers.

But then again, residents in The Tower on Market Street (even Market St!) don't want Westfield's plans for Sydney Tower to go ahead. No suprise but not rational or common sensical.

Anything has got to be better than what is mostly there in a pile of crapola.

BTW There is a tower crane now on site. Maybe it's there to start clearing up what is not necessary as the mega-dega job of clearing most of the land begins for 2005. :happy:

this site is looking like it might get a landmark tower in the form of a 60storey/170m tower! The schemes that are coming in lately are lowering the average height of 12-15storey bldgs to 3-4 storey bldgs thus upping the height of the towers. Bates Smart current plan have 4 towers 120m/130m/130/170m! it actually looks excellent. there very narrow scrapers with rectangular floor plans turned north/south at most eastern end of site.
The "vibes" im getting from the meetings and ongoing bldg envelopes is that there will be towers! and they will be tall!
due to the site having to disperse 2000 units into low and highrise.planners would rather lots of low 3 storey bldgs with a couple of tall towers instead of lots of 12-15storey structures over entire site.
the site is a real "gateway" to the city and deserves landmark structures!
from one gateway(at central) to another(circular quay)!:guns1:

farrkkk so much good news in the past few weeks! I think i must be hallucinating:happy:

Hopefully this eventuates!

Wow thats a tall tower then many floors there very supirsied when we get to see the models

Originally posted by Trances
Wow thats a tall tower then many floors there very supirsied when we get to see the models
still going thru design process, could be 6-12 months yet before a the bldg envelopes are agreed.

Called into the CUB site last mid-Saturday arvo and spoke to the office manager.

He informed me that the huge Lindores crane on the site that was hanging well over Broadway is clearing tankers, delivery trucks and other machinery. The reason being is that they are off to affiliated breweries in Melbourne and on the Gold Coast.

Both CUB and Australand aren't wasting any time on this one. There are now 3 cranes on the site including a mobile crane and a contender for 'World's Wackiest Cranes'.

Obviously gearing up for the redevelopment BIG TIME!! http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/spin3.gif

what development is actually taking shape here on CUB????

Originally posted by andad1
what development is actually taking shape here on CUB????
the site is a large one off Broadway across from UTS in Chippendale.
It is undergoing a competion for the master plan atm which ill be building a model of "councils perfurbed scheme".
Australand want to be build 2000 units split between lowrise and highrise towers which will also have office bldgs included. There will be open spaces and tree lined boulevardes which will link Broadway with the Chippendale area to the south.
Ive seen towers up to 60storeys/170m high! The council are starting to lean towards a couple of towers minimum height of 120m UTS, which will give the site a 'gateway" feel.the council originally didnt want anything higher than the 54m chimney stack which is to be left in centre of site! but now ots inevitable the site needs some tall ones. This will also keep the averge height of the dozen or so apartment towers down from 15storeys to 3 storeys which in turn "jacks up" the floor space in the towers, so we could end up with 3-4 bldgs higher than UTS.
it will give the isolated UTStower some playfriends!lol

Originally posted by CULWULLA
It will give the isolated UTS Tower some playfriends! lol ...and by-jingo it needs some!

170m sounds dandy to me! Maybe the new SCC will approve it
:colgate:

According to the Australand website, the new neighbourhood to be built on the CUB site will be know as Balfour Park.

It's strange...when I checked the Australand website a few days ago, they had a banner linking to this "Balfour Park" development, and although the link didn't seem to be working, they had a logo for the development and everything.

Now, there isn't any mention of it anywhere! No banner on the main Australand page, and no link under the Sydney>Apartments section. :?

Balfour Park? what a craptacular name? i could think of many more appropriate? Carlton Gardens? Gateway? Beer Valley?
The Broadway ? lol

I guess the more vertical the developments are, the more free space can be alocated at ground level.

It'll also avoid that horror bunched up cheap housing development look.

Originally posted by CULWULLA
Balfour Park? what a craptacular name? i could think of many more appropriate? Carlton Gardens? Gateway? Beer Valley?
The Broadway ? lol

Like Victoria Park in Zetland, it's probably a historical name (since Victoria Park was an old racetrack on the site)...any idea what was there before the brewery?

Originally posted by finn
Like Victoria Park in Zetland, it's probably a historical name (since Victoria Park was an old racetrack on the site)...any idea what was there before the brewery?

The site was established as a brewery in 1835 by Robert & Edwin Tooth.
it was just farmland before that so not syre where balfour park came from. i might ask the city historian this week. yeah , i was told last week about history of the Victoria park site, ie-race track. its so flat there . it only has 1m difference from east -west elevation.

heres a pic of entire site from Fisher Library-(2001)

http://image.sl.nsw.gov.au/Ebind/pxa983/a420/a420005r.jpg

Balfour Park might be named after Lord Balfour, a British politician whom was an important figure in the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. In promised in 1917, through the Balfour declarationv that the British would strive for a Jewish state in Palestine, which the British ended controlling by mandate after World War One. However the British found it difficult to do so due to Arab - Jewish tension. I do find the name to be inappropriate and should be given a name to do with the Broadway area or a name which connects with the previous use on site

I also have a model "aerial" of the site

http://img8.photobucket.com/albums/v28/Fabian/e5578f08.jpg

Nice history lesson there Fabs Thanks

Originally posted by Fabian
Balfour Park must be named after Lord Balfour, a British politician whom was an important figure in the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. In promised in 1917, through the Balfour declarationv that the British would strive for a Jewish state in Palestine, which the British ended controlling by mandate after World War One. However the British found it difficult to do so due to Arab - Jewish tension. I do find the name to be inappropriate and should be given a name to do with the Broadway area or a name which connects with the previous use on site

I also have a model "aerial" of the site


http://img8.photobucket.com/albums/v28/Fabian/e5578f08.jpg
i dont think so fab! lol
there is a main street that runs thru the site (named in 1875) called Balfour st.The mayor of the time in 1875 was Stephen Goold and his wife's original surname was Balfour!
research fab!!! jews??

Check it out! The City of Sydney info page on the Balfour Park (Australand's working name for the site - not necessarily the final name) design guidelines and competition!

Carlton & United Breweries Site, Broadway
(http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/catz_cub_update_3.asp)

Competition entries are due in by the end of March, public exhibition in April and the winners will be announced in June! :D

Originally posted by finn
Check it out! The City of Sydney info page on the Balfour Park (Australand's working name for the site - not necessarily the final name) design guidelines and competition!

Carlton & United Breweries Site, Broadway
(http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/catz_cub_update_3.asp)

Competition entries are due in by the end of March, public exhibition in April and the winners will be announced in June! :D
see the section2.2. The height guidlines- The dark red areas (only 2) are for up to 100m . This is where the 120m+ towers are going!
right across from UTS!
i should be engaged soon to constructing a scheme or 2.
cheers

iew of site from TNT tower Today

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

The 3 cranes are moving most of the heavy machinery to breweries and other sites in Queensland. A few to Victoria as well. All of this in gearing up for the 2005 closure of the site as a brewery.Originally posted by finn
Competition entries are due in by the end of March, public exhibition in April and the winners will be announced in June! :D Spoke to the guy in admin today (I won't name drop again ;) ) and he told me that the exhibition for the competition entries is going to be held right in the heart of 'NIMBYville' i.e. Chippendale. As we already know, goofball NIMBYS are against the high-rise that won't even overshadow their precious delapidated terraces.

As us more informed know, the only overshadowing the (hopefully) eventually approved talls will mostly be over the rail lines to the east.

I suggested and he liked the idea that we start a petition to get the towers approved as they are expecting a lot of negative comments that will (not) be welcome @ the exhibition.

So come on forumers - he's going to give me a call when the time is right to get down to the exhibition to put in our positive comments about getting the towers approved. Then after that, perhaps the petition.

Now is the time to prepare to lobby - BIG TIME!!! :guns1:

Count me in!

Viva Le Resistance!

Of course I'll be in too, but I have a feeling we don't have to worry too much about this one.

The council themselves have established a specific area of the site for 100m-ish towers, meaning they have properly researched the impacts of such towers, and find them to be acceptable.

Similarly, I have read many a council report/reponse to opposing resident's letters, and the NIMBY's usually pull all types of reasons why a tower shouldn't be built, but unless they can substantiate an actual definite impact (i.e. overshadowing of parks/their own homes etc. for a large amount of time at certain times of the year), the council basically backs their own site assessments.

Besides, this is a huge proposal, and really of state government significance, so I very much doubt they will let such a prime asset in Sydney's CBD go to waste - especially not if it is scientifically shown (through shadow diagrams etc.) that there will not be significant impact and that the council has already assessed the best option!

For example, they approved Horizon in the middle of an area full of buildings no taller than 5 storeys because having a taller structure meant more open space surrounding it, and that's much the same scenario with this site!

I guess we'll just have to wait and see though! Never know what some of these loonies pull! ;)

Too true finn-ster.

However I still think it is important for all or most of us to get down to the exhibition and counteract the negative comments of most if not all of the Chippendale NIMBY's supid and silly responses/comments.

Also all or most us again to sign the petition in agreeance to the high-risers planned for the CUB Brewery site ---- that is basically to counteract the goofball NIMBYS. :(

Question ........ From the train approaching Central this morning I saw 3 large cranes which looked to be @ this particular location. Can anyone confirm as to what all this is about. Have they begun some sort of construction on the CUB site or somewhere close by?

Originally posted by SinCity
Question ........ From the train approaching Central this morning I saw 3 large cranes which looked to be @ this particular location. Can anyone confirm as to what all this is about. Have they begun some sort of construction on the CUB site or somewhere close by?
i think Muse found out a few weeks ago that the cranes are there to dismantle some vats and old machinery ect. Ive talked to heritage guys and they are still acessing what can be saved on site before it gets razed by Australand! So far a pub, the chimney and a row of bldgs along Kensington st and a tall 6storey bldg in middle of site are to be retained.

Ta! :)

Mayoral candidates for Sydney City Council have been concerned about the lack of consultation on the site. So far it is believed that only well informed people have lodged submissions with the council regarding the development, and some have suggested more consultation before the development can proceed.

It is also being reported that planning controls will be amended to accomadate the winning entry.

since this is "official " thread better put the latest pix here also>

theres always a favourite and this happens to be the tallest! It has a curved sweeping bldg which gives a great vista down jones st! The tallest bldg (33 storeys rises to 120m which glass forest top!

#The tallest bldg (33 storeys rises to 120m which glass forest top!
#the 2nd tallest is 100m.
# then there is 4 x 12storey/40m high towers which includes the long curved one.
#also 12 x 6-8 storey lowrise unit blocks.
heres some pix-

loved the curved bldg!



http://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2004/04/257529.jpg

http://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2004/04/257530.jpg


http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/pb3eb67d94177a7dabe2d80bb578900b9/f91d4817.jpg
theres approx 5-6 more scrapers over 35m

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/pd6fc03e8f1765da6b8291f03c50069b8/f91d481c.jpg

the 120m tower looking up Broadway

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/pab798ad858a2c779c584f5b958048a95/f91d4820.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/p68a8b30bd8334fafe8786d479b7b4b93/f91d464d.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/p29dc31134ee04fee93120dc6373dfc9d/f91d4f69.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/pbbae7f580ab138dba3e63a897792386d/f91d4a03.jpg

other schemes-

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/pf1cd03c8d7b2f4946932bfd672a428dc/f91d4648.jpg

model of wayout colour towers

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/pee90f1f46a5312a41200188b58c5f545/f91d464c.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/p17c6793614ad6ce4fd2a05a70ddc2deb/f91d4f6e.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/pf4e8a884e82ecba1a2ab93df0e0131a7/f91d4a0f.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/p6de6261a2a38e9b45657886012325bbc/f91d4a0b.jpg

this was the only one with 3 x100 towers! very redfern housing look! ;(

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/p3e6666d85ebd22790ebd0c7c776e8626/f91d4f71.jpg

Wow. Looks so so good. I hope they will be built though scaled back I bet. Really adds some flavour to this area after looking at that ugly UTS building all these years. I love this render.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/p17c6793614ad6ce4fd2a05a70ddc2deb/f91d4f6e.jpg

These buildings must be built. Not domineering or any other garble. Just perfect, reminds me of KENS, I wish Frank Sartor was still in.

Nooooooo!! I hate this one! Especially the McDonard's sign!

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/pf1cd03c8d7b2f4946932bfd672a428dc/f91d4648.jpg

Isn't that that ugly piece of shit building DCM tried to propose at the Luna Park site?

Without a doubt the first option has to be chosen, and without too many alterations, approved. Love the curved building, and the gold facade of the taller two buildings, a reminder of the site's past use perhaps?

If not that then the colourful ones sggesting that "X marks the spot..."

Yesterday's SMH had an article with some of the proposals including a small coloured rendering of this proposal. The rendering showed it better, with whitish towers and adopting a WT style balcony scheme that are coloured in darker color's. It's still not enough to change my position on this specific proposal.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/p3e6666d85ebd22790ebd0c7c776e8626/f91d4f71.jpg

Also, Lord Mayor Clover Moore has indicated that she may want to scale back the development because it's too much and inappropriate development for the site.

Also, Lord Mayor Clover Moore has indicated that she may want to scale back the development because it's too much and inappropriate development for the site.Well, that's nothing new...and if ever there was anyone misquoted, it is her. She wants more local community participation in what is developed and what is not.

There are forms to fill in intelligently about all 5 propsals down there @ the exhibit. Go and fill out the forms to you hearts' content. You'll need to set aside a bit of time as there is quite a bit to take in. You don't have to live in the area either.

Also, Lord Mayor Clover Moore has indicated that she may want to scale back the development because it's too much and inappropriate development for the site.

Thankfully, I think she will have difficulty doing that - this project is of a greater level of importance than to be decided entirely by a local government council, and hopefully the labour-led state government will dismiss her complaints.

What does she imagine is the inappropriate development I wonder? The apartments? The offices? Maybe she should keep in mind that this site is essentially in the CBD, and that there are already other taller buildings immediately adjacent.

I don't care which design they choose, as long as it's over 100 metres I'll be a happy but not crappy man. :drunk:

better?http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/balfourpktallestaerial.jpg

Elizabeth Farrelly has written up an interesting article in today's SMH about the redevelopment and evaluates the plans for the site. It also has planning stats and she was even able to get someone from Australand to comment about the redevelopment. It also makes reference to planning policies for the site and includes renderings of several proposals.

Elizabeth Farrelly has written up an interesting article in today's SMH about the redevelopment and evaluates the plans for the site. It also has planning stats and she was even able to get someone from Australand to comment about the redevelopment. It also makes reference to planning policies for the site and includes renderings of several proposals.

Yeah I read it, unfortunately she took the subtle tack that density was bad and evil. OH DEAR, DENSITY? IN THE MIDDLE OF A CITY? TUT! I HAVE DROPPED MY MONOCLE!

LOLOLOL Randwicked. :rofl: Somebody's been watching old British films on the ABC at 2.00AM. LOLOL. You've made my day :)

If I can type withought laughing....

5 mins later:

I find her articles to be getting really negative of late. She's getting uppety!! I dislike this whole article.

Personally I don't know the guy from Australand but she rips into him after he as given her his time, and she's just being so rude about him. I bet he's upset....I would be.

Moral is: never trust a smiling journo :sly:

Don't forget, exhibit open until this Saturday 01/05.

Oh Lordy, dropped 'me' monacle. :crazy2: :hilarious

http://www.shillpages.com/dw/hartnw02.jpg
Me, upon reading Elizabeth Farrelly's column

^ I thought it was LIz for a moment!! ^

Now cease these shenanigans immediately, young whippersnapper!! ;)

If those who want to see exciting architecture (particulalry nice scrapers) get down there and fill out the forms. If you can't make it I have some spare forms I picked up last night. Can get 'em to you and then you mail 'em in.

Those who don't will probably be the first to complain about how the NIMBY-dom factor won. Even if they do, at least we/you know you've given it your best.

Ouwh! Dropped 'me' monacle lololol

im assisting in moving the display next wednesday. so the planners/Australand can see the options insitu in our city model. It will before 9am so not for public too see..

im assisting in moving the display next wednesday. so the planners/Australand can see the options insitu in our city model. It will before 9am so not for public too see..

We can always have a peep through the windows outside if we are in the area:D

well the models are in next to our city model for the "private" exhibition tomorrow at 8am.Word is that the popular one by John Boyd towers architect-Richard francis Jones will win.

>http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/pb3eb67d94177a7dabe2d80bb578900b9/f91d4817.jpg

I agree its the better option. Also i think everyone also liked bates Smart s design which was >http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/pf4e8a884e82ecba1a2ab93df0e0131a7/f91d4a0f.jpg

had the meet this morning. met Bob Nation, Richard Johnson, Graham Yahn, plus others. nation is such a cool customer! they tended to like a combination of most. but they agreed we need to go back to drawing baord with a better masterplan.
ah well.

had the meet this morning. met Bob Nation, Richard Johnson, Graham Yahn, plus others. nation is such a cool customer! they tended to like a combination of most. but they agreed we need to go back to drawing baord with a better masterplan.
ah well.
WHAT!?! Reassess the masterplan?!?!

WHY for god's sake? It's not as if there are any major, monumental flaws in the current plan? Are there? Am I missing something? Bloody hell... this latest development pisses me right off. I hope you shouted a lot Cul when they said this. ;)

lol, there just abit undecided with some groups of bldgs ect. nothing to do with the 2 tall towers. everyone excepts these will be part of the whole concept but its the south and west of site and how it intergrates with surrounding terraces ect..

had the meet this morning. met Bob Nation, Richard Johnson, Graham Yahn, plus others. nation is such a cool customer! they tended to like a combination of most. but they agreed we need to go back to drawing baord with a better masterplan.
ah well.Put a few architects/city planners in the same room and to be sure they will have their own opinions as to what the final solution/s may be. All 3 mentioned above are quite respected in their fields.

Expect this thread to at least go for another 20-25 pages in the next year as from now in regard to go back to drawing boards with ammendments to the overall master plan.

It is reassuring that the taller towers on the north-east cnr of the site to this point isn't an issue.

I'm sure we will be given further info esp. in regard to updates to any amendments to the masterplan as they come to hand, hey CULS?

BTW I spoke with Bob Nation @ his home number twice and he seemed like a very congenial and nice guy :okay:

BTW LOL @ Fabian pushing his face up against the window to take a sneaky-peek.:crazy2:

@ fro lol. Once again LOL with CULWULLA i.e. Quote "I hope you shouted a lot Cul when they said this." :speech: --> :| :uh:
((( http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/errrr.gif ))) :runaway: :runaway: :runaway: Re the above architects/city planners posted earlier in this thread today.

LOL... well, I would have shouted loudly in my strong opposition. :D

But if it's true what Cul's saying about retaining the two tall towers then all is good. I just don't want the council to stuff this VERY IMPORTANT site up. I can understand a bit about the sites interaction with the surrounding area, down the back end of it...

I think I've calmed down now.

Looks like this design could be doomed after reading today's SMH article with Clover Moore saying the 100m towers could be too overbearing for the area....what the hell would she know....does she have a Bachelor in Design and Architecture?.
Apparantly an amendment to the height controls might mean NOTHING taller than 45m in this area.
I knew her introduction to SCC would mean doom and gloom for any 'cutting edge' or tall proposals. She is also anti developer. I thought Frank was evil, but he's tame compared to her.
Sorry for the pesimistic post, but I get the horrible feeling she will never allow any tall WOW delopments to go ahead that exceed height limitations in specific areas.
:mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

Looks like this design could be doomed after reading today's SMH article with Clover Moore saying the 100m towers could be too overbearing for the area....what the hell would she know....does she have a Bachelor in Design and Architecture?.
:mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

Overwhelming. Total Bull. Doesn't she know that just across the road lies a 120 metre tower that looks like a bloody giant in that area?

I do agree though that development on the perimeter should mould in with the terrace housing. They should even offer terrace housing as part of the redevelopment (placed along the perimeter) as to provide a wide variety of housing and possibly transfer some of space into the other towers and increasing their heights.

nah, the 120m towers will definatley be built. The floor space ratio calls for them. Australand are adament these stay with design. Just because Clover doesnt want them, it doesnt mean they wont go ahead. they will. she will try to 'curve" the design to have lower bldgs but Australand will make sure they still get 2000 units on site.

nah, the 120m towers will definatley be built. The floor space ratio calls for them. Australand are adament these stay with design. Just because Clover doesnt want them, it doesnt mean they wont go ahead. they will. she will try to 'curve" the design to have lower bldgs but Australand will make sure they still get 2000 units on site.

I think that Clover Moore is going to have to learn that she can't have her cake and eat it too.

Here is how it works:

When Muse and I went to the CUB site exhibition "meet and greet the architects" night, I specifically asked the architects on what basis the brief of 2000 apartments and associated commercial and retail space was based.
The answer all around was that it was based on the FSR (Floor Space Ratio) imposed by Sydney City Council - i.e. the legal planning allowances.

Now here are your choices Clover:

a) You can get rid of the towers and impose a 45m height limit over the entire site, although this would require the entire site to be built to a height of 45m in order to fulfil the 2000 apartment allowance. Oh yeah, did I mention that the open space would have to be eliminated altogether and built on as well to satisfy the allowance? OR

b) The masterplan could be left alone and continue as it is, or maybe changed in minor ways in response to the suggestions of the other architects that saw the designs the other day (as Culwulla mentioned), OR

c) The height of the towers could be increased to hold more of the total 2000 apartments, enabling an increase in the amount of open space on the site, and satisfying me personally as well! :yes:

I know which one I would choose ;)

She is also anti developer.I've mentioned this more than once on this site. Clover isn't anti-development as such. She just wants more community participation and not all of that i.e. the community is not anti-development either.

She is quite fair in this regard and bottom line, it is not soley up to her in making executive decisons. There are too many other factors and other people making decisions as well.

This isn't necessarily black and white.

I feel some of you are archiving the situation before it even materialises.

Details of the new planning controls have come out. This will be apart of the new LEP that will be released for the site. Clover wants the development to fit in well with the existing parts of Chippendale (Which is a good idea especially along the southern and western perimeters of the site).

Some of the details released according to the Daily Telegraph are:

*There would be a more balanced fix of residental and non residential development.
*Incorporating enviromentally sustainable measures into the redevelopment.
*Respecting the heritage importance of the site
*Encouraging the use of public transport and traffic management (Clover Moore does not want rat runners to use the roads in the area)

More of a blance = good thing, as a higher percentage was being given to residential over commercial.
Public transport management = good thing.
Respecting the heritage - no probs with that.

As long as they build a reasonable sized tower or 2 across from UTS, then they can do what they like with the rest of the site.

CUB site: new hope for residents


By Line : Joy Dodds Published : 26/05/2004 Clip Ref : 11904094
Publication : Wentworth Courier SydneyCity Section : General News Page : 9
Sydney City Lord Mayor Clover Moore has tabled a mayoral minute to establish a stricter development planning approach, until a Local Government plan can be developed for the whole city, including tougher regulations on height and building densities.
man!! :wallbash: already clover has started restrictiung bldgs heights!
i reckon Australand should abandon plans and go somewhere where they like tall buildings!! like Melbourne??
this is a friggin major CBD!!! not suburbia!:wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:

But the Coucil could be taken to court by Australand and/or the architectural companies bidding to build on the site - they've invested a lot of money in it already. Also Elton Consultants have been hired to do all the research and hold the exhibits. Australand bought the site on the understanding they could develop it.

Also they were told to go back to the drawing board by Council with the new percentages (i.e. commercial vs residential) and come up with newer masterplans.

*****What do you think CULWULLA?

BTW Chippendale/Broadway doesn't have that higher population and Elton Consultants said it was a project for all of Sydney, not just the locals. It's also on the assumption that all locals oppose the site's development. As a local myself.....I want those talls opposite UTS damn it!!

Clover Moore has tabled a mayoral minute to establish a stricter development planning approach, until a Local Government plan can be developed for the whole city, including tougher regulations on height and building densities.

Who voted in this stupid slapper anyway?

not happy! latest "masterplan" i checked out today calls for 11x 12storey bldgs spread over the site.. :wallbash:

i reckon there should be at least 1x 100m tower op UTS!
damn

not happy! latest "masterplan" i checked out today calls for 11x 12storey bldgs spread over the site.. :wallbash:

i reckon there should be at least 1x 100m tower op UTS!
damn

Hmmmm, sounds reminiscent of a housing commission project - I will vehemently oppose any masterplan that doesnt encourge variety in urban forms! A city is best when it is dynamic and varied, not repetitive and homogenous.

Totally agree finn.

It's all fair and well to release a new masterplan... but where's the JUSTIFICATION andf PURPOSE of this alteration??

Why, oh, why...

alot has to do with Clover listening to residents qualms. She also thinks there should be a step down in built form from the CBD to the nearby suburbs (being Chippendale), so she thinks the bldgs shoulb be no more than 12storeys high or as high as the nearby Regent apartments (Old Dairy farmers) to south of site.
I agree finn, it did look very housing commish.

>it did look very housing commish.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

not happy! latest "masterplan" i checked out today calls for 11x 12storey bldgs spread over the site.. :wallbash:

i reckon there should be at least 1x 100m tower op UTS!
damn

Doesn't she understand that transfering floorspace into towers to increase their height means more open space for locals, which they are crying out for. The first proposal indicated that they were going to get a park, which I found to be a fairly reasonable size.

Also the 100 m towers were on Broadway in the proximity of UTS well away from the lower densities of the area

To have 12 storey towers only will make it one boring complex. Weve been hyped up for nothing.

Well, all in all, there is very little option for the council to change the FSR/density allowed for the site, since it lies within the CBD area and was sold to Australand on the basis of a certain number of apartments (2000) able to be built.

If the council were to do this, they would be responsible for massive compensation for Australand. And considering that the number of apartments can't be realistically reduced, the towers are required, or alternatively the aprtments in the towers can be distributed between smaller towers around the sit - but this would then require a major reduction in the public open space on the site.

Did you guys read about how the Land and Environment Court has rejected Moore's appeal to prevent some of the trees from being removed in the Botanic Gardens? The fact is that there are higher powers than the council's mayor, and this site will probably be developed the way that Australand wants it to be done. :)

Thanks finn. You finally addressed a reality that I brought up in question. Besides Australand being able to claim a huge amount of compensation that council cannot afford, I think to a lesser extent the 5 bidding architectural companies could have their 2 cents worth. Perhaps even Elton Consulting.

To a lesser extent, the architectural firms because that is the gamble they take. They take the gamble anyway to try and win the contract. But they have taken this gamble and invested time and money on the proviso of a council oultine. Perhaps a consortium of Australand, the 5 bidders and Elton could take it to court.

There!! We have a case people even before they know it :)

I read the June edition of the SCC newsletter and Clover gives the proposals a canning, quoting the proposals as "gross overdevelopments with little in the way of imagination and local area public benefit."

"little in the way of imagination" - you gotta be joking. Some of them were quite good and would rival many towers in the CBD proper

CRAP :(

Towers Ruled Out

Jason Clout
201 words
16 June 2004
Australian Financial Review

High-rise towers have been rejected for one section of the long-running plan to redevelop the Carlton and United Breweries site at Broadway in Sydney.

The jury looking at the five submissions tendered for the Design Excellence Competition for the CUB site did not fully endorse any of them.

It rejected proposals that included multiple towers in the north-east corner of the site due to concerns about overshadowing and lack of privacy.

The jury also called for a new public park on the southern edge of the site.

The Lord Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, said she was pleased the jury had taken into account concerns raised by the community.

While no design was accepted entirely, the scheme submitted by Alexander Tzannes Associates, Cox Group and Sue Barnsley Design was ranked first.

Australand, which bought the 5.7 hectare site on the southern edge of Sydney's CBD from the Foster's Group for $203 million in September last year, will work with the winning team.

Australand chief executive officer Brendan Crotty said it would push forward to develop a master plan for the site.

:bash: we should atleast allow one tower across from UTS. It has to be away from southern/east pocket and not too far west, as it will overshadow its own park in centre of Balfour park.
damn!!!

Living in Sydney just keeps on getting better for us skyscraper enhusiasts... NOT! This sucks!

Can we maybe send Ms Moore and the jury team to Melbourne for some work experience, maybe get an idea of how big cities work????? :bash: :bash: :bash:

The main park is better off on the western perimeter of the site where it is well away from the more built up areas of the east and it would receive more sun than being on the southern premiter. It should back onto Broadway to provide better access for locals including those in developments like Quadrant. It would mean we can have our 100-120m beauties plus other talls on the eastern side yet have a park that receives sun most of the day without any significant overdshadowing.

but the eastern side towers will overshadow and intrude on the existing terraces on eastern side. thats the whole reason for the tall tower schemes.its ridiculous. i wonder how Australand are feeling atm? they probably never wish they bought the site. They be better off buying Tharals site and building 75storey CITY One with apartments and hotel and revamp train station.

It's disappointing to say the least. I wonder what height limits they WILL set on this site then. It's easy enought to say no to highrise, but what then? Like someone said in the thread (sorry, I should quote, but heck... I'm lazy), that if you remove the high rise then you have to accommodate those people somewhere else, meaning more land for housing and less for open space.

Clover Moore seems to have felt she "won" on this issue, but in reality she will have to provide viable alternatives to a thriving and bulging city like Sydney rather than her boorish blanket opposition to any form of high-rise development.

Give me Frank Sartor any day.

It looks to me that some-one is out of their depth and Sydney will rue the day. There is a difference in meaning between "city" and "village" and there is a reason for it; a lesson not yet learned by some. And as for the rights of residents, won't the new arrivals also be residents? With rights? And how many actual residents are there, in fact?
It is the function of government to respect the rights of the people but "the people" is a very divergent lot and some-one has to stand apart and make informed judgements, and that "some-one" is our elected leaders.
Guess whose voices are going to be raised loud in protest when the area goes into decline because the developer has been gutted by restraints and conflicting demands?
It's like the Victoria Point development along Victoria Street at the Cross: we all lost and ended up with shit because of the lack of imagination of vocal locals who could not see beyond their own immediate wants.
Such, they say, is life...

It's disappointing to say the least. I wonder what height limits they WILL set on this site then. It's easy enought to say no to highrise, but what then? Like someone said in the thread (sorry, I should quote, but heck... I'm lazy), that if you remove the high rise then you have to accommodate those people somewhere else, meaning more land for housing and less for open space.

Clover Moore seems to have felt she "won" on this issue, but in reality she will have to provide viable alternatives to a thriving and bulging city like Sydney rather than her boorish blanket opposition to any form of high-rise development.

Give me Frank Sartor any day.
clover wants a 45m height limit over site of 12-15storeys. which is ridiculous in the centre of a major city!

it isnt in the centre of the city though is it ???? From what I've seen its atleast 500 meters from the edge of the CBD ( ie the George St intersect with Broadway ) which means that it would be in the fringe I think. A bit like being 500m up Lygon St Carlton from the Melbourne CBD.
If this Clover chick was doing the same thing IN the CBD then there would be major problems but she isnt. 15 stories is fine for this area I think, its only just down the road from that new broadway project and the part of haymarket which all looks to be the same height as well. she might just be being consistent regardless of the big brown tower over the road from it.
We had a school excursion to Seymour centre last month and it was only a stones throw from there.

i really think that Clover chick is queer.

There will be a community forum on the CUB site on Saturday July 3 at 10:30am at the Pine Street Creative Arts Centre, 64 Pine Street Chippendale. This has been organised by Sydney City Council.

For further information contact Community Relations on 9265 9218 or 9265 9895 or ring Clover's office on 9360 3053.

i really think that Clover chick is queer.Way cool!

@ Fabian (more importantly). Thanks for that info. I'll be sure to attend.

The SMH today published the winner of Australands design competition. It was taken out by Alexander Tzannes Associate and Cox Team. This is the same team which designed Centennial Park's Federation Gateway.

Clover Moore vows the outcome of this will not "bind the city or dictate what will happen on the site"

^ Wasn't that the "housing commish" design? ...and what the heck is Federation Gateway?

^ Wasn't that the "housing commish" design? ...and what the heck is Federation Gateway?

It's that petrol station canopy on the corner of Anzac Pde and Cleveland St near Fox Studios.

heres one of my proposals for the CUB site.
2 simple slim towers of cylindrical form 140 & 160m tall. plus stepped lowrise

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid123/p78892fd0ea350bb71573a5fe69b9997b/f82c6ff5.jpg

my russian idea!lol a 180m ESB.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid123/p2ec08b122f627720c3b35cd28f7ae544/f82c6ffa.jpg

Broadway strip proposal


By Line : Raylene Bliss Published : 21/06/2004 Clip Ref : 12204830
Publication : Inner Western Suburbs Courier Section : Inner City Page : 13

The City of Sydney Council will on July3 consider the future of the former Carlton brewery site. It will review the recommendations of a panel, selected to adjudicate the Carlton and United Brewery design competition. One recommendation is to develop a new service and activity street to be known as 'Little Broadway'.

----------

sounds like "little skyscrapers" to me.lol

Yesterdays Sun Herald reports that the SCC is considering banning cars from the site as public transport is nearby ie Railway Square & Central Station.

Yesterdays Sun Herald reports that the SCC is considering banning cars from the site as public transport is nearby ie Railway Square & Central Station.

Good!

bump

Looks like this one is going to be one of those on again, off again, political footballs. Perhaps we should call them "kangaroo projects" because they hit the ground and bounce into the air for a long time before they hit the ground again before they bounce into the air...

yeah affraid so. ive just built some massing models of CUB surrounds . still awaiting plans for CUB site itself. the site now has over 12 heritage bldgs so not much sace for many big ones.

Anymore news on this proposed development?

nah, still masterplan stage. its looking like there will be mainly 4-8storeyblggs with 10 or so 12-15storeys bldgs and maybe a 30 storey opposite UTS.?

nah, still masterplan stage. its looking like there will be mainly 4-8storeyblggs with 10 or so 12-15storeys bldgs and maybe a 30 storey opposite UTS.?

It was proposed to be "100 m + architectural feature"?!

Sounds like it'll be shorter now! :rant:

posted by christarant--

Town Hall faulted as brewery renewal fizzes
SMH By Bonnie Malkin March 18, 2005

Developers have pulled out of Sydney's biggest urban renewal project, shattering plans for a village of 8000 residents on the southern fringes of the central business district.

Australand, which bought the Carlton & United brewery site in Broadway for $203 million, blamed City of Sydney's strict planning rules for helping kill the project.

The collapse has cast fresh doubts over the ability of the Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, to broker deals with developers, who are now demanding greater certainty with planning rules.

Australand's managing director, Brendan Crotty, said the council's restrictions - such as only half the flats having a car space, a minimum of six square metres of open space per resident and 5000 square metres of park land - complicated an already challenging development and potentially made the venture less profitable.

The council also wanted a child-care centre, library and community centre.

Australand said that commercial and timing issues also contributed to the collapse of the project.

Advertisement
AdvertisementCr Moore, who has been much criticised as anti-development, rejected suggestions the guidelines were to blame for the withdrawal. "The fact is the site is on a bus route and next to Central railway, it's a prime location for public transport and the city is looking to improve public transport," she said.

Australand's decision, she felt, said more about the depressed state of the property market than any unfair regulations.

Australand bought the 5.79 hectare site, which was built in 1835, from CUB in September 2003 after the brewer announced it was relocating its operation.

City of Sydney accused Australand earlier this month of dragging its heels on a plan to identify which buildings should be considered for heritage protection. A council report said that when Australand finally delivered the plan, it was hard to assess, ignored the importance of the site's history and did not address the adaptive re-use of buildings.

The NSW executive director of the Property Council, Ken Morrison, said the deal's demise should remind Town Hall that developers needed certainty.

``When an investor chooses to go into a site they have an understanding of what the key planning determinants are going to be and if those determinants change that affects the economics of the site,'' he said.

``Certainty needs to be there for investors as well as for the community.''

Cr Moore said the council would continue to work with CUB to find another developer for the site. But a spokeswoman for the brewer said: ``We are going back to the drawing board ... at an appropriate time we will take it back to the market and invite purchasers.''

bad news!!
we blew it!

http://www.davethewave.co.uk/mary-mungo-midge/big-jpg/the%20end.jpg

Another article from the Fin Review on the collapse of the deal:

Australand pulls out of CUB venture

Robert Harley
782 words
18 March 2005
Australian Financial Review
First
74
English
© 2005 Copyright John Fairfax Holdings Limited. www.afr.com Not available for re-distribution.

After 18 months of planning debate, the Australand Property Group has walked away from one of inner Sydney's most important redevelopment projects the huge Carlton and United Breweries site on Broadway.

The Foster's Brewing Group, which owns the site and optioned it to Australand in September 2003, will continue planning the project in the hope of gaining some certainty before another sale.

Under the 2003 agreement, Australand would have paid $203 million to Foster's between June this year and June 2010. However, none of the proceeds have been booked to the Foster's accounts.

Both parties said yesterday that "after extensive consultation" they had "mutually elected to rescind their conditional contractual arrangements".

Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore said she was "disappointed" by the exit of Australand. However, the move did not "diminish the importance of the site", she stressed.

"It's a very exciting site . . . but these large and complex sites take a long time to resolve."

The former Kent Brewery site covers six hectares, just two kilometres from the centre of the CBD, and is within walking distance of Central Station and two universities.

Eventually it will be developed as an urban village in its own right, incorporating new and restored buildings in a mix of apartments, offices, shops and open space.

Eighteen months ago, Australand could have expected to gain a floor space ratio of 5:1 for residential and 4:1 for commercial.

However, it is a complex site due to issues such as heritage, height, overshadowing and open space along with the need for extensive community consultation.

Australand managing director Brendan Crotty said the planning concept his group had for the site was no longer achievable.

Moreover, the process was taking much longer than expected. Only last week, the final conservation study was handed to the determining authority, the Central Sydney Planning Committee.

Instead of achieving development approval by June, the project is scheduled to go on public exhibition by the end of the year, with any construction work possibly still two years away.

As an added complication, the new Redfern Waterloo Authority may be able to levy the project for contributions to affordable housing, a further impost of perhaps $30 million.

"It is probably better for both of us to step backwards and when Foster's gets approval, we will talk again," Mr Crotty said.

He denied suggestions by the Lord Mayor that the changing apartment market had motivated the decision. "Not really. We are changing the way we fund apartments, but we would always have joint ventured CUB," he said.

Mr Crotty said the relationship with the City of Sydney had been cordial. "We are all captive of an extended approval process that will not deliver anything at least for 12 months and perhaps 24 months."

So far, Australand has spent $4 million. Mr Crotty said the cost would be expensed in the June 2005 half-year result but would not affect the forecast distribution.

Foster's will push on, advised by Brian Challen of Metroplex Property and probably with the same architects, Alexander Tzannes Associates and Cox Richardson.

A spokesman said Foster's would "seek greater certainty around planning outcomes . . . before proceeding with any sale process".

However, many analysts believed Foster's was unlikely to achieve a sale price of $203 million. Many were surprised at the number in 2003.

Since then, the market has cooled, construction prices have risen and the development yield has fallen. On the other hand, if the planning issues can be resolved, Foster's will be offering a major inner-city site at at time when a shortage of inner-city apartments, and a paucity of commercial space, will be starting to affect prices.

The executive general manager of NSW Urban Task Force, Sue Robinson, said the CUB site was "an example of the problems of getting major urban renewal site approvals up and running".

The NSW executive director of the Property Council of Australia said the handling of the CUB project had "not been the city's finest hour',' but an example of "why it is important to have certainty in planning".

Not so, said the Lord Mayor. "We have been going through an orderly planning process in consultation with the community and Australand," she said.

"City of Sydney CEO Peter Seamer will be meeting with CUB executives next week to ensure the best outcome for this iconic site."

:(

yes, this is very sad news, I'm sure however that there will be similar proposals in the future... It's such a lucrative site in the CBD..

I wonder WTF this means:

Cr Moore, who has been much criticised as anti-development, rejected suggestions the guidelines were to blame for the withdrawal. "The fact is the site is on a bus route and next to Central railway, it's a prime location for public transport and the city is looking to improve public transport," she said

someone explain what she's saying please!!

^ I just think that's the editing fro. There would have been more to it.

It's not all bad. It's not "the end" as CULWULLA is suggesting. Only for this round.

A lot of money has been spent on this so far :no: (admin costs, competition entries).

Perhaps something better will come along in the future. I'm remaining hopeful. This is what Council needs to review its stringent development policies. A good kick-in-the-pants, we-don't-need-you, slap-in-the-puss by a well-known (and relitively large) developer.

*Waits for barrage of misogynistic slut-whore-c*nt remarks about Clover* :|

I suspect she is referring to the point about the council cutting the number of on-site resident parking to half. Australand would know that this won't wash with most Sydney-siders, but Moore is "committed" to the village concept.
I try to walk as much as possible being a Good Boy, but there are many times in a city as big as Sydney where you need a car or face a major undertaking. Try carting a week's supermarket shopping any sort of distance. Moore lives close to a big supermarket or more likely, has some-one to do the shopping for her so to her it doesn't rate as an issue. You can't force people not to have a car nor can you assume that all potential residents are health nuts who work in the city. It might help if they made public transport a bloody sight more attractive - in all senses of the word.

oh well, sh1t happens! as others have said something better or simular will come up, such a good inner city site.

here comes Meriton!!! lol

http://www.tvdance.com/bush-gore/images/1anew.gif

Australand should purchase some of the Stevedores site and erect some units with guts!! 250m+!!

well the building that were proposed were to short any way, i want to see some Rialto size similar shaped towers here!

there wee going to be about a dozen 12storey bldgs and 1 tall 30storey/90m tower. but maybe Australand didnt like what they saw. they wanted many talls.

What a shame... I wanted Australand to take care of this project.

Only half the flats having a car space is a ridiculous restriction. Improve PT first before restricing the car space!!

So we now have to wait another 3+ years until something happens on this site again...

I suspect she is referring to the point about the council cutting the number of on-site resident parking to half. Australand would know that this won't wash with most Sydney-siders, but Moore is "committed" to the village concept.


*UCK THE VILLAGE CONCEPT! :bash:

As much as I hated the whole proposal, I want something built on this site. It's such a great, well-serviced location. They should build taller towers this close to the station and work down in size as you move away. The proposals were far too short.

Is it such a disaster that it won't proceed now, and we may have to wait.

Actually I think it is a good thing in some respects.

It has to do with layering of the city. There has been such a huge burst of building in the last decade, that much of the inner city space available for residential has been filled up with stuff which is of the 90s and 00s style. It'd be good to rest for a bit and let the remaining sites, of which this is perhaps the largest inner one, be one in whatever the next substantially different architectural age is.

Stylistic layering, where you have quality develpment from different eras all of which is more or less worth preserving is what makes a city have depth.

And, to tell the truth, most of the 'unreasonably constraints' were ones that will make the area when it is finally developed a much better place to live, and a much better place to live near - which matters too. And since when it is developed the development will be there for a long time (the developments around it have been there for over a hundred years!) it's worth getting them right. If that means a decade to wait, it's not so bad, and I'll bet it'll be a lot less than that!

i dont really care about this site now that stevedores is here!!! atleast there will be skyscrapers on that site.

hopefully by the time this is going to happen Ms Moore will be out of office. As the article says, she can't work with developers. The restrictions must have been severe for a developer to pull the plug after all this hard work.

hopefully by the time this is going to happen Ms Moore will be out of office. As the article says, she can't work with developers. The restrictions must have been severe for a developer to pull the plug after all this hard work.

Severe? In case you haven't noticed, the property market (especially for off the plan units) has frozen over. Not a tiny bit surprizing that developers pulled the plug. And on the way out, they may as well snipe about regulation because no developer likes to have the regulations that make for a more livable city but less short term profit enforced.

But crucially: if they can't make money with the constraints now becuase of the downturn, better it be built in the next boom. Better a sustainable, lovely develpment to grace this great site for a hundred years built in a few years, than something with no heritage value, too many car parks, not enough open space and so on built now.

I agree though that some larger towers at the north west end would be fine, if offset by usable public open space.

Developers will often blame council via press releases. It's really more to do with difficulties surrounding their borrowing from banks and setting up subsidary companies.

It wouldn't surprise me if Australand is still in some form of negotiations, not as Australand but via another entity. They've seemingly pulled out of this one too quickly.

Across the board it is agreed that the CUB site is prime land, juicey for the pickin'. The developer that finally trumps it will profit extremely handsomely.

....

I personally prefer this site to be an office area. The site is too good to be a residential village...

But crucially: if they can't make money with the constraints now becuase of the downturn, better it be built in the next boom. Better a sustainable, lovely develpment to grace this great site for a hundred years built in a few years, than something with no heritage value, too many car parks, not enough open space and so on built now.


Did you see the design??? It was top class, but the council want to squeeze blood from a stone..

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/pb3eb67d94177a7dabe2d80bb578900b9/f91d4817.jpg

But i'll agree its better to be built when we have a better SCC.

Tuesday 29th March SMH See article by the redoubtable Elizabeth Farrelly, revealing some of the dirt that abounds in our fair city. As much as we may want to sheet home the blame to Clover & Co, it seems muddy motivations abound and the developers are not as virtuous as they try to maintain.
The possibility that Macquarie Bank may be able to do what it wants at the airport and undermine Green Square and the surrounding area is disquieting, to say the least.
Don't you just love the human race?!

That Macquarie Bank is infamously known for being full of sleazos.

Poor Liz is going to end up in the harbour one day in concrete slippers. :no:

BTW Haven't read the article as yet, so don't know the circumstances for wanting to "undermine Green Square" are.

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

Thanks testuser.

Uhm, "The potential to destroy Green Square". Well, OK, that's a start. I thought it was getting nearer to being developed as the always given 2015 was placed, as per Green Square thread.

Haven't seen any plans released for their mini-CBD out at the airport from Maccas. That's already happening with 8-9 storey office park type developments, some of them quite high-tech fab. All those hotel rooms too, but it is the airport.

not sure what this means
http://img53.echo.cx/img53/6330/brewery6gb.jpg

What other alternatives are there? They're not going to continue brewing there, that's for sure. So surely the only alternative is to sell it off to developers. I guess the nature of the development is the only question.

well ITS BACK!!
ive got to make up some model schemes for meetings.
council preferred scheme has 13 skyscrapers
2x85m
3x60m
2x50m
3x45m
3x40m
+ many other lowrise.
developers scheme is alot lower with only 3 skyscrapers BUt has twin towers 2x96m and 1x71m tower.
the masterplan should be sorted out soon with DA's coming in next year.

:ohno: What a waste.

it's not a complete loss, at least. What proposal are we speaking about Cul? Have we seen it in any shape or form before?

well ITS BACK!!
ive got to make up some model schemes for meetings.
council preferred scheme has 13 skyscrapers
2x85m
3x60m
2x50m
3x45m
3x40m
+ many other lowrise.


Sounds like Parramatta. :)

I prefer council's scheme over developer's scheme.
More highrise the merrier!

only problem is neither of them will make the nimbys happy. very dense development.
they will just have to like it lump it.

SMH today (6 sept) p.2 "Cave-in on strict brewery site rules Council abandons car parking limit". Bonnie Malkin Urban Affairs Reporter.

"City planners have abandoned controversial car-parking restriction in an attempt to revive the fortunes of one of Sydney's biggest urban renewal projects.
Instead of limiting vehicle spaces to one car for every two units on the Carlton and United Brewery site on Broadway, the City of Sydney now says the development should stay in line with comparable residential projects, even though it is next door to train and bus links.
Almost every unit will have a specified car space, allocated 0.97 vehicle spaces as part of revamped planning guidelines to go on public exhibition shortly.
The development controls for the 5.79-hectare site include the regulation of open space, heritage and building heights.
The council has yet to secure a developer for the $203 million gateway development, which will house 8000 people.
In March, the construction company Australand pulled out of a deal with the owners, Carlton and United Beverages, to buy the site, blaming the council's stringent planning controls.
At the time, Australand's managing director, Brendan Crotty, said the council's restrictions - which included half a car space per unit, a minimum of six square metres of open space per resident and 5000 square metres of parkland - complicate the development and threatened profitability.
Under the new controls, devised by the Central Sydney Planning Committee, a panel of State Government and council appointees, provisions for the large piece of parkland remain but the strict car space allowance and open space quota have gone.
The Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, who chairs the committee, said the car space allowance at the site would be brought in line with the rest of the city.
'The majority of members on the CSPC believed it's fairer to treat this site as we would treat any other site, in terms of planning. When we have a new plan in place we will apply it to all applications.'
A council-favoured scheme for the site includes two 96-metre towers in the north-east (near the University of Technology, Sydney tower) and a group of medium-rise buildings of 70 to 31 (sic) metres on Abercrombie Street.
The 5000-square-metre park would be on the corner of Abercrombie and O'Connor streets and a 'high street' would run down Balfour Street. A heritage precinct of 21 brewery buildings, including the main gateway, the old boiler house and the Carlton Street malting building, would be in the western corner of the site, bordered by Broadway and Abercrombie Street.
Councillor Moore said preserving the site's heritage and creating green spaces were high priorities.
Jeff Donohue, a spokesman for the site's owner, said: 'There is lots of general interest and a little bit more serious interest, but all of the interest tends to have the proviso of wanting planning certainty.'
Until its closure, the site was the largest and oldest continuously operating brewery in NSW.
The brewery was built in 1835 and remained open for 170 years until it was bought by Australand, when Carlton announced it was relocating its operations."

^ sounds positive. 2x 96m towers seems reasonable.should get great views if your a train spotter.lol

It's kind of weird that the developers want so many parking spaces - every unit in my building (Surry Hills) has a parking space and more than half of them are empty. Do a lot of people like to get a car space even when they don't have a car or something?

^ its a power thing.lol

latest news.
Fosters are now running with this devlopment and are submitting a stage 1 DA before years end.It should start next year. good stuff

Fosters CULWULLA?

Is that Fosters the booze brewer or Foster & Partners, the architectural firm?

^ sorry. fosters the brewer! they have engaged a few firms to get there DA togther. they will follow masterplan which looks like having approx 13 skyscrapers, 2 of which will be 90m+.

From http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/brewery-site-limits-watered-down/2005/12/01/1133422049218.html

Brewery site limits watered down
By Bonnie Malkin Urban Affairs Reporter
December 2, 2005

STRICT planning controls for the city's largest development, the $800 million Carlton and United Brewery site, have been watered down to lure developers to the troubled project.

Under the guidelines, height limits for some buildings have gone from 45 metres to 100 metres and about one car spot per unit is allowed - almost double the 0.57 rate originally set.

The tallest buildings will be located along Broadway, reducing in height to 15 metres along Kensington Street.

Floor space ratios have also been boosted, increasing the dwellings that can be squeezed on to the site.

The Lord Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, originally wanted about 15 per cent less space for development.

Cr Moore denied she had backed down over density, height limits and car parking and said the controls were reasonable.

The State Government had forced up densities by applying a developer levy to the site that will go towards affordable housing in Redfern and Waterloo, she said. The levy is understood to be about 3 per cent of the project value, or about $24 million.

"We have had added pressure put on us by the [Redfern-Waterloo Authority] levy the owners have to pay, these costs are passed on and pressure is put on us," Cr Moore said.

In March Australand walked away from a deal with the site's owners, Foster's Group, blaming strict council planning controls for stifling its plans.

At the time, the council blamed the weak property market for the failed deal.

The new development controls for the 5.9 hectare project are due to go on public exhibition in January.

Once complete it is estimated the village will house 3000 people in 1500 units.

Shayne Mallard, a Liberal councillor and member of the planning committee, said developers were "queuing" to get into the site and were anxious to see what the new guidelines held.

It is understood Lend Lease is one of the companies interested.

A spokesman for Foster's Group, Geoff Donohue, said the guidelines looked "fairly logical".

The council and the planning committee are yet to vote on the guidelines, which include a 5000-square metre park, a large community centre and 12 newly-listed heritage brewery buildings in the north-western corner.

A spokesman for the Chippendale Residents Group, Michael Irving, said the park should be bigger and the community deserved to know how many car spaces would be allowed.

Ahha! You beat me to it! Rather more encouraging news for Balfour Park and for those of us lacking enthusiasm for Clover's quaint 'village' stance. She is learning, so credit to her.

If we can a tower/s as tall as 100m on Broadway that will be great - maybe the developer can get somthing shoved on top to make it a bit taller again....
How tall is the UTS monstrosity on the other side ???

Thats down from the 8000 that could of been

ive been involved with massing models for the CUB site over past few months. the most recent agreed envlopes for the site looks great. better then previous proposals.
looks like having approx 13 skyscrapers (over 35m).
the western half of site will have the lowrise which rise up to 45m high. this area will have lots of open spaces and parks/heritage bldgs ect,
The north/east part of site will have the 2 x 110m towers opposite the 120m UTS tower. The southeast of the site will have towers ranging from 45m-60m.
its great news for the site. All should start in 2006 bit by bit.

^^ I know things can change, but is this going to be a sure thing CULWULLA?

BTW Over the past year, even up to a few months ago esp. on weekends, I have seen cranes in and around the site lifting machinery off the site, to be taken elsewhere.

This is fantastic news!!!
I was quite fond of a couple of the previous proposals for the site, and if Cul thinks the it could be better than that, I can't wait!

Good to see some common sense from Clover on this one. C'mon, right on the footstep of the CBD, 100m towers aren't going to have a massive adverse impact at all. Bring on the new proposals I say!

i feel this masterplan will be accepted and built.
great news for southern CBD!

Well, apparently the planning committee doesn't feel it is acceptable!! :mad:

Foster's seeks CUB intervention

Robert Harley
601 words
8 December 2005
Australian Financial Review
First
41
English
© 2005 Copyright John Fairfax Holdings Limited. www.afr.com Not available for re-distribution.

Property observed

'I need to get developers out of limbo," says NSW Planning Minister Frank Sartor. "They will either go to hell or heaven . . . with a little bit of purgatory."

In four months, Sartor has swung the gates of heaven for Stockland at Sandon Point and Rosecorp at Breakfast Point but Keith Johnson at Pitt Town is still in purgatory, told he can have his subdivision but only with adequate infrastructure.

The next to ask Sartor to swing the gates may well be beverage giant Foster's Group - a move that would bring the former Sydney lord mayor up against the incumbent, Clover Moore.

Foster's owns the 5.9 hectare CUB brewery on Broadway. It's a site that is critical for the state government's urban consolidation targets but also for its 170 years of heritage and for its relationship to the Chippendale community.

And it is important for Foster's which had the site sold for $203 million and has been working towards a planning outcome for 2 1/2 years.

Last week Foster's thought the purgatory was almost over. Sydney City Council released a draft planning control which set the average floor space ratio at 4:1 and agreed that the car park ratio would be similar to that across the rest of city.

(If the 4:1 FSR seems low, remember it is across the entire site, including large areas of dedicated parklands and roads. The effective FSR is much higher. No wonder Foster's was happy.)

But earlier this week, Sydney City Council's planning committee backflipped. With a gallery full of residents, and after lengthy debate, the committee voted to reduce the car parking - down to half a space per apartment - and cut back the FSR controls.

It's not final. The real decision lies with the Central Sydney Planning Committee, on which the Sydney City Council has three votes to the NSW government's four.

But it was the last straw for Foster's. "This is an issue of certainty," says says finance director Angus McKay. "We now have serious concerns about the ability of council to deliver an appropriate planning outcome," "This has been a lengthy process and we have been very patient. We gained draft controls that we were reasonably satisfied with, but to have them backstep is incredibly disappointing."

The $800 million project also faces an affordable housing levy of up to $30 million from the NSW government's new Redfern-Waterloo Authority. Reduce the planning parameters, consider the decline in the housing market, and the project is looking skinny.

Moore blames much of the 2 1/2-year timing on the way the developer delayed the key conservation management plan.

"Given the size and complexity of the site, there has been constant progress on providing controls that would meet the expectations of all involved," she says.

"Once the conservation management plan was received, the progress of the controls has been very good - despite changes to state legislation - and we have now reached a point where the controls can be placed on public exhibition. I expect the draft planning controls and voluntary planning agreement to be finalised by Christmas."

Not good enough, says the NSW executive director of the Property Council of Australia, Ken Morrison. "It is time for the state government to take over this site."

Foster's has been to see Sartor. "We are weighing our next step," says McKay.

It's up to the Central Sydney Planning Committee meeting tonight.

While locals are entitled to have their say, (which doesn't mean 'always get their way'), why were major PLANNING decisions made at a public meeting, decisions such as altering FSR and parking numbers? It may be satisfying to local residents to reduce the FSR, but essentially, they have no idea of what the figures mean, apart from it being smaller. Surely it is the responsibility of Council to take the ideas, opinions, demands, etc., of locals into account along with all the other factors but not allow moments of high emotion and self-interest (same goes for developers) to determine what should be considered, thoughtful & balanced decisions.
The local rag, "Sydney Central" also needs to lift the quality of its reporting of development issues, as they go with every whinging and luddite local no matter how off the wall and make no effort to report all aspects of an issue. As for intelligent analysis and informed comment...fergeddit!!
Next?!

i think Fosters should bypass council and go straight to state gov (sartor) and make this site a gov descsion.
what a debarcle.

It will be a debacle if they don't go to the state govt otherwise I fear, it will be niggled out of existence again.

yep make a stand boys`

Friday 9 Dec SMH p.5 "Showdown over breweries site" (right beside article on Westfield tower).
Would I be cynical in thinking that maybe, Council agreed to the locals' unthought demands in the full knowledge that it made Council look caring, sharing & responsive, but that it (Council) knew full well that the agreement hadn't a hope in hades of surviving the CSPC?

http://img425.imageshack.us/img425/6508/cub5ui.jpg

anyone know what happened at the meeting ( last night ) ???

"We're concerned about traffic in the local area..."


What do you expect while living in the CBD!!! :(

As far as I can tell from the minutes, the plan the CSPC actually approved has an FSR of 3.5:1, 0.57 car spaces per unit and a height limit of 100m (even where sun access plane allows for buildings higher than 100m).

bout time. go sartor
http://img324.imageshack.us/img324/9870/cubsartor0yz.jpg

I wonder in what way Chippendale residents think that this development could possibly hurt them? That part of Sydney is not exactly 5th Avenue. It's only ever yuppies who object like this. I'm sure the Aboriginal kids in the public housing don;t give a shit. It can only be a good thing to get rid of that brewery which does nothing but create an eerie hole in what should be one of the city's most happening areas.

Let the battle begin!
Today, June 9, SMH p.3:
"Slum city fears as Sartor grabs massive project".

Slum city fears as Sartor grabs massive project


Sherrill Nixon Urban Affairs Editor
June 9, 2006
Page 1 of 2 | Single page
AdvertisementAdvertisement

THE Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, is set to take control of the city's biggest residential project, igniting fears he will allow enormous apartment blocks that will become Sydney's future slums.

The Lord Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, and Chippendale residents say Mr Sartor's last-minute intervention in the $800 million Carlton and United Breweries site is a blatant grab for more cash from the eventual developers.

They fear he will approve much larger apartment blocks on the Broadway site than the City of Sydney Council was prepared to accept, in exchange for higher developer levies which would be used to fund affordable housing in the Redfern-Waterloo area.

"The Government is looking for money here … you are just looking at the slums of the future," Cr Moore said.

The 5.7-hectare development, approximately the size of four city blocks, is expected to house about 3000 people in 1800 apartments - tripling the population of Chippendale.

It has been the subject of two years of difficult negotiations between the council and the site's owner, Foster's.

The huge blow to Cr Moore and her council came on Wednesday night at an extraordinary meeting of the Central Sydney Planning Committee.

The committee, comprising four government and three council appointees, considers city developments worth more than $50 million.

The meeting was called to respond to a letter from Mr Sartor, expressing concern at how long it had taken the council and Foster's to agree on a range of planning issues. In the letter, Mr Sartor also directed the council and Foster's to negotiate the affordable housing levy - a matter both parties, and the Central Sydney Planning Committee, had believed would be negotiated separately.

Cr Moore described the letter, which arrived just days before the council and the company were due to sign an agreement, as a "bolt from the blue".

At Wednesday's meeting, the government appointees used their majority vote to ask Mr Sartor to "call in" the development and assume planning control. Neil Bird, the deputy chairman of Landcom, told the meeting he did not believe the council and Foster's could come to an agreement following Mr Sartor's intervention.

"I think it's better to act professionally and request the minister use his powers," Mr Bird said.

Cr Moore, the Liberal councillor Shayne Mallard and the Moore-aligned councillor John McInerney opposed the motion, in a rare split vote.
"The fact is that the minister's intervention is nothing but political bastardry in my mind. It is designed to harm you [Cr Moore], it is designed to harm the council," Cr Mallard said.

But the committee passed a unanimous motion affirming its support for planning controls approved in December that restrict the highest buildings on the site to 100 metres, or approximately 33 storeys, and provide for a 5000-square metre park, child-care centre and community centre on the site.

Chippendale resident groups fear Mr Sartor's takeover would jeopardise those community facilities, destroy the heritage values of the site and lead to higher-density development.

Lindsay Charles, from the Friends of the Carlton United Site group, said that local residents believed the development allowed by the council was already too large.

"We have got the CBD on one side of us. If we have got this [development] directly behind us … we are just simply never going to see the sun again," Ms Charles said.

A Foster's spokesman, Troy Hey, said the company believed it was possible to have a higher-density development while retaining the community facilities.

He welcomed the likely takeover by Mr Sartor as a way of providing more certainty for Foster's, but conceded it meant going over a lot of ground that had already been the subject of negotiations with the council.

A spokeswoman for Mr Sartor, Zoe Allebone, said the minister would seek advice about whether to assume control of the development, but believed doing so could cut six to 12 months off the approval process.

I have to say it: go Frank

fantastic. i knew 3 years ago this site had to have its own authority,. things didnt move along so australand walked. it was going to happen again if state gov didnt intervene. things should get moving now.
http://www.tvdance.com/pulpfiction/tandf.gif

can we expect to see something like, for eg, what the state government did at 201 elizabeth st i.e. Pacific Power building?

Good move Frank!! :):):)

Does this mean that a DA can be resubmitted ( ie with taller towers) or just that the existing DA ( with the silly 100m max height or whatever ) will get reviewed and possibly approved quicker ?
Be nice if the whole thing was scrapped and a new DA was submitted with 3 x 500 footers in it, but I think I'm just dreaming.............

it means that the masterplan which was approved in dec will be adopted. this means that the height limit is still 100m and there will be a large park and lots of highrise! i think 2 or 3 towers will rise op UTS. total about 10-15 scrapers. things will start to progress quicker.
we all would like 3x500footers but in reality its already an established neighbourhood and any devlopemntt will be scrutized etc.

Wednesday 14 June: SMH p.15. Our Liz, the Madam Lash of architecture and planning in Our Fair City, gets stuck into the shenanigans occurring with the developments at and of the CUB site.
Some of you relentlessly negative guys should study her style: informed, knowledgeable, aware, excellent use of the English language, lethal in its aim and showing no truck with the spin doctors, bullshit merchants and other "colourful" characters and "local identities" who strut this particular stage.
Sic 'em, Liz!

I'm right with you about Elizabeth Farrelly (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/elizabethfarrelly/) , Brizer. I first noticed her when the ABC documentary "In the Mind of the Architect (http://www.abc.net.au/arts/architecture/ep_trn2.htm) " was screened, where she was talking about the East Circular Quay development. I've been reading her avidly ever since. She has some Keatingesque quality about her :) She writes, you know, like he speaks. Read the transcript I linked to if you don't believe me.... the "you know's", repetion of affirmative statements ("it was actually a good thing. It was a good, a really good sign"), few words between commas, dropping colloquialisms like there's no tomorrow... That is so Keating!

Architects make the best writers, I think, and she's the best of the lot.

Sartor's grab for control puts residents in a froth
SMH Sherrill Nixon Urban Affairs Editor
June 22, 2006

Planning Minister, Frank Sartor, has seized control of Sydney's biggest residential development, saying he would save it from becoming a "constipated camel" not worthy of the city's gateway.

An expert panel will advise Mr Sartor on how the 5.7 hectare Carlton United Brewery site on Broadway should be developed, after the minister intervened in negotiations between the site's owner, Foster's, and the City of Sydney council last month.

While developers welcomed his action, it has outraged Sydney's Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, Chippendale residents and the Greens.

Mr Sartor said he stepped in because the $800 million project had been tangled for three years in council red tape. He has vowed to finalise a development plan for the site by the end of the year.

"Quite frankly, I think at the moment, the proposal that stands … will lead to a very mediocre outcome," he told an Urban Development Institute of Australia lunch yesterday.

"If I could describe the proposal in these terms, one word might be constipated, another word might be a camel, or you could join the two together and call it a constipated camel."

The finance director at Foster's, Angus McKay, welcomed Mr Sartor's intervention, saying it provided certainty for the site.

"The minister is outlining a process to provide some clear decisions around the significant site. We welcome some pro-active moves on it," he said.

But Cr Moore and locals fear Mr Sartor's oversight will create "slums" because they expect him to approve bigger apartment blocks.

They also accuse Mr Sartor of a cash grab, saying higher housing density will increase the money raised by a levy on the developer, which the Government wants to use for affordable housing in Redfern-Waterloo.

Cr Moore said Mr Sartor was looking after developers at the expense of the community and accountability. "The minister's actions show a contempt for professional advice and the democratic process."

Jeanette Brokman, from the Coalition of Chippendale Community Groups, called on Mr Sartor to commit to a sustainable housing density and cut the number of car parks on the site, which is expected to house up to 3000 people in 1800 units.

She also wanted an assurance that the community facilities agreed by the council - including a 5000-square-metre park - would be retained.

Mr Sartor says his control will "not necessarily" lead to a higher density, and guarantees the same, if not better, community facilities will be included.

The Property Council of Australia's NSW executive director, Ken Morrison, said the site could handle a higher-density development because of its size and proximity to the city and public transport.

"This isn't something we should be shying away from, these are sites we should be throwing density at," he said.

Heritage is expected to be a major issue, with Mr Sartor and his panel chairman, the former government architect Chris Johnson, questioning the value of some of the site's 30 buildings on the council's heritage list.

Today's Australian - the good stuff highlighted in bold :) >>>

Red tape causes blue over $1bn CUB site
Anthony Klan, Development
June 22, 2006

The NSW Government has taken over planning control of the controversial $1 billion-plus Carlton and United Brewery site on the fringe of Sydney's CBD.
NSW planning minister Frank Sartor said the Sydney City Council had taken too long to make a decision on the site.

"The project has been tangled up in red tape at Town Hall for three years," Mr Sartor said. "I fear it's heading for an inferior design outcome. This is a landmark redevelopment across four city blocks near the biggest railway station in NSW."

Mr Sartor said the state Government planned to announce a final decision on the site by December. However, the Sydney City Council has labelled the move a "cash grab".

"Foster's and the city were ready to sign off on a deal last month that would have seen public benefits taken into consideration," Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore said yesterday. "This unnecessary intervention will delay the project up to a year and put those benefits at risk."

A council spokesman said the Government had "derailed" the deal by demanding that Foster's include in its negotiations with council an affordable housing levy.

He said Foster's had subsequently pulled out of the agreement, and the brewer said it would likely need to seek an increased development density in order to pay the levy which fell under the Redfern Waterloo Authority Act.

"The clear break in the process was that the minister was looking for a three-way agreement between ourselves, the Redfern Waterloo Authority and the Sydney City Council," Foster's finance director Angus McKay said. "However, bear in mind that this whole process has been going for three years. I was pleased with the progress that we were making but there were some significant items that we were still discussing."

Mr Sartor said the fee to be charged would be up to 3 per cent of the value of the end development.

The NSW Government has indicated it would likely increase the floor space ratio allowed on the site from four times the site area.

Last December the city council announced it had reduced the maximum amount of building to be allowed on the site from five times the site area to four times, and placed a limit on the proportion of the site that could be used for residential.

The NSW Government has indicated it could overlook some heritage listings placed on the local heritage register by the Sydney City Council.

"There had been eight items listed on the heritage register," a spokeswoman for Mr Sartor said. "In the three years it has been at Town Hall those listings have gone from eight to 30 and some of those are of questionable heritage and are restraining development."

The CUB site has been a bugbear for Foster's since property giant Australand pulled out of a deal to buy the site last year.

Australand had entered a conditional contract to buy the property for $203 million, but pulled out citing planning uncertainty and delays in the approvals process.

constipated camel? LOL. yes great news. lets get this sucker moving!

LOL, I laughed at the "constipated camel" remark :D

Its true, this kind of stupidity is exactly what Sydney doesn't need.

A massive development site on the doorstep of the CBD to which "Bitch Clover" wants to create another one of her "smurf village" visions. :mad:

It deserves 500 footers for sure.
If San Francisco ( the city that used to have even tougher planning laws than Sydney) can suddenly start welcoming 1,000 footers (see International forum ! ) then little old Sydney should be able to take it's head out of it's arse and embrace the opportunity.

Here we go Bitch Clover vs Fartor. I hope they dont screw this up :| ....

Political pub brawl

June 28, 2006

LORD Mayor Clover Moore has flagged legal action against Planning Minister Frank Sartor over his decision to seize control of development of the former Carlton United Brewery site.

Mr Sartor last week took control of the $800 million project after labelling its progress a "constipated camel".

Sydney City Council has voted to seek advice on whether it could challenge Mr Sartor's decision to "call in" the site.

Ms Moore accused Mr Sartor of making a "cash grab" for the site, with the State Government set to reap more than $30 million in development fees.

She said the council and the site's owners, Fosters, were about to sign off on a voluntary plannning agreement for the site's redevelopment when Mr Sartor intervened.

She also questioned the independence of the "independent panel" appointed by Mr Sartor to oversee the development.

The panel includes a member from Mr Sartor's own Planning Department, two board members of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and a fourth member who is a State Government member of the Central Sydney Planning Committee and on the board of the state development arm, Landcom.

"At stake is transparency and accountability. A complex and balanced proposal worked out through extensive planning studies, numerous public forums and negotiations with the site owner could be compromised by a deal behind closed doors," Ms Moore said

She said council had spent $500,000 on studies and legal advice over the redevelopment.

Mr Sartor accused the council of imposing too many restrictions and heritage orders on the site.

Liberal councillor Shayne Mallard last night accused Mr Sartor of "political bastardry".

"It was (his) intention from the day he became Planning Minister to take this off us to make him look good and make the Government look good in the eyes of the development industry," Mr Mallard said.

"The evidence of that is that he announced it at a development industry lunch. This is political. It's got nothing to do with planning."

Labor councillor Michael Lee last night urged Ms Moore to improve her relationship with Mr Sartor.

"A war between the lord mayor and the planning minister – that's not going to help any of us," he said.

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,19609275-5001022,00.html

can we expect to see something like, for eg, what the state government did at 201 elizabeth st i.e. Pacific Power building?

Please explain ?

Nice to see all the traditional values of honesty, honour and integrity are being maintained so assiduously by our political masters.

the model of the masterplan will be in soon. ill post some pix when its insitu in city model. It will consist of approx 13 skyscrapers and more lowrise bldgs. there should be 2 towers approx 120m high . should add some density to city south.

:cheers:

Ah, politicians. If only there were politicians that had bits of the policy of Clover and Sartor.

ie the concern for PT of Clover (which is a good, rational concern, which I agree with) and the openness to development (within reason, of course) of Sartor.

But yes, the site of this is far too good to let go to waste...

nimbys are sad.
from todays SMH
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4343/cubsitestoryaug2006ak9.jpg

A "mini manhattan on steroids"... and the problem is what?

The reaction of the vocal locals is what you might call "predictable" given their earlier reactions to any development on the site. Calling one thing something else "on steroids" seems to be the criticism de jour.
I've largely given up taking too much notice of the more "Passionately Vocal" locals as they seem to come from the same mould and are resolutely 'agin' everything. I'd be more sympathetic if they came up with anything constructive in the way of ideas but they just seem to be against everything. Mind you, given the performance of some developers, you do have to be on the alert and cynical.
Not exactly your Ideal World, is it?
Something radical does have to occur at Balfour Park given its now strategic location in the development of the city centre. It seems to me that a couple of similar sized towers across from the UTS Tower would help detract from its unlovely and monolithic presence in isolation, which, I would have thought would be a good thing.

"Horrified gasps"?!...here we go :|

A lot of the residents went to the temporary showroom and all entries had high-rise. They were shown in the Herald 2 years ago. Gee the Herald comes up with some exagerrated BS. *gasps horrifically*

Personally I like the idea of two opposing towers welcoming you into the CBD (a bit like it Lord of the rings when there's the two Kings strandling the river).

But seriously, I would hardly call that plan a Manhattan on steroids, would you?

Typical NIMBYs, the pictures submitted were of the maximum height limit, it's unlikely it will go to the maximum height. I also doubt that local business would turn their noses up at the extra business that 3000-4000 new residents would bring to the area.

I love the comment that it would certainly be hard to build a tower now that is as Ugly as the UTS tower, especially if it was to go through a design contest. LOL.

I've largely given up taking too much notice of the more "Passionately Vocal" locals as they seem to come from the same mould and are resolutely 'agin' everything. I'd be more sympathetic if they came up with anything constructive in the way of ideas but they just seem to be against everything. Mind you, given the performance of some developers, you do have to be on the alert and cynical.
Not exactly your Ideal World, is it?

I doubt that the media would dedicate time and effort to any resident or group that did actually come up with alternative suggestions though.

I love the comment that it would certainly be hard to build a tower now that is as Ugly as the UTS tower, especially if it was to go through a design contest. LOL.
So, I don't understand.... has the earlier design competition been scrapped? Cox won, I think, which means it will probably look like the uni flats across the road near the Broadway shopping centre.

I'm really gunning for this development. I think it will be awesome. My only worry is that it might kill off the pubs that are Broadway now - I don't want noise restrictions to destroy the Claire and the Abercrombie, both of which are pretty cool. Actually, it wuld be great if we could get some more going in here and turn it into a bit of a new nightlife area.

Actually, it wuld be great if we could get some more going in here and turn it into a bit of a new nightlife area.

Good Idea

Lord B: you have to go to some local community planning consultation meetings to see what I mean. It's not the media that would receive the suggestions but council officers, the planning committee, and so on at the community meetings which was what last night's occasion was. From my experience I suspect the "horrified gasps" were real and that they probably occurred even before the Horrified Gaspers had a chance to see what was being shown or hear what was being said. You could bet that if they were shown a plan of a single storey hut for the site they'd emit "horrified gasps"; it's an inherent pre-condition, I suspect.

Well whatever towers they showed they must be going ahead with as we are helping prepare their DA and it's big.

Good! Just make them designed by a Good Architect so they are so dazzling that the UTS tower fades into the background and the local luddites of struck dumb.

I'm one of the few people who doesn't mind UTS so much. I think the new towers would need to recognise it and relate to it. Any attempt to ignore would only make matters worse.

Sydney is scared of skyscrapers and cutting edge architecture.
In Melbourne this project would be viewed by the media much more positively i.e as a prime opportunity for urban renewal, bring life and vibrancy back into the inner city, getting rid of eyesores and industry and pollution.

Sydney is scared of skyscrapers and cutting edge architecture.
In Melbourne this project would be viewed by the media much more positively i.e as a prime opportunity for urban renewal, bring life and vibrancy back into the inner city, getting rid of eyesores and industry and pollution.

are u kidding me???? there was a huge uproar with the Melbourne 2030 new town plan Sydney is not alone!

Voters in backlash against high-rise
By Nassim Khadem, Martin Boulton

A backlash against high-density developments under the State Government's planning blueprint Melbourne 2030 was evident in voting results for metropolitan councils yesterday.
In Boroondara, a strong message was sent by candidates during the election campaign and a strong message delivered in the result: stop high-rise developments in areas such as Camberwell Station.
In Studley ward, former mayor Judith Voce lost to Liberal member Phillip Healey. Her support of the State Government's plans to redevelop Kew Cottages did not win her enough primary votes to be able to overcome the preference deals against her.
Six of the seven candidates in the ward directed preferences to Mr Healey second, and Ms Voce last.
"It is really interesting that it took such an orchestrated campaign to unseat an individual," Ms Voce said. "There's been a huge amount of calls about what's going on in Studley Ward, but maybe not enough people saw it as an issue to get me over the line."
AdvertisementAdvertisement
Mr Healey said planning issues were clearly important to the voters.
"The issues are very much Kew Cottages, the planning issues under Melbourne 2030," he said. "We want planning control in Boroondara, we don't want the control in Spring Street."
Ms Voce conceded that her position on Kew Cottages may have lost her votes, but said she stood by her decision.
In Nillumbik, the issue was again planning. The shire includes the outer suburbs of Eltham, Diamond Creek, Hurstbridge and St Andrews.
Perhaps more than any other council in the current round of elections, it has been sharply split along pro and anti-development lines.
Nillumbik Mayor Tony Raunic was one of the shock losses out of yesterday's local government results, while only one of the shire's nine sitting councillors was returned. Wingrove ward's councillor Greg Johnson said the huge cleanout of councillors was "an extraordinary result".
Andrew Rowe, of the Victorian Local Governance Association, said the new Nillumbik Council tipped the balance back towards "community" candidates. "There's been a clear pro and anti-development argument in Nillumbik, and it seems the community has taken the council in a more community direction," he said.
Greg Johnson, Gerard Benstead and Helen Coleman were among the councillors elected.
In the City of Stonnington, residents were again concerned about protection of their neighbourhoods. In South ward, Mayor Melina Sehr was returned for a second term.
Cr Sehr said the impact of Melbourne 2030 had been a major issue in Stonnington, and residents wanted the council to protect residential amenities.
"We've got a $21 million public works program... Our city is getting newer rather than older," she said. Stonnington is divided into three wards, with three councillors in each ward.
Other councillors to secure victory last night were Claude Ullin and Chris Gahan in south ward, Sarah Davies, John Chandler and Tas Athanasopoulos in north ward, and Anne O'Shea, Judy Hindle and Steve Stefanopoulos in east ward.
Results for Darebin were not confirmed late last night, but most wards saw battles between Labor factions.
The high-density backlash was a trend that continued across the state with planning emerging as the issue that inspired many candidates to contest the 14 rural and regional council elections.

Flats project a test for city blueprint
By Martin Boulton
July 14, 2004

The State Government's planning blueprint, Melbourne 2030, faces its first big suburban test this week when a tribunal considers whether to give the go-ahead to a controversial development by former Carlton footballer Fraser Brown.
The Victorian and Civil and Administrative Tribunal yesterday began a hearing on the twin-tower, 199-apartment project earmarked for a site next to the Mitcham railway station. The Whitehorse Council and more than 600 residents oppose the plan, arguing it is out of character with the low-rise Mitcham area. Last month, residents and members of St John's Catholic Church and primary school staged a protest rally at the site.
The council's senior counsel, Ian Pitt, told the tribunal yesterday that the 10 and 16-level towers were "entirely out of scale with anything else in the neighbourhood".
He said the project could not be justified at such a size even though Mitcham had been identified as a neighbourhood "activity centre" as part of Melbourne 2030.
Advertisement Advertisement
Under 2030, the Government wants to concentrate residential development in activity centres - often existing shopping hubs - well serviced by transport.
Project architect Roger Poole of Bates Smart told the tribunal Mitcham was "an important site in the metropolitan transit system" and the revised "softer" building design would complement the precinct's predominantly two-level building height.
But the hearing comes less than a month after Planning Minister Mary Delahunty said the building was "too high," even for an activity centre under 2030.
Ms Delahunty said she had hoped Mr Brown and the council would agree on a design more sympathetic with the local neighbourhood character, but no such agreement has been struck. "Mitcham is a great place (and) it's no surprise people are attracted to it as a choice location to live and raise their children. To do that, they need a range of housing options," she said.
Tony Hogg is one of five objectors due to speak today at the tribunal on behalf of all the objectors.
"We'll be putting forward an argument, based on our own concept plan, that it should only be a four-storey development on that site," Mr Hogg said.
It is believed VCAT regards the project as an important test case for 2030. The outcome is expected to be a landmark on whether the low-rise character of a suburb like Mitcham is grounds for refusing a high-rise project.
The case will also test how much Melbourne 2030 can be used to justify large-scale development next to railway stations.
The hearing continues today.

I hope to see many more projects like this in the near future.

The more urban and less suburban we become the better.

exactly

Haha, nice smackdown Zach.

It's times like this I wish they'd return to the original UTS plan. If one potential 140 m tower elicits 'horrified gasps' from the burghers of Chippendale, 3 or 4 new poo brown monoliths will probably make them explode violently like that one scene in Blade.

Ah, politicians. If only there were politicians that had bits of the policy of Clover and Sartor.



I'm picturing a shady-looking spiv in a dog collar. Now there's a leader figure!

The "scoping" paper from Fosters and the planners is available at
www.planning.nsw.gov.au/asp/register2006.asp#gma but it isn't that easy to find. I ended up using the search box. The paper contains nothing concrete, lots of generalised statements of intent and the obvious, indications of retreat from heritage and of increasing density as well as the requisite motherhood b.s. couched in cooldudearchispeak, e.g., a "scoping" paper!!?? PUL-bloody-ease! I hope their planning and architecture is better than their use of the English language otherwise the locals will have been quite right to emit "horrified gasps".

For a sec, i thought it's Norman Foster proposing a planning.

I was excited for couple of seconds until i checked the link and it's actually Foster - the Beer company.

At least it is a State Significance site. More skyscrapers ahead just like EDH.

Sorry about that, but the devil is in the detail, and it is that 2nd 's' that makes the difference between Foster (yay!) and Fosters (glugglug...).

I'm picturing a shady-looking spiv in a dog collar. Now there's a leader figure!

LOL. :cheers:

I said POLICY. As in have the pro-PT policies of Clover and the pro-development policies of Sartor.

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/2139/cubhe0.jpg

Geeez. How much consultation are they demanding? So far Fosters seems to have done the right thing. I'm sure the delays are costing them somewhat too.

This is gunna be one major balls up. Like we can't see that coming anyway :|

It's going to be blanded out to the hilt. The area is crying for something really spectacular and it doesn't have to be ultra-dense, just "swingin' urban" 'n gutsy ;) That doesn't mean it has to encroach on the fabric of Chips in general.

The Council won't be happy till it's Smurf Village.

Thanks CULWULLA.

Is this what you call a Mexican Standoff between the Gummint and the Council with neither side giving an inch until all are dead and nothing remains but smoking ruin?

Or, we get a "compromise" in which the only guarantee is that we all lose?

Gee, sounds familiar, doesn't it?...fu kin paffetik.

FSR of 4.5:1 sounds good to me. Anything less than that is really wasting the valuable land right next to the central station.

masterplan model is being fitted to city model tommorrow! ill let you guys how it goes. this means the masterplan is getting real cose and will be lodged soon by developers and state gov. should look impressive white mass on the city model.

^^^^

Cheers Cul. Look foward to it.

Don't forget your camera, Cul!

the model maker only came in with base.lol
next week there will be a big meeting at city model with big wigs. sounds intresting.

No info on how tall are the towers?

^ we all ready know. they will be 2 towers of 120m. others range from 40m-90m.

from todays fin rev

checkout the render> one of the best and tallest brick stacks in Australia will now be opened up around it so everyone can see. Its 54m and 4th tallest in Oz.
http://img431.imageshack.us/img431/3778/cubartaz5.jpg

^^^^

Wow, that would be absolutely brilliant!!

Tzannes is actually in "the (sydney) magazine" today, with 4 other architects talking about what buildings they love, hate and how they'd improve Sydney.

Good read.

i hate nimbys.
from todays SMH
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/1656/cubsiteen8.jpg
looks like a 120m tower and 100m tower. great. "manhattan on steriods"? wft. whats dubai then?

My experience with all these Henny-Penny types who are genetically programmed to be agin evathang, has taught me to smile politely, incline the head as though you are listening and then completely ignore whatever they have said because more times than not they are all hysteria and apocalypse. One thing is for sure is that they would deeply regret not having something to chuck a drama about. Another thing you will not get is reasoned argument allied to thoughtful observation and assessment of any issue. Although it is tiring and tiresome, if you try to reason with them it's like hurling petrol on a fire. So, smile and ignore.
Yeah, it is bloody hard sometimes.

Can someone explain 'mini-Manhattan on steroids' for me?

Is a mini-Manhattan on steroids still smaller than the real Manhattan? if so, wouldn't it still just be a mini-Manhattan? Is a mini-Manhattan on steroids bigger than the real Manhattan? If so, why not just call it a regular run-of-the-mill Manhattan on steroids? Is a mini-Manhattan on steroids the same size as the real Manhattan? If so, why not use, a duplicate, or twin, of Manhattan? Or do they mean the proposal will be like a mini-Manhattan but with smaller testicles? In which case I'd be happy to up the FSR to make it compete with the real thing.

I think they could do better. How about "Mini-Manhattan suffering from elephantiasis and a thyroid problem with a Maccas fetish on a double dose of steroids"?

Can someone explain 'mini-Manhattan on steroids' for me?
I have articles from both 1975 and 2003 giving impressions of the Sydney skyline with new developments, one for the northern part of the CBD (1975), one for the southern CBD area (2003). Both almost 30 years apart introduce the articles reading something to the effect of "Sydney is set to become a mini-Manhattan...blah".

Put-them together and what do you have? A mid-sized Manhattan?

At least this frikken development seems to be getting a step closer. If I lived in one of the existing houses in Chippendale, I would be looking forward to some "uhmpf" in the area...new park, new amenties, new streets to wander through with ye olde buildings (and new buildings) that were previously off-limits...hell yeah!

...

"And anyways, to counter the ugliness of the UTS building you need a bit of height."

:cheers1:

Ain't that the truth!

lol

I have articles from both 1975 and 2003 giving impressions of the Sydney skyline with new developments, one for the northern part of the CBD (1975), one for the southern CBD area (2003). Both almost 30 years apart introduce the articles reading something to the effect of "Sydney is set to become a mini-Manhattan...blah".



It takes the starting point that there is something inherently wrong with Manahattan.

It takes the starting point that there is something inherently wrong with Manahattan.Not with the 2 articles I make mention of as they are accompanied by run-of-the-mill journalism (It's like when Melbourne gets an article on any iconic building that it has or is planning; "Sydney has The Opera House...yadda")...

...but definitely with "Mini-Manhattan on steroids" whatever that means *sic*

Sounds like sloppy journalism to me then. Simply comparing something to something else. I guess there's a bit of aliteration there.

Nimby definition of 'mini Manhattan on steroids' = anything over 2 storeys, unless it's a Victorian terrace. It has become a cliché but one the Luddites are fond of dragging out 'at the drop of a hat'.
To me the current state of that area is a "Dickensian slum with scattering of C20th mistakes". I walked through there recently and most of it is pretty nasty and any evidence of community or home pride escaped me. A few buildings might have a degree of charm if they were cleaned up but for the most part, it's grim.
Given the reputation of the planning architects, Cox/ATA (Philip Cox & Alexander Tzannes) and the potential of top class local and international architects doing the individual design work, the locals should be 'jumping for joy'.
I wonder how many of them have actually read the plans?
I suspect Our Lord Mayor finds herself in a situation where she must at least attempt to save face; her recent pronouncements are less strident than they were a couple of months ago. The plans, in reality, are not essentially different from those the SCC were working on before 'the coup' by Herr Sartor.

Chippendale: Mega-Munchkinland on Thalidomide.

NIMBYism with projects such as Balfour Park and Westfield's Pitt St redevelopments are pretty much ALL ABOUT the inconvenience and noise during the construction phase ( 3-4 years in some cases) and rarely anything to do with the finished product. If I lived close by to Balfour Park I'd be cheesed off about how painful it will be to live with a massive construction site near by but ultimately stoked to have a fantastic new park / retail / services & amenities which will no doubt lift values right across Chippendale and Redfern.

^^
But aren't you working or studying in somewhere else during the daytime?
Only housewives would be annoyed by the construction noise.

Dust, noise, road / footpath closures, truck movements etc have a massive impact on an area- not just between 9 and 5 on weekdays - especially for a site as massive as CUB.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in support of the NIMBY's by any stretch, just acknowledging that there is an impact.

Gosh, we don't live in the 1960s with housewives stuck in Chippendale. People work all kinds of hours and even from home with their remote computers and home offices during the day. Let alone the hip demo of people working in the nighlife and entertainment industries eg. bands living in such an area.

BTW I lived in a quite street near Moore Park and we had a row of houses built on the block behind for quite a few months and that drove us koo-koo. So I don't think it's warranted over a large expanse of land with pockets of terraces and warehouse conversions to be concerned about such things. Anyway, another part of living in a city.

...

^^^^

It's not exactly suburbia is it.

Let alone the hip demo of people working in the nighlife and entertainment industries eg. bands living in such an area.


Exactly, there are people suffering from the noise they make at night!