Looks like the CBD metro will claim some victims above ground!!! :(:(:(
I'm disgusted to hear that 7 Elizabeth St is likely to be knocked down given its National Trust listing and is the only remaining interwar apartment tower in central Sydney.

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

Heritage buildings face demolition
Brian Robins and Alex McDonald
February 18, 2009

HERITAGE-LISTED properties in the city and inner west are facing demolition to make way for the CBD Metro, thanks in part to changes last year to the state's planning controls, making it easier for properties to be removed from the list.

The preliminary environmental assessment for the metro has identified a heritage-listed building on the corner of Pitt and Park streets, with a McDonald's outlet as occupant, that needs to come down.

Another building, a National Trust-listed apartment block in Elizabeth Street, is expected to be taken over and demolished.

Planners for the CBD Metro have also identified a War War I memorial at Pyrmont that will need to be relocated.

The most extensive impact on heritage-listed properties will be felt in Rozelle, where a number of buildings on the corner of Victoria Road and Darling Street will be affected.

The York Buildings, the Mechanics Institute, Rozelle Public School and St Paul's Estate have been identified by Sydney Metro as being affected. Each of these buildings is listed on heritage registers.

The Elizabeth Street apartment building, No. 7, is the only remaining residential block in the CBD that was built between the two world wars.

The 10-storey building was designed by the well-known architect Emil Sodersten. Its interior design was done by Marion Hall Best, who had significant influence in the postwar period.

It is on the National Trust register and an application to join Sydney Council's heritage register is pending. This building is needed for the Martin Place station.

For the Barangaroo/Wynyard station, the Moretons Hotel and St Philip's Anglican Church on Jamison Street will be affected, according to the preliminary environmental assessment.

"Most of the stations, apart from Central, will require some property resumptions," a Sydney Metro spokeswoman, Anne Purcell, said.

"Our point of interest is for entry and exit points, below ground, and post-construction, the future of the above-ground space is still to be decided," she said.

yeah hard to build someting like undergrd metro without removing some bldgs.
shame some heritage bldgs have to go.
7 elizabeth st
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=183191

Why do they have to demolish any buildings at all?
Paris, New York, etc., most entrances/exits are in the footpath or inserted into existing buildings.
Or is this just our usual ham-fisted, unimaginative, bureaucratic, big boots planning at work again?

Bloody hell. Exactly what's wrong with Sydney today in terms of devs. People need to stop treating it as a work of art (which it is i might add) and start treating it as a CITY. Sure it's almost perfect at the moment but it doesn't mean it can't change and improve. If this building needs to go for a metro then so be it. Let's stop this stupid NIMBY fad. I'm over it. All these restrictions aim to preserve Sydney 'as is'. Let's perserve alot but let's not become a relic. I'm sure (as movement of the WW1 monument) something could be worked out with some thinking (instead of knee jerking).

I can't believe that ONE building is what this article is crying at for an ENTIRE metro (if hell freezes over and it does get built).

My gosh... thanks for posting this guys.... my grandfather and his family once lived in this building for many years before and after coming back from war. Its a real important building for our family....
Ok to be honest, the building overall is not the greatest example of interwar style... but our Heritage Buildings are important in what they mean to people, the community, and our evolution as a city.... without them the city means nothing.
I guess in the end I can sorta rest assured as every other metro proposal has well…….. died. Yay for the state government.

I just posted in another thread that over my dead body will heritage buildings be bulldozed. It is not just 7 Elizabeth Street, but many other buildings can also be affected like the beautiful St Phillips Church, Rozelle Public School, Moretons Hotel, plus others.

I have to disagree with Zulu69, that is a ridiculous comment. I agree that cities have to change but not at the risk of heritage, otherwise we will eventually have no history at all, and already we kick ourselves for the post-war planning and ridding the city of many fine buildings and replaced by 1970's monstrocities.
These buildings should not allowed to be simply demolished, and either relocated or incorporated into the "new" stations.

If there was no regard for heritage and history places like London, Paris and Rome would be the places they are today. Whilst Sydney's heritage is not as old, it will be one day and we have to preserve it for the future. We do have to start somewhere.

Why not pull down the 70's and 80's crap buildings next to 7 Elizabeth
St? Why don't govt. dept's work together? Rhetorical question I know... So boringly frustrating to see this continue.

^they are. about 5 of them

stations and bldgs to be demolished

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3567/3289336322_eb1ab49c04_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3469/3289345086_d74ed67576_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3467/3289344900_f9f529e8a7_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3648/3289336216_a8ed9126eb_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3179/3288527657_cd4b301418_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3664/3288527717_6dbb0d8b70_o.jpg

I just posted in another thread that over my dead body will heritage buildings be bulldozed. It is not just 7 Elizabeth Street, but many other buildings can also be affected like the beautiful St Phillips Church, Rozelle Public School, Moretons Hotel, plus others.

I have to disagree with Zulu69, that is a ridiculous comment. I agree that cities have to change but not at the risk of heritage, otherwise we will eventually have no history at all, and already we kick ourselves for the post-war planning and ridding the city of many fine buildings and replaced by 1970's monstrocities.
These buildings should not allowed to be simply demolished, and either relocated or incorporated into the "new" stations.

If there was no regard for heritage and history places like London, Paris and Rome would be the places they are today. Whilst Sydney's heritage is not as old, it will be one day and we have to preserve it for the future. We do have to start somewhere.

I think some ppl need a reality check. We're talking about a few buildings that need to be demolished to help provide (hopefully) the first part of a 21st century transport system for the city. I'd like to see more buildings preserved, but everything is a trade off, I'm happy to lose a few builddings for a project as importaant as this.

BTW the smh should hang their heads in shame. After years of pushing for new transport etc the first headline about the new metro is about which suburbs will lose houses/buildings. Such hypocricy.

So the maccas buildings getting the chop....

What’s ganna happen to the hungry jacks facade?? This would be criminal to destroy this.


http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q237/AussieDude11/MicrosoftWord-Doc1.jpg

I think some ppl need a reality check. We're talking about a few buildings that need to be demolished to help provide (hopefully) the first part of a 21st century transport system for the city. I'd like to see more buildings preserved, but everything is a trade off, I'm happy to lose a few builddings for a project as importaant as this.

BTW the smh should hang their heads in shame. After years of pushing for new transport etc the first headline about the new metro is about which suburbs will lose houses/buildings. Such hypocricy.

I am all for the metro, I just think that in this day and age that it is inappropraite to lose such old and heritage listed buildings, of which Sydney can ill afford. Whilst I understand that they need to be removed, why should they simply be just demolished? Why not disemble them and relocate them to either another part of the city or put them back (if possible) once construction is complete. This can be done and has been done before. My only gripe is that they will be lost and they do not need to be.

The church building of St Phillips appears safe but the manse and offices may have to go.

I have a picture of that McDonalds. One of the busiest in central Sydney as well.

http://img246.echo.cx/img246/26/p4011087small8ft.jpg

This is total vandalism by the State Government. These are the same folks who wanted The Rocks and large parts of the city demolished and redeveloped with highrise. Then again the metro is a fraud and then theres no certainity where the line will eventually go to. Absoultely no consideration for heritage, and does demolishing them achieve anything if the purpose is to use as a project base for a few sheds.

As for those buildings that could also be affected - Chifley Tower, one of the CBA Buildings in Martin Place, Qantas House all major city buildings.

Even the redevelopment of the Tigers Club at Rozelle may be affected too. It's a huge rollcall - 800 of them.

This is total vandalism by the State Government. These are the same folks who wanted The Rocks and large parts of the city demolished and redeveloped with highrise.

:ohno: How the do you think you build a railway station? How many buildings were demolished to construct the City Circle and the Harbour Bridge? hundreds. And yet you're condemning the loss of a half dozen buildings of no particular significance and of which there are dozens of comparable examples as "vandalism". This is the same nonsense that saw the Epping-Chatswood Railway put under the Lane Cove River: you can build your infrastructure, nay you must build this infrastructure but to hell with you if you need to dig something up in the process!

There is no way an underground tunnel be constructed if the constructors cannot dig some holes! There are already 3 tunnels underneath the city (City Circle, Eastern Suburbs & Cross City Tunnel) and it won't be easy to build a forth underneath them. Whatever the circumstance is to build a new metro, there will be demolition of existing buildings.

It is far better to allow engineers do their work to draw the route from A to B instead of meddling it by environmentalists or heritage activists. Epping-Chatswood almost became a failure because Lane Cove activists don't want a bridge over the National Park!

:ohno: How the do you think you build a railway station? How many buildings were demolished to construct the City Circle and the Harbour Bridge? hundreds. And yet you're condemning the loss of a half dozen buildings of no particular significance and of which there are dozens of comparable examples as "vandalism". This is the same nonsense that saw the Epping-Chatswood Railway put under the Lane Cove River: you can build your infrastructure, nay you must build this infrastructure but to hell with you if you need to dig something up in the process!

I agree that buildings were lost during the harbour bridge construction and city circle and it was a factor that due to this type of construction, that Heritage was set up, before this heritage was never really a factor. Plus I would also imagine that during the construction of the bridge and city circle 1920 - 1930's or so that these buildings that were lost were no more than 50 years old, so it would be just like us tearing down a 1960's development, that we would feel at the moment to be no great loss. So at that time they came down, they were of no real significance.

I still state that there has to be way that they can be saved. By all means take them apart and move them, but reconstruct them. I am sure St Phillips Church would be a welcome addition to new suburbs that have no real history, to then get a 19th century church.
All of these buildings are registered and therefore they are deemed to have significance, we can't list them, to then only have stand for nothing and have them demolished. I am sure if other buildings of greater importance were under threat there would be uproar. Heritage applies to all no matter how big or small. If we keep the mentality that there are plenty of other buildings that are similar, then we will eventually end up with nothing.

There are 2 places that sprong to mind where heritage buildings or those of significance, albeit purely beauty, were moved and saved, some from even overseas. One is the Museum of Welsh Life (st Fagans), this is an open air museum where buildings throughout Wales were under threat and they were moved to this site and saved. The other is the famous Portmeirion, also in Wales.

Sydney should be taking the approach of best practice when it comes to heritage, a city so young cannot afford to be so frivolous.

Obviously if they can be saved that should be the way to go. It's utterly ridiculous to whinge about no transport and then whinge when tansport is proposed. You guys need a reality check (as andypandy said). You can't have your cake and eat it too all the time. Yes i'm sure that you could relocate the buildings but how much will that cost? We aren't talking about the SOH here, just a couple of buildings that i'm certain wouldn't even be known but because of this. Athens built a metro and it's history is almost peerless (but they had to do it and rightly perserved the history as well). Abu Simbel was relocated for the dam in Eygpt and that SHOULD be relocated- let's keep things in perspective. This metro (IF it even gets beyond the news headlines) would last for 100+ years if europe is anything to go by, it needs to be done.

I'm sick of this. ANY development in Sydney is greeted with opposition. I mean they tried to shut down the news ticker of channel 7!!! It's beyond insanity. That is the reason why the state gov has the powers it has now.

I'm no strong supporter of the metro - it's just another example of a gutless government unwilling to take on the RBTU and get modern working conditions for the transport system.

That said, our transport system needs to be updated. A small number of buildings need to be demolished, whilst there will be some impact on others. The Pitt/Park Mcdonalds could easily be replicated - it's basically only a facade anyway. Not so sure about the other features on Pitt St. 7 Elizabeth and its neighbours may be worthy, but are a blot in their current condition (although Le Chifley wine bar it a great time warp!). St Phillips I could get angry about if it was proposed to demolish the church but it isn't.

I agree with the PP's comment on the SMH - but then, it's roll is to sell papers, not adopt a consistent position on anything.....

Kent

I am sure St Phillips Church would be a welcome addition to new suburbs that have no real history, to then get a 19th century church.

Yes, with the church might be nice to relocate it.

All of these buildings are registered and therefore they are deemed to have significance, we can't list them, to then only have stand for nothing and have them demolished.

1920s brown brick bungalows on my street are on the local heritage register because their then owners didn't succumb to the trend of painting them white in the 1960s and 1970s. That doesn't mean they are of such significance they're untouchable.

I am sure if other buildings of greater importance were under threat there would be uproar.

Of course, because they're of greater importance!

I agree that buildings were lost during the harbour bridge construction and city circle and it was a factor that due to this type of construction, that Heritage was set up, before this heritage was never really a factor. Plus I would also imagine that during the construction of the bridge and city circle 1920 - 1930's or so that these buildings that were lost were no more than 50 years old, so it would be just like us tearing down a 1960's development, that we would feel at the moment to be no great loss. So at that time they came down, they were of no real significance.

I still state that there has to be way that they can be saved. By all means take them apart and move them, but reconstruct them. I am sure St Phillips Church would be a welcome addition to new suburbs that have no real history, to then get a 19th century church.
All of these buildings are registered and therefore they are deemed to have significance, we can't list them, to then only have stand for nothing and have them demolished. I am sure if other buildings of greater importance were under threat there would be uproar. Heritage applies to all no matter how big or small. If we keep the mentality that there are plenty of other buildings that are similar, then we will eventually end up with nothing.

There are 2 places that sprong to mind where heritage buildings or those of significance, albeit purely beauty, were moved and saved, some from even overseas. One is the Museum of Welsh Life (st Fagans), this is an open air museum where buildings throughout Wales were under threat and they were moved to this site and saved. The other is the famous Portmeirion, also in Wales.

Sydney should be taking the approach of best practice when it comes to heritage, a city so young cannot afford to be so frivolous.

The Rocks back in the 1920's was regarded as an urban slum home to the city's poor - the most vulnerable and they were relocated with no compensation. There was simply no understanding of the importance of The Rocks nor to mention the technology to preserve them like we can do now.

I am sure that they work around the heritage issues and build the metro around them. I think it can be done.

The NIMBY's will have one hellva of a fight not seen since the green bans.

If they can build metros in Rome and Athens without destroying historical sites and buildings, then they can do it here. We can have it both ways but it does require a little imagination, effort and intelligence rather than the standard King Kong or Godzilla approach to planning and development.

Can't they just demolish the building while preserving the facade?
I don't think it's rocket science.

If they can build metros in Rome and Athens without destroying historical sites and buildings, then they can do it here. We can have it both ways but it does require a little imagination, effort and intelligence rather than the standard King Kong or Godzilla approach to planning and development.

I don't think the McDonals on Pitt St is quite in the same league as ancient Athens and Rome....

You've missed the point.

You've missed the point.

I dare say I haven't missed the point, but I have a different understanding to you of what the point is.

I think everything within reason should be done to protect heritage listed buildings, but people shouldn't be getting their knickers in a knot about a few buildings making way for a what will hopefully be a state-of-the-art transport system. Of course I support pressure on the government to maintain/restore/relocate heritage buildings, but I'm honestly surprised by the NIMBY-like attitude some people on this forum have displayed. I know I'm asking for trouble now! :)

Most of life's choices are a trade off, and on balance this one is the right trade off.

To clarify, I'd rather lose a great heritage building for public transport infrastructure than for a skyscraper. But we're not losing any jewels on this.

I'm honestly surprised by the NIMBY-like attitude some people on this forum have displayed.

Ironic isn't it, given how much NIMBY-bashing there is here

(posted from the NDoK - NIMBY Dictactorship of Ku-ring-gai)

Well, you've missed my point: my point is that where a building is valued for some valid reason, a genuine effort should be made to retain it in some way. My attitude is not nimby as has been clear in any number of threads on other issues; what I am objecting to is the idea that it has to be a tabula rasa when, with a little imagination, a little creative thinking, we can retain something of value while building the necessary new.
For instance, at Frasers Broadway they have retained what has some value, historical, architectural, social, whatever, while creating something fantastic and new.
It's not a matter of all or nothing but of being sensitive to our city's history, not a slave to it and not a complete barbarian. If a building is heritage listed, as you point out, every reasonable effort should be made to keep it, and a couple of the buildings involved are listed.
We can have it both ways. Obviously not all the buildings affected are worth a moment's thought, but some of them are and should not be sacrificed to unintelligent and unimaginative design.
AndyP you have assumed something I didn't say because I objected to wholesale demolition, when, in fact, our positions are closer than you have realised and we are actually saying something similar, if not exactly the same.
Perhaps I need to choose my words a little more carefully, but also they need to be read more carefully, too.

Only Two buildings in Castlereagh St are at risk with the Hunter St Station.

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4314/dscf0024.jpg

This building would cover three sites as depicted in the map

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/641/dscf0025.jpg

And three in Elizabeth St

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/5043/dscf0033.jpg

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/2853/dscf0029.jpg

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4633/dscf0027.jpg

Except for No 7 Elizabeth, the rest are non descript.

Even No.7 is pretty ramshackle and hardly a stunning example of a deco office(?) block.

No 7 Elizabeth is residential. I think there are serviced apartments in the complex as well.

I won't be disappointed if the building is demolished? The building is any absolute eyesore. I support ugly buildings being demolished no matter when they were built or their historical or cultural significance.

P.S. Sorry, don't mean to cause any offence. Just expressing my views.

Why do the good buildings have to depart their lives for the new CBD Metro? I don't know what the proposed route looks like. I may have to get a list of all the buildings that are at risk.

go back to post8. amazing what you will find.

lots of testing going on around town various sites

I know Barangaroo and Belmore Park are subject of testing. Where else are they doing it?

I know Barangaroo and Belmore Park are subject of testing. Where else are they doing it?

I've seen them next to the car park over the train lines on Castlereagh Street and in front of the Telstra building on Pitt Street.

"The Metro" is a ridiculous proposal. Hope it never eventuates (and it probably won't be built just like anything else envisioned by the NSW Labor Govt). :ohno:

Why spend a fortune to build an underground line from the City to Rozelle? WTF? :bash:

It is much better to extend the light rail instead at the fraction of the cost! :)

I don't see a point in it either. The bus services along Victoria Rd at Rozelle are just as quick.

You could even walk from Rozelle to the city if you wanted to.

Once again, this is not about Rozelle... this is about getting passengers from Central into the city when they terminate extra services at Sydney Terminal, and about the west metro. It only goes as far as Rozelle so that it can access the rail yards for maintenance and stabling...

Check out the tender document/industry update on the metro site and they talk as if the West Metro is a done deal, basically describing the staging of the entire line in 3 stages with the CBD part first, then 2 parts of the west metro, and states that they expect that work should just be able to continue once the CBD component is complete.

This is what frustrates me when people say 'why not just use light rail'... Light rail IS a better mode for Rozelle, but this is not about Rozelle...

Bring back the Cristie Proposals.

Once again, this is not about Rozelle... this is about getting passengers from Central into the city when they terminate extra services at Sydney Terminal, and about the west metro. It only goes as far as Rozelle so that it can access the rail yards for maintenance and stabling...

Check out the tender document/industry update on the metro site and they talk as if the West Metro is a done deal, basically describing the staging of the entire line in 3 stages with the CBD part first, then 2 parts of the west metro, and states that they expect that work should just be able to continue once the CBD component is complete.

This is what frustrates me when people say 'why not just use light rail'... Light rail IS a better mode for Rozelle, but this is not about Rozelle...

this

[disclaimer: I do not think metro is a better option than Chatswood-Redfern and Epping-Paramatta]

With Rozelle, the public school and St Andrews church will not be affected as the station entrances are to be relocated to Wests Leagues.

from todays fin rev
Sydney Metro will spend up to $300m in CBD


Sydney Metro will buy up to $300 million worth of Sydney CBD property for the first stage of its multibillion-dollar rail system, with negotiations on several buildings to be finalised within a matter of weeks.

^^ that would include finishing buying off all those buildings needed for the city square, would it not?

I would imagine so... Sounds like good news!

It's not cheap either, and that will probably include buying properties from Sydney City Council which are already theirs for the square.

I doubt it... since SCC are building and maintaining the square at the end of construction including the buildings that it doesn't currently own - really they are doing SCC a favour by aquiring the rest of the site.

they're also demolishing and clearing the site for them..so if anything..

Sure some of the sites can be sold for development after this project ends some time around 2030.

This whole metro plan is short sighted and nothing but a desperate labor government plot in trying to win the next election.

They plan to spend 5 to 7 billion dollars on a line that duplicates the main western line over to Parramatta.

Why not spend that amount is expanding and establishing a tram network to service the inner city better. Utilise the buses to service the middle band of suburbs and for god's sake run heavy rail into the outer suburban sprawl such as the badly needed north-west region.

This project is gonna cost more than 5-7 billion guaranteed.

I say use the money to bring back trams and to extend the rail line from Epping to Rouse Hill ..... :rant::rant::rant:

The outer suburbs need train lines more than the inner city.

Just imagine how many cars you would remove off the road as opposed to building a metro in the inner city. Most people using the metro will be regular rail commuters anyways.

The best thing about this metro is we get chew chews and tunnels like in yoorop and aisha.

5-7 billion dollars is plenty of cash that you can spend on other public transport alternatives.

For example in Adelaide they are gradually re-introducing ths trams.

They are purchasing the "Bombardier Flexity" trams which are around 6 million a pop but can carry masses of people compared to a bus. Of course there are cheaper tram alternatives but lets say Sydney picked the same tram for its own network.

You could purchase 200 new Bombardier Flexity trams for 1.2 Billion dollars (Melbourne currently has 500 trams on their network which is the world's largest). The balance of 3.8 billion is still ample enough to run the new tram lines across the inner city into the heavily built urban areas such as Green Square, etc.

You wouldn't have to purchase many buildings for demolition.

On top of that you would have plenty of cash to run an extended heavy rail network from Epping to Rouse Hill.

Some of the existing buses can be used elsewhere.

The NSW Labor government are morons.

I can't believe someone is still considering the stupid Metro proposal...NSW Labor Govt and their gardener from Wentworthville are totally hopeless :ohno:

We need an early election & light rail extensions to Circular Quay, Dulwich Hill and Green Square :cheers:

Why is the Monorail and the Light Rail network run separately from the Sydney train/bus/ferry network? Wouldn't it make more sense to incorporate these two things into the Sydney public transport network and enlarge the light rail network so that it services a number of the inner city suburbs?

I actually have nothing wrong with the metro, i actually like it.
with the NSW gov fully funding the CBD Metro, we just need the fed gov to fully fund the west metro aswell as the metro is linking Barangaroo to the city and is hurrying up the CitiSquare development.
with the Sydney City Council improvements to the city and having proper implementation of transport by 2030 it will be easy to move around Sydney through connected northern and southern gateways.
The SydneyMetro is an enabler, just wait and see.
((as long as the fed labor gov stay in and the improvements of the NSW Labor gov enforced by Ruddy, which are great, we should see Sydney evolve.))

Munckei, NSW Labor has been in governement since 1995, hence they have ruled (or perhaps I should say 'ruined' this state for the past 14 years and sadly we have another 2 more years to go.

I wouldn't hold my breath that they will do anything significant to fix it all up. We have fallen behind all other states.

I suggest you go and visit Melbourne and see the massive changes that have occured there since Kennett (Liberal) & Bracks (Labor) have governed Victoria in the same amount of time and you will then see what a joke NSW has become under Labor premiers Carr/Iemma/Rees ...... :ohno:

On top of that you would have plenty of cash to run an extended heavy rail network from Epping to Rouse Hill.

You lost me here - the NWRL would cost $6-7 billion alone.

I really can't see how anyone could possible compare a metro to something like a tram network. A tram network is good but is merely just a slight upgraded (albeit more charming) bus network. It is a great addition but cannot in the long run be the sole public transport.
A metro on the other hand has been proven to continue to remain useful for 100+ years and can be solely relied upon to serve as the bulk of public transport.

I'd agree that the current metro proposal is not good but it's a good first step. You can't realistically build a metro that covers Sydney straight away. Build a backbone and expand upon it.

No point half arse-ing it anymore. Lets just build a metro and if done right will provide the best way to compute period.

Courtesy of architecture and design:
Two alternative options for Rozelle Metro Station.

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii149/brizer_foto/Sydney%20Metro/Rozellestation.jpg
Architect Tim Greer of Tonkin Zulaika Greer.

OR

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii149/brizer_foto/Sydney%20Metro/RozelleTeam1.jpg
Architect Richard Francis-Jones of FJMT Architects

Article here:
http://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/article/BREAKING-NEWS-Designs-unveiled-for-Sydney-Metro-stations/505705.aspx

(Maybe this thread could be re-named Sydney Metro?)

the top pic was in the fin review along with some concepts for the underground design it looks like a cave sorry for no pics :(

Yea, they were looking for station designs for Rozelle, with somehow the public helping in the design of the station ideas.

I really like the top one, the bottom one looks like a robot humans stomach or something. Kudos on finding the designs.
(I agree with the renaming of thread also.)

On each design team there was an architect, a landscape type designer and an artist, thus the hortico-Indigenous design on the architectural elements which, despite the decoration are good strong forms.

Maybe the stupid planners should look at what a real subway entrance looks like. Instead of an artsy-fartsy entrance, maybe they should do this:
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3382/townhall.jpg
Oh hold on, that's Town Hall station. I bet the government wouldn't have the balls to knock it down. In fact, if the people in the 1930's could build an underground railway without knocking anything down, why can't we do it now?

Empire building?
It beats me because many of the metro entrances in London, Paris, New York, Vienna, Moscow, yadda yaddah! are in the footpath or in a doorway into a building - some of them are so discreet you can walk right past them if you're not paying attention. Are we so fat-arsed we need something the size of Versailles to get into a metro station?

Empire building?
It beats me because many of the metro entrances in London, Paris, New York, Vienna, Moscow, yadda yaddah! are in the footpath or in a doorway into a building - some of them are so discreet you can walk right past them if you're not paying attention. Are we so fat-arsed we need something the size of Versailles to get into a metro station?

Actually they did knock down a lot - Wynyard for example.

But I agree - why can't we have metro entrances inside buildings, more of them. Melbourne as much as Sydney. Exits and underground shopping that runs for miles. I thought Sydney had it down till I went to Kyoto. Kms under the ground.

You should be able to get from Town Hall to World Square without emerging from the ground - and to Wynyard, St James and Museum as well.

The beauty of an underground station is you should not know its there, except for seeing:
http://www.google.com.au/images?q=tbn:7Ih0QiLYfP_H7M::www.torgo.com/blog/uploaded_images/tube_logo-733417.gif&h=94&w=110&usg=__nEkKBCB0aOXIMR2vkwUthLGqqkc= orhttp://www.google.com.au/images?q=tbn:g3JNV8HVaLtmSM::travel.asianfanatics.net/images/3/35/MTR-Corporation-logo.png&h=94&w=109&usg=__3o1MZhkqCdG3-QgLoNTC3NwFYOo= or even http://www.google.com.au/images?q=tbn:-L0BROi0KpA63M::www.seeklogo.com/images/C/CityRail-logo-17517B7655-seeklogo.com.gif&h=94&w=94&usg=__EydP3Fw2k9m0HlbR3NlTeEGmgVw=

Empire building?
It beats me because many of the metro entrances in London, Paris, New York, Vienna, Moscow, yadda yaddah! are in the footpath or in a doorway into a building - some of them are so discreet you can walk right past them if you're not paying attention. Are we so fat-arsed we need something the size of Versailles to get into a metro station?

Because many of those stations were built many decades ago when there was less infrastructure shared across a city's underground space. Today you can't just cut and cover a station directly under a street intersection and service it with small, feeder entrances at each corner.

You mention London, but I suggest you go take a look at the Tottenham Court Road tube station redevelopment where just this year they knocked down numerous historic buildings for the station's needed expansion. This was previously one of those stations serviced by 'discreet entrances'.

Hmmm...I can understand the need to provide a series of station entrances that might be a little more efficient than, say, a number of the early 1900s NYC subway entrances but come on...the Sydney Metro has been cursed by some of the least inspiring design that I have seen in a major project for ages..check some of the latest sample 'designs' on the Sydney Metro website
http://www.sydneymetro.nsw.gov.au/news/latest_news/design_teams_reveal_sample_designs/

It is incredible that the Metro Authority is still canvassing/considering an option (Design team 1) that could effectively destroy the Union Square terraces (if they aren't, then some of the renders don't appear to indicate that there is a preservation option for the Victorian commercial row, the illustrations seen as part of Design Team 2's option do though, thankfully)...all of this after several SMA press releases stating that preserving the bulk of the terraces/commercial row in Union Square was a (supposedly) 'preferred' option 9/09/09 and what of the 'Draft Heritage Principles' 23/09/09?

How ironic that the amorphous idea that seeing sandstone walls somehow reflects Sydney's heritage when historic buildings constructed from that same material are to be destroyed for over the top, tedious station entrances.

Surely something a little more modest, would work rather than the deeply boring stuff on show, check the design team 1's commercial structure/station (link below)
http://www.sydneymetro.nsw.gov.au/mediagallery/photo/pyrmont_sample_team_1/

Dull, uninspiring, almost dismissive :ohno: and not worthy to replace the terraces (if that is implied, in fact even if it isn't the proposed new station entrances at Pyrmont don't cut it). Hell, I usually like the work of some of the architects engaged for this project, but this stuff seems below par.

Even the proposed 'canyons' on the 'Balmain' side of Victoria Rd are overkill, let's see, the place empties out after peak period and we'll see some interesting aerosol art (CCTV or no CCTV)...whatever happened to opening up vistas of the historic churches to a public square (now they'll have to compete with larger than necessary station structures)?...again, surely relatively discreet entrances like those planned at Martin Place could work to buffer Victoria Road without 'taking over' the joint?

The money used to supposedly improve the unpopular station designs at Pyrmont & Rozelle would have been better spent on the City Square/Town Hall station entrances and less intrusive & destructive station designs could be implemented at Rozelle & Pyrmont that give reasonable access & keep the character of the area.

^^ the station entrances in buildings etc that you are talking about are exactly the same as what the sydney metro authority are doing with these buildings. these are station buildings, these are just buildings that will be going over the stations and thus get the broad label "station designs". it's also just too difficult to cut and cover (as someone said) roads to build stations underneath with a little entrance on the side as most of the streets in sydney are either far too busy or far too narrow and built up either side to easily build a cut and cover station and tunnels.

also on the designs - i don't see much wrong with any of them but richard francis-jones designs look to be fantastic. the "light tree" concept would fantastic at night

For anyone interested in a little urbanity...some good news re: Number 7 Elizabeth Street (slated for demolition for a 'worksite' supposedly :ohno:) , I phoned the Metro Authority about the proposed acquisition of this building by the SMA when making a submission for the environmental assesment and I was told that it was "no longer required" :banana:

This is an important structure as it was one of the first complexes built in Australia to contain studio apartments and was a rare collaboration between one of the finest Australian practicioners of Art Deco, Emil Sodersten & [female] interior designer Marian Hall-Best. One apartment is apparently completely intact (I have heard anecdotally that elements of the original interiors exist in a few other apartments too). I know Art Deco isn't to everyone's taste, but history isn't all Victoriana & Devonshire teas. It will be interesting to see what happens to this structure in the near future

Good! Not a great work, but a sound and attractive representative of the period. Whether a particular style is "to one's taste" or not is totally irrelevant - arrogant poseurs to pass such onanistic judgement! - but all styles of a city's history should be represented and not just by the dazzling gems. It is part of a city's character.

pat_ "also on the designs - i don't see much wrong with any of them but richard francis-jones designs look to be fantastic. the "light tree" concept would fantastic at night "

The 'light tree' was the only design element that looked interesting to me...(though the Pyrmont option that kept the commercial row & provided a more modest station entrance made more sense)

I don't mind designs that dodge the 'commercial imperative', but is there any real need for the very ordinary balconied commercial structure that I have indicated in the previous posting? After all, aren't these supposed to be station entrances?

It might keep some of the neo-cons in the ALP happy, but this is a lot of money being spent on what are pretty much needless extras.

I'm not sure exactly how difficult the cut & cover process would be at each of the station sites along the route of the proposed CBD metro, though I am sure some sites would provide a challenge, I guess (though, we are not really talking central London here), that is where some of the design effort should be going (in attempting as unobstrusive construction as is possible), not flashy 'billboards' (aka oversize station entrances) to highlight that the State Government actually completed a project.

Let's put it this way, the Metro Authority don't seem to be considering a completely modern structure (most likely replete with convenience stores & coffee franchises) at Central Station to totally, completely replace all of the historic elements (sandstone concourse elements & entrances) on the site required for the metro station...because they know that there would be a huge outcry...so why not apply similar principles to the heritage structures at Rozelle & Pyrmont?

Brizer "arrogant poseurs to pass such onanistic judgement!"

Maybe...but you'd have to agree that 20th Century buildings can get a pretty poor deal as far as heritage preservation goes in this city, so I don't mind standing up for them (and at the same time I'll also stand up for the Victorian structures still under a cloud at Pyrmont & Rozelle as the Metro Authority toy with demolition options). It is interesting to read a few earlier posts calling for the demolition of Number 7 on the grounds that it was an "eye-sore". It might not be Sodersten's best residential work (it isn't Birtley Towers) but I can think of a squillion less appealing, not as rare, less historically important structures standing in the CBD than Number 7 Elizabeth Street.

Thankfully it appears that the Victorian commercial structures near the corner of Pitt & Park Streets also are off the hook too.

The air conditioning units don't do the building any favours.

So the maccas buildings getting the chop....

What’s ganna happen to the hungry jacks facade?? This would be criminal to destroy this.


http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q237/AussieDude11/MicrosoftWord-Doc1.jpg

although they contain tacky fast food establishments these buildings really shouldn't be demolished. Sydney will have a very small amount herritage soon if this continues. It already has less old victorian charm then melbourne

bonniejock: I was agreeing with you! The types I referred to in the fancy swear words also get my goat. Who cares if a particular style is not to their taste?! To adopt a superior & dismissive tone about a style is pseudo-intellectual arrogance as it assumes that the speaker and the speaker alone, knows what is 'right'.
Reminds me of a saying that was common a while back: "Who died and made you God?"
I was very sorry to see the Black Stump go even though we got the amazing Aurora Place to replace it.
I almost took to violence a few years ago when there were plans to demolish, or at least, 'modernise' SOM's Lever House in NY!
It's unbelievable nowadays, but back in the 1960s, 'they' seriously considered demolishing the QVB for a carpark. Fortunately, government incompetence saved the day.
Sometimes it's hard to know who is worse, the total philistines or the self-appointed arbiters of taste. Taste is a matter of personal preference based on background, experience and personal prejudice.
A city goes through many stages and each should be acknowledged. Examples of the style/period should be assessd in terms of its own aims, standards and aesthetics. People who claim previous styles inferior to their own are just plain ignorant and up themselves. On the other hand, we need to be able to recognise what is quality and what is junk.
Old doesn't necessarily mean good: new doesn't necessarily mean good either.

Sydney has a terrible record when compared to Melbourne with heritage. REcent changes to planning laws make it easier for even heritage listed buildings to be pulled down. Sad state of affairs :(:(:(

No worries Brizer (though I do confess to having a bit of an inner poseur sometimes! :))

"Old doesn't necessarily mean good: new doesn't necessarily mean good either" ...very true & I totally agree that it is worth preserving architectural examples that display the evolution of our cities & cities are evolving things and not open air museums, so it is a matter of balance. The QVB example is a great one....imagine if we ended up with Jensen's [car] park on that site with some sad 'interpretive' remnant to commiserate over?!!...that's how I feel about the interpretive element to the designs that could destroy the Victorian buildings at Pyrmont (& a few of the buildings at Rozelle)...

Of course, the former State Office block/Aurora Place example is also a good one but the latest round of Sydney Metro's designs IMHO don't really cut the mustard (I'm sure that others might see things differently) & nothing seems to really grab me the way Piano's design did with Aurora Place, however we are talking about entrances to train stations & how much would the implementation & expansion of the Sydney Metro system cost if we were to call in the big guns to design each station (or have we discovered a massive oil deposit under Sydney Harbour?). I don't mean to be completely critical of the designers because I suspect that it is the brief that is actually the problem.

If a more modest (& by that I don't mean cheap 'n' cheerful, cramped, or hose down at the end of the day) series of entrances that work & blend in with the streetscape can be designed well we might be getting somewhere.

Community involvement is a good thing (if only the State Government listened to the public at the outset of the metro projects) & I welcome the community involvement aspect with the latest designs & respect the fact that some might wish to see a new building in Union Square, but I doubt that they would represent the majority (there has been a pretty well supported campaign to protect the terraces at both a local & citywide level) and the Transport Minister announced that the support for preserving the terrace shops in Union Square yet here we are back at square one (no pun intended), so it appears that the noises being made by both the Transport Minister & the Metro Authority are pretty dubious!

although they contain tacky fast food establishments these buildings really shouldn't be demolished. Sydney will have a very small amount herritage soon if this continues. It already has less old victorian charm then melbourne

These buildings aren't slated for demolition any more.

although they contain tacky fast food establishments these buildings really shouldn't be demolished. Sydney will have a very small amount herritage soon if this continues. It already has less old victorian charm then melbourne

Such a fallacy! People seem to think that but it's totally untrue. Yes, Sydney has lost some great buildings but Melbourne lost just as much as Sydney. There's way more old Victorian buildings left around the Sydney CBD than Melbourne, especially if you include facades. Next time you walk around actually consciously look out for it and you'll be surprise. But I agree, we shouldn't be losing any more.

Such a fallacy! People seem to think that but it's totally untrue. Yes, Sydney has lost some great buildings but Melbourne lost just as much as Sydney. There's way more old Victorian buildings left around the Sydney CBD than Melbourne, especially if you include facades. Next time you walk around actually consciously look out for it and you'll be surprise. But I agree, we shouldn't be losing any more.

True, I don't know where this myth comes from that Melbourne has more Victorian buildings than Sydney.

^^^ yup. Sydney has way more, but melb has way more forumers on here (read that as you will)

Interestingly, Melbourne has also destroyed many of its historic buildings (quite a few from the Victorian era too!). I think that a lot of Melburnians with an interest in architecture would be horrified if they realised that some of the world’s earliest & tallest skyscrapers once stood in Melbourne (only to be replaced with mediocre rubbish). The Federal Coffee Palace, The Melbourne Fish Markets, one of the largest private mansions from the era, ‘Clarendon’, even the MCG’s most historic structures have all been demolished.

I guess a lot of Melbourne’s architectural heritage was built during the boom period of the 1880s, so that sort of shaped a perception that Melbourne was a Victorian era city first & foremost. Whereas a good number of Sydney’s city buildings (especially public buildings) were built during an earlier period and enlarged added to & in some instances replaced (especially when Sydney boomed in the late 1890s/early 20th Century) .

Amazingly, given that developers have had it way too easy in Sydney, as far as saving historic buildings is concerned, Sydney still has some fine Victorian era buildings (Queen Victoria Building, Government Department Buildings along Bridge Street, the former GPO, elements of the Captiol Theatre, Town Hall, remnants of retail stores, & still quite a respectable number of working class to middle class houses that survive in a number of inner city suburbs).

Melbourne has a few ‘blue-stone’ pre-Victorian era structures, but Sydney being a few decades older (& having a more eclectic mix of architectural styles), has a larger catalogue of pre-Victorian era buildings (though we associate that era more with what we see in Tasmania). Sydney might not have, say, a Victorian mansion that matches ‘Labassa’ in Melbourne, but I doubt that you would find a pre-Victorian era mansions like Elizabeth Bay House or Tusculum in Melbourne.

Melbourne might have had a larger pool of Victorian era building to ‘sacrifice’ than Sydney or Brisbane, and some of Melbourne's finest residential works (St Vincent’s Place, amongst others) were constructed during the Victorian era, but you’ll find that Sydney ain’t that bad, walk around Hollis Park (a square in North Newtown) and take a look around, some great Victorian era residential architecture there. Sydney still needs to do better though & could do worse than take a leaf out of Melbourne’s book re: heritage preservation in a number of cases.

With increasing population pressures, it will be interesting to see how heritage issues will be handled in Melbourne, as well as Sydney, in the near future.

believe me. melbourne wipped out half the city in the 1960;s and 70;s to make way for dozens of shit box scrapers.
sydney is guilty also but no where near as many and has done well keeping many.

It's unbelievable nowadays, but back in the 1960s, 'they' seriously considered demolishing the QVB for a carpark. Fortunately, government incompetence saved the day.

Yes, but was it a crime to consider it; or a crime that the building was let go so far that it was worth considering? Who let the building deteriorate?

And how many buildings are in that state today, so much that demolishing is a better option?

Anyway the incompetence line reminds me of the cathedral at Chartres, slated for demolition during the French Revolution due to its Catholic origin, but the committee charged with organising the demolition was so disorganised that the revolution ended before they could.