I think it's a good looking building!! Will definitely help to modernise this part of the CBD which otherwise is a bit drab and boring in terms of architecture.

Unfortunately it is not tall enough to have a substantial impact on the skyline or anything else. Screw sunlight onto the steps of GPO Sydney, it needs more height to be somewhat of a landmark building in a super prime location.

We have the opportunity to write into the Department of Planning with feedback on the design
http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/page/project-sectors/transport--communications--energy---water/rail---related-facilities/?action=view_job&job_id=3177

Make sure you use it, even if it is just to prove that we want more height in other locations!!

a real range of emotions with this one...

Is the glass shell really feasible?
Each glass panel looks humongous.
I've never seen anything like that in real life.

Read through some of the reports on the Major Planning site and the building is 29L and 146.3m

It's going to be a very nice little building - not quite 500' in 'old speak' - & how terrific is Wynyard going to look, but bloody cruel, none-the-less.

It's a stunning design. It certainly makes up for design where height is lacking. Honestly though at 200m (and why not the site allows for this, would be incredible and it's a damn shame. Wynyard looks fantastic.

At least it much better then what's there now and at least Barangaoo will balance the skyline now. 150m is our new height limit it seems these days.

We got a 93m reduction in height since the 2002 concept so the GPO steps can get sunlight


They'd ruin a brand new building just so the GPO can get sunlight??? What is wrong with this city. :(

There is also a model in the city model at the Sydney City Council offices in Kent Street. Photos to follow.

I wonder where the 2002 concept came from, because I recall from that time, taller concepts as CULWULLA were posted here on the forum back in that time which tend to follow the current concept, abelt taller.

While it lacks the height, it's a fantastically designed tower. The model photos will put it into prespective.

Looking at the design, the tower is in two shaft connected in the middle. The George st portion should continue to rise higher (let in go 200m). This is well within the height restrictions and would make the tower look better IMO.

There is also a model in the city model at the Sydney City Council offices in Kent Street. Photos to follow.


Is this open to the public?

Like someone said earlier, it looks a lot like the original design for the Westfield tower. Unfortunately, this more realistic render (from the design statement) makes it look somewhat more pedestrian than the renders above:

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k160/papervagina/CityOne.jpg

Goodbye Wynyard ramp :(

Is this open to the public?

Yes. It is next to the one stop shop on level one.

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/4340/img4096n.jpg

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3927/img4097c.jpg

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/5100/img4101ef.jpg

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/4434/img4102c.jpg

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/5494/img4105f.jpg

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/6610/img4107i.jpg

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8720/img4114rt.jpg

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/1062/img4100s.jpg

Thanks: those shots give a bit more information, especially the 'Proud Mary' 'prow' of the buildings on their northern façade which I hadn't particularly noticed before.

wow, model is in. looks fab.yeah we all want it taller. i really thought this would be our citys tallest? wtf

RE: shadow on GPO steps: it seems unreasonably obsessive to make such a crippling issue of an event that will happen for only part of some days during some period/s of the year.
Another worrying example of 'The Pathway to Hell' being paved with good intentions - what was a good idea falling into the control of small, unimaginative, limited minds becoming another kind of Hell.

Great design. I like the shattered glass appearance.

What is wrong with the disappearance of the Wynyard Ramp? It's not going to disappear but it will get the way overdue upgrade it deserves. The ceilings are already quite low and the floorspace for retailers is quite cramp. Looks to be that there will be five levels of retail as part of the scheme and we will also get some retail along Margaret Street and Carrington Street where no such retail exists.

There will be a huge concourse for Wynyard Station as well extending right into where Relay and Gloria Jeans are.

wow, model is in. looks fab.yeah we all want it taller. i really thought this would be our citys tallest? wtf

I remember that big model you made back in 2002 and the tower was proposed for 280 metres. Those were the days. :cheers:

Are the platforms gonna be any wider?

What is wrong with the disappearance of the Wynyard Ramp? It's not going to disappear but it will get the way overdue upgrade it deserves.

It is going to disappear - escalators and stairs do not make a ramp. I know the current ramp is awful, but I will miss it (albeit not enough to really care that it's being replaced).

^ It's more nostalgic than anything else. It's always been there.

Retail component is around 10000 sq m, unfortunately it seems unlikely that it will have a discount department store ala Big W which usually has floor plates of 6000-7000 sq m.

Bloody Hell, we are doomed, the Angel Place was destined to be a height limit scraper and financial crisis spoiled it all..And now this short fat "scraper"...and that bloody joke proposed at R Johnson Square :ohno::bash:

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8720/img4114rt.jpg

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/1062/img4100s.jpg[/QUOTE]

Is that cross bracing going to have sheets of glass or something between it at different angles, giving a "shattered" appearance? I'll be highly disappointed if it's just straight up with cross bracing.

This building is a joke, why so short all the time?

Global city or just a city, if we keep getting this all the time I think just another city.

Altius - lodge a submission opposing the D/A on height terms. I will be doing the same.

No platform upgrades for Wynyard either - as mentioned concourse - ticket offices, meeting areas will be enlarged and as the proposal shows, by a considerable amount.

It's about time Wynyard station gets an upgrade. Worst major station in Sydney.

yes unfortunately sydney is doomed for short massive skyscrapers (thanks to nimbys and tight scc controls) instead of tall thin ones like north and south of the border.:bash:

It's about time Wynyard station gets an upgrade. Worst major station in Sydney.

You mean worst in the Sydney CBD. We have won the fight to get a decent upgrade.

It's about time Wynyard station gets an upgrade. Worst major station in Sydney.

But it has so much character and history... with the old wooden escalator... steel riveted columns....

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4121/4863272576_f627051078_z.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8773698@N03/4863272576/sizes/l/
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/13/19040100_219a99c877_z.jpg?zz=1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamieanne/19040100/

And the Department of Railways building is quite a fine example of art deco.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/212/489931209_f294490460_z.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jannypanns/489931209/
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/3093852988_a063a64285_z.jpg?zz=1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robert-wright/3093852988/

How exactly is this the worst station in the CBD? I think it's the best. I feel like I'm going into a museum of the 1930s when i catch a train in it!

Railway House is heritage listed and safe. A couple of years ago Cul took some photos of its impressive interior and posted them on this forum. I cannot be any more precise than that tho' they may turn up on one of the heritage threads.

Most of the infrastructure you assume is 1930s may not be as there have be a number of renovations and alterations over the years.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k160/papervagina/CityOne.jpg


Omg.... A tall slender glass tower would look SOOO good from that angle. It would be cool to see that when you get off the bus at Wynyard park. :'(

They should retain the old escalator for heritage reasons. The remaining ones at Town Hall were replaced several years ago.

The escalator was demolished because it's a fire hazard. I don't think they should retain it because it serves no heritage value.

I think it has a lot of heritage value, a unique in Australia wooden 1930s escalator. You know there's really not that many places in the world that have kept old style wooden escalators, for example the only place in New York that still has them is Macy's. And a couple of them are still in Europe, but there's really not many of them left in the world.

I think it has a lot of heritage value, a unique in Australia wooden 1930s escalator. You know there's really not that many places in the world that have kept old style wooden escalators, for example the only place in New York that still has them is Macy's. And a couple of them are still in Europe, but there's really not many of them left in the world.

i wish people would stop living in the past

They should retain the old escalator for heritage reasons. The remaining ones at Town Hall were replaced several years ago.

Town Hall still has one that goes down to Platform 6 (I think it's the Airport Line).

I think it has a lot of heritage value, a unique in Australia wooden 1930s escalator. You know there's really not that many places in the world that have kept old style wooden escalators, for example the only place in New York that still has them is Macy's. And a couple of them are still in Europe, but there's really not many of them left in the world.

London got rid of all of theirs after the Kings Cross tube fire 30 years ago too...

It's not living in the past to keep the best of and/or significant pieces of our past, the history that got us here. Just because something is new doesn't not mean it's better, just new.
Look at the heritage, old buildings threads and see what we have lost and try to appreciate why we need to preserve something of our history.
Let's hope people aren't so callous and callow about you when you get a few years under your belt.
On the other hand, if it is neither beautiful nor significant then there is no point in retaining it if it hinders the present and the future. We have to make intelligent and sensitive decisions about these things.

i wish people would stop living in the past

Actually, I am sick of how little interest Sydney seems to have in new development and building the future.
That doesn't mean though that everything from the past should be dumped, there is nice stuff with character worth keeping.

Town Hall still has one that goes down to Platform 6 (I think it's the Airport Line).



London got rid of all of theirs after the Kings Cross tube fire 30 years ago too...

Are you sure? I thought they had been replaced. At the Wynyard end, they were definately replaced.

I keep thinking why this is only 150m. RHS and now this, SCC have robbed Sydney of 2 x 200m + towers.

dont forget space and westfield towers. both easily could have been 200m if wasnt for sun access plane controls.

If a tree is planted in Hyde Park, is its growth subject to Sun Access Plane regulations?
I mean some poor blade of grass is going to be in shadow because of this tree!

*cough*

ok, on a more serious note (i understand the need for the Sun Access Plane) is the issue of limited space in the CBD for any more 200m+ towers even discussed by the head honchos at Town Hall?

Are you sure? I thought they had been replaced. At the Wynyard end, they were definately replaced.

Unless it was replaced in the last year or so. It was there last time I used it about 12 months back...

dont forget space and westfield towers. both easily could have been 200m if wasnt for sun access plane controls.

When your start getting 235m height limit sites limited because of casting shadows over other buildings i think you can see why it's insane. On top of that if it's a residential building it can go higher compared to another building only used for office.

Why do we have such stupid rules. Why? Then you hear the exact same council talk about the their shock over the bulk of some devs (EDH). What do they expect? You need the space either it goes up or it goes across. We really need people that can understand this trivial fact. This building on the George st side is ALLOWED by law to go to 235m. It's such a waste of space.

I don't think this height limit/shadow plane access will ever be addressed by council or the state government. That is until some major corporations threaten to move their business elsewhere due to a lack of suitable space. We are not there yet and probably will not be for the foreseeable future.

I think we are already there with the popularity of Norwest and North Ryde which offer the massive floor plates for firms.

I think we are already there with the popularity of Norwest and North Ryde which offer the massive floor plates for firms.

I was referring more to the major established multinational corporations or members of the S&P/ASX 20 moving interstate or countries. You know the kind of moves that would actually look bad for politicians. Id imagine companies moving into the suburbs wouldn't matter to them as the jobs/investments still remain within the state.

And combine that with the high rents.

Okay so I've pm'ed just about every NSW member I could find on the matter of SBS on the City One development in particular (40 all up). It'd be great if everyone could make a submission to the Dept of Planning and voice their disapproval of the height and Sydney's height limits in general. Here's what I put in the pm (for those who didn't get one)


]I think we are all on the same page when it comes to the City One Tower at Wynyard. It is a good looking proposal and will help to cater for the increased demand at Wynyard Station, however we all want more height for a landmark building in a landmark location.

Whilst we will almost certainly not be able to sway the height argument, we need to make our presence felt. It is all well and good to have a whinge about the lack of height and Sydney's SBS online in a skyscraper forum, but the time has come for us to step up to the plate and show that there are people - and a lot of people - in Sydney who want taller, thinner buildings to have an impact on the city and it's skyline.

So I write to you now, asking you to make a submission about the application to the Department of Planning on the City One link provided below;

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=3177

If you are stuck for words, comment on the site being a HEIGHT LIMIT (235M) location and show your distaste for the tower being only 146M. You don't necessarily have to oppose the tower, but be clear in voicing your opposition to the proposed height. You can also comment on Sydney's lack of room for growth in the CBD and how it is pivotal for the site to be used to its full potential (perhaps even whack in the old RJS proposal being scaled back as well). Finally, mention that the proposal being so short just to provide sun for the GPO stairs for a few hours in winter is a silly idea - people don't come to sit on the steps of the GPO in winter for sunshine!

If this is how more landmark and height limit sites are to be treated in future then Sydney will well and truly run out of office space and CBD living space in future.

Cheers,
Sky

Even if you are not a Sydneysider or someone from NSW, it'd be greatly appreciated if you took the time to write a few lines in the submission form at the bottom of the page in the link provided. It is about time Sydney got over its height-phobia and now that Barangaroo is driving things in the right direction, it's time to at least make ourselves known outside of this forum.

Ok, I've made my submission. As usual I start off thinking I'll make it short, precise and pithy, and then I start typing...
I was supportive but with a BIG reservation, and that reservation is the lack of height.

Hope it can be higher.

Wrote my bit. Everyone else should write as well!!! Hopefully we might get something better if not the amazing, tall building we all want...

Made my submission. Made a point of saying the design was fab, but that I was disgusted at the indication that the height was kept at 146m due to sun access for a paved area. Also mentioned that in these environmentally conscious times I find it disgusting that they aren't encouraging full height mixed use towers in order to ease housing problems.

If we really want to make an impact, I suggest placing your submission as an objection. If you disagree with even one aspect of it you are better off objecting.

Debates have been lost simply because one side accepts the others argument but disagrees with various aspects insteading of stating that they object to the argument.

Good work guys, keep it going!!

Joelby, good point on housing affordability

source: architecture&design

Hassell ranked the top practice in Australasia

28 January 2011

Hassell has been ranked the number one architecture practice in Australasia for a second year running in a UK-based World Architecture survey.

Among the world’s 100 largest architectural practices, Building Design magazine ranked HASSELL 25 for the number of creative staff and 33 overall as the largest Australian practice included on the list. The practice was also ranked in the global top ten for the Business Parks/Offices and Criminal Justice market sectors.

Hassell is a multidisciplinary design practice with studios throughout Australia and the Asia Pacific region. The company says its strong position is a “result of the expertise, design talent and commitment we offer our clients in the region”.

“Our scale provides the capacity to deliver a broad range of projects, from small crafted commissions right through to some of the largest most complex developments in Australasia. Whilst scale isn’t everything, we believe it reflects our success in working with our clients to achieve great outcomes,” says a company press statement.

The World Architecture 100 survey is published in association with the London-based Building Design magazine.

Visit http://www.bdonline.co.uk/wa-100 for further information on the BD World Architecture 100.

Put my :2cents: down, stating its time for much taller building in Sydney's CBD. :)

I followed up on the picture of previous schemes as posted in the documents.

There is also a model in the city model at the Sydney City Council offices in Kent Street. Photos to follow.

I wonder where the 2002 concept came from, because I recall from that time, taller concepts as CULWULLA were posted here on the forum back in that time which tend to follow the current concept, abelt taller.

While it lacks the height, it's a fantastically designed tower. The model photos will put it into prespective.

I went to the Planning NSW office today and had a good read through the documents in hard print, which is easier for me to absorb than online. No model is on display.

I looked at it again, it's from 2003 (the white scheme) going by my memory of CULWULLA's postings.

The second scheme is a 2006 scheme proposed by Rice Daubney who were commissioned by Thrakal to look at other options.

With Shell House, they will gut the interior and retain the facade and clock tower. It will remain as the Menzies Hotel but there will be more retail at street level and for the first time there will be retail facing the Margaret Street side.

If we really want to make an impact, I suggest placing your submission as an objection. If you disagree with even one aspect of it you are better off objecting.
.

Indeed. I objected, but stated that I was in favour of the design, but the overall proposal was an utter waste of a prime CBD site with unparalleled transport links.

I don't want to question the design principles because they have met that well, but the concept fails in the ONE area - not developing the site to it's full potential.

A few recent shots of Wynyard Ramp.

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/5230/img4607v.jpg

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/1633/img4610e.jpg

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/6691/img4611l.jpg

This area will form the new concourse for Wynyard Station. All the shops here will go.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/720/img4609i.jpg

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/7470/img4608d.jpg

Not big on charm & ambiance, is it?

It never really has.

I wish Newsagents were like this: http://acms.sl.nsw.gov.au/item/itemLarge.aspx?itemID=97671

The mid-CBd is in desperate need of a game-changing tallie, something that would stand out. I don't think we'll get one for a long time to come, not with Barangaroo on the way as well.

Keep the submissions to the department of planning going! Check my sig for the link and write away if you haven't already - but be quick because time is running out.

It is only two and half weeks left to comment.

Hi Im new to ssc, (have been using web page for a while now though).. :). I also have made a submission to the Planning office in the hope this one can go higher or to the height limit possibly, I commented on how its a 235M site and its not being used to its full potential but didnt object to the project as I like the modern look of this building although like most projects in Sydney, city 1 could and should be a tallie.

^ welcome! Thanks for joining our righteous crusade :)

Hi Im new to ssc, (have been using web page for a while now though).. :). I also have made a submission to the Planning office in the hope this one can go higher or to the height limit possibly, I commented on how its a 235M site and its not being used to its full potential but didnt object to the project as I like the modern look of this building although like most projects in Sydney, city 1 could and should be a tallie.

Welcome and thanks for the contribution!!

And all the way from Gundagai too. I will enjoy reading the submissions when they are eventually published.

thanks, and yep all the way from Gundagai lol :)

Just objected on the basis of its height is tooshort, given it has the potential to be taller, spoke about economic impact, short sighted planning, spacial issues as welll as SCC's moral obligation to allow this to be full height given their own planning rules regarding height must be followed to the later.
Was very difficult not to swear and insist ceertain people get their head out of their arse

That is the approach that you should adopt - rejecting it. Well done.

A reminder to everyone about submissions to Planning NSW. They close at 5pm next Friday, Feburary 18.

Also put a submission in - this was about a week ago, can't remember the details.
Unfortunately forgot to reject it outright.

Hope everyone put their submissions in on this development. I'm not expecting too many Sydney residents or businesses would have made submissions on this project, so I think our objections to lack of height should be quite noticeable. Anything less than 20 submissions from us and I will be disappointed in the effort.

Submissions are on the Department of Planning website for all to see.

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=3177

Of the 33 submissions received, 21 were from us in relation to height - good work guys!!

If it only took a few negative comments to alter the design and bulk for C4 at Barangaroo, we might have done enough to get some extra height for City One...though I won't hold my breath. Some of the comments from other people who oppose the project are bizarre (someone was worried about a statue in the park????). One submission from some private firm wants the proposal further reduced in height to ~RL129m!!

Submissions are on the Department of Planning website for all to see.

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=3177

Of the 33 submissions received, 21 were from us in relation to height - good work guys!!

If it only took a few negative comments to alter the design and bulk for C4 at Barangaroo, we might have done enough to get some extra height for City One...though I won't hold my breath. Some of the comments from other people who oppose the project are bizarre (someone was worried about a statue in the park????). One submission from some private firm wants the proposal further reduced in height to ~RL129m!!

Overshadowing of the statue :ohno: RL129m! :bash: Poofters

I've noticed many heeded my advice to submit as an objection on the grounds of height. Some even went for other which is OK. Well done.

One submission was from Toowong (Brisbane) and one from Morwell, Victoria. I assume that they were forumers from here.

I got blackmailed into it. Morwell disagrees with such a lame height.

Overshadowing of the statue :ohno: RL129m! :bash: Poofters

Were the complainants homosexual?

What happened to submissions 1-29? Looks like only 29-33 is displayed.

Submission 4 is a classic!

"too modern looking, therefore I oppose it!"

lol

All the objections I read relate to short term issues. They are short-sighted and focussed only on the immediate impact, real or feared, on their businesses, whether it is an existing shop or the connection to Margaret Street/Metro Centre.
Typical lack of vision and typical self-interest with no concern for or consideration of the development and progress of the city or its future needs specific to Wynyard or the greater CBD area.

One was by a newsagent who renewed their lease just recently, and they are opposite the STA Shop in that small retail complex which is set to disappear as part of the redevelopment. Apparently he wants more information too as part of the submission.

Someone didn't do his research and needs a new solicitor.

Nameless, click on Public Files then submissions at the following link;

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=3177

They're all there.

^^Ahh there we go, thanks :cheers:

Response to Submissions has been posted on the Department of Planning's website. It is now awaiting approval.

Unfortunately we have had no luck in getting a revision of height, the tower will remain 146m. Our concerns were 'noted' :nuts:

Additionally, a 6m setback from Shell House and a 3.5m setback from Carrington Street will be created.

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=3177

Sydney City Council had the usual whinge over the height as well with the sunlight access into Wynyard Park.

Sky is the limit - Can you please provide the page number in the report where the height concerns were 'noted' by those who contributed submissions?

AFR

Property
Thakral's Wynyard site draws interest
Ben Wilmot
Developers and passive investors are
circling key Sydney properties as the
market readies for a new round of
projects to begin.
At least two major groups are
believed to have recently approached
Thakral Holdings about its Wynyard
property, where a mixed−use project
worth up to$1.3 billion is planned.
Thakralis understood to have held
talks with industry superannuation
fund−backed Cbus last year, but more
players have approached the hotel
and development group directly.
•Developers have held talks with
Thakral for years but interest has
spiked as the project's start date has
neared. While parties are believed to
want Thakral to secure necessary
state government approvals, a major
stake in the project is believed to be
available.
The site, including The Menzies
hotel, is thought to be valued by
Thakral at about $2.20 million,
but development approval would
increase this by at least 10 per cent.
A buyer would also need to finance
the project, which would transform
the area above and around Wynyard
station.
The site is being keenly sought by
developers due to its fortuitous tim−
ing and the desire of some major ten−
ants for an alternative to Lend
Lease's $0.06 billion Barangaroo devel−
opment.
The Thakralsitehas the advantage
of being above Wynyard station and
part of an improving precinctinSyd−
ney's financial hear tland.
Some tenants are daunted by the
scale of Barangaroo andthe prospect
that even the largest occupiers will
have to share offices.
The Wynyard site has attracted
interest from Ernst &. Young, among
others, as it could seek naming rights
to the development.
The scheme could launch in 2015
as a host of major tenants come off
their lease terms.
A start at that time may attractpri−
vate developer Grocon as it will have
completed the S800 million develop−
ment at 161 Castlereagh Street.
The project's scale may also put it
on the radar of international players,
like LaSalle Investment Manage−
ment, which has S1 billion to spend.
Some Australian real estate invest−
ment trusts or wholesale funds would
be interested in buying a stake in the
completed complex.
Thakral was under pressure to
off load assets but this has all but dis−
appeared with this week's sale of the
Novotel Melbourne on Collins hotel
and the Australia on Collins retail
complex to LaSalle for S204 million.
UBS analysts said investors in
Thakral were focused on the progress
of the group's main Sydney project
which will span about 60,000 square
metres of office space and 8000 sqm
of retail space.
Analysts said the planning appli−
cation was under assessment by the
NSW Department of Planning,
although State Rail's attitude and
potential tenant interest were also
hurdles.
Thakral managing director John
Hudson was unable to be contacted.
Elsewhere in the city, Westfield
Group is getting direct approaches
from large institutional funds inter−
ested in a stake in its 85 Castlereagh
Street tower.
The property, whose tenants will
include investment bank JPMorgan,
is worth more than $4.00 million.
The shopping centre group indi−
cated to the market it is chasing a sale
price that will reflect a 6 per cent
capitalisation rate. However, it is
refusing to deal until the retail tenan−
cies are finalised.

So I'm assuming that approval can't be too far away considering they have pressed on with their responses to submissions??

I saw a notice for a joint regional panel meeting for next week for the Eastern Region (Sydney City Council is in it) and it's not on the agenda for this month.

small article in todays fin rev mentions Brookfield are interested in building Cityone. but want to go partners with another firm.

John Laws was mentioning on his 2SM show this morning (25/5/2011) that Clover Moore will allow 21 carparking spots as part of the project given the tower is one of most accessible sites in Sydney in terms of public transport.

Laws thinks it has to do with Council plans to make people park on the streets to raise money for the meters. He also called it "One Wynyard".

The Sydney Morning Herald (18/6/2011) reports that Grocon are interested in purchasing the D/A as suggested in the AFR article posted by Cariad on May 5, 2011. Apparently Thrakal could fetch $220 million from the sale of the site.

Is this because Thakral want out, or Grocon want in? Surely Thakral would see the building through to completion now that they've finally got a D/A for the site?

Though maybe now they have a marketable product it's easier to sell...

The latter.
It's what Grocon did with 163 Castlereagh - and what Meriton is doing these days (fortunately!). Getting the DA approval can often be the hard part.

interesting
todays fin rev
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5445/p1000246w.jpg

Interesting but it will depend on whether a new owner retains the complex as is, builds the current proposal or goes for something more adventurous and more appropriate for the site.

Quick question... Was this tower at some stage planned to reach the 235 metre height limit? + Has this been rejected outright if it had? But overall from what I have flicked through it is such an interesting design!!!

^yes it was originally submitted at 235m conceptual stage.
maybe it may rise again from 150m to 200m+. i dont think this current concept will proceed.

The design is outstanding though, so hopefully they just bump up the height.

I hope Westfield dont end up with the D/A. Cannot stand another Westfield in central Sydney. I know they build whatever is on the drawing board, but I could not stand their presence.

^yes it was originally submitted at 235m conceptual stage.
maybe it may rise again from 150m to 200m+. i dont think this current concept will proceed.

Hope so especially with the upgrades planned to cater to Barangaroo.

^^

I don't think Westfield will take it over :lol:

^yes it was originally submitted at 235m conceptual stage.
maybe it may rise again from 150m to 200m+. i dont think this current concept will proceed.

Thakral was adament in their response to submissions that the height would not rise due to the overshadowing of the GPO steps. What is the likelihood a new developer would want to whack on some extra height, particularly if the DA is approved?

On the topic of the DA, is this why it is taking so long for it to be approved?

Red tape but developments at state level are always slow to go through the process.

I hope Westfield dont end up with the D/A. Cannot stand another Westfield in central Sydney. I know they build whatever is on the drawing board, but I could not stand their presence.



Hope so especially with the upgrades planned to cater to Barangaroo.

The current centre is not exactly making wads of cash, i hardly think they want another centre that close.

Keep in mind it only has just been redeveloped.

As long as the old wooden escalators are kept Ill be happy =)

I like the old escalators because they are the only examples left of wooden escalators in Sydney.

wooden escalators are what caused the KX fire in London. I admire their old world charm...but there must be safety arrangements made

No it was the grease mixed with decades of discard trashed inside the escalators that caused the fire as they had not been cleaned since they were originally installed in the 1940s.

todays finrev
Thakral’s Sydney site in limbo
Thakral’s $250 million Wynyard complex in the Sydney CBD is clouded by approval for proposals it made to this and previous governments.

Here we go again.

i reckon start again/

And with a lot more creative ambition!

Screw that lost hour of sunshine on the GPO steps at 1-2pm on June 22nd. People can sit a few metres to the east for the duration without suffering vitamin deficiency.

This location, from every conceivable viewpoint, demands a signature tower, an imposing and lofty one.

yeah agree. set it back and squeeze it up like a big pimple. 200m minimum

The approval process has been a long and draining one. The red tape has been the main problems and a lack of support from government agencies like Railcorp that actually would benefit from such a project.

Totally agree with Brizer! The lack of sun argument is definitely a one sided view! If we were to take into account the valuable shade it provides in summer we could cancel out this with the negatives of the shade in winter which then again a simple jumper would suffice.

I think the shadow issue shows how the most minscule issues add to the red tape of building in Sydney's CBD.

interesting
todays finrev
Westfield warms to Wynyard
Westfield Group is considering a play for the $250 million Wynyard Complex in Sydney being sold by Thakral Holdings.

looks like frank lowy has breathed air into this project. its gonna happen guys!
love the 3rd paragraph!
own template? sounds proising. 235m here we come!

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7154/6473701185_bf5e95d1e3_b.jpg

Thats a huge turn around. I think we have also been taken by surprise as well.
I strongly agree with Westfield building office towers - look at 85 Castlereagh Street for starters.
As for the retail side, that will be a big challenge.

An interesting development in the ongoing saga that is City One!

Fabian, I thought you were opposed to Westfield taking up this development site? Must say it is a bit of a surprise!

This is probably one of the best redevelopment sites in the CBD for a company like Westfield. Right above one of the busiest train stations in Australia with major bus routes and (in future) a light rail line running on either side of it.

I wonder just how far Westfield (if the talk becomes reality) would be willing to rework the plans? The site virtually demands a landmark tower and that means WE NEED EXTRA HEIGHT!! I would like for the Thakral proposal to go ahead, just with more height...I think it is a great looking tower.

This could be a way for Westfield to also minimise the impact of the likes of Barangaroo on its retail and commercial interests in the CBD.

Great news! 200m + please :)

I doubt 200m will be achievable with the floor plate size requirements of modern business. With the FSR expect around 150m. Another site wrecked by City of Sydney's regulations.

dont be so sure ;)

150m buildings in that part of the CBD look silly especially with the big three at Barangaroo being built. 180m-200m seems like a more reasonable height.

400m seems like a more reasonable height.

An interesting development in the ongoing saga that is City One!

Fabian, I thought you were opposed to Westfield taking up this development site? Must say it is a bit of a surprise!

This is probably one of the best redevelopment sites in the CBD for a company like Westfield. Right above one of the busiest train stations in Australia with major bus routes and (in future) a light rail line running on either side of it.

I wonder just how far Westfield (if the talk becomes reality) would be willing to rework the plans? The site virtually demands a landmark tower and that means WE NEED EXTRA HEIGHT!! I would like for the Thakral proposal to go ahead, just with more height...I think it is a great looking tower.

This could be a way for Westfield to also minimise the impact of the likes of Barangaroo on its retail and commercial interests in the CBD.

It's only my commentary on the article - doesnt mean that I like the idea of Westfield taking over. If I am going to oppose it, it will be in terms of the retail complex. The property side of it (office tower) is ok.

Well it is probably better that a professional shopping centre management operates the retail complex rather than a property developer like many of the centres in the southern end of the CBD.

Look at the failure of retail in Lumiere (Frasers Property) has been even though it sits on the corner of George and Bathurst Streets directly opposite Town Hall.

Stockland are probably the best alternative. AMP shopping centres are also well managed. Centro I would not recommend because they have wrecked shopping centres including some very well known ones.

Colonial First State (CFS) which manages Chadstone in Melbourne and QueensPlaza in Brisbane is a good option, but it's doubtful that any of the companies mentioned (apart from obviously Westfield and maybe Stockland) would be able to deliver a fully integrated mixed used development worth over $A1 billion, particularly during uncertain economic times.

Thinking about the Thakral proposal (150m), why is it limited to this height when the DA is being assessed by the DoP and not SCC? The DoP did not take into consideration (to the same extent) shadows for Barangaroo, or in suburban developments such as Metro Residences in Chatswood. Is it just that Thakral didn't want to step on the toes of council? What makes it any more likely that Westfield or another develop would want to go above 150m?

In saying that, is it possible council could be appeased if Westfield bought one or several of the adjacent properties and thus had extra FSR? Or is the issue of shadowing the GPO steps in winter too great for council.

id ignore the 150m height. i think its all going to be a whole new ball game now.
westfield will submit a dif enevlope. cant wait. hopefully it all starts next year,so we have another site to watch closely. i think we maybe suprised.
this has the potential to be a landmark development.!
think about it-
railway station,
incredible george st address,
potential iconic design on skyline
westfields $$$.
gonna be good.

After speaking with an engineer last night who was briefly involved in plans for this site. She said that the issues lay with foundation for the above building. 150m height is achieved by little interference with the rail station below. Basically saying that to support a higher building the need for supporting columns is greater and this impacts greatly on the access to Wynyard station. In order to build higher would be a massive engineering task and probably not financially viable. Getting access to the CoS laneway resolves some issues and may get more height and bulk but she thinks getting a real tall skyscraper in un achievable with this site.
The rail bodies want this to go ahead, as does council. There is a lot of support but the money it will take to achieve this is astounding. It would mean almost starting from scratch and that is something that cannot be justified financially and logistically as it would render Wynyard closed for sometime.

^^
I'm a bit confused as to what the foundations/supporting columns for City One have to do with access to the station considering the station is beneath Wynyard Park? Wouldn't Wynyard Walkways need to be closed to permit the construction of the new retail podium anyway? Is it not possible to redirect commuters to the station via Wynyard Street and Margaret Street if and when Wynyard Walkways are closed for construction?

Been a bit confused about that one myself. Surely if they can do it in Paris or New York or London, etc, etc, ETC, they could manage it in Sydney? Maybe they should try harder.

Yeah, one would think that the Wynyard Walkways could be entirely demolished rebuilt, and the station will still be fully accessible from York Street.
But knowing CityRail, they probably have no interest in this.

Railcorp just want to make excuses all the time about developments in and around stations. At least this site is being handled by Planning NSW, not the Sydney City Council or another authority.

The laneway that runs through the site - apart from being used from deliveries, is there any provision to move this underground at all?

After speaking with an engineer last night who was briefly involved in plans for this site. She said that the issues lay with foundation for the above building. 150m height is achieved by little interference with the rail station below. Basically saying that to support a higher building the need for supporting columns is greater and this impacts greatly on the access to Wynyard station. In order to build higher would be a massive engineering task and probably not financially viable. Getting access to the CoS laneway resolves some issues and may get more height and bulk but she thinks getting a real tall skyscraper in un achievable with this site.
The rail bodies want this to go ahead, as does council. There is a lot of support but the money it will take to achieve this is astounding. It would mean almost starting from scratch and that is something that cannot be justified financially and logistically as it would render Wynyard closed for sometime.
thats real disapointing.:bash: maybe they should just demolish and make a nice park.:lol:

I've been reading over the documents on the DoP website and have established (others would have already realised this) that the 235m height limit is only applicable to a northern portion of the George Street frontage and the rest of the site is impacted by sun access. So it is unlikely to expect a dramatic height increase on the site even if Thakral offloads it - SCC assessing or not.

That said, a company like Westfield might be interested in buying some of the adjacent properties (particularly along George Street). The height limit for the properties north of Thakral House on George Street is 235m, thus with a bigger site, Westfield could build a 235m tower to the north of Thakral House and a shorter tower to the south.

I imagine Westfield would be at least interested in buying adjacent properties to expand the retail footprint - 9,700 sq m is hardly a big retail component for one of the world's biggest owners of shopping centres.

Thoughts?

The retail footprint would be a minimum of 1/5th the size of a typical Westfield.

Pity they can't buy up the entire block George/Wynyard/Carrington/Margaret - then they'd have a site worth a bit and a better development. Apart from Shell House (cnr Carrington & Margaret) I don't think there are any heritage listed buildings there, except maybe that small one just back from Margaret Street on George (camera store in the basement?).

^^
Under the Thakral proposal Shell House is going to be gutted with only the facade to remain. Any other buildings that got annexed would probably get the same treatment.

I think Westfield would certainly look to buy out neighbouring properties...not sure that other potential bidders would though.

What??? I hope they retain the clock tower.

^^
Perhaps I didn't word that properly - the interior of Shell House is proposed to be gutted but the exterior (facade and clock tower) will remain.

Thrakal have upped the anti as they should for upgrade of Wynyard Station.

From The Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au)
Owner dangles $18m carrot for Wynyard tower
Jacob Saulwick
January 28, 2012

THE property group wanting to build a 29-storey tower above Wynyard Station is arguing the proposal will improve safety of the station, which now falls well below standards required by modern building codes.

The developer has also sweetened its application to build on the site, offering the NSW government a $18.5 million cash payment if it approves the deal. Thakral Holdings, the owner of the building now above Wynyard Station, lodged a revised development plan for the project late last year after the state government objected to earlier aspects of the scheme.

The development is unusual in that it would involve turning land now on public space at Wynyard Station into a commercial area that would generate rental income for the developer.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Thakral has offered $18.5 million to the government to spend on improvements in Wynyard Park and the area around the station. The money could be used, Thakral says, to build a connection to a walkway to Barangaroo.

Thakral also argues that without its development the government would have to spend about $40 million to bring the concourse of Wynyard station into line with the latest building and disability access codes. Studies commissioned by Thakral show many areas where Wynyard fails to satisfy requirements of the latest building code.

The Herald has tried to access safety reports into Sydney's underground rail but freedom of information requests have been rejected by RailCorp, which cites security grounds.

Thakral wants to sell the Wynyard site. Possible bidders include larger firms Westfield and Grocon. But it is also continuing to negotiate with the state government to win approval for the development, which would re-create the existing concourse area and street links of Wynyard Station. The main public benefit of the proposal would be a new ''transit hall'' for the area between George and Carrington streets, with much higher ceilings and the opportunity to provide natural lighting.

The Department of Transport, which has hired Savills to assess the proposal, has previously argued against the plan's use of former tram tunnels underneath Wynyard that it hopes could be used again for public transport.

The City of Sydney opposes the proposal, arguing that it provides insufficient public benefit, provides excessive car parking and is set too close to Wynyard Park on Carrington Street.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/owner-dangles-18m-carrot-for-wynyard-tower-20120127-1qlln.html#ixzz1kicCA92R

Which enemy or enemies of the city of Sydney is the CofS council working for?!
It is determined to disable, stymie, truncate, undermine, subvert, cripple, white-ant, deny, betray, emasculate, discourage, demolish and generally destroy Sydney as progressive, living, developing city.
Who is paying the councillors and the planning staff of CofS to do this?
Beggars belief!

Sadly its the NIMBY constitutents who elected their fellow NIMBY's to represent them.

Railcorp are the real problem in this instance knocking back an incredibly good offer for a station upgrade.

True, but I was incensed by that last paragraph containing the CofS 'assessement', thus my rant.

cofs opposes because of a lack of public benefit? Seriously they must oppose it before even reading the proposal papers......

If I was a NIMBIE I would at least do others the common courtesy of living in a place like Dural so that every developer and councillor can get on with their business...

Which enemy or enemies of the city of Sydney is the CofS council working for?!

They have surely been infiltrated by spies from Melbourne, don't see how locals could have this much contempt for Sydney.

There are plenty of locals that have contempt for Sydney and they are the ones we always have to surrender to.

Like I said in another post why do the small minority have such a big political representation? Most people wouldn't care or know what was going on in the development side of the inner city.

And people will often elect politicans because of their stand on other issues and not urban development.

FinReview:

Wynyard tower awaits experts’ nod

PUBLISHED: 6 hours 13 MINUTES AGO | UPDATE: 1 hour 51 MINUTES AGO PUBLISHED: 31 Jan 2012 PRINT EDITION: 31 Jan 2012

Thakral Holdings’ proposal for a $1.3 billion mixed-use tower above Wynyard Station in Sydney’s central business district was referred to the NSW Planning Assessment Commission on Monday

some pictures of the design concept...

http://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/article/Major-tower-plans-considered-over-Sydneys-Wynyard-Station/533318.aspx

http://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/Uploads/PressReleases/infotoday/Images-20120201/120201_wynyard.JPG

This image justifies why the tower should be 235 metres.

http://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/Uploads/PressReleases/infotoday/Images-20120201/120201_wynyard3.JPG

You'd barely notice it.

I was reading through some of the submissions again to the Department of Planning in relation to the concept plan. I just hope that they took the overwhelming feedback calling for height increases.

very interesting design, don't think we have anything like it in a australia.

This image justifies why the tower should be 235 metres.

http://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/Uploads/PressReleases/infotoday/Images-20120201/120201_wynyard3.JPG

You'd barely notice it.

I was reading through some of the submissions again to the Department of Planning in relation to the concept plan. I just hope that they took the overwhelming feedback calling for height increases.

In their response to submissions, they noted the lack of height and then went on to briefly (and lamely) state why no height increase will happen.

In their response to submissions, they noted the lack of height and then went on to briefly (and lamely) state why no height increase will happen.

Where can this response be found? I've looked through here and do not see this addressed in the response to submissions, they make no acknowledgement of the public complaints about lack of height. They just say that there are concerns about overshadowing the GPO.
http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=3177

But I can say that the concept plan has been recommended for approval.

I am guessing they were complaining that height increases would increase pedestrian and other forms of traffic, and that the site would not be able to deal with it due to its lack of transport infrastructure =p

From reading the report, they want to make sure that they comply with the planning guidelines consistent with Sydney City Council. By doing that, Thrakal can have the support of council.

And these planning guidelines will half the floor plate size due to the 55m height limit on Carrington Street, making it even more of a wasted site, in terms of using the cities limited space to satisfy office demand.

Once Thakral has approval it can confidently maximise the price asked for the site/project.
The Pollyanna in me hopes the buyer will be more aggressive in pursuing a taller version of what is a pretty promising building design.

The current proposal is already aggressive and going beyond City of Sydney's regulations...
Reading the documents, it violates in 3 areas.
1. exceeds the 55m height limit between Wynard lane and Carrington Street.
2. Doesn't have set backs from Carrington Street, City of Sydney wants 8m at least.
3. Overshadowing GPO and Martin Place

To get extra height we would need the NSW government to support it, they seem to be willing to support the current design even though it violates the council regulations, but they have misgivings about overruling the council, I doubt they would give a 235m version approval...
Sigh, City of Sydney's over-regulation keeps giving us mediocre buildings...

It certainly doesn't encourage creative, ambitious or imaginative architectural solutions, in fact, it actively discourages them. Though given the mindless restrictions and hostile council & its planners, this is a remarkably interesting design.

Certain forum members have pretty thoroughly discounted the validity & rationale of the council's rules and regulations governing this and other projects, for being arbitrary, silly and unduly bureaucratic throughout this & other threads.

I sometimes think our council and its planners are 1950s Sunday School teachers from an small isolated rural village somehow isolated into a future time by an unfortunate, for us especially, schism in time.

It's amazing that council sees no public benefit - I see plenty!

The Wynyard Walkways are seedy. If Thakral or the eventual developer went about reconstructing the concourse as promised, it would be more user friendly with a level gradient. It would also reduce energy usage if natural light was able to pass through into the concourse. Guess council doesn't care much about the public or the environment?

You are right because its quite a steep gradient as you walk down from George Street but also the ceilings are quite low. Even the walkway from 60 Margaret Street has narrow ceilings. If you want lift access, you have to go to Carrington Street at present and thats a climb for some if coming from George Street.

It's amazing that council sees no public benefit - I see plenty!

The Wynyard Walkways are seedy. If Thakral or the eventual developer went about reconstructing the concourse as promised, it would be more user friendly with a level gradient. It would also reduce energy usage if natural light was able to pass through into the concourse. Guess council doesn't care much about the public or the environment?

They are essentially saying the improvements are useless.
To quote
"It is noted that the capacity improvement of Wynyard railway station as a result of the private development project is somewhat over-stated in the EA report as it will have no effect on the number of trains, number of platforms or the area of pedestrian congestion which is likely to grow more to the western side of the station rather than the eastern side, particularly given the Barangaroo development and the important proposed Barangaroo Pedestrian Link."

The redevelopment of North Sydney station achieved similar objectives such as letting in natural light and a ceiling with a bit of height which are all things that are desired by the people dulled by the monotony of some stations. This shows that cityrail has more initiative then the CoS council. Dull times we live in...

And increasing capacity as well and they pulled it all off despite the limitations around here.

Hmm i find this development boring 150m tower not worth the chaos that will be caused from the construction. I hope this does not get approved. Id rather what is there now than the possible disruption for a 150m office building that really should be built in one year and not cost so much. what a waste.

Chaos and distruption? All you'd have to do is walk to York Street....

Hmm i find this development boring 150m tower not worth the chaos that will be caused from the construction. I hope this does not get approved. Id rather what is there now than the possible disruption for a 150m office building that really should be built in one year and not cost so much. what a waste.

If it was 235 metres, you'd be happy to support it?

If it was 235 metres, you'd be happy to support it?

Its not so much the number 2-3-5 itself but what a tower 235m would effectively be = more floorspace. Should construction begin there will be detours, redirecting passenger traffic, redirecting normal traffic, narrowing of strips, noise, hazards, etc for what? an extra 10 floors or so from what is already there? I am sorry but that is just ridiculous. And 1.3 billion dollars!? come off it what a waste of money go feed the poor it would be money better spent.

1.3 billion dollars may be spent on an amazing building

The Wynyard Walkways are seedy. If Thakral or the eventual developer went about reconstructing the concourse as promised, it would be more user friendly with a level gradient. It would also reduce energy usage if natural light was able to pass through into the concourse. Guess council doesn't care much about the public or the environment?

Not to mention a complete and utter disorganised rabbit warren. If the shopping centres (Metcentre and Hunter Connection) ajoining the station are counted, Wynyard contains two food courts and two supermarkets :nuts:

I agree with motion... We should be patient until there is the possibility that there can be something substantial put on the site.

Any new development will incur some disruption to normal services and at street level.

THis should most certainly NOT go ahead until a suitably large development can be built on the site, this site should be a Sydney's tallest building. It's a landmark location above one of Australias busiest transport hubs for buses and rail. The current proposal is ludicrous in scale and potential.

THis should most certainly NOT go ahead until a suitably large development can be built on the site, this site should be a Sydney's tallest building. It's a landmark location above one of Australias busiest transport hubs for buses and rail. The current proposal is ludicrous in scale and potential.

This might amuse you, from the Response to submissions.

https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/20f8bd44da168fa76b606350525f48ad/Preferred%20Project%20Report.pdf


Carrington Street Frontage
Central Sydney DCP 1996 sets out a range of objectives in relation street frontage
heights and front building setbacks. The DCP considers that buildings over 45
metres high built at the street alignment can result in:
 overshadowed streets,
 reduced daylight to pedestrians and lower levels of other buildings,
 unpleasant wind conditions,
 pedestrians overwhelmed by the height of buildings,
 poor growing conditions for street trees.

It makes me furious actually.

This might amuse you, from the Response to submissions.

https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/20f8bd44da168fa76b606350525f48ad/Preferred%20Project%20Report.pdf

LOL, I have an image of people walking down the street, Open mouthed and suddenly stumbling back when they see the building. Perhaps there is a new employment opportunity for people to sell smelling salts outside?

This might amuse you, from the Response to submissions.

https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/20f8bd44da168fa76b606350525f48ad/Preferred%20Project%20Report.pdf

what the farrrkkk :nuts:

I dont think people would be overwhelmed by the tower in a negative way. They would be curious to see how big it is. :)

THis should most certainly NOT go ahead until a suitably large development can be built on the site, this site should be a Sydney's tallest building. It's a landmark location above one of Australias busiest transport hubs for buses and rail. The current proposal is ludicrous in scale and potential.

Did you put a submission Avatar? I'd be disappointed if you didnt. Alot of people would agree with you there.

since i am a scientist i like formulas and this fails my formula/law i like to call "the suburban test"
Its just something I have devised from a scientific point of view. If a building (for a prominent site in a host city) can be approved and built in a suburban center of that same city then it should most certainly not be built at it's current value.
This building could easily be built in Parramatta, Chatswood or even St Leonards (that is 3 different suburbs) so there is no way it should be built here at its current value.
In general terms, if a building could easily be built in a suburb its not worth building in a prominent city location.

It's not worth building in any city location. It's not even really worthy of Chatswood. The interchange project is far more impressive.

todays finrev
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/252/p1000969s.jpg

I've actually been lucky to land a hard copy of the AFR which I should try and do a proper scan.

The SMH also reported yesterday (28/2/2012) about Thrakral withdrawing Thrakral House from sale.

I'd say we will know by Easter the fate of the tower, and its likely we will get a 500 footer.

It's a great looking tower and (regardless of what Council says) it will have significant benefits for commuters entering and exiting Wynyard Station. I just wish that Wynyard Station and the concourse were substantially enhanced at the same time as the tower is built. Pity.

This has been APPROVED (http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=3177)

I think the height should be adjusted to 146m in the thread title??

And a link to the DA Approval Report

https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/3615ddbb60a16b2ceb602c8e6300f610/PAC%20Report.pdf

Thanks for the update. For those who did send submissions, you may get a letter from Planning NSW to formally notify you of its approval.

This development ticked all the boxes except for height, and thats why I continue to oppose the current plans. I am also disappointed that nothing in relation to height was even raised.

I'm trying to think of some positives here...

When shorter buildings pop up I usually like to refer to a building which punches well above its weight in creating the illusion of great height - HSBC Centre. I honestly used to think it was one of Sydney's tallest. Such presence.

This design is very sexy from the renders seen and hopefully that should translate in real life. With some luck it'll also prompt higher development around Wynyard.

Like Fabian said, there are plenty of positives;
- New glassy office tower
- Interesting design
- Upgraded access points to Wynyard Station
- Improved retail/food offerrings in and around Wynyard Station

The only thing it lacks is height, and that has been well documented on the forum.

this one caught the 'angle place" disease. could have been height limit but chpped in half. imagine the george st half going up to 200m+. would look great.
dont bet me wrong. this is superb design. excelent sharp glassy elements but as everyone has mentioned. lacks height. will be lost on skyline along with nearby similar shaped andle place tower. ;(

The positioning of it may create the illusion that Cityone and Angel Place are part of a multi tower development.

Meanwhile, I do look forward to the massive upgrade of Wynyard Station, which has to happen no matter what happens above street level.

^^
Crossing the bridge I can actually see Angel Place, kind of shocked me the first time I worked that out :lol:

The designs are very similar, but I am glad this one appears to be getting more glass treatment.

I look forward to seeing more detailed designs for the concourse/podium areas.

I wonder if Thakral has commenced lease negotiations with any tenants? Ideally, it would be great if this project was completed before the Barangaroo commercial towers and the new Wynyard Walkway so there are no disruptions once the thousands of additional commuters pour into and out of Wynyard at peak times.

I think this is utter bullshit. It's an outstanding design, but I think it should have been approved based on the associated urgently required upgrades to Wynyard. Barangaroo needs Wynyard, and Wynyard needs City One. This should have been a no brainer trade off that the station is upgraded to get a 200m+ scraper on top. In a few years we'll look at this like we do Space now.

Fin Review:

Thakral gets green light for Wynyard tower

PUBLISHED: 6 hours 29 MINUTES AGO | UPDATE: 2 hours 9 MINUTES AGO PUBLISHED: 10 Apr 2012 PRINT EDITION: 10 Apr 2012

Thakral Holdings’ proposal for a $1.3 billion mixed-use tower above Wynyard Station in Sydney’s central business district has won conditional approval from the NSW Planning Assessment Commission.


Usual rider re full article...anyone?

this makes sense now. Brookfield have sold 115bathurst to concentrate on this baby.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5450/7062867081_b9b9fdc5db_o.jpg

Is there heritage involved? Or can they demolish the old section of the station and basically start again?

wouldnt much heritage with wynyard station

Wynyard has well and truly been mucked about over the years so no heritage though there's bound to be at least one nimby nutter who'll bemoan the loss of an architectural gem. Clearly, blind.

And the other bit of info casually dropped there, Cul: 115 has been sold to whom? Is it not yet finalised?

NB see appropriate thread, b, before commenting, eh?

I'd be sad to see the wooden escalators go.

Is there any opportunity we will get more height or is it done and dusted... + I know it has been mentioned before but little public benefit? What is the council on?

christ almighty 146 is so short. wtf? the current building is already about half the height. sometimes i wonder why developers are so stupid. i am sure if the developer pushed for this thing to be taller they would have gotten it.

I'd be sad to see the wooden escalators go.

Thats the only old aspect of Wynyard Station thats left and really the only worth keeping.

Any jobs over the years have been band aid jobs or patched on. Very little integeration.

unfortunalty large floor plates are what developers and cliental are after in the cBD not views anymore. i painted it grey today (model) and looks great .its a fantastic tower. but yes so short.atleadt brookfield are moving forward with thakral and this may see light of day very soon.

^^
It'll definitely be interesting to see what happens with Brookfield and this site. Why would they show particular interest in this project over 115 Bathurst? Is this one more likely to turn a big profit?

The way things are going with the other projects on George Street, this could be the next tower under construction on George!

unfortunalty large floor plates are what developers and cliental are after in the cBD not views anymore. i painted it grey today (model) and looks great .its a fantastic tower. but yes so short.atleadt brookfield are moving forward with thakral and this may see light of day very soon.

The mind boggles at this :bash: It is a fantastic looking tower though I agree.

Excuse my ignorance but where is the Thakral site? Is that the one across from Martin Place?

^^
As in where is this site?

Wynyard Walkways, directly above entrance to Wynyard Station from George Street. McDonalds and Hungry Jacks at the entrance

^^ Are City One and Thakral the same site?

unfortunalty large floor plates are what developers and cliental are after in the cBD not views anymore. i painted it grey today (model) and looks great .its a fantastic tower. but yes so short.atleadt brookfield are moving forward with thakral and this may see light of day very soon.

No don't blame developers or clients, they're entitled to build the floor plates that work for their operations. The blame rests solely with City of Sydney.

^^ Are City One and Thakral the same site?

Yes.

Thats the only old aspect of Wynyard Station thats left and really the only worth keeping.

Any jobs over the years have been band aid jobs or patched on. Very little integeration.


Huge fire hazard though...

No don't blame developers or clients, they're entitled to build the floor plates that work for their operations. The blame rests solely with City of Sydney.

I concour. I dont see anything wrong with clients demanding big floor plates. The FSR means that they cannot make them tall.

So Sydney CBD is now 8:1, so what does everyone reckon they need to go to to get a significant increase in height?

sydneys FSR
its 12.1 with bonuses which can increase it slightly
resi dev is 17.1

Hmm? The LEP says 8:1.
See http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/development/documents/PlansAndPolicies/LEP2005/sydney_lep_2005_central_sydney_fsr_sht_1.pdf

Note for context, by comparison to the high end of the scale, NYC uses FSR, with ratios set at 10:1 to 15:1 for midtown and lower Manhattan. Makes buildings with roof heights above 300m uncommon, but they get a lot of 200m to 250m buildings. Shanghai and Dubai do not appear to have floor area regulations.

how bizzare? its always been 12;1 and 17;1? maybe its dif with other additons /provisions ect

I think it actually contributes to more shade... As NY seems to have a solid block of 200-250 m buildings as you say... We seem to be getting this with a solid block of 100-150 m buildings so a variation that has a couple of talls would reduce this... Don't really know why council hates tall buildings its not like a developer is going to build a tower of babel

Most developers won't even go above the 250ish mark, only really the more serious ones. So I too don't see why the council worries so much,....

architecture&design

Nothing new here, but it might, should people actually read as opposed to skim, the text, answer a few frequently asked questions.

New billion dollar tower approved over Sydney's Wynyard Station

11 April 2012 | by Madeline Prince

The proposal for a $1.3 billion tower to be built above Wynard Station in Sydney received approval from the NSW Planning Assessment Commission last week.

Property group Thakral Holdings, which owns the building above the train station, lodged a revised development plan for the project late last year following state government objections to earlier plans.

The City One Wynyard concept design has been developed by Hassell, and it proposes to build a 29-storey tower above the station which includes a new shopping centre and office building.

The plans were approved for the commercial building as it was found that it would provide sufficient benefit to the public and government.

The development will include:

An upgrade to eastern access ways into Wynyard station as well as retail areas and concourse layout.
Use of the building as a mixed use development including commercial offices, business premises, shops, and general retail, food and drink premises, health/medical centre, public amenities, transport facilities and tenant car parking.
Development of the Shell House including refurbishment for commercial and retail use.
The project is deemed to be an important part of the plans to revamp the city and create easier access between Barangaroo South Office towers and the city centre.

Hassell says the underlying design philosophy for the City One development is to celebrate the activity of the precinct on the concourse and to capture as much daylight as possible.

The Concept design aspires to a 6 Star Green Star rating, with the following major features:

Daylight and quality of commercial office environment
Location to public transportation
Capacity for natural ventilation through the double skin façade
Efficient Mechanical systems
Rainwater harvesting
Low energy lighting systems
Waste Recycling
Modular construction


xxx***xxx
The fact that it's such a good design just seems to make it that much more painful that it's not a whole lot taller.
Still...Sydney these days seems to be settling for the best of what might have been. It has become a city of compromise & not quite good enough.

how bizzare? its always been 12;1 and 17;1? maybe its dif with other additons /provisions ect

What I dont understand is that they are happy to allow more intensive development of a site if its residential, yet they will not do it for office.

Trust me, it should be 17:1 minimum for any development that is commercial in nature and would put that into line with residential development.

I reckon it's a truly beautiful building. The only reason it's deemed not good enough is the height. It's a shame. Hopefully we come to appreciate it like we do 1 Bligh. 150m is still pretty sizeable.

Without a doubt, it will still be a good building.

Let's throw the height out the window now. Everyone knows about it - the horse has bolted and it ain't coming back.

The two best things about this project...
1. The significant improvements that will be made to the Wynyard Concourse as well as George Street & Carrington Street entrances
2. The external design

Something that hasn't been mentioned - this project will see the loss of the Menzies Hotel. Much has been made of the lack of hotel rooms in Sydney and the loss of the Menzies would be a setback to increasing the number of hotel rooms.

The Menzies hotel is one of those ugly outdated buildings that Chris Johnson was ranting about, glad to see it go. But isn't the next door Shell House also part of the Menzies?

And listed, so retained in the new development.

The Sydney Morning Herald also had an article in the business section of yesterdays paper (11/4/2012).

recent piccie of model. nice grey colour,
will have a nice silouette on skyline. sydney will be full of angled roofs.

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/822/p1010131uj.jpg

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/7047/cityonesection.jpg

Some aerial site photos. The grey building is Thrakal House.

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/8074/img7994v.jpg
By fabianamuso (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/fabianamuso) at 2012-04-13

The Menzies Hotel is behind it, separated by the laneway.

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/387/img7995o.jpg
By fabianamuso (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/fabianamuso) at 2012-04-13

Fantastic photos Fabs. It really puts this project in perspective.

Say what you want about its height, but this is a huge tower for this sector of town. It's going to be a wonderful, wonderful skyscraper. Look at what's around it! :banana:

Bit of a stretch, but any chance this could be seen from Pyrmont/CQ?

I assume so. Angel Place is easily visible with the naked eye and there is little in the way to block it.

Walked thru' Wynyard concourse on Friday and for Council to say plan doesn't offer any public benefit is beyond stupid. Anything would have to be better than what is there now ergo, it would be of IMMENSE public benefit.

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/7047/cityonesection.jpg

I can't believe this is barely as high as the Met Centre (former Westpac Plaza)?? and yes the angled roof is nice but it will not be visible from the north, south, east, and (maybe) west. i really wish this thing could have been higher.

My hope is that is leads to more development in the area. This is the case across the whole city. Sure they may be shorter, but this is the situation currently. In time I believe things will change, but for the moment it's important to replace the ugly, forgotten buildings around the city with sexier ones. Tall will come later. It is just a matter of time.

Garga - Met Centre is still pretty tall from ground level (and is an eyesore at that). It'll be nice to see something rising of a superior quality and height.

Then my question is, what sites are left to build on, and there arent many within that part of town.

The Wynyard Station upgrade does favours for the ADPG towers. :)

garg, not sure about diagram, but metcentre is Rl146m and Amora hotel 140m, not sure why they appear higher?
the Rl for proposed city one is 158m

garg, not sure about diagram, but metcentre is Rl146m and Amora hotel 140m, not sure why they appear higher?
the Rl for proposed city one is 158m

really? i didnt realize! one would hope that planning documents submitted to council would be accurate.

anyway thanks for clarification

EDIT: actually on closer inspection, I believe I'm wrong, the diagram is accurate; it is, after all, a section through the building, and thus the 'cut' depicted is not representative of a 'full height' portion of the building, which would be depicted in a section cut further north on the site. looking closer at the diagram, i can see the profile of the building projected in dashed lines to the rear of the section; it is indeed a smudge taller than the MetCentre and Amora Hotel.

yes its a section. i realised after

this model pic shows its taller. even taller then angle place
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/822/p1010131uj.jpg

^^
Thanks for that shot Cul! It's great to see the detail that has gone into the model - the bubble/3D glass effect will be interesting on the final product!

Walked thru' Wynyard concourse on Friday and for Council to say plan doesn't offer any public benefit is beyond stupid. Anything would have to be better than what is there now ergo, it would be of IMMENSE public benefit.

Agreed.

The Wynyard Walkways look like a large McDonalds from the 1990s, the ramp is somewhat inhibiting for some commuters and the layout resembles that of a rabbit warren.

By centralising the walkways, removing the slope up/down from George Street and creating clearer streetfront entrances, access to the concourse will be considerably improved. It will also potentially open up Wynyard Lane for small businesses.

I'm interested in how the upgrade of the walkways will be staged to minimise disruption for commuters.

the tower form actually reminds me somewhat of 2WTC by Norman Foster.

both of them can be read as four smaller 'towers' making up the quadrants of a larger overall skyscraper.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66462508/original.jpg

^^
Yep, it definitely has 2WTC qualities.

Both are great buildings however 2WTC is a level above IMO because it's less bulky and its slenderness makes it look more elegant.

And it's a helluva lot taller. Sigh.