i was looking at wikipedia - http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Sydney
and, as you can see, City One, is it true or not
because i cant find no more information on it.

rule no 1. never rely on wiki-friggen- pedia for accurate info.
make sure you scroll back through pages.
heres some -sydneys next height limit scraper>
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=60748&page=26
also sydneys never built>
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=313654
City one is a concept plan by Thakral.It has never been lodged as DA. they want to build a tall thin skyscraper above wynyard station. it may happen one day.
btw there a few mistakes in list.
go to www.emporis.com for accurate info.

i suppose that help's.
i do hope Thakral do build it though, it'll be sydney's tallest ((roof height that is)) at 235m.

It's still talk, talk and no action. These negotiations have gone on for the last seven years.

yes 235m will be tallest to roof. a few years ago, Angel place was approved at 244m to roof and ground clearing started, then Boom crash, 1990 wall st happened much like GFC now and it canned 22 projects in sydney, angle place being one of them.soon after it in 1994 the council decided on 235m as max height.

They should never have canned angel place but rather continued with very slow construction and development. What the stock market and economic conditions have done to Sydney past and future is a tragedy. Basically is has ruined the skyline and progressive city development. The crash at a time when we would have received our best, tallest and most glassy buildings. Many of us wouldn't have to settle for only Gateway as we would have had a selection of beauties to please us.

^i agree. i weep everytime i look at current angel place. just imagine 300ft higher and brown glass.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6599/angelplacetall5ok.jpg

Brown reflective glass at that. To me it's still the ultimate Go'auld Headquarters it has a pseudo-tech egyptian feel to it.

Much better chance of Melbourne - or even Brisbane or Gold Coast - getting a 200m+ 'City One' style tower.

There's still hope it might be built, look at 163 castlereagh.
id be funny & overly pleasing if they both started contruction same year ((City One & 163 Castlereagh - that is)) which would equal = :) & :banana:

Ummm guys, I'm not sure if this is the right site (it doesn't specifically mention a 230m tower) but I found this news article from like a month ago which says that Thakral have lodged their redevelopment of the Wynard Station site ('including a tower') directly with the government, using Part 3A so that council which will allow them to bypass all the silly requirements that the council has put on the site.

Apparently this was done last year as well, but the department of planning denies it recieved such an application. Does this mean that it's likely City One is going to get up, or have I got my wires completely crossed?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/skyscraper-over-wynyard-puts-brakes-on-metro-20090319-93ck.html?page=-1

I checked the planning NSW site and there is no DA yet.

If it was reported in the press, the odds are against it being accurate. I'd love to be wrong but...

Well I don't see what couldn't be accurate, Thakral is saying that they're submitting the site to the government instead of Sydney Council.

thakral are playing there cards close to there chest. they will eventually lodge a DA when time is right.they will try with state gov and see how it pans.the big drama was last time is that cityrail didnt want to fund the station upgrade.
i think we are missing out on a golden oportunity to develope the sttaion into a world class dev like grand central and have a new tallest rising above it.
but realistically, i think its only a matter of time that the city one will be developed.

It might be a strategy of Thakral to really push for it now more than ever. I can't imagine that they wouldn't have something put away to get it up and running by now and if there's going to be such a drought of projects in the city for the next few years, someone will want eventually want to help fund it.

Cityrail just dont get it. They invite the private sector to fund their projects. Thrakal come in to offer a free upgrade and they are told to 'go away'. Doesnt make any sense :bash:

According to that SMH article Thakral are proposing a tower "as tall as those around it".
The tallest buildings near by I think are 180m Grosvenor Place & 190m Suncorp so you'd think we'd be lucky to get anything over 200m to roof.
Not complaining if we get a 200m tower, but I reckon a slightly taller tower ( like 215m )will make a bit more of a statement in the skyline ( esp when viewed from the quay ) rather than simply turning the area into a CBD clusterfuck area.

yawn, ill believe it when its there, this is on & off news

According to that SMH article Thakral are proposing a tower "as tall as those around it".
The tallest buildings near by I think are 180m Grosvenor Place & 190m Suncorp so you'd think we'd be lucky to get anything over 200m to roof.
Not complaining if we get a 200m tower, but I reckon a slightly taller tower ( like 215m )will make a bit more of a statement in the skyline ( esp when viewed from the quay ) rather than simply turning the area into a CBD clusterfuck area.

It says "The Herald understands...". That basically means its not concrete fact that the building will be that height.

Aussie sq is closest to it which is 170m. also Angle place (151m), so expect something closer to these heights.

180m is better than nothing i suppose. :)
((lol at Fabian, i do agree cityrail do need to set their cards straight, ya reckon they'd be happy to get a free upgrade)).

This is ridiculous that height limit spots are being taken up by such small towers when there's only a limited amount left. The skyline is never going to grow.

Barangaroo gives us some scope for tall buildings in the short term, but long term its harder.

Barangaroo gives us some scope for tall buildings in the short term, but long term its harder.

But it's a 300m site, with the tallest building going to be 180m. What's the point of doing the developments if it's not going to be long term? What's going to happen when the CBD is full and all of these sits have been filled with buildings 60m or more below their actual height limits? They're either going to have to change the height restrictions in other parts of the CBD, or rebuild where they've already put these towers. What's the point? If they can't fill them, they should wait until they can.

Height limits can be amended, especially if the NSW government want more commercial development on the site.

and dont forget. if they want to built heigher they'll built higher, and if there's already a tower there they'll bulldoze it if they havto. Thing's gradually build up ((with random shot's like Citi Group Tower)). also, it wouldn't look to good if we had tower's only 200 meter's, it would look crap, plus skyline look's good for what it is, and from now, more random shot's will come up and fill it in - GRADULLY.

and dont forget. if they want to built heigher they'll built higher, and if there's already a tower there they'll bulldoze it if they havto. Thing's gradually build up ((with random shot's like Citi Group Tower)). also, it wouldn't look to good if we had tower's only 200 meter's, it would look crap, plus skyline look's good for what it is, and from now, more random shot's will come up and fill it in - GRADULLY.

And what a waste. Why not build towers that last?

I really doubt that in 30 years time someone's going to demolish part of Bangaroo just to build a taller building on it. None of the 200m towers are "random shots". Citigroup certainly wasn't a "random shot" - the site had developments from 400-200m over the course of decades and decades proposed for them. The 235m spots in the CBD are very valuable and people WANT to develop them, but they're not being allowed to. There are people who would build 300m towers on Bangaroo, but they won't be chosen. Thakral wants to build a 235m building on this 235m site, but they won't be allowed to.

The point is that none of the buildings in Sydney are random. We have a select number of spots for selected height - after that, they're gone and for a very long time. It's not the fact that they're getting less tall buildings on them that's the problem (well, the major one, anyway) but the fact that Sydney is getting full and is becoming a less desirable place to build because of all the fiddly planning things they have to get around.

It's useless and once the sites are gone, they're gone. There won't be any "random" (no buildings are 'random') 235m buildings popping up, because all the sites will be gone.

yea, but time's change, if it's wanted it'll be built.
and yes to random, look at dubai, all of a sudden a lot of devleopment there.
Also, what if they dont want to build up, right now, massive redevelopment's and tower's between 100-200m are happen'in in Sydney (considering it's size). So when it's needed it'll happen.
**that's just my opionion**

FYI (yesterday)

sydney members may find this of interest.
Thakral are going via State Gov now instead of City of Sydney and are lodging a DA for new complex over Wynyard station.
Its been mooted for 5 years and now may finally come to fruition.
Thakral want State Gov to assist cityrail to restore/upgrade wynyard station while they erect a multistorey office block above.
good news its a fab design (think fat aurora place) but 30fl/150m not 235m.
I think 235m was wishingful thinking.
This latest design has its floor plates east/west strectching from george st to carrington st and has a slopped roof maybe with a spire.
ill let you know how it progresses.
cheers:clap:

Yay...another site half the height limit.

That's pathetic.

Yay...another site half the height limit.

That's pathetic.

I agree, possibly another loss

It's disappointing we wont get our height limit tower. We just have to hope the bulkyness makes up for it. I recall at one point in 2003, they were looking at a proposal of this height.

At least Thakral have kept their interest going. I recall this was first mooted here back in 2002.

I wonder why not taller, FSR issue? If it goes through DoP, we just know it will get approved, so build height limit ;o)

Because bigger lettable floor areas. FSRs need adjusting to get towers taller.

FYI (yesterday)


NOT HAPPY. I don't want aurora place i want citicorp building - this is not a good move.

The original concept was numero uno. I agree there. If I can recall they will look at a height over the height limit.

there was never a proposal by thakral only a concept which was looked at by CSPC and never really worked.it through shadow on pitt st mall.which is a no no.
now its stage1 proposal. once this gets approval, then thakral will lodge a DA with state gov.

Yeah, dissapointing, but what are ya gonna do.

Complain. Id rather they leave it as it is ... and wait for someone with real balls to make a real proposal.

It's not the developer, it's the ( piss weak ) CSPC rules.
Apart from Angel Place, I can't think of any major tower built in the CBD in the last 10 years that is LESS than the ( piss weak ) height limit set by CSPC for that site.
Sydney could have a brilliant skyline, instead it's being forced into redundancy by ( piss weak ) unncessary CSPC regulations.

It's not the developer, it's the ( piss weak ) CSPC rules.
Apart from Angel Place, I can't think of any major tower built in the CBD in the last 10 years that is LESS than the ( piss weak ) height limit set by CSPC for that site.
Sydney could have a brilliant skyline, instead it's being forced into redundancy by ( piss weak ) unncessary CSPC regulations.

I'm pretty sure Angel Place was built to the height limit. The height limits for the site were reduced between the collapse of the original proposal (and the subsequent expiry of the planning approval for that site), and the eventual construction of the current tower. That's the reason for the sloping roof - the building envelope for the Angel Place site. Otherwise it would overshadow Martin Place.

How expected.

Another half arsed tower and yet another sloping bloody roof. Just build a car park and be done with it...

finn-your right. in 1994 the whole CBD was given height limits after CSPC adopted the new masterplan.
angle place was given approval at 244m tall or 256mRL. but that was 1989.
when new DA was lodged in 1998, there was a 150m height limit due to new controls on martin place.
the new city one tower is also governed by martin place shadow impact.

hi all.
29 stories for this tower- not 35 unless you know something else

8.1 City One Development, Wynyard – Part 3A

A Concept Plan for demolition of non-significant buildings, construction of new 29
storey office building and refurbishment of Transport House was submitted as
part of the City One development around Wynyard. The proposal includes major
upgrade works to Wynyard Station, conservation works to former Shell House and
its internal refurbishment for use as office premises, five levels of retail linking
George Street and Carrington Street to the Station concourse, basement car
parking and upgrade of the public domain surrounding the site.

at least wynard gets a do over

at least wynard gets a do over

This is a travesty, I don't see any positives in it at all. I'd rather it all stay the way it is until a council with balls amends all the stupid regulations in place.

So this one is getting even shorter - 29 storeys!!! :bash:
Wasted potential. Thrakal need to act like cowboys again if anything decent is to be built.

I'm all for the Wynyard upgrade which it needs.

i was counting all levels. i think it has 29 office levels?
welcome motion. how is the DA going? i supose its going thru the process slowly.

Very sad and troubling. The downside of building a city of villages. Straw town houses and dogs off leash/dogs mauling native animals type parks only.

This is a travesty, I don't see any positives in it at all. I'd rather it all stay the way it is until a council with balls amends all the stupid regulations in place.

dont get me wrong im pissed as anything this got cut in half... also wouldnt wynard get redone by the metro anyway

^^ you'd think so, but the metro really only feeds into wynyard, as opposed to being part of it

My god someone drop a bomb on the city ... i'm fed up with it.

hmm, it may be only 29 stories but the design of the proposed tower may still be high. de we even know the design?
**i looked on Thakral and couldn't find anything**

^i think at this stage its only a stage 1 block enevlope ,which is like a masterplan proposed for the site once it receieves approval, it will be devloped more detailed and then we will see a DA.
It will be atleast 150m high.

Cul, I went back to the original cityone thread 'sydney's height limit scraper' to see if the post containing a photo of the 150 metre scheme from 2003 was there. Do you still have it?

Also, I have found a clipping from 1989-1990 showing a Cityone style proposal by the Kern Corp. I think it was for the corner of George Street and Jamison St with 50 000 sq/m of space.

^nah havnt got anything showing 150m. i could make a foam block and place in model to show.ill post later.

Here is the Kern Corp proposal - SMH Oct 17 1989

They were focused on ANA House and redeveloping the Menzies Tower. Also restoration of Transport House.
The office tower would contain 50 000 sq/m of office space.

The cross section is for Wynyard Station and the podium. Look at what they wanted to do.

Up to $900 million would be injected into Wynyard. At least these folks understood the importance of any project above the station. I dont think we will see anything like these emerge. :(

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/9180/cityone1989oct17smh.jpg

^ive seen early plans.
the cross section is something like that.
the podium is 45m high and has multi levels of retail ect. with office tower above.

here is a block model of 150m enevelope. the final desaign may end up curved eg..
its 30mx50m thus 1500sqm plates. good size.
basically another angel place in a better position.
great views over western edge of CBD, also good vistas up george st
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3488/4009343381_b77b1d97f5.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/4009343213_6f22ee0096.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/4009342027_2f123d9819.jpg

At least it makes an impact on the skyline in that part of town, but of course we want it taller

Good to see another scraper conforming to Sydney's 130-150m mandatory height. It's good for conformity and sameness.

Sorry but i think it's time state government sacked SCC. This is unacceptable. We are crying out for more space and taller buildings and all they can do is restrict any growth and force the waste of the very few remaining site we have. We would have city defining towers on these sites and yet they still adhere to over-the-top and restrictive planning methodology. What can we do. Complain to the department of LG?

The last time the NSW Government did that, it backfired big time. People power won.

The only hope for it to be taller is to go to Planning NSW. Kristyna Keneally will have her say but it doesnt guranatee anything. The Stamford Hotel redevelopment proves that it can go either way.

At least it makes an impact on the skyline in that part of town, but of course we want it taller

For the block it's in, yes. But you wont be able to notice it much on the skyline if looking from a distance. Barangaroo will block it out more.

Sorry but i think it's time state government sacked SSC. This is unacceptable. We are crying out for more space and taller buildings and all they can do is restrict any growth and force the waste of the very few remaining site we have. We would have city defining towers on these sites and yet they still adhere to over-the-top and restrictive planning methodology. What can we do. Complain to the department of LG?

lets march on macquarie street!!!!!!!!! so is there an actual reason this got cut in half even though its in 235 zone!!! im swearing at my computer as i type this. when i first came onto this site i though most of you guys were a bit synical (sorry) but now i can see why...

Isn't it being put through as a Part 3A and therefore goes through to DoP?

its not in a 235m zone.
was never allowed to go to 235m. it s shadow impacted martin place, which is protected.the height allowed is 150m.with slopped sun access roof.

CeeFee you serious, is this in a 235 zone?
if it is im so suprised that Thakral havent took the chance to build something that would change Sydneys skyline.
hmm, looking forward to design.

**LOL didn't notice Culwulla posted before me, maybe some day it will be 235m............**

Sorry but i think it's time state government sacked SSC. This is unacceptable. We are crying out for more space and taller buildings and all they can do is restrict any growth and force the waste of the very few remaining site we have. We would have city defining towers on these sites and yet they still adhere to over-the-top and restrictive planning methodology. What can we do. Complain to the department of LG?

Im in the opinion that the CBD should be seperated from the City of Sydney's planning sphere and transfered over to the state planning department. Leave Clover to fiddle fart over her 'villages' of Glebe, Darlinghurst, KingsX, etc .....

IMO, this building should be at least a minimum of 200m .... but taller would be better .....

its not in a 235m zone.
was never allowed to go to 235m. it s shadow impacted martin place, which is protected.the height allowed is 150m.with slopped sun access roof.

sorry i must have gotten some bad infomation a while ago...so if it wasnt 235 zone than what was thankral thinking...vision? not in this town

Richard Johnson Square's tower on this site, please. Give it stilts and a high atrium so the morning/winter sun can shine through and dry the vomit in Wynyard Park, and something translucent on the top so all the pasty yuppies in Martin Place can get their 45 minutes winter sun a day!

ceefee, yeah thakral showed council what they really wanted to build, so they went for biggest possible. which was a huge tower . It was never a real proposal just an idea or concept.
The site is now under state control NOT council and they also still enforce the 150m height. so dont blame council.
wynyard want this site not an alternate.
it has to be one of best in sydney!!
1-above a main train station-
2-rare george st address
3-great views south along george st and over to darling hbr.

from what i've heard **Culs post below/above depends on forum settings**
they will want to do a cracker of a design. they wont want to make a flop of a design on such prime position.

It's already a flop.

also thanks for the pics cull form earlier...will you see this from the quay or is it blocked???

nah, not from quay.

It's already a flop.

Anything other than something alon the lines of RJS or NYC's Hearst Tower would be a flop. Actually even then it'd be a waste to put that only to 150m... so yeah it's a flop. Yet again.

If thats the height thats it, of coarse a taller would be superb but what happens is what occurs. because of the height bummer, im know looking for to Design Comp ((as usual :D)).

i dont think 150m is a flop.
height a bummer? no. it has a 150m height limit and its gone to it.
the previous "concepts" were just that , fantasy at 235m.
this tower will impact this part of city because there isnt any highrise over 45m. Its height will contribute to the skyline and had more density.

Lets just wait and see.

I hope that they base their D/A along the lines of the Kern Corp proposal from two decades too, especially with the podium and retail areas.

If you walk around Wynyard Station (where the Relay newsagency is) you notice the two flights of escalators to Wynyard Park. The level where Coles is was supposed to extend towards George St. Never happened. I hope they rebuild and upgrade that section too.

i dont think 150m is a flop.
height a bummer? no. it has a 150m height limit and its gone to it.
the previous "concepts" were just that , fantasy at 235m.
this tower will impact this part of city because there isnt any highrise over 45m. Its height will contribute to the skyline and had more density.

Fantasy or not it's what is required. This building will have no impact it will be about visible as polar bear in a snow storm.

Then show us what you've got then.
Lets see you do a 150metre one too.

What did you want to see? Small is overrated I dont do small.

^ive seen early plans.
the cross section is something like that.
the podium is 45m high and has multi levels of retail ect. with office tower above.

here is a block model of 150m enevelope. the final desaign may end up curved eg..
its 30mx50m thus 1500sqm plates. good size.
basically another angel place in a better position.
great views over western edge of CBD, also good vistas up george st
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3488/4009343381_b77b1d97f5.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/4009343213_6f22ee0096.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/4009342027_2f123d9819.jpg

I'm pretty sure this will answer your impact questions, and every building has an impact whether it be big or small, and this will be a good addition to the area.

hmmmm to the area maybe but on the cityscape..i suppose its the best that one can do in the restictions....like others 150m just feels like a waste of time but if its ground breaking design then ill be more inclined to like it

imagine it from wynyard park? or coming north along george st? it sure will impact. also you will see it from western side of harbour

good point^^

Glad I gave up on Sydney years ago.

good point^^

like a salesman telling you that the doors may be falling off the car but it goes faster than that broken down shitbox over there...

imagine it from wynyard park? or coming north along george st? it sure will impact. also you will see it from western side of harbour

But the argument appears to be that this one will be just another 500footer on the skyline.

Atleast it's reaching the height limit for this city block and it's still adding to the city.
im glad it is the height it is, i would not want to see your posts if it was only aloud 100m. :P

like a salesman telling you that the doors may be falling off the car but it goes faster than that broken down shitbox over there...

They're air holes.

What about the fact that it covers a lane way ? I though that was an issue ages ago ?

They will build right above the laneway.

its been a year in with state gov. wonder what is going on?

Thrakal have not lodged a D/A at all with Planning NSW.

great news. finally. no idea about design or height. suppose we will find out soon

PIC BY ME
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/4622751448_f03b574356_b.jpg

Thats fantastic news. Just hope they develop the site to its potential ie. 150m envelope.

it will be atleast 150m. maybe even go heigher.
cant wait for design comp ect. should get some real good ones. but this is going thru planning nsw, so wont get much info.

Good to see Thrakal getting the backers in place even before a D/A is lodged. We know they won't go down without a fight.

Nice to see - current buildings on the site are meh. I like the "it is intended that a tunnel will link the sites (ie. Thakral and Barangaroo). Of course, the tunnel already exists, at least to Kent St

i like paragraph5
"the department would consider and future proposal it received for the site on its merits"
This sounds good, no size OR height restriction!
i have a gut feeling this will be a big one. forget 150m.

Possible next Height limit building? I thought overshadowing of Wynyard park may be an issue.

The heritage listing of the park only mentions controls for Margaret and York Sts.

Steady there, Cul; I've got enough problems to deal with atm so don't go getting me over-excited about this one ALL OVER AGAIN! I still haven't recovered from the demise of RJS, so tread lightly.

This site is too good to waste on something average. This is what I would do with it:

Make this site the intersection between two newly built metro lines, one from Maroubra to Epping and one from Dee Why to Parramatta and add in the easy transfer with CityRail at Wynyard railway station.

Do something extraordinary with the tower. Let it go high, doesn't have to be supertall but at least 250m and good design. Learn from these buildings:

Central Plaza in Hong Kong:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:p_FlJ54IVosLVM:http://www.aviewoncities.com/img/hongkong/kvecn0148s.jpg

Comcast Center in Philadelphia:

http://www.libertyproperty.com/images/photo_cs_comcastctr.jpg

Let's not get carried away. Odds are that the building will be at or slightly below height limit.

Bring back the 2002 plan!!!! :D:D:D

sky-wont below 150m believe me. too good a site and heaps of FSR.
i reckon it may range from 150-200m.
shabang-overshadowing is 12-2 on wynyard park and martin place. this wont effect wynyard.not sure about martin place.?
as i said, this site is based on merit NOT height restrictions or FSR limitations.
briz-lol. i know what you mean.
smile everyone, this could be one weve been waiting for!

Arise City One
http://i41.************/71k5dg.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/julianboot/2252422926/sizes/o/

Isn't the building on the corner of Margaret and Carrington - Art Deco, I think - heritage listed?

It's part of the Menzies - and not part of the Thakral site.

What about the laneway?

Isn't the Menzies part of the Thakral holding? If it's not then it's not such a big site. The original Menzies Hotel and the office building on George Street were a single development back in the early 1960s, I think it was. The heritage former Shell (?) Building was incorporated into the hotel some time later.
Has anyone any actual plan/specific info on the exact Thakral site?
Not sure of the status of the lane, either, though it cannot be built on as far as I can remember from earlier chatter about this site.

Nice to see - current buildings on the site are meh. I like the "it is intended that a tunnel will link the sites (ie. Thakral and Barangaroo). Of course, the tunnel already exists, at least to Kent St

That tunnel is already completely inadequate just for the current foot traffic and a complete health and safety risk. They're going to need something at least double the size with Barangaroo going in.

I want them to build that rendering I knocked up years ago.

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2233/cityone03bkw1.jpg

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5280/cityone02gy6.jpg

the article definitely implies the tallest possible tower to be built on site (235); HOWEVER how much does the article really know.

heres a block model of 150m envelope which doesnt really apply anymore. this just to show site
it takes in 1963 menzies facing carrington st, the laneway and thakral bldg on george st. quite a significant site!

{the podium is 45m high and has multi levels of retail ect. with office tower above.

here is a block model of 150m envelope. the final design may end up curved eg..
its 30mx50m thus 1500sqm plates. good size.
the tower has 5m setbacks from podium edge.
basically another angel place in a better position.
great views over western edge of CBD, also good vistas up george st
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3488/4009343381_b77b1d97f5.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/35672655@N00/4009343381/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/4009343213_6f22ee0096.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/35672655@N00/4009343213)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/4009342027_2f123d9819.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/35672655@N00/4009342027)

hi all.
29 stories for this tower- not 35 unless you know something else

8.1 City One Development, Wynyard – Part 3A

A Concept Plan for demolition of non-significant buildings, construction of new 29
storey office building and refurbishment of Transport House was submitted as
part of the City One development around Wynyard. The proposal includes major
upgrade works to Wynyard Station, conservation works to former Shell House and
its internal refurbishment for use as office premises, five levels of retail linking
George Street and Carrington Street to the Station concourse, basement car
parking and upgrade of the public domain surrounding the site.

So what about this???

Do you have a link for that one? I got 'no results'.
Is it the old proposal from a couple of years ago?

yeah twas proposal from 1 year or so ago. thing may have changed since.

The very fact that Thakral just will not let this die is why i am hopeful that something good will come out of this. Any property firm in the entire world would have stopped even caring by now. Really Sydney these days borders on the ridiculous with regard to CBD planning.

I raised this on Wednesday night at the Barangaroo forum in relation to upgrading Wynyard Station. There is no justified reason to not upgrade the station and have Thrakal involved in it.

I want them to build that rendering I knocked up years ago.

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2233/cityone03bkw1.jpg

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5280/cityone02gy6.jpg

Forward those renders immediately! :)

It would be nothing less than a crushing blow to get yet another 150m on this site. With Barangaroo going up just down the hill, it would just nestle beautifully between the Chifley talls and the eventual Hungry Mile talls...

I am looking at Avatars renderings - It slopes north in one image and to the south in the other.

My prefered option is for a 120 Collins Street style tower with setbacks to give a NYC touch.

^i agree, no more slopped roofs in CBD. angel place is across the street, westfield will have one. its time for a ESB style tower.

I'd happily settle for a sloped roof in the opposite direction, but I think we've enough sloped scrapers. Surely we can be more imaginative than that.

I am looking at Avatars renderings - It slopes north in one image and to the south in the other.



Yup i dunno which I prefer... the sloping was due to the original envelop and sun access restrictions on the site.

A stepped building has the potential to be less glassy, I rather glass and another slopped roof. However, I could deal with Central Plaza type structure or Russia Tower, even Nina Tower, I'd even be happy with Trump World Tower.

You can still make it glassy if you want.

Bump!

Another proposal has been resuscitated to go with 8 Chifley Square, 33 Bligh Street and 383 George Street

Offices and retail planned for Wynyard station expansion
Kelsey Munro
October 7, 2010

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/offices-and-retail-planned-for-wynyard-station-expansion-20101006-167vz.html

Wynyard station will be upgraded to include a new five-level retail area and a new 29-storey office building under a proposal to be assessed by the state government rather than the City of Sydney.

Commuter access and train services would not be affected by construction, if approved, a spokesman for the Planning Minister said.

The proposal would also allow for works to the station, including pedestrian connections to the nearby Barangaroo site, an upgrade of the public domain and increasing the capacity of the station to meet the projected demand to 2031.

The Planning Minister, Tony Kelly, has declared the $425 million CityOne redevelopment a Part 3A major project, under a planning law which pulls transport-related projects into the state government's orbit. This means the minister would approve the project, rather than the council.

Most buildings on the site, including the Menzies Hotel, would be demolished during construction work that is expected to take four years.

The developer, Thakral Holdings, must demonstrate to the Planning Department that train services and commuter access would not be affected by construction as a condition of project approval.

The proposed office tower would consist of five storeys below ground, an 11-storey podium and an 18-storey tower on the site between George and Carrington streets.

The council believes it should have control over the ''long overdue'' station upgrade, and the lord mayor has written to the Premier expressing this view, a council spokesman said.

'The Central Sydney Planning Committee should be the consent authority for the proposal as it is for any major commercial project in the City of Sydney,'' the spokesman said.

''Any associated office tower redevelopment needs to protect sunlight access to Martin Place and Wynyard Park as well as the urban design qualities of the streetwall heights around Wynyard Park. The City must be closely involved in any changes that will impact on the viability, amenity and attractiveness of Wynyard station and the surrounding precinct.''

The government rejected this.

Mr Kelly said in a statement: ''The proposal meets the statutory criteria to be assessed under Part 3A because it's a commercial development associated with railway infrastructure worth more than $30 million.''

The developer is expected to lodge the concept plan application with the Planning Department tomorrow.

Thakral Holdings and its predecessor have had plans to redevelop Wynyard for almost a decade.

^^:ohno:

wasnt this one of the 235m sites? if so, that is disappointing.

A huge podium for a small building - not needed.

Five levels underground. that is like the Kern Corp Plans from 20 years ago.

I commend the State Government on assuming control of the project and setting conditions relating to keeping Wynyard open as per usual. However I'd like to see Thrakal push for a higher tower.

Obviously the tower needs to be higher than the 18 storeys... What will come of the spare Wynyard Platforms? I hope they're not lost forever with this redevelopment.

That's ridiculous, robbery even. Lame and soft, no urge to strive.

Large Floorplate Syndrome?

So are we going to write objections when this is put on public exhibition?

I too don't understand why there will be an 11 storey podium for a tower that is only just taller than the podium??

Honestly, the best thing that looks like coming out of this is an upgrade Wynyard Station and an improved retail component - this would be much better for a supermarket than the MetCentre where Woolworths recently set up shop. Seeing as the office tower is so short, I would have liked to have seen residential put on top so that it could be a true mixed use development. Resi would help to liven the area up a bit when the office workers have gone home and give reason for retail here and at the MetCentre to open on Sundays.

A request for minister's declaration was sought and approved in August; the concept is for 85,000sqm GFA and the site itself is just over 11,000sqm (mostly underneath Wynyard Park)

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/files/60863/Preliminary%20EA%20report.pdf

Obviously the tower needs to be higher than the 18 storeys...

I thought it means 18 storey tower on top of the 11 storey podium, thus 29 storey in total? No?

^^ I read it that way too, I just meant the 18 storey tower component is too small. After such a long fight to get this site developed it seems such a typical let down to not get something much higher, and just soul destroying to get possibly another 150 metre run of the mill on a site like this :(

Firstly, Im glad Clover doesn't get to meddle in this one. Im sure that bitch would somehow moan and whinge on this one, in particular to Wynyard Park which sits above the station.

I too am somewhat disappointed with a 29 storey tower. This location should at least be 40-50 storeys minimum because it sits above one of the CBDs most busiest stations.

Im curious what will happen to disused platforms 1 & 2 which was the former underground tram terminal. The 2 kilometer twin tunnels to and from the Harbour Bridge are still there.

They also should have no problem with the FSR to push it higher, and given they are willing to upgrade Wynyard Staton, that should give further reason to do so.

There is also the laneway - Wynyard Lane which divides some of the buildings and there is no way that they will be allowed to build over it, which reduces scope for an iconic building. Even with the limitations it's possible to build a height limit skyscraper but not overshadow any parks or Martin Place.

:bash:

Hey I read the document in the link 'Sky_Is_The_Limit' posted. On page 8 it was talking about the site being a design excellence site, it went on to say it didn't need a design competition because of the high level of design in the proposals. Does anyone know where to find these designs. I presume they are not publicly available yet but I am intrigued into the different proposal options they have made.

That same paragraph says the designs will be made available...patience.

They also should have no problem with the FSR to push it higher, and given they are willing to upgrade Wynyard Staton, that should give further reason to do so.

There is also the laneway - Wynyard Lane which divides some of the buildings and there is no way that they will be allowed to build over it, which reduces scope for an iconic building. Even with the limitations it's possible to build a height limit skyscraper but not overshadow any parks or Martin Place.

Im sure Wynyard Lane is already built over because the Menzies Arcade passes above connecting Carrington Street with George Street.

I reckon this project could be incredible if the right concept is applied since Wynyard is a massive transport interchange for trains and buses and not to mention the large retail zones that feed off from there underground .... MetCentre, Hunter Connections, etc.

The potential must be maximised in everyway possible, especially heights. :yes:

"The City must be closely involved in any changes that will impact on the viability, amenity and attractiveness of Wynyard station and the surrounding precinct.''

The government rejected this.


Lol

Anyways, they have to be careful what they 'propose' in the initial stages when this first gets publicised. Look at the reaction to Bangaroo ffs.

They will push for maximum height, they'll have to at the cost of keeping the trains running while they build.

What a fucking waste! :bash:

This site is ideally suited to a height limit scraper.. :ohno:

There won't be the reaction with Barangaroo. There are virtually no apartment blocks that will be affected with a 'loss of views'. It's downtown where many talls dominate.

^ which is unproven

Pointless post and as usual trying to cause a problem :bash: i'm only making a prediction for what could happen, doesn't mean that I will be right.

What is proven is the on again/off nature of the site is like a vegemite stain in sydney's underwear. If it's not built to the full height restriction sydney can further cement its position as the turtle dick city of Australia.

Pointless post and as usual trying to cause a problem :bash: i'm only making a prediction for what could happen, doesn't mean that I will be right.

It was another unproven statement.

Lance I'd like to see them build a Big W here. I reckon they could even high tail it and throw in a Best & Less. Makes sense considering Wynyard is traditionally the domain of commuters.

This is another Angel Place in the making. A waste of space.

I reckon they should build this 150m Underground. The world's first inverted skyscraper, god imagine how good it would look in skyline pics!!!!!

Lance I'd like to see them build a Big W here. I reckon they could even high tail it and throw in a Best & Less. Makes sense considering Wynyard is traditionally the domain of commuters.

Ongoing jokes aside, it would probably be the perfect spot for these types of retail, seriously.

the design i saw last year was for a large full site podium 45m high topped with east/west rectangular tower with slopped roof @150m high or RL165m.
it looked ok, but perfect @ 180m min or 200m+ even better.

Ongoing jokes aside, it would probably be the perfect spot for these types of retail, seriously.

I 100% agree. Considering there is no space in the retail core for something of this size anymore, and what will probably be small to medium sized stores at Barangaroo, it is a great spot. The site is big enough for both a full sized supermarket and a discount department store that would be well positioned to serve commuters and nearby residents (not that there would be as many as the southern CBD). A range of fast food outlets, cafes and service based retailers could also be on offer, as well as Aussie chain stores and maybe a couple of international chains such as Forever 21 fronting George Street. Would be great to reinvigorate the area on Sundays when most of the stores up around Wynyard to the Quay are closed.

Even if only half the site (around 6000 sq m) is used for retail, a five storey retail component would equate to 30 000 sq m, making it bigger than World Square and almost as big as the entire retail component at Barangaroo.

Bunnings warehouse fits in perfectly.

Western end of CBD is just saturated with food courts and cafes. Enough with cafes! There's a limit to how many white collar workers can take up cafes along Kent/King Street.

Western end of CBD is just saturated with food courts and cafes. Enough with cafes! There's a limit to how many white collar workers can take up cafes along Kent/King Street.

No there isn't - if they build more office space then more white collar workers hence more cafes. Question is do we only want more office space?

And the transport system is the effective limit...

I think what you mean is you are bored with cafes.

Question - when will get proper business lunches back? I'm sick of people buying sandwiches and bain-marie garbage when we should have lots of restaurants. And some that are simple, quick and not too expensive

Nothing wrong with adding food courts. If you compare the ones at the Met Centre and Hunter Connection, they are nowhere near the size of larger food courts at World Square and Sydney Central Plaza.

It was another unproven statement.

So I'm not allowed to provide my personal thoughts anymore? You haven't singled anyone else out. Stop being a troll. Your bullying behaviour towards myself and others is becoming a real concern. Keep it up and I will lodge a complaint with the moderators.

At the very least it is a state gov dev and is being discussed. I say build a 235m + tower, make it slender and nice.

I still am dreaming of a reject shop Australian flagship store for the lobby though. Take that haters (all you peeps that want big w or bunnings)

Western end of CBD is just saturated with food courts and cafes. Enough with cafes! There's a limit to how many white collar workers can take up cafes along Kent/King Street.

Where exactly are these cafes in the western end of the CBD? And what about all the fast food joints that will need to make way for the redevelopment?

BigW would be excellent, for me, the closest is Warringah Mall and going to the city would be a tad more convenient sometimes. I can imagine the patronage would make it more than worth BigW while to get some sort of presence near this part of town.

So I'm not allowed to provide my personal thoughts anymore? You haven't singled anyone else out. Stop being a troll. Your bullying behaviour towards myself and others is becoming a real concern. Keep it up and I will lodge a complaint with the moderators.

lol

Western end of CBD is just saturated with food courts and cafes. Enough with cafes! There's a limit to how many white collar workers can take up cafes along Kent/King Street.


What I want is food courts/cafes that OPEN in the weekend!!! :bash:

No there isn't - if they build more office space then more white collar workers hence more cafes. Question is do we only want more office space?

Where exactly are these cafes in the western end of the CBD? And what about all the fast food joints that will need to make way for the redevelopment?

I assure you, there are way too many cafes as it is! There are big corporations in Western CBD (eg Westpac/MQ/ING/Suncorp/KPMG/E&Y) and they all need caffeine at close proximity! I call it 'The Daily Grind precinct!' White collar zombies grabbing a coffee along the way to work. It's a sight to see.

Just to name a handfull:

Westpac Place's food court
ING Australia arcade (corner King/Kent Street)
Macquarie Bank arcade (Sussex Street)

Cafe Kent Street:
Bertoni (262 Kent Street)
377 Kent Street
Bar Modena (346 Kent Street)
Cafe Biano (383 Kent Street)
Cafe Cappricio (272 Kent Street)
Foyer Cafe (207 Kent Street)
Cafe Atrio (347 Kent Street)
Bar Adyar (484 Kent Street)
Zest Espresso Bar (332 Kent Street)
Bar Bolini (201 Kent Street)

Clarence Street:
Opia Cafe & Pizzeria (115 Clarence Street)
137 Clarence Street
Mio Bar & Cafe (35 Clarence Street)
Picasso Espresso (38 Clarence Street)
68 degrees (160 Clarence Street)
Biscotti Bar (36-38 Clarence Street)
Bizzaro (165 Clarence Street)
Redock Boutique Beer Cafe (201 Clarence Street)
Spilling the Beans Cafe (215-217 Clarence Street)

Sussex Street:
Blackbird Cafe (122 Sussex Street)
Zest Bar (129 Sussex Street)
Cross Citi Cafe (201 Sussex Street)
Starcourt Cafe (201 Sussex Street)

York Street:
Starbucks (31 York Street)
Cafe Cozy 38-40 York Street)
St Martins Cafe (111 York Street)
Cafe Stretto (57-59 York Street)
Bull Pen Cafe (89 York Street)
Cafe Manhattan (28 York Street)
DCM Coffee & Donuts (31 York Street)
Grace Cafe (77-79 York Street)

What I want is food courts/cafes that OPEN in the weekend!!! :bash:

Who the hell visits Western CBD on a weekend besides those doing weekend shifts? Western CBD is basically an open campus area where there's no reason to go there unless it's work related. If you really want to eat something then go to King Street Wharf or go to Darling Harbour. It's only about 300m walk from Wynyard Park to King Street Wharf. Cafes listed above would open if there is LIFE in weekend and no soul would want to sit outdoor with buses zooming pass them on noisy streets. There's a reason why blood harvesting centre is located in Clarence Street (Red Cross Blood Bank). :P

On lunchtime, white collar workers spills to three directions:
West: King Street Wharf
North: Westpac Place's court & surrounds
East: Pitt Street Mall/QVB/Martin Place/332 Kent St area

Some of those cafes do some seriously good coffee. I love picking up a cup on the way into the office in the morning. But some are pretty average too.

What I want is food courts/cafes that OPEN in the weekend!!! :bash:

Why open if there are hardly any people around? It's better to close to avoid losing money for a business if people are not going to come.

Why open if there are hardly any people around? It's better to close to avoid losing money for a business if people are not going to come.

There are hardly any people around because nothing there open.

There are hardly any people around because nothing there open.

Nobody would go to a business park oriented Western CBD when there's Kings St Wharf, Pitt Street, QVB, Circular Quay, Entertainment Precinct and Darling Harbour just several minutes of walking distance. Plus, it's filthy and noisy.

Western CBD is basically like North Sydney. Developing a shopping mall in North Sydney won't attract a stampede of shoppers from far far away....because Chatswood is the retail heart of North Shore. Pitt Street Mall is an established specialised precinct and I doubt any shoppers would bother walking hundreds of meters northward just to go to a boring D grade mall in Western CBD.

Hopefully Barangaroo can lure some shoppers from Pitt Street Mall because it will be a tough battle. It's about 800m apart and Pitt Street Mall precinct is like an institution itself.

^^

What's the saying? Build it and they will come?

Seriously George Street has the potential to be a hub of activity day and night, from Chinatown to the bridge.

Just because it's 'filthy and noisy' now doesn't mean that it should or will always be 'filthy and noisy.'

And I wouldn't classify this as the western CBD at all. It is the smack bang in the middle of the CBD, right on the spine that is George Street. It is already a major commuter hub and workers, as well as tourists and CBD residents. Wynyard would greatly benefit from not just cafes (which you seem to have as a sticking point) but a wider range of fast food outlets than what is available at present.

George Street has the potential to become a great, connected shopping boulevard, with light rail up the centre. From cheap, fast fashion and fast food outlets around World Square, to the retail core of QVB/The Galeries/Myer/The Strand etc, scaling up to high end around Martin Place, convenience and affordable retail at Wynyard down to tourist/souvenir stuff in The Rocks. Just because Pitt Street Mall has been the heart of retail in the CBD for a long time doesn't mean it should or will remain that way. Look at Melbourne, the Bourke Street Mall is complimented by heaps of other retail developments. There has already been a shift away from Pitt Street due to the long refurbishment works and there are plenty of big stores on George Street, with more to come, that have moved attention from Pitt Street. And it is not that far to walk from Apple and surrounds to Wynyard.

Barangaroo will be fine as long as it is accessible by public transport and on foot. The walk from George Street to Barangaroo is far from pretty, but one would imagine that down the track, it could be much nicer with the sinking of the Western Distributor and cross city transport access. It is important that Barangaroo has a retail mix that differentiates it from the retail core, and considering its location and proposed mix of 5 star hotel/waterfront apartments, mid to high end fits the bill.

My discussion is the area between King Street and George Street at West of Wynyard station. The current state of Wynyard station is just abysmal with Hungry Jacks, Macca and Coles as main signature retail attractions.

It really is pointless exercise to redevelop areas West of Wynyard station to become more retail focused because existing amenities like narrow pedestrian paths, cycling lanes and poor retail spacing opportunities makes it unattractive for mid-high end stores.

In consideration of current situation, I would still promote further vertical concentration of retail in Pitt Street and surrounds. Demolish under-utilised buildings near Pitt Street and redevelop into another attractive mall, like the MidCity. There are consequences in expanding retail precincts horizontally like whether shoppers can go from one retail to another in fixed amount of time and whether it's practical to travel that distance.

As for George Street, it just isn't a friendly corridor to do retail shopping because of thundering bus noise, stampede of existing pedestrian flow and lack of space. Perhaps when the lightrail is built and the entire George Street becomes pedestrianised then we can discuss about how to expand retail along this corridor. But this is decades away and it isn't wise to build it now when it will inevitably fail without proper amenity improvement.

There are so many more pressing projects than this pie in the sky idea.

There are hardly any people around because nothing there open.

Millux has hit the nail on the coffin. People are attracted to other parts of the CBD at weekends. People want to go out and have a good time and that means having a good feed. Fast food doesn't cut it unless you want a cheap feed.

The fact that there will be a retail upgrade as part of the project would make the option of food courts opening around Wynyard more viable provided they offer the retail services that people want.

It is important that Barangaroo has a retail mix that differentiates it from the retail core, and considering its location and proposed mix of 5 star hotel/waterfront apartments, mid to high end fits the bill.

Precisely. If Barangaroo is filled with shops that can be found in other parts of the CBD there will be nothing to draw shoppers up to that corner of the city and the precinct will fail. Specialty shops and unique/high end retail will. Big W and a House Of Targét should be in CityOne without a doubt. It would have saved me million times to have something like that above Wynyard :)

LOL at sinking of the western distributor!
What, in the year 2090 when we have teleportation pads?

I've been the advocate of a major discount store in the Sydney CBD. If other Australian Cities have been able to provide them, why not Sydney?

Even with the higher rents, it would be a cash cow, plus they can stay open until 7pm or 9pm which some Big W stores for instance trade until. Kmart can open 24/7 if they opt to.

Barangaroo will focus on local neighbourhood shops as part of it's retail offerings along the lines of World Square.

Using premium grade retail space for low yielding per floor space is financially unviable and inevitably destined for failure. There's a reason why discount stores like BigW or Target are located at the rear of major shopping centres where patronage is lower compared to front. Needs big floor space selling discount products. Major discount stores like Costco and DFO are in warehouses for this financial reason. Even Coles in Wynyard station faces similar financial constraints - and it sell essential goods. Look at current examples and example their locality and profit. Locating them in premium retail space doesn't mix with their strategy no matter how attractive the prime location - above CBD rail station.

If Sydney wants big discount stores close to CBD then Redfern precinct would be ideal. If not, then wall the way to Moore Park where big warehouses are available. Would suitably target students and low income earners living in Redfern area.

Sydney CBD is already saturated with small discount store. There is already a small discount store in Wynyard station, near train gate. The last time I checked they are not doing very well especially in lunchtime.

^^
Melbourne CBD and Brisbane CBD both already have Big W and Target in their CBDs. In Brisbane, both feature in shopping centres on Queen Street Mall, which is prime real estate. In Melbourne, Big W is at QV and Target in Chinatown. Both anchor retail centres and aren't exactly in fringe CBD locations.

So how/why would it not work at Wynyard? There is enough space (City One site is 11 000 sq m) to cater for one of Big W/K Mart (less likely) and Target. Big W and Target are both two floors in Brisbane CBD - Wynyard retail redevelopment will be five floors. Therefore space and floor plates should not be an issue.

I'm also confused by your past two posts. In the older one, you say that you would prefer to see the Pitt Street area further built up by virtue of Wynyard not being prime retail space. Then in the post above it seems you think Wynyard is prime retail space and therefore Big W and co are not compatible?

I think that redeveloped Wynyard is the perfect location for Big W and co. Large enough to accommodate good sized DDS, enough levels to accommodate multiple floors and well positioned to take advantage of train station, bus routes. Assuming only one of Big W/Target/KMart is built at Wynyard, another should be built on top of the central station railway tracks (pipeline dream) to service residents in CBD south, those that live in Redfern and the student population. Big W would probably be better off here considering KMart and Target are at Broadway.

Whether or not CityOne is a prime retail space is dependent on what type of tenants Thalis would like. I still don't think BigW in Brisbane or Melbourne is comparable to a Big W above Wynyard station on George Street.

Let's look at it from a different perspective. Opportunity cost of having one large Big W at the expense of about a dozen retail stores each with differential marketing. Are you saying that Big W can generate enough revenue to take advantage in per square meter floorspace basis compared to a dozen smaller retail stores? Dedicating half a floorspace for 1 anchor retail tenant is just a wishlist. That floorspace also includes office lobby and potential food court.

What products can Big W sell what cannot be bought in nearby stores like dollar dazzlers or DickSmith?

1/Thakral not Thalis

2/Who said it should be on George Street? It can be below ground ala Big W at QV (Swanston Street) or Target at The Myer Centre (Queen Street Mall). Street frontages can have purpose built concept stores that suit George Street better. In both QV and MacArthur Central (Brisbane's Big W centre), they both have mid to high end stores with street/laneway frontages like Hugo Boss, Ralph Lauren, Oroton, Hardy Brothers, Zimmermann, Wayne Cooper etc.

3/You're dozen retail stores must have very large floor plates (if standard DDS is 6000sqm, those dozen retail stores have average floor area of 500sqm...not many stores have GFA about 200/250sqm.

4/What makes you think that carbon copies of Pitt Street Mall stores/other George Street stores are going to make higher returns on replicated stores in an area you say is more difficult to access by foot and less shopping friendly due to noise pollution etc. And if you think the CBD is oversaturated with small discount stores, what about the number of mid to high end clothing and chain stores? I think there are a few more of them.

5/CBD needs more variety and a DDS will help to cater for that.

6/If average floor plates for retail component are ~6000sqm, DDS can be built over 2 floors

7/Never heard of Dollar Dazzlers but clothes, shoes, undies and socks, toys, cheap(er) books and music, homewares/storage gear, sports equipment, stationary etc.

whats this thread about again? lol

It is about a tower, but there is also a retail development associated with it. :)

Using premium grade retail space for low yielding per floor space is financially unviable and inevitably destined for failure. There's a reason why discount stores like BigW or Target are located at the rear of major shopping centres where patronage is lower compared to front. Needs big floor space selling discount products. Major discount stores like Costco and DFO are in warehouses for this financial reason. Even Coles in Wynyard station faces similar financial constraints - and it sell essential goods. Look at current examples and example their locality and profit. Locating them in premium retail space doesn't mix with their strategy no matter how attractive the prime location - above CBD rail station.

If Sydney wants big discount stores close to CBD then Redfern precinct would be ideal. If not, then wall the way to Moore Park where big warehouses are available. Would suitably target students and low income earners living in Redfern area.

Sydney CBD is already saturated with small discount store. There is already a small discount store in Wynyard station, near train gate. The last time I checked they are not doing very well especially in lunchtime.

Woolworths and Wesfarmers are highly profitable firms. Given the duopoly that exists across much of the retailing sector, there is scope for huge profits.

And I personally would not agree with the stores being located in "quiet" areas of shopping centres. They are located in busier areas hence the anchor status. Big W/Kmart/Target is in a complex to draw the people into the complex. It might be what is needed to draw the hordes into Wynyard to shop. They have the commuter base, why not build on it.

You might be surprised at the deals that they get for leases. They pay far lower rents than smaller speciality stores.

anymore stuff on nsw planning site about this yet?

I've worked in the CBD for years and I've lost count of the amount I've times I've heard people say "I want to get some shopping done at [insert Target, Big W or KMart] and it sux that there isn't one in the CBD".

No matter where any of these are placed in the CBD they WILL be mega popular and busy all the time and will make loads of money for the whichever one is lucky to score a spot.

The ones in Melbourne, when I was down there earlier this year, were packed with people during the business day.

What can you get at Target/BigW/KMart that you can't get in the CBD?

Target brand clothes!

I would like to see a Big W in the city, I live in Bondi and there is not one at the Junction either. I get their catalogues but then I have to go out of my way to buy whatever it is I like in there.

I've worked in the CBD for years and I've lost count of the amount I've times I've heard people say "I want to get some shopping done at [insert Target, Big W or KMart] and it sux that there isn't one in the CBD".

No matter where any of these are placed in the CBD they WILL be mega popular and busy all the time and will make loads of money for the whichever one is lucky to score a spot.

The ones in Melbourne, when I was down there earlier this year, were packed with people during the business day.

In Brisbane, both Big W and Target are multilevel and they are busy like the suburban stores. Melbourne's CBD store has been packed when I go to their one.

What can you get at Target/BigW/KMart that you can't get in the CBD?

cheap stuff.?

djs,myers are a rip off.

the real challenge with big, low end retail in the cbd (apart from rents) is servicing. space is a such a premium in the city that very few retail areas will want to spend the money and space on a loading dock big enough to service big box stores.
its also nearly impossible to get a semi into a city loading dock as the service roads are not wid enough for their turning circle.
because the proffit margin on low end is tight, target, big w etc need to ship goods as efficiently as possible, ie stick as many low cost items into one massive truck, where as DJ's or myer can afford the extra cost of using more, smaller trucks as their proffit per item is much higher.
don't think that the retail firms havent done their sums. the small coles express in melb docklands has a turn over of 34mill/year for a store that sells only pre-packaged lunch and dinners to office workers.

We have a render at last folks :)

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/6868/thrakaltower.jpg

A friend of mine emailed the render to me this afternoon.

I cannot question how good it looks, though an extra 100 metres of height would do it for me.

Yeah wow it looks great, completely agree on the height. I gusss this is better than nothing

It's certainly an improvement on what's there. Who knows: it might be a very impressive if not particularly tall tower?
I'm trying to be grateful for small mercies.

^^

Ala Westfield Tower and Space.

Looks great but would look FANTASTIC circa 235m. Therefore a lost opportunity.

wow, yeah that looks like hassells design. its massive,takes up whole site which council woudlnt allow but because its 3A,its with planning nsw. this is aboit to be lodged with state gov.its floors are huge. i like the large diamond segments on facade.
yeah another 100m taller would be perfect but alas

Looks excellent. Wonder how the station's gonna look

I am a bit confused by the separation of the ''podium'' from the ''tower.'' And I also can't make out any retail floors - are they all below ground?

I counted 31 floors...and with the architectural feature on top...is it possible that this will be a bit taller than 150m?

Wow amazing design, love the facade!!!

I can count 33 floors plus the architectural feature (probably way off) so I'm also thinking that it will be taller than 150?

i think it has 160mRL height limit, so max 150m above george st.

Another render.

George Street Elevation.

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/5168/5121873243f0a49e73b3b.jpg

Wow, great looking building! I am excited about this one :banana:

man, that looks great!
the tower takes up whole site? thats what the original 235m did and council didnt like it.
they wanted setbacks and couldnt build over wynyard lane,
now because site3A, nsw planing decide its outcome.
i just wish it was 200mmin. sydney is getting waaaay to many 150m towers these days.
i think reason is old enemy.... LARGE FLOOR PLATES!!!:bash:

That doesn't look too bad. What sun access is being protected? Wynyard st derro area / Barrack St maybe? And are they building right over the lane with the whole floorplate or will it be a narrow strip linking the 2 sections with the lane underneath like a tunnel?

Interesting render - the building is completely empty, yet has hundreds of people wandering about.

Do Thakral own the sites to the north and the south? If not, those will be some rather big blank walls.

Looks like angel place v 2.0. Really as said by many this if higher will be spectacular, at the moment it's just plain ok.

the cores look like they rise on the south face? ive been told bridges and walkways join the two towers over laneway.
lance-reason why angled roof, protect martin place in arvo.
it reminds me more of original westfield tower before competition.
as i said, its a brilliant design,just not tall.

Looks great, but Im like everyone else in that it needs considerable more height to the fully appreciated if even noticed on the Sydney skyline. :)

The similarity between Cityone and the original Westfield Tower are shown here.

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/5168/5121873243f0a49e73b3b.jpghttp://img96.imageshack.us/img96/9845/west3ko.jpg

I wish the sloped roof was steeper.

As for big floor plates, why cannot they just allow more height instead of making them cut floorplates to compensate for height.

It can't go any higher because of sun access anyway now can it?

^unfortunatley no.companies like large floor plates because they can place there employees over a few floors. when you have smal floor plates, too much stairs and lifts to each floor to keep contcat with eimployees

God forbid George St is turned into a pedestrian/tram mall one day. Our 245m zones would be completely decimated with all those sun access planes :(

sydneys silutte skyline will be easily recoginized with all the slopped roofs!!!!!!!!! lol

block model coming in today.

view of block model
#detailed model will be submitted when envelope is approved.
RL160m, grd=RL13m, thus 147m above george street.
looks like floor plates are huge. site=60mx50m= 3000sqm.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1052/5134619508_dedfcc3c38_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1052/5134621588_9724e53096_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1252/5134623748_c634840e1f_b.jpg

Disappointing.

^^

NO.

F*ckin Disappointing.

I think as a tower it looks great and it will have an impact on the skyline, but only purely as it is surrounded by shorter buildings, plus it is better than what is there. It is disappointing though given that we have hoped for year to get a height limit there.
On another positive, how many height limit lots are left? Surely you'd think that if we continue to to place below par projects on these sites that we will run out of room and limits will need to be looked again?
So I say, go on build buildings half the size they should be, we''ll either see a shift in height limits to accommodate new builds, or the likes of North Sydney, Parra, Chatswood etc will have to pick up the slack. Failing that other cities can have a chuckle as they steal international looking for a HQ. I'd hope Adelaide get them.

I know most people say this when a new project comes on line but in this case I have to join the chorus - it should be taller.

Ladies and (oh who am I kidding), Gentlemen, I give you Angel Place #2

When you compare Cityone to nearby towers like 60 Margaret and Angel Place, the floorplates are quite big.

Dominates Wynyard but on the skyline just another filler which drags it down.

Looking at the height limits for the entire site under the council policy - a section of the George Street side is 235 metres, the Menzies Hotel just 55 metres with the rest determined by shadowing on Martin Place. Generally speaking I think we do get a fair sized tower and the fact that they will allow a taller height on Carrington Street compensates for any loss of height.

A building of this height without any setbacks is totally wrong. For once, I agree with the council!

Given that this is further north than Angel Place, I'd have thought it would be possible to go higher on this site without shadowing Martin Place.

they should just build the george st side up much higher if they are allowed to...fuck economic design..we want towers!

That wouldn't look entirely bad actually... you could divide the floorplan into for quarters like Lumiere, and just have the George St half rise up to 235, the Wynyard Park side rise to 150m. Does nothing for the sun access plane into Martin Place though...

Another render.

George Street Elevation.

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/5168/5121873243f0a49e73b3b.jpg

I like the look of the 1st render but seriously this is a big fat disgusting brick of a tower. It's fat, thick and stumpy...

Why do sun access plans matter if it's going to State Gov for approval? Fuck SSC restrictions. Take it up another 200m.

If you read my comments on the height limits on the previous page, it's a case of win some, lose some.

^ That was BS. We do not win anything by getting all these fat stumpy giant campus blocks. They are becoming an ugly blight on the city. Kens really began this uglification designed only to make the tenants happy. And this is what a lot of peoples problem is with Barangaroo. Now I know that this is what corporates are demanding but it's creating a fkn ugly city!

Why do sun access plans matter if it's going to State Gov for approval? Fuck SSC restrictions. Take it up another 200m.

I didn't know we had restrictions!

Agreed ... this is not a win, it's another nail in Sydney's collective coffin. We might as well resign ourselves to being irrelevant, insullar and conservative. This development had to go to at least 235m for a win - now it will be another short totem, a bit like a headstone marking Sydney's demise.

I still don't understand how they've managed to build over the lane, when apparently that was a contentiuos issue from way back, yet there is no height in return for it.

^its not occupiable space over the laneway.just bridges connecting the two towers.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4033/5138154255_976ce8598b_b.jpg

Not the height we wanted but, given the constraints and the conservative attitude of so many of the 'authorities', I think it will be quite a good building in its own right.
It's just a pity that as Thakral is bypassing the muttering village gnomes of Town Hall, it didn't go for something a little, well, actually, a lot, taller.
Maybe they've had enough of battling over this project as it's been on and off for many years & just want to get on with it.

chode

^ That was BS. We do not win anything by getting all these fat stumpy giant campus blocks. They are becoming an ugly blight on the city. Kens really began this uglification designed only to make the tenants happy. And this is what a lot of peoples problem is with Barangaroo. Now I know that this is what corporates are demanding but it's creating a fkn ugly city!


The original height limit was 80 metres for the KENS Site. Early proposals called for three 80 metre apartment towers.

To let them build twice that height was very good!!!!

Cityone won't be an "ugly" blight on the city regardless of height.

Short, fat & uninspiring.

The original height limit was 80 metres for the KENS Site. Early proposals called for three 80 metre apartment towers.

To let them build twice that height was very good!!!!

Cityone won't be an "ugly" blight on the city regardless of height.

It's one of few sites left and it can't be anything other than a big fat ****ie waste of potential. It will be a big fat bertha of a building - dooming sydney again with grossly overweight short towers. Until we break the sydney height and conservative hoodoo we will not get anything worthy of a progressive and interesting future for sydney.

:2cents:

i reckon the george st half should go to 235m. that would look very much like angel place original.damn

I thought that too cul ... maybe they should just dig out the angel place design.

Not the height we wanted but, given the constraints and the conservative attitude of so many of the 'authorities', I think it will be quite a good building in its own right.
It's just a pity that as Thakral is bypassing the muttering village gnomes of Town Hall, it didn't go for something a little, well, actually, a lot, taller.
Maybe they've had enough of battling over this project as it's been on and off for many years & just want to get on with it.

Well it's got giant floor plates, which is so hot right now and probably maxes out the FSR...plus it's cheaper to build shorter! Perfect formula for a developer if you want to maximise profit.

I guess the concept of building for posterity and civic pride don't enter into the equation, just KA$-Ching!

tall bldgs are now for residential use.only way you get fsr,+ the floor is better off thin.
i tell you what,gone are the days of 200m+ pure office tower.
BHP in perth is just 200m high to roof or 46floors.obvioulsy not include cage strucrtire above.sydneys JB tower and brisbanes 111eagle are both pure office and still dont reach 200m.sydneys other big office towers uc or about to start are-
westfield-151m,space-139m,soon to be 33 bligh-135m. all squat towers but large floors.
BANGAROO will have 3 large office towers 2x 180m and big one over 209m.

Cul only in Sydney it would seem. The worst part of your statement would be that it gives rise to the idea we may never have a very tall smooth skinned glass tower due new SSC rules for residential towers. I want a nice tall commercial building with zero balconies thanks.

I guess the concept of building for posterity and civic pride don't enter into the equation, just KA$-Ching!

thrakal will have no problems leasing the tower. Prime address. What else to ask for?

I guess the concept of building for posterity and civic pride don't enter into the equation, just KA$-Ching!

Lol that is what Sydney has usually been famous for :)

I'd say thats the case in all cities.

Two words ...

FAT FRUMPWHORE

There are fatter buildings in Sydney - Grosvenor Place and Westpac World HQ.

The Planning NSW website mentions of the DGR's being issued for the project. If it has not being already stated the development (retail included) totals 85 000 sq/m.

City One:

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/page/project-sectors/transport--communications--energy---water/rail---related-facilities/?action=view_job&job_id=3177

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/8060/cityone2.jpg

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7464/cityone3.jpg

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/5199/cityone4.jpg

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/5690/cityone5.jpg

and just to be mean, what could've been:

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/9719/cityone1.jpg

The white is the 2002 concept and the red is the 2006 concept.
We got a 93m reduction in height since the 2002 concept so the GPO steps can get sunlight

Would've been great to balance banga. Oh well, at least what we're getting's a great design nevertheless. Will be pretty imposing at ground level.

Well at least it's better than what is there now, I suppose...