From the Sydney Morning Herald.

Link to article (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/29/1075340785689.html)

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1075340793865_2004/01/30/milson,0.jpg

A "chirpy" 14-storey office building, accented with flashes of canary yellow, could be the backdrop to the new-look Luna Park, if the developer has its way.

The amusement park will also house a five-screen cinema complex under plans for the final stage of the redesign of the Sydney icon, to be announced today.

The Luna Park site has been controversial in recent years, and the design of the office building is likely to spark furious debate.

The building, yet to be approved by the Planning Minister, Craig Knowles, will be slotted between Moreton Bay figs on the cliff top, and will help fund the development, now costing more than $100 million.

Another office building is already under construction at the northern end of the site.

"The building is a little bit chirpy in its expression and that's because it's a near neighbour of Luna Park," said its architect, Bill Corker. "The buildings around it are pretty sober."

The development of the cliff top will also create a public park between the building and the offices of the architect Harry Seidler, one of the most outspoken critics of the amusement park.

"Hopefully it will be accepted," said Luna Park's managing director, Peter Hearne. "We have tried to design the building to maximise the benefits to the local community."

A review panel including the government architect, Chris Johnson, unanimously selected the winning design by the architectural firm Denton Corker Marshall from three proposals.

Mr Johnson said it struck a balance between conserving the landscape, relating to the scale of the bridge and connecting with the character of Luna Park.

"I think it is a bit amusing, a bit light-hearted. I think it's actually a very clever solution . . . I think it has a very small floor plate which means the trees are all kept."

Mr Corker described the design as a "piece of sculpture, or whatever you want to call it, in a park". The yellow triangles would reflect the bridge.

"I would like to think [the community] would see it as an interesting building on a pretty spectacular site . . ."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I certainly see it as an interesting building on a pretty spectacular site. Too interesting. Start again, DCM! :bash:

I'm not against the building as such, I don't mind it at all, but not as close to the bridge as this!. Put this one in Chatswood or Bondi or around Darling Harbour. Or *gasp*, cut the height by a third or so!

Oh i don't know. I like this one. This one would balance out well with the Sirius apartments at the other approaches to the bridge. Modernism and Post-modernism. Yin and Yang. :)

It's truly no suprise that the proposed winning design for the office was designed by Denton Corker Marshall. It has their true trademarks of basic primary colours of of yellow and blue (at least by the render).

If it goes ahead, BTW screw H***y, it should look quite interesting esp. from the western side of The Harbour Bridge approaching Milsons Point Station by train. :okay:.

Lower Milsons Point needs this one like real bad, to break up the 'cookiie cutter' jobs lining the eastern through to the south-western side of Milsons Point.

Here's to DCM :cheers1:

In fact, won't this be the 1st DCM proposal for the North Shore in Sydney?

It's about time Milsons Point got a fine scraper. Many of the towers along Alfred St are quite drab designwise and is concentrated (unfortuantely) towards the harbour end.

DCM have a done a great job on the design of this tower, even though it's overhang on the upper levels detracts a bit from the good look of the tower.

I love it! A great design that will certainly become an icon for the area. Hopefully this gets approved.

Yeah, looks good! It will look very cool as motorists approach North Sydney across the bridge - very dramatic!

I would love to see Seidler's reaction if this gets approved! Hopefully it will distract people from noticing the other major tower noticeable on the approach - being Blues Point Tower of course!;)

I am totally for it. Sydney NEEDS more "chirpy" and cheeky buildings like this, especially with unexpected elements like the cantilevered top section. Fabian is right about the relative ordinariness of surrounding buildings.
I would love to see something like this charging 250 metres plus above Wynyard. Sydney planners have entirely lost their balls in recent decades; can you imagine what they would do to the Opera House these days?!
No, we NEED more imagination and daring in our architecture: faint heart and all that.

its ok, could be worse. i like how its cantilevered. Is it on Northcliffe st?
ill add it to ss.com
thanks tony for scoop!

I'm not so sure about this one. I like the design and all, but I'm not exactly sure as to whether this is the right spot for it or not. It seems a bit close to the Harbour Bridge, might divert a bit of attention away from it? Maybe it's just the rendering angle.

I love this design. Which means it will not go through and will most likely be replaced with a pub/hotel.

Hope this is a joke - I reckon this is a potential new eyesore on Milsons Point! There's no need for a tower next to Luna Park! :bash:

I love Alfred St residential scrapers though - Harbour Lights, Portofino, Colonnades, Grandview, Port Jackson and especially, fabulous Pinnacle & Quadrant are world-class buildings...This proposal is totally unnecessary....:mad:

Ugh
My opinion about buildings like that is that they will age horribly.
But i spose its not that bad.

If the DCM proposal does go ahead, it will be a fantastic distraction from that line up of 'cookie cutter' apartment buildings along Milons Point on both the station side and the western side.

The only reasonable structure in that area is The Duxton Hotel....kinda retro 80s in its design:

______________________http://www.auzzi.info/sydneyhotels/sydney/Sydney_Duxton.jpg

Originally posted by finn
I would love to see Seidler's reaction if this gets approved! Hopefully it will distract people from noticing the other major tower noticeable on the approach - being Blues Point Tower of course!;)

Very cheezed off

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

Harry's not so wild about this tall building
By Claire O'Rourke, Urban Affairs Reporter
January 31, 2004

The architect Harry Seidler is furious about a proposal to build a 14-storey office building near his own on the cliff top behind Luna Park, describing it as "outrageous and contemptuous".

"It is totally and utterly inappropriate under the circumstances," he said.

The proposal for the building, designed by Denton Corker Marshall, was unveiled yesterday, following a design competition reviewed by a panel including Chris Johnson, the Government Architect.

The plan for the last stage of the $100 million-plus Luna Park redevelopment, due to open in April, also includes a cinema complex with five theatres on the park site.

Mr Seidler, who lives in an apartment adjoining his office, described Mr Johnson as "the lowest form of life" for supporting the proposal.

"These people [the developers] are given a blank cheque - the State Government lets them build anything they please without any responsibility," he said.

The architect yesterday drew his own impression of the site with the office building - complete with an unhappy face where the smiling park entrance stands.

Local residents and politicians yesterday also dismissed the proposal, and voiced fears for the trees on the site. The Moreton Bay fig trees and coral trees are listed by the National Trust as part of the Luna Park Conservation Area.

The Mayor of North Sydney, Genia McCaffrey, said the plan conflicted with elements of the masterplan for the site, which detailed a "low-scale restaurant" with a maximum of two storeys in a landscaped setting. "When I looked at it at first I thought it was an April Fools' Day joke because it's so absurd," she said.

Hundreds of nearby residents would lose their views and North Sydney Pool would lose its winter sun, she said.

Cr McCaffrey pledged to "organise public protests that the government has never seen" if the development is approved.

Andy Buttfield, the president of the Lavender Bay Precinct group, said property values of nearby owners would be harmed if the office building went ahead.

"This is only Luna Park in name, only there's no Luna Park left," he said.

The local Liberal MP, Jillian Skinner, said: "This is not just an insult to local residents, this is going to be a blight on the landscape for everybody viewing this site."

The Greens MP and spokeswoman on planning, Sylvia Hale, said: "We don't want Luna Park to end up playing host to the son of Blues Point Tower."

There was some support for the proposal, however. Caroline Pidcock, NSW president of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, said the building was a "well-considered backdrop" to the amusement park. "It accommodates the landscape; it perches delicately up on the cliff - it looks like it could be a really great building."

The environmentalist Jack Mundey said the building seemed to blend in with nearby buildings and the bridge. "I'd give it a pass," he said.

Mr Seidler, who designed Blues Point Tower, said his design was in a completely different context - the tower blocked no one's views and "doesn't hurt Luna Park".

Peter Hearne, the managing director of Luna Park, said the company chose to develop only one of the two available clifftop sites and create a public park on the other.

No harm would be done to the fig trees, and the coral trees would be replaced with native vegetation, he said.

"These people [the developers] are given a blank cheque - the State Government lets them build anything they please without any responsibility," he (HARRY SEIDLER) said.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

:hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious

HEEHEEEEE!

*SNORT*

*chortle*

What a piece of ugly shit, I am sick of the fucking lame crap that gets tossed Sydney's way... another blues point tower... thanks dickheads!

Yes Muse... :( whatever happened to Sydney and the late 80s... it seems the best decade in design decided to forget Sydney and we are left with all the shit from the 70s and all the newer crap from the 90's. Sydney never sees nice post modern glass scrapers all we see is more concrete, more mundane bullshit or more cooky (artistic tryhard) crap that should be in Melbourne. I hate DCM and i wish someone would close their business down.

I wonder how the architects of this design would like me to hire the 'elvis' water tanker to fly over their homes and dump sewage all over their houses... this is akin to what they are doing. A design of this style is revolting, disorganised and totally dysfunctional in appearance. What is that crappy cantilevered section on top?????? YUCKO! People might dislike some of what I do but for a reputable firm to produce bullshit like this is unacceptable, especially for such a sensitive location.

Hmmm well as for Harry and his complaints. SHUT THE FUCK UP, you have single handedly destroyed almost every Australian capital with your outdated and 1950's bahaus crap, take a look out your window and look at the bunker block sitting on Blue's Point!

I am fed up with Australian architects, Australian NIMBY behaviour and what it seems is a totally idiotic planning for Sydney. Everything needs an overhaul and its time all the dead wood was pruned and fed thought a mulcher... Architects, Governement, Planners, Councils and developers.

Yes I am in a more than crap mood as you can see!

Say NO To this proposal. This will block the million dollar views behind the skyscraper.

Go Nth Sydney Council. Rally forward! This is another Blue Point Tower.

i reckon this fits in perfectly with the rest of the area.... LOL

............ NOT


Cheers

Dean - Melbourne

It wont be anything like Blues Point Tower. The architects have put in a good job to produce a design which is quite innovative (despite my annoyance about the overhang). DCM are very reputable too producing great towers such as GPT and the soon to be built EAST at World Square. Because of it's location it will actually be a landmark tower for the area, and the architects and planners did take it into consideration, otherwise, we would of had an even worse scraper on the site.

Is it no surprise that all of Australia's most talented and innovative architects go overseas where their designs are appreciated and taken seriously.

It's no wonder that Australian cities (especially Sydney) gets all of the mundane and outdated "leftovers", and piss-poor redundant crap (ie. Meriton, Seidler, etc) who are responsible for the designs of three out of five buildings in every major Australian city.

Just take a look at every Meriton building and try to see the 'originality' in each design. Not one of their buildings are unique (notwithstanding height) - they all have the same 'look'. Sure, one or two Meriton designed buildings are okay, but for fuck's sakes, they're everywhere you look in Sydney.

I too wonder why cities around the world are graced with beautiful glass towers, or even plain-looking buildings that have unique rooves.

I am going to be brutally honest and admit that in the last 30 odd years, there have only been about five unique buildings designed and built in Sydney that a visitor or tourist from outside of Australia might actually remember (for good reasons and not for bad ones, like the revoltingly ugly blue HSBC building). The Chifley Tower, Angel Place, Latitude, the ANA hotel and that beautiful building with the blue-conical glass roof, to name an elite few.

The rest are just boring boring boring. Anything remotely unique and/or 'landmark-quality' are usually thrown in the trash in favor of the city planner's old clique that include Meriton and Seidler. It's like an old boys club where no one else is allowed in.

I make no excuses that I have absolutely no experience with city planning nor do I intend to know everything that there is to know about architecture and the politics involved with getting a building off the ground.

But for fuck's sakes, I know an ugly or plain building when I see one. Just look at that garbage adjacent to the World Tower site. I believe it is part of the site and was the first tower they erected when it sat derelict as Third World Square for 15 years or so. I was glad at first that they finally filled the hole, but when I saw the finished product, I was horrified at how ghastly and plain it looked.

It's almost like they just greenlit anything for the sake of having the hole filled. It's an ugly concrete block with nothing unique about it at all. In fact, whoever the hell designed it didn't even put five minutes thought into it.

This latest fiasco with City One and the Wynyard site is a perfect example of what is wrong with this city.

Whoever is in charge of these decisions (is it a panel or does the decision like solely with one person?) obviously has a secret/hidden agenda. Maybe a payout from Meriton or DCM perhaps? How have they gotten away with this for so long?

It would definitely be a perfect backdrop for Looney-Tooney Park. Froget the residents living in those cookie cutter jobs. They live in a dense part of the lower North Shore for cryin' out loud.

It reminds me of the NIMBYS living in The Tower on Market Street in Sydney's CBD. The ones that are complaining about loosing their precious views by the Westfeild apartment proposals for Centrepoint.

If people to choose to live in dense city areas, how can they expect not to be 'built out' by nearby constructions.

It does not compute!!

Maybe Seidler doesn't get it... it's a tribute /homage to Blues Point Tower. At least, that's the way I see it. I think the design is daring, and we all know what daring means architecture means in Sydney! The last daring move Sydney made was with the SOH. Bloody hell.

Originally posted by fro
The last daring move Sydney made was with the SOH. Bloody hell. Yeah LOL NOT!! Even the SOH didn't reach its full daring potential due to the (in)famous state government meddling and also the structural engineering technology that wasn't available at the time of its construction.

Diagram of the original's more flowing design:

____http://home.vicnet.net.au/~aholgate/structdes/taisd/taisd_images/taisd_2-09.gif

looks kinda odd tower to me
whats with that over hang
Dont like it such a postion
Oh well see how it goes before i kick up a fuss
Still some development is good around then but to close to the brige may be

Doesn't anyone else think it's a homage to Seidler's Blues Point tower?? I think it's funny that Seidler has the audacity to speak out about this tower when his puerile Blues Point sticks up like the proverbial just a few hundred metres away.

I think DCM are making fun of Seidler. It's the Melbourne thing to do ain't it? :D

Totally agree fro. It's such an irony.

There's an article in today's S.M.H. written by The North Sydney Lord mayor herself and how she is so against this development going ahead....yadda, yadda, yadda.

Boo!! Hisssssss!! and Boo again: Say NO to Genia McCaffery and YES to DCM!

________________http://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/images/about_img/councillors/genia.gif

The original, more flowing design for the Opera House was changed by Utzon himself as his idea was unbuildable, we simply didn't have the technology. And we still don't today. At the time, curved concrete in arches, parabola, swooping and dramatic, were all the rage, on paper, but apart from a couple of daring efforts by a couple of Spaniards and Oscar Niemeyer, most proved beyond contemporary technology.
It is a miracle that we succeeded in getting the Opera House in its present still breathtaking form.
At the time, mid 1950s, it had few supporters and it was roundly condemned by every self-appointed critic as a waste of money with all the usual arguments about the money being better spent on hospitals, schools, roads, yadda yaddah: you've heard it all before. And you know that if the money hadn't been spent on the Opera House it would not have been spent on hospitals, schools, roads, etc, but would had simply disappeared into that vast black hole of government promises aka "consolidated revenue".
Now? Can you imagine Our Sydney without that extraordinary building?
We certainly could do with some more of that daring spirit today.

Originally posted by Muse
Totally agree fro. It's such an irony.

There's an article in today's S.M.H. written by The North Sydney Lord mayor herself and how she is so against this development going ahead....yadda, yadda, yadda.

Boo!! Hisssssss!! and Boo again: Say NO to Genia McCaffery and YES to DCM!

________________http://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/images/about_img/councillors/genia.gif

I read that article, and she was able to justify her reasons for her objection towards the development, but to object on the grounds of people losing views is unjustified. When is she going to learn that you do not buy an apartment with the expectation that the views are going to be there forever.

confuscious say- NEVER BUT APARTMENT FOR VIEWS!!!
UNLESS its an apartment on top of WT!!
>

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

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

@ brizer.

Ove Arup & Partners, the original stucrtural enginneers didn't have the sturctural eginnering tecniques to build the more flowing curves of the original Utzorn design for the S.O.H..

The Spanish archtiect Santiago Calatrava certainly has the know-how. His design for the 1999 comtpeted Valecnia's L’Hemisfèric, the Planetarium, nicknamed "The Eye of Knowledge", as part of of the Science Museum in that city. It certainly had the up-to-date technology to complete the curves more profficently:

http://www.*************/architects/calatrava/planetarium/Photo-1.jpg

http://www.*************/architects/calatrava/planetarium/photo-2.jpg

More curves with updated technology, Jubilee Church in Rome and completed in 2000. Architect Richard Meier & Partners:

http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/images/Feature0123_02x.jpg

...and of course Blues Point Tower @ McMahons Point, lower North Shore, Sydney:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/509/379bluespoint1-med.jpg

:hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious @Muse

Tuesday: today's SMH page 17, Elizabeth Farrelly on Luna Park and the proposed DCM tower. She brings her usual tart and sharp observations to the subject of planning and councils and their lack of architectural balls and foresight, and - Harry Haters will love this! - gives Mr Seidler a right royal serve for his self-serving hypocrisy on this subject. Enjoy.

There was a rally last week against the development attended by Genia Macaffery, local liberal MP Julian Skinner, and opposition leader John Brogden. The protestors according to the Mosman Daily are concerned that the approval of the tower could spell the end of community consultation on major developments and could also spell the end of Luna Park itself.

Expect a tough fight from these guys.

Fabian, I would take the concerns of the locals with a large grain of salt. It is a wonder they didn't cite the decline of civilization as we know it as a probable result as well. I doubt very much whether many of the locals give a flying stuff about either Luna Park's preservation or the role of community consultation in large developments but are primarily, if not openly, concerned about their views. There would also be the usual contingent of luddites who oppose everything and stir things up to hysterical levels.
The opponents of this building need to look carefully at the site: the building will not be located in the middle of Luna Park as they intimate, but is tucked back toward existing buildings (ref: the views!!)
If any of them are like Harry S, they would actually like to see Luna Park go and a nice open park put in its place, for their personal delectation and recreation. They are unlikely to voice such a view as it would reveal their real motives.
I am sure some protesters are genuinely concerned but they do need to take a calm look at the plans, suppress their natural inclination to fearfulness and consider what might go up - eventually, as it will - if they nobble this nice bit of architectural hutzpah.

The locals are objecting to this development for legitmate reasons. Their main argument is that the tower contravenes planning policies for the area which forbids buildings anymore than two stories but also in an area containing heritage listed trees. The one argument that is illegitmate is the loss of views. They going to have to live with it. As they say "Never buy an apartment for it's views."

A few weeks ago I went to the lookout at the overseas passenger terminal and I had a look at the site of the tower and noticed, that many of the apartment towers will remain visible (I wish the tower was in front, they are absolute filth), meaning many owners will keep their views of the harbour.

Originally posted by Muse
Yeah LOL NOT!! Even the SOH didn't reach its full daring potential due to the (in)famous state government meddling and also the structural engineering technology that wasn't available at the time of its construction.

Diagram of the original's more flowing design:

____http://home.vicnet.net.au/~aholgate/structdes/taisd/taisd_images/taisd_2-09.gif

Well, you may argue that the SMH "lost" it's daring curves because of lack of technology, but that is only right to a point. Utzon did not design the original to any geometry, he just drew curves. Rationalizing the design led him and Ove Arup to the geometry of spheres, which I believe gives it harmony, and it became a better solution. If the SOH were built today, it would probably be done with a metal skin, like Bilbao. How bad would that be!?

Gehry is probably the ultimate contemporary example of technology enabling freeform blobs to be built. Calatrava being an engineer as well as an architect always has a geometric understanding that people like Gehry just ignore, and "fudge" with technology. Nowadays, any blob can be built, which makes showcase architecture easy but not special. I like the fact the opera house has something more behind it (also, there is the whole orange peel analogy which would have been lost)

Personally, the original scheme for the SOH looks "lazy" in comparison. I think the SOH should not have been built any other way than what it has been - it is perfect!

As for Luna Park.....I don't mind the design as a DCM fan, but I think it is unsuited to the context

The State Government, according to the Daily Telegraph is reviewing planning controls for the area as to end any confusion as to what can and cannot be built there.

Craig Knowles the planning minister said the clifftop area is not covered by the Luna Park Masterplan and the North Sydney Local Environment Plan is at odds with The Luna Park Act of 1997.

A panel of independent experts will be established in order to identify planning controls.

Anne Davies in the Herald today wrote an article about the proposal on pg 6 discussing the outrage associated with the development. Even Planning Minister Craig Knowles admits it's a prohbited development.

Also Professor James Weirick from the landscaping architecture department at UNSW has also warned the development could lead to the trees becoming disease.

The article also makes mention of a possible two level restaurant in the podium of the tower and there is a model pic of the proposed tower.

Even rival property developers don't want this one to go ahead.

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

Property firms bankroll Luna protest

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/05/21/430_luna2205,0.jpg
View to be killed . . . Rowan Wall, left, and Gus Kuiters yesterday rage against plans for a 60-metre-high office block outside Mr Kuiter's flat. Mr Kuiters says the view directly behind him will be blocked. Photo: Robert Pearce

Sydney's most cashed-up community group, formed to fight a 60-metre office block above Luna Park, is being bankrolled by not only Milsons Point residents but a group of disgruntled rival property developers.

The Protectors of Sydney Foreshore say they have access to more than $1 million to fight Multiplex all the way to the High Court. If that fails, they are even considering offering to buy the site for $10 million.

At stake, they say, are not only the spectacular views from multi million-dollar apartments along nearby streets, but several rival residential and office developments that line the shorefront.

The Planning Minister, Craig Knowles, has handed the decision on the development to a special committee, even though the local council is opposed to the plan and the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, which manages foreshore land, believes it is likely "prohibited".

Far from shying away from the battle, rival developers are openly in the thick of it. One, Rowan Wall, freely admits to promising tens of thousands of dollars to the Protectors from his company, Eclipse Financial Group, mainly because the fight affects his own plans. Mr Wall wants to redevelop the nearby Random House, which he bought for $11.5 million, into an $85 million residential tower.

Advertisement
Advertisement
"The $10,000 was just the start," Mr Wall said yesterday. "We [developers] are as much a part of the community as residents, and I plan to make my home here. We are very public and open about our involvement, and I see no conflict whatsoever.

"When I bought into this area I did so understanding there were limits to what could be built [there]. I have to play by the rules but it seems that Multiplex doesn't."

Mr Wall not only questions the scale of Multiplex's plan, which had been limited to a squat restaurant under masterplans for the park, but also the profits that will come out of a 14-storey office building. Luna Park executives say they need the development to make the park viable, and expect to reap $10 million from the sale.

But Mr Wall said the community stood to lose $80 million from the value of their homes.

Gus Kuiters bought his apartment off the plan in 1996. He has 180-degree views of Sydney Harbour and does not want them marred by the yellow wall of an office block. But he is quick to dismiss accusations that the protest is just about saving views. "We are not going to be bullied by a giant company like this," he said yesterday. "There is a lot more at stake than just the views; there is the public amenity of the foreshore, the clifftops themselves and the Moreton Bay fig trees, which will be killed if this goes ahead."

Mr Kuiters would not say how big the protesters' war chest was, only that it was "substantial" and that they were prepared to spend more than $1 million on a fight. "If you want to know who is involved, then stand on the clifftop and look around at the buildings which are affected. We'll go to the High Court if necessary. If it costs us $1 million or more, then so be it."

The managing director of Luna Park, Peter Hearne, questioned the involvement of developers like Mr Wall. "This group [the Protectors of Sydney Foreshore] has repeatedly represented itself to local residents, the media and government as a voice for residents, and at no stage has it declared it is financially backed and controlled by developers," he said. "It is clear that local residents and the public have been deceived by a small number of people with vested interests.

"Prior to these people hijacking the residents' action group, we believe we had a good working relationship with most of the local residents. These developers are now promoting hatred in the community for their own financial gain."

Even rival property developers don't want this one to go ahead.

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

Property firms bankroll Luna protest

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/05/21/430_luna2205,0.jpg
View to be killed . . . Rowan Wall, left, and Gus Kuiters yesterday rage against plans for a 60-metre-high office block outside Mr Kuiter's flat. Mr Kuiters says the view directly behind him will be blocked. Photo: Robert Pearce


Well, I think Mr Kuiters should be seen as a self-ineterested resident before he should be spouting off about representing the property development community. I am sure he is thinking first and foremost about his own personal loss of views and the loss of value on his property if this development goes ahead, as are all of the residents protesting this development.

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

Luna Park 'at risk if office building blocked'
By Sean Nicholls
May 31, 2004

Luna Park's new operator says the fun park's future is at risk if an office block planned above the site is not approved, increasing the pressure on the State Government.

The managing director of Luna Park Sydney, Peter Hearne, said the company needed to pay off $10 million in debt with the proceeds of the 14-storey building.

However, there has been strong public opposition since the building was announced in January.

North Sydney Council says that it exceeds height limits and the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority believes it is likely to be "prohibited".

The Planning Minister, Craig Knowles, has formed a committee to develop planning laws to clarify the matter, due to report within a fortnight. But in a clear warning to the Government, Mr Hearne said yesterday that Luna Park's future was tied to the office block.

"This land was made available to assist the continuing viability of Luna Park," he said. "We had anticipated to retire in excess of $10 million in debt. If that doesn't happen it will put the long-term viability of the park at risk."

The North Sydney mayor, Genia McCaffery, a committee member, accused the developer of blackmail. "No planning controls ever envisaged a building of this scale. Now that the developers think they're not going to get their own way they're resorting to blackmail. I think the Government should ignore it."

The redevelopment of Luna Park, which reopened in April, cost about $100 million.

Mr Hearne said his company was being treated differently by the council to other developers in the area, especially those backing a community group fighting the new building. A proposal by Rowan Wall less than 100 metres from Luna Park had been given in-principal permission to exceed height restrictions.

Cr McCaffery said there were clear differences between the proposals, including the fact that Luna Park Sydney wanted to build on public land.

Mr Hearne also called on Cr McCaffery to explain statements that there was a two-storey height limit on the site when council officers had told public meetings there were no planning controls.

Cr McCaffery agreed there were no planning controls but argued that her comments related to "community expectations" of an existing plan of management.

jeez, its either one thing or another!!! :wallbash:

This is going to be a contender for "Soap Opera of the Year".

Here's a latest twist in the fight to get this scraper built. A pretty sneaky one too by park management :D

The SMH reported today that 9000 people had been tricked into signing a petition supporting the development which is refered to as "a slender 14 storey building on the clifftop." This was denied by management stating that it was a petition in support of the park.

lol Why are they even wasting their energy? It would be very surprising if it go the go-ahead.

Yesterday's Daily Telegraph reported that former swimmers such as Murray Rose & John Konrads have also joined those opposing the development because of the concern of the impact the tower could have on North Sydney pool. However the short article didn't bother mentioning why???? I guess it has to do with overshadowing and the height of the tower.

Also North Sydney council in recent weeks has draped a sign on an adjoining office building which calls for no highrise on the clifftop.

I truly think we should give up on this one people. :down:

This thread is just proving to be one of just interest more than anything else.

yes soap opera all around
I kinda agree postion is just prominate to ahve any thing build

The drama continues with plans to heritage list the clifftop to prevent this one from getting the green light.

From The Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au)
If you can't beat it, heritage list it
By Tim Dick, Urban Affairs Reporter
August 30, 2004

A Sydney Harbour lobby group and the State Opposition are hoping to thwart plans for a 14-storey office tower on the cliff tops above Luna Park, by having the famous amusement park listed on the NSW and federal heritage registers.

Luna Park is not on the State Heritage Register, although parts of the site are listed on North Sydney Council's heritage controls.

Now the Protectors of Sydney Foreshore and the Opposition want the whole site - including the adjacent cliffs - listed on the State Heritage Register and the National Heritage List.

The Opposition's planning spokeswoman, Peta Seaton, said heritage listing of the site could force the park's owners to cut 12 storeys from the planned tower.

"If the Carr Government stuck to the Luna Park plan of management that states buildings should be no higher than two storeys on the cliff top site, it would not be necessary to seek protection from heritage authorities," she said.

The 1998 plan allowed for "low-rise commercial buildings which assist in ensuring viability but do not detract from the amenity of the area".
Advertisement Advertisement

Luna Park's managing director, Peter Hearne, said the tower was needed to ensure the park, which has had a troubled history since the fatal ghost train fire in 1979, remained open.

"The land on top of the cliff was made available by the Government, with the support of the Opposition, when they amended the legislation for commercial development to assist in the long-term viability of Luna Park," Mr Hearne said.

In March, the planning minister, Craig Knowles, commissioned an "independent expert committee" to review the controls that should apply to the site. It has now finished its report and forwarded it to the minister, although a spokesman for Mr Knowles said he hasn't seen it yet.

The Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, which owns the site, said earlier this year that the committee's recommendations would be "subject to public comment".

Even if the heritage applications succeed, which is far from automatic given that the NSW Government has to approve any listing on the State Heritage Register, it would not exclude changes to a listed site. Heritage Office of NSW guidelines say changes to listed sites are permitted provided they "do not detract from the heritage significance of the listed items".

gezz with it ever end !

ROFL!
The residents hate Luna Park, but now its convenient for them to heratige list it? My god....

so this proposal tower would sit between smile face and Jacksons tower behind?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/jacksontower.jpg

Bet your bottom dollar most of the complaints over this tower are from residents of the apartment towers who would lose their harbour views!! ;)

oh well shit happens lol
just build the bloody tower tho!

I truly think we should give up on this one people. :down:

This thread is just proving to be one of just interest more than anything else.

It looks like we will. The height limit has now been set at a maximum of 15 metres!!! :bash: :bleep:

From The Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au)
Panel rejects tower plan for Luna Park site
By Ellen Connolly
September 15, 2004

Plans to build a 14-storey office block behind Luna Park were dealt a blow yesterday when a Government committee recommended that the building's height be restricted to 15 metres and heritage-listed fig trees be protected.

North Sydney residents said they were relieved at the recommendations but knew the fight was not over.

Compiled by a panel of architects and planners, the report recommends that two "parcels" of the land be developed on the site at a maximum height of 15 and 8.5 metres respectively.

Luna Park's managing director, Peter Hearne, described the report as "extremely disappointing".

"On the face of it, this Government committee has simply caved in to a noisy minority with deep pockets and to their architectural mate, Harry Seidler

... We are reserving our rights at this stage and looking at all possible options at our disposal," he said.

The operators of Luna Park, Metro Edgley and Multiplex, had proposed an office block with canary-yellow panels that would slot between two large fig trees.

The proposal would have required removal of two of the other heritage-listed trees to make way for an underground car park.

The panel of experts said there should be no car parking on the site. Any parking requirements should be accommodated within the existing Luna Park car park.

Mr Hearne said the building was needed to ensure the park remained open. He said the land was originally made available by the State Government for the long-term viability of Luna Park. "This decision goes 25 per cent of the way towards helping Luna Park, and 75 per cent to benefiting the interests of the North Sydney Mayor and a few developers with vested interests."

The Opposition said there was no need for an expert panel to release a report. Its spokeswoman on planning, Peta Seaton, said the Government was "conveniently ignoring" the fact it had abandoned its plan of management for Luna Park, which provided for a maximum of two storeys in any development on the clifftop site.

The Minister for Planning, Craig Knowles, said:

"This is an important harbourside site and it is important that we make sure that any development is appropriate and sympathetic to the surroundings. Now the committee has given its recommendations, it is time for the broader community to have its say."

The report will be available on the Department of Planning website in the next few days. Comments must be received by October 26.

loosers!

what a cop out. THere are completely to many rights in this country!
Were better off in a place where no one is told any thing and people dont realise about it. They only find out about a new building when they come home and some one has broken ground next door some time that day. :P

Harry meets sally over Luna Park woes
SYDNEY MORNING HERALD May 8, 2004

The architect is not amused about the remembrance of designs past, write Anne Davies and Claire O'Rourke.

The architect Harry Seidler has defended his 1969 design for a high-rise trade centre on the Luna Park site, saying a plan from a different era is irrelevant to a current debate over a proposed 14-storey building above the amusement park.

"That goes back 36 years ago. It was another world then. We were commissioned to design something quite specific by people who held the lease in those days," he said yesterday.

Mr Seidler said he was upset by the Herald publishing images last week of the 1969 model of Trade City, which would have replaced Luna Park, saying it had portrayed him as a hypocrite.

"It was to occupy what was then called the failing Luna Park and the adjacent railway siding tracks along Lavender Bay. It certainly did not include the area that is proposed for a 14-storey building right in the middle of the trees."

The current operators of Luna Park - Metro Edgley and Multiplex - have sparked a community furore over plans to build a 14-storey office block on the clifftop above the park.

There are three heritage-listed fig trees on the site, which is next door to Mr Seidler's office.

"Everyone says you can squeeze a building, a small building, in between trees.That may be so, but you simply not only damage but cost about three big Moreton Bay figs," he said.

Mr Seidler said his 1969 plan would have kept the trees, as did a later plan for a restaurant, designed in 1975. Residents and the North Sydney Mayor, Genia McCaffrey, are particularly angered by the proposed building because they say the original plan of management for Luna Park talked of a 7.5-metre high restaurant between the trees.

A panel of architects and planners has been asked by the Planning Minister, Craig Knowles, to untangle the maze of planning instruments that govern the site. It has met twice but already there are concerns about the 14-storey proposal because the Luna Park Act refers specifically to preserving the fig trees.

Luna Park's managing director, Peter Hearne, said the company had not made a presentation to the panel.

All three architects who presented designs for the site concluded a tall slender building with open space was better than developing the entire clifftop.

One option now likely to be explored is developing the area closer to Mr Seidler's office, which is occupied by two coral trees.

Mr Seidler's wife, Penelope, said the couple were weary of being portrayed as the main opponents to the proposed Luna Park development, adding that while it would affect their view it would affect other residents more severely.

"We're not big bad devils . . . I mean, give him a break, he's been at it for almost 60 years, you know. I mean, really, it is so ridiculous what you were doing in 1968 [can be used against you]."

Goodness thats an ugly building!
Being a member of the NS area I am mostly horrified by some of their decisions.

wow, nearly 1 year to the day for a new reply. where was this thread? last page.

The tower has been axed :bash:. Sartor rejected it. There will be a seven storey building in nearby Glen St and Luna Park will get a cinema complex.