Where can the Sydney CBD realistically spread?

[Brizer]

The height limit of 150 feet - about 47m - was largely in deference to the predominant height of London buildings, the mother city of the country many Australians still called 'Home' (note the capital H!) up until the 1960s. After WWII Australia became much less Anglophile with all the immigrants & 'reffos' (refugees) from Europe, and Sydney and Melbourne began to make a small mark on the international business & financial world with many overseas companies, especially American (read US) companies establishing offices here.
It took a lot of pushing from planners, architects, business men, financial institutions, etc., but finally the forelock clutching 'homage' to London was ended and buildings were allowed to edge past 150ft. about 1960.
Memory from research says, so it's not 'gospel', the AMP building at Circular Quay was the first major breakthrough when local architects, Peddle Thorp & Walker working in conjunction with the international American firm, SOM (Skidmore Owings & Merrill) San Francisco office, were granted the lofty 263 ft. (some sources give a slightly different figure, but 263 will do for now).
From then on it was onwards & upwards except Sydney has had another conservative net thrown over it (CASA, Sydney Council, etc.) and remains relatively shortarsed while Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Gold Coast and countless overseas cities, including London, surge ever upwards.
Sydney authorities are going to have to remove their finger if Sydney is to retain its position and grow as it should.

[Fabian]

But the main reason for restricting heights had to do with fire safety for instance the length of fire ladders.

[Brizer]

Ostensibly. Do not underestimate The Call to Empire sentiment prevailing up to around 1960, and especially in govt. Look at the tripe still being put out by the Royalists in the so-called Republic Debate now, 50 years on. My family background is English with a thread of Irish and you'd be surprised how in the older members of my family that Empire idea still holds sway and it was dominant in Australian society back then.

[redbaron_012]

.............upward !

[Urbania]

Realistically, I think Parramatta will evolve to become a rival CBD.

[Mornnb]

I hope not, Parramatta is so car based and is far away from any natural beauty and far away from the existing skyline. That would be the worst out come for Sydney's future.

[Fabian]

Originally Posted by Urbania

Realistically, I think Parramatta will evolve to become a rival CBD.

It will happen and thats what the planners envision for Parramatta. It makes sense too because of the large number of Sydneysiders that reside in the Greater West - more than two million.

[sbx]

Originally Posted by Fabian

It will happen and thats what the planners envision for Parramatta. It makes sense too because of the large number of Sydneysiders that reside in the Greater West - more than two million.

That's pretty exciting! It would also create a little bit more of the city rivalry that Brisbane-Gold Coast have - and may promote change (i.e lifting of height limits to build better buildings/attract big developers) for the better.

Is there any info on this plan Fabs? It'd be fascinating to see.

[BearCave]

Originally Posted by Urbania

Realistically, I think Parramatta will evolve to become a rival CBD.

I think they should change the suburb name from Parramatta to West Sydney, so that people outside Australia would know it's somewhere in Sydney and would help more business relocating to Parramatta.

[Arreis]

Originally Posted by Urbania

Realistically, I think Parramatta will evolve to become a rival CBD.

I agree. Parramatta is basically the geographical centre of Sydney. Positioning it as a rival CBD could potentionally alleviate a lot of transport dramas. It is much better connected to greater Sydney than the Sydney CBD is.

[motion]

Originally Posted by Mornnb

I hope not, Parramatta is so car based and is far away from any natural beauty and far away from the existing skyline. That would be the worst out come for Sydney's future.

i agree; however i have to say i would be very happy for Parramatta to increase its size and function a bit more like a CBD than a suburb which looks like a CBD.

Also I am still not convinced that William street is not the best option. Forget redfern its a social housing suburb and very unattractive area. It will never get tall skyscrapers. CBDs need to be engulfed in towers not just one long stretch. I think it would make the CBD appear a lot bigger and appealing if it ran an X and Y axis. Vertical and Horizontal rather than just develop and grow on an X axis. Make sense? It also contains the CBD and makes it easier to get around and appear much larger (whether or not the skyline depicts this) on ground it will feel a lot bigger and in sync.

[Mornnb]

Originally Posted by Fabian

It will happen and thats what the planners envision for Parramatta. It makes sense too because of the large number of Sydneysiders that reside in the Greater West - more than two million.

We should have high speed rail between Penrith, Parramatta and the CBD, to bring these two million westerners closer to the CBD. That is a better alternative to building up Parramatta. Such was proposed, the Penrith High Speed Link. 11 minutes from Parramatta to the CBD, and 28 minutes from Penrith to the CBD.

[Arreis]

Originally Posted by BearCave

I think they should change the suburb name from Parramatta to West Sydney, so that people outside Australia would know it's somewhere in Sydney and would help more business relocating to Parramatta.

I don't think it needs to change. Parramatta should just build on it's own merits. As shown in a few other posts, it has a lot of points in it favour.
Sure, we probably think of Parramatta as a pretty unglamourous name, but it's all relative really. Manhattan probably wouldn't sound so glamourous if it wasn't for the exciting things we normally associate with that name.

[Arreis]

Originally Posted by Mornnb

We should have high speed rail between Penrith, Parramatta and the CBD, to bring these two million westerners closer to the CBD. That is a better alternative to building up Parramatta. Such was proposed, the Penrith High Speed Link. 11 minutes from Parramatta to the CBD, and 28 minutes from Penrith to the CBD.

I'm not really up to speed with this(no pun intended) What are the benefits of HSR in a built up area?. I would have thought there would be to many stops to really take advantage of the high speed and express trains may mean not enough commuters.
I'm going off topic though. Is there another thread where this idea has been discussed?

[Mornnb]

Originally Posted by Arreis

I'm not really up to speed with this(no pun intended) What are the benefits of HSR in a built up area?. I would have thought there would be to many stops to really take advantage of the high speed and express trains may mean not enough commuters.

The stations planned were:
Wynyard
Metro West (new station)
Central
Olympic Park (possible new station)
Parramatta
Seven Hills
Blacktown
Mount Druitt
St Marys
Penrith


It would be a high speed express service, currently it takes 60 minutes to travel from the CBD to Penrith and 30 minutes for CBD to Parramatta, this line would do Penrith in 28 minutes and Parramatta in 11 minutes, bringing Sydney's sprawling west closer to the CBD.
The high speed line would connect with existing train routes and bus lines, a high speed way to get to the CBD.

[yommy]

You could easily do that with 160kph commuter trains on express routes. Which will give the same results for less money and be a bit more compatible with the existing network.

[Brizer]

Changing the name of Parramatta from its distinctive current form to West Sydney is an awful idea!!!! West Sydney is unimaginative and mundane to put it politely.

A better idea is to change North Sydney to something rather more inspiring.

A name is what you associate with it and for most people who do not know it, 'Parramatta' is a fascinating and exotic name, and a lot more inherently eyecatching than 'Sydney', which through the years has invited derision, famously in the words of British actor of yore, Robert Morley (look him up, young persons!) who exclaimed
"Sydney?! Sydney?? Why not just call it "Bert" and be done with it?!"
Sydney, or Sidney, ie, Sid, being a common name in years gone by for very ordinary blokes in The Old Dart (common name for England once upon a time).

It is only very recently that Sydney has acquired any sort of name or caché as a place. As Arreis says above, 'Manhattan' - or any other place name - is only as good as what you associate with it. 'Hollywood' in any other situation sounds like a twee English village.

Leave 'Parramatta' alone!
Just be grateful it's not Louth or Trangie.

[Arreis]

Bert! The new name for North Sydney!

[Brizer]

Getting too familiar, mate! It's 'Albert' to the likes of you!

[sbx]

Originally Posted by motion

i agree; however i have to say i would be very happy for Parramatta to increase its size and function a bit more like a CBD than a suburb which looks like a CBD.

Also I am still not convinced that William street is not the best option. Forget redfern its a social housing suburb and very unattractive area. It will never get tall skyscrapers. CBDs need to be engulfed in towers not just one long stretch. I think it would make the CBD appear a lot bigger and appealing if it ran an X and Y axis. Vertical and Horizontal rather than just develop and grow on an X axis. Make sense? It also contains the CBD and makes it easier to get around and appear much larger (whether or not the skyline depicts this) on ground it will feel a lot bigger and in sync.

Totally agree and a nice perspective. William St already has a couple of talls at the Kings Cross end and with 10-15 more it could totally transform the area. The street needs to become more than just a through-fare to the red-light district and the Eastern Suburbs. I'd love to see it also become a street fostering a cafe/bistro culture with tables out on the pavement and people enjoying the sights and sounds of the city. Get a nice glassy cluster of residential towers (150m) and hopefully the area will thrive.

It could also extend on the other 'axis' to Pyrmont. I was walking down Murray St and it is perfect for talls and there are plenty of sites nowhere near encroaching any heritage listed buildings. Same applies to Pyrmont St, to Pirrama St etc. There's already been good development around the Bowman St end of town, but there needs to be greater activation of street life. As we know there has to be a balance between tall buildings and between activity on the street. Pyrmont is currently quite quiet in part (like William St). Both are perfect to improve the city as a whole. There's so much potential with both areas to transform Sydney's skyline and scope.