Where can the Sydney CBD realistically spread?

[Mornnb]

Originally Posted by GoldNey

i think that north sydney has spread out too far, but what i do love is how the main cbd spreads out towards the west, rather than south.

West is the logical place for it to spread, given the heritage issues south and east.
I like Pyrmont, the mix of highrise and low rise is what that area has the potential to be.
And the North Shore, that area has the most potential for high density and towers covering a wide area, not merely along the pacific highway. Millions could be housed this way.

[Mornnb]

Originally Posted by redbaron_012

They could landfill the harbour...lay a big drain out as far as the heads first. Connect all the northern roads to the southern roads and same with trains. Pressure would come off the bridge and tunnel. Why hasn't anyone thought of this before ?

[Fabian]

Originally Posted by redbaron_012

They could landfill the harbour...lay a big drain out as far as the heads first. Connect all the northern roads to the southern roads and same with trains. Pressure would come off the bridge and tunnel. Why hasn't anyone thought of this before ?

Sydney would die.

[Mornnb]

Well would kill the eastern suburbs. Don't think the west or inner west would notice.

[Choko]

Originally Posted by redbaron_012

They could landfill the harbour...lay a big drain out as far as the heads first. Connect all the northern roads to the southern roads and same with trains. Pressure would come off the bridge and tunnel. Why hasn't anyone thought of this before ?

Well played sir.

[Sky_Is_The_Limit]

Originally Posted by Mornnb

Well would kill the eastern suburbs. Don't think the west or inner west would notice.

The harbourside eastern suburbs at that. The eastern beaches, Surry Hills/Darlinghurst/Paddington/Woollahra etc would be indifferent

[Nick]

Originally Posted by Mornnb

Probably not Redfern so much, considering the amount of terraces there.
But Broadway and Ultimo have lots of possiblities.



I think Pyrmont has a lot of potential, there are terraces that need to be preserved, but also many modern town houses and old warehouses, that could quite easily be replaced with 200m high rises.



Certainly, the state of buildings along William Street is pretty poor, this street is crying out for new development.



Knocking down concrete slabs is all City of Sydney currently allowed with the height limits in place for inner-city areas.




I want to see Kings Cross and Potts Point receive 200m skyscrapers where possible, on the blocks that lack heritage buildings.

Here's a good mockup of what I'd like Sydney to look like in the future.


But the area with the most potential for high rise development is the north shore, from North Sydney to Chatswood, as this area lacks terraces, existing building stock is either 70s skyscrapers or old detached housing.
This part of Sydney could become a huge stretch of high rise, if we had a government with vision.

WOW! I made that photo a few years ago and someone has dug it up. Great to see it being reposted.

[NoshowwithoutPunch]

Love the photo. Especially Chatswood towering on the ridgeline.

Edit woops! North sydney

[sbx]

I thought I'd bump the thread a little..

A couple of questions with regards to Central Park and the Chippendale area in general.

Is there a particular height limit in place around this area? If so, what makes the whole Frasers Broadway development different? How are they exempt from the restrictions?

Are there potential sites that could be of use in the future for 100m+?

I walk around Chippendale on the occasion. I was on Regent St just the other day and the whole area feels a bit dead and desolate. No real buzz. Not part of the city, yet not a thriving suburban community either.. That was my impression anyway.

As others have said, go south of World Tower and the city becomes less and less attractive. I'd love to see Central Park make a truly special impact on the area - which in turn sees more development of Chippendale.

Thoughts, answers?

[skytea]

I think they were about to justify the height due to the proximity to the UTS tower

[Fabian]

The height maps say 45 metres (http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/d...ight_sht_1.pdf), but Frasers were able to get a height increase after they lodged their D/A's with planning NSW. D/A's relating to development of the site are still assessed under Part 3A of the Planning Act, 1979.

Were very lucky to see towers twice and triple the height limit being built there.

[Mornnb]

Originally Posted by sbx

Is there a particular height limit in place around this area? If so, what makes the whole Frasers Broadway development different? How are they exempt from the restrictions?

Yes, it was submitted as a Part 3a, which means that approval came from the NSW government rather than City of Sydney.

Are there potential sites that could be of use in the future for 100m+?

I doubt it now that Barry O'Farrel removed Part 3a.

[Fabian]

The council can (and has) allowed developers to build higher than set height limits, provided that they provide space for cultural facilities, civic spaces etc.

You look at Part 3A and excluding brownfield development sites (Barangaroo & CUB), only four CBD developments has gone or is being assessed through Part 3A - Cityone, former Amatil Building, 1 Dixon Street and Four Points by Sheraton.

I have not included developments at Darling Harbour and The Rocks because they are under under the helm of other government authorities which mean that they are goverment assessed regardless.

[poguemahone]

I wish the restrictions weren't so low in the Haymarket area. It would look fantastic with even just a 150m building in the place of the middle building here. Would make such an impact on the skyline. Does anyone even use Belmore park besides kids with goon bags and the homeless. Not an attractive park whatsoever in regards to the people who frequent it.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[redbaron_012]

I haven't read all the post on this thread....I am a Melbourne guy yet brouse over stuff like this. Look at Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane...........Brisbane's CBD is rather constricted and they have quite a few tall towers concidering a smaller population. Melbourne has opened up it's Docklands so has a big footprint for the CBD and now they are building many Campus ( low rise ) offices. Sydney is in between and they also have a height limit so they are building density more than any other city in Australia. Melbourne may be adding tall apartments. Same with the Gold Coast but Sydney is Sydney..........When they realise Sydney Tower is not really an icon worth holding back the rest off the city...which will be quite soon...........Sydney wont need to spread it's CBD..........IMOA

[Fabian]

Belmore Park is quite heavily used and there are festivals and events going on in the park on a regular basis.

The low height limits in the Haymarket area are there for "heritage reasons".

[redbaron_012]

When were the heritage limits reached ? If in the early days of Sydney they had decided they needed to keep their heratige Sydney would be wattle and daub huts..............hmmm OK I could go with that.

[redbaron_012]

Sorry double post..........

[Fabian]

Originally Posted by redbaron_012

When were the heritage limits reached ? If in the early days of Sydney they had decided they needed to keep their heratige Sydney would be wattle and daub huts..............hmmm OK I could go with that.

There are no "heritage limits".

[redbaron_012]

Is the Sydney height limit about aircraft flight paths ? Crazy if you think about it. Some cities have mountains nearby.....Adelaide for example. Or is it not overlook Sydney Tower ? Kinda puts a damper on future development height wise ?