DISCUSS: Best Australasian Skyline

[Manila-X]

Even with the Eureka, I'll still go for Sydney. BTW, will Sydney build some supertalls or scrapers taller than the Eureka in the future?

[A r c h i]

Sydney have a 235m height limit. Brisbane and the Gold Coast are most likely to build a scraper taller than Eureka, but Melbourne could too as a couple of sites on Spencer Street have no height limit and are rumoured to be future hosts of a supertall or two in the not too distant future.

[Tornado]

i go for Sydney.. gold coast is nice tooo..

Brisbane... good
Melbourne great

[Anton]

FOr me,
1. Sydney
2. Brisbane (refer Fabians pics on page 2)
3. Gold Coast

hmmm - it seems i didn't post these:
By Huw Porter. Much more from all around the world. His photography is superb.

[fox1]

Sydney

Melbourne

Brisbane

Perth

Auckland

Gold Coast

[wowsim]

Originally Posted by fox1

Sydney

Melbourne

Brisbane

Perth

Auckland

Gold Coast

Seconded.

[JoSin]

Sydney is very beautiful. It gives u the feeling of australian australia...hahaz.

[SkyLerm]

For me:
1) Sydney
2) Melbourne (very tight with Sydney)
3) Brisbane
4) Gold Coast

[Manila-X]

Australian cities have a unique location and so are cities in New Zealand. If Melbourne or Sydney are located in North America, then they would just be average skylines compared those with Houston or Atlanta!

[Bitxofo]

Sydney!

[Manila-X]

Sydney should build some supertalls or anything taller then The Eureka!

[Anton]

Originally Posted by WANCH

Sydney should build some supertalls or anything taller then The Eureka!

Unfortunately, Sydney has a 235m height limit. 3 buildings (or more if we include spires) are on or almost on that limit.

BUT, size doesn’t matter. It’s what you do with what you’ve got. The fact is that although we no longer have the tallest Aussie buildings, the quality and design of some of Sydney’s recent buildings is outstanding and they are not particularly tall. I’d even say the best in the country.

[Manila-X]

Originally Posted by Anton

Unfortunately, Sydney has a 235m height limit. 3 buildings (or more if we include spires) are on or almost on that limit.

BUT, size doesn’t matter. It’s what you do with what you’ve got. The fact is that although we no longer have the tallest Aussie buildings, the quality and design of some of Sydney’s recent buildings is outstanding and they are not particularly tall. I’d even say the best in the country.

Why is there a limit? Is it because the airport is close to the city?

[Anton]

Originally Posted by WANCH

Why is there a limit? Is it because the airport is close to the city?

I believe that is the reason given, and could be hard to argue with. It's calculated using approach angles from the airport.

I’ve also heard that it is to keep Sydney Tower as the tallest building – but that just seems stupid. Another reason is to not have the skyline and harbour over dominated by “overly” tall building/s.

Others may know more. Send a pm to CULWULLA - he may not see this thread. He works for Sydney City Council and i am sure will be happy to explain.

[Manila-X]

Originally Posted by Anton

I believe that is the reason given, and could be hard to argue with. It's calculated using approach angles from the airport.

I’ve also heard that it is to keep Sydney Tower as the tallest building – but that just seems stupid. Another reason is to not have the skyline and harbour over dominated by “overly” tall building/s.

Others may know more. Send a pm to CULWULLA - he may not see this thread. He works for Sydney City Council and i am sure will be happy to explain.

A little off topic but HK's former international airport was a bit close to the city centre but the city had skyscrapers over 300 m.

But it's plain stupid to have the concept of Sydney Tower as the tallest structure. You won't see that in Shanghai or Kuala Lumpur!

[Anton]

Originally Posted by WANCH

A little off topic but HK's former international airport was a bit close to the city centre but the city had skyscrapers over 300 m.

But it's plain stupid to have the concept of Sydney Tower as the tallest structure. You won't see that in Shanghai or Kuala Lumpur!

But as I recall there were height limits in Kowloon – where airport was located. Lol – such were the pressures on Kowloon for space that ALL buildings for miles were built to the height limit. And remember that famous right-hand turn? It was one of the worlds scariest or thrilling airports depending on your point of view.

Yes, on the Island across the harbour they have always had tall buildings but I think even now they are no taller than the surrounding hills.

Anyway, that’s only a partial explanation for the differences between the two cities – I’ve no doubt that you are correct in that Sydney is more conservative than Hong Kong in this regard. The reality is somewhere in the middle.

EDIT: lol, you are in Hong Kong. talk about telling people how to suck eggs - sorry

[Manila-X]

Originally Posted by Anton

But as I recall there were height limits in Kowloon – where airport was located. Lol – such were the pressures on Kowloon for space that ALL buildings for miles were built to the height limit. And remember that famous right-hand turn? It was one of the worlds scariest or thrilling airports depending on your point of view.

Yes, on the Island across the harbour they have always had tall buildings but I think even now they are no taller than the surrounding hills.

Anyway, that’s only a partial explanation for the differences between the two cities – I’ve no doubt that you are correct in that Sydney is more conservative than Hong Kong in this regard. The reality is somewhere in the middle.

EDIT: lol, you are in Hong Kong. talk about telling people how to suck eggs - sorry

True that Kowloon did have height limits on it's structure when Kai-Tak was operational but I just wanna make my point that there are skyscrapers over 300 m a few miles from the airport which is right across the harbour.

Anyway, Sydney still has an impressive skyline even when it's dominated by the Sydney Tower. Again, in some extent, I find it more impressive than Melbourne. But if Sydney can't build supertalls, they can make it up with an iconic skyscraper.

And yes I'm a HKer if you happen to check out today's banner but I'm not Chinese though!

[A r c h i]

Another reason why Sydney has the 235m height limit is to minimise overshadowing in certain areas of the city.

[Manila-X]

Originally Posted by Archibomber

Another reason why Sydney has the 235m height limit is to minimise overshadowing in certain areas of the city.

If that's the case, then Melbourne will continue to have Australia's tallest buildings. And the city also has a nice setting for a skyline.

But again, I still choose Sydney!

[A r c h i]

You never know one day it may be Brisbane and the Gold Coast who house Australia's tallest building's.