SYDNEY-never built skyscrapers!

[BuildBigger]

CBD1 was said to have a population of 12,000 and the ability to increase the height to 150 stories due to its modular design... biggest tragedy we didn't get it!

[Fabian]

It was said that CBD1 was "too overpowering" for The Rocks area. Even at 305 metres it would have been impressive.

For those not exactly sure where it is, it is where Cove Apartments stands now.

[sbx]

Angel Place is sexiest IMO. I'm very impressed with Skytower and CBD1 too. The designs were very ahead of their time.

[Brizer]

Actually, sbx, each is typical of its time given what was happening overseas at the time.

Skytower, the weakest of the designs, was similar to a number of towers built in the 1960s & 1970s by the likes of Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SF Office) and other US architects - the cross-bracing - with a touch of Post Modernism. Donald Crone was not our most accomplished architect of that time.

CBD-1 is classic Late Modernism then current in the work of US & European architects such as Norman Foster & Richard Rogers as well as the NY office of SOM, the firm of I M Pei and any number of others.

Angel Place is distinctively in the Late Modernist style as interpreted by its architect, who also designed the State Bank Building (the brown one) on Martin Place and the building on the corner of Market & Pitt with the monorail going through it.

[CULWULLA]

Originally Posted by mitchelljb

Hey Cul wasn't there a biggie planned for the Citibank site? And a 250m Greater Union tower (not sure if it was George or the old Pitt complex) don't you wish these went ahead? And what about one of the previous 33 Bligh proposals?

yeah greater union was 235m tower with spire 275m.
as brizer said, towers like cbd1 were way ahead of there time. if cbd1 went ahead it would have gave sydney450m towers and our skyline would b so dif now

[Fabian]

The Greater Union Tower is a few pages back: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...313654&page=17

However the top part of the tower is cut off in the image.

[Brizer]

Clarification: sbx said the towers were ahead of their time and in terms of ambition and height, they were, for Sydney, but my post was about their architectural design, their visual appearance, in which they were typical in many ways of their time.

[Fabian]

I came across this while viewing the SMH Archives on the State Library of NSW website.

Here is a 1992 vision to redevelop Barangaroo & King Street Wharf into housing for 20 000 people with 17ha of parkland.

The Sydney Morning Herald, July 16 1992


By fabianamuso at 2012-06-16

I am not really a fan of it because I prefer the larger concentration of parkland rather than having it dispersed. There is no recreation of the headland, plus the low height limits in Barangaroo South/King Street Wharf limit the scope for future development.

Thank goodness this never eventuated, except for some of the development down at King Street Wharf.

[BuildBigger]

It reminds me of those old grand plans for Canberra that were never realised. Good for the time but at least we are getting something much better now! Although we could do with a few more resi's in the Barangaroo development!

[Fabian]

A better render of the vision by Harry Seidler for McMahons Point as posted by CULWULLA

Originally Posted by CULWULLA

lets just thanks the seidler gods we didnt end up with harrys vision

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...522753&page=96

Page 6 for my image: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...=313654&page=6

[Fabian]

Two alternative designs for Gateway Tower from 1982.

The first was a three tower scheme with towers from 35 to 110 metres tall. Below that is another plan for a tower the same height as the current tower, abelt slimmer.

The Sydney Morning Herald, October 28 1982


By fabianamuso at 2012-06-22

[Fabian]

I'm lounging around and came across this 1960's plan for the Law Courts Building. Some of you dread the building we have. Would you be able to stand this?

Source: City of Sydney Library

[Mornnb]

It's worse!

[Fabian]

I agree with you and there would be calls today for that earlier plan to be replaced.

[Paddo]

Originally Posted by CULWULLA

the 421m Skytower.
just think, bldgs these size are going up in Dubai as we speak.

Couldn't Sydney go for something like this now?


.

[Fabian]

I think we can given the city is much more built up, but we have seen no such proposals in the quarter century since the supertalls were planned.

[Mornnb]

Barangaroo's 3 office towers have approximately as much office space as WTC 1 and a similar price tag. So that does show that the economics for supertalls are in this city. A few years after Barangaroo is absorbed the market conditions should be ready for a 400m to 500m supertall to be built. So the market could support a supertall, which means the only obstacle is the NSW government and City of Sydney.

[CULWULLA]

lol

[Ipggi]

What do the NSW state government have to do with anything? I think you are confusing them with the err and the federal government's Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

[CULWULLA]

Originally Posted by Mornnb

Barangaroo's 3 office towers have approximately as much office space as WTC 1 and a similar price tag. So that does show that the economics for supertalls are in this city. A few years after Barangaroo is absorbed the market conditions should be ready for a 400m to 500m supertall to be built. So the market could support a supertall, which means the only obstacle is the NSW government and City of Sydney.

as ippgi said. height limit has nothing to do with city of sydney or nsw planning. give CASA a call.
www.casa.gov.au
not to be mistaken with www.casa.org.au (centre against sexual assault)