SYDNEY-never built skyscrapers!

[Locke]

Great diagram Culwulla, kind of a worrying downward slide though.

Sydney is such a powerhouse you can't help but wonder what kind of buildings it could put up.

I mean we are managing 250m buildings pretty easy up here in Brisbane atm, I can't help but think that were restrictions lifted in Sydney you could punch out some 400m ones again.

Oh well, on the other hand you got the harbour and all that, the rest of us have to have something, might as well be tallies:P

[Avatar]

Skytower

Well ok so it's got heaps of mistakes, the largest of which was me stuffing up the shape of the cross-bracing and realising too late it's not square! Anyway it's very rough and just a sample of how it may have looked. There are some changes required at the top and the base to make it better. I have only seen that one photo/model of the building and I can't say I really know what's going on over the entire design, so much of it is guesswork.

Note it's a bit taller and a little more chunky, I will eventually do another with a more accurate shape. The shape is a function of me stuffing up the bracing. It should be thiner and more elegant.

BTW I don't think Auckland should have used the name, we had it first!



After some minor repairs...


From above...

[Brendan]

Avatar that looks really good! Damn now I wish it was built..

[Fabian]

Superb stuff. Place it where Citigroup tower is for the best results. I'd like to see how it fares with surrounding towers and Sydney tower

[Avatar]

The bracing is very 80s though, I have some more renderings here with some of the criss-crossing removed. I think it looks better. Yes I wish it was built, sydney would be a very different city. It would also have a much greater hong kong aesthetic happening now I'd bet. I'd love to see this, Angel Place and that beauty that is SouthPoint all built.



I also did this and appropriated the australian symbolism in Lippo Centre and added it to the mix for a very overcooked building design. I just wish we could have something big and full on.

[CULWULLA]

excellent, yes it was very 80.s but who cares. it was 421m high! crone sellected the cross bracing design to mimic SHB.
even if they reduced it to 235m roof with 20m of plant (255m) + a 30m spire= 285m or RL307m, would be ok under CASA rules AND city council.

[zulu69]

Call me crazy but had it been built it would have put the whole skyline out of whack. That is not a necessarily a bad thing. That would have meant that Centrepoint would have been either removed and the height increased to compensate.

Saying all that i think i'm quite happy with what is in it's place today. I hate to admit but it would have certainly belittled town hall and the enitre area. Maybe if they moved it in centrepoint's place! That would be superb.

[Avatar]

They should move centrepoint to Parra or Bondi Junction, somewhere where it cant be built out. Observation towers look better either supertall or around short buildings. Putting it at Bondi Junction would make for awesome views. Moving it to Parramatta is more sensible though. Then something supertall can go up in it's place, and our skyline can start to fill the void currently in that area.

[CULWULLA]

Bondi J has an elevation of approx 100m, so a tower there would have only 200m of height to play with.Parramatta is real low, main CBD is only 10mRL, so you could build a 300m tower there under CASA rules.
North sydney and chatswood are also up 100m, so looks like 200m will be max height for future skyscrapers.

[Westonian]

what restrictions does CASA place on other cities in Australia?

[CULWULLA]

well they impose 250mRL in Brisbane but you can get special permission to go higher, which requires another DA and more time.
Perth has 300m above sea.
GC has 305m above sea but obviously can go higher with architectural uninhabited structures like spires etc.
Melb i thought had 300m in Southbank thus Eureka at max height but grollo tells me just a coincidence. the Docklands have a 150m height limit. CBD may go above 300m? who knows.
Adelaide has 115m height limit,
Darwin has 120m above sea.lev
Hobart- no idea?

[Westonian]

So out of the major cities, Sydney's limit is the lowest by far?

Aside from the airport factor, is there any other reason for this?

[Brizer]

Yeah, bureaucratic obduracy and institutional power play.

[Fabian]

Early Proposals for Darling Park, designed by our late friend Harry Seidler

[CULWULLA]

Originally Posted by Westonian

So out of the major cities, Sydney's limit is the lowest by far?

Aside from the airport factor, is there any other reason for this?

235m isnt too bad you know. Asutralia only now has 3 bldgs over this limit.
main factor is CASA regualtiaons, thats what you get by having a the closest majot airport in the world to a CBD. what would you rather a 30min drive like in melbournes case?
Also 75 storey resi or 60strey office was accepted as "big enough" for Sydney in the 1994 LEP. Atleast we know Sydney wont look like a dogs breakfast for the future generations to inherrit unlike some cities like Shanghai which are starting to look terrible.
Another factor for height limitation is FSR limits. If your site dont have sqm to contribute to a 70storey bldg it makes it hard to build up to that height. you require a large site to achieve necasary floor space.

[rob_]

Actually I think the airport should be moved, as much as i love flying into Sydney. I hate aircraft noise. And the airport it self is limited to expand in its current place.

We should clear the airport totally out of botany, to the outskirts of Sydney, and use the space to expand botanies shipping facilities.

Has nothing to do with height levels. This would help future generations much more, then inheriting a ugly city. …

Sorry for the off topic post!

[Muse]

Yeah, 235m isn't too shabby but we only get one approved & built every 10 years. There should be a couple u/c now in a city the size of Sydney. Our businesses are too conservative and our council, too stringent. I know the market, the market...but really, doesn't anyone have vision?

Sydney HAS already become a dogs brekky of a multitude of 150m jobs & even they are proving few and far between.

[Avatar]

Yup move the airport, and put a maglev in place linking it with major centres.

I don't see legitimacy in the CASA regulations. Airports such as Las Vegas have the taller than sydney tower, Stratosphere down the road and two 40+ floor Mandalay Bay buildings right next door. Surely CASA enforces regulations that are too stringent. There are no flight paths directly over the CBD and there exists many airports in the world that have a far more precarious landing than in Sydney. I can't see any problems that could be caused by a few 400-500 metre buildings.

[Brizer]

It's a power and bureaucracy thing. These days I think it's akin to having a man carrying a lit lamp preceding an automobile or not having any building over 46m (150') out of 'respect' for London's (long since breached!) height limit, but CASA just keeps on hangin' in there, bless its anachronistic and intransigent little knickers. Who or what does it know that gives it such power?

[Austraarabian]

Im just REALLY surprised that Sydney doesn't have the "tallest in Australia" building! Why does Sydney city council think Sydney has come to a stalemate? HULLO! NY is 100 times bigger! AND THEY STILL BUILD AND EXPAND! Why do people think that Sydney has built to its capacity??? Have you been to other cities? Its not just about the whole tall buildings concept, its also about vision, development, economy. Building a mixed use 120m building does not contribute to the development, progression or much to the economy, all it does, is fill the space... WHY FILL THE SPACE FOR NO GOOD REASON??? But "sydney is so dense bla bla bla" yes Sydney is dense, but not because we are a financially superior city, but because we love to just fill in the space. This would never have happened if sydney council voted Labour and not bloody independent mayor. Labour had visions for Sydney and were more liberal (not the party, the literal meaning)