CBD CENTRE - #Completed: ANZ Centre (161 Castlereagh) - 46L / 195M / office - Page 103

Ipggi · April 21st, 2012, 04:07 PM

Well it is not really 150m from the east. Its sharp slope makes it look smaller because it draws your eyes towards to shorter part of the building.

JamesinOz1 · April 21st, 2012, 07:08 PM

It's a striking building, however it would be iconic if it were 100 storeys in the part of the CBD it's located in. The Sydney CBD would be such a spectacular location for supertalls due to the geography of the CBD area, and would befit Sydney's role as Australia's premier city. What a lost opportunity. Higher density will have to mean supertalls in Sydney's CBD at some stage or another.

Jim856796 · April 21st, 2012, 11:40 PM

Sydney's height restrictions will not allow it to build any supertalls due to the proximity of Sydney Airport (Restricted to 235 m), so I highly doubt any supertalls will ever be comnstructed in Sydney. I'd have been in favor of supertall skyscrapers in Sydney if the Sydney Tower hadn't been built.

Fabian · April 22nd, 2012, 12:31 AM

April 20 2012

By fabianamuso at 2012-04-21

Mornnb · April 22nd, 2012, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim856796

Sydney's height restrictions will not allow it to build any supertalls due to the proximity of Sydney Airport (Restricted to 235 m), so I highly doubt any supertalls will ever be comnstructed in Sydney. I'd have been in favor of supertall skyscrapers in Sydney if the Sydney Tower hadn't been built.

Why does Sydney Tower need to be the tallest? A view through building canyons is as impressive as a view over them.

Fabian · April 22nd, 2012, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim856796

Sydney's height restrictions will not allow it to build any supertalls due to the proximity of Sydney Airport (Restricted to 235 m), so I highly doubt any supertalls will ever be comnstructed in Sydney. I'd have been in favor of supertall skyscrapers in Sydney if the Sydney Tower hadn't been built.

The common reason is that 235 metres is seen as "appropriate" for a city of our size.

As for flight paths and the airport, the CBD is not under any flight paths, so I cannot see a problem with allowing taller buildings.

Mornnb · April 22nd, 2012, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fabian

The common reason is that 235 metres is seen as "appropriate" for a city of our size.

Such ambition the council has...

Sky_Is_The_Limit · April 22nd, 2012, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim856796

Sydney's height restrictions will not allow it to build any supertalls due to the proximity of Sydney Airport (Restricted to 235 m), so I highly doubt any supertalls will ever be comnstructed in Sydney. I'd have been in favor of supertall skyscrapers in Sydney if the Sydney Tower hadn't been built.

Technically this isn't correct. CASA has an RL300m ceiling above the Sydney metro area. It is the council that does not permit buildings above 235m so as to protect the 'iconic qualities' of Sydney Tower

sbx · April 22nd, 2012, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky_Is_The_Limit

Technically this isn't correct. CASA has an RL300m ceiling above the Sydney metro area. It is the council that does not permit buildings above 235m so as to protect the 'iconic qualities' of Sydney Tower

That has to be one of the most pathetic things I've heard.

Mornnb · April 22nd, 2012, 03:37 AM

Effectively ruling out any iconic buildings in the future....

BuildBigger · April 22nd, 2012, 04:16 AM

Why didn't they allow that to be 300m? It would add to its iconic nature...

Fabian · April 22nd, 2012, 04:29 AM

Actually, Sydney Tower was originally meant to be shorter - 259 metres (850 foot).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fabian

Some articles from newspapers in March 1968 announcing plans to build Sydney Tower.

The Daily Telegraph

The Sydney Morning Herald

Render - A small turret and bbigger spire, which I am glad didnt happen.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...=798250&page=5

Jim856796 · April 22nd, 2012, 04:37 AM

Maybe in the 70s, a supertall skyscraper should have been built in place of the Centerpoint observation tower (if the observation tower had been an unbuilt project). Now, personally, I think height for the sake of height is just not beneficial in Sydney. Height limits are just too strict.

JamesinOz1 · April 22nd, 2012, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbx

That has to be one of the most pathetic things I've heard.

Yes Sydney Tower is as iconic as a worn out piece of 80's furniture. It was iconic 25 years ago. Supertalls and Sydney's unique shoe-horned CBD location would go hand in glove when it comes to high-rise buildings, so it's a lost opportunity to not allow supertalls. If you're really serious about stopping urban sprawl you allow dozens of multiple-use super-tall buildings in the city, otherwise it's all just lip service. I actually like Clover Moore, however feel that her support for limiting sprawl at the same time as being opposed to multiple-use super-tall developement is a little confused.

Ipggi · April 22nd, 2012, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky_Is_The_Limit

Technically this isn't correct. CASA has an RL300m ceiling above the Sydney metro area. It is the council that does not permit buildings above 235m so as to protect the 'iconic qualities' of Sydney Tower

IMO the CASA restriction is pretty pointless too considering the 800m+ Burj Khalifa is only 8km from Dubai's much busier airport. One battle at a time though I guess.

CULWULLA · April 23rd, 2012, 12:19 AM

i think sydney tower is still iconic. its like saying lets rip down SHB. its 80yearsold now. time for a new one.wtf.
not gonna happen. sydney tower is now part of its heritage and architecture. here to stay. part of sydneys identity now. like it lump it.
time to move on about height retsrictions and removal of sydney tower. silly talk really.
lets talk 163castlereagh

Mornnb · April 23rd, 2012, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CULWULLA

i think sydney tower is still iconic. its like saying lets rip down SHB. its 80yearsold now. time for a new one.wtf.
not gonna happen. sydney tower is now part of its heritage and architecture. here to stay. part of sydneys identity now. like it lump it.

I agree. And we can keep the Sydney Tower and build above it, the observation deck will still have great views down building canyons, it's silly to say that we have to destroy the Sydney Tower to increase the height limit.

CULWULLA · April 23rd, 2012, 01:34 AM

we can build 250m towers which are higher then ob deck on syd tower and will still look ok. but 300m may look silly.

BuildBigger · April 23rd, 2012, 03:13 AM

It could create a Seattle look... Where the tower looks upon the skyscrapers in the distance (not sure if these skyscrapers are taller but still...)

sbx · April 23rd, 2012, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CULWULLA

we can build 250m towers which are higher then ob deck on syd tower and will still look ok. but 300m may look silly.

Silly? How?

Syd Tower can still maintain its 'iconic' status at the centre of the skyline. If anything we should have several 300m's book-ending the skyline. Lets say three in the south and one or two in the north.

We need to stop this obsession with the 'pyramid' style to our skyline.

April 21st, 2012, 04:07 PM	#2041
Ipggi Here Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Woolloomooloo Hill, Albion Posts: 5,810 Likes (Received): 35	Well it is not really 150m from the east. Its sharp slope makes it look smaller because it draws your eyes towards to shorter part of the building. __________________ Click...

April 21st, 2012, 11:40 PM	#2043
Jim856796 The Q&A Guy Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Citizen of the World Posts: 6,747 Likes (Received): 7	Sydney's height restrictions will not allow it to build any supertalls due to the proximity of Sydney Airport (Restricted to 235 m), so I highly doubt any supertalls will ever be comnstructed in Sydney. I'd have been in favor of supertall skyscrapers in Sydney if the Sydney Tower hadn't been built. __________________ I honestly think all development projects must be dashing, sustainable, and futureproof. You support the good projects... and oppose the bad.

April 22nd, 2012, 12:31 AM	#2044
Fabian Sydney: World's best city Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Sydney Posts: 29,609 Likes (Received): 106	April 20 2012 By fabianamuso at 2012-04-21 By fabianamuso at 2012-04-21 By fabianamuso at 2012-04-21 __________________ 'Cityrail recommends that you and your family travel by bus' - Cityrail

April 22nd, 2012, 03:37 AM	#2050
Mornnb Registered User Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Sydney Posts: 4,577 Likes (Received): 308	Effectively ruling out any iconic buildings in the future.... __________________ Mornnb flickr

April 22nd, 2012, 04:37 AM	#2053
Jim856796 The Q&A Guy Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Citizen of the World Posts: 6,747 Likes (Received): 7	Maybe in the 70s, a supertall skyscraper should have been built in place of the Centerpoint observation tower (if the observation tower had been an unbuilt project). Now, personally, I think height for the sake of height is just not beneficial in Sydney. Height limits are just too strict. __________________ I honestly think all development projects must be dashing, sustainable, and futureproof. You support the good projects... and oppose the bad. Last edited by Jim856796; April 22nd, 2012 at 05:03 AM.

April 21st, 2012, 07:08 PM	#2042
JamesinOz1 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 83 Likes (Received): 0	It's a striking building, however it would be iconic if it were 100 storeys in the part of the CBD it's located in. The Sydney CBD would be such a spectacular location for supertalls due to the geography of the CBD area, and would befit Sydney's role as Australia's premier city. What a lost opportunity. Higher density will have to mean supertalls in Sydney's CBD at some stage or another.

April 22nd, 2012, 04:16 AM	#2051
BuildBigger Registered User Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Sydney Posts: 1,042 Likes (Received): 16	Why didn't they allow that to be 300m? It would add to its iconic nature...

April 23rd, 2012, 12:19 AM	#2056
CULWULLA Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 46,864 Likes (Received): 32	i think sydney tower is still iconic. its like saying lets rip down SHB. its 80yearsold now. time for a new one.wtf. not gonna happen. sydney tower is now part of its heritage and architecture. here to stay. part of sydneys identity now. like it lump it. time to move on about height retsrictions and removal of sydney tower. silly talk really. lets talk 163castlereagh __________________ Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Hotel- 2015..

April 23rd, 2012, 01:34 AM	#2058
CULWULLA Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 46,864 Likes (Received): 32	we can build 250m towers which are higher then ob deck on syd tower and will still look ok. but 300m may look silly. __________________ Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Hotel- 2015..

April 23rd, 2012, 03:13 AM	#2059
BuildBigger Registered User Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Sydney Posts: 1,042 Likes (Received): 16	It could create a Seattle look... Where the tower looks upon the skyscrapers in the distance (not sure if these skyscrapers are taller but still...)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode