CBD CENTRE - #PROPOSED: 115 Bathurst Street - 70st/236m/res

[Brizer]

Then we'd need a lot more green: very 1950s-'60s!

[Matie]

Avatar, Le Corbusier had a similar idea, the city for three million. Purpose built city, all buildings the same ect... But can not work, might seem nice to plop a city down, but reality (thank god) is that people are diverse creatures, with different motivations, different likes and dislikes. Thats how we end up with a "city".

[Brizer]

Yes, Corbusier's Ville radieuse, Plan de Paris, etc., looked good on paper and sound so sensible & eminently, pragmatically reasonable in theory, but the reality would be a rationalist nightmare, like living in a computer.
More Orwellian than Utopian.
What makes a city is its diversity & what makes other cities interesting is their difference.

[BuildBigger]

Perfect example is Canberra, planned but truly a soulless city. I read somewhere that they want to restrict taller developments that may have given it a chance to gain some life.

[Brizer]

I think that is a rather large call: I have quite a few rels and one of my closest, long time friends who live in Canberra, and they all would not consider living anywhere else, so I guess it's a question of preference. Canberra is nothing like the barren over-scale of Corbusier's Chandigarh or Costa's Brasília, both designed on the rationalist template in the 1950s & 1960s.

[Avatar]

While I am not a fan of imposing too many restrictions on a city's organic growth, we already have a situation here that stiffles innovation. The idea of imposing some aesthetic value on an already built city or retrofitting facades to adhere to a more common theme is far less likely to create a souless and clinical city as depicted in some of the original Le Corbusier concepts, when the city already has a substance. I'm not advocating a planned city just the idea of a more common colour theme and glass aesthetics.

[Brizer]

What I find disturbing (to put it mildly) is CofS planners using planning rules to control, dictate aesthetic matters, especially as the planners appear to have such conservative, even undeveloped ideas on aesthetics.

[BuildBigger]

I'm not saying it is a bad place to live, statistically it is better to live in Canberra then any other Australian city because there is less unemployment, a higher median income and state of the art facilities such as the AIS etc that get loads of funding. But as it has been said before Canberra is "a few suburbs looking for a city" as it doesn't seem to have the breath of life that most other cities of it size seem to enjoy. In term you could draw parallels between these 1950-60's cities and Canberra because it was only in that period that the city was developed properly with the complete relocation of the government from Melbourne.

[J.J.]

a city full of blue glass buildings is something that i dread happening in the future but in all honesty, sydney does not look like the emerald city and probably the only city that actually does exist that shares the closest resemblance would be dubai, but i love Sydney for all it's unqiue different looking buildings such as, deutsche bank, chifley tower, aurora etc but at the same time, sydney has alot of ugly buildings like 201 elizabeth st, shangri-la hotel, suncorp bank place etc. but we also have nice more plain/modern looking buildings wit blue glass like world tower, ernst & young, the lumiere etc, so with all of sydney versitle range of buildings fitting into a skylines with the amazing harbour and opera house and bridge it gives sydney not only an easily reconigisable skyline but one of the most amazing and unique in the world, and as much as i agree that Sydney has too many restrictions, it's not stopping investors from wanting to build there headquarters here, increasing our skyline rapidly and the height limit at 235m is enough, even though personally i think they could push it to 250m which would be better, i'm just happy we're able to hav buildings larger than 225m, so no sydney's skyline is very classy, poshy and unique looking which is what it deserves and this new design they're going to build is to plain looking, and even though it fits symetrically to world tower and citibank, it's to tall to the roof and will top them, so not only will it look like a very plain and dull addition to our skyline, it's height to the roof will look odd in the middle of citibank and world tower, plus it gives a touch of toronto or new york to sydney, which dosen't suit sydney considering it's built soooo many unique classy looking buildings

[Brizer]

Pay attention! That is not, repeat NOT, the building that is going to be built. That is the Stage 1 DA 'concept' block outline - the building will fit within that outline. The actual design is yet to be decided by competition, which a little reading of recent posts in the thread would have made perfectly clear. Read the information before you expose yourself by making daft, ignorant statements if you wish to be taken seriously.

[J.J.]

Originally Posted by Brizer

Pay attention! That is not, repeat NOT, the building that is going to be built. That is the Stage 1 DA 'concept' block outline - the building will fit within that outline. The actual design is yet to be decided by competition, which a little reading of recent posts in the thread would have made perfectly clear. Read the information before you expose yourself by making daft, ignorant statements if you wish to be taken seriously.

ok fairenough, but my point still stands to avatar, if u'll look at the title of my reponse, that sydney looks better for having the more uniqued shaped buildings instead of flat tops

[Brizer]

He's allowed to shoot his mouth/keyboard off just like you are doing. You don't have to agree with him. Play the argument not the person.
You are a newby so in time you'll learn which forumers you take seriously & which you don't, which you think are ignorant idiots or narcisstic dicks or worth a laugh or which have something worthwhile to contribute. Some guys are a bit of one or more of these types.
And we'll learn which category/ies you are in.

[Avatar]

Originally Posted by J.J.

a city full of blue glass buildings is something that i dread happening in the future but in all honesty, sydney does not look like the emerald city and probably the only city that actually does exist that shares the closest resemblance would be dubai, but i love Sydney for all it's unqiue different looking buildings such as, deutsche bank, chifley tower, aurora etc but at the same time, sydney has alot of ugly buildings like 201 elizabeth st, shangri-la hotel, suncorp bank place etc. but we also have nice more plain/modern looking buildings wit blue glass like world tower, ernst & young, the lumiere etc, so with all of sydney versitle range of buildings fitting into a skylines with the amazing harbour and opera house and bridge it gives sydney not only an easily reconigisable skyline but one of the most amazing and unique in the world, and as much as i agree that Sydney has too many restrictions, it's not stopping investors from wanting to build there headquarters here, increasing our skyline rapidly and the height limit at 235m is enough, even though personally i think they could push it to 250m which would be better, i'm just happy we're able to hav buildings larger than 225m, so no sydney's skyline is very classy, poshy and unique looking which is what it deserves and this new design they're going to build is to plain looking, and even though it fits symetrically to world tower and citibank, it's to tall to the roof and will top them, so not only will it look like a very plain and dull addition to our skyline, it's height to the roof will look odd in the middle of citibank and world tower, plus it gives a touch of toronto or new york to sydney, which dosen't suit sydney considering it's built soooo many unique classy looking buildings

Who died and and made you such the omnipotent tastemaster? LOL picking a fight with me is a bad idea.
BTW, what is your training and what tertiary study have you done related to design history and theory?

sydney's skyline is very classy, poshy and unique looking

That's a really technical appraisal of Sydney's skyline.

BTW who does your multi belong to?

ok fairenough, but my point still stands to avatar, if u'll look at the title of my reponse, that sydney looks better for having the more uniqued shaped buildings instead of flat tops

Actually your title is "shut up Avatar", I've never said there is a problem with having irregular spires and roof top treatments. What I will say is that too many of them creates a sence of unease and a lack of coherence. It ensures that separate buildings in a skyline become too competitive with each other and any visual balance within the skyline diminishes. A good amount of traditional flat-topped roof styles provides variety. Sydney has an over abundance of irregular roof types around the Chifley talls club ... more balance would be better.

[papervagina]

Originally Posted by Avatar

BTW, what is your training and what tertiary study have you done related to design history and theory?

Oh, Avatar, if only these things could make up for your complete lack of taste...

[Avatar]

Haha yes, but the difference is I understand what is good taste and what isn't. I just happen to prefer more questionable styles such as retro futurism and post modernism. I've never pretended that some of what I like is tasteful but I still understand the inherent language behind design styles - i just chose to go with what some might find confronting in design terms

[Fabian]

I have a suggestion for you Avatar - come up with renders of your own design for the site.

[Brizer]

Minutes from the 2nd CSPC meeting for the nitty-gritty of the approval are here:

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/C...11-minutes.pdf

Read and avoid dumb questions/remarks/assumptions, etc. and any consequent sharp-tongued responses to same.

[Fabian]

There is nothing silly about what is in the document. From skimming it, the requirements are straightforward. A pity that the 1965 Waterboard Buliding will remain for a while longer.

[J.J.]

avatar, i do not wish to get in an agrument with you, and i do not class myself as an expert of this topic (i'm not pompass and arrogant like u), i'm merely an observationer of different city skylines and i stated my opinion in one message, i don't need to say any more, and brizer, don't be so cynical, i was not mouthing off, i was just stating my opinion in one message

[Brizer]

For some-one ready to tell some-one else to shut up you are overly sensitive about getting an admonition for your rudeness.
Saying your opinion is mouthing off is not cynical but a colloquial if unrefined way of saying 'just stating an opinion', nor is it what I said - I think you'll find I wrote 'He's allowed to shoot his mouth/keyboard off just like you are doing.'.

You might also notice I included Avatar in the sentence and the implication is he, you, me, anyone, not just delicate you.
Stop seething at the outrage that some-one has dared to correct you and learn to take as much as you give. Feel free to state your opinion but don't deny anyone else that right.

By-the-way, sunshine, you need to do something about that free-wheeling spelling & creative vocabulary of yours. Check the meaning of the word 'malapropism' as you created a beauty.