Projects & Discussion | NSW | Planning, Infrastructure & Urban Development - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > OZScrapers > Local Projects & Discussions > New South Wales

New South Wales » Sydney CBD | Parramatta CBD | Sydney Metro Area | Regional NSW


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Well?
Train line extension to south west and north west 57 60.00%
Metro system for inner city and western suburbs 58 61.05%
Extension of light rail in inner city and pedestrianisation of George Street 50 52.63%
Integrated public transport system (including light rail and monorail) 52 54.74%
Removal (or easing) of height restrictions 52 54.74%
More office space 29 30.53%
More international labels 33 34.74%
More cultural venues 34 35.79%
Continued development of satellite CBDs 38 40.00%
Other (please specify) 13 13.68%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 95. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old September 19th, 2003, 07:03 AM   #1
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 69,159
Likes (Received): 18021

Projects & Discussion | NSW | Planning, Infrastructure & Urban Development

Developer THAKRAL wont take no for an answer! the tenacious developers are back hasselling the councillors to develop there prime site atop Wynyard station! there massive height limit mixed tower is the pic below, but council want it more slender the best news is there not concerned about the excessive 235m height!!! which is a bloody good thing!
Ive even been asked to build a model over next few weeks for city model.
This is probably the only chance of a height limit scraper in Sydney to be built within the next decade, so hopefully things will turn positive and the damn thing will be built! but still along way to go and many negotiations!
ill keep you updated!!


__________________
Macquarie Tower-1818, St James Church -1822, Garden Palace- 1879, Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2020, 505George-2023 , 338 Pitt- 2024 https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old September 19th, 2003, 07:45 AM   #2
climbing_crane
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Likes (Received):

Oh please please please pretty please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 07:59 AM   #3
Sydguy1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Likes (Received):

Go get them Thakral, go get them tiger
  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old September 19th, 2003, 08:02 AM   #4
climbing_crane
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Likes (Received):

This must go ahead. It looks so good. No doubt overshadowing issues will arise about Wynyard Park.
  Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 08:11 AM   #5
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 69,159
Likes (Received): 18021

Quote:
Originally posted by climbing_crane
This must go ahead. It looks so good. No doubt overshadowing issues will arise about Wynyard Park.
well that and other issues. ive made many models of this only half width with george st frontage only. the concern is the BULK and being devloped over the laneway!
the shadows arent too bad because its north/ east of park. Only shadows in morning. Also the top might change and architectural features can be added to boost this sucker to 250m+.
__________________
Macquarie Tower-1818, St James Church -1822, Garden Palace- 1879, Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2020, 505George-2023 , 338 Pitt- 2024 https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 08:22 AM   #6
spazpecker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 110
Likes (Received): 0

Thanks for some mildly good news Cul. I will await with cautious cynicism...
So many questions............I'll keep it to 2 for the time being.

1- So, if the new massing model is considerably thinner, is sympathetic to the bloody laneway (?) and sits hard against the George St side it may have a chance?

2- I recall that this proposal got 'dwarfed' down to 130m by the Council last time it went up ? Was this because it didn't fulfill the criteria listed above ?
spazpecker no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 08:42 AM   #7
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 69,159
Likes (Received): 18021

Quote:
Originally posted by spazpecker
Thanks for some mildly good news Cul. I will await with cautious cynicism...
So many questions............I'll keep it to 2 for the time being.

1- So, if the new massing model is considerably thinner, is sympathetic to the bloody laneway (?) and sits hard against the George St side it may have a chance?

2- I recall that this proposal got 'dwarfed' down to 130m by the Council last time it went up ? Was this because it didn't fulfill the criteria listed above ?
1- yeah the council want it definately thinner. Hopefully this will make them happy.
2-A planner 'dwarfed" it down but that was just her proposal. Thakral just laughed and said we are allowed to build 235m!
so move over!!
lol
__________________
Macquarie Tower-1818, St James Church -1822, Garden Palace- 1879, Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2020, 505George-2023 , 338 Pitt- 2024 https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 09:05 AM   #8
MrTall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 563
Likes (Received): 1

Good to see this developer has the BALLS to not take no for an answer. Hopefully we'll get something out of this, although I don't hold too much hope because it's the CSPC we're talking about. *blood boils*
MrTall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 09:12 AM   #9
zulu69
selling my body since 88'
 
zulu69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,241
Likes (Received): 65

Wow just hours after i angrliy wrote how this scraper should be built in the "never built" thread and i see this... Never knew i had that affect on ppl
zulu69 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 09:27 AM   #10
SinCity
Streetwalker
 
SinCity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sodom & Gomorrah
Posts: 7,024
Likes (Received): 104

I hope it gets the go ahead and it should, especially if a trade off results in a new completely refurbished Wynyard station which is by far the ugliest of the CBD underground stations .........
__________________
“The definition of insanity is ... doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” - Albert Einstein
SinCity no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 09:41 AM   #11
fox1
original
 
fox1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Osaka
Posts: 1,219
Likes (Received): 158

i think that tower looks a bit bloody ugly. go for the height limit tower, but not if it's ugly like the one in the pic
fox1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 09:53 AM   #12
fox1
original
 
fox1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Osaka
Posts: 1,219
Likes (Received): 158

council should look hard at these photos and not totally mess up the skyline. (btw them looking down at models from above is not the way to plan a city.)
fox1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 10:10 AM   #13
spazpecker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 110
Likes (Received): 0

I have absolutely NO idea what you're on about fox- is it the location of the tower or the design that you have a problem with? If it's the design don't worry because Cul's pic is the original model only- it won't turn out anything like this.
spazpecker no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 10:19 AM   #14
hk-star
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 36
Likes (Received): 0

Fox1 are you nuts? At what point is a city's skyline "finished" and shouldn't be "messed up"??? I don't see WT in those photos you posted either .. maybe we should tear it down while there's still time, that has the potential to "mess up" the skyline too! God! More buildings = good!

And that design is fine! What's wrong with you!? I think it's great! It looks "future" !

This news has made my day. Thanks Culwulla! Fingers crossed! Tell the planner a height limit proposal - ANY height limit proposal - has broad community support! Hehehe

hk
hk-star no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 10:25 AM   #15
andad1
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62
Likes (Received): 0

Yeh, I'll wait with baited breath on this one....It would really LIFT the profile of the Wynyard station area which is in dire need of a major structural change. Cant see any reason why the 235m+ monster shouldn't go up...no overshadowing.
At least S****R is not the mayor anymore, so we may see a more open council with the developers proposal....BRING IT ON!!!
andad1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 10:26 AM   #16
zulu69
selling my body since 88'
 
zulu69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,241
Likes (Received): 65

Dont know i kinda like the model.. but ONLY if it is glass like the model suggests. Dont know if structurally it can happen but the translucent look really really makes the builing unique and would be a sight at night all lit up!

I have my fingers and toes crossed for this one.. come on the council needs to wake up to the real world!! Although it is good that they do assess everything like the bulk and the laneway.. but to me these are small issues... the concept is right and thats what matters. Now they just need to builid a 235m+ tower on the site and thats it!!! (would rather 280m but 235 is better than nothing right??) Actually the 235m model shown really resembles the Citicorp building in NYC and thats why i like it!!


@HK-star. It made my day 2!!!
zulu69 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 10:38 AM   #17
Fabian
Sydney: World's best city
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 40,696

I'm stunned by this announcement. It was not long ago since I threw this proposal into Sydney's Never Built Thread, giving up any hope of this tower ever going ahead.

And very courageous of the developers to approach the council again and they have been rewarded with a height limit tower and I'm stunned too the council depsite their wits threw in the towel!!!

I don't really care as to the bulkiness of the tower but prefer a large tower. The height is all that counts!!!

And if there is a problem, the developer can always take it to the Land and Environment Court which tends to swing in the favours of developers.
__________________
Find out why Sydney has become the city that it is today:

Fab Sydney Flashbacks
Fabian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 10:58 AM   #18
Mar
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Likes (Received):

Well after constant let downs and broken dreams because of SCC, I won't be getting excited about this until it has actually been approved. But here's hoping .
  Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 11:50 AM   #19
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 69,159
Likes (Received): 18021

The point Thakral have made is that want to build SOMETHING BIG! They want to start next year, they want a major landmark with a railway station on par with Grand cental with NYC! (but smaller scale of course).
I think this a terrific spot for a 235m scraper! Its on george street which is the 'spine" of the CBD which is where the council planners want tall bldgs put!

heres the 'thin" version which i favour. Its set on george st and rises above street perfectly placed in the tall bldg precinct!



I just hope everything turns to a height limit scraper because the CBD is lacking actual sites for these babys and to end up with a shorter structure would be a real disapointment indeed!

Also the devloper has "dumped" original architects-Rice & Daubney and have now engaged an other high profile firm which i dont actual know name ! but will eventually find out.
cheers
__________________
Macquarie Tower-1818, St James Church -1822, Garden Palace- 1879, Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2020, 505George-2023 , 338 Pitt- 2024 https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2003, 12:03 PM   #20
andad1
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62
Likes (Received): 0

WOW, that THIN design is something else and very prominent. It 'truly' blends in with all the other buildings in the area.
It reminds me of the 279m Citicorp building in New York, though much thinner!
andad1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Tags
sydney

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us