Projects & Discussion | NSW | News & Gossip - Page 2 - 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.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 11th, 2004, 02:00 PM   #21
cammo2004
Unacquainted Acquaintance
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Plain old Sydney
Posts: 1,405
Likes (Received): 42

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matixvolta
I won't want another Hong Kong style planning where the city is just a wind tunnel overshadowing parks. Parks will become dead. Imagine, ya having ya lunch break in a park and all of a sudden it's just dark and miserable.
Well, whether you like it or not, Sydney's going to build up, and not just in the CBD either, going from the sounds of this article. Wollongong, (which is primarily what the article means when it refers to the Illawarra) Newcastle (the centre of the Hunter) look to be in the firing line. It makes some sense too - It would make sense to encourage Central Coast commuters to work in Newy (takes SOME stress off the lower F3) and Wollongong (takes SOME stress of roads into the city) as it's quite feasible for Sutherland Shire residents such as myself to be get there (the centre of the 'Gong is only about an hour's drive from here). It's not THAT far from here, really. BTW the shire has about 215,000 ppl).

The larger parks are a FAR better idea than having a hotch-potch of parks around... A larger park is also easier to enforce.

It's time to shift overall planning from local government to some sort of a metropolitan planning authority (MPA). This would be better than a statewide body because regional/rural planning has different concerns to urban and suburban planning. You'd probably have a Regional Planning Authority (RPA).

Local government could be the enforcers (and recieve a share of breach fines), the regional/metropolitan planning authorities could be funded by the government.

And it's time to get serious about adding PT into the planning mix.

What makes me worry is that Carr was saying he's worried about the growth of Sydney (even going so far as to define a Greater Sydney Metropolitan area comprising of Wollongong, Sydney, Central Coast and Newcastle - and this does, at least in economic terms, exist), and yet they're taking this approach...

I get the feeling though that this is another way of the State government weaseling out on PT expenditure though (if you create centres away from the city that are convenient, they'll be used, whereas increasing capacity in the CBD area would help the PT problems dramatically).

The south side of Syd definitely needs a defining centre though.

Anyway, most of this post was spur-of-the-moment ideas, so feel free to criticise them...
__________________
known as cammo2003 @ www.simtropolis.com
cammo2004 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old November 11th, 2004, 02:13 PM   #22
Hitesh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,248
Likes (Received): 1

..

Last edited by Hitesh; October 29th, 2018 at 11:55 AM.
Hitesh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2004, 02:24 PM   #23
MILIUX
skyscraper connoisseur
 
MILIUX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6,200
Likes (Received): 380

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avatar
I think I'd actually like that... Anyway Hong Kong for all its volume still has some nice parks and areas in Wanchai to eat your lunch. There is always the waterfront too. The city isn't about parks, it's about business - I couldn't give a plop if it was shadowed and wind-tunnelled, maybe if it was we would start to feel like we actually had a real city in this country. Sydney can be so much better, so much more dense and tall and still be well-planned.

I wish we could achieve the hustle and bustle of some of the world's largest cities, now that would be truely awesome. I don't see too much wrong with desecrating the natural environment in one small setion of our country, its better than sprawling the city on for hundreds of kilometres IMO. We have no Piccadilly Circus, Times Square or Nathan Road... it is about time planners and our city fathers took it upon themselves to make our city internationally moded with decent amenity - the creation of these areas and the fostering of the larger parks that already exist like the Botanic Gardens have far more worth than a few tiny parks dotted around the CBD IMO. Anyway it really doesn't take too long to escape the downtown area even for lunch if you really want it - although most people eat in the underground eateries anyway.
I'd hate to see Hong Kong apartments. Those cubicles in Sydney city. It's like Blue Point Tower scattered in CBD. Plus, larger base for Hong Kong's floor which means higher buildings.

Height Restrictions are there coz of environmental sustainability.
__________________
“Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the future.” - John F Kennedy
MILIUX no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old November 11th, 2004, 02:29 PM   #24
dynamoultraclean
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 633
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by below-0
How about having supreme public parks on the top of skrapers. That would have to be serviced by very fast large lifts.
And sky bridges connecting them!
dynamoultraclean no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2004, 03:33 PM   #25
zulu69
selling my body since 88'
 
zulu69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,241
Likes (Received): 65

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitesh
Paramatta, Kograh and all these other far out suburbs should not be counted as part of Sydney, theyre ridiculously far and seperated by great masses os suburban housing.
Its like saying New York City is present day nyc with new jersey and connecticut combined ,or hong kong is present day hong kong combined with macau, shenzen and guangzhou.
all of those areas are closer together than sydney's cbd is to some of these far out places.
Are you serious??? Paramatta too far??? You honestly havent been to big cities around the world. Go to Paris, madrid and you will see that most global cities are sprawls. As for NYC with Jersey and connecticut-> they are different states.. i dont know what your on about there, borders have to start somewhere
doesnt matter if its close to NYC ... its like saying luxemburg is way to close to france and spain so it should just be part of them.. this applies to alomst all european countries

Anyways the article is great news and really not suprising. I actually see a lot more 230m buildings going up as a result. The comparison made with paramatta is unbelieveable esp since para is the 4th largest cdb area in OZ (or did i read that wrong?). I honestly like the restriction, it will force the skyline to central and fill it up real quick a la manhaTTan style with plenty of 200m bulk goodness. BTW with overshadowing, couldnt they build some a really tall building near the centre of the city... the shadow would fall upon other buildings and i really dont see any prob with that. But its all great news and if this means city one will see the day then thats amazing. JB is done i reckon just now for more proposals. When theres demand theres supply...

I agree with Matixvolta, although HK has its fair share of gems it has an abundance of crappy res buildings that luckily are covered up by the nicer taller buildings. I think for sydney to have the bussle of other palces Avatar mentioned it will need more than just a place, it needs to change the lifestyle of the city, thats the difference.
__________________
Sydney: Australia's NYC.
Form is Temporary. Class is permanent.
YNWA.

Last edited by zulu69; November 11th, 2004 at 03:40 PM.
zulu69 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2004, 03:39 PM   #26
Avatar
Galactic Ruler
 
Avatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6,749
Likes (Received): 560

LOL Guangzhou takes a fair while by car to get to from Hong Kong!
Its about 174 Kms on freeways. Shenzhen is 35km from HK.

So Guandong is all relatively close together. the landform is complex with mountains, the peral river delta etc providing difficulties with travel in some respects. The new territories in HK are quite a hilly and all over the place too.
Shenzhen is as flat as a pancake though.

Last edited by Avatar; November 11th, 2004 at 03:53 PM.
Avatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2004, 06:02 PM   #27
fro
Registered User
 
fro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 831
Likes (Received): 138

This is great news. It's good to see that the expansion of Sydney is pretty much continuing unabated. I suppose coming from a planning field, I see it very interesting how the State Government will manage this growth. cammo2004 makes valid points about public transport infrastructre and funding (or lack thereof).

And regardless of what happens in the near future, I believe the issue of height restrictions in Sydney's main CBD must be addressed. Not necessarily to raise them, but just to see whether or not we can sustain the demand with it still in place.
fro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2004, 08:47 PM   #28
below-0
Registered User
 
below-0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 88
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by zulu69
The comparison made with paramatta is unbelieveable esp since para is the 4th largest cdb area in OZ (or did i read that wrong?).
Parramatta is Australia's second oldest town right after Sydney. It soon became a great farming community that supplied food to the settlements. I don't know what you mean by largest? amount of high-rise buildings perhaps.. then Parramatta would be up on the list except I have doubts it would be 4th! In my eyes of density and urban largeness I see; Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart, Parramatta, Wollongong, Chatswood, Hurstville, Bondi Junction, Darlinghurst-Kings Cross and Darwin.
below-0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2004, 10:10 PM   #29
christarrant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,084
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by CULWULLA
i asked a city planner today that if Sydney's height limit was lifted would we see more 235m+ towers, and he said of course not. Tp get a large office tower of resi tower of 200m+, its needs to be economically viable.This is what i thought.Sydney has recenty acquired a height limit scraper (WT) and its been many years for melbourne to get one also, the last 200m+ scraper was the 1991 boom.If it wasnt for Grollo, and his money melb would still be waiting for a scraper higher then rialto.Just think only FWP is over 200m and then thats basically it. the rest are 150-160m towers.
So height issue isnt a factor. its the economy!
Our next BIG ONE will be John Boyd tower at 50st/188m. thats after completion of KENS and 126 Phillip street next year. thats pretty good going i reckon.

I hear what youre saying Culwulla, but take a look at Melbourne CBD for example and pretty much the entire CBD can take a 150m+ tower where as Sydney only has a fraction of space capable of taking one based on planning rules. Same applies to 200+ areas. Sydney is stifled by rules meaning that only a few spots can take them, hence it is MAJORLY restricted with future office space.Melbourne is where the possibilities are much brighter for the future.
christarrant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2004, 02:50 AM   #30
Randwicked
Яandwicked
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Austfailia
Posts: 689
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by christarrant
I hear what youre saying Culwulla, but take a look at Melbourne CBD for example and pretty much the entire CBD can take a 150m+ tower where as Sydney only has a fraction of space capable of taking one based on planning rules. Same applies to 200+ areas. Sydney is stifled by rules meaning that only a few spots can take them, hence it is MAJORLY restricted with future office space.Melbourne is where the possibilities are much brighter for the future.
Planning 'rules' only last until they start to impact in the council's income. Trust me we will see a big relaxation down the line.
__________________
Now with extra misanthropy
Randwicked no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2004, 03:34 AM   #31
zulu69
selling my body since 88'
 
zulu69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,241
Likes (Received): 65

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randwicked
Planning 'rules' only last until they start to impact in the council's income. Trust me we will see a big relaxation down the line.
Exactly. Ppl have to remember that the rules are only there to preserve our sunlight. NYC went through the same thing in the 30's and it has had little impact on its growth. If anything i think it actually makes buildings taller ( a paradox for sure but most things are) as a developer must make full use of the site that they have. Also it causes developers to look for sites near clusters that are run down/low cost and hence extend the cbd (look at North Sydney for an example- not thats its run down Therefore things get really dense, like the situation is with sydney. I agree though that having a little strip with 235m is a little extreme and i think a revised floor/height ratio should be introduced. Most US cities have much more laxed ratio's even NYC. I really dont see why the current res ratio cant be adopted for a commerical building. Makes no sense at all. I mean if a building can be built to that height does it matter if its for biz or living? its still going to cause the same shadow.

Ultimately though the news is just stating the obvious (the GOOD obvious though) and the future looks brighter (or darker if you are in the CBD *insert evil laugh*)
__________________
Sydney: Australia's NYC.
Form is Temporary. Class is permanent.
YNWA.
zulu69 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2004, 08:12 AM   #32
Avatar
Galactic Ruler
 
Avatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6,749
Likes (Received): 560

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitesh
Paramatta, Kograh and all these other far out suburbs should not be counted as part of Sydney, theyre ridiculously far and seperated by great masses os suburban housing.
Its like saying New York City is present day nyc with new jersey and connecticut combined ,or hong kong is present day hong kong combined with macau, shenzen and guangzhou.
all of those areas are closer together than sydney's cbd is to some of these far out places.
Well the biggest difference is that all the outlying suburbs you mention are in fact Sydney.

Hong Kong if you havent forgotten was and still is bordered, now the SAR. Hong Kong annexed the New Territories as it expanded and this together with the Island and the Kowloon peninsula + some islands is HK. Macau was never part of Hong Kong and was founded by the Portugues. Shenzhen was a recent addition to the mix with the set-up in China of another special economic zone developed to mimic HKs success and bridge the gaps between Communism and Capitalism (also bordered from the rest of China and Hong Kong), Canton City now Guangzhou was always a large separate city and the distance reflects this... not much exists on the freeways between Shenzhen and Guangzhou excepting a few houses and some factories. HK is different in that HK is self sufficent - it had to be, it was separate entity leased from China by the UK until mid 1997. Sydney is one whole, dependent on many parts of the great city for prosperity.

New York is sometimes referred to as the tristate or tricity area - hmmm this to me says that New York does in fact sometimes take under its wing parts of NJ and much of Conneticut, after all these areas rely heavily on the powerbase that is the borough of Manhattan. They are not directly New York but they are part of the urban megalopolis. State Zones help to differentiate but New York has more than spilled over the Hudson and claimed a section of NJ for itself. If I was living in Hoboken or Weehawken I would think I'd call myself a New Yorker.

Sydney as part of its nature annexes as far north as Newcastle and as far south as Wollongong as part of its urban megalopolis, I find it strange that you would exclude Parramatta and other .places from the mix... after all the city has engulfed them and they rely heavily on the CBD powerbase.

Last edited by Avatar; November 12th, 2004 at 08:24 AM.
Avatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2004, 04:37 AM   #33
Hitesh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,248
Likes (Received): 1

..

Last edited by Hitesh; October 29th, 2018 at 11:57 AM.
Hitesh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2004, 01:08 PM   #34
Syd-Hk
What Title?
 
Syd-Hk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 540
Likes (Received): 1

as long as it exists inside teh sprawl of sydney, i should be part of sydney...

but whats ur reason for not accept parra as part of sydney?
Syd-Hk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2004, 01:39 AM   #35
MILIUX
skyscraper connoisseur
 
MILIUX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6,200
Likes (Received): 380

It'll be great if there is a huge sprawl running down from CBD to Botany Bay Port.

However, I don't like the idea of inflicting too much environmental damage to suburban houses.
__________________
“Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the future.” - John F Kennedy
MILIUX no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2004, 08:11 AM   #36
Muse
Supernature
 
Muse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,590
Likes (Received): 33

Just been walking around town and boy oh boy!!, there are a still a lot of opportunities left.

Heaps of non-heritage crapola that could go in an instant. Silly little one storey banks thrown up in the 60s and 70s. Non-descript office buildings sitting on prime land just begging for new developments.

It's a real no-brainer. I know it's not as simple as such, far from it...but truly, it don't take a rocket scientist to see the potential that's around.
Muse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2004, 10:40 AM   #37
finn
Moderator
 
finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,762
Likes (Received): 2607

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitesh
i realise there are borders seperating hong kong from mainland china and state borders seperating new york city from jersey and connecticut.
the point i was making was that paramatta should not be considered as part of sydney. i realise that it is and saying it shouldn't does not achieve anything. that does not change the fact that are kilometres of suburban housing seperating the two. its cheating.
There is absolutely no gap in urban development whatsoever between Sydney and Parramatta. They are not surrounded entirely by suburban housing, but also numerous major suburban centres with high density development (including commercial/retail as well as high-rise residential) like Glebe, Camperdown, Ashfield, Burwood, Strathfield, Auburn, Homebush, Rhodes, Harris Park etc etc.

Where exactly would you draw the line between Sydney and Parramatta?? At what point does it change from one to the other?
finn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2004, 08:04 AM   #38
christarrant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,084
Likes (Received): 7

woops
christarrant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2004, 08:05 AM   #39
christarrant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,084
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by zulu69
Exactly. Ppl have to remember that the rules are only there to preserve our sunlight. NYC went through the same thing in the 30's and it has had little impact on its growth. If anything i think it actually makes buildings taller ( a paradox for sure but most things are) as a developer must make full use of the site that they have. Also it causes developers to look for sites near clusters that are run down/low cost and hence extend the cbd (look at North Sydney for an example- not thats its run down Therefore things get really dense, like the situation is with sydney. I agree though that having a little strip with 235m is a little extreme and i think a revised floor/height ratio should be introduced. Most US cities have much more laxed ratio's even NYC. I really dont see why the current res ratio cant be adopted for a commerical building. Makes no sense at all. I mean if a building can be built to that height does it matter if its for biz or living? its still going to cause the same shadow.

Ultimately though the news is just stating the obvious (the GOOD obvious though) and the future looks brighter (or darker if you are in the CBD *insert evil laugh*)
all I know is that Sydney has over regulated everything to do with tall buildings making them virtually extinct while places like Melbourne and Gold Coast embrace them. Sydney is going to rapidly fall away in the Australian and world wide rankings in the skyline stakes because developers have been strangled by dumb rules. Melbourne is the future whether you like it or not.
christarrant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2004, 08:39 AM   #40
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 68,870
Likes (Received): 17476

i dont know if putting a 235m height limit will hinder developement in Sydney? 235m is a bloody tall bldg!!! up unitl this year Australia only had one!-Rialto . now it only has 2 more. Q1 and Eureka. so it doesnt mean we will loose the skyscraper title.
there are no 235m+ skuyscrapers planned for melbourne over next decadde or so.
GC will get one-Soul and brisbane will get one- Vision. and thats it! Brisbanes Vision will proabbaly be the only 235m+ scraper the city will get. most will be 200m high.
I think GC will be the 200m+ capital with supertalls being the norm up there over next decade.
Sydney will get one (height limit scraper)within a decade. we get one every cycle. MLC in 1977, GPT in 1993, WT in 2004. ect..
__________________
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
 


Reply

Tags
mandurahboyz

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 06:36 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