Proposed | ST LEONARDS | 601 Pacific Hwy | 63st/212m, 45st/~146m | Mixed - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

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

Sydney Metro Area other metropolitan urban centres


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 July 8th, 2018, 09:37 AM   #1
upwards
Registered User
 
upwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,263
Likes (Received): 8349

Proposed | ST LEONARDS | 601 Pacific Hwy | 63st/212m, 45st/~146m | Mixed

Planning Proposal for 601 Pacific Highway St Leonards (IBM building)

Increase the building height to a maximum of 212 metres (RL 304.5)

2 tower forms - 63 levels - 212m and 45 levels - ~146m

They have calculated the 212m as follows RL304.5 - RL92.5 (apartment lobby)
There are lower levels on the property - eg RL87.5 - which is where the shorter tower element is placed

Developer and owner of building - Stockland.

Concept Design Report – prepared by Architectus

The key features of the Indicative Concept Design include:

A 7-storey podium comprised of:

− Commercial office at levels 2- 5
− Community uses at level 6 and 7

• Two parallel tower forms accommodating:

− Lower tower element (38 levels):
o 37 levels of residential (levels 8-30 and 32-45)


− Taller tower element (56 levels):
o 55 levels of residential (levels 8-63)
o One level of plant (level 64).

The residential component consists o 516 apartments

• 5 levels of basement car parking with 255 car parking spaces

==============================================
The site is currently occupied by an oval shaped 14 storey commercial office building which was built 28 years ago.
IBM now occupies approximately 50% of the space, as they have relocated staff to their West Pennant Hills campus.

In order to drive the vacancy level down from the high of 40% in 2013, Stockland has offered very significant
rent incentives to secure new tenants for the short term.
Currently most leases are set to expire within 3 years.


documents - https://apptracking.northsydney.nsw....mon/terms.aspx

================================================
















Concept Renders

From Atchison st

















__________________
upwards no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old July 8th, 2018, 09:41 AM   #2
upwards
Registered User
 
upwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,263
Likes (Received): 8349




Sydney Metro Rail Corridor

The alignment of the Sydney Metro rail corridor beneath the site has influenced the development of the Indicative Concept Design.

The Indicative Concept Design, including the amount of basement car parking has been limited by Sydney Metro rail tunnel location and its exclusion zones.

Consultant Engineers, Arcadis, have provided on-going advice on the floor plate and massing on the building envelope to ensure
that built form can be accommodated on the site both in terms of the anticipated load and pier / foundation.
upwards no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2018, 03:22 AM   #3
Deki76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 42
Likes (Received): 53

Awesome!
St Leonards is going to be looking good in the next 5-10 years!
__________________

motion liked this post
Deki76 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old July 11th, 2018, 05:30 AM   #4
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 69,989
Likes (Received): 19291

thats what im talkin about! increase height controls to max 1000ft it is.
it is right location for the peak at st leonards.
__________________
Church Hill tower- 1797, Macquarie Tower-1818, St James Church -1822, Garden Palace- 1879, Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2021, twin towers- 2024, supertall 2025 https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2018, 12:17 PM   #5
419EyeOpener
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 23
Likes (Received): 9

Can anyone copy and paste the article about this in The Australian please?
419EyeOpener no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2018, 09:43 AM   #6
419EyeOpener
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 23
Likes (Received): 9

Has there been some recent developments with this proposal?
419EyeOpener no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2018, 09:27 PM   #7
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 69,989
Likes (Received): 19291

if there was any development with this project you will hear it here first
__________________
Church Hill tower- 1797, Macquarie Tower-1818, St James Church -1822, Garden Palace- 1879, Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2021, twin towers- 2024, supertall 2025 https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2018, 01:07 AM   #8
Harry Andrews
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5,050
Likes (Received): 1491

I think we need to be a little bit sceptical that this development will be allowed to go to 212m and with that number of apartments.* At the very least, we will not hear much more until post-NSW election. There is a strong anti-development mood building, at least in certain parts of the city.

*Cue the recent Ryde Council decision on the Meriton proposal - although I understand the Council are not the final arbiters on that one either.
Harry Andrews no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2018, 06:57 AM   #9
419EyeOpener
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 23
Likes (Received): 9

Rezoning review lodged a few days ago:


https://www.jrpp.nsw.gov.au/Developm...U/Default.aspx
__________________

upwards liked this post
419EyeOpener no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2019, 08:30 AM   #10
upwards
Registered User
 
upwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,263
Likes (Received): 8349

This planning proposal was not approved by council so the developer sent it for a rezoning review by Dept of planning and the Planning Panel.

The planning proposal has been rejected (not to proceed to gateway).

So the developer will have to make changes and try again.

There were many reasons for rejection but it seems to be too big/bulky and not enough office component.

The building needs to be a slim tower for the height requested.

The site is zoned B3 commercial and a change to B4 mixed use is needed for apartments.

https://www.planningpanels.nsw.gov.a...S/Default.aspx
upwards no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2019, 09:52 AM   #11
Harry Andrews
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5,050
Likes (Received): 1491

To be expected really. They set out on a fishing expedition. Hopefully they get it right, and at a similar height, for the next rendition.
Harry Andrews no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2019, 10:32 AM   #12
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 69,989
Likes (Received): 19291

i mean Rl304m is so high. only sydney tower is higher. real shame thought it would get up. hope doesnt go down too much
__________________
Church Hill tower- 1797, Macquarie Tower-1818, St James Church -1822, Garden Palace- 1879, Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2021, twin towers- 2024, supertall 2025 https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2019, 11:37 AM   #13
Harry Andrews
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5,050
Likes (Received): 1491

From upwards’s comments, I think it can still get there. They just have to change the building’s form.

I have it in my mind’s eye, driving down Wakehurst Parkway (or much nearer - the top of Flatrock Drive) and seeing these enormous towers, plus others at North Sydney and (the already imposing) Chatswood.

Mind boggling.
__________________

upwards liked this post
Harry Andrews no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2019, 12:09 PM   #14
upwards
Registered User
 
upwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,263
Likes (Received): 8349


It seems they will also have to have a very large office/commercial component to get this approved. Could be difficult for developer to go with this in short term?




Last edited by upwards; March 28th, 2019 at 12:19 PM.
upwards no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

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 07:46 AM.


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