Construction | BARANGAROO | One Sydney Harbour | 72st/247m, 68st/230m, 30st/104m | Residential | U/C

807801 Views 3630 Replies 198 Participants Last post by CementC, 1 h ago

CULWULLA

Discussion Starter · Jul 13, 2012 (Edited)

5

the 3 resi tower just north of C3 and not to forget the 20storey south of C5.
sales for these units will proceed in next 12 months

R3=50STOREYS/175M (23,500sqm)
https://majorprojects.affinitylive....5853/Preliminary Environmental Assessment.pdf
R4=45STOREYS/160M
https://majorprojects.affinitylive....37d2/Preliminary Environmental Assessment.pdf
R5=35STOREYS/130M
R7=20STOREYS/75M
https://majorprojects.affinitylive....87969184d69cc6b0f1/Architectural Drawings.pdf

the 3 resi towers (R3,R4,R5)

R7 Tower

some latest renders

http://www.smh.com.au/business/bara...-next-step-for-lend-lease-20120709-21rnw.html

Barangaroo apartment sales next step for Lend Lease

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bara...-lend-lease-20120709-21rnw.html#ixzz20SbziK6t

LEND Lease is looking to start sales of the residential tower at Sydney's $6 billion Barangaroo South project within the next two years, after securing funding for the project.

Aside from the three office towers, casino and hotel, about 775 to 800 apartments are planned for the site. The apartments could have an asking price of $1 million-plus.

After lengthy talks, the group said that New South Wales government superannuants in First State Super and the Telstra Super fund would be direct financiers of the $2 billion Barangaroo South project.

The two funds are included in the syndicate with the Lend Lease-managed Australian Prime Property Fund Commercial that will take a combined $500 million stake in the construction of the development.

Advertisement The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board will invest $1 billion and Lend Lease will make up the remaining $500 million, funded by internal cash flow, not by shareholders.

Westpac, KPMG and Lend Lease are the confirmed anchor tenants for the first two office towers, at an average rental of $1000 a square metre, with about 20 per cent of the rent as incentives. It is speculated that accounting firm PwC could take out the anchor space for the 3rd tower.

See less See more

1 - 20 of 3631 Posts

Avatar

· #76 · Nov 23, 2012

Meh, nothing to write home about.

Avatar

· #86 · Dec 12, 2012 (Edited)

CULWULLA said:
yeah same old nannies posting boring posts.
lets post postive guys like hyperkube. ffs

Hahah that's pretty low, we don't harp on about overtly positive sentiments expressed by some posters. Its true I am more glass half empty than half full but i will give credit where credit is due. Unfortunately we hardly see any attempts in this country that aim to extend the status quo.

Many of us have travelled extensively and have an intimate knowledge of Sydney's competition and our comparative lack of ambition and vision. There seems to be an mentality here that accepts average and in some cases attempts to pass it off as excellence.

Cul, you should be applauding any critical outlook as without it there will be no eventual improvement, challenging the ideas of what we have and comparing it to best practice overseas should be the minimum benchmark we set ourselves. A parocial view and measuring stick is no longer sufficient. I don't want average or normal for my city, I want the world's best. Why should we settle?

Avatar

· #88 · Dec 12, 2012

Looks like another Toaster in the making, albeit one with exciting 90s facade materials.
I wasn't refering to this building as such, while i don't love it, I was talking on general terms for the city. I do think design excellence should be higher for CBD waterfront locations however.

I guess I am less than happy the entire barangaroo development is not one masterplanned megastructure. I don't like this piecemeal approach.

See less See more

Avatar

· #116 · Apr 13, 2013

just_me_again said:
Why can't it look something like this

I agree it's a bit disappointing seeing the conservative and pedestrian approach we have taken ... the concepts had some life in them and I'd still rather see what I came up with put here. I just don't see the once in 100 year site developed to the standards of a world city.

See less See more

Avatar

· #119 · Apr 14, 2013

Haha Fabian, that's been posted 1000 times already. Any excuse for me to repost it is good. I'd really have like to see some radical integration of the site with the water and buildings, like the fingers in the concept.

Avatar

· #144 · May 6, 2013

so how final are these designs? I expect there will be some reworkings?

Avatar

· #321 · Sep 28, 2013

lordpine said:
soooo happy we didnt end up with that big red monstrosity... just ugghhh

I was of the same opinion until I saw the real design and a high quality render, one that was never promoted and released I think until after the design was axed. The design was phenomenal I think it was a chance missed for Sydney. The real big red was far more sophisticated than what we will get IMO. I know many of you don't agree but the original renderings and design matched much more effectively with the three commercial towers and had a much better balance than placing the tallest building to the north.

Reactions: 1

Avatar

· #324 · Sep 29, 2013

Cul but it was never the place for a tall building it will now forever unbalance the skyline. The taller towers should have been to the south of the site IMO and almost all entries into the original competition agreed.

If they wanted to make crown distinctive and sit it to the north like it is, it really should be 400m+ and totally make a statement. If they are going to **** with the skyline than go hard or go home.

Avatar

· #326 · Sep 29, 2013

I get what you're saying but your dismissing my point. 250m at this end of the site just makes a mess of everything. If they wanted to do this they should have seriously unbalanced the skyline with something more dramatic.

Avatar

· #328 · Sep 29, 2013

True, but from most angles it will create incredible imbalance, I say they should have gone all out. Who builds a city with the tall buildings at the fringes? It's somewhat strange and worse for Sydney due to our very controlled skyline shape.

Avatar

· #330 · Sep 29, 2013 (Edited)

Yes but it's not typical in a city that has a very clearly defined skyline shape. CoS have shot themselves in the foot by presiding too heavily over the shape of the skyline here IMO, I'd have preferred the shape to have remained now we have it, with most of the development closer to the central spine. Too late now

Avatar

· #334 · Sep 30, 2013

Ahhh none of you seem to understand what I am intimating.

Yes they are on the fringe but their height works within the context of what we have and more importantly they also taper up to the highest point, not way from it. Tapering up form the harbour would certainly look better even if only in the North to South arrangement. I do acknowledge this may now give scope for taller towers east to west bewteen the eastern CBD and Barangaroo/Darling Harbour

I'd have preferred crown be at the very south of the site and quite a bit taller to mimic the shape of the skyline slightly more. I am all for statement pieces but I think more of a statement could have been made if that was the intention.

Avatar

· #338 · Sep 30, 2013

BuildBigger said:
It just means we need a 300 metre scraper in the centre of the city to bring all the 200m towers together on either side together.

Not tall enough to work ... more like a 600m tower.

Avatar

· #349 · Oct 9, 2013

One way to fix this is to build mix use development in the holes that far exceed the heights at the fringes.

Residential on top (with premium views) and office and hotel under.

Avatar

· #359 · Oct 10, 2013

CULWULLA said:
yeah the western precicnt should stay stepped. the reason why barangaroo works is that it copies the eastern CBds height and bulk pefectly.

I'm not sold on it working at all, unless it works as it's own cluster which it doesn't really have the height to do. I would have preferred taller towers in the infill between barangaroo and the central spine of the city. The city should taper down to the harbour IMO CoS have cocked it up a little IMO. Too many restrictions and limitations with sun access.

Avatar

· #843 · Sep 1, 2015

lordpine said:
I still cant understand why the tallest one is next to crown. Is it only to maximise profits from the best view point? the whole development looks stupid with them all in height order. Should swap the resis around. Let crown stand out a bit more and give the whole thing a more natural look.

Couldn't agree more it looks ridiculous stepping down as it does. I definitely think the heights should be mixed up a bit, although I'd have preferred one of the north commercial tower to have been taller than some of the residential to really make it look more natural.

Reactions: 1

Avatar

· #884 · Dec 7, 2015

Making Crown higher would have been a better outcome.

Reactions: 1

Avatar

· #1,446 · Aug 30, 2019 (Edited)

While I am not complaining about getting some height in the city ... finally. I do say that it now looks ridiculous, the city skyline profile is now so unbalanced.

I hope we get some massive height in Pymont in the not too distant future and some at Central in an attempt to fix the mess that's been made here. It will be a mess like Bangkok if we don't plan a bit better. As much as I despise what CoS do, their plan and management of the peaks and troughs of the skyline was commendable. I hope we can get some of this back with better planned multiple clusters than set some balance to the skyline again.

Avatar

· #1,466 · Sep 12, 2019

SydneyWorks said:
Seriously, swap the two tall ones so that Crown stands out more.

This is exactly my problem, whey the hell are all the towers stepping down from crown in order like a stupid set of stairs leading to nowhere. If anything the towers should have all been stepping into the CBD not out of it. Add some variety and switch it around a little creating some interest in the heights instead of this crazy stairway to heaven crap they have created. I don't like the way Barangaroo also echo this same idea it's all backwards. The tallest towers should be facing back into the city with the exception of crown maybe.

yuck...

Reactions: 1

Avatar

· #1,467 · Sep 12, 2019

CULWULLA said:
no disagree, far from it. barangaroo heights were allowed eventually because it balances the eastern clump

275m crown 250m ra4, 217m IT1, 207m ra5, ect -western cluster,

centre- 265m CQT & 200m 55pitt, 200m 1 alfred ect-(soon to be pinnacle 300m+ 56 pitt)
then eastern edge- up higher sea level,RLS chifley 270m spire, Quay quarter, 219m, GPT-244m, DBank-270m spires. soon 4bligh 225m. ect
so all balanced
then we have central CBD cluster MLC-250mRL, syd tower 330m, ect, then

southern sector- Citigroup 265m, T&G 190m, Greenland 260m, 505G 287m, 338pitt 277m, 175 liverpool 253m. WT-246m ect
so as you can see the skyline is balanced all way through,

It doesn't balance anything it distorts the CBD and creates a crazy concave shape when viewed from the north. The new cluster is a very odd stepped arrangement that focuses all the height right at the extremities, stepping it up and out of the city context, in doing so completely unbalancing the city profile. To make it work it needed to simply function as its own distinct cluster but this stepping and a desire to place all of the height right at the edges has made it look odd. It should have been stepping it back to the south not the reverse. To balance it out we need a massive supertall somewhere around Wynyard to pull the focus back to the centre of the city and dilute the mess they have made at the edges. A city looks better with peaks and troughs or a pyramidal shape, certainly not concave with the focus on the edges and nothing in the middle.

1 - 20 of 3631 Posts