SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 2013 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
72,885 Posts
rule no 1. never rely on wiki-friggen- pedia for accurate info.
make sure you scroll back through pages.
heres some -sydneys next height limit scraper>
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=60748&page=26
also sydneys never built>
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=313654
City one is a concept plan by Thakral.It has never been lodged as DA. they want to build a tall thin skyscraper above wynyard station. it may happen one day.
btw there a few mistakes in list.
go to www.emporis.com for accurate info.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
i suppose that help's.
i do hope Thakral do build it though, it'll be sydney's tallest ((roof height that is)) at 235m.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72,885 Posts
yes 235m will be tallest to roof. a few years ago, Angel place was approved at 244m to roof and ground clearing started, then Boom crash, 1990 wall st happened much like GFC now and it canned 22 projects in sydney, angle place being one of them.soon after it in 1994 the council decided on 235m as max height.
 

·
Galactic Ruler
Joined
·
6,852 Posts
They should never have canned angel place but rather continued with very slow construction and development. What the stock market and economic conditions have done to Sydney past and future is a tragedy. Basically is has ruined the skyline and progressive city development. The crash at a time when we would have received our best, tallest and most glassy buildings. Many of us wouldn't have to settle for only Gateway as we would have had a selection of beauties to please us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
There's still hope it might be built, look at 163 castlereagh.
id be funny & overly pleasing if they both started contruction same year ((City One & 163 Castlereagh - that is)) which would equal = :) & :banana:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Ummm guys, I'm not sure if this is the right site (it doesn't specifically mention a 230m tower) but I found this news article from like a month ago which says that Thakral have lodged their redevelopment of the Wynard Station site ('including a tower') directly with the government, using Part 3A so that council which will allow them to bypass all the silly requirements that the council has put on the site.

Apparently this was done last year as well, but the department of planning denies it recieved such an application. Does this mean that it's likely City One is going to get up, or have I got my wires completely crossed?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/skyscraper-over-wynyard-puts-brakes-on-metro-20090319-93ck.html?page=-1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Well I don't see what couldn't be accurate, Thakral is saying that they're submitting the site to the government instead of Sydney Council.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72,885 Posts
thakral are playing there cards close to there chest. they will eventually lodge a DA when time is right.they will try with state gov and see how it pans.the big drama was last time is that cityrail didnt want to fund the station upgrade.
i think we are missing out on a golden oportunity to develope the sttaion into a world class dev like grand central and have a new tallest rising above it.
but realistically, i think its only a matter of time that the city one will be developed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
It might be a strategy of Thakral to really push for it now more than ever. I can't imagine that they wouldn't have something put away to get it up and running by now and if there's going to be such a drought of projects in the city for the next few years, someone will want eventually want to help fund it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,085 Posts
According to that SMH article Thakral are proposing a tower "as tall as those around it".
The tallest buildings near by I think are 180m Grosvenor Place & 190m Suncorp so you'd think we'd be lucky to get anything over 200m to roof.
Not complaining if we get a 200m tower, but I reckon a slightly taller tower ( like 215m )will make a bit more of a statement in the skyline ( esp when viewed from the quay ) rather than simply turning the area into a CBD clusterfuck area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
According to that SMH article Thakral are proposing a tower "as tall as those around it".
The tallest buildings near by I think are 180m Grosvenor Place & 190m Suncorp so you'd think we'd be lucky to get anything over 200m to roof.
Not complaining if we get a 200m tower, but I reckon a slightly taller tower ( like 215m )will make a bit more of a statement in the skyline ( esp when viewed from the quay ) rather than simply turning the area into a CBD clusterfuck area.
It says "The Herald understands...". That basically means its not concrete fact that the building will be that height.
 
1 - 20 of 2013 Posts
Top