SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 105 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
76,990 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
something tells me we are getting left behind in skyscrapers over 300m??
it seems to be such a drama getting one approved 300m+.
most OS now have a supertall.
melbourne are getting close with 276m queensbridge and Brisbanes 274m 111maryst
these days a 300m tower overseas is a weekly event.
400m seem more popular these days.

weekly supertalls in china
yet another chinese supertall
398m Light king tower/Zhongshan.

Shensens 442m Kingkey100




Shanghais 632m now 300m halfway up


new yorks WTC1


hell even poms have a supertall


yet another supertall for NYC
305m One57


556m 123st/ LOTTE JAMSIL SUPER TOWER/SEOUL


330m pyong yang hotel north korea



guangdong tower,tianjin/ mixed use
was 439m, now increased to 500m
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76,990 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
offcially Q1 is only supertall in Australia at 322.5m. (275m) without spire.


Melbourne
Eureka just 3m shy of 300m.


closest new tower planned
276m queensbridge tower


Brisbane
111mary st
270m


Sydney has sydney tower at 309m, but as far as skyscrapers go our closest will be 260m 115Bathurst st planned for 2015.
 

·
Optimist
Joined
·
7,400 Posts
The cities around the world that are getting these supertalls are much larger than any city here! Give it some time, we don't do too bad for the size of our cities.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,396 Posts
something tells me we are getting left behind in skyscrapers over 300m??
in one word: yes.


But i feel it won't be too long before councils and CASA cave into pressure because after a few more 300m (and above) proposals, and noise from developers, the height limit in major cities will be seen as stifling development.
 

·
Nate0z197
Joined
·
410 Posts
The cities around the world that are getting these supertalls are much larger than any city here! Give it some time, we don't do too bad for the size of our cities.....
yeah but still we could do a lot better especially Sydney because its the largest city in Aus, it is pretty much the gateway to Aus, it holds alot of world events and its also the 3rd largest city in the greater southern hemisphere. so it would be nice to see a few supertalls atleast between 300-400 m tall. the city councils need to raise the height limits because it makes much of our cities look tiny! i reckon the best skyline for the size of its city is Brisbane. as for Sydney it needs more highrise appartments and a few more supertalls in the CBD and maybe North sydney. dont get me wrong though if you compare say sydney's skyline today to back in the 70's or 80's its much bigger and better than it use to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,087 Posts
I suppose, A comparable size for Sydney would be Toronto with skyscrapers their lacking 300m also, with the exception of the CN Tower.

Also Sydney is about 40% larger than Toronto (wiki says 2,615,060) so I guess Sydney should be cracking or at least getting approvals around the 350m mark regardless of CASA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,087 Posts
Toronto is bigger than Sydney. It has 5.5 million people in the metropolitan area.
Arrr that it is, read the wrong one. Well even better then, my understanding of developments in Toronto isn't great but from what I read here there doesn't seem to be anything 300m + and the city itself is bigger then Sydney.
 

·
Lurker
Joined
·
3,805 Posts
300m means nothing to anybody who lives outside of this forum.

We're seeing developments that are injecting 24/7 life back into quiet/dead parts of our cities and this is what we should be aiming for. 300m is just an added bonus
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,329 Posts
I feel Bris is willing to push heights with resi towers in the CBD. Maybe Perth might be our first really biggie though, something to put them on the map. NIMBY problem worse there than Bris.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,681 Posts
Australia got left behind after Q1 and Eureka were built.

I mean 300m is such a big deal over here, but that's not going to get noticed in many parts of the 'new' world.

Problem is, we only see 100m or 150m tall buildings making up the bulk of our skyline and hence for us a 300m building in context seems so tall, but it's an optical illusion, 300m is not that tall.

Heck, 200m is a big deal over here and that's pretty short, but when your previous tallest was 170m or something then you are like 'whoah, 200m!'.

400m is the new minimum at the high rollers table, and even with that you won't be playing for long.

Having said that, supertalls are not everything, design is paramount. Given we don't have the economic clout to build supertalls maybe it's best to focus on making pretty towers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
Is Australia getting left behind in the 'supertall race'? Yes
Is this necessarily a bad thing? No

While I am a fan of urbanity and skyscrapers, I don't see the need for 300m+ towers in Australia, unless they make commercial sense. Our aim should be to improve the quality of the built environment in our cities, rather than mindlessly build as tall as we can.

The Chinese and the Arabs have a fetish for supertalls because it compensates for their inadequacy in other departments. Those kind of developments do not help to improve the quality of life of the citizens, nor does it improve the cityscape at street level. We don't need a 400m building in Sydney just to prove that it is a big city.

Australian can be proud of its cities and their skylines. For their size, the skylines of our cities are some of the best in the world. There is always room for improvement, however, and we can do this by improving public transport connections, increase residential densities, and by making streets more pedestrian friendly, for example, and not by building unnecessarily tall skyscrapers for the sake of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,735 Posts
Sydney can support a supertall, for example the Barangaroo project has more combined floor space than WTC1. The CBD is also getting dense and lack of sites is becoming an issue, a supertall might make economic sense. But City of Sydney doesn't want them. There were some proposed in the 80s but were never approved. CBD-1 at 445m, Skytower at 421m and Bond Building at 381m. Such buildings might not dramatically improve the city from the street level, but do improve the skyline and the view from the harbour. And in Sydney's case, what's good for the harbour is at least as important as the street level of the city.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76,990 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 · (Edited)
our supertall is 250m+ im afraid.

economy, population all play a part in this.
lets look at this.
a 300m tower could consist of 100 x3m high floors.
or 90storeys with a spire.
a 300m offcie tower would have to have 75 floors (75x4m=300m). or 70floors + an architectural feature.
when was our last really 200m+ pure office tower?
BHP is perth? its 200m + the steel frame above.
our next pure office tower over 200m looks like being the 217m C3 tower in sydney.
as for resi towers.
harry trigubof keeps building them. gold coast, brisbane, sydney,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76,990 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
i started at council way back in 88 and the 420m Skytower was a new proposal.
i thought ,wow, how good is this. sydney will get 100storey bldgs.
24 years later, MLC is still the tallest building.still no bldg over 250m.
devo
 

·
Global Citizen
Joined
·
4,307 Posts
Is Australia getting left behind in the 'supertall race'? Yes
Is this necessarily a bad thing? No

While I am a fan of urbanity and skyscrapers, I don't see the need for 300m+ towers in Australia, unless they make commercial sense. Our aim should be to improve the quality of the built environment in our cities, rather than mindlessly build as tall as we can.
Exactly.

Whenever I visit Australia I'm astonished by the quality and design of the new buildings that are being constructed there. Just compare the Docklands area in Melbourne with the Dubai Marina. While the second one has plenty of supertalls, the vast majority of them are just tacky or bland and the area is certainly much less pleasant to live in. So you really don't need supertalls in order to create an impressive urban environment. And from the streetlevel a 320m skyscraper doesn't necessarily look much more impressive than a 250m one anyway.

Another thing to take into consideration is that 90%+ of the supertalls that are currently under construction are being built in countries where the construction costs are significantly cheaper than in Australia or anywhere in the Western world for that matter (China, UAE, India, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Qatar). The construction of the Burj Dubai cost about the same as a construction of a 200m office skyscraper would cost in Australia. So unless land prices are somewhere at Manhattan levels, it simply makes no commercial sense to build a supertall in a developed country
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,681 Posts
The construction of the Burj Dubai costed about the same as a construction of a 200m office skyscraper would cost in Australia.
The Burj Khalifa cost USD 1.5 billion, Riparian Plaza cost USD 110 million.

Or for a better comparison, Q1 cost 255 million to build, D1 cost 200 million. It's not the massive variance you would expect.
 
1 - 20 of 105 Posts
Top