SkyscraperCity banner

3641 - 3660 of 4050 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,425 Posts
Great to see height limit increased. I would still like to see more apartments/residential allowed.

Sky’s the limit as 330m-high buildings get green light in CBD
Telegraph dec 8
Skyscrapers will overtake Sydney’s tallest building for the first time since 1981 after the State Government
and Clover Moore agreed to allow 330m buildings in the CBD.

Skyscrapers will loom over Sydney Tower in
as little as two years after a historic deal to allow 330m-high buildings in the CBD.


Planning Minister Rob Stokes and Clover Moore have agreed to supercharge the Sydney skyline and bring an extra 350,000 jobs into the city.

The in-principle decision — subject to procedural finalisation in February — was made earlier this week
and means the 309m-tall Sydney Tower will be overtaken for the first time since it was completed in 1981.

Restrictions have been based on outdated aviation rules in place since the early 1980s.

The changes relate to four distinct precincts near Barangaroo, Circular Quay, Central and Town Hall
and increase the proportion of office space at the expense of residential development.


The move to limit apartment numbers has angered developer lobby Urban Taskforce, which said the city turns into “an empty wind tunnel without people after dark”.

Mr Stokes said endorsing the City of Sydney’s Central Sydney Planning Strategy will ensure Sydney “is not a little provincial city any more”.

“Today’s agreement will see Sydney soar, with brilliantly designed buildings reaching up to 330m, ” Mr Stokes said.

“It’s a historical milestone and people will look at this strategy as a turning point in the built form of this city.”

Mr Stokes said we will see 330m towers “over the next couple of years”.

“These are big buildings and will take a long time to design but I know that there is pent-up demand and we want to encourage investment,” Mr Stokes said.

The Sydney changes mean that there will be almost three million square metres of extra office space across the CBD, which can support as many as 350,000 new jobs.

The agreement comes as the government deals with the fallout from the Independent
Planning Commission’s rejection of The Star’s Ritz-Carlton development.

Asked if this new agreement makes it easier for Pyrmont to go higher, Mr Stokes said: “Yes”.

“This strategy doesn’t relate specifically to that area (Pyrmont) but it nestles in with our strategy that is currently underway,” Mr Stokes said in reference to the ongoing GSC review.

“And the Premier has been clear that she expects a timeline for new planning controls within a year
and so the two documents will very much speak to one another.”

City of Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore said the 20-year plan is the most comprehensive urban planning strategy for Central Sydney in 45 years.

The Sunday Telegraph understands that the new deal will mean that no building will be more than 50 per cent residential.

However, there will be buildings around Chinatown that will get close to the amount, while buildings closer to Circular Quay will have a greater focus on commercial.

Urban Taskforce CEO Tom Forrest said the deal would hollow out the city because it places an artificial constraint on new residential development in the CBD.

“This new plan represents a concerning shift away from residential development in the CBD of Sydney
and it is not consistent with what the City of Sydney proposed in its plans,” Mr Forrest said.

“This is another state government policy away from a vibrant, mixed use, energised 24-hour city.”
Paywalled ... https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/skys-the-limit-as-330mhigh-buildings-get-green-light-in-cbd/news-story/ab05b2d5db9c22d1d051893b416d500c




 

·
Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
Their biggest concern SHOULD be the ubiquitous ground floor retail component which will sit vacant for decades.





Why don’t small businesses use these as offices? Surely it’d be a great opportunity to get some cheap rent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,721 Posts
Think we need to see the actual detail of the proposal before we can respond sensibly.
The smh article on this item doesn't mention limiting residential but does say the current bonus for residential will be removed.
Journalists' reading and comprehension skills have not been impressive in recent times.

More waiting, I fear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,761 Posts
Remember Clover was all against the Star proposal but just recently had the joint press conference about the changes to Pyrmont and seemed rather supportive. She’s also been supportive of the Central Plans. Seems like we have a quid pro quo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,425 Posts
Urban Taskforce comments - not happy with residential restrictions and two and a half years delay by Dept of Planning !!

Building heights go up – but residents could be forced out of the CBD
Tom Forrest, CEO, Urban Taskforce
Sunday 8th December 2019

The Urban Taskforce welcomes the move to increase height limits in the city of Sydney.

The new cap established by Clover Moore and Rob Stokes of 330m in the CBD is sensible.
But the additional height appears to be biased towards commercial development.

The Urban Taskforce calls on both State and Local Governments to continue to support mixed use development and keep Sydney alive, 24 hours a day.

This announcement effectively reverses the “Living Sydney” philosophy, established by Hon Frank Sartor and Hon Lucy Turnbull,

which kick-started the Sydney CBD after years of inactivity prior to the Sydney Olympics.
A mix of retail, commercial and residential building uses is critical to this.

This new plan includes in the fine print a concerning shift away from residential development in the CBD of Sydney,
and it is not consistent with what the City of Sydney proposed to the Government in its plans.


After the IPC and the Department of Planning’s failure to support jobs and investment with its decision
in the Ritz Carlton Hotel proposal in Pyrmont, this could be another blow to the growth of Sydney.

It was anti resident rules that turned the Sydney CBD into a ghost town, pocked with empty holes in the ground and half-built buildings like World Square in the 1990s.

The Government has just reversed its last effort to kill the Sydney night-time economy through its licensing law restrictions –
and now the Planning Minister appears to be trying to return sections of the CBD to an empty wind tunnel without people after dark.

Residents in the city enliven the city. The live-work-play 24-hour city thrives where there is mixed use.

The activation of Sydney’s CBD south of Market Street is there because of the Living Sydney vision which included mixed-use high-rise development.

North of Market Street, the city is still dead after dark, except for the Rocks area where there is activation through high rise residential accommodation.

This plan has been sitting with the Department of Planning for over two and a half years.
The City of Sydney has been begging to have this plan finalised for over 18 months. Industry had all but given up.


The proposed heights have not changed from those proposed by the City of Sydney – in fact, they have used the very same map.

The only thing that has changed since the City submitted its City of Sydney draft Central Sydney Planning Strategy the Department over 36 months ago,
is that the Minister for Planning has removed the need for design excellence for these taller buildings,
and taken a deliberate move to favour CBD office accommodation over CBD residential development.
https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/191208-Building-Heights-Go-Up-But-Residents-Could-Be-Forced-Out-of-The-CBD-Media-Release.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,721 Posts
Now there's a Shock Revelation!
Dept. of Planning Fails Again!

Gets Really Special Award for consistency in failing to do its job specifically and generally.
And it gets a Gold Snoozing-on-the-Job Award for successfully sustained inefficiency.
As well, it will be the Prime Minimal's Truly Bonza Award for Not Learning from History & Re-inventing the Wheel Unsuccessfully.

A glorious moment in the history of planning...
has been muffed.

Why would you remove Design Excellence when it has given us so many of our best recent buildings?

Think the time has come for a complete hosing out & demolition of the department and reconstruction with entirely new staff.
..............
[NB If you detected a whiff of sarcasm in the above, you are not mistaken.]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,721 Posts
Think it originated with Bob Carr and Clover has taken it up with enthusiasm.
Nomatter the origin, it works to our advantage so why can it?
Petty minded politics?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,721 Posts
A very common error in native speakers and a tripping point for 2nd language speakers.

And here's why:

If you can remember that upmost is short for uppermost and this word has to do with being up top, i.e., the highest or farthest up, you will be set.
"The upmost level of the tower."

Utmost, on the other hand, has to do with things that are the most extreme, greatest urgency, or most important.
"The utmost need for medical treatment."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,670 Posts
Think it originated with Bob Carr and Clover has taken it up with enthusiasm.
Nomatter the origin, it works to our advantage so why can it?
Petty minded politics?
I should have framed that better, I meant Roberts might have been the one that lifted that requirement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
Design Excellence must be part of the process, no matter what. Unless we want to see half-arsed designs with a sole focus on height and profit.
However, it has several problems that are going to create a disincentive for development. Time to hold the competitions, costs in hiring multiple architecture companies for the same project.... The economy and height of the skyline will likely benefit from removal of Design Excellence.
Also, I would call into question the effectiveness given the track record. The many requirements seem to make it difficult for any design of originality or unorthodox approach to tick all the boxes.

Perhaps it's worth it to raise the architectural quality? But the system surely could also do with some reform.
 

·
downtown.
Joined
·
6,512 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
72,392 Posts
ch7 news also had article similar to 10
they didnt mention Aus108 or Aurora in melb or even sydneys Crown?
they did this map showing talls
 
3641 - 3660 of 4050 Posts
Top