SkyscraperCity banner

61 - 80 of 7225 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
PD said:
More chinese have chosen to settle in Sydney than in Melbourne so I guess they know which city has a brighter future.
We are talking about investing, not choosing where to live. Half of those Chinese people in Sydney are investing in Melbourne. They're definitely not investing in Sydneys apartment market. Well maybe a trickle.
 

·
Galactic Ruler
Joined
·
6,855 Posts
100 levels is far from inspiring any longer. Yes, it is a symbolic number but i'd think now when compared to what's going on around the world a 200 level building would be a better milestone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Avatar said:
100 levels is far from inspiring any longer. Yes, it is a symbolic number but i'd think now when compared to what's going on around the world a 200 level building would be a better milestone.
It's inspiring for Australia.
 

·
Sydney: World's best city
Joined
·
40,696 Posts
100 levels is far from inspiring any longer. Yes, it is a symbolic number but i'd think now when compared to what's going on around the world a 200 level building would be a better milestone.
200 levels will be highly unlikely in Australia. Just cracking 100 levels will be a milestone in itself.

Culwulla has mentioned many times why supertalls are unlikely to be built in Australia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
It's inspiring for Australia.
There shouldn't be any separate standard for Australia, to say there should be is provincial and insular. This is the worlds 12th largest economy. There are poorer and smaller countries with taller buildings. Here's a fact for you, Dubai is a smaller city than both Sydney and Melbourne. And Sydney alone has a GDP larger than Hong Kong.
This is 2012, Australia is no longer a small insignificant country like it was back in 1901. What's holding us back is a conservative minded culture and a lack of ambition and confidence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Mornnb said:
There shouldn't be any separate standard for Australia, to say there should be is provincial and insular. This is the worlds 12th largest economy. There are poorer and smaller countries with taller buildings. Here's a fact for you, Dubai is a smaller city than both Sydney and Melbourne. And Sydney alone has a GDP larger than Hong Kong.
This is 2012, Australia is no longer a small insignificant country like it was back in 1901. What's holding us back is a conservative minded culture and a lack of ambition and confidence.
Well let's start off at 100, then if all goes to plan, go to the next level. In Australia we wouldn't be able to jump ahead of ourselves because there isn't the allowances for it with our strict planning rules.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73,326 Posts
100 levels is far from inspiring any longer. Yes, it is a symbolic number but i'd think now when compared to what's going on around the world a 200 level building would be a better milestone.
your up with the fairies av.:lol:
 

·
Optimist
Joined
·
7,278 Posts
There shouldn't be any separate standard for Australia, to say there should be is provincial and insular. This is the worlds 12th largest economy. There are poorer and smaller countries with taller buildings. Here's a fact for you, Dubai is a smaller city than both Sydney and Melbourne. And Sydney alone has a GDP larger than Hong Kong.
This is 2012, Australia is no longer a small insignificant country like it was back in 1901. What's holding us back is a conservative minded culture and a lack of ambition and confidence.
"Australia' or even "Sydney - Melbourne" aren't building towers! It's private companies, that are building towers for demand. There's no point in doing what Dubai did and build towers and wait for people to come. People here are smarter than that luckily.

Just because Australia or our cities have large economies doesn't mean 600m tall buildings are going to magically fill up if they're built!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
There are poorer and smaller countries with taller buildings.
... and much cheaper labour and materials, and less regulations.

Here's a fact for you, Dubai is a smaller city than both Sydney and Melbourne.
I don't think anyone has ever claimed Dubai is a big city, have they? This is not a surprising fact at all.

And Sydney alone has a GDP larger than Hong Kong.
Maybe in nominal terms. But nominal GDP is wildly innaccurate as it is more a reflection of the strong AUD than anything else.

In PPP terms, Hong Kong is significantly larger than Sydney. It has more economic activity, more productivity and vastly larger volumes of trade. PPP is the more meaningful measure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
"Australia' or even "Sydney - Melbourne" aren't building towers! It's private companies, that are building towers for demand.
There is no city in this country that would allow a 600m tower under it's planning regulations. I'd argue the issue is not the economics, private companies have proposed such buildings in the past for both Sydney and Melbourne. The issue is local government regulations and the CASA. We are going to get a super or megatall when a government decides that they want one in their city, because private companies are not nearly as conservative minded as governments in this country are.

... and much cheaper labour and materials, and less regulations.
Yes, less regulation. Which is what I was referring to when I said this country lacks the ambition and confidence to build supertalls. Policies and urban planning by governments that lack any vision and are happy with the status quo.


Maybe in nominal terms. But nominal GDP is wildly innaccurate as it is more a reflection of the strong AUD than anything else.

In PPP terms, Hong Kong is significantly larger than Sydney. It has more economic activity, more productivity and vastly larger volumes of trade. PPP is the more meaningful measure.
The dollar might be some what over-valued. However I consider nominal a much more reliable statistic than PPP because of the difficulty in comparing like products in very different economies. Due to differences in things like quality control, services and specialisation that do add value to products.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Mornnb said:
There is no city in this country that would allow a 600m tower under it's planning regulations. I'd argue the issue is not the economics, private companies have proposed such buildings in the past for both Sydney and Melbourne. The issue is local government regulations and the CASA. We are going to get a super or megatall when a government decides that they want one in their city, because private companies are not nearly as conservative minded as governments in this country are.

Yes, less regulation. Which is what I was referring to when I said this country lacks the ambition and confidence to build supertalls. Policies and urban planning by governments that lack any vision and are happy with the status quo.

The dollar might be some what over-valued. However I consider nominal a much more reliable statistic than PPP because of the difficulty in comparing like products in very different economies. Due to differences in things like quality control, services and specialisation that do add value to products.
I actually agree but it would be good to challenge it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
The dollar might be some what over-valued. However I consider nominal a much more reliable statistic than PPP because of the difficulty in comparing like products in very different economies. Due to differences in things like quality control, services and specialisation that do add value to products.
You're seriously saying that Sydney produced more than Hong Kong are you?

Nominal means that Sydney needs to do nothing to grow along with the AUD. Since late 2008, the AUD has grown almost 60% against the USD and HKD.

PPP measurements put Hong Kong significantly ahead of Sydney. For example PwC's 2008 study which puts Hong Kong at $320bn and Sydney at $213bn. Not even close.

https://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=1562
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
You're seriously saying that Sydney produced more than Hong Kong are you?
No I'm arguing that PPP tends to exaggerates the difference as sometimes there are good reasons for price differences and is not necessarily better than the nominal figure. The reality is probably some where in between.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
No I'm arguing that PPP tends to exaggerates the difference as sometimes there are good reasons for price differences and is not necessarily better than the nominal figure. The reality is probably some where in between.
I'm not sure what "good reasons" you refer to. Sydney has had very little part to play in the appreciation of the AUD, apart from the fact the RBA is located in the city.

Hong Kong is clearly more productive than Sydney in real terms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
asdfg said:
I'm not sure what "good reasons" you refer to. Sydney has had very little part to play in the appreciation of the AUD, apart from the fact the RBA is located in the city.

Hong Kong is clearly more productive than Sydney in real terms.
Sydney is 'Nothing'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
asdfg said:
I'm not sure what "good reasons" you refer to. Sydney has had very little part to play in the appreciation of the AUD, apart from the fact the RBA is located in the city.

Hong Kong is clearly more productive than Sydney in real terms.
And GDP aside, consider the wealth held by residents in Hong Kong..

But there's no point comparing Dubai or Hong Kong with Australia when talking about 200 level towers. The economic fundamentals are so different. Any sensible comparison is with the US or Canada - similar economies and standards of living. Ever wonder why our cities are so similar to North America?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
And GDP aside, consider the wealth held by residents in Hong Kong..

But there's no point comparing Dubai or Hong Kong with Australia when talking about 200 level towers. The economic fundamentals are so different. Any sensible comparison is with the US or Canada - similar economies and standards of living. Ever wonder why our cities are so similar to North America?
Yep, plus similar lack of history to worry about destroying (relative to, say, Europe). Labour should be cheaper in the US than Australia, however.
 

·
Proud Victorian!
Joined
·
7,348 Posts
YEEEHHHAAAWWWW!!!!!!! :cheers::cheers::cheers::banana::banana::banana:



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/planned-super-skyscraper-in-southbank-would-dominate-melbournes-skyline/story-e6frg6n6-1226514699810

Planned super skyscraper in Southbank would dominate Melbourne's skyline

EXCLUSIVE: THE tallest building in the southern hemisphere - a mammoth 388m skyscraper - is planned for Melbourne in a development that will radically alter the city skyline.

Designs for the huge Australia 108 are being finalised and, if approved, will feature 600 apartments, the nation's highest hotel and restaurants seemingly floating 84 stories above the city.

The 108-storey tower, which will be the 18th-tallest building in the world, is planned to rise near the 297m Eureka Tower.

Architects Fender Katsalidis, who also built Eureka, gained planning approval for a 228m apartment building on the 70 Southbank Boulevard site in 2010, despite objections from Melbourne City Council.

But Nonda Katsalidis has super-sized his plans by adding a 288-room hotel and sky deck on top, saying the economy had strengthened and Melbourne was more confident and ready for an iconic centrepiece.

"Buildings like this change cities, they make the city more dynamic, more interesting, more exciting," he said.

One of Australia 108's most striking features will be a two-storey sky lobby which will house two restaurants and two bars, extending 9m out of the building, 84-storeys above Melbourne.

A hotel check-in and swimming pool will also appear to hang over the city, with sections of glass floor enabling visitors to see all the way to the ground in a much larger version of Eureka's Sky Deck.

Although the skyscraper is intended to dominate Melbourne's skyline, Mr Katsalidis said it would form a pair with Eureka.

Towering apartment buildings are also set to rise near Queen Victoria Market, with approval gained for skyscrapers in Elizabeth St and at the Celtic Club in Queen St.

The 62-storey, 197m tower on the corner of Elizabeth and Franklin streets will house 541 apartments only 100m from Victoria Market.

The Celtic Club development will rise 48 storeys and 154m with 256 apartments within 300m of the market.

While the redesigned Australia 108 plans will be subjected to a fresh planning application process, Planning Minister Matthew Guy said the fact such a project was being proposed underlined the confidence in Melbourne.

"Australia is coming of age and our cities are growing upwards," Mr Guy said.

"Taller buildings ... are a symbol of a growing nation, a strong economy, and they do have the ability to define a city."

 
61 - 80 of 7225 Posts
Top