SkyscraperCity Forum banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Unacquainted Acquaintance
Joined
·
1,981 Posts
thewreckoning88 said:
Hey everyone! Is there any chance that the 235m limit could be lifted within the next few years, so we can have taller towers and skyscrapers.
It's likely to happen eventually. The CBD can expand outwards, sure, but that has its limitations. The heights are definitely going to have to go up at some point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,357 Posts
CULWULLA has said for yonks that the 235m height limit to roof will NOT be lifted in the foreseeable future. Only architectural features, spires, antennae and masts etc. can go higher.

In regard to the Stevedore's Port redevelopment, we are all hopeful that we will get 300m+ scrapers eventually built there. This area won't be controlled by Sydney City Council though, as a special planning authority is in the process of being set up by the state government

This authority will be similar to The Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (SHFA) and the Redfern-Waterloo Authority.

Such authorities work autonomously ie on their own, even though they are well within the City of Sydney Council boundaries (SHFA covers areas outside these boundaries as well)

So we may get a few 235m+ (to roof) scrapers on the Stevedore's Port site. Bob Carr announced 12 x Australia Square Tower 170m height buildings could be possible but this could change to fewer yet higher structures.

Ironically Sydney's CBD doesn't even have a scraper reaching 235m to roof yet. The highest in this regard is World Tower's 230m structural height. Bummer! lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
985 Posts
geez!

Can you rename the thread please?

Benji Marshall making his NRL comeback and the 235m limit being lifted all in one day is WAY to much!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,728 Posts
The only thing in the 250m+ space in the Sydney sky is an observation tower, slim, discrete, pretty.

Anything 330m tall is going to totally lopside the skyline and make Sydney Tower look even more like a restaurant in the sky.

It will have to be really slim and aesthetic to even have a chance of getting away with a height close to 300m.

This is million-dollar Sydney Harbour guys, do you really expect the impact and shadowing effects of a 330m monster to go unrewarded without major hoo-ha.

I think Bob is saying, I want commercial towers, but nothing too grandiose.

Gee's even the Toaster was too much for some.

I like Sydney, its a great place, but you dont need to catch up to GC and Melb in the height stakes, they've been firmly wrested from you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,043 Posts
Just keep turning the CBD into one monotonous clusterfuck of 500 foot buildings I say.
Syd would have a much better looking skyline now if Sartors height limits werent intoroduced a decade ago and all I can do when I look at the city now is think what couldve been and what could be in the future.
There are now many rooflines all of similar heights making the view of the city much less enjoyable. Truly great skylines have variety in height and building forms ie HK, NYC and Chicago making them dramatic and awe inspiring.
 

·
.
Joined
·
499 Posts
Curtain said:
The only thing in the 250m+ space in the Sydney sky is an observation tower, slim, discrete, pretty.

Anything 330m tall is going to totally lopside the skyline and make Sydney Tower look even more like a restaurant in the sky.

It will have to be really slim and aesthetic to even have a chance of getting away with a height close to 300m.

This is million-dollar Sydney Harbour guys, do you really expect the impact and shadowing effects of a 330m monster to go unrewarded without major hoo-ha.

I think Bob is saying, I want commercial towers, but nothing too grandiose.

Gee's even the Toaster was too much for some.

I like Sydney, its a great place, but you dont need to catch up to GC and Melb in the height stakes, they've been firmly wrested from you.

depends which plans you mean in the toaster. first set where blocking rich peoples views. . .
the 2nd set was totaly different, state goverenment sold everyone out by letting them build on a public road.

yeah do please put a question mark at the end, made my day even better for a few seconds!
 

·
Unacquainted Acquaintance
Joined
·
1,981 Posts
Curtain said:
The only thing in the 250m+ space in the Sydney sky is an observation tower, slim, discrete, pretty.

Anything 330m tall is going to totally lopside the skyline and make Sydney Tower look even more like a restaurant in the sky.

It will have to be really slim and aesthetic to even have a chance of getting away with a height close to 300m.

This is million-dollar Sydney Harbour guys, do you really expect the impact and shadowing effects of a 330m monster to go unrewarded without major hoo-ha.

I think Bob is saying, I want commercial towers, but nothing too grandiose.

Gee's even the Toaster was too much for some.

I like Sydney, its a great place, but you dont need to catch up to GC and Melb in the height stakes, they've been firmly wrested from you.
Yeah, well the toaster's a different set of circumstances. That was on Circular Quay and it was blocking views of the OPERA HOUSE. So I can totally understand why a complaint would go up about it.

On the other hand, there's not much except skyscrapers to look at around Darling Harbour, so these would only add to the view.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=3266257&postcount=167
(that's a post by Cul containing a diagram which shows that a 300m tower wouldn't distort the skyline at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,661 Posts
Curtain said:
I like Sydney, its a great place, but you dont need to catch up to GC and Melb in the height stakes, they've been firmly wrested from you.
In reality, Melbourne's got 3 or so buildings taller than Sydney. Given we're talking about 15 tallish towers, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Sydney is competing in the maximum height stakes in a few years time. But, to be honest I have little interest in competing for tallest building titles. I just want 10-20 well designed buildings, a few of them well over 200m.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
373 Posts
Curtain said:
The only thing in the 250m+ space in the Sydney sky is an observation tower, slim, discrete, pretty.

Anything 330m tall is going to totally lopside the skyline and make Sydney Tower look even more like a restaurant in the sky.
As Cul has said in the other thread, a builing 250m would still be below the Sydney Tower's turret due to elevations and sea level heights. So 330m wouldn't be so much taller than the tower as the tower would be around 295m above sea level? (correct me if i'm wrong)
So a building up to 290m would be around the same height as the tower. A 330m building in Sydney is just another one of the many dreams. Just because the limit is 330m, it doesn't mean that something that tall will be built.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89,922 Posts
as Muse said, the 235m height limit will be here for a lo0000ng time. but we have hope with patrick/stevedores site. also its not that Sydney would be full of 235m+ bldgs if height wasnt imposed anyway? up until last year AUSTRALIA only had 1 x235m+ skyscraper = Rialto. Only Q1 and Eureka have surpassed this height so far.
lets hope Sydney gets a 235m+ scraper within next decade.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,043 Posts
235m isnt the issue in my opinion, its all the potential 180-230m towers that have been downsized to 150m-190m etc to fit with the other lesser height limits.
Think about all the towers that almost DEFINATELY wouldve been taller fi the developers had their way ie BT, Latitude, KENS etc etc etc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,728 Posts
CULWULLA said:
as Muse said, the 235m height limit will be here for a lo0000ng time. but we have hope with patrick/stevedores site. also its not that Sydney would be full of 235m+ bldgs if height wasnt imposed anyway? up until last year AUSTRALIA only had 1 x235m+ skyscraper = Rialto. Only Q1 and Eureka have surpassed this height so far.
lets hope Sydney gets a 235m+ scraper within next decade.
Australia has 7 buildings over 245m, or should I say taller than Sydney, and will soon have a few more (also not in Sydney).

Melbourne is the only city with three buildings over 285m RL.

Funny how spires / masts are important when it suits, 126 Phillip St anyone?
It's this building in fact that illustrates my point. If you want to build tall when there's building impact concerns, you go spire central.

I dont see a 330m building happening, a slim 250m plus a spire at the most.
And yes, Sydney is getting good design this time.
 

·
.
Joined
·
499 Posts
personally i wouldn't mind quality over height. if they do want to build something tall they should do it not to play games with other cities, (my building is taller then yours)but for a quality building that suits the city.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,357 Posts
126 Phillp? Where did that come from?

Show us where it is habit for us to throw 126 Phillip St into the "height mix". We as forumers didn't design it but it's like we are supposed to carry the responsibility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89,922 Posts
Curtain said:
Australia has 7 buildings over 245m, or should I say taller than Sydney, and will soon have a few more (also not in Sydney).

Melbourne is the only city with three buildings over 285m RL.

Funny how spires / masts are important when it suits, 126 Phillip St anyone?
It's this building in fact that illustrates my point. If you want to build tall when there's building impact concerns, you go spire central.

I dont see a 330m building happening, a slim 250m plus a spire at the most.
And yes, Sydney is getting good design this time.
obviously i ment to roof. excluding spires/antenna ect.
the 235m height limit for Sydney is "to roof". thats what issue is.
Sydney now has some of the great skyscrapers of not only Aus, but world.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top