Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment

I visit family and friend all the time at the Harbourside - we often have guests fro outer state and we always take them to darling harbour for dinner , drinks and a for vivid each ear as well as Australia day and just for shopping sprees .
The idea to make a huge tower is just unfair and will greatly diminish the site , the feel and the want to be Darling harbour .
I greatly hope this thoughtless plan towards the community there and visitors is not allowed through.

I don't think this plan is for the public if darling harbour becomes more closed off with towers i don't see why me and friends and family should be there

We object to the tower being built at Darling Harbour. It is beyond our comprehension how the proposal with a 166.35m tower has been allowed to progress to this point. Any tower must not be built for the following reasons:-
1) Just the impact from the tower's shadow traversing the middle of the harbor, common sense would have stopped the tower at the very start of the proposal. Darling Harbour has a particularly nice ambience (especially when watching the sunset) and a feeling of open-space, and the tower will destroy the setting. Festival activities (espeicially the water activities) will be `spoilt' by the tower's shadow on the water. Darling Harbour is a major attraction for Sydney and brings in "over 25 million visitors" a year. PLEASE DO NOT RUIN IT!!

2) Darling Harbour was built for the public and the government is now changing this by allowing private ownership in the area. This should NOT be allowed.

3) A walk along Pyrmont Bridge gives a expansive view of the harbor and the tower will destroy the setting

To whom it may concern,

The Harbourside Shopping Centre is obviously outdated and in need of modernisation, however this must not come at the expense of public amenity and strain on local infrastructure and services.

My primary concerns are:
* The new podium leaving less space between the building and the waterfront. As a popular public venue for festival-like events the Darling Harbour waterfront is often crowded and lack of space poses a risk of drowning, congested and panicked crowds etc.
*The vast number of apartments in the proposed tower. The local area cannot support this huge increase in residents without serious infrastructure investment by the State Government. The local primary school is already over capacity and the new proposed school will not be able to cater for the large number of families moving into the local redevelopments such as Bays Precint, Darling Harbour Live Haymarket redevelopment etc. There is a serious lack of public transport in the area. Although within walking distance of the CBD Pymont & Ultimo have little access to public transport for those with specific needs, young children, elderly etc. The already overburdened routes on offer cannot cope with an increase in residents. There will also be increased pressure on local open spaces, such as parks, sporting and recreational facilities.

Pyrmont and Darling Harbour needs o keep its low rise. It is SO overdeveloped.......and looks like Hong Kong...it's a high rise jungle. We MUST keep some low rise....let the Maritime Museum stand alone...it is a beautiful architecturally designed building.....that would look dreadful overshadowed and crowded out by yet another high rise building.....in the most densely populated and high rise developed area in Australia.
WE MUST KEEP SOME LOW RISE.

As an original owner of The Peak Apartments we were always told Darling harbour would be low rise and as such be a mirror image on the western side of the cbd for sunny open space just as Hyde Park is on the Eastern side. This amenity has been swept away with the overdevelopment of the Darling Quater which throws shadows over a large area in the southern precint including the 2 ha of land on level 6 of The Peak that services the residents and destroyed views. This plan will do the same thing yet again. The Rocks area was saved from this type of developement 40 years ago and is heavily patronised.
The State Government ignores residents again and agin.

Very briefly, how is a shopping center a state significant development? It's not a museum or a train station. It's a mall with apartments on top. I would like this clarified if possible. I realise this is not a Council proposal.

Also as a resident in Glebe and worker in the Sydney CBD I STRONGLY OBJECT to any further dwellings particularly with a height of 39 storeys. How will these people commute? Where will they park their cars? What waste will they create? It seems as though they are encouraged to be wasteful with the supply of 295 car spaces. The structure will cast too much shadow in the CBD and cut off views of the harbour. Such a structure will create an impenetrable wall cutting off Pyrmont and Glebe from the CBD also. That's just ugly. Views are what make Sydney. I must ask: Who stands to benefit from this development? And does this mean the land is privatised? Is there public access? I encourage the City of Sydney to reject this proposal as it erodes, instead of enhances, public amenity and worse than that, very few will profit from its build and at the expense of the public. I cannot understand why the public good needs to be sacrificed to serve only a developer's interests? I fail to see how anyone else profits. This makes no sense and is a wonderful example of poor planning.

I object to the proposal to build a large residential tower as part of the redevelopment plan.

As a frequent visitor to the Darling Harbour precinct and lifelong Sydney resident, I think the addition of a tall tower in close proximity to the water and the Pyrmont Bridge will severely and negatively impact the look and feel of the Harbour precinct.

The tower will overshadow that entire end of the area and ruin the carefully planned appeal of Darling Harbour.

It is a very busy pedestrian and tourist area at the moment and anyone can see large swathes of natural light on those walkways during the day. A tower would simply block it out.

It is also totally inconsistent with the building height of all the other buildings close to the water in Darling Harbour. All the short 4 or 5 story structures are at the front with the taller buildings well back. I believe this has certainly been deliberately planned to maximise look and appeal - why would you ruin 30 years of planning across multiple projects by this one tower sticking up next to the water?

Darling Harbour is a key tourist attraction and an integral part of our harbour assets. Do not let commercial greed destroy years of meticulous planning designed to maximise the usability and enjoyment of visitors and tourist to Darling Harbour.

We, Michael Phillips and Lyndsay Phillips, of 1608, ONE Darling Harbour, 50 Murray Street. Sydney NSW 2000, wish to register our objection to Application SSD 7874, Redevelopment of Harbourside Shopping Centre.

We strongly oppose the proposal.

1. Darling Harbour precinct could arguably be considered the 'Jewel in the Crown' of attracting tourist numbers to Sydney.The proposed tower will not in any way attract more tourists and it would serve no apparent benefit to increase Tourist numbers or dollars to our city.

2. The proximity to the Heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge will no doubt overshadow the beauty of this bridge. The tower and Podium is not consistent with the rest of Darling Harbour waterfront where existing buildings compliment the foreshore.

3. The height of the tower will also cast unacceptable shadow to the residences of those who live in 'ONE Darling Harbour' robbing them of their natural light, privacy, and views of the harbour.

4. It will cast shadow across the Darling Harbour area and make it unattractive to tourist expecting a sun filled area to enjoy.

5. For ourselves, we purchased our apartment because of the view and assurance we could not be built out. The proposed tower will certainly compromise all of those things we enjoy.

6. Obviously, the area needs refreshment every 15 - 20 years to keep the area attractive to visitors. We do not see how a Residential tower, situated right on the waterfront, will meet this criteria.

7. The availability of parking is also a concern.

We agree that the Harbourside centre certainly requires refurbishing, however the proposal of the redevelopment by Mirvac is unacceptable in its proposed form.

We have not made any political donations in the previous two years.


Michael and Lyndsay Phillips
Apartment 1608
ONE Darling Harbour
50 Murray Street
Sydney 2000

I object strongly to this development on two grounds, firstly on my own account and secondly on account of the environment of Cockle Bay.

I live on the second floor on One Darling Harbour, the residential block immediately behind Harbourside. At present we enjoy a view of the city skyline, Pyrmont Bridge, the sky, the giant flag, the pennants waving in the wind. We enjoy sunshine which nurtures our small garden so that it attracts rainbow lorikeets, magpies, doves, and of course, Indian mynahs..My husband and I are both in our eighties, he is suffering from Alzheimer's disease, our activities are perforce curtailed and this view and garden add colour and interest to our lives. The sunshine also dries our washing and warms our flat so that we use little electricity, a boon for the environment.

If this development goes ahead we will lose our view, our sunshine and therefore our flourishing garden and visiting birds and the value of my property and thus my children's inheritance as this is my only asset.

At present Cockle Bay is backed by low rise buildings with the curving landmarks of the Maritime Museum and Sea Life marking the entrance. It is closed by the heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge. It is a vibrant entertainment area and a major attraction for tourists as well as local Sydneysiders. If the western side of Cockle Bay becomes a wall of multi-storey buildings the charm and intimacy will be lost and the pleasure of strolling the boulevards will be gone too.

Stepped building heights rising from the waterfront to high ground behind ensure access and views for all and an aesthetically pleasing cityscape when viewed from the water. Building regulations have hitherto ensured this and the result is a precinct we all enjoy Allowing tall buildings to own the waterfront takes from us citizens something we have come to regard as our right,; it is not a right for corporations alone to enjoy.

Pyrmont Bridge, heritage listed, telling the story of our shipping and industrial past, is a treasure we must preserve. The construction of a multi-storey podium and a tower block in its near vicinity is so insensitive and disrespectful it can only be termed preposterous.

As a proud Australian Citizen & a proud Pyrmont resident I absolutely Object & Protest to build a tower of any sort so close to the Foreshore & also so close to our beautiful Historic Pyrmont Bridge. It would look absolutely ridiculous & out of character.
Mirvac has purchased this property Called Harbourside.
Harbourside is a place for the people to shop, eat & be entertained. This place is a lease for the people local , interstate & overseas Tourists to enjoy there time at Darling Harbour.
Harbourside is not a place to build a Tower of any description.
Leave the foreshore alone for the people!
Do not let the rich get richer & domanite our beautiful foreshore.
Think of the average person & stop the greed of the big corporations.

I am a neighbouring property owner to the proposed development by Mirvac of the Harbourside Shopping Centre, which includes construction of a 35 storey mixed-use tower.

I believe this development should not go ahead as currently proposed: it further vandalises the low-rise development that originally existed on the Sydney Foreshore Authority land bordering Darling Harbour/Cockle Bay. This low-rise, pedestrian friendly environment has already been significantly adversely compromised by the development of the ICC Hotel, albeit this tower is set back somewhat from the water's edge.

The proposed Mirvac tower overshadows the waterfront, provides a tangible barrier between the harbour and Pyrmont, overshadows and detracts from the engineering icon of Pyrmont Bridge, and means that public land will be lost forever to private ownership. The height of the tower far exceeds the maximum height of neighbouring buildings and is not appropriate for the area.

The proposal to replace the existing Shopping Centre with a five story redevelopment is also inappropriate - a far lower profile building would be more acceptable.

I am extremely concerned the sudden change in the development scope. This change is quite blatantly a move by the developer to maximise their profits at the expense of the local residents and will result in overcrowding.
It is a complete change to the original application that was put forward.

I note that there are already plans under consideration for the Fish Markets to be relocated and for land there to be rezoned for high rise medium density housing , again placing enormous pressure on the already over stretched resources in the Pyrmont area


Pyrmont, is already heavily developed and the infrastructure will not cope with any additional influx of residents.

If you walk around Banks Street on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday night you will find that there are very few parking spots due to the high number of people visiting Star Casino or the Chinese restaurant at the Fish Markets or Darling Harbour.


My wife and I moved to Pyrmont to enjoy the lifestyle that was on offer.

This is now under threat due to over development.
I oppose the Development Application

I am extremely concerned the sudden change in the development scope. This change is quite blatantly a move by the developer to maximise their profits at the expense of the local residents and will result in overcrowding.

I note that there are already plans under consideration for the Fish Markets to be relocated and for land there to be rezoned for high rise medium density housing , again placing enormous pressure on the already over stretched resources.

Pyrmont, is already heavily developed and the infrastructure will not cope with any additional influx of residents.

If you walk around Banks Street on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday night you will find that there are very few parking spots due to the high number of people visiting Star Casino or the Chinese restaurant at the Fish Markets or Darling Harbour.

My wife and I moved to Pyrmont to enjoy the lifestyle that was on offer.

This is now under threat due to over development.
IU oppose this Development Applicaion

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this concept proposal. While I support the proposal to upgrade the Harbourside shopping centre up to five storeys, I do not support the residential component which is bulky over-development contrary to existing lease conditions. Further, it does not adequately address the traffic and amenity impacts on an already densely populated area.

The following comments and recommendations are therefore provided for consideration:

- Strategic planning - The bulk and scale of the proposed concept is justified by being in line with the changing taller and denser character of the Darling Harbour waterfront. However, these developments are each being used to justify each other without an overarching strategic framework for the area. Good planning promotes smaller scale development on the waterfront to optimize public amenity and sense of place.
- A strategic plan for the whole Darling Harbour precinct should therefore be developed so that the cumulative environmental and social impacts of this concept proposal and other proposals (such as the proposed `book end' tower at the other end of Pyrmont Bridge, can be adequately assessed as a whole. It would also facilitate an integrated approach to the provision of infrastructure to support this growth and ensure enhanced public space.

- Land Use - the proposal at the pre-development application stage was for a commercial office tower with retail. This has now changed to include a 39 storey residential development. The proposed residential component of this proposal is counter to the 100 year lease for the Harbourside site, signed in 1988, which clearly stipulated that development provide a public benefit with uses such as retail, entertainment, dining, etc. Therefore the very much private space residential component within the proposal should not be permitted, in line with the terms of the Harbourside site lease.

- Bulk and Scale - the bulk and scale of the proposal is excessive and inappropriate for waterfront development. The height of this development and other developments on Darling Harbour will result in shadowed, confined and unappealing public spaces. The bulk and scale of the proposal should have a primary objective of optimising the public amenity of the Darling Harbour area.

- Traffic and Transport - Pyrmont is one of, if not the most densely populated suburb in Australia. Further, recent research indicates that Harris Street, Pyrmont, is the second most congested road in Australia (SMH report 5/1/17). The concept proposal will only exacerbate this situation. Traffic data for key intersections and road corridors in the vicinity of the site were collected on the second week of February, 2016. This is not representative of traffic movements as it was undertaken during the peak phase of construction of the ICC and associated buildings at the Haymarket end of Darling Drive, thus not a relevant set of data. With the opening of the ICC facilities, new traffic surveys, at peak hour and weekends (including late night) should be undertaken that also include Harris Street, Pyrmont Bridge Road and Pyrmont Street.
- Should the residential component be approved, the provision of 295 residential parking spaces is excessive and contrary to sustainable land use and transport planning principles that have guided development in the Pyrmont area. With good access to high quality transport, cycling and walking connections, it is recommended that residential parking be restricted to car sharing spaces.

- Heritage - the proposal includes the removal of a section of the heritage bridge railing. The existing heritage bridge railing should be protected.


Again, thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on this proposal. I trust that my comments will be taken into consideration and addressed.

I refer to Application SSD 7874
The development around the foreshore of Darling Harbour HAS BEEN low rise. The scale of the ICC lifted the height significantly, followed by the ugly addition of a 5 star Hotel, nearly finished.
This lego block tower has done nothing for the foreshore landscape except cast a shadow across the Harbour from lunchtime onwards.
Now there is a proposal for another tower. I grant the Shopping Centre needs a revamp on its fascia but there is no need for any reconstruction or extension of the existing building.
The reasons why this new development should not go ahead are listed below
1) The low rise building code on both sides of DH make it a unique area (minus the new lego block hotel), the height of this proposed development is in violation of this.
2) Another shadow will be created across the Harbour, making it cold during the non summer months from midday onward, this will discourage tourism and residents enjoying the area. (Note the position of the 'popup beach' this summer)
2) The extra pedestrian congestion that will come from the proposed 39 storey (166.35m) residential complex in this area will increase the chance of pedestrian and vehicle accidents. (Crossing the road at the Pyrmont Bridge crossing is already heavily congested and Pyrmont has the densest population of any suburb in Sydney)
3) The extension of the height shall impact (BLOCKING many) on views of this beautiful DH precinct from buildings to the west and SW that have enjoyed the low rise building height and who paid a price that reflected their views. Many of these buildings have already felt the brunt of the development that has already gone ahead (and was objected to), this will completely block some views and impact on many others.
4) The extra vehicle traffic will add to an already congested area where car parking is a premium and in short supply. Darling Drive has been reduced to a one lane street (both ways) with the prior developments and now this development will bring a greater number of vehicles to the area. This is madness! Road access from Pyrmont to any other part of the city is already congested. (Namely Harris St, Pyrmont Bridge Rd Wattle St and access to the M1 and the city (check peak hour traffic)
I strongly object to this current proposed development.

I am deeply concerned about this proposed residential development.
Given the rapid price rise of residential lots in the inner city area(s), the observation I've made over the last 5 years is that these tower blocks are vastly purchased by the Chinese / people of Chinese heritage.
Not only that, this proposed development is close by the Fish Market and Casino - further attracting the purchase by Chinese, and the residence of Chinese people.

Having lived in these areas in the inner city precincts of World Tower & The Rocks, I've witnessed the awful impact such a swollen number of Chinese people creates.
World Tower and it's nearby areas are incredibly unwelcoming to both western residents and European / American tourists.
I had to move from these locations as a direct result of feeling unwelcome in what is now Chinese ghettos, and due to their sever lack of hygiene and respect for their surroundings.
This proposal will degrade Darling Harbour and Pyrmont for those exact reasons.

This proposal is also only in the interest of profit-making with residential lots attracting a more profitable per sq.m investment.

This proposal is not in the public interest, whatsoever. Unless you're a wealthy right-wing economy destroyer.

As a resident of Pyrmont I am a frequent user of Pyrmont Bridge and Darling Harbour to access the city on foot. With the increasing development at Barangaroo and the taller structures that have been included in the redevelopment of the Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre, this is becoming a less pleasurable walk to and from the city due to the overcrowding effect of the height of the buildings on this waterfront stretch of land. The plan to add more new developments including tall tower constructions at both Harbourside and Cockle Bay will significantly decrease the aesthetic quality of this area even more. The current low-rise developments at both Harbourside and Cockle Bay do not encroach on the waterfront and enable it to retain a low-impact and accessible feel. Replacing the existing developments to include high rise towers will take away this feel and significantly encroach on the waterfront accessibility with overshadowing structures that will belittle the pedestrian and give the feeling of being crowded-in which does not exist currently. The towers will not add anything architecturally or aesthetically nor provide any additional services that are currently missing. The towers just seem to represent a desire by some to overcrowd and over-develop our publicly accessible waterfront land, as nothing more than a money-making venture. We do not need these towers and they will significantly and adversely affect an area that is currently working very successfully for those of us who have chosen to live in the area for its considerable attractions and accessible location; as well as those that work in the area and those that visit as tourists. Instead we will experience loss of sunlight throughout the year and be dwarfed by these excessive and unnecessary structures that will adversely affect the character of the area forever by overshadowing us, obscuring our views and unnecessarily dominating the waterfront landscape. Please do not give approval for either of these structures and please consider very carefully all other development applications that similarly raise the heights of buildings in this area above what currently exists and currently works very well for all. Darling Harbour has an important place in the history of this city and country and should remain accessible and aesthetically pleasing for all those that use and visit this area. It is not a plaything for greedy developers to over-develop and ruin. To some of us, it is our backyard.

I have worked in Pyrmont for over a decade, enjoying the space, views and sunlight that Darling Harbour has offered, especially at lunchtime when I need a break from the office. I like the area so much that I bought an apartment in Darling One with all of my savings and a sizeable mortgage. To see what is planned by Mirvac is horrific and I cant believe that such a huge building would be allowed so close to the waters edge and next to the historic Pyrmont Bridge.
Looking at the rest of the bay, including Kings St Wharf and Cockle Bay, it has been low rise development at the waters edge, stepped back to the high rise towers. This look and feel should be continued on the Pyrmont side.
Obviously for selfish reasons I don't want this tower blocking my views and light, a view that I paid a lot of money for and will lose if this is allowed. But for all members of the public, locals and tourists alike, this should not be allowed as it will drastically change the look and feel of such a nice area by blocking the sun and taking up valuable space which should be used for walking or outdoor dining.
The other impact of course will be the increase of people living in the area, draining infrastructure that is already lacking due to the population density, plus the extra traffic caused by hundreds more vehicles should this be allowed.
I strenuously object to this proposal. Perhaps Mirvac can build a low rise modern shopping centre to replace the existing one, and still make a big profit without ruining the area with a huge apartment block?!

I am an owner of an apartment (609) in the building known as One Darling Harbour, 50 Murray Street. My apartment does not face Darling Harbour but the Pyrmont Bridge.
I write to object strongly to the proposed development of a high rise building on the current Harbourside site, predominantly on behalf of all visitors and Sydneysiders who enjoy Darling Harbour. This proposed development is totally out of proportion and would be disastrous for the character and amenity of this much loved area of the city and waterside.
Since its inspired and visionary development, Darling Harbour has added an immeasurable amount to Sydney as a city and to Australia in terms of tourism, and this needs to be strongly guarded for now and for future generations.
As a resident of the area, I am totally aware of the pleasure this area brings to the people of Sydney and to the thousands of tourists who visit it daily. I accept that the current Harbourside could do with some upgrading but this has already been happening with new business premises, restaurants and bars within the existing footprint and we can now see once again the full attraction, and experience the `good time' feeling it conveys.
My reasons:
* Currently Darling Harbour provides an open public space for those who work in the high rise jungle which is now the city of Sydney. This is so needed for the health and well-being of those who work in the city. To erode this space with high rise buildings close to the waterfront which provide the shadow and the sense of gloom which now pervades in a great deal of the city, would be a travesty;
* There is a sense of openness and pleasure which accompanies an area such as this which maximises light and sun and creates a mecca for all;
* The area is ringed by promenades and the historic Pyrmont bridge which defines it. To create such a tower so close to the water and the bridge would erode the beauty thus created and diminish the heritage value of the bridge. In contrast the proposed tower, by its very size and proportions, has no redeeming features and adds no value to this precinct.
* With its outdoor restaurants and bars by the water Darling Harbour is an oasis for all - tourists and locals and one only has to witness the busy -ness of it always but especially in the weekends and holidays to realise how important it is for Sydney and Australia.
* Together with the proposed tower, the podium is excessive and totally out of character for the area. Such large retail spaces are inappropriate in what is essentially a place for enjoying the wonderful hospitality venues Sydney has to offer. Just across the Pyrmont bridge in the city are huge retail spaces which are sufficient.

I would have thought it a fundamental precept of good planning that high rise buildings should not be positioned on any public waterfront areas, but it is particularly inconceivable in the case of such a much loved and precious public area as is Darling Harbour. I urge you strongly not to let this happen.