Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment

Darling Harbour is a pristine area and should be held in the state it was designed. multi story buildings of the type proposed so close tot he water edge are designed solely for income and not for the long term benefit of the community and tourism. It is essential that the area is kept away from continuing with skyscrapers which will impact on the ambiance and the original feel of the area.

The Pyrmont bridge is one of the few remaining iconic bridges. This area must be preserved. The proposed building will not only cast shadows over the bridge it will significantly impact the whole area.

Darling Harbour should be subject to buildings of this size so close to the water. This proposal will have a significant impact on the ambiance of the area along with the iconic Pyrmont Bridge.

This note is to officially inform you of my objection to the redevelopment of the Harbourside Shopping Centre.
As a resident in the area I am finding it rather difficult to see how this redevelopment can benefit the local community in anyway. As you are aware, the area is already over-populated and would have to be submitted to serious infrastructure developments before it can responsibly accommodate such developments.
There is already a similar building in the vicinity that despite all the bad press and opposition, was allowed to proceed. I believe this is a good opportunity for the NSW Government to show a reasonable amount of decency and object this project, which so clearly benefits the developer and not the community.
This development, in my view, is nothing more than then other "No Frills" development by Lend Lease (35-storey hotel by FJMT) just down the road. How on earth was that approved?????

Thank you for this opportunity to submit my view. I agree that the present Harbourside Shopping Centre needs to be updated. Ideally, I would prefer not to have a tower as it has an impact on the vista, but understand that commercially it would be a requirement. This being the case and looking at options, a single Northern Tower would provide a better skyline relationship with the ICC Hotel. There would be a better pedestrian connection with Pyrmont Bridge and CBD and the view of Cockle Bay would be enhanced. The impact of shadowing would be reduced compared to other options.
A two tower option has a double negative effect on views and shadowing and a disjunction between loading and servicing of both towers would occur.
A central tower would have an impact on the Ibis and Novotel viewing platforms and would divide the retail complex. Connectivity to Pyrmont Bridge would be diminished.
A southern Tower, would compromise view fro ICC Hotel and Novotel, increase the shadowing of public areas and have poor connectivity to Pyrmont Bridge and CBD.
In conclusion, I submit that the Central Northern Tower would be in my opinion the best option.
.

Darling Harbour is a unique and the only location that still provides heritage with the open outlook and spacious environment that local, interstate and international visitors come to enjoy and identify with. It is a location next to the hustle and bustle of Sydney CBD that people can come to relax, enjoy the open space with plenty of sunshine and amenities on the Sydney foreshore without being overshadowed by high rise buildings. Environment like Darling Harbour should be preserved for all to enjoy for all generations rather than destroyed and lost forever.

The proposal will have a fundamental impact on the look and feel of the heritage and unique character of Darling Harbour. The development is excessive for a location like Darling Harbour and will make for a boxed in feeling. The development will set a precedence for all other foreshore development to follow. If this development is not done appropriately to balance the environment heritage and benefit of all to use then this precedence will set the path for the destruction of not just Darling Harbour but all of our beautiful Sydney foreshore will be lost for the enjoyment of all for generations to come. (There is already another development proposal on the opposite foreshore that is even more imposing.)

The tower being so close to the water will impose onto the openness of the available public space along the water edge. The creation of the boardwalk to provide more walk space along the water edge is only giving a false perception of space as it reduced the water area of Darling Harbour which has already shrunk a lot over the years. Any lost of space is lost forever.

The location of the tower impose on the availability of direct sunlight into the east facing apartments located directly behind the tower in the adjacent residential building Availability of sunshine through the day to the public space south of the tower will be reduced substantially. It will be worse in the winter months when the sun is lower on the horizon.

The size of the tower dwarfs the surrounding building and so out of balance in relation to the surrounding being so near the water edge.

The residential tower provides no benefits to tourism and public enjoyment and use of the Darling Harbour foreshore. There will be future conflict between private residence and the pubic use of the space like what happened at another Sydney icon the LUNA PARK where the public use and enjoyment has been lost.

The proposed size of the retail podium is excessive and will make this another suburban shopping centre rather than a public space to be enjoyed by tourist and all the people of NSW. There are a number of major retail space within close proximity of Darling Harbour.

The creation of the boardwalk to provide more walk space along the water edge is only giving a false perception of space as it reduced the water area of Darling Harbour which has already shrunk a lot over the years.

I would like to submit an objection to this proposal on the below grounds.

Darling Harbour is a place for everyone to share, a primary jewel that draws every international visitor to Sydney as it uniquely enhances the beauty, livability and international reputation of Sydney as desirable place to live. It provides one the few and diminishing areas that allows a busy city to relax and play in, in area that is spectacularly pleasant to the eye through its current openness and purposely planned that way through the genius and foresight of our city's planners. It is a designated tourist precinct where many of Sydney's great celebrations occur and is a playground for all ages. Any development within this area must serve to enhance the inherent beauty of the harbour to draw the admiration of tourists and fit in with public purpose values of the area.

This proposal will fundamentally change the character of Darling Harbour to a metropolitan area that is excessively trafficked. My primary concern is the sheer size and number of floors of the shopping centre and the extreme height of the residential tower. Such a large shopping centre is unnecessary, keeping the same number of levels or existing height would fit in much more beautifully with the existing harbor space. The tower itself should be much smaller and placed between the gap between the Ibis Hotel and the Novotel. Any views disrupted would be to temporary visitors. The central location of these hotels is a sufficient drawcard and not all views would be disrupted. The decision to situate the tower in front of permanent residents is a cold and clinical decision without thought of current residents of the harbor which the City of Sydney should definitely take into consideration as part of this electorate.

Even without this new shopping centre development, Darling Harbour is already a primary attraction to tourists, the beauty of the open space and rarity of this type of space in densely populated cities is what makes Sydney attractive, therefore I fail to see how it will reinforce Sydney's reputation as an internationally renowned beautiful, liveable city. Tourists and other city planners come to Sydney to understand how a CBD can simultaneously serve commercial and residential needs and remain astoundingly beautiful and comfortable to reside in, play in, celebrate in. Our city planners have worked so hard over several decades to designate areas specifically to create an exceptionally beautiful livable city. I don't think a single planner could look at this development and feel it contributes to the beauty of the harbor and enhances its attractiveness to visitors, indeed it is a clear detraction and labels Sydney as becoming a crowded and over developed city as are many in the US or Asia. Tourists need spaces to breathe and wander around and beauty to admire. A natural wonder is natural because it is not excessively over built which the proposed development will definitely cause it to become. There are so many developmental areas in the Pyrmont area which can be built to increase supply of housing, it is ridiculous that this particular area has been chosen for further residential development in a tourist area. I don't disagree that the shopping centre could be revitalized, but it could be done beautifully and seamlessly, low and elegant, made to enhance the attractiveness of the harbor, not to overshadow it, dominate it and designed purely to increase every square inch of profitability that Mirvac can possibly squeeze out of it at the permanent cost to every visitor, every person's enjoyment of the harbour and Sydney's international reputation.

The beauty of the harbor is inherent in the openness and lack of high towers and many storied buildings (i.e. the proposed shopping centre) built closely to the water which maximize sunlight into public areas. Further, all people currently enjoy a beautiful skyline where the redevelopment is proposed. Allowing such a large shopping centre and such an excessively high tower would permanently and irreparably destroy the beauty that all comers to Darling Harbour currently appreciate. A high shopping centre would create a sense of being closed in to the wharf/pedestrian area which would diminish the pleasure of walking by the area. Currently the harbour and Pyrmont Bridge are the primary attractions to the eye in the area, the heritage beauty of the bridge and water would be dominated by the excessively large new development so close to the water. Tourists do not come to Darling Harbour to go shop at Westfield which is more than conveniently located. They come to enjoy the beautiful view, the open space and small shopping centre to buy souvenirs and enjoy a meal, not to get lost in a maze of shopping for necessities that a shopping centre built to cater for a tall residency tower. A clinical Barangaroo-like development is definitely unwanted and not in line with the tourist attraction value of the current space.

It is true the view from my privately-owned property in One Darling Harbour would also be affected. This severely disrupts the current comfort and beauty my family enjoys as well as impacting our privacy given the proximity of the tower will allow others to see into our private space which the City of Sydney should defend as it defends the privacy and livability of all residents in its electorate. All the living room areas and entire apartments will have their current views and privacy disrupted without compensation which is patently unfair to given that the harbor has never been expected to redeveloped to such a high and obstructive degree. It greatly saddens me to think how the warm character of the existing harbor will change with such an exaggerated overdevelopment and the permanent damage to its beauty that will occur to a place that already attracts every visitor to Sydney and is undoubtedly a fundamental reason why Sydney is uniquely popular and so renowned internationally for its beauty. Ultimately, the Harbourside is intended to attract tourists, it is not intended to be a World Square or Regent place and its character should not be altered thusly.

To summarise:

The proposed tower serves no tourism or public use benefit and is inconsistent with the values of the Darling Harbour foreshore. The tower will:

a. overshadow (create a sun shadow over) the public domain - and thus detract from the amenity and public values of the area;

b. detract from the significant heritage values of the State Heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge; and

c. significantly impact and in some cases completely destroy iconic views of Darling Harbour/city skyline from private residences to the west of the proposal

6. The proposed retail podium is excessive and inconsistent with the values of the site. The podium is an equivalent height of a 9 storey residential building and the retail space will be more than doubled under the proposal. Such a large retail space is inappropriate and unwanted in this area, particularly given the close proximity of similar retail spaces throughout the CBD and at Broadway shopping centre and within other redevelopment proposals at Darling Harbour.

7. Pyrmont Bridge is listed on the State Heritage Register and is a key feature of the Darling Harbour area. Any development must preserve and enhance the heritage values of the bridge. The proposal will dominate Darling Harbour and significantly change and diminish the heritage context of the bridge

We reject the high rise building on the proposal..water front shouldn't put up high rise on that.not for any one. Money can't change it.

On further thought, there should be no tower at any point in the new development. No matter where it is located it will only serve to disrupt the existing beauty of the skyline where a gentle and uniform height of the Novotel and Ibis Hotel and One Darling Harbour currently create, marred only by the new Sofitel. It cannot be said that that structure that is stiff, square and corporate like has enhanced in the harbour in any way. Adding another tower would only further damage the existing space.

Darling Harbour / Cockle Bay is appealing for it's open space & the minimal visual impact of the existing "low rise" developments, that surround the foreshore.

The Mirvac High Rise proposal would be a visual disaster towering over Pyrmont Bridge & impacting existing buildings views. It would be a "tourist" NEGATIVE.

In comparison the new IMAX development & the ICC Hotel are setback from the immediate surrounds and do not have the same impact as the Mirvac proposal.

Mirvac only want to develop for commercial advantage & in this instance I believe should be denied. They can redevelop within their existing envelope & be happy with that.

Keep Darling Harbour / Cockle Bay visually friendly & appealing to locals & visitors.

I object to this development, as put forward in its current form.

There is no doubt that the Harbourside complex is looking tired and dated, and would benefit from refurbishment to a new, higher standard. But I object, in the strongest terms, to the proposed tower. It will be a blot on a beautiful skyline and will cause significant shadowing in Pyrmont, throughout the day.

Pyrmont is already the most densely populated area in Australia and this proposed high-rise development will add to its already considerable infrastructure problems. The plan is ill-conceived and does NOT meet the needs of the local community, whose access to Darling Harbour has already become significantly limited.

Darling Harbour is a wonderful place for locals to go - it's not just about visitors. Blocking it all in with high-rise development right on the waterfront is simply madness. Who gains from this, other than the developer? The local community loses; infrastructure will be stretched to breaking point; and the area will be less attractive to visitors because it will feel closed-in and unattractive.

We now have to tolerate the high-rise hotel. Locals have to tolerate walking through a filthy car park, using the disgusting badly-lit stairs or dirty, cranking lifts, just to gain access to the Harbourside area. All that investment in the wonderful new ICC, and locals have to walk through third-world conditions to get there.

PLEASE - retain our open space and our beautiful skyline, and use this great opportunity to improve our access from the Pyrmont side. Don't block us in for the sake of a few extra dollars in the developer's coffers.

We don't NEED the tower. PLEASE focus on what will benefit everyone, visitors and locals alike - and keep it LOW.

Please see read Alex Greenwich report as tabled in parliament

Proposed redevelopment of Harbourside Shopping Centre [Inline image URL : ]SSD 15_7375

ATTN: Mr Brendan Roberts

This submission is an objection to Mirvac's current proposal to redevelop the Harbourside Shopping Centre(HSC) site.

I request an opportunity to have my issues addressed, preferably in person.

I am the owner of a residential apartment in One Darling Harbour(ODH), a building located on the western side of the HSC in Darling Harbour.

My apartment is at the centre of one of the low levels of ODH and, in the concept plan, is identified among the most adversely affected.

I wrote to your department, the Department of Planning and the Environment (DPE) and other key departments and politicians in late 2015 and again in 2016.
I expressed concerns about the impact of Mirvac's original and subsequent submissions for SEARS, in particular, the forced change of amenity to my apartment.

I bought my apartment as an investment for retirement because my family and I have a strong historical link to this area.

The architects of ODH designed a building with an inherent assumption that HSC would not increase in height or bulk.
The resultant design provides a breathtaking view which is an important part of the the enjoyment of my amenity.
This amenity is evidenced, in part only, by a description below as I was not able to upload photos.
I am happy to provide photos in another format or organise a site visit which would be even more valuable:

*views from my apartment extend across Cockle Bay and the city skyline including down the length of Pyrmont Bridge(which is particularly fantastic) and to the water and wharf and partially above the northern part of Darling Harbour;

*an open and yet private outlook which allows the windows to be uncovered and ajar;

*good airflow and sunlight which has its healthy effects;

*access to the wonderful combination of sounds and sights of the activities in the precinct including the movement of people, boats and cars, but especially the celebratory activities from the water including the fireworks;

*the smell and taste of the salty sea air ( a joy to someone who has lived a life in the dry climate west of the Great Dividing Range);

*observation of the workings of the old Pyrmont Bridge particularly its swing action as boats pass through.

*a sense of 'place' which stimulates conversation with family and friends and creates an opportunity to pass down knowledge and understanding of family history significant to this place and general Australian history.

If the concept plan was to be realised I would have a vast view of a very large block of private residences and a public platform created to justify a building that will significantly change the character and intent of the neighbourhood.

In other words my present amenity will be irrevocably and detrimentally lost if Mirvac's plans were to go ahead.


I strongly object to this proposal because according to the concept plan:

1. the development looks ugly and is over-bearing, beyond the current scale and out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity.
It particularly impacts and affects the natural setting of Cockle Bay, a small body of water compared to rest of Darling Harbour;

2. there is a lack of complementarity with the existing buildings.
The original stepped-back buildings including HSC on the western side of Cockle Bay were designed to complement each other and symbiotically work together.
This wholistic design demonstrates genuine 'view sharing' and directs people towards what's left of the natural beauty of the bay where they can be fed with a variety of history and culture, nature and industry, entertainment and cuisine;

3. the proposed development totally disconnects me from Cockle Bay which Mirvac's environmental impact statement acknowledges.
But it also infers I have no protected right to keep that amenity due to the public amenity design features in their proposal.
That's just manipulative bullying tactics;

4. I will suffer a complete loss of my existing view which opens out from my front door and expands throughout all the living and bedroom areas;

5. a change in the nature of my outlook will occur - from a beautiful vast landscape to restricted concrete block;

6. I will suffer a total loss of privacy in the apartment since occupants on several levels of the proposed building including the general public would have direct views into my living and bedroom areas;

7. the proposed building is just 25 metres away and the levels directly opposite my apartment will create artificial light and noise pollution;

8. there will be a massive loss of air space close to the water's edge in Cockle Bay and close to my apartment;

9. the proposal adversely affects the setting of the listed Pyrmont Bridge.
It dominates the space and reduces the visual aspect of the bridge from all surrounding public spaces including those new spaces within the proposed design.

10. the proposal is especially dismissive of the sight lines of those who walk the length of Darling Drive on the upper walkways, pedestrian bridges, ramps and open car parks of the stepped-back built form on the western side of Cockle Bay.
These were specifically designed to;

a) keep crowds from using the unsafe and busy roadway of Darling Drive below,

b) provide a 'wow' entrance with magnificent views over the top of the HSC down to the water of Cockle Bay and beyond to the whole Darling Harbour precinct. A grand entrance with the welcoming promise of fantastic fun and festive activity.

11. there's expected increased traffic flow, both pedestrian and vehicular, in an area where congestion already exists.
Good design principles are meant to alleviate and simplify concurrent problems not exacerbate and magnify them.
I refer to the the affected road network on either side of ODH - in particular the area before and surrounding the intersection of Murray St , Darling Drive and Pyrmont Bridge Road , just below my apartment, as well as Murray St and Bunn St next to the entrance to the Harbourside carpark.

12. we will lose, on the southern side of Pyrmont Bridge, a significant public pedestrian space that follows the natural lay of the land down to the water's edge.
Instead we will have to negotiate a less convenient set of stairs which are longer and steeper as it starts from a higher level than the bridge and winds indirectly to ground level;

13. Mirvac is proposing a change in the traditional use of this site by introducing private residences .
A use which is out of step with this site;

14. there was meant to be genuine consultation with stakeholders but -
a) at Mirvac's public meeting there was lack of address to my concerns through a disingenuous response - the only verbal response I received was that 'the impact studies had not been completed'. There was a lot of physical response of blank faces or just a small nod.
b) I was informed that at a private meeting, which was described as a 'consultation' between Mirvac and representatives of the owners of ODH Mirvac announced they would make no further changes to the proposal and had in fact earlier that day made public their proposal.

15. there is a lack of justification for such a large and ungainly development on this site and there are inconsistencies in their poorly constructed arguments.

16. the Mirvac proposal down plays the historical significance of the area in the development of our Australian history and identity - evidenced through story, known fact and recorded history - which the original design of the precinct at least acknowledges;

17. and the previous application for SEARS there is evidence of a lack of future wholistic planning by the DPE in an area where the landscape has deep significance to our Australian history, culture and psyche.

Whilst these are my strong personal objections I also support the objections that may be listed in the submission made on behalf of the residents and owners of One Darling Harbour (ODH).

Comment on appropriate development for this site

What is a global city if it can't demonstrate in its landscape through sensitive planning and policy the story of our nationhood - past present and future?
The history of Cockle Bay makes it the perfect place for a new type of culturally sensitive building to be used as a public amenity.

The current proposal only tells the story of one type of development in modern Australia - that of 'big business'.
We already experience this story in the latest construction and developments in Darling Harbour facilitated by public/private partnerships.

Perhaps we need a new creative direction in planning policy.
After all, let's not forget the traditional purpose of this section of the 'Cadi' coastline where cockles and marsh areas provided an important food source for those who lived here for thousands of years.
Let's not forget that from this bay we sent Australian produce to the world and to ourselves eg our troops in WW1 and WW2.
We welcomed new comers too with work and hope for a better future.
Historically this precinct was in the custodial hands of those who responded to the question 'Where do you come from? ' with 'Eora' which is explained in one early diary as literally meaning 'from here'.

Let us by example and imitation of our ' traditional owners' preserve what is left of this area.
My dream is for a low-scale, cleverly designed building on this site.
In spite of any indications or expectations to the contrary, it is 'from here' that indigenous brothers and sisters can best explain the disruption and subsequent appreciation of our indigenous peoples who traditionally preserved this sacred land and still survive today to tell their stories.
Stories that give perspective to the coming together of two great civilisations.
And it is 'from here' too that we can demonstrate the development of modern Australia through showcasing of regional and home grown produce, arts and craft, scientific innovation and ingenuity in architecture and design.etc.
A building that makes a clear statement for all but especially our younger generations of Australians of the hope we have for a peaceful and prosperous future.

A bold proposal indeed but one that is worthy of consideration by government politicians, planners and policy makers who currently have the financial means to help fund a place which instructs and reflects an Australian identity of which we can all be proud.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my submission.

unit holder on the First Floor.
I strongly object to any height increase of the current Harbour Side Building. As for the 30 storey multi purpose tower the very thought of that concept sends shivers down my spine. It is not in keeping with the existing buildings in close proximity.
Darling Harbour is undergoing regeneration which is needed and good but this next phase, dwarfs all buildings around it.
The proposed tower will impact on my current visual appreciation of the immediate and surrounding vista.
The current developer has paid a significant amount of money to the NSW government for the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority they need a return, they talk about the people come before the resident. I would suggest that we all need to come together.
The developer should not be putting their need for a profit in front of those existing community members who live in the immediate precinct.
If this proposal goes ahead in its current form, that is raising of the existing height of the Harbour Side building and a 30 storey tower will take away the fabric of this historic precinct.
Where will it stop? Another 2 or 3 high rise apartments.
Yes regenerate but in sympathy with what is already there. co-exist NOT destroy.

Proposed redevelopment of Harbourside Shopping Centre [Inline image URL : ]SSD 15_7375

ATTN: Mr Brendan Roberts

This submission is an objection to Mirvac's current proposal to redevelop the Harbourside Shopping Centre(HSC) site.

I request an opportunity to have my issues addressed, preferably in person.

I am the owner of a residential apartment in One Darling Harbour(ODH), a building located on the western side of the HSC in Darling Harbour.

My apartment is at the centre of one of the low levels of ODH and, in the concept plan, is identified among the most adversely affected.

I wrote to your department, the Department of Planning and the Environment (DPE) and other key departments and politicians in late 2015 and again in 2016.
I expressed concerns about the impact of Mirvac's original and subsequent submissions for SEARS, in particular, the forced change of amenity to my apartment.

I bought my apartment as an investment for retirement because my family and I have a strong historical link to this area.

The architects of ODH designed a building with an inherent assumption that HSC would not increase in height or bulk.
The resultant design provides a breathtaking view which is an important part of the the enjoyment of my amenity.
This amenity is evidenced, in part only, by a description below as I was not able to upload photos.
I am happy to provide photos in another format or organise a site visit which would be even more valuable:

*views from my apartment extend across Cockle Bay and the city skyline including down the length of Pyrmont Bridge(which is particularly fantastic) and to the water and wharf and partially above the northern part of Darling Harbour;

*an open and yet private outlook which allows the windows to be uncovered and ajar;

*good airflow and sunlight which has its healthy effects;

*access to the wonderful combination of sounds and sights of the activities in the precinct including the movement of people, boats and cars, but especially the celebratory activities from the water including the fireworks;

*the smell and taste of the salty sea air ( a joy to someone who has lived a life in the dry climate west of the Great Dividing Range);

*observation of the workings of the old Pyrmont Bridge particularly its swing action as boats pass through.

*a sense of 'place' which stimulates conversation with family and friends and creates an opportunity to pass down knowledge and understanding of family history significant to this place and general Australian history.

If the concept plan was to be realised I would have a close view of a very large block of private residences and a public platform created to justify a building that will significantly change the character and intent of the neighbourhood.

In other words my present amenity will be irrevocably and detrimentally lost if Mirvac's plans were to go ahead.


I strongly object to this proposal because according to the concept plan:

1. the development looks ugly and is over-bearing, beyond the current scale and out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity.
It particularly impacts and affects the natural setting of Cockle Bay, a small body of water compared to rest of Darling Harbour;

2. there is a lack of complementarity with the existing buildings.
The original stepped-back buildings including HSC on the western side of Cockle Bay were designed to complement each other and symbiotically work together.
This wholistic design demonstrates genuine 'view sharing' and directs people towards what's left of the natural beauty of the bay where they can be fed with a variety of history and culture, nature and industry, entertainment and cuisine;

3. the proposed development totally disconnects me from Cockle Bay which Mirvac's environmental impact statement acknowledges.
But it also infers I have no protected right to keep that amenity due to the public amenity design features in their proposal.
That's just manipulative bullying tactics;

4. I will suffer a complete loss of my existing view which opens out from my front door and expands throughout all the living and bedroom areas;

5. a change in the nature of my outlook will occur - from a beautiful vast landscape to a restricted concrete block;

6. I will suffer a total loss of privacy in the apartment since occupants on several levels of the proposed building including the general public would have direct views into my living and bedroom areas;

7. the proposed building is just 25 metres away and the levels directly opposite my apartment will create artificial light and noise pollution;

8. there will be a massive loss of air space close to the water's edge in Cockle Bay and close to my apartment;

9. the proposal adversely affects the setting of the listed Pyrmont Bridge.
It dominates the space and reduces the visual aspect of the bridge from all surrounding public spaces including those new spaces within the proposed design.

10. the proposal is especially dismissive of the sight lines of those who walk the length of Darling Drive on the upper walkways, pedestrian bridges, ramps and open car parks of the stepped-back built form on the western side of Cockle Bay.
These were specifically designed to;

a) keep crowds from using the unsafe and busy roadway of Darling Drive below,

b) provide a 'wow' entrance with magnificent views over the top of the HSC down to the water of Cockle Bay and beyond to the whole Darling Harbour precinct. A grand entrance with the welcoming promise of fantastic fun and festive activity.

11. there's expected increased traffic flow, both pedestrian and vehicular, in an area where congestion already exists.
Good design principles are meant to alleviate and simplify concurrent problems not exacerbate and magnify them.
I refer to the the affected road network on either side of ODH - in particular the area before and surrounding the intersection of Murray St , Darling Drive and Pyrmont Bridge Road , just below my apartment, as well as Murray St and Bunn St next to the entrance to the Harbourside carpark.

12. we will lose, on the southern side of Pyrmont Bridge, a significant public pedestrian space that follows the natural lay of the land down to the water's edge.
Instead we will have to negotiate a less convenient set of stairs which are longer and steeper as it starts from a higher level than the bridge and winds indirectly to ground level;

13. Mirvac is proposing a change in the traditional use of this site by introducing private residences .
A use which is out of step with this site;

14. there was meant to be genuine consultation with stakeholders but -
a) at Mirvac's public meeting there was lack of address to my concerns through a disingenuous response - the only verbal response I received was that 'the impact studies had not been completed'. There was a lot of physical response of blank faces or just a small nod.
b) I was informed that at a private meeting, which was described as a 'consultation' between Mirvac and representatives of the owners of ODH Mirvac announced they would make no further changes to the proposal and had in fact earlier that day made public their proposal.

15. there is a lack of justification for such a large and ungainly development on this site and there are inconsistencies in their poorly constructed arguments.

16. the Mirvac proposal down plays the historical significance of the area in the development of our Australian history and identity - evidenced through story, known fact and recorded history - which the original design of the precinct at least acknowledges;

17. and the previous application for SEARS there is evidence of a lack of future wholistic planning by the DPE in an area where the landscape has deep significance to our Australian history, culture and psyche.

Whilst these are my strong personal objections I also support the objections that may be listed in the submission made on behalf of the residents and owners of One Darling Harbour (ODH).

Comment on appropriate development for this site

What is a global city if it can't demonstrate in its landscape through sensitive planning and policy the story of our nationhood - past present and future?
The history of Cockle Bay makes it the perfect place for a new type of culturally sensitive building to be used as a public amenity.

The current proposal only tells the story of one type of development in modern Australia - that of 'big business'.
We already experience this story in the latest construction and developments in Darling Harbour facilitated by public/private partnerships.

Perhaps we need a new creative direction in planning policy.
After all, let's not forget the traditional purpose of this section of the 'Cadi' coastline where cockles and marsh areas provided an important food source for those who lived here for thousands of years.
Let's not forget that from this bay we sent Australian produce to the world and to ourselves eg our troops in WW1 and WW2.
We welcomed new comers here too with work and hope for a better future.
Historically this precinct was in the custodial hands of those who responded to the question 'Where do you come from? ' with 'Eora' which is explained in one early diary as literally meaning 'from here'.

Let us by example and imitation of our ' traditional owners' preserve what is left of this area.
My dream is for a low-scale, cleverly designed building on this site.
In spite of any indications or expectations to the contrary, it is 'from here' that indigenous brothers and sisters can best explain the disruption and subsequent appreciation of our indigenous peoples who traditionally preserved this sacred land and still survive today to tell their stories.
Stories that give perspective to the coming together of two great civilisations.
And it is 'from here' too that we can demonstrate the development of modern Australia through showcasing of regional and home grown produce, arts and craft, scientific innovation and ingenuity in architecture and design.etc.
A building that makes a clear statement for all but especially our younger generations of Australians of the hope we have for a peaceful and prosperous future.

A bold proposal indeed but one that is worthy of consideration by government politicians, planners and policy makers, by a government who currently has the financial means to help fund a place which instructs and reflects an Australian identity of which we can all be proud.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my submission.

I strongly object to the building of a residential tower or any such tower on the Harbourside site. The thought of a monstrosity building of some 39 floors being built next to the heritage Pyrmont Bridge or beautiful Darling Harbour/Cockle Bay is outrageous. Darling Harbour is supposed to be for the people to enjoy as a recreational destination of beauty, a wide open space to meet & enjoy, not a crowded area with towering building which would create shadows & darkness to the area. Having a tower so close to the bridge & the foreshore is not in the people's interest. Not to mention the added traffic congestion this building would cause with residents coming & going. I am a visitor to this area frequently & experience heavy traffic trying to get to my destination, this would only deter me from coming to Darling Harbour.
There should be NO towers of any kind that close to Pyrmont bridge OR Darling Harbour waterfront. Harbourside Shopping Centre should be kept at the current height & NOT go any higher.

As with the dominating tombstone like re-development proposal for the CBD foreshore of Cockle Bay', this proposal seeks to usurp the Pyrmont foreshore of Cockle Bay and gazump the water and CBD views presently enjoyed from existing buildings.
1. As I understand the re-development proposal, it seeks to remove the benefit presently enjoyed by pedestrians and cyclists of an un-interrupted water front passage from Pyrmont to the Botanical Gardens.
2. As with the current re-development proposal on the opposite side of Cockle Bay, it diminishes the human enjoyment of open access to and view of Cockle Bay waters.
The priority appears to be with size of building structures and dominance of position rather than with human scale and public benefit.
3. The proposal sits at odds with the established tenet held by COS and State governments of an open passageway along the immediate Sydney Harbour foreshore from Jubilee Park Glebe to the Botanical Gardens and beyond. This consideration is repeated deliberately. Whom can we trust to perpetuate this longer term objective?

The proposal is too big and does not fit the character of Darling Harbour.
My Apartment is on the third leve of 50 Murray Street and this proposed Mirvac building will completely block my morning sun, which is my only sun.

This proposed building will block my view of the Pyrmont Heritage Bridge and also impedes on the bridge.

The proposed Mirvac building will affect traffic conditions and contribute to noise which are already bad enough.
It is too tall and too close to the Water and does not fit in with surrounding buildings.
A podium of nine Levels of shopping is total overkill and is just not warranted as there is already enough shopping available in the main part of the city, ie. Westfield..
A small shopping centre, say 4 floors, and parks and walkways would be a more ideal situation, and certainly be much better for visitors and locals. We do not need another giant residential building in the area.

I wish to submit my objection and request to reject the current proposal for the redevelopment of the Harbourside Shopping Centre.

The proposal is too high in elevation and density for the existing area and roads and bridge infrastructure. It will likely negatively affect the already traffic congested area, as well as the already highest residential space in Australia.

As a long term resident, I see little benefit and many negatives to elevation proposed with the existing high hotel building it will create a dark and unpleasant canyon affect much as has been created in the back streets of the Barangaroo district. The overshadowing of the parks and gardens area will further negatively impact on the already reasonably designed open areas.

We fully support a lower rise modern development but strongly object to the current proposal.

I will send my submission separately as had problems downloading my file here.

Hello,

I live the One Darling Harbour building and am concerned regarding the proposed development. Harbourside shopping centre is in a poor state and needs redevelopment. However, the large residential tower is not necessary.

The large tower takes away from the historically significant Pyrmont Bridge. The bridge was opened in 1902, just after federation and is a significant part of Sydney's history. The tower must be moved further South, so as to not over impose on this item on the State Heritage Register.

Secondly, the tower would also be better positioned further South, in between the Novotel and Ibis hotel gap, to allow for better view sharing. It is already proposed by Mirvac in their Southern tower option.

Thirdly, a tower should not be so close to the water's edge. All around darling harbour, (Barangaroo, King St wharf, Cockle Bay, Imax), there isn't a place for a tower this large on the water's edge. In saying that, the "10 storey" podium building for the shopping centre is excessive in comparison to Barangaroo, Kidn St wharf, Cockle Bay, when comparing to the buildings closest to the water's edge.

Darling Harbour is a tourism precinct. The retail space will be more than doubled vs current (and be equivalent to a 10 storey residential building. It is excessive, for an area with mainly residential buildings (pyrmont), and also considering that there are already large shopping centres in the CBD (Pitt St etc.) and Broadway.

Mirvac should reconsider the need and/oor the position of the tower. If a tower must go up, consider the Southern position for the tower for better grouping of towers (ICC hotel and Mirvac's new residential tower), which is more aesthetically pleasing, rather than single fingers rising by the water front.

Thanks for reading.
Hemant