Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment

I absolutely detest the idea of Darling Harbour losing their famous harbour-side shopping center. My Grandmother started her business back in 1990. All she had was a small cart, and from that her company boomed. There is nothing more rewarding then seeing a small business grow! and it's all thanks to the darling harbour community and tourists.

What i don't understand is why doesn't Sydney support our History? It seems that companies are wanting to knock down buildings that have been here for hundreds of years, constantly upgrading.

Why can't we just leave things alone! You do not have my support on this development, and i know my fellow residents of the pyrmont strongly agree with me! and we will not stop until we win.

1. Darling Harbour is a place for everyone to share. It is a designated tourist precinct. It is described as Sydney's great celebration space and a playground for all ages. Any development within this area must serve to enhance the tourism and public purpose values of the area.



2. The proposal will fundamentally change the character of Darling Harbour.


3. a) Apartment facing the Harbourside on the 7th floor

b) We purchased the apartment for its grand views of Cockle Bay and its openess. We were assured by the brokers that there will never be a high rise building built in front of us and no city planner would approve such a project as it is not in harmony with the current environment. If the Mirvac project is approved, we would lose all our view facing Cockle Bay, we would lose much natural light, it will feel claustrophobic,and we would be face to face with tenants in that opposite building, therefore we would lose alot of property value. Darling drive is already congested as it is, if there were whole complex of extra tenants and delivery vehicles that would pretty much clog up one of the main road arteries.


c) We currently enjoy unobstructed water views throughout each living quarters. We have an abundance of natural light coming in.

d. As mentioned above, we would lose all our privacy with an entire building filled with tenants facing us. We would have to always close the blinds to maintain our privacy, which will block out what little remaining natural lights available. In the evening we would have to keep the blinds down so that the opposite building cannot look in, this is equivalent to living windowless apartment


4. There are no other tall towers this close to the water in Darling Harbour. This is for a reason - it creates a sense of openness and maximises the sun and light into all the public areas around Darling Harbour and allows the harbour and Pyrmont Bridge to dominate and define the area.



5. 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.

1. Darling Harbour is a place for everyone to share. It is a designated tourist precinct. It is described as Sydney's great celebration space and a playground for all ages. Any development within this area must serve to enhance the tourism and public purpose values of the area.



2. The proposal will fundamentally change the character of Darling Harbour.


3. a) My families apartment faces the Harbourside on the 7th floor

b) Our family purchased the apartment for its grand views of Cockle Bay and its openess. We were assured by the brokers that there will never be a high rise building built in front of us and no city planner would approve such a project as it is not in harmony with the current environment. If the Mirvac project is approved, we would lose all our view facing Cockle Bay, we would lose much natural light, it will feel claustrophobic,and we would be face to face with tenants in that opposite building, therefore we would lose alot of property value. Darling drive is already congested as it is, if there were whole complex of extra tenants and delivery vehicles that would pretty much clog up one of the main road arteries.


c) Currently enjoy unobstructed water views throughout each living quarters. We have an abundance of natural light coming in.

d. As mentioned above, we would lose all our privacy with an entire building filled with tenants facing us. We would have to always close the blinds to maintain our privacy, which will block out what little remaining natural lights available. In the evening we would have to keep the blinds down so that the opposite building cannot look in, this is equivalent to living windowless apartment


4. There are no other tall towers this close to the water in Darling Harbour. This is for a reason - it creates a sense of openness and maximises the sun and light into all the public areas around Darling Harbour and allows the harbour and Pyrmont Bridge to dominate and define the area.



5. 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.

It will ruin Darling Harbour. Without careful planning, Sydney is no long the place I used to love.

Developing a high tower and a unnecessary shopping complex near cockle bay, is a wrong proposal. Darling Harbour is a open playground for kids and everyone. It should not be a place with chaos and another CBD.

This proposed building will damage the relaxing bay environment.
High tower should be located to CBD central area to give a consistent skyline. Darling harbor is not suitable at all.

Please reconsider this proposal!

Darling Harbour is now the only place we can escape from the busy and unfriendly high towers and buildings over buildings. Please protect it from commercial development.

City of Sydney can expand the city zone further to the south area, like Ultimo, Glebe, along Parramatta road, I think.

There is far too much high rise development going on in this area. Sydney is known as a beautiful city but with the continuing approval of high rise residential buildings the city is looking more like some asian cities, busy, dirty and over-populated. The city and surrounds cannot handle the continuing increase in population. Roads are at breaking point, the air quality is suffering and those who bought property with a view are now losing that view, even though their view was supposed to be protected by planning regulations.
Council does not consult with residents, they tell residents what is going on then refer to the various planning policies to approve developments. Council should listen to the tax payers and consider the financial and convenience impacts of this development.
We are not Honk Kong or Jakarta and we don't want to be.

Dear Ms Nettlefold,
Thank you for encouraging the community to comment on:
Concept Proposal - Cockle Bay Wharf Redevelopment.
Like many residents in Pyrmont and Ultimo, I have engaged in many "community consultations" and discussions of development and redevelopment projects over recent decades. So far, there is no sign that community views have any impact, since projects are far advanced before the community is consulted. You may think of this as consultation: we experience it as information sessions.
But I state these views in case anyone reads these submissions, and for the benefit of social historians of the future who wonder what happened to Sydney in the 21st Century.
First, while this proposal makes good sense to the developer, and to State revenue, it ignores social needs, the social infrastructure deficit, and parallel development proposals by other agencies in the Inner West (not to mention The Star). I hoped that the Greater Sydney Commission's emphasis on inter-agency coordination, town planning, and community consultation might have had some influence on this and similar proposals, but apparently this has not yet occurred. Is it too much to ask that - even though you ignore the people - you consult the Departments of Education, Health and Transport before imposing this ill-considered proposal on the communities affected?
Second, even without such consultation, it is clear that the proposal involves gross overdevelopment in terms of bulk and height, transforming Darling Harbour into a series of cliffs which overshadow neighbouring buildings, obscure such social facilities as survive, and transform the Harbour into a pond which is often covered by plastic boats.
In brief, this proposal assumes either than nobody lives in Pyrmont or Ultimo, or that we have no social needs, or that we do not mind the new barriers between us and the CBD.
Yours more in sorrow than in anger,
Donald Denoon

Dear Ms. Berjiklian,

It has come to my attention that Mirvac has submitted plans to build a 39 floor residential tower where the Harbourside Shopping Centre is located.

I have worked for Village Roadshow for over a decade working in the Goldsboro Mort building.

As often as I can I take my lunchbreak at Darling Harbour to enjoy the sunshine, views, and atmosphere as a good break from the office.

In fact I like the area so much that I used my life savings plus a significant mortgage to buy an apartment in One Murray St, directly behind Harbourside, and plan on retiring here to enjoy the locations and uninterrupted views of the city.

Well, that's what I thought!

In keeping with Cockle Bay, where you will notice low line buildings then high-rise buildings to enhance the city scape, this stepped development is pleasant to the eye and what Darling Harbour is known for, attracting millions of tourists each year. Any development going ahead must mirror the current harbour landscape.

Darling Quarter , Darling Square, Barangaroo and Walsh Bay are all stepped back, therefore Harbourside should also be stepped back.

To build such a huge building right next to Historical Pyrmont Bridge will impact on its beauty and severely limit the amount of sunshine and space that should be used for strolling or dining.

Also from my own sake, I will lose my views, and therefore this will significantly reduce the value of my property and impact on me personally. I don't want to be in the shadows of a 39 floor tower located only 15 metres away!

Add to this the strain on all resources and infrastructure in the area such as schools, child care, sports etc plus adding a significant amount of new vehicles using the already congested roads, it doesn't make any sense.

Mirvac can and must use its creative designing expertise to redevelop Harbourside sympathetically taking into account the established building heights of Darling Harbour.

Please note that I STRONGLY OBJECT to this proposal and your assistance with this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards,

Mr David Lawrence
Owner of Unit 903/ 50 Murray Street.
Darling Harbour

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am an owner of an apartment in One Darling Harbour (1312)

Much has been said of the impact the above development will have on:

Views from One Darling Harbour
Visual impact of a large scale building on the waterfront.
Detraction from heritage aspect of Pyrmont Bridge Shadowing Removal of blue sky views for Darling Harbour pedestrians etc

As an owner, in addition to the above, my major objections to the proposed development are:

1 Loss of views.

2. Privacy. We will look directly into the apartments of the new development. No attempt has been made to reduce this through angling of apartments, screening, or design of living spaces. Visual & noise privacy will be very hard to control. Balcony use is very prevalent with the apartments around Darling Harbour. Light, sound and visual exchange between the two buildings will be high.

If a tower must be built, at least reposition it between the IBIS & Novotel properties (called the central tower option). This will lessen the impact of the above concerns, and impact a transient population rather than local residents.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Harvey

Ultimo Village Voice is a community group of Ultimo residents. We have numerous concerns about this development application in view of its scale, density and the impact on the local community. Details of our concerns are listed below.
First and foremost, we remind the Government that Darling Harbour is a gift to the people of New South Wales and that in 1984 the then premier of NSW, Neville Wran, announced the Government's decision to redevelop Darling Harbour and "return it to the people of Sydney" in time for Australia's 1988 bicentennial celebrations. Accordingly, public access and interests should be at the forefront of all planning decisions that affect this area.
Scale & Building Form
The proposed podium and tower will result in a massive and unacceptable increase in development compared to the existing low rise building.
The podium is bulky and imposing and would create a four-storey wall along the waterfront with its back to Pyrmont. The tower is excessively high and would dominate the public domain, water and adjacent Pyrmont. The bulk and scale would cause significant impacts within and adjacent to this prime waterfront location.
The fact that there have been replacements of low rise buildings with taller and denser buildings like the CBA office blocks is not a justification to build more high rise in Darling Harbour. Two wrongs do not make one right! We need to stop this inappropriate "change in character" which will make Darling Harbour no longer a pleasant place to visit with easy open access to the waterfront for all instead of the select few who can afford the expensive waterfront apartments!
View Impacts & Overshadowing
The proposed podium and tower are large and bulky and will significantly impose on both
public and private views.
As mentioned above, Darling Harbour is dedicated public land and one of its vital roles is providing public access to the harbour, blue skies and a varied skyline. No particular development should dominate outlooks.
The proposed Harbourside tower will dominate immediate to long-distance public views, blocking or imposing on the sky, including from Cockle Bay, Pyrmont Bridge, Tumbalong
Park and King Street Wharf as well as Market Street, Darling Drive and the Barangaroo
foreshore. This will impact severely on the character, amenity and attractiveness of these
public spaces. The outlook from Pyrmont Bridge is particularly concerning as the heavy
imposing tower will impact on the experience of walking on this heritage bridge.
A large number of adjacent residents will also suffer from significant to devastating view impacts from the proposed development, especially in One Darling Harbour, the Oaks Goldsbrough Apartments and the Gateway Apartments, as well to a lesser degree, the Renaissance Apartments, Arena Apartments, The Phoenix Apartments, Harbour's Edge Apartments and 16-30 Bunn Street. Views are important to the wellbeing of apartment residents, who live with no private open space. A view can connect someone inside an apartment with the outside world and create a sense of space. Loss of views to existing apartments should be avoided and minimized.
Traffic & Public Transport Impacts
Ultimo and Pyrmont are amongst the most densely populated suburbs in Sydney, yet the public transport available is appalling. There is only one bus 389 that connects these suburbs to the Central Business District and there are often long waits for this bus even in peak hours. With the increase number of residents from the new residential tower, how is the public transport going to cope?
Furthermore, providing for 295 residential car parking spaces is excessive and will adversely impact on Harris Street which is already congested and will make the situation worse.
Pedestrian Access
Despite the close proximity to the city, there is lack of direct pedestrian access between Ultimo and Pyrmont to and from the city, especially after part of the previous walkway attached to the Western Distributor was removed for new lanes as part of the 2004 Cross City Tunnel changes.
Residents who want to go to the city are now forced to go via indirect routes into Darling Harbour and make their way to the city, despite promises that the Sydney International Convention, Exhibition and Entertainment Centre Precinct redevelopment would improve access.
With the redevelopment of Darling Harbour including this development and the Cockle Bay development, it is an ideal opportunity to reinstate direct pedestrian access from Ultimo/Pyrmont to the city.
Conclusion
We submit that the proposed development, in its current form, will result in a development that is overbearing in size and does not appear to offer any public benefits that might help justify such a substantial redevelopment. We therefore request that this development proposal be rejected.

Excessive development, too high and not necessary.

After reviewing the Harbourside development proposal, I am concerned about the height of the proposed podium. While I understand the need to redevelop harbourside to suit all of the newer Darling Harbour development, I don't believe such a tall building in its location is appropriate. Aside from the reduced views for nearby residents, the tower will cast long shadows over Darling Harbour. Its current height allows for afternoon sun which makes Darling Harbour a warm and inviting place to spend an evening. Such a tall tower in its place will start to chip away at this ambience and destroy the oppeness and character of Darling Harbour. Tall buildings should be kept to the other side of the harbour, in line with the city skyline. However the Pyrmont skyline is not and should not become a second high-rise skyline. I fear if this development proposal goes through then it is setting a dangerous precedent for the building height in Pyrmont.

There is certainly a need for Sydney to improve infrastructure and amenities in prime public locations. However, I would like to see more consideration for the view and impact on the skylines further back from the proposed construction. Having reviewed the tower options, I would implore you to consider the effect further back than Murray St. As the skyline even from our lowly position on Harris will have some effect. As you can see the ICC hotel tower in the examples from a level 3 balcony on Harris Street is in clear view. Please factor this into development plans. Traffic is also already heavily affected in this area, additional residential would push this further.

The attached letter of objection is on the basis that the residential tower component of the Harbouside Development has not established public benefit that would warrant the significant and detrimental visual impact on the users of Darling Harbour and the residents of Pyrmont

See attachment

There is no question that both Harbourside is in need of redevelopment, but to book-end Pyrmont Bridge with high-rise residential towers is too much!

Apart from the destruction of the architectural and heritage history of Pyrmont Bridge and the important historical role it played as the main avenue for goods and services flowing into Market Street, additional high-rise so close to the waters of Cockle Bay will severely impact the enjoyment of many tourists, workers and current residents.

Submission attached

See attached