Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment

see attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

I wake up everyday to sunshine and there will be nothing but shade. I don't want to miss looking at the beautiful fireworks.

I believe this project is far too high to be allowed in Darling Harbour.
Sydney has too many extremely high buildings on the water's edge.
I am not against development and do not object to high rise buildings (if they are built safely and in the appropriate area).
However the immediate foreshore around Sydney Harbour should be protected.
The waterfront properties should be restricted to 5 or 6 floors so the harbour, particularly Darling Harbour does not become a canyon inside massive buildings.
It is our duty to preserve Australia for future generations and this project, should it proceed, would destroy a beautiful part.

Redevelopment of the western shore of Darling Harbour is overdue and the replacement of the Harbourside Shopping Centre should be supported by both the NSW Government and City of Sydney. However, any proposed redevelopment of the site should address the existing dislocation of Pyrmont from the Darling Harbour waterfront and my submission today focuses specifically on this issue.

The original planning for Darling Harbour and how it interfaces with the Novotel and Ibis Hotel sites failed to successfully connect Pyrmont to the Darling Harbour precinct and in fact, detrimentally alienated the 2 areas from one another. Any new proposed development of this site should, once and for all, address this issue. The site area includes the air space over Darling Drive which currently poses an unnavigable chasm that if left unresolved during this development, will continue to thwart any attempts to reconnect Pyrmont to the Darling Harbour waterfront other than by the unsatisfactory foot bridges and and limited footpaths that presently exist.

Planning of the podium elements of any proposal on this site should be required to utilise some of the available FSR on the site to span Darling Drive in a way that reconnects Pyrmont to the Darling Harbour Precinct, thereby providing greater opportunities to move the development further back from the waterfront and away from the heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge without any lose of amenity/viability to the development itself. The resulting built form should address the connectivity to and the relationship with the 2 hotel sites and the proposed development by way of publicly accessible open space that creates continuous paths of travel from Pyrmont through to the harbour foreshore and create an architecturally interesting solution for motorists and patrons of the light rail who will also pass through this reimagined part of the site.

Shadows from this proposal will detrimentally AFFECT the amenity of the surrounding area.
Bleak: .. Sydney is world famous for it's Openness, Light & Sun .. yet this will BLOCK so much open vista from so many sectors ... This would turn this waterside precinct into
just another CONCRETE canyon.
The existing development can easily be re-modelled and renovated WITHOUT the tower component.
The Northern and North Eastern view from the Ibis and Novotel will be critically diminish the views and memories for tourists in affordable accomodation.
Traffic & Parking has not been critically addressed .. this will be a 'forever' disaster for tourists and locals alike.
The Tower DESTROYS the skyline .. if a tower were essential ( which I doubt) ..then locate it to the South near the Sofitel ..So the Historical Pyrmont Bridge is not disturbed by this modern monstrosity.
The Architecture of the proposed tower is like a Lego class for 7 year olds.
The Skyline to the Western end of the Pyrmont Bridge would forever be 'blighted' by its location .. costing pedestrians a magnificent view when walking West in the afternoons losing them Sunsets..
Frankly .. having a tower block as part of this development is not only selfish ..but will destroy this location.

Whilst I am appreciative of Mirvac's efforts to amend the application, and appease the unit owners in 50 Murray St by view sharing, I am still concerned with the visual impact of such a tall tower as the first line of building on the foreshore. If such developments are going to be approved, then we will end up with cold 'heartless' canyons. Any of the beautiful harbours around the world have retained their appeal by enforcing the stepped approach to building heights. History will not look favourably on this development. People in the future will question how this got approved. It will reflect badly on the developer & the administration that approved it.

I am a long time resident of Pyrmont.
I object to the height of this development proposal so close to the water's edge and in such close proximity to the historically significant Pyrmont Bridge.
The height should be limited to the existing height of the Harbourside shopping center and definitely no higher. Additionally, there should be a requirement for some green public space completely separating the Northern end of the proposed development from the historic Pyrmont bridge. This would ensure that there is an adequate separation of the 'modern' style development from the historic bridge and allow for the bridge to maintain its appropriate and separate identity. Finally, I believe that any new development on this rare Harbour waterfront area with public access, should be stepped further back from the water to allow for appropriate public access and enjpyment of the waterfront areas available.

Please find the following response for your consideration. Thank you.

While the relocation of the tower form is an improvement on the original scheme, the tower is still far too tall. There is no justification for a tower this tall on the western side of the harbour. The ICC Sofitel hotel sets the upper limit for a tower form in this location and a preferable design outcome would be a building that steps down to provide a transition between the ICC Sofitel and the former Mercure Hotel (now 50 Murray Street). The use of the Star's former proposal to justify it is fanciful given the unanimous rejection of that proposal. I also do not think that residential uses are justified on this site. A further hotel would be suitable and removal of most of the residential development would allow the tower to be shorter and still provide a sustainable basis for the centre below.
The retention of the existing air bridge between Harbourside and 50 Murray St is disappointing. That bridge is visually disruptive when viewed from the apron of Pyrmont Bridge and was erected to serve the since defunct monorail. If there is to be a bridge connecting 50 Murray Street it should be located perpendicular to Darling Drive (parallel to the Bridge) and away from the corner to reduce its intrusiveness. Alternatively the new link through to Bunn Street is sufficient. The retention of the existing link is also rather cheap looking. It does not suit the architectural characetr of the proposal.
While the podium has been reduced in height it is still too bulky relative to the Pyrmont Bridge and will dominate views along the waterfront. Pedestrians will feel hemmed in by the height of the podium on the western side especially compared with the current curved forms of Harbourside. The very vertical and rectangular forms shown in the concept will have a very different feel in the public domain.

Submission from Sydney Harbour Association dated 17 April 2020 herewith.

Four objections:
1. The building will cast shadows making the area bleak and unwelcoming.
2. The building will take away from the openness of darling harbour which is currently its main feature and attraction.
3. There will be additional traffic in the area which (post COVID-19) is already over crowded.
4. There is work being done on an economic strategy and draft master plan for Pyrmont that will be released for further consultation in July with a final report by the end of October. It does not make sense to proceed with a major development before this process is completed.