STW masterminds ‘Beauty of Barangaroo’ drive

A disgusting misrepresentation of the truth and desperate attempt by a squirming developer to influence Govt and community. Easy to paint pretty pictures of a park we all want – the problem is South Barangaroo – give us a wrap around cover of the concrete monstrosity along Hickson Road… much harder to paint a pretty picture there!!! SMH and Daily Tele should be ashamed of themselves for taking such dirty money. Ugly ugly ugly. And they know it.

Well, it is truthful advertising. Can’t see any public transport in it, except maybe a ferry.

not sure what your objection to it is Bennie!
check the flythrough on the Beauty of Barangaroo website.
great mix of open space, retail, residential and corporate,
much better than the current eyesore / unused space

Sigh! Simper! I just read the posting above by “Bennie” and I do so love a curmudgeon who is out of step with the rest of Sydney. Sure, some people might criticise Bennie as being a Black Hole for creativity, a tiresome handwringer who can’t grasp a fun concept, someone who loathes the use of any illustration not taken through a 35mm lens – but not me. No, siree, I do love a hater. This city needs self important bores like Bennie and me. I’m with you, Bennie, let’s hold this city back. Sydney doesn’t deserve a great future. xx

I felt like someone dropped pills in my cereal. Wouldn’t life be grand to live there, with the happy happy folks of happy happy land.

“Offensive” is the right word.

all political/urban use etc considerations aside, they are great ads – light, warm, fun – in stark contrast to the news and editorial tonality around this issue. The use of a cartoon rather than digital simulation was inspired.

Better than the current eyesore, yes, but it should be so much more.
There is only one shot at getting this right and those behemoth’s will squash any sense of space.

I think it will be great for Sydney!
I agree with Nick Bolton – much better than the current eyesore / unused space.

it does a great job of selling a mixed project: illustration and ‘fly-over’ expertly designed to highlight green/open spaces and minimise impact of horrendously over-sized ‘international hotel’ (aren’t all/most hotels international?). Anyhow, sure hope council planners and the land and environment court aren’t persuaded by the marketing material, but sadly i doubt it. it’s far too good – it nearly convinced me.

Judging by the hits on the website it’s a massive fail of a campaign. At 1.45pm there have been only 41 views of their flythrough, which is the key thing to click on at the home page. Wonder how much that means they spent per view?!

Salvation Jane – that’s quite an (albeit creative and a little self indulgent) attack on Bennie there… but it doesn’t really make sense. I don’t know anyone who isn’t concerned about a giant commercial development raping such an amazing space. Creativity doesn’t come into it, only money. Don’t be so naive.

I’m not sure if Nick Bolton or Salvation Jane have ever been overseas??? but I assure you that none of the current designs will ever win any international architecture awards. It will be an eyesore for many years to come. How a government can give such a wonderful opportunity to a company like Lend Lease is beyond me. Ugly.

That illustration is unrealistic in that the headland park is played up, park in the centre is played up, B’roo South – with the huge office towers is played down. And yes, where is the transport / access to move a few thousand people in and out without going through the CBD?

Bennie…It’s not unused, there was a passenger liner there this morning and there is one there quite regularly before they move around to Circular Quay after a couple of days.

I like it.

What a fantastic development, adding to Sydney’s credentials as best city in the world. This will lead to tourism, job creation, creating a beautiful waterfront and parklands area for the residence of Sydney. Barangaroo South development will be a hive of business activity, and host a much needed Hotel. Sydney / NSW will be proud once this project is completed.

Oh, Mick, Mick, darling. It’s been a long long time since someone called me naive. My eyes are fluttering behind my fan. And such frisky language: “a giant commercial development raping such an amazing space”. Lordy, lordy, Mick, you do make me go all weak at the knees. But, don’t you see, you wonderful, foolish man? I’m on your side. Like you, I’m concerned that Sydney will thrust itself into the future when, in fact, it should resemble Dapto in 1956. That’s my vision. Come under the covers and I’ll show you. Bring a torch and an old Mobile Service Station map.

delwin – you ever the optimist! Don’t you know it’s in the hands of bureaucracy?

Salvation Jane – I have a torch, can I come under the covers too?

I think that’s the whole point – (edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons). Not surprised to hear you’re into that stuff Salvation Jane (a nasty weed if I’m not mistaken – interesting choice of username). Delwin you’re either a paid blogger or living on a different planet – nothing progressive about what’s being proposed at South Barangaroo. It’s a 1990’s view of Sydney not a 21st century proposal. We deserve so much better than what LL is proposing. It’s easy to tell a happy story about a little pimple of a park at the headland… but make no mistake – they want to trade concrete slab for concrete towers not green space. Read the fine print – what you see is not what you get.

There isn’t a chance in the world I would put my kids in that water!

Interesting editorial decision by Mumbrella to edit that particular comment away.

Awe man … the typical whiners are already coming out … “it’s too this, too that … blah blah blah”. This will be great for Sydney and I can’t wait for it to be built. Sydney already has lots of big skyscrapers and many that will still be bigger than any of these. It’s part of the CBD and it needs to be big. I actually wish it was much taller. I hate the hotel because it’s too small and not far enoug out into the water. All you arrogant nimbys think you are on the righteous path and that everyone else believes what you believe otherwise they must be “paid bloggers”. Well I can tell you now there’s a lot of us that have nothing to do with development that want this to happen. The opinion polls support this. So please get off your anti-everything high-horse … it’s boring.

Hi Nicola – you sound like one of the skyscraper guys who lives in Queensland and hasn’t even been to Sydney, let alone Barangaroo. No one is saying we shouldn’t increase density in the CBD and build some world class beautiful buildings. What people want to know is why was the original concept that won an international competition thrown away and replaced with this second rate version? And how much is lend lease giving the NSW taxpayers to do so? Why won’t they tell us how much we get for selling our daughter into sin?

Well here’s how it goes for me.
A) I don’t know that much about Barangaroo development
B) I see this ad and think oh good they are going to develop that wasteland that non of us are using
C) Pretty green trees
D) Happy smiley faces around Barangaroo development

Seriously. As someone who is uninformed this ad does the trick they are trying to pull off.

Sorry Bennie. However ppl like me will fall for it unless a convincing case is presented otherwise?

DON’T BE SUCKERED BY SPIN!
moderate development is fine, but this is a travesty:

The imagess downplay the true scale of the buildings & hide the true envelopes.
The proposed ‘restored’ headland bears no resemblamce to the original topography, but is just a cheap way to dump the material they dig up.
There are serious ground contamination issues which they are trying to do a quick n dirty on.
They have not addressed public transportation issues & their estimate for people traveling ny car is wIllawarra FlameTreeay below CBD averages & ignores delivery trucks etc
Their open space calculation includes water!
Much of the so-called public open space is slick shopping malls.
The buildings will not meet standards for susatainability – water & waste recycling is grossly misleading eg water won’t be reused on site, there’s no co-gen, etc.
There is no master plan for the whole area.
Monopoly rights shouldnt be granted to one developer & construction co for what is the largest & most valuable harbour development opportunity in the world.
There was a public competition for the best design & Lend Lease lost.
By sheer coincidence, the tall buildings stop immediately next to lend leases existing HQ building, so they don’t lose their rooftop view.
There is no transparency on the process and this is a dangerous precedence for the state govt invoking new powers to grab planning control away from the council wharf it belongs, just so that the NSW govt can curry favors.
The Coaltion is disinterested in objecting because they expect to win the next elextion regardless.

They have put a lot of spin out to use PR & advertising to fool the public. There has been a formal request for a senate enquiry to make the process transparent and look into developer donations, vested interests etc.

All surrounding local councils, prominent architects & a retired magistrate, the heritage trust etc are against it. Look at barangaroo action group for more info, or attend the next town hall meeting or rally to learn the facts from reliable speakers.

We need something to counterbalance all the misinformation the NIMBYs are giving. The fact is over 50% of the site is going to be public spaces and parks. This is BY FAR the most amount of public spaces and parks in a development of this significance ANYWHERE around the world (average is about 20-30% iirc). Sydney CBD is already constrained and reaching full capacity, and while this city continues to grow, we need more office space and commercial spaces to keep this growing city competitive. Do you want your own city to fall behind, become less significant while other cities of the world keep progressing? No. Barangaroo aims to meet 40% of Sydney’s office space needs over 10 years. Given that Barangaroo is arguably the last significant piece of developable land, the fact that over 50% of it is public open spaces, which is WAY above the world average, this is definately NOT that unjustified overdevelopment (emphasis on unjustified) that the NIMBYs so lovingly like to call it. Compared to other similar developments around the world, is it even “underdevelopment?” Take a look at SIngapore’s very successful Marina Bay development for example. Barangaroo takes 15 years to complete, so who knows if that 40% is enough after 10 years, or 20 or 30? Besides, I ask you a question NIMBYs. Why do you call the towers “tall”? Aren’t there already 8 buildings in Sydney that are already taller than the tallest at Barangaroo (discluding the 305m Sydney tower)? To call this as a parallel to Dubai is absolutely outrageous. Firstly, as I said, there are already many buildings in Sydney that are taller than the tallest at Barangaroo. Secondly, if you really want to see tall scrapers, go outside Sydney to other cities in the world. Then you’ll really know what “Dubai” means. Cities around the world are building 300-600 metre towers. The Burj Khalifa is over 800 metres. Sydney’s tallest is the 244 metre Chifley tower. Even Melbourne and the Gold Coast have much taller buildings, and Brisbane and Perth are also building buildigns which are taller than Sydney’s. Gold Coast’s Q1 is 323 metres. The tallest at Barangaroo is 209 metres. Sydney tower is a free-standing structure and not a building, but if you want to count in towers too, we have the the 553 metre CN Tower in Toronto, or the 600 metre + TV tower in Guangzhou. Sydney is a short city. If you want to see real “tall” towers, go outside Sydney. In Sydney, with many buildings which are already taller than Barangaroo’s tallest, one can wonder why they didn’t build higher. Think about it. The commercial space that towers provide is needed, so we have two options. One, we can build taller, meaning either less buildings are needed is needed to provide the same amount of office space, or the towers can be thinner. This means more public and open spaces. Two, build shorter and hence build more, or “fatter”, taking up more of the site’s space, therefore increasing density and providing less sunlight to street level, also meaning less public and open spaces. Think about it.

Also note that the supposedly positive opinion polls were conducted by lend lease themselves, to an unidentified sample of people, and they have declined to reveal the surney instrument, or the results for independent review or auditing. How accurate was the survey instrument? How did they’re recruit the respondents?

Don’t be fooled so easily. This our heritage, our city that’s being desecrated by a greedy construction company & suspect, poorly performing state govt

If there’s anyone who still think they’re lying about all the open spaces. Look at it. Look at the plans. And then use some common sense. Alright? The site is divided into 3 equal parts. Barangaroo South, Barangaroo Central and Headland Park. Barangaroo South is a much needed extension of the CBD, bringing all the vibe and life of a bustling city to Barangaroo, as well as a waterfront promenade, shops a cultural centre, a museum/library on the hotel pier, restaurants and entertainment etc etc. That’s one third of the site. Look at the plans for Barangaroo Central. One half of it has buildings. The other half is all parks. Alright? So half of Barangaroo Central is parkland. And then Headland Park. That, as you can see is all parkland. Now add them up. One third of the site is parkland, one third is half parkland half urban, and the last third is urban. So 50%? Am I not right? And that’s not including the promenade, shops, streets, restaurants etc from Barangaroo south, nor the studios and other public amenities at Barangaroo Central.

Again, the average of public space to other uses in similar developments around the world 20-30%. Barangaroo is 50%, while at the same time it needs to provide what Sydney needs for future growth. Barangaroo was not public space before this. It was a shipping port. We, the residents are only gaining public space from this development. What more do the NIMBYs want?

Get informed:
http://www.barangarooaction.com.au/
Make yr voice heard:
http://www.barangarooaction.co.....tion.pdf 
http://www.barangarooaction.co.....tition.pdf
http://suggest.getup.org.au/fo.....garoo-gove

Jel, the government, not Lend Lease, conducted a $140,000 survey on the opinions of Barangaroo of people living in Sydney. From the SMH article, the survey concluded that “‘once the Barangaroo story is explained to them, most feel positive about it and look forward to it going ahead'” Take a look at the article. Get the facts and figures and the truth about the support for Barangaroo. Also, I think the polls you are referring to was the polls conducted by SMH, right? They were on SMH’s website.

And if you can ever wanting nothing more than 100% open space and parks in the only site which can provide the space needed for the necessary expansion of the CBD, you’ll see why there’s so much support.

Re: removing the shipping facilities:
Most of the shipping that previously arrived at that port was destined within only a few KMs of the port. Now that will be pushed further out of the city into other already crowded ports that are already screaming about infrastructure bottlenecks, and be shipped back into the city. More traffic on our congested roads. More pollution.

The winners with the best design in the competition proposed retaining the maritime bollards and port access for:
– historical and cultural reasons (better than a pseudo cultural centre produced by a profit driven Corp),
– SECURITY purposes, so in case of emergencies, ships could still dock and unload ,
– for cultural events, boats could dock.
– Also, it’s been recommended that ferries stop there too, but it won’t be allowed because Lend Lease wants to control the waterfront with its massive buildings.

This is not a progressive development. ‘Culture’ is deeply intertwined with history, not dreamt up at a boardroom table with a profit margin driving it. Hence LL lost the open competition. How did they then get their foot in with the govt and get the govt to take planning rights off the coucnil?

And if you can ever stop wanting 100% park in the only site which can provide the space needed for the necessary expansion of the CBD, you’ll see why there’s so much support. This is a win-win situation.

I didn’t really know much about this project until I saw the spread but now I’m totally sold. This looks exceptional and I cannot see what people are complaining about. Seems a little backward really.

Are marketing and advertising people really so easily swayed by the sales spin of others? Or does LL have its paid schills out posting positive remarks on forums again?

Jason P, that’s because most of these NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) are residents of the Kent St. apartments or from Pyrmont/Balmain who think they’ll have their views blocked or property values decreased by some way by the development. Ian Campbell, the president of the Barangaroo Action Group (BAG) is the prime example. He said it himself (indirectly) that his first motive for campaigning against this development was because “I knew the hotel was going to be right out my window,” Read this article:

http://sydney-central.whereili.....a-fighter/

Also, you should know that the majority of people in Sydney actually support the development, but just aren’t stay silent or aren’t as vocal as the NIMBYs. Read this:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydn.....16xxi.html

All this is a little petty really IMO. As most people know (not the NIMBYs of course!), this plan has great potential to become a landmark destination and the hotel does have the potential to become an icon. If this is true, then those NIMBYs will have the prime view of the landmark hotel, and a little more far-reached, some might even have the values of their properties increased because of their proximity to the site.

Hey Anon, I’m not paid by anyone, unfortunately, and I love what I am seeing too. Is this “if someone comments that they like this they must be getting paid by the developer” some new trick of the whiney brigade?

So they’ve given it an aboriginal name… let’s all ask ourselves.. does anyone actually know what ‘barangaroo means?’ Cause I cannot find the meaning of it anywhere

Peter is wrong, as planners, councils, prominent architects and heritage experts are against this massive scale. Their issues are poor planning, government riding rough-shod over good planning principles, exacerbating toxic pollution into the harbour, inadequate transport options, eradicating port access and increasing traffic and congestion.

These issues have been raised above. anyone who refuses to consider them is complicit in the degradation of Sydney harbour and culture. Shame shame shame.

Good question re: the name Barangaroo. It took a 5 second Google search to find out. I challenge any corporate designed “cultural” boulevard to do this justice:

… so little of the history is talked about. Take that name: Barangaroo. Paul Keating condemned it as ”Aboriginal kitsch” when it was launched in 2006.

….. But what does she have to do with the waterfront?

…on the wrongness of Barangaroo as a name. It creates ”false history”, she said, because, well, we don’t know anything about her.

Wrong.

Barangaroo was one of early Sydney’s powerful figures. She was a Cammeragal, from around North Harbour and Manly, the largest and most influential group in the Sydney coastal region. She was probably among the women who tried to lure white men ashore in November 1788 so the Cammeragal warriors could attack them. This was a shock to English officers who thought Eora women were innocent ”Eves”.

They met Barangaroo in late 1790, finding her striking but also frightening. She had presence and authority.

Read it :

http://www.theage.com.au/opini.....-pot6.html

I wonder how many people in this thread are getting paid to post! Lot’s of PR speak.

In my opinion, I think ,as Prince Charles said of another piece of unpopular architecture, when all is said and done, we will be left with a “….monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend”.
You can landscape a few parks, but it will not stop the fact that when you look up there will be a mass of ugly skyscrapers. The original plans have been significantly destorted and better consultation should be involved.

Looks great to me. Much better than current eyesore. Looking at the flyover video.

This was a clear example of AAW…as in Another Annoying Wraparound. It went straight in the bin.

I actually find Skyscrapers quite beautiful, thank you very much!

You can landscape a few parks, but it will not stop the fact that when you look up there will be a mass of ugly skyscrapers. The original plans have been significantly destorted and better consultation should be involved.

“Better Planning Required”, thanks for your opinion. I’ll tell you something? Someone can also say this:

You can landscape a few urban areas, but it will not stop the fact that when you look up there will be a mass of boring parks when the site could be turned into a vibrant, lively urban extension of the CBD.

Though one thing I don’t like about the current Lend Lease plans. Where’s the Open House that was in the original Lend Lease proposal? There was no opposition to it. It was a stunning building and and excellent idea, which also happened to be what Sydney needs (performance space). Yet, they took it out and replaced it with yet more parkland, when 50% is already parkland, which, as I said, is already way above the world average for sites of this significance. For people who aren’t familiar with the Open House proposal, take a look at it. It was an outstanding building, perfectly complimenting the precinct.

LL has a lot of bucks and not much credibility. Trolls everywhere including here. Crack that tarmac down there at Barangaroo and poison leaks into the harbour. Get ready for a big fat bill from the developer to clean it up – what park? That’s 10 years away – this is a 10-15 year building project. Toxins leaking into the harbour? That’s December 2010.

Talk about a wrap-around job!
LL is privatizing the gains in its monopoly development, and socializing the losses.

Yes, we will be left with a “….monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend” and also with a bill to clean up the toxins & more blood tests for people who swim or fish in the harbour. Nice place to live or work?

This should be good for tourism. This is win for our Lord.

The only Lord this is a win for is the God Of Money. It’s not a win for tax-paying residents of Sydney – or their visitors from abroad, who would have to be bussed down a very busy Victoria Rd into the CBD off their cruise ships instead of arriving at the beautiful Rocks precinct. It would destroy the soul of Sydney if this monstrosity goes ahead and we would lose one of our (only three) deep-water Harbour berths forever.

Sydney has been ruined over the years by encroachment into the harbour. Woolloomooloo wharf? Yuck. The bridge? Oh dear. The wharves around Millers Point and Pyrmont? Oh dear.

There’s barely any harbour left for everyone to use without people putting eyesores like any of the above into some of the water. I could barely turn my supertanker around the other day.

Development is killing Sydney – they should let the coastline return to its natural state and the whole area around Circular Quay should be a swamp again. They’ve literally moved the coastline *metres* in the last few centuries.

(For the hard of thinking, I suppose my point is – do any of the above developments, which have all ‘encroached’ on the harbour, detract or add to Sydney? I think they are great and there’s plenty of space – Darling Harbour has always had something going on, and a great way to solve congestion is to get people living in the City centre. It’s either Barangaroo or we level the whole of the Rocks and the low-rise inner-west to cram more housing in there.)

Has anyone else spotted the Gilbert and George characters who keep appearing in the fly through video? If it’s good enough for men who paint with excrement….

shame, STW, shame:
This is a fantasy campaign in lots of ways, and developing this execrable campaign is akin to the agencies’ handling tobacco accounts.
Fact is that property developers (encougared by incompetent, corrupt governments) have buggered up this city in so many ways.
And who pays the price? You do when you’re stuck in traffic, you do when you breathe the foul air, you do when you get stressed out because things dont work, you do when you find the places you knew don’t exist any more, you do when the shadows come across cavernous streets, you do, you do, you do.
Sydney is now worse than many Asian cities, rapidly slipping into nasty anti-social places lilke Manilla and Sao Paolo.
Bungaroo is BAD NEWS for everyone except the property developers.

So it has all the benefits of Docklands in Melbourne then:
– transport, and it’s lack there of
– potential crowds, and it’s lack there of
– some fancy buildings
– location far enough away from Darling Harbour so as not to cause upset to all the DH-diehards….

I mean really…. let’s get this puppy OFF THE GROUND!

I smell a rat. Lots of them.