What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Parramatta Stadium Rebuild and other stuff

Eelogical

Referee
Messages
24,308
And a couple of fare-free days on 31 July and 1 August thrown into the mix as well... thank you NSW RBTU 😊!

Merkins just want their train to run on time and be reliable, not freebies and spin doctor speak. The whole fiasco saga that's produced this outcome is quite frankly sad and frustrating. We'll always be the little engine that couldn't.
 

Suitman

Post Whore
Messages
56,814
Are these Sydney's first supertall buildings ?


Yes.

Official categories are as follows:

General Urban Developments

Projects shorter than 100m/300ft.

Highrises

Projects between 100-199m/300-649ft tall

Skyscrapers

Projects between 200-299m/650-999ft tall.

Supertalls

Projects between 300-599m/1,000-1,999ft tall.

Megatalls

Projects at least 600m/2,000 ft tall.
 
Last edited:

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
79,794
Yes.

Official categories are as follows:

General Urban Developments

Projects shorter than 100m/300ft.

Highrises

Projects between 100-199m/300-649ft tall

Skyscrapers

Projects between 200-299m/650-999ft tall.

Supertalls

Projects between 300-599m/1,000-1,999ft tall.

Megatalls

Projects at least 600m/2,000 ft tall.

Thanks - another question @Suitman . I thought that Centrepoint Tower had SCC by the balls over an agreement that nobody ever could have a structure taller than their useless coat rack ? Did that expire or was it somehow overturned ?
 

TheParraboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
70,761
And a couple of fare-free days on 31 July and 1 August thrown into the mix as well... thank you NSW RBTU 😊!



Laughable tbh

Totally useless for the people affected , fulltime worker who relies on daily train travel and still has to pay the $50 weekly ticket

Throw in a free week you tight conniving worms...

Having said that, ill benefit from the free travel , so thank you 😊
 

Suitman

Post Whore
Messages
56,814
Thanks - another question @Suitman . I thought that Centrepoint Tower had SCC by the balls over an agreement that nobody ever could have a structure taller than their useless coat rack ? Did that expire or was it somehow overturned ?

I've vaguely heard of that, but it would have been years ago if agreed to back then.
Height limits have changed since then, so not a thing now.
What's weird (and annoying) is who is in control of Sydney's skyline height limits.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
79,794
I've vaguely heard of that, but it would have been years ago if agreed to back then.
Height limits have changed since then, so not a thing now.
What's weird (and annoying) is who is in control of Sydney's skyline height limits.
Found the full story.

 

Suitman

Post Whore
Messages
56,814
Found the full story.


Cheers.
There's one small mistake in that article.

"History of a short city​

Building height restrictions have had a long history in Sydney.

In 1912, NSW parliament passed legislation that limited the height of new buildings in Sydney to 150m."

That should read 150 ft, not metres.
 
Messages
13,881
Cheers.
There's one small mistake in that article.

"History of a short city​

Building height restrictions have had a long history in Sydney.

In 1912, NSW parliament passed legislation that limited the height of new buildings in Sydney to 150m."

That should read 150 ft, not metres.
That seems strange... because 150ft is only 45m high.

And in 1939 the AWA building came in at 111m (364ft) high - within the article's 150m height limit, which it says stayed in effect until 1957.

But that AWA height would have been well beyond your suggestion for a height limit that you claim corrects an error in the article....

Could it be that the article had correctly converted the height limit value from the time into the modern measurement for modern readers? And could it be your claim of an error in the article was actually in error?
 

Suitman

Post Whore
Messages
56,814
Nice attempt at a gotcha moment (again), but no, I was correct.

Towards the end of the 19th century and throughout the beginning of the 20th century, advances in building technology and design coupled with rising urban land values meant that high rise buildings became an attractive proposition in Sydney.[12] Considered to be Sydney's first high-rise office building, Culwulla Chambers, was completed in 1912 and stood at a height of 50 metres (160 ft). Designed by Spain, Cosh and Minnett (with Rupert Minnett), the building consisted of 14 floors and cost £100,000 to build, equivalent of approximately $1 million in today's money.[13] This new wave of construction of taller buildings consequently raised concerns over fire risks, namely the inadequate firefighting resources of the period that failed to reach such heights.[14] The fire in the 8 storey Anthony Hordern & Sons building in 1901, which resulted in the death of five people, was notably one of the first cases to raise such concerns.[15] In 1907, Alfred Webb, then the Superintendent of the Sydney Metropolitan Fire Brigade, described how it was "a suicidal policy to allow buildings of 100 feet to go up. Our extension ladders rise to a height of 80 feet, and it might be possible to add another 10 feet to them; but the effectiveness of their working is materially decreased as the height is added to." Additionally, public backlash against increased heights also became apparent during this period, primarily stemming from sentiments that taller buildings did not match the aesthetic of Sydney's streetscape and that they would become a source of increased overcrowding and congestion.[12] As a result, the Height of Buildings Act was passed in 1912, which limited all new buildings to a height of 46 metres (151 feet). This restriction stunted the height of Sydney's buildings, lasting until 1957.[16][17]

Despite these height restrictions, 1939 saw the completion of the AWA Tower, which finally surpassed the General Post Office's title as Sydney's tallest after 48 years. At a height of 112 metres (367 feet), the AWA tower also became the city's first building to surpass a height of 100 metres (330 feet), and would go on to stay as the tallest until 1962.

 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
64,727
That seems strange... because 150ft is only 45m high.

And in 1939 the AWA building came in at 111m (364ft) high - within the article's 150m height limit, which it says stayed in effect until 1957.

But that AWA height would have been well beyond your suggestion for a height limit that you claim corrects an error in the article....

Could it be that the article had correctly converted the height limit value from the time into the modern measurement for modern readers? And could it be your claim of an error in the article was actually in error?

Stop being a penaut.
 
Messages
13,881
Nice attempt at a gotcha moment (again), but no, I was correct.
Wasn't trying a gotcha, just asking a question, as I knew AWA was higher than the limit you mentioned, and wondered how that happened.
As a result, the Height of Buildings Act was passed in 1912, which limited all new buildings to a height of 46 metres (151 feet). This restriction stunted the height of Sydney's buildings, lasting until 1957.[16][17]

Despite these height restrictions, 1939 saw the completion of the AWA Tower, which finally surpassed the General Post Office's title as Sydney's tallest after 48 years. At a height of 112 metres (367 feet), the AWA tower also became the city's first building to surpass a height of 100 metres (330 feet), and would go on to stay as the tallest until 1962.
Thanks for explaining it.

So if I've understood correctly, the AWA Tower was somehow built in contravention of that legislated height limit at the time? No wonder then the writer of the original article you posted was confused, and substituted metres for feet to attempt to allow for the AWA Tower's existence between 1939 and 1957.
 
Top