Sydney planning officials stated once again that James Packer’s plans for the A$1.5-billion tower, part of the Barangaroo renewal project, need to be knocked back as the building would overwhelm and dominate the vision for the overall precinct site.
Graham Jahn, known to be one of the city’s top planning officials, said on Thursday that Crown Resorts’ tower is projected to be constructed on a key waterfront portion of land at Barangaroo and that the gambling operator should not be allowed to intrude in such a dramatic manner on Sydney’s foreshore.
According to Mr. Jahn, planners had not assessed properly the suitability of the proposed building and had not considered the broader public interest. Being a Director of Planning, Development, and Transport at Sydney’s City Council, Mr. Jahn was asked by the Planning Assessment Commission to voice his opinion on the matter.
On Thursday, the commission heard submissions on whether the Crown Resorts apartment, hotel, and casino complex should be approved as well as whether certain changes to the initial concept for the said complex should be implemented on a waterfront site that had formerly been projected for a park.
Although there were officials that seemed to be keen on the proposed Crown Resorts’ A$1.5-billion tower, most of them said that they opposed the project. During the Thursday hearing, Mr. Jahn said that the city did not opposed the overall development. In other words, it could be said that the complex’s location is what concerns Sydney’s officials.
Under the proposed plan for the construction of Crown Resorts’ hotel, apartment, and casino venue, a planned public park was to be moved from the foreshore to one of the most contaminated site locations in the area.
It is now up to the Planning Assessment Commission to determine whether the proposed construction of the tower should be approved.
Last year, it became clear that Crown Resorts wanted to increase the height of the tower by 100 meters and to use more than a half of all planned 69 floors for luxury apartments. Such an increase and use of the building was deemed one without “any accrued public benefit” by former New South Wales Government Architect Peter Mould. According to the official, the main motive behind the change was the potential increase in profits, once the complex is completed and operational.
