悉尼达令港和歌剧院中间的海边最大的一块未开发土地， barangaroo. 未经投标卖给了lend lease，后来又找来james packer开赌场， 开始之前吹的天花乱坠， 说请了世界上最好的城市和景观设计大师Jan Gehl 在那儿造一个世界级的公园云云， 于是整个方案没有遇到公众阻力就通过了。
方案通过以后由于过度开发，公众拥有的面积越来越小， 这个设计大师发表公开说明谴责纽省政府食言， 并宣布脱离和这个项目的所有关系。其中一个细节就是开发商提出要在原来的方案中修改一个字， 把原来合同中的“最少提供3000平米公众建筑”中的最少改成最多。
再后来政府说出让土地的费用已经不够支付公园的成本， 政府要和开发商打官司， 但法院说完成后的项目价格如何评估是商业机密， 不需要向公众公开。 现在要把余下的土地再拿出来做商用开发， 让几个大开发商竞标。
看懂了吗？ 澳洲的官商法是如何勾结合法出卖公众利益的。
那个地方的楼花一房1百多万起， 2个小时就抢光了。
价值几百亿的临海土地拱手贱卖掉， 到最后连一个像样的公园都不能给悉尼的市民留下， 同样的事情还在达令港再开发的过程中重演， 这样的政府你放心把原来属于每个人的资产让他管理吗？
评论
http://www.architectureanddesign ... roo-s-boom-and-bust
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/court- ... 20140107-30fhg.html
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/design ... 20131004-2uzri.html
评论
不明觉厉。
评论
自由党牛，多多卖吧， 把悉尼CBD卖了就有盈余了
评论
来源来源来源！！！
评论
都是本地报纸陆续报道的， 链接在上面， 还有很多较早的可以在网上找到。
评论
竟然這樣搞太無恥呃
评论
靠，怎么除了我能看我自己的回复，其他人的回复怎么都是此帖仅作者可见。
评论
天下乌鸦一般黑
评论
楼主是在瞎扯淡。。。
评论
神马意思呀
评论
没看懂
评论
最初的方案：
Concept approval is granted for: （2007）
* A mixed use development of commercial, residential, tourist, retail and community uses;
* Building envelopes with a distribution of GFA between the development blocks within the mixed use zone;
* New public open space / public domain, with a range of formal and informal open spaces serving separate recreational functions and including a 1.4km public foreshore promenade;
* A passenger terminal and a maximum of 3000m2 GFA for active uses that support the public domain within the public recreation zone;
* Public domain landscape concept, including parks, streets and pedestrian connections;
* Creation of a partial new shoreline to the harbour and alteration of the existing sea walls; and
* Retention of the existing Sydney Ports Corporation Port Safety Operations and Harbour Tower Control Operations including employee parking.
最后改成这样了
Amendment to the approved Concept Plan as follows: （2010）
> Reconfiguration of built form blocks and establishment of two new blocks (X & Y); （新增加商业面积）
> Increase of 59,965m2 gross floor area (GFA) within approved Blocks 1-4; （增加商业面积）
> Removal of approved 8,500m2 of passenger terminal GFA and increase in GFA （多少平米没说）for active and community uses;
> Increase in building height (RL) from 62m to 80m for Block 1; （增加商业面积）
> Increase in building height (RL) from 112 m to 209 m for Block 3; （增加商业面积）
> Maximum increase in building height (RL) from 100 m to 175 m for Block 4; (增加商业面积）
> Establishment of a maximum building height of 41.5m for Block X and 170m for Block Y; （增加赌场）
> Enlargement of Concept Plan area into Sydney Harbour to accommodate landmark building and pier (Block Y); （赌场造在海港延伸出去的地方， 不但侵占公众水域， 而且原来1.4km里海边步道和公众用地都缩小了。）
> Redistribution of land use mix and reconfiguration of public promenade, resulting in a reduction in width of the promenade from a minimum of 60m to 27m; （原来规划的公用步道最少宽度从60米减少到只有27米）
> Revisions to built form controls and urban design principles; and
> Provision of a cultural centre.（最少3000平米改成最多3000平米最后连数字也取消了）
关键是增加的这么多这么昂贵的商住地产（以牺牲公众用地为代价）， 到底开发商要给悉尼公众多少补偿完全是开发商说了算， 计算方法不对外界公开。现在政府又说连大幅缩水以后的公用设施都不能保证。
评论
天下乌鸦一般黑,只有更黑。
评论
这个世界上，钱永远是上帝
评论
评论
评论
工党卖的地，烂摊子又扣到自由党头上了
评论
http://theconversation.com/barangaroo-the-loss-of-trust-10676
The saga around the redevelopment of Barangaroo on Sydney’s harbour has undermined our belief in the NSW government’s commitment to transparency. AAP supplied image
Welcome to our series on Barangaroo. Sydneysiders know this spot well: 22 hectares of former industrial land sitting on the western edge of the CBD, not far from some of the city’s most coveted landmarks.
But the transition from disused wharves to a much vaunted $6 billion waterfront precinct has hardly been a smooth one, marred by accusations of a serious lack of transparency.
In the first of our series on the site, UTS Professor and Director of Terroir, Gerard Reinmuth, charts some of its tortured history and argues the flawed process of land procurement has potentially marred its legacy and seriously undermined citizens' trust in its government.
The redevelopment of the former East Darling Harbour site now known as Barangaroo could have been the dawn of an optimistic and productive era of development in one of the world’s great cities.
The relocation of Sydney’s container terminal opened up a large area of land right on the doorstep of the CBD giving a “once in a generation” chance to rethink the future of Sydney on a grand scale.
However, the optimism that met the initial design competition for the redevelopment of the site in 2005 quickly gave way to controversy, which in turn has become a flashpoint for the articulation of the endemic mistrust the citizens of New South Wales feel for our political processes.
Via a series of controversial decisions around procurement – the latest chapter of which is the current fracas over the Packer casino development – Barangaroo has now come to stand for all that is wrong with the way our city is governed and the intersection between politics and commerce in Sydney.
Describing how we got here is impossible in a short piece, given the years of debate and negotiation and the hundreds of thousands of words already written on the topic.
So I will mention some of the key events in the development of the project that coalesce around a single theme – trust, and the absence of it at any point in our contemporary political landscape.
The contract between a government and its diverse constituents relies on trust, won or lost on the basis of transparency of both the processes used and of the decisions which result. A trustworthy process addresses the multitude of views, voices and agendas which exist and reframes these into a reliable and well-articulated position.
Simply, it can be a lens through which all this complexity can be understood.
The distrust we all feel now for what is happening at Barangaroo first stirred when the Bob Carr-led Labor government selected a winner from an international design competition that, in the views of many, had a generic quality which could be deployed for an “anything goes" process in the coming years.
I recall that even one of the authors of the winning entry revealed their cynicism and awareness of the way public assets are developed in NSW by describing the design as “Sydney-proof” - which I took to mean that it was so generic that no matter how badly it was implemented, its legacy of streetscapes and modestly scaled buildings would survive.
Subsequent processes led to the termination of the winning team’s further involvement in the project, the circumstances of which are less relevant that the broader sense of distrust it engendered in a government that chose to dump the team, no matter how reasonable it may have thought its reasons for doing so.
With the termination of the winning team’s involvement in the project came an awareness that the government were not going take the lead in developing the site and its base infrastructure of streets and parks, so that smaller development packages could be let to the market.
Instead we learnt that the Government could not in fact trust itself to run a process where the structure and key public domain elements of the site could be procured.
The first part of the project – known as Barangaroo South - would be tendered to a single development agency, with the claim that the site was too big to be developed in any other way.
We therefore learnt to further distrust the government as we simply knew this not to be true, with many other examples around the world procured via alternate methods where the Government laid down the key elements and sites were sold to individual developers.
With this realisation came a new wave of distrust, this time related to the way we perceive business is done at the big end of town between government and big business. This distrust in Government and its defence of the public interest is not unique to Barangaroo – this week’s activities at the Independent Commission Against Corruption spring to mind.
Following the news the project would be awarded to a single proponent in Lend Lease, a suspicious public were confronted with a loss of harbour area to a new proposed hotel (an extra element in the Lend Lease bid).
Then we were presented with illustrations that showed the building to be completely transparent. Thus, we had not only lost trust, but were angered that the Government thought we were so stupid that we could believe a multi-story hotel to be see-through.
Subsequent calls for information about how this came to be were cast aside because of confidentiality clauses in their arrangement that did not allow the Government to reveal the nature of the contract with Lend Lease.
A public that, at every turn, felt it was becoming unable to trust any of the key players in the project were then subjected to additional steps where the key towers on site – one of most disappointing projects to have been proposed from one of the innovative architects of the 1980s – were constantly widened and height increased, without the public being able to see or understand how this could possibly happen.
The most recent chapter in this process happened in February with the unveiling of an audacious proposal by James Packer to build a casino and hotel directly in the centre of the public space that would define Barangaroo Central.
In the months since, this has evolved into an exclusive contract between Packer and Lend Lease for a casino and hotel, now located in the Barangaroo South precinct.
Trust in all parties has reached a new low with key changes to legislation made by the Barry O'Farrell-led government in the weeks before the unveiling of the new arrangement, the timing of which seems just too coincidental.
Of course, this has just reinforced the loss of faith in all governments given the previous one made legislative changes in the days before calling an election with equally suspect contents and timing.
Barangaroo is the story of an extraordinary opportunity to make a large and catalytic addition to our city, both financially and socially.
Yet, at almost every turn, the process has had the effect - whether deliberately designed or not - of minimising the trust our citizens have in their governments and those they choose to work with and represent them.
This extraordinary case in how to spectacularly mismanage public expectations, consultations and communications stems from a key conceptual failure – the prioritisation of the property (and now leisure) industry over its citizens.
While this Government persists in prioritising the business of consuming the city rather than making the city (with the involvement of its citizens) we will only continue to distrust our leaders and the places they impose on it.
For now, we can only live through the unfolding nightmare, looking in vain for a glimmer of quality, integrity or transparency. As the following essays in this series will show, even as the excavators do their work on site, we are still looking.
Sydney is not “our” city. It does not represent Australia, and I think many Australians would want no ownership or responsibility for the human zoo, urban eyesore and environmental disaster that is now Sydney.
In terms of economics, the so-called “redevelopment of the former East Darling Harbour site” may be symbolic. It took land that was once an industrial and manufacturing site, and converted it into real estate development.
That brings into question the actual economic viability of cities in Australia such as Sydney, when the main economy becomes the selling or buying real estate. That is a completely hollow economy.
Whilst a lot of what you say is true it is also true that the site was a no public access, ugly container terminal and is now a massive car park with a view. Sydney people will bitch about whatever happens, as they did about he bridge, the opera house, the toaster, and the mca, but all these things are better than what was there before. No doubt however barangaroo ends up it could have been better, but equally, however it ends up will be better than how it was, or how it is now.
Ever been on one of those tours where you get to see a flock of crocs tearing apart a chook? Welcome to Property Development NSW.
Fresh flat dirt. On the harbour? Near the CBD and the tourist precinct... Oh my god!!!! It's the Second Coming. It's Xmas cubed!!!! A once in a lifetime chook!!!!
And those Great Men of Taste and Quality - who have scattered our landscapes with shopping malls and whole new identical suburbs - will determine just how appalling, tawdry and privatised this "investment opportunity" will be. It's like letting the Philistines do your heritage planning.
To be quite honest I don't think ANYTHING should be done regarding such decisions while the current ICAC investigation proceeds. This is too big and too plump a chook not to attract both crocs and politicians.
这个项目从开始就争议不断，这块地皮可以说是悉尼最有价值的一个公众资源， 面临百年一遇的再开发良机，但是两届政府罔顾公众利益， 误导公众对这个项目的期望值， 公然进行暗箱操作， 向大财团进行利益输送， 甚至不惜为个人和财团利益修改法律, 以至于连纽省独立反贪污委员会的建议都可以不顾， 可以说能被收买的都被收买了， 悉尼在歌剧院和海港大桥之后原本有机会在barangaroo再造辉煌， 现在那里完全变成了james packer的私人领地和大财团口中的一块肥肉。
Keneally must ensure ICAC followed on Barangaroo
The Greens are calling on the Premier to intervene and direct the Planning Minister to follow the Independent Commission Against Corruption’s (ICAC) recommendations and hand his decision making power over the State’s single biggest private Part 3A development, Barangaroo, to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC). SMH 14/10 p2
ICAC has found that there is an obvious risk of corruption in having any one politician with an unlimited discretion to approve large scale private developments under Part 3A. Given ICAC’s findings, leaving approval powers for the $6 billion Barangaroo development solely in the hands of the planning minister is simply unacceptable.
ICAC recommended that private developments which exceed local planning regulations by more than 25 per cent should be referred to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC). Barangaroo exceeds comparable local planning regulations by over 300 per cent.
The Premier needs to intervene immediately and tell the planning minister enough is enough. He must follow ICAC’s recommendations and hand over his decision making power for the State’s single biggest private Part 3A development, Barangaroo, to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC).
If the planning minister does not follow ICAC’s recommendations and refer the determination of Barangaroo to the PAC, then this is yet another reason for any incoming Coalition administration to tear up these highly political planning approvals given to Lend Lease.
Where is the Opposition on this? If Mr O’Farrell had any political courage he would be standing up for the people of Sydney and calling for a transparent decision making process for Barangaroo. At a minimum the Mr O’Farrell should be demanding the State government live up to ICAC’s recommendations on Barangaroo. Instead he is wringing his hands, complaining, and adding absolutely nothing to the debate.
评论
卖完了土地又在改规划？
评论
是的， 这里的官商勾结披着法治和民主的外衣， 公然欺民盗益。 手段和策略比国内的高明多了。都是有计划有步骤的进行，而且就是在这一个圈子里玩， 有媒体助势，有法官帮忙， 有政客联手，有专业机构出谋划策， 你不在他们的圈子里， 玩都没得玩。至于小老百姓， 几百亿的资产不经过你的同意转手给你坑了， 留块骨头给大家啃啃就算不错了。 有多少人能明白其中的利益关系？ 我估计里知道barangaroo在哪里的一只手都能数过来。
政府的财政亏空怎么来的？ 我们交的税到哪里去了？ 政府给个数字你就信了？ 信了你就是sb.
评论
西人政客的黑一堆堆的
评论
胖子州长滚蛋吧
评论
lend lease group本来就是半官商性质的，很多政府基建长期项目，回报低，但开发周期很长，一般公司不愿做的，都是由这家公司来操作的，可以看作是政府盘的操盘手，象悉尼歌剧院，anzec大桥，很多老年社区，一些新兴社区建设，一个项目长达十几年的，官商构结么，没看出来，因为这是大英帝国的秘密。至于出卖公众利益，公众利益本来就是用来卖的，只不过是卖的价格合不合理，lend lease group从来不把单独一个项目的盈利来计算的，是一榄子项目，有好的，有坏的，这块地吃到肉了，另一个项目顶多是喝汤，但如果不喝，也不可能吃到肉。
评论
没想到楼主这么气愤？barangaroo在其他开发商眼里是块大肥肉，吃一块可以饱三年了，对于lend lease来说，可能只是几十个项目中的一个，分摊下来，利润也就那么滴，我要是政府，我也不会给其他开发商去做，有不挣钱的项目时，那些开发商全没影了，象建大桥，建医院，全是lend lease在做，有肥肉时抢的不行，还不服气，想吃这块肥肉也可以啊，澳洲政府再给你搭上三个老年社区的开发项目，开发周期十年，年利润7%，你还愿意做吗？
评论
lend lease真的有楼上说的那么好吗
澳洲中文论坛热点
- 悉尼部份城铁将封闭一年，华人区受影响！只能乘巴士（组图）
- 据《逐日电讯报》报导，从明年年中开始，因为从Bankstown和Sydenham的城铁将因Metro South West革新名目而
- 联邦政客们具有多少房产？
- 据本月早些时分报导，绿党副首领、参议员Mehreen Faruqi已获准在Port Macquarie联系其房产并建造三栋投资联