FISHERMANS BEND > 134 - 142 Ferrars Street > 166m / 50L / Resi

[Grollo]

City of Port Phillip have advised the minister they do not support the proposal for the following reasons (my comments in italics :-):

1. The overall height and scale of the development is not consistent with the
preferred scale for the site and the Southern neighbourhood of the
Montague Precinct Structure Plan. (The plan is not part of the planning scheme and the height limits in the plan have been picked out of thin air)

2. The height of the proposal results in unacceptable amenity impacts for
pedestrians on Thistlethwaite Street in terms of wind impacts and
overshadowing. (Thistlethwaite Street will be shaded from the hot western afternoon sun in Summer)

3. A building of this size and intensity would generate significant traffic flows
that are not appropriate adjacent to a primary school site().

4. The interface with Buckhurst Lane is unacceptable and creates a number of
unsafe alcoves, provides little observation and activation of this important
laneway, and elements protruding beyond the title boundaries may pose
safety hazards for large vehicles. (easily fixed)

5. Articulation to the Thistlethwaite Street podium façade should be provided
to reflect the fine grain subdivision pattern(easily fixed if required).

6. Commercial uses, including offices, should be provided within at least two
of the podium levels within the development(The building does include a child care centre).

7. Floor to ceiling heights within the development should be adjusted,
including within the car parking levels, to allow for adaptable future re-use(easily fixed if required).

8. Further detailed consideration is required about the layout and use of the
childcare centre, including the provision of more staff toilets, access
between the nursery and the outdoor area, provision of kitchen facilities
and removal of the cot rooms from the nursery.(easily fixed if required)

9. Further consideration is required for acoustic treatments to the proposed
dwellings to protect these dwellings from external noise sources.(easily fixed if required)

10. Provision should be made for private open space for all dwellings on the
podium levels of the building.(easily fixed if required)

11. Bicycle parking(easily fixed if required)

12. The amount of car parking should be reduced by 20 spaces for the
dwellings to match the rate of 0.5 spaces per dwelling. Provision should be
made for additional on-site car parking for the childcare centre, for
accessible car spaces for the disabled and to facilitate areas for additional
bicycle parking.(easily fixed if required)

13. Vehicle access to the site on Thistlethwaite Street is not supported. All
vehicle access should be via Buckhurst Lane only and provision should be
made for a loading bay (including a waste collection point) accessed off
Buckhurst Lane. The existing vehicle crossover to Thistlethwaite Street
should be removed and the footpath, kerb and channel reinstated.(easily fixed if required)

[Dockside]

^ Surprise surprise, we can expect every proposal that's taller than 5 levels being rejected by council no doubt..

[tdoz123]

would be a shame for Buckhurst lane to be treated only as a loading bay and carpark entrance (and it's not very wide either), some potential for a number of narrow, often bluestone laneways in this area to become activated along the sides of developments, with any of the more character filled industrial materials along the streets at least kept as fragments.
Of course it's more likely they won't be used like that, and any potential adaptive re-use of industrial fabric will be lost among bland apartment podiums unless various controls and master plans are put in place before developments like this are approved.
of course there is plenty of room for high-rise in the area and hopefully a balance is met between Port Phillips underdevelopment and the ministers anything goes, would be a monumental shame to see it just become another Southbank full of bland podiums and a lack of human scale streetscapes and lanescapes.

[Gunzel]

Originally Posted by tdoz123

would be a shame for Buckhurst lane to be treated only as a loading bay and carpark entrance (and it's not very wide either), some potential for a number of narrow, often bluestone laneways in this area to become activated along the sides of developments, with any of the more character filled industrial materials along the streets at least kept as fragments.
Of course it's more likely they won't be used like that, and any potential adaptive re-use of industrial fabric will be lost among bland apartment podiums unless various controls and master plans are put in place before developments like this are approved.
of course there is plenty of room for high-rise in the area and hopefully a balance is met between Port Phillips underdevelopment and the ministers anything goes, would be a monumental shame to see it just become another Southbank full of bland podiums and a lack of human scale streetscapes and lanescapes.

Some on here are more than prepared to overlook these bland podiums and loss of characteristic bluestone laneways all for the sake of height as if it's the only thing that matters. It's really like trying to reason with a bunch of radical lefties.

[John_Proctor]

But it's a skyscraper forum gunzel so height is the only thing we are allowed to talk about!

[redbaron_012]

Have any of heard of Sigmund Freud ?...just a theory.

[Grollo]

This proposal does not have a bland podium.

This proposal does not include removing any bluestone from Buckhurst Lane or any heritage fabric.

This is not the CBD and there will never be enough through block foot traffic to have active frontages along all of the existing laneways.

This area largely consists of light industrial premises and small office buildings from the 1950's to the 1990's. It is not like Fitzroy or Richmond where you had lots of old 19th century and early 20th Century factories and workers cottages that gave those areas their distinctive character before they were gentrified.

[Dockside]

^
We are sooo radical.

[Grollo]

The City of Port Phillip encouraged the community to come to the meeting and express their outrage. there was even an article in the Herald Sun inviting people to come along.

Only one submitter showed up at the meeting and stated that:

- He was pleased that something is being proposed in the area.
-He didn’t care if the proposed development was 49 stories, if people wanted to live in it and pay money

[melburn21]

Originally Posted by Gunzel

Some on here are more than prepared to overlook these bland podiums and loss of characteristic bluestone laneways all for the sake of height as if it's the only thing that matters. It's really like trying to reason with a bunch of radical lefties.

no-one on this forum is prepared to overlook bland podiums with little street activation... you're being OTT.

you may hear things like "at least its tall" ... but that is not an indication of us being one eyed... its just looking on the bright side of a bad outcome.

[tdoz123]

Originally Posted by Grollo

This proposal does not have a bland podium.

This proposal does not include removing any bluestone from Buckhurst Lane or any heritage fabric.

This is not the CBD and there will never be enough through block foot traffic to have active frontages along all of the existing laneways.

This area largely consists of light industrial premises and small office buildings from the 1950's to the 1990's. It is not like Fitzroy or Richmond where you had lots of old 19th century and early 20th Century factories and workers cottages that gave those areas their distinctive character before they were gentrified.

Was generalizing about Fishermans bend in general, this one is generally a great design, though an entire area of oddly shaped concrete and glass might not be amazing long term.
Wont there by plenty of foot traffic when the entire area becomes home to thousands or residents? could even draw people from existing residential areas if done well. Not talking about laneways entirely lined with shops etc... but could do something down them.

You're right of course about the area largely lacking character, I only mean in certain parts where it is evident (generally around City rd and Montague st)

I'd like to see some interesting architectural work though in places where non-descript brickwork or vintage signs from 50's/60's could be used for human scale below some towers for variety.
Little doorways like this could be home to a cafe instead of being replaced by concrete loading bays for instance, with contemporary architecture replacing the boring stuff surrounding it

[tayser]

Originally Posted by Grollo

The City of Port Phillip encouraged the community to come to the meeting and express their outrage. there was even an article in the Herald Sun inviting people to come along.

Only one submitter showed up at the meeting and stated that:

- He was pleased that something is being proposed in the area.
-He didn’t care if the proposed development was 49 stories, if people wanted to live in it and pay money

priceless?

[CladInShadows971]

What does this mean in terms of the lack of council support? Do all of their points need to be addressed in order for this to proceed? Or is it more a case of addressing their realistic concerns and ignoring the unreasonable ones?

Excuse my denseness on the subject...

[Dockside]

Originally Posted by Grollo

The City of Port Phillip encouraged the community to come to the meeting and express their outrage. there was even an article in the Herald Sun inviting people to come along.

Only one submitter showed up at the meeting and stated that:

- He was pleased that something is being proposed in the area.
-He didn’t care if the proposed development was 49 stories, if people wanted to live in it and pay money

That's beautiful..

[John_Proctor]

Originally Posted by CladInShadows971

What does this mean in terms of the lack of council support? Do all of their points need to be addressed in order for this to proceed? Or is it more a case of addressing their realistic concerns and ignoring the unreasonable ones?

Excuse my denseness on the subject...

nothing really.

the Minister is the responsible authority and Council isn't even a referral authority on the proposal so no more powers to object or require conditions then an interested third party (like a nearby landowner).

[NoshowwithoutPunch]

Originally Posted by John_Proctor

But it's a skyscraper forum gunzel so height is the only thing we are allowed to talk about!

Good, you're learning.

[NoshowwithoutPunch]

Originally Posted by Gunzel

Some on here are more than prepared to overlook these bland podiums and loss of characteristic bluestone laneways all for the sake of height as if it's the only thing that matters. It's really like trying to reason with a bunch of radical lefties.

Go and start a "I was a skyscraper enthusiast, but my NIMBY instincts got the better of me" forum.

bland podiums and loss of characteristic bluestone laneways

And do you seriously think that this council is objecting to the development for those reasons alone? As JPro pointed out, that sort of thing is easily fixed. It's the height they are objecting to, hence the need to avoid these red herrings and debate the actual issue, which is the height.