The hotel sits on the eastern promontory of the Elizabeth Quay redevelopment. Originally proposed in 2003 to be a 3 star, 5 storey hotel, foundations for the building were laid around 2006 following 3 years of approval from government departments and the Swan River Trust. Development was halted in 2007 due to the collapse of Westpoint and the site has remained unused since then.
How soon after their meetings do they usually put their rulings up? Next business day?
PG, I don't know how heavily your comments to Seven News were edited but I thought your "there's going to be big buildings over here, so why can't there be big buildings over there?" argument was a little facile.
The City of Perth has knocked back an application for an 11-storey hotel development at Barrack Square despite an accommodation shortage, saying the building would be too big.
The council said the hotel would overshadow the Bell Tower, and it had also considered intended building heights within the nearby Elizabeth Quay waterfront development.
"While accepting that Perth needs more hotels, the council believes the scale of the proposed development, on that site, is not appropriate," Lord Mayor Lisa Scaffidi said.
The site is under the control of the state government, so the council can only make a recommendation.
It will refer the application to the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority and the Swan River Trust with a recommendation for refusal.
But developer Bill Richardson says he's confident it will still go ahead
Everything else around the Bell Tower shouldn't be limited to a scale relative to it because a mistake was made in the past to greatly reduce its height.
Fix the failure to comply with minimal street setbacks, reorganise ground floor layout to address shadowing and service access issues, demonstrate the viability of off-site parking facilities, produce a waste management plan, knock 4 or so stories off, stagger the height to the east of the site and I'm sure it'll get through. Old Perth Port hasn't just given up on the whole thing.
Again, the expectation of immediate and unconditional approval doesn't do anyone but the developer any favours.
A mistake for sure, but not one that will go away if we just ignore it. Either demolish it or accept it and try and make the best of it. Developing the square as if the Bell Tower isn't there or won't have any impact on its final appearance and activation would yield a far worse result.
I think a lower scale precinct will be a nice bookend to EQ, and hopefully it can be extended a bit further east in the future.
^^ I like the Bell Tower. And this proposal was a TURD. Especially considering the cost (between $100 and $200 million according to WA Business News). $200 million for that??? Puh-leeez hno:
That would be madness. It would then double as a look out tower then too :nuts:
:nuts: For some time I have assumed the bell tower was originally built where it is now only to make the waterfront more interesting or attractive.
However now with the city getting the inlet and the waterfront development, the bell tower is being treated as a second class structure???
I am not saying this in terms of me being a Nimby, but I am saying that's what I am sure the grasskeepers are thinking...
I'd say keep the bell tower where it is and the gatekeepers should just let the development occur around it. Perhaps the bell tower can still have a line of sight to the water (even if it's only like 2 or 3 meters) if that's what the grasskeepers have worries about.
While I agree it will loom over the Bell tower, what do they want adeveloper to there. Spend what ever it cost to purchase it and then put a 2 storey hotel on it. This would at least bring a reasonable amount of people to the area.
The Bell Tower suggestion was a joke SA. And the Tower isn't a special building that deserves special consideration. It was decided before it was built that the Govt, etc. didn't want it to be special by reducing it drastically.
I know it was a joke. However at the same time I thought the bell tower was considered something special as the Gatekeepers are obviously trying to rewrite the development plans with anti demonstrations etc....
I also thought the Bell Tower was like Heritage listed. :nuts:
What's special about the Belltower is what it contains. The bells of St Martins in the field that rang out over Trafalgar Square in London for over 500 years. I think that is fantastic.
I think that if the PCC wants this hotel lower then it should allow the hotel to spread out in an easterly direction along the foreshore. So the plot would be 3 times larger than the building only need be 4 stories.
I think that if the PCC wants this hotel lower then it should allow the hotel to spread out in an easterly direction along the foreshore. So the plot would be 3 times larger than the building only need be 4 stories.
If this particular developer can't put together a proposal that satisfies both their own requirements and the requirements of CoP, they should sell it to someone who can.
The belltower being 'surrounded' is a good thing imo.
It adds a small layer to the city in the way that the belltower would then need to be 'discovered'.
It is an interesting enough structure in its own right (it is what it is), the only gripe you could really have with it is the knowledge that they were thinking of making it bigger.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
SkyscraperCity Forum
139.4M posts
1.1M members
Since 2002
A truly global community dedicated to skyscrapers, cities, urban development, and the metropolitan environment. Join us to share news, views and fun about architecture, construction, transport, skylines, and much more!