SOUTHBANK > 25 Queensbridge Street - The Falls > Residential / 71L / 236m

[A r c h i]

Originally Posted by Carlton123

Yeah let's become prisoners in our own homes. 20 metres apart, 8 metres apart, 8.9 metres apart. What rubbish. Neighborhood disputes 60 floors up. Can you imagine? Absolutely piss poor.

What?

I also haven't heard you previously express any concern that the building you will be calling home will a) block the views of residents in Southbank Towers and Southbank One or b) cast a big arse shadow on them particularly in winter. I bet you also didn't sympathize with their 'plight' when they formed a residents group to object to your future home. Afterall their homes were built first. Or does it only work one way? Your move Sherlock...

[silvermb]

suleman property group, the owner/developer. has an office in a business park in mulgrave and just fired up a facebook account and thats about it - not exactly mixing it with grocon or mirvac ect. and no track record of delivering projects

unless they onsell or go a jv, this one for mine is a world away from materialising, thats the biggest issue here

i hope to be proven wrong

[Ari Gold]

Originally Posted by Carlton123

Sorry but this tower won't get built tower nerd. You yourself called yourself that. Do you always insult yourself like that. Weird. I don't answer stupid questions, just well thought out ones. Ask yourself "is my question relevant" before posting, and you might just get a reply. If you start building tall 60 + level buildings 8 metres apart from each other it would set a bad precedent for other developers to abuse their position on development.

So what so you propose to happen on this site than?

[melbournee12]

Carlton, you have way too much time on your hands. Your arguments for why these 2 towers shouldn't get built are hardly strong enough for me to even take you seriously.

I live in Freshwater Place and I have no problem with the development going up. The west facing view of Freshwater is hardly that exciting, I'd rather see neighbors than stare down at southbank towers or whatever that beige piece of shit building is called with the red balconies.

Complaining about the lack of sunlight is hardly an argument either. Last I checked, the sun shines from the North, the only direct sun the west side of the building gets is the hot afternoon sun - not exactly something that is highly sought after.

I hope they increase the set back to more than 8m and make the tower taller to compensate for the lost apartments just so I can laugh.

[eeeeZeeee]

Originally Posted by melbournee12

Carlton, you have way too much time on your hands. Your arguments for why these 2 towers shouldn't get built are hardly strong enough for me to even take you seriously.

I live in Freshwater Place and I have no problem with the development going up. The west facing view of Freshwater is hardly that exciting, I'd rather see neighbors than stare down at southbank towers or whatever that beige piece of shit building is called with the red balconies.

Complaining about the lack of sunlight is hardly an argument either. Last I checked, the sun shines from the North, the only direct sun the west side of the building gets is the hot afternoon sun - not exactly something that is highly sought after.

I hope they increase the set back to more than 8m and make the tower taller to compensate for the lost apartments just so I can laugh.

I think you’ll find that from Pearl, these developments will block out not the west sun, but the north, and not a beige building with red balconies, but city views.


Keep it up Carlton123. There’s three things certain in life. Death. Taxes. And the fact that if any of these critics had their hard earned cash on the line with this development, while the contract ink was still wet, they’d be flying the nimby flag too. Nothing more certain.

[A r c h i]

Prima does the same thing!

[Carlton123]

Originally Posted by A r c h i

What?

I also haven't heard you previously express any concern that the building you will be calling home will a) block the views of residents in Southbank Towers and Southbank One or b) cast a big arse shadow on them particularly in winter. I bet you also didn't sympathize with their 'plight' when they formed a residents group to object to your future home. Afterall their homes were built first. Or does it only work one way? Your move Sherlock...

Prima Pearl isn't sitting at a resiculously
close 8 metres from any other apartment building being shoved right up against them. There is no comparison. I would see their plight if there was. Are you lost in this argument or would you like me to spell out inappropriate to you again?

[Erektion]

There is "no comparison" you say...?
Hmmmmm...I thought it would be a good idea to illustrate the contradiction with a pic of outer Melbourne (Hoppers Crossing). Now these homes are in some places less than 1m apart.
There are so many positive arguments as to why it's better to build close and high such as saving the environment, saving our resources, etc, etc and it's actually quite selfish to place such luxurious demands on all those sharing our planet.
Looks like you can't even go out and get the privacy you desire. Then again there is Berwick perhaps...

[Dean]

Originally Posted by Carlton123

Prima Pearl isn't sitting at a resiculously
close 8 metres from any other apartment building being shoved right up against them. There is no comparison. I would see their plight if there was. Are you lost in this argument or would you like me to spell out inappropriate to you again?

OK then. How about i spell out 'ridiculously' for you.

Or are you lost in this argument?

[melburn21]

Originally Posted by Erektion

Birianon?

lol i thought so for a second as well. But Carlton is far to articulate to be Birianon/manila

[tower_dan]

Originally Posted by Carlton123

Sorry but this tower won't get built tower nerd. You yourself called yourself that. Do you always insult yourself like that. Weird. I don't answer stupid questions, just well thought out ones. Ask yourself "is my question relevant" before posting, and you might just get a reply. If you start building tall 60 + level buildings 8 metres apart from each other it would set a bad precedent for other developers to abuse their position on development.

ok you are an idiot, im an open skyscraper nerd/geek, dont care, and you STILL havent answered the question so ill assume that IF the tower was proposed at a height shorter than your floor you WOULDNT give a shit.

if you thought otherwise you would have just answered the question.

the fact you need to start attacking people in teh middle of what was already a weak argument means you know your clutching at straws and just hoping if you blindly keep swinging people here might see it from yoru side.

trust me, we see it from yor side, and we dont care.

we dont care for rich people who are too stupid to do a bit of homework before laying down $750,000+ on an apartment and then blames everyone else under the sun when something happens which was likely on the cards from the get go.

greedy developer? didgy Prima sales people? no, more like lazy cashed up home owner has more $ than sense and thinks his tiny plight will actually affect the planning decision fo a man who has already made it clear he wants melbournes heart to grow both in human and building density.

good luck with yoru self preservation plight.

[ooh]

Carlton, if you are so convinced that this is never going to be built, why are we enduring 6 pages of arguments and whinging from you about this proposal?

Sorry but until you publicly explain why you believe that minimal separation of shorter buildings is fine but that it is completely unacceptable for taller ones, no-one is going to take you for anything more than a self-centered, sulking nimby.

And no, the above question is not a stupid one - it's the entire focus of your argument.

[Grollo]

Carlton, did you get a look at the maximum height of this building when you had a look at the plans? Also how far exactly is is setback from the bounary?

The general overlooking standard in Victoria for all residential development is nine metres. So there should not be habitable room windows in one building setback less than 9 metres from the habitable room windows in an adjoining building.

[Dash 222]

We haven't had a stoush on the forums like this for ages.

Now, where's William Pitt?!

[Bluestar]

To Carlton 123
As a long-time lurker on a very lively forum, I admire your tenacity in the face of near-universal opposition to your point of view.
However, Southbank's position in Melbourne and particularly the location of this block relative to the rest of Southbank, was always going to lend itself to extremely dense development. From the construction of Southgate and then Crown, any property-development observer with an inkling of foresight would - and did - anticipate that this location become highly developed to meet market demand and demographic changes.
Those who knowingly have bought or invested into that need to be able to take personal responsibility for whatever unexpected or unwelcome consequences may ensue - eg the loss of amenity (if there is any).
From the provided plans and renders, I've yet to be convinced there will be losses of the kind that you 'seem' to expect.
But if there is, well, that's to be expected. 'Wherever you go, there you are' as they say. The argument about 'inappropriate' development in what was always going to become Melbourne's dense new core seems rather misguided.

Those disagreeing with Carlton 123 should also remember the maxim: 'I don't agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it'.


Blue

[Melbourneguy]

Well said Blue. I always admire well thought out and logically expressed viewpoints.

[A r c h i]

I have no problem with Carlton123 expressing his point of view or that it differs to mine. I enjoy healthy debate and I may walk away having learned something from it.

What I don't understand is how someone who up until a week or so ago had no idea of the definition of the Capital City Zone is lecturing architects, planners and engineers about poor planning and inappropriate development when Melbourne's Planning Scheme actually encourages this type of development and that Prima has contributed to setting a precedent to this type of development.

If Queensbridge Tower and this project are considered inappropriate by C123 then if we were to apply the same criteria to Prima it too by Carlton's definition should be considered inappropriate. This has been pointed out a number of times but has simply been ignored.

[motion]

leave carlton alone

[The Collector]

Originally Posted by Carlton123

Melbourne isn't at the stage of other cities and I don't know how you can compare them at the moment. They would laugh at Melbourne building these buildings so close together given the fact buildings can be spaced out a lot more here.

Are you comparing Melbourne to Chicago maybe or perhaps Tokyo, I've got an even better idea, let's compare it to Hong Kong, New York City (Manhattan) and Singapore and the physical need they have for building high rises this close together on this scale.

I only wish Melbourne was more like Manhattan, New York, paradise on Earth for me, loved every minute I was there.

But we don't need to go that far at all for an appropriate comparison according to you, how about Brisbane?

Photos by Fyturis.







Let's see Brisbane is about half the size of Melbourne and in a very much bigger state as well, yet look at the density in the photos.

[Jack Daniel]

Don't understand the "will block the sun" argument. We have one of the highest cancer rates in the world.

Avoiding the Australian sun = good for your health