CBD - West > 435 Bourke Street > 230m+ / 55L / office / proposed - Page 20 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > OZScrapers > Local Projects & Discussions > Victoria


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 10th, 2019, 09:34 AM   #381
db2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,212
Likes (Received): 4033

Did CBUS want this outcome? Change of heart, reconfiguration? Bring costs down?

Plot-ratio is the only thing maybe I could understand, 35:1 is at the higher for this administration. But even then, I could see CBUS getting that past planning with on-site child-care and other community facilities.

But the McKillop Street reasoning is highly dubious. I don't buy that, I don't.

Yarra overshadowing was not an issue at all. You can see it in the diagrams.
db2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 10th, 2019, 09:35 AM   #382
Grollo
Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: melbourne
Posts: 7,335
Likes (Received): 1602

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decatur View Post
McKillop Street shadow diagrams show the evidence. Also, they got 30:1 plot ratio, not 35:1. So you can't keep the tower at 250m as the floor plate net lettable areas, at 1,500m2, are already at the bottom end of what large tenants are looking for. They could have gone 250m and skinnier but no large tenants would touch it. It has to make commercial sense.
The curve in the tower was to reduce overshadowing on McKilliop Street. the shadow diagrams are identical.

The taller version meet the floor area uplift requirements so no reduction in floor area was required.
__________________
https://www.southbankbybeulah.com/
Grollo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 09:35 AM   #383
diegodario
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 10
Likes (Received): 11

maybe there is a way to reverse the decision.
diegodario no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 09:35 AM   #384
lozza
Go Ahead.....Make My Day!
 
lozza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,789
Likes (Received): 2123

Quote:
Originally Posted by Papps View Post
Who the F#%# uses McKillop Street?

Not like itís Hardware Lane or something!!

Itís in shadow just about all day long anyway???
Exactly. They are Fn loonies..
lozza no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 09:38 AM   #385
db2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,212
Likes (Received): 4033

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grollo View Post
The curve in the tower was to reduce overshadowing on McKilliop Street. the shadow diagrams are identical.

The taller version meet the floor area uplift requirements so no reduction in floor area was required.
Friggin' take them to VCAT!!!
But CBUS won't do that.
At least Fragance had the balls to fight for Premier Tower's height (and won).
db2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 09:39 AM   #386
Decatur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,686
Likes (Received): 2413

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grollo View Post
I honestly think the minister has told them that 200m AHD with a 25m plant room is tall enough and we don't want any more towers taller than that.
Mate, I'm surprised that you think that as I know you are pretty informed on these things. This site had no political downside for anyone. There just isn't the justification for 35:1 plot ratio. You want to build a bigger building? Great, get a bigger site. CBUS knew full well they were pushing it at 35:1 plot ratio. I mean, until 2000, the standard was 12:1! I assure you CBUS are very happy with the outcome.

There is clear mention in the report that McKillop St shadow is now reduced under the new scheme.

1 Queensbridge at 30:1 plot ratio is 180,000m2. That's plenty. They might even squeeze it to 35:1 so that would be 210,000m2! I mean what's reasonable?

BTW you will not get a 30:1 plot ratio easily in Sydney will you Cul!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not defending Wynne or the Council, I'm just stating facts. This is good commercial outcome.
__________________

Last edited by Decatur; October 10th, 2019 at 09:45 AM.
Decatur no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 09:51 AM   #387
Grollo
Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: melbourne
Posts: 7,335
Likes (Received): 1602

The report states that:

Based on the Gross Realisation Values set out in Clause 22.03, a public benefit of $26,944,400 is
required to offset the uplift in area. The actual value of public benefit to be provided significantly
exceeds the required benefit at $44,070,000.


There is a formula set down to calculate required offsets for a reason. It was not supposed to be a matter of saying 35:1 sounds pretty high mate why don't you cut it down to 30.

With regards to additional overshadowing to McKillop Street the report states the proposed tower has been sculptured
(carved out in the middle section of the tower) to minimise shadowing impacts on McKillop Street. The height reduction had nothing to do with that
__________________
https://www.southbankbybeulah.com/
Grollo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 09:57 AM   #388
Papps
Registered User
 
Papps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,163
Likes (Received): 1053

Even at 30:1 plot ratio, the height could have been maintained by simply not dedicating as much floor area to the ancillary buildings, keeping them as a podium, gutted facades if necessary.

So many design alternatives and architectural possibilities would prevail, but CBUS were obviously at the point of conceding.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Decatur View Post
Mate, I'm surprised that you think that as I know you are pretty informed on these things. This site had no political downside for anyone. There just isn't the justification for 35:1 plot ratio. You want to build a bigger building? Great, get a bigger site. CBUS knew full well they were pushing it at 35:1 plot ratio. I mean, until 2000, the standard was 12:1! I assure you CBUS are very happy with the outcome.

There is clear mention in the report that McKillop St shadow is now reduced under the new scheme.

1 Queensbridge at 30:1 plot ratio is 180,000m2. That's plenty. They might even squeeze it to 35:1 so that would be 210,000m2! I mean what's reasonable?

BTW you will not get a 30:1 plot ratio easily in Sydney will you Cul!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not defending Wynne or the Council, I'm just stating facts. This is good commercial outcome.
Papps no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 10:25 AM   #389
WorkerAndParasite
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 161
Likes (Received): 122

Quote:
Originally Posted by Papps View Post
Even at 30:1 plot ratio, the height could have been maintained by simply not dedicating as much floor area to the ancillary buildings, keeping them as a podium, gutted facades if necessary.

So many design alternatives and architectural possibilities would prevail, but CBUS were obviously at the point of conceding.
but why would they retain the height at the cost of how leasable the building is?
Would you rather a 250m never built tower or a 200m tower that actually stacks up financially ?
__________________

tayser, kichigai, pdoff liked this post
WorkerAndParasite no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 11:04 AM   #390
Decatur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,686
Likes (Received): 2413

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grollo View Post
The report states that:

Based on the Gross Realisation Values set out in Clause 22.03, a public benefit of $26,944,400 is
required to offset the uplift in area. The actual value of public benefit to be provided significantly
exceeds the required benefit at $44,070,000.


There is a formula set down to calculate required offsets for a reason. It was not supposed to be a matter of saying 35:1 sounds pretty high mate why don't you cut it down to 30.

With regards to additional overshadowing to McKillop Street the report states the proposed tower has been sculptured
(carved out in the middle section of the tower) to minimise shadowing impacts on McKillop Street. The height reduction had nothing to do with that
I don’t read the comment on plot ratio the way you do. I think 35:1 is too much bulk which is what they are really saying. Again, context. 600 Bourke St just slightly taller? 6,000m2 site. All the other big offices of the 1980’s boom were built at 12:1. I don’t believe an approval at 30:1 is anything to cry about.
Decatur no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 11:14 AM   #391
zedcorp
Registered User
 
zedcorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 224
Likes (Received): 254

Totally destroyed the original design that was unique with sloping roofline to a square box . Over shadowing a couple of meters to blame. Why? I hate the Yarra over shadowing BS
zedcorp no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 11:29 AM   #392
zedcorp
Registered User
 
zedcorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 224
Likes (Received): 254

Over shadowing has reduced a spectacular angled roof design to a square box design.
WTF? Why can't we have some variety when it comes to roof design in Melbourne.?
__________________

Garmatt liked this post
zedcorp no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 11:30 AM   #393
Decatur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,686
Likes (Received): 2413

Can I just remind everyone that this is the second tallest new office building (ignore 50 Bridge redevelopment but count CQT) in the past 25 years I think. Ignore any spires, they don’t count.
Decatur no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 12:01 PM   #394
UrbanUnderbelly
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 350
Likes (Received): 217

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decatur View Post
Can I just remind everyone that this is the second tallest new office building (ignore 50 Bridge redevelopment but count CQT) in the past 25 years I think. Ignore any spires, they donít count.
But that's kind of irrelevant when the better design doesn't come to fruition..
UrbanUnderbelly no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 12:13 PM   #395
Decatur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,686
Likes (Received): 2413

I hear you all on the design. But the height was never realistic for an office building on such a small site.
Decatur no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 12:35 PM   #396
Papps
Registered User
 
Papps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,163
Likes (Received): 1053

Oh well, Melbourne has almost doubled its population in the last 25 years, so an irrelevant statistic when one considers the relative commercial floor areas, particularly when comparing today with 25 years ago. In theory we could be building office buildings twice the floor area of the Rialto, without much of a whimper regarding oversupply. Just look at some of the campus floor areas thrown into Docklands!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decatur View Post
Can I just remind everyone that this is the second tallest new office building (ignore 50 Bridge redevelopment but count CQT) in the past 25 years I think. Ignore any spires, they donít count.
Papps no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 01:16 PM   #397
lozza
Go Ahead.....Make My Day!
 
lozza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,789
Likes (Received): 2123

"Overshadowing a Laneway?" Seriously, How F'N Precious is it becoming .. It's a joke
lozza no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 02:52 PM   #398
Qantas743
Proud Victorian!
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,837
Likes (Received): 992

CBD - West > 435 Bourke Street > 230m+ / 55L / office / proposed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decatur View Post
Cut by Council as referral authority not Wynne, Shakespeare

Yes, but only AFTER Edward Scissorhands voiced his dislike of the height.

The report clearly states (as I posted above) that Scissorhands himself - not DELWP- provided feedback which fed into the decision to height chop.

Honestly, if anyone is thinking Green Spine will be approved at full height they are kidding themselves. Iíd be willing to put money on it!

Last edited by Qantas743; October 10th, 2019 at 03:10 PM.
Qantas743 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 09:47 PM   #399
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 69,534
Likes (Received): 18490

just because a tower is now shorter doesn’t make it ugly, it looks great to me

you guys need to jump of your high horse and don’t worry about fkn height all the time
designs are more important or you’ll end up with a shit skyline like dubai

it’s a 200m office tower??? you guys should be ecstatic
__________________
Church Hill tower- 1797, Macquarie Tower-1818, St James Church -1822, Garden Palace- 1879, Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2021, twin towers- 2024, supertall 2025 https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 09:52 PM   #400
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 69,534
Likes (Received): 18490

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grollo View Post
It will be 210.025‬m high as the level of the McKillop Street entry is 15.8m.

It was going to be 253.05m before the height was reduced.
whatís the ground height from its Bourke st main entry?
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us