CBD - North > Aurora Melbourne Central - 224-252 La Trobe St > 271m / 84L / residential / completed - Page 2 - 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 March 11th, 2014, 04:10 AM   #21
Andrewwise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 480
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoshowwithoutPunch View Post
Why would you drive from Melbourne to Richmond? Seriously?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I meant driving to Richmond from 3 suburbs away. Melbourne 3000 is right next to Richmond.

I'm talking about driving from places like Camberwell, Glen Iris, Kew.
Andrewwise no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old March 11th, 2014, 04:35 AM   #22
John_Proctor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 7,239
Likes (Received): 564

^ you mean from the suburbs that have multiple train stations or tram routes in each that go to Richmond?
__________________

loafingoaf liked this post
John_Proctor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2014, 04:38 AM   #23
John_Proctor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 7,239
Likes (Received): 564

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qantas743 View Post
If it wasn't for the age, the PANS-OPS would arguably be a non-issue IMO.

They were the ones who were determined to go out of their way to dig the issue up, or anything else which had the potential to stop Australia 108. PANS-OPS was never mentioned before in the past, even when Melbourne had it's run of super-tall proposals. My gut feeling is that Essendon Airport (or whoever administers the PANS-OPS) probably didn't care and let the issue slide as they never kicked up a fuss when projects like Grollo Tower and the original CUB were floated. Now the issue is out in the open, people are aware of it, and it would seem rather silly and hypocritical if the aviation authorities didn't say something if a proposal is too tall.

In short, I blame The Age for Melbourne's new artificial height limit.

Essendon Airport don't need to bring it up... its a publicly available document if you know where to look. its not there fault if someone is dumb enough to not take it into account before spending $100k+ on design and plannign documentation.
John_Proctor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old March 11th, 2014, 04:53 AM   #24
Qantas743
Proud Victorian!
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,987
Likes (Received): 1071

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Proctor View Post
Essendon Airport don't need to bring it up... its a publicly available document if you know where to look. its not there fault if someone is dumb enough to not take it into account before spending $100k+ on design and plannign documentation.
Again, if it's as big an issue as The Age et al claim it is, why did no one bat an eyelid when Grollo Tower or CUB were conceived?

There was no shortage of publicity surrounding A108 when it was proposed and subsequently approved, yet still nobody said anything or complained until The Age ran that article. I'm led to believe that even the developers had no idea until they were asked by The Age to comment.
Qantas743 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2014, 05:04 AM   #25
John_Proctor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 7,239
Likes (Received): 564

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyson View Post
What a poorly written article. The comparison to Foster seems extremely random? What does that have to do with anything? So what if Foster has schools and shops, etc? It also has a golf course, a lawn bowls club, a Mitre 10, a panel beaters, and a whole bunch of other local businesses that don't need to be incorporated into an apartment building. As for a hospital the building is barely a kilometre or so from the most concentrated medical and health precinct in the state.
I actually think its an interesting comparison.

in the end these people will expect services and the Council will be expected to provide them. Council Rates pay for operation of most of these services but it can take years to save up surpluses to pay the capital cost to build new services.

While this particular location is probably not the best example for the reasons you've pointed out - it is probably a much more relevent conversation to be had in a location like Victoria Gardens where there are no/few existing Council services in close proximity, no DCP to pay for them (unlike what is likely to occur at Fishermans Bend) and literally thousands of apartments going up.

Even if people on this board want to take a myopic view of 'towers good' in your own self interest I suggest you start to think about the ways the development community can better sell its developments to NIMBY's in the community.

When I was a community member on the Swan Street structure plan another Community member asked 'what do we get for this development? We see more cars, more congestion etc. but what are the positives?' after the Council officers and expert planners fumbled around for a few minutes talking about 'urban design' and 'more street life' I said to him 'you know how Victoria Street has a new Aldi and Safeway, that was built because of the increasing number of apartments in the area and the value the developer got out of the apartments built into that project. On Swan Street one might hope that a new Safeway or IGA or something would be built around the Burnley Street intersection as more people are there to use it.' He kind of looked at me with the start of a recognition in his eye and went 'ok, thanks for that' and the meeting moved on.

How do you sell to NIMBY's? For me there are three fronts:
1. more council services (if you can get a contributino from developers)
2. more shops
3. broader rate base for longer term investment in the community.

people in Pakenham understand this because often their developments are so big they include a developer funded child care centre or library, some new sports ovals and changerooms and a small community shopping precinct. It might all be completely inadequate for there actual needs but they literally see those things grow as more people come.

Its much harder to sell that message to people who don't notice that say Johnston Street in Collingwood has probably halved its retail/cafe vacancy rate in the last 6 months as the area gets gentrified and apartment developments have matured.
__________________

MelbourneOnTheRise liked this post
John_Proctor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2014, 05:07 AM   #26
John_Proctor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 7,239
Likes (Received): 564

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qantas743 View Post
Again, if it's as big an issue as The Age et al claim it is, why did no one bat an eyelid when Grollo Tower or CUB were conceived?

There was no shortage of publicity surrounding A108 when it was proposed and subsequently approved, yet still nobody said anything or complained until The Age ran that article. I'm led to believe that even the developers had no idea until they were asked by The Age to comment.
thats the point! the developer had no idea because they didn't do THEIR due diligence. If it is the airports responsibiltiy to tell a developer they are in breach of Pans Ops I'm quite certain they would do it quietly behind closed doors perhaps with an exchange of letters and proposals would quietly be redesigned.

Fact is Grollo Tower and CUB where never much more than design competition entrants without Planning Permits. A108 got the furthest into the process and lo and behold it was the one that bought down the house of cards that was proposals pushing through the Pans Ops height limit.

How is that surprising that the only one with an actual permit which could be acted upon, with apartment pre-sales underway, with a blaze of publicity was the one that went public.
John_Proctor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2014, 08:02 AM   #27
Andrewwise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 480
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Proctor View Post
^ you mean from the suburbs that have multiple train stations or tram routes in each that go to Richmond?
I take the train to work. I use my car on the weekend.

Is it selfish to want to drive my car?
Andrewwise no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2014, 08:25 AM   #28
Gunzel
Train Spotter
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 213
Likes (Received): 66

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrewwise View Post
I take the train to work. I use my car on the weekend.

Is it selfish to want to drive my car?
No it's not but you have no right to complain about traffic that you're contributing to.
Gunzel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2014, 09:10 AM   #29
Andrewwise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 480
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunzel View Post
No it's not but you have no right to complain about traffic that you're contributing to.
Actually I kind of do.
Andrewwise no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2014, 10:55 AM   #30
Eastern37
Optimist
 
Eastern37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Parramatta
Posts: 7,204
Likes (Received): 3653

Not if there is an alternative option.
__________________
“Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.” – Frank Gehry
Eastern37 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2014, 11:50 AM   #31
Andrewwise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 480
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastern37 View Post
Not if there is an alternative option.
As a motoring enthusiast there is no other option I'm afraid. Taking the loser cruiser to work is quite enough for me.

But back on topic.

Can't wait til this and the other half dozen Rialto toppers get built. I agree with what has been previously said that this design would benefit from a tiered effect.
Andrewwise no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2014, 12:30 PM   #32
Eastern37
Optimist
 
Eastern37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Parramatta
Posts: 7,204
Likes (Received): 3653

That's completely fair, I love driving myself, just don't complain about traffic if there is an alternative.
__________________
“Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.” – Frank Gehry
Eastern37 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2014, 02:16 PM   #33
redbaron_012
Registered User
 
redbaron_012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 12,265
Likes (Received): 3703

JP # Fact is Grollo Tower and CUB where never much more than design competition entrants without Planning Permits. A108 got the furthest into the process and lo and behold it was the one that bought down the house of cards that was proposals pushing through the Pans Ops height limit.

Grollo Tower gained approval then Grollo cancelled with arguments about Collins St continuation infrastructure etc. It would be there completed now and just part of the skyline...like when the NY WTC went up...it made Manhattan lopsided yet when it was gone the city didn't look like NY anymore...Not that I ever mention Grollo Tower...
__________________
"Make no small plans, for they have not power to stir the blood" - Daniel H. Burnham
redbaron_012 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2014, 02:20 PM   #34
Gunzel
Train Spotter
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 213
Likes (Received): 66

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrewwise View Post
Actually I kind of do.

No you don't. You live in a city. Cities are renown for heavy traffic. If you do not like heavy traffic then use other alternatives because they do exist. There's nothing wrong with driving. In fact I prefer driving but I am well aware that there are trade offs involved commuting by car such as heavy traffic.

Last edited by Gunzel; March 11th, 2014 at 02:45 PM. Reason: ......
Gunzel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2014, 01:34 AM   #35
Bronteboy
Oh ma Lordee, lookee here
 
Bronteboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,711
Likes (Received): 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by loafingoaf View Post
8 million by 2044?
Wow. You'd better send your modelling to the State planning department, as apparently we're now expecting about 3 million more people than even their most bullish models.
I would be interested to know what drivers you identify which have our population DOUBLING in the coming mere decades (presumably we should be seeing your ridiculous trend rate of growth in evidence right now).

Sent from my Arc using Tapatalk

I had meant to make some reply to this, and a couple of other points concerning The Age's pretty persistent opposition to major building projects [which I also think is partly political, targeting the Planning Minister Mathew Guy. He has outraged The Age, for his open advocacy of skyscrapers].

On population growth: I don't have any 'modelling,' and my remark was fairly generalized and open-ended. I said ..."Melbourne is headed for a population of around 8 million in the next 30 years or so."

As other replies have indicated, that possibility is within the range of the ABS estimates and government discussions, although I'd had not meant to be held strictly to the 8 million figure being reached by 2044. I'd accept that it will somewhat later than that, but the city is headed that way.

'loafingoaf' seems to be saying that the 'most bullish' State planning department estimates do not have Melbourne reaching five million people [the eight minus three million]by 2044. This is bullshit and he must know it.

And yes, we are seeing the trend rate of population growth in evidence right now, and it has been very widely discussed in - transport, planning and infrastructure articles, as well as generally.

A Tim Colebatch article from May 2013:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/me...430-2ir5m.html

Greater Melbourne had 4.25m people in 2012, and has since been variously estimated to be growing at 1,500 a week [78,000 a year] to a possible rate of 1,750 a week [91,000 a year] now.

I agree with the proposition that The Age kicked PAN-OPs up into an issue when it had not been raised before - quite clever for their anti-height campaign [and I think it has all the hallmarks of a campaign now], but sad to see ambitious plans and progress being blocked for a largely redundant old airport.

Big projects do need to be examined, but - with the mass loss of jobs in manufacturing - investment in construction is now needed more than ever. Guy was a bit silly to do it, but the gimmicky 'Super Tuesday' approval of five big projects at once is what this was all about:an attempt to boost public confidence and gain some political mileage with a State election coming this year.

As discussed, Mathew Guy has made a few mistakes - the rezoning of farmland at Phillip Island in 2011 was badly botched, and he ended up looking sloppy on Australia 108. But I still like his sense of vision, and attempt to build the city around transport hubs. Melbourne is growing inexorably, and changing.

One often feels The Age doesn't want it to change, or grow.
__________________
Now ahold on there Lil' pardners...

Melbourneguy, tonkytruck liked this post
Bronteboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2014, 09:42 AM   #36
NoshowwithoutPunch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,329

Agree. If anything Foster is unavoidable waste - the need to provide all these facilities in the middle of nowhere for 1000 people. melbourne high rises use facilities that already exist. Continue the returns to scale. I would be surprised id RMH needed one extra bed becoz of these buildings, particularly for a young international resident group unlikely to use them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
NoshowwithoutPunch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2014, 09:48 AM   #37
NoshowwithoutPunch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,329

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrewwise View Post
As a motoring enthusiast there is no other option I'm afraid. Taking the loser cruiser to work is quite enough for me.



But back on topic.



Can't wait til this and the other half dozen Rialto toppers get built. I agree with what has been previously said that this design would benefit from a tiered effect.

Well the good news is, notwithstanding the silly east west link, reality is melbourne cbd and inner suburban streets are only goung to ger worse, so you are either going to have to use the train or move to Hobart. Your loss.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
NoshowwithoutPunch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2014, 09:59 AM   #38
somethinglikethat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,027
Likes (Received): 1409

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qantas743 View Post
Again, if it's as big an issue as The Age et al claim it is, why did no one bat an eyelid when Grollo Tower or CUB were conceived?
The corollary of that is that due diligence was insufficient for those older proposals, leaving them open to legal challenge, had they progressed more than just wet dreams for high-rise tragics.
somethinglikethat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2014, 11:15 AM   #39
loafingoaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 441
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Proctor View Post
How do you sell to NIMBY's? For me there are three fronts:
1. more council services (if you can get a contributino from developers)
2. more shops
3. broader rate base for longer term investment in the community.
John Proctor for Planning Minister. I really wish even 5% of the commentators here applied your standard of analysis before posting. The above is a nuanced recipe for selling the case for greater density. Though even under 1 without developer co-payments, increasing a council's revenue base should over the long-run lead to improved services regardless.

Memo to everyone else. Running round screaming "everything big is awesome and it gets even awesomer the bigger it gets" persuades approximately none of the people whose minds or behaviour you want to change of anything other than your own uncritical idiocy.
loafingoaf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2014, 11:40 AM   #40
loafingoaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 441
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronteboy View Post
I had meant to make some reply to this, and a couple of other points concerning The Age's pretty persistent opposition to major building projects [which I also think is partly political, targeting the Planning Minister Mathew Guy. He has outraged The Age, for his open advocacy of skyscrapers].

On population growth: I don't have any 'modelling,' and my remark was fairly generalized and open-ended. I said ..."Melbourne is headed for a population of around 8 million in the next 30 years or so."

As other replies have indicated, that possibility is within the range of the ABS estimates and government discussions, although I'd had not meant to be held strictly to the 8 million figure being reached by 2044. I'd accept that it will somewhat later than that, but the city is headed that way.

'loafingoaf' seems to be saying that the 'most bullish' State planning department estimates do not have Melbourne reaching five million people [the eight minus three million]by 2044. This is bullshit and he must know it.

And yes, we are seeing the trend rate of population growth in evidence right now, and it has been very widely discussed in transport, planning and infrastructure articles, as well as generally.

A Tim Colebatch article from May 2013:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/me...430-2ir5m.html

Greater Melbourne had 4.25m people in 2012, and has since been variously estimated to be growing at 1,500 a week [78,000 a year] to a possible rate of 1,750 a week [91,000 a year] now.

I agree with the proposition that The Age kicked PAN-OPs up into an issue when it had not been raised before - quite clever for their anti-height campaign [and I think it has all the hallmarks of a campaign now], but sad to see ambitious plans and progress being blocked for a largely redundant old airport.

Big projects do need to be examined, but - with the mass loss of jobs in manufacturing - investment in construction is now needed more than ever. Guy was a bit silly to do it, but the gimmicky 'Super Tuesday' approval of five big projects at once is what this was all about:an attempt to boost public confidence and gain some political mileage with a State election coming this year.

As discussed, Mathew Guy has made a few mistakes - the rezoning of farmland at Phillip Island in 2011 was badly botched, and he ended up looking sloppy on Australia 108. But I still like his sense of vision, and attempt to build the city around transport hubs. Melbourne is growing inexorably, and changing.

One often feels The Age doesn't want it to change, or grow.
Dude. OK. Dealing with this by item.
1. The most bullish growth expectations I've been able to find have us at 8 million sometime after 2060, not in the next 30 years

2. The Age did not start running their present line when Guy became Planning Minister. It has nothing to do with slagging the incumbent, and everything to do with trying to sell papers (oops, sorry, subscriptions) to NIMBYs.

3. Not much point my replying to what you think I "seem to be saying", as that wasn't what I said.

4. If we are to get to 8 million by 2044, with a present population around 4.25 million requires an annual growth rate of 125,000. Present growth rate from the article you have kindly cited is 77,242. Therefore the present unprecedentedly strong and nation leading trend rate of growth is exactly 38% lower than it would need to be to get your headline figure. 38% in most numerically literate folks' worlds counts as a let's just say SIGNIFICANT statistical difference. Even your unsourced 91,000 is still well short.
loafingoaf 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BRISTOL | Full Summary of Projects dronkula Bristol Developments 7364 Today 03:56 AM
LONDON | Projects & Construction wjfox City/Metro Compilations 24266 Yesterday 01:21 PM
WEBSITES LISTING - A comprehensive list of LINKS to Local/Newcastle Area Websites Newcastle Historian Newcastle Metro Area 21 June 29th, 2010 04:04 PM
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY - Teesside Forum PROJECTS Listing Newcastle Historian Teesside 0 October 14th, 2009 10:54 PM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us