CBD - North > Aurora Melbourne Central - 224-252 La Trobe St > 271m / 84L / residential / completed - 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 10th, 2014, 12:34 AM   #1
Bronteboy
Oh ma Lordee, lookee here
 
Bronteboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,702
Likes (Received): 147

CBD - North > Aurora Melbourne Central - 224-252 La Trobe St > 271m / 84L / residential / completed

LONDONER has posted this in General Melbourne banter, but it clearly needs a project proposal thread. If Mods would please adjust headings etc as we learn more.

$350 million mega-tower planned for La Trobe Street

Date March 10, 2014
Simon Johanson Property Editor for The Age

A $350 million mega-tower proposed for La Trobe Street will be double the size of any other Melbourne apartment building and the third largest in the world by floor area, if approved. The massive residential skyscraper, the city's largest to date, will house a population equivalent to the small Gippsland town of Foster in its 1343 apartments which are set behind a soaring, fluted, glass exterior.

A listed Singaporean development company UEM Sunrise is behind the project, on a La Trobe Street site opposite Melbourne Central shopping centre. The huge structure will rise 285.5 metres or 82 storeys into the air and dominate the city's skyline. It will dwarf the city's next biggest residential building, which has 701 units and was constructed last year by another offshore developer, Far East Consortium, on Spencer Street's old power station site. Melbourne's tallest building, Eureka Tower, has only 556 apartments in its 297 metres.

The new proposal is likely to further inflame debate about over-development in the city. ''I'm surprised about the scope and size of the building. Someone's trying really hard to break a record somewhere,'' Melbourne City councillor Ken Ong said. ''It's very tall and in a high part of the city,'' Cr Ong said. The tower just scrapes under the city's maximum height limits - by one metre - set by Essendon Airport's PANS-OPS flight path restrictions.

The ''massive explosion of big buildings'' was proving a challenge, architect Rob McGauran said. Large towers should include social and community spaces, he said. ''Effectively we're putting one town in a building … what sort of things would we have in a town of that size and are they available in the building?'' he said. Foster has schools, childcare centres, a hospital and multiple shops. Planning Minister Matthew Guy has shown uninhibited support for tall buildings, recently fast-tracking approval for five large towers with more than 2000 apartments. ''We are aggressively promoting central city growth,'' Mr Guy said at the time. Melbourne is an epicentre for offshore developers ploughing money into apartments.

Another Singaporean developer, Chip Eng Seng, wants to build 1041 units in a $250 million 77-storey tower on the former Carlton & United Breweries site at the city's northern fringe. Neither UEM or its architects Elenberg Fraser would comment.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/35...309-34fgf.html


__________________
__________________
Now ahold on there Lil' pardners...

NN01 liked this post

Last edited by Bronteboy; March 10th, 2014 at 12:42 AM.
Bronteboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old March 10th, 2014, 12:59 AM   #2
Bluestar
Registered User
 
Bluestar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 403
Likes (Received): 10

Ok so this is all getting a little bit out of control.
__________________
'Hello Vegas? $500 on red.... D'OE!'
Bluestar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2014, 01:36 AM   #3
Bronteboy
Oh ma Lordee, lookee here
 
Bronteboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,702
Likes (Received): 147

I'm going to say that I'm finding The Age's programmed negativity towards every tall or large building development in central Melbourne is becoming really tiresome, and very slanted.

This is a huge development, and there are many issues that can legitimately be be considered and intelligently debated. But The Age is not doing that. It makes no attempt at balance.

Some of the issues that could be discussed are the big picture of centralized high-rise around infrastructure hubs, as opposed to socially destructive urban sprawl; the appropriateness of such a development in its setting; whether foreign-owned developments in particular [but, local developments too] are showing sufficient respect for Melbourne's character; whether it will provide an active streetscape; what the developers will do to enhance the streetscape; whether the internal apartment designs are adequate; will this be a integrated community, rather than a vertical student slum...

This is just off the top of the head musing, but the point is that there are lots of issues that can be properly debated. The Age's property editor here as just done the stock-standard kneejerk response of dial-a-critic, and looking up rural town populations, made the pretty facile comparison to the Gippsland town of Foster, with its integrated community facilities, and the same population living in this one huge tower.


It happens that one of the critics quoted here, Rob McGauran, is an old acquaintance, but I don't entirely take Rob's points.

The question of so many people living in one building [I won't yet say 'crammed,' into one building, because we don't know yet what the internal designs are like] is legitimate [but should be set against suburban sprawl]. The comparison the writer has made with Foster's integrated town facilities is not appropriate. This building [if approved] would have the entire facilities of central Melbourne at its feet: the underground rail loop, Melbourne Central's shopping across the road, libraries, museums, school campuses and - yes - hospitals, right at its feet.

It's in an area of established high-rise. Construction of Melbourne Central started in 1986, 28 years ago.

As I've said, there are lots of issues that can be raised, but The Age is not really doing that. It appears to oppose large scale growth, anywhere in or around the central city. But Melbourne's population is growing rapidly, and almost all experts seem to accept that concentrated inner growth areas are the only alternatives to endless, socially isolating and destructive urban sprawl.

As opposed to static population countries and cities, what is the rest of the world doing to cope with growth. They are building up, and much more than we are doing here.

Sorry, The Age. Melbourne doesn't have the option of standing still.

A couple of weeks ago, I had cause to go out to see someone out at South Morang. Passed somewhere by Panton Hills. My God. These used to be beautiful country visitor areas when I was young. The Christmas Hills, now just being rolled over by endless streets of little boxes, and almost no sign of adequate community facilities or infrastructure, not anywhere nearby. Nothing local, but quarter-acre block houses.
__________________
Now ahold on there Lil' pardners...

Qantas743, Eureka! liked this post
Bronteboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old March 10th, 2014, 02:29 AM   #4
Grollo
Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: melbourne
Posts: 7,410
Likes (Received): 1856

This tower will be 268.5 meters above ground, 285.5 meters above sea level.
__________________
https://www.southbankbybeulah.com/

Eastern37 liked this post
Grollo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2014, 02:41 AM   #5
Eastern37
Optimist
 
Eastern37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Townsville
Posts: 7,148
Likes (Received): 3584

Come on Melbourne, at least give other cities a slight chance at catching up! This just isn't fair!

This is by far one of the better designs I've seen for a resi around the world!
__________________
“Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.” – Frank Gehry
Eastern37 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2014, 02:45 AM   #6
Bronteboy
Oh ma Lordee, lookee here
 
Bronteboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,702
Likes (Received): 147

Thanks Grollo. There's not an existing thread is there ? I looked on the sticky and couldn't find any, but I have read discussion on the 268.5 m proposal.

Mods, please fold this into any existing thread if there is one, and adjust height too, as and if necessary.

So...in fact The Age have overstated the height of this building to fuel it's anti-height sentiment. Cr Ken Ong's comment that "it's very tall and in a high part of the city' to me implied that 285.5m is the building height. Sea level is another damned thing altogether.

I know there is group of, it always seems 'newly-joined' SSC members who spring to The Age's defence every time the suggestion of anti-development bias is mentioned, but one just finds this bias displayed in articles again and again. Academic architects and planners like Michael Buxton agree with them, but personally I almost never see balancing arguments introduced, and the essential argument of inner Melbourne's development growth set against the urban sprawl.

I am concerned about the questions of internal design - the 'vertical [overseas] student slums' - issue, but I'd like to see more rounded discussion about the city's direction. Melbourne is headed for a population of around 8 million in the next 30 years or so. .
__________________
Now ahold on there Lil' pardners...

Melbourneguy liked this post

Last edited by Bronteboy; March 10th, 2014 at 03:01 AM.
Bronteboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2014, 03:58 AM   #7
loafingoaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 438
Likes (Received): 56

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
loafingoaf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2014, 03:59 AM   #8
Qantas743
Proud Victorian!
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,886
Likes (Received): 1017

If even just HALF of all these buildings get built, we'd be miles ahead other cities in Australia.
Qantas743 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2014, 05:56 AM   #9
Andrewwise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 480
Likes (Received): 83

Ugh imagine driving on the weekend if Melbourne had double it's population. By the time you got to that cafe in Richmond you want to go to three suburbs over it'd be time to go home to bed on Sunday night.
Andrewwise no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2014, 06:16 AM   #10
NN01
Registered User
 
NN01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 369
Likes (Received): 93

Looks fantastic!!!
NN01 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2014, 06:36 AM   #11
Drunkill
Lord Melbourne
 
Drunkill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,936
Likes (Received): 2030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrewwise View Post
Ugh imagine driving on the weekend if Melbourne had double it's population. By the time you got to that cafe in Richmond you want to go to three suburbs over it'd be time to go home to bed on Sunday night.
The point is you shouldn't be needing to drive from Richmond to the city by then, of course, roads will get the lions share of funding.


Pretty good proposal, I like the glass facade. Any closer details of the podium levels?
__________________
Melbourne, Australia
Drunkill no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2014, 08:46 AM   #12
Grollo
Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: melbourne
Posts: 7,410
Likes (Received): 1856

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
the ABS predicts that Melbourne will have a population of between 6.4 and 8 million in 2044.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]&num=&view=
__________________
https://www.southbankbybeulah.com/
Grollo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2014, 10:51 AM   #13
spiralout
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,095
Likes (Received): 341

Be nice to see some renders from Archi, Curtain and co as to how it will look in the overall skyline
spiralout no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2014, 11:39 AM   #14
Melb_SuperTall
Registered User
 
Melb_SuperTall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Townsville
Posts: 660
Likes (Received): 38

I was ready the age article and I was thinking I would love to be your boss so I could fire you. Stupid reporting by them and I think they know it. They do it on purpose because they have become anti-progress (I seem to see the same reporter names so it is worth monitoring who is writing these articles to see if a pattern forms)
Melb_SuperTall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2014, 12:36 PM   #15
Samuel77
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: omnipresent
Posts: 2,396
Likes (Received): 2209

Quoted from the Prop + Const 200- 299m thread. Posted here for relevance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel77 View Post
purely aesthetically speaking this is how i would prefer the tower to look with having more of a pinnacle shape:

Samuel77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2014, 01:03 PM   #16
Qantas743
Proud Victorian!
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,886
Likes (Received): 1017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melb_SuperTall View Post
I was ready the age article and I was thinking I would love to be your boss so I could fire you. Stupid reporting by them and I think they know it. They do it on purpose because they have become anti-progress (I seem to see the same reporter names so it is worth monitoring who is writing these articles to see if a pattern forms)
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.
Qantas743 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2014, 01:40 PM   #17
Andrewwise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 480
Likes (Received): 83

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.
I think the Age did us a favor. The Pan Ops uncovering royally backfired on them as it's encouraging architects and deveolpers to shoot for that invisible ceiling so they can boast that the project uses all available height.

It's the same as Sydney's limit that made so many buildings shoot for that ceiling.

Thanks Age/Fairfax. Your Nimby wankerism has opened the door to half a dozen new 270metreish proposals.
Andrewwise no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2014, 02:03 PM   #18
NoshowwithoutPunch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,329

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

Brumby was public with 8 mill a few years ago, or have you conveniently forgotten?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
NoshowwithoutPunch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2014, 02:04 PM   #19
NoshowwithoutPunch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,329

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrewwise View Post
Ugh imagine driving on the weekend if Melbourne had double it's population. By the time you got to that cafe in Richmond you want to go to three suburbs over it'd be time to go home to bed on Sunday night.

Why would you drive from Melbourne to Richmond? Seriously?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
NoshowwithoutPunch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2014, 02:34 AM   #20
Tyson
Registered User
 
Tyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,723
Likes (Received): 662

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronteboy View Post
Simon Johanson Property Editor for The Age

The massive residential skyscraper, the city's largest to date, will house a population equivalent to the small Gippsland town of Foster in its 1343 apartments which are set behind a soaring, fluted, glass exterior.

''Effectively we're putting one town in a building … what sort of things would we have in a town of that size and are they available in the building?'' he said. Foster has schools, childcare centres, a hospital and multiple shops.
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.
__________________
"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."
- Winston Churchill
Tyson 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
LONDON | Projects & Construction wjfox City/Metro Compilations 24054 December 4th, 2019 02:30 PM
BRISTOL | Full Summary of Projects dronkula Bristol Developments 7305 November 25th, 2019 10:14 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 02:48 PM.


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