Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 105 Posts

·
Developer
Joined
·
7,685 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This tower would fit 154 apartments and four levels of offices on a lot of only 383 square metres! The towewr would habvew no car aprking spaces.













This application has been refused by Council and will be going to VCAT :)

The reasons for refusal were:

1. The proposal by virtue of its height and lack of setbacks detracts from Russell Street and Little Lonsdale Street and surrounding properties.
2. The proposal by virtue of its height and lack of setbacks detracts from Hayward Lane and would be contrary to Clause 22.01 (Urban Design Outside the Capital City Zone) and Clause 22.20 (CBD Lanes) of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.
3. The proposal will have unacceptable wind impacts on the pedestrian realm.
4. The proposed height and lack of setbacks will have an adverse impact on the development potential of adjoining land.
5. The proposal by virtue of its height, lack of setbacks, excessive plot ratio, extent of projections and lack of on-site loading facilities represents an overdevelopment of the site.
 

·
Champagne Socialist
Joined
·
12,091 Posts
The reasons for refusal were:

1. The proposal by virtue of its height and lack of setbacks detracts from Russell Street and Little Lonsdale Street and surrounding properties.
2. The proposal by virtue of its height and lack of setbacks detracts from Hayward Lane and would be contrary to Clause 22.01 (Urban Design Outside the Capital City Zone) and Clause 22.20 (CBD Lanes) of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.
3. The proposal will have unacceptable wind impacts on the pedestrian realm.
4. The proposed height and lack of setbacks will have an adverse impact on the development potential of adjoining land.
5. The proposal by virtue of its height, lack of setbacks, excessive plot ratio, extent of projections and lack of on-site loading facilities represents an overdevelopment of the site.
lol, probably most have merit, but farken hell I love how they're really pushing the envelope.
 

·
Lord Melbourne
Joined
·
4,257 Posts
Looks great, Fantastic use of a small plot of land. Need more like this for some of the smaller plots around town, great filler.
 

·
Proud Victorian!
Joined
·
7,801 Posts
It's really worrying when people start to think that buildings like this in the MIDDLE OF THE CBD are inappropriate because they're too tall!

Imagine trying to get 120 Collins, 101 Collins and Bourke Place up if this joke of a council had been in charge at the time!
 

·
Property 101
Joined
·
68 Posts
2 bedroom apartments of 55m2, studio apartment with bedroom, living & kitchen in one, useless balconies, etc etc etc. what the!?

'function follows form' went out with the dark ages mr architect!!! mr client, get yourself a real development manager, not to mention a real architect. what crap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
It's height and lack of setbacks are the problem? Pretty ridiculous wen the QV towers are just across the road from it...
Yeah. I mean setbacks from WHAT exactly?? It's a bit odd to be saying lack of setbacks would prevent development of neighbouring sites, but also this building's too tall for this part of Russell St. Council appear to be making it up as they go along right now. Pray to VCAT everyone...

I agree the balconies are functionally retarded, but most balconies on this type of building are. At least these are functionally retarded and stylistically cool. I assume tenants are encouraged to use the common areas instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,385 Posts
2 bedroom apartments of 55m2, studio apartment with bedroom, living & kitchen in one, useless balconies, etc etc etc. what the!?

'function follows form' went out with the dark ages mr architect!!! mr client, get yourself a real development manager, not to mention a real architect. what crap.
Where are you pulling this from?
 
1 - 20 of 105 Posts
Top