Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 2266 Posts

·
flame on.
Joined
·
5,074 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
site address officially 433 - 544 Collins st

DOUBLE proposals for the Suncorp site....

'Spire' (max 300m) .... kind of looks like 97 Franklin st proposal
'Bridge' (190m and 160m) dual tower proposal

Urbis / Cbus Property / Woods Bagot & SHoP Architects



courtesy of Drunkill


PDF info here

City of Melbourne are not too keen.... they conclude in the report....

"Overall it is considered that the proposal is not supportable due to the potential to further erode a long-held policy and due to the loss of amenity to Queensbridge Square and the Yarra River corridor. The numerous policies which seek to protect the Yarra River and which highlight Queensbridge Square as an important open space are not given enough weight in the applicant’s submission. Although it is acknowledged that the proposal presents potential gain to an area of open space this should not be at the expense of existing amenity and character to one of our most important assets. The only basis upon which an exemption to the prohibition could possibly be contemplated is if there was a demonstrated public benefit which would outweigh such an impact on a natural asset of State significance, something which is not yet established. Any new open space would not benefit from the same planning protections as the open space which is to be affected so it presents the risk that development north of the subject site would cause significant impact to the envisaged amenity. The area may become a success, but it may not. And perhaps even more significant is that the trade-off for the additional open space will provide future aspirants with a pathway to further impact on the Yarra River."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,299 Posts
I actually prefer the smaller proposal.

I am not sure the taller proposal works for the site, for which the smaller towers seem better balanced for the streetscape and overall site.

I like the public park proposal though. That idea has merit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,111 Posts
Me too GlennWilson.....

Drafting in New York talent and all that. Plus the rumours were circulating that the design would be so stunning that none would care that this is 300m practically on the Yarra!

And then I saw these....
There's nothing really 'unique' about either proposal. Pretty bog-standard, really.....

Hopefully it'll get a re-design in response to council.
 
G

·
At first I was also underwhelmed due to the buzz created before the plans were released but the more that I look at the taller option the more I like it, I especially love the public square.
 
G

·
Proposed tower for Collins Street would overshadow south bank of Yarra

A construction industry super fund wants Planning Minister Matthew Guy to approve a new skyscraper to replace the 1960s Suncorp building on Collins Street with a tower so high it would overshadow the Yarra. But lord mayor Robert Doyle has described the proposal as ‘‘premature’’, describing a law that prevents overshadowing of the Yarra's south bank in winter as one of ‘‘those very few lines in the sand’’ in Melbourne. He urged Mr Guy not to sign off on the plan, which includes 400 units, 250 hotel rooms and about 20 levels off office space. The existing building on the site, built by National Mutual in 1965, has been fenced off to the public for two years because marble cladding had been falling off it into public thoroughfares. The council recently gave permission for the existing tower to be demolished.

Now CBUS, which owns the site including the major plaza forecourt, wants to build a 300-metre tower. The tower would overshadow the normally sacrosanct south bank of the Yarra in deepest winter – including parts of the Southbank promenade. Crown Casino could be affected by the overshadowing, although its spokeswoman did not respond to questions on whether it would be affected. In return for allowing the overshadowing of the river’s south bank, CBUS would build a new, publicly owned 2000-square-metre park on Collins Street. The striking proposed tower has been designed by architects Woods Bagot and US firm SHoP Architects. An existing planning permit for the site, granted in 2006 but valid until next year, allows the construction of a far lower tower on the plaza.

Cr Doyle said those plans allowed a new tower over the existing forecourt on all the Collins Street frontage. He said that "would be disaster". He described the new design for the site as ‘‘a building of great elegance’’, but said the council, planning minister and CBUS needed to work through a better plan. ‘‘We say it [the plan] is premature: withdraw it and let’s try to work through a really good answer,’’ he said. ‘‘There are large public policy issues to be determined here – this is one of the most important sites in the city.’’ The council report says the proposal ‘‘cannot satisfactorily facilitate a development which justifies an exemption’’ to the overshadowing rules. Heritage groups have questioned the council’s original decision to allow the existing tower to be demolished.

Melbourne Heritage Action in June described the building as one of the city’s few 1960s plaza-style developments – an important planning trend for that decade. The group also argued there was not conclusive evidence the building needed to be knocked down, just that its facade needed replacing. Last year, the tower was among a handful of postwar CBD buildings to which the planning minister did not give heritage protection.
 

·
Go Ahead.....Make My Day!
Joined
·
5,507 Posts
^^

I doubt this tower would overshadow southbank any more than the Rialto does. Its super thin for the top half, so surely it woudnt have a massively huge impact.... This whole overshadowing thing has gotten out of control .. This winter, there was hardly a clear day in Melbourne. Its always cloudy......

The media dramatise these news reports as if its going to be a massive concern...
 

·
Conjecturer
Joined
·
341 Posts
I doubt this tower would overshadow southbank any more than the Rialto does.
Rialto does overshadow Southbank, it was permitted prior to a change in ruling. It has however set a precedent, continued in the exemption at 555 Collins Street.

and who are the lazy butts out there in melbourne who cant move ten metres to get out of the shade???? in melbourne?????
Those 'lazy butts' include the proprietors of business at a static physical address.
 

·
Go Ahead.....Make My Day!
Joined
·
5,507 Posts
Rialto does overshadow Southbank, it was permitted prior to a change in ruling. It has however set a precedent, continued in the exemption at 555 Collins Street.
I agree that it overshadowes south bank. But I don't think it really is a major issue in winter. Rialto is wider than this new tower by the looks of the renders too
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,941 Posts
I actually prefer the smaller proposal.

I am not sure the taller proposal works for the site, for which the smaller towers seem better balanced for the streetscape and overall site.

I like the public park proposal though. That idea has merit.
What other location in the Melbourne CBD offers a complete island site on the premier Street of the city ? It deserves more than just density development. A defining tall slim Melbourne Landmark Tower would cause limited shading across the Yarra. These designs don't grab me.
I would like to see the DCM Grollo Tower sitting here free standing and proud : )
 
  • Like
Reactions: lozza

·
Rabid Furry Skier
Joined
·
3,492 Posts
and who are the lazy butts out there in melbourne who cant move ten metres to get out of the shade???? in melbourne?????

i really like the tall one
While I am yet to decide if I like the concept of the building's overshadowing or not, worth keeping in mind that today you may be able to move 10m to get out of the shade, but further down in the future it may explode to only 10m of sunlight being available. Just a food for thought. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
I'm so over this overshadowing bullshit. You look at major cities around the world, New York for example, if they had to take into account shadows, they would be screwed for development. Take Chicago (similar to Melbourne's city structure) does shadowing worry that city?! NO.

The dick heads who oppose every skyscraper in Melbourne due to a shadow that happens once a day at a certain time for x amount of minutes need to be hung and courted. If this design gets shelved for the "shadow issue" I think it would be about time to look at that very "ridicules and restraining law" that stops these projects.
 
1 - 20 of 2266 Posts
Top