That pronged thingy??? with one taller than all the rest....is this a real idea of the final CUB plan.....It just looks a bit skinny that taller part..too small for office space...a bit too try hard?.....I believe Melbourne could cope with a 400m building of good design. If you look at most skyscraper cities around the world their supertalls/ over 300m seem to tower above the rest of their skylines.....an example I have used before is Lower Manhattan....if you forget a couple of poles and points most present buildings don't exceed Rialto's height.....almost the same as the Chase Manhattan Bank building. The WTC towered above but became part of that skyline (RIP) At least Melbourne has many buildings around 50 stories and the Eureka compared to Taipei as mentioned with its lone T.101 Tower.
To save Grocon trouble there was originally lava then seabed, forest, Dinasaur hangouts but they didn't die here so no bones, then the forest grew back....bushfires, then Batman and Fawkner turned up and the rest is history....OK I didn't mention Aboriginals..actually they often walked or camped very close to this site but had never actually stayed or dropped anything here either so there will be no restrictions on the site whatsoever...amazing huh!.............so just start construction...now
If the highest point of the building ends up around 279m and then you add natural ground datum compared to Eureka/Rialto/120 Collins etc...this could rival highest on skyline.....and would definitely dominate coming into the CBD from the north or Airport.
I'd really like the building to be at least 300m....surely Melbourne deserves a supertall by now......seeing we missed out with Eureka by ==== much. Although to be honest I like the idea of the top floor or roof to be 300m...not just an architectural feature. But if it's that or nothing OK...I'll take it! We don't have too many landmark sites so this better be good.......
I would think the reference to beacon may mean the building would act as a bookend or focal point for the site line between the Shrine and top of Swanston St.....In some ways a building with a stepped pyramid top might have done that better..maybe a cliche?
I hope the 50m light pinnicle has a different facade to the floors below as it looks too narrow to have floors and maybe might look like a fake much taller building from far away......kind of like Sears in Chicago....but theirs is all real building with floors right to the top. Look forward to seeing updated renders, thanks for your post Bronteboy..great update!
Bronte a view straight down Swanston st would be great but the 66? story tower along side will block much of the cities south western panorama....There is some very nice architecture proposed for the site but still wonder why the focal tallest point wasn't directly on Swanston st centre line?.....The Shrine is in centreline at the other end...It's as if no new structure is worthy of filling such an important position?
Bronte..yeah I know what you mean about a corporate with signage as the focal point...in fact years ago that's exactly what was there (as in CUB thread pic)....the Shrine at one end and the CUB Victoria Bitter sign at the other....at the time it was looked on as a true Melbourne iconic landmark..the Beer sign I mean.....This sign was temporarily set up where Freshwater Place is now....I hope it can be relocated somewhere OK.....It was looked on in much the same way as the Nylex sign and clock on the Silos in Richmond..but years pass and memories fade....Bet there would be some old timers who would like to see it back at the top of Swanston St....But newer generations would be bewildered by that?
from your post..thanks
Thanks Tayser (and Archi)....I often save many pics all over SSC...but then later don't like to post them as my own...but couldn't remember who's they were. This one just reminded me of 'Verve resident' and 'Edwards' posts.....
Yeah Grollo..a return of that famous VB sign looking down Swanston St would be terrific...and a parochial landmark sign and symbol in Melbourne. Don't think Fosters would move to the site after John Elliott had proposed an office tower headquarters there some years back. I will be happy to see a building taller than Eureka but wish it was a bigger jump as anything just over 300m will still look shorter from the south (Shrine) than many existing CBD towers.
Cul, others have cleared up the Arch location for you....great model. I understand these are early possible envelopes with detail and pinnicle yet to be finalised...um..just a small point for your Eureka model, The blue wedge slicing through the Golden glassed area, runs through flush with adjoining face, so stands proud of the overlapping face along the taper....not knocking your model but just thought you may like to update as time goes by? Also know this isn't Eureka thread but saw the model and just thought I'd mention it when I see it.....This pic maybe tells better than my words...after seeing your great detail models I know sometimes you are just giving a representation of a project.
Qantas 743 I kind of agree, hope the 'Feature' on top has some bulk and is integrated with the design, at least ! When you think they go to so much trouble to design and construct such a large building...why not just add a few more floors of real building and be done with it ?.....Never understand how height limits come into the decision??? From the footpath who can tell if a building is 280m or 350m ???......and there is plenty of sky to use for aircraft without flying over the CBD.....even then they fly much higher than this ! ( and it sounds so pathetic telling Culwulla how to make a model!!!!!...What was I thinking??? )
A forum community dedicated to skyscrapers, towers, highrises, construction, and city planning enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about structures, styles, reviews, scale, transportation, skylines, architecture, and more!