We get really obsessed with height - we can have great towers and bad towers, we need to shift the discussion more toward the quality of development.Leanne Hodyl, IMPA's 'City in Crisis?' forum
This interesting quote appeared in Alastair's article on Monday, which delved into who should maintain planning authority over Melbourne. The notion of shifting focus more toward quality of development rather than height is a noble one, but it's simply not that straight forward.
A counter argument could be found in comments made during the recent Meinhardt tall towers seminar in which Meinhardt's Jon Brock essentially stated that people don't really care how tall a tower is beyond a certain point, tall is tall but what matters most is what occurs at street level. A vibrant, user friendly, interesting and varied street frontage is in fact the key to a development's quality.
A prime example of this has surfaced with PDS Group recently releasing a handful of high resolution images for 380 Lonsdale Street for which they will act as Project Manager and Superintendent.
So which is it? Height or quality? 380 Lonsdale Street proves in its most recent version you can have both. The Elenberg Fraser-designed tower may well stand at 217 metres when realised which is approximately 55 metres higher than the initial Spowers design.
Below is a comparison between the two designs highlighting the all-important ground level which shows the current Elenberg Fraser design to hold a higher level of interest, activity and greenery. Active glass frontages and green planters seek to replace uniform composite panels; both shroud above ground car parking yet one does so in a more aesthetically pleasing fashion.
There's no intended slight against Spowers, their version after all gained approval via the State Government, but there's little doubt that Elenberg Fraser's provides a heightened quality to the public domain.
380 Lonsdale Street in its current form goes to show that the questions of height and quality aren't bound together in an inverse relationship. They are separate issues and should be treated as such.
Railing against buildings purely for their height serves no purpose to my way of thinking. Asking for alterations and/or rejecting planning applications based more so upon what they deliver or fail to deliver to the streetscape, or indeed what they replace is of more relevance than any question over height.