19 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

CBD | 140 King Street | 188m | 58L | Residential

Nicholas Harrison's picture
#1

A planning permit application was recently submitted for this project by Besgate.

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#2

nice find, 271 apartments.

Back to top
3000's picture
#3

Who designed this gem?

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#4

Solstice

King St

Gallagher Lane

amenities

typical plan

south elevation

renders

materials

Back to top
3000's picture
#5

Nice

Back to top
Andrew Mck's picture
#6

Very nice
It has a NYC look to it

Back to top
Riddlz's picture
#7

Back to top
Riddlz's picture
#8

Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture
#9

Gorgeous

Back to top
3000's picture
#10

I hope this gets approved.

Back to top
Riddlz's picture
#11

Council recommending refusal. Couple of changes to the podium and setbacks.

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/about-council/committees-meetings/future...

Back to top
Riddlz's picture
#12
Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture
#13

Big thumbs up from me, though i am a little concerned about the northern facade as a large part of that wall will be concrete, but if it's painted black to suit the glass and other exteriors it should be ok.

Back to top
Dean's picture
#14

Thumbs up from me as well.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#15

Approved with "significant" height reduction according to Skyrise over at SSC (as well as the delegate's report).

Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture
#16

Reduced by how much?

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#17

Not sure but this was quoted in the report:

"Although the informally amended plans improve elements of the development
including adopting a more distinctive podium/tower form, a reduction in the podium
height and minor increases to tower setbacks, it is considered that the changes do
not go far enough to warrant support. A significant reduction in building height,
increased tower setbacks, improved ground level and podium activation to
Gallaghers Place and improved urban design quality to the through block link are
required in order for the development to considered an acceptable outcome for this
site."

Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture
#18

Seriously....how f#$%@ing annoying.
Why on earth would a 188m tower on this site require a "significant reduction in building height"???????

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#19

The permit issued by the Minister did not require the height of the tower to be reduced.

Back to top