Error message

Warning: array_flip(): Can only flip STRING and INTEGER values! in EntityAPIController->load() (line 219 of /srv/www/drupal7/sites/all/modules/entity/includes/entity.controller.inc).
140 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

melbourne's picture
#52

Looked way better before.

Back to top
3000's picture
#53

Looks like a conservative outcome for the site.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#54

Yep, old proposal was way better.

I don't see how the end result is any different in terms of addressing the concerns Wynne had with the old proposal other than a more boring design and a height reduction.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#55

Where did all the exposed concrete and cheap looking window mullions come from?

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#56

EDIT:

I only just realized the difference between the new design and the old one which Nicholas posted earlier on page 2.

What a terrible outcome!

Back to top
Danny Boy's picture
#57

Clearer view of the facade

CBD | 85 Spring Street | 142m | 39L | Residential

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#58

Looks cheap now:

CBD | 85 Spring Street | 142m | 39L | Residential
CBD | 85 Spring Street | 142m | 39L | Residential
CBD | 85 Spring Street | 142m | 39L | Residential
CBD | 85 Spring Street | 142m | 39L | Residential
CBD | 85 Spring Street | 142m | 39L | Residential
CBD | 85 Spring Street | 142m | 39L | Residential

Back to top
MelbourneGuy's picture
#59

Hope the interiors of these apartments warrant the high cost of getting into them!

Back to top
3000's picture
#60

What's the building to the right of it? I kind of like it.

Back to top
Danny Boy's picture
#61

Well, at least it doesn't add extra shadow that irrelevant little grass paddock for a few measly hours late in the day! /s

The previous sloping design was better, which I would have liked to see incorporated into the final product. Would've given us an interesting roof profile as opposed to another large core box slapped on top of an already blocky tower.

Also, is that a blank wall facing east on the north section of the tower?

Back to top
32 Blocks's picture
#62

Richard Wynne has just replied to me on Twitter and says that he didn't approve the tower - pics above. He approved the previous render - all glass.

Discover Melbourne’s Past, Present and Future at 32blocks.org

Back to top
Peter Maltezos's picture
#63

You would be struggling to find anyone who thinks this is good outcome!

It appears as long as it's the right height with the right setbacks you can build any crap.

DCM should be ashamed of themselves. angry

I collect, therefore I am. thecollectormm.com.au

Back to top
32 Blocks's picture
#64

Here's my original tweet to Wynne and his reply to me:

CBD | 85 Spring Street | 142m | 39L | ResidentialGROCON 2 by oh.yes.melbourne, on Flickr

Here's Grocon's reply to me:

CBD | 85 Spring Street | 142m | 39L | ResidentialGROCON 3 by oh.yes.melbourne, on Flickr

Discover Melbourne’s Past, Present and Future at 32blocks.org

Back to top
Crz's picture
#65

Oh Melbourne you've been robbed !!! This is the worst possible outcome. UGLY wall

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#66

saying "What's wrong with you?" to Wynne....gold

so who approved the crap version then?

Back to top
32 Blocks's picture
#67

:) My mother always told me to never be a politician, I will be shot she said ;) I think that there is a story here - somebody is lying or some back room deal has been made. I need to get the papers interested in this story, we can't have that horrible concrete structure blighting Spring Street.

Discover Melbourne’s Past, Present and Future at 32blocks.org

Back to top
db2's picture
#68

Clay Lucas would be the best bet in regards to getting the newspapers interested in this.

Grocon should NOT be allowed to get approval for a mostly all-glass tower AND then change the east wall to all concrete.

I would rather this development not happen at all. Keep up the fight OYM.

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture
#69

Why didn't you tweet Grocon asking them why they're not building the version the Planning Minister approved?

I'm really struggling with why you'd suddenly add all that concrete to a boundary wall that abuts a laneway. Particularly when that facade remains partially glazed? When you already had Ministerial approval for a fully glazed boundary. Who benefits from any "backroom deal"? Wynne prefers the glazed version. Grocon aren't going to sell any more apartments by inhibiting the views from them. It looks like the only imperative satisfied here is a much cheaper build within the approved envelope.

Back to top
Laurence Dragomir's picture
#70

Value management comes to the fore. Disappointing really.

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#71

If you want to get the papers interested in something, how about focusing on Brady Group's attempt to subvert their planning permit for three carpark levels on Elizabeth street by only building one? Now that is a scandal - particularly when we lost the Stork Hotel for the rubbish building they have just put up on the site.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#72

He should've just approved the original striking design - as was recommended by his own department - instead of taking the anti-height moral high ground which looks to have delivered a shocking end result.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#73

Not sure why that is a scandal when City of Melbourne objected to the two additional basement car parking levels as Increased car parking is not supported due to proximity to public transport.

Back to top
Rohan Storey's picture
#74

I like that it sort of looks like a cluster of towers, rather than a more monolithic design, but yes the latest version is so 'polite' that it ends up a bit boring, though it might be elegant, depending on the materials and detailing.

I can see how many stakeholders would call it an historic context (though no actual heritage overlay) but I dont really understand how knocking off 10 floors from the taller part would make it any difference to its dominating effect. Having the lower front part similar height to treasury gate tower next door is all that's needed.

If they were really concerned about the heritage context / streetscape, then a podium that isn't monolithic milk glass would have been better. It cantilevers over the station entrance, rather than actually building over it, and incorporating it, and creating a proper solid streetscape, which would have been preferable.

Lookingupatbuildings

Back to top
Rohan Storey's picture
#75

PS if only the same level of attention had been given to 35 spring st, which is really monolithic, despite the façade patterns - nut what u really don't like is that it has no podium at all, just rises straight up from the footpath from both Spring St and Flinders lane. So much for streetscape.

Lookingupatbuildings

Back to top
Melbourne Muse's picture
#76

Has anyone heard anything to clarify this confusion between Wynne's office and Grocon? We simply can't let this monsterous concrete wall be built thus ruining one of Melbourne's key streetscapes! Why can't the minister's office contact Grocon and remind them of their responsibilities under the approval they've been granted - or take it away.

Haven't seen anything from CLucas either, nor a response to a very diplomatic email I sent him 2 weeks ago alerting him to this confusion. Too busy sharing pantomimes with Buxton about how Melbourne circa 1970 should be Melbourne's future bluprint.

Marvelous Mega-Melbourne

Back to top

Pages