Is this a facade or an actual retention?
Well, it's definitely retentive.
New crossover to Lonsdale Street for car parking? FAIL.
3000, the current building on site is a po-mo 1980's thing, it looks like there' doing a weird new faux-heritage podium
They really shouldn't be allowed to remove mature street trees for carpark entrances!!
Already has a website:
CoM advising it be rejected
Any reason why it was rejected, Mark? It is kind of obvious but wanted to see what CoM wants changed, hopefully a whole new design because it looks like it belongs in 1980's Gold Coast.
It looks like a CE tower and abode had a really ugly child.
This one has gone to VCAT for failure to grant a permit
This one should sail through.
Snippet from the AFR last week:
"Central Equity also noted it had acquired a major site on Lonsdale Street in CBD. 'It is hoped that the project will be released early in the coming year,' it said."
This one is going to VCAT for a decision.
CE actually proposed something over 200m I can live with and it gets rejected while all their mid rise rubbish gets instant approval even if it destroys heritage laneways (ie. Australis) ..
Typical ..f'n typical ..
Approved at 57 levels (Down from 69 levels)
Central Equity wins approval for another Lonsdale Street tower
Developer Central Equity has been granted approval for a 57-level residential tower near the corner of Lonsdale and King streets, despite opposition from residents in neighbouring apartments.
Central Equity took Planning Minister Richard Wynne to the state planning tribunal over the tower, after he failed to make a decision on the project.
The developer had originally proposed a 69-level tower, which Melbourne City Council had opposed. It was to have around 800 apartments.
But in a negotiated settlement with Mr Wynne and the planning department, Central Equity has been granted a permit for the 57-storey building.
The approved project will have 652 apartments, and will tower over other buildings in the block, many of which are low rise.
A group of residents who live in apartment buildings on King Street, Little Lonsdale Street and Manton Lane had written to Mr Wynne opposing Central Equity's plans.
"All our protests and written complaints have fallen on deaf ears," one of the opponents, Gagan Jain, told Mr Wynne in a letter. "What's worse is that all the findings of Melbourne City Council have been ignored as well."
Mr Jain said that a 57-storey tower on the small site, which included 10 levels of car parking, would hurt its neighbours. "Hundreds of residents across multiple existing developments are going to be impacted and we would have expected the government to care for us and our living conditions," Mr Jain wrote.
Read More: http://www.theage.com.au/business/property/central-equity-wins-approval-...
^ Sounds like there was no redesign just a height cut. Not that I expected much, but what difference would this make at 57 or 69 floors if the design is the same? Strange.
Read the article, they want to reduce the apartment yield and have better quality apartments there. Sometimes less is more.
In other words - Eddie K*ntner get's his way once again .. *sigh*
3000 - How does reducing the height of the building result in better quality of apartments ?
How does having it at the full height make it any more or less of a better outcome?
It's a CE tower so chances are it'll look pretty average at any height.
If you reduce the height and make the yield slightly lower (gasp!) to include better quality apartments then I call that a win for residents and for CBD living.
That is not to say I believe that less height is any indication of overall higher quality, but the taller investor boxes tend to produce just that, small apartments that aren't tailored for local needs.
COM also added their problems with the development.
Adrian; I believe the tradeoff was a higher floor-to-ceiling ratio for better apartments, hence less floors. But still, if the design is not up to standard and various other issues the CoM addressed were ignored, why would reducing the height have any positive effect? That's what I find strange. Just force a total redesign.
If anything having higher floor-to-ceiling ratios would result in a taller tower. Instead CE have copped a double whammy cutting the number of floors and increasing the floor to ceiling height. Not that I have any sympathy for them whatsoever they've been getting away with murder for too long and I agree the developers should be forced to improve apartment standards.
CE just shouldn't be allowed to develop in the first place for all their crimes against this city - period.
"CE just shouldn't be allowed to develop in the first place for all their crimes against this city - period"
Here is something we can both agree on.
Although I agree on better design standards and improved living standards for everyone, less apartments is not necessarily a good thing (hence why I am questioning why the reduction in height/floors.) Even if it is a CE design. We just need that balance of decent design and affordability, with CE and the like being the obvious offenders.
I guess the best way to put it is would you rather a 200m CE tower, or another sprawling outer suburb? Got to house all this population growth somewhere.
Bit of movement on this one, website has been updated: https://melbournegrand.com.au
What kind of bullshit render is that. Also this triggers me, looks like Vision
If only other more elegant projects were as likely to get up as CE's garbage.