47 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

FISHERMANS BEND ZONE | 85 - 93 Lorimer Street | ~150m | 48L & 49L | Residential

johnproctor's picture
#1

revised application by LIttle Projects for 85 Lorimer Street has landed.

it was changed because the original proposal was 2 towers across the site but the site became affected by open space provision as part of hte precincts structure plan.

now revised into a single taller tower. this basically sits behind Yarra's Edge Tower 7 and 5 (Array under construction) and the Point Park but on the south side of Lorimer Street.

Given this location and the fact its a serious developer this has the potential to be the first tower constructed in Fishermans Bend.

overall its basically ground floor wiht a decent size retail space (fronting the park) and a gym, 7 levels of carparking (with a wrap to the park which would also look out to Lorimer Street), transfer and residential amenties floors @ 8/9, 63 levels of apartments, and top floor amenities.

seems pretty good to me. I'm sure you boys will be able to find actual plans to go with this.

Elenberg Fraser design.

Back to top
drunkill's picture
#2

Wow, that's quite a bit of height right next to the freeway. With their amazing job doing the TipTop site I believe they can deliver a massive project like this (even if their name is Little Projects)

Planning register with the amendment on the 11th of Sept:
http://dsewebapps.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/Planning/PHBPPAT.nsf/InternetAppLis...

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#3

Makes you wonder why Mirvac are still building such short towers at Yarras Edge.

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#4

Wow, first 200+ metre tower down there

Talking to Little Projects next week, just added a question or two...

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#5

MD of Little Projects suggested yesterday that if/when they gain approval it's basically immediately to sales

Back to top
Ryan Seychell's picture
#6

Perfect

Back to top
Fedsquared's picture
#7

Plans are up here
http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCouncil/Meetings/Lists/CouncilMeeti...

Plans for future elevated tram bridge/stop

Back to top
. guyzone's picture
#8

gorgeous

Back to top
drunkill's picture
#9

Very interesting regarding the tram stop, although I still think it is the wrong location for a tram crossing, plus having it elevated in that area creates a King Street overpass situation again to ground level activity.

Otherwise, very interesting, hope we see a colour render sometime with materials.

236.60m RL to top of lift overrun.


Back to top
Ryan Seychell's picture
#10

Looks like this one just needs approval and it's ready to go to sales, not sure what work is taking place on site:

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#11

Really worried about this one.

It's supposedly in the hands of the Metropolitan Planning Authority now as they are now the Responsible Authority for Fishermans Bend.

However, Wynne has said he will be reviewing Fishermans Bend (whatever that means).

Anyone here able to clarify?

Back to top
Ryan Seychell's picture
#12

I honestly don't think you have much to be worried about. I think the developers look to be quite confident with the project if they're already at this stage.

There are no height limits on the site and the development will create a new park for the area.
Melbourne City Council I believe were quite supportive also.

Should be fine...

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#13

Stephen Mayne just tweeted that this is now being redesigned into two smaller towers.

What a weak minister, capitulating to the NIMBYs in Yarra's Edge and to his notoriously anti-development colleague in local MP Martin Foley.

Had been feeling less and less confident about this one as of late. Even the council are pissed.

Back to top
drunkill's picture
#14

Council supports the taller single tower option (because they get a free park) so I guess we wait further to see what happens, a two tower option might just be their backup if Wynne rejects the current proposal.

Stephen Mayne ‏@MayneReport 3 hours ago

@Daniel_Weil said to be 2 towers in 40-50 level range. Would prefer normal process where council considers delegate report in open session.

Back to top
Melbourne Muse's picture
#15

Just what that area needs, another 2 x 45 level towers to go with the 50 and no park! Great outcome! Hopefully sense is sought at VCAT on this one.

Marvelous Mega-Melbourne

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#16

Southbank is set to get more green space

A NEW public park will be created in one of the city’s most built-up areas.

A $200 million Southbank development will include 2100 square metres of open green space, rare for the area.

Original plans to build a 74-storey apartment building were scrapped in favour of two smaller towers, standing at 47 and 49 storeys tall.

Developer Little Projects plans to build 940 apartments, 778 carparks and 400 bicycle spaces at 85 Lorimer St.

Planning Minister Richard Wynne, known for his dislike of huge skyscrapers, said it was a win for the public that the developer redesigned the project.

“This development reflects our vision for the future of Fishermans Bend, offering open space and well-designed apartments close to transport and services,” Mr Wynne said. “We encourage innovative developers to put forward projects which we can be proud of decades after construction.”

Original plans for one taller tower sparked concerns from nearby residents who feared they would be overshadowed.

To date, the minister has approved more than $800 million worth of investment within the Fishermans Bend urban renewal area.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/southbank-is-set-to-get-more-g...

The headline is wrong because there will be LESS public open space as a result of splitting the development into two towers.

Who exactly are the 'public' that will win from this amendment Mr Wynne? The City of Melbourne strongly supported the proposed 74 storey tower as the best outcome for the site.

Overshadowing is just an excuse to cut the height of this tower. Here is what the City of Melbourne found in relation to overshadowing:

"Shadow diagrams were submitted with the application that show shadow analysis at 11am and 2pm on 22 June.By virtue of the orientation of the existing lot (north-south), the proposed development will not cause overshadowing of the new park or the Yarra River. Instead the shadow is cast over the Westgate Freeway and onto streets to the south of the freeway.

Between 11am and 2pm the shadow then travels west to east. The proposed building does not present an unreasonable level of overshadowing and will not unreasonably diminish the enjoyment of public spaces for pedestrians.

Back to top
Riddlz's picture
#17

Here I was thinking that if it had MCC support it would get the tick of approval.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#18

Cr Arron Wood said the tower proposal set a positive tone for the pocket of the Fishermans Bend precinct.

"This development shows that height is not necessarily bad, as some people may think, when done correctly with the right setbacks," he said.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/a-tale-of-two-towers-one-melbourne-apa...

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#19

"He's not anti height, they said. He'll maintain the status quo, they said."

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture
#20

God you people are morons.
We have a 40 storey development envelope for Fisherman's Bend - an outcome has been negotiated consistent with that. Get used to it. Fisherman's Bend is going to sit within that rough height envelope. Which given this is going to be an essentially residential neighbourhood is appropriate. Given that's about the only strategic initiative that's been applied to the zone at all, if you want to call that being "anti-height" then fine. But I think you're being anti-rational.
Let's recap the last line of the actual article shall we? "To date, the minister has approved more than $800 million worth of investment within the Fishermans Bend urban renewal area."
Yes. The guy hates skyscrapers so much that he's approved like $2 billion worth of them in the handful of months he's been in office.
But troglodytes espousing "is big, is good" like it's the only relevant design dimension make themselves look ridiculous.
Mr Harrison's post above seems to be critical of the Minister, even though there is no actual criticism of the basis for the decision-making or asssessment of the design outcome, except making the baseless statement that we're losing public space under the proposal. So Nicholas, from where do you get the data that the previous park was more than 2100 sq m? Because I can't find that number anywhere in any of the previous proposals. But you wouldn't just be making biased assumptions now, would you?

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture
#21

To be clear: RICHARD WYNNE DID NOT REJECT THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE DEVELOPER HAS SUBMITTED A NEW PROPOSAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE NEW FISHOS HEIGHT ENVELOPE.

And why do you mention overshadowing? Nowhere did Wynne say anything about
a) his having lopped this development
b) overshadowing being the reason for doing so.

Given the developer is obviously happy with the outcome and it complies with the Fishos masterplan, why does everyone else know so much better??

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#22

The new proposal does not comply with the temporary height restrictions.

The single, taller tower version was supported by the City of Melbourne who found that one taller tower was a better outcome for the site, I agree with this assessment. The applicant has had numerous meetings with representatives from DTPLI, the Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA) and the City if Melbourne to work through a new design to provide a singular tower that would provide a better outcome for the site.

I am led to believe that the developer was told to cut the height because the new government want to approve such a tall building and to go back to the two tower design despite the successful negotiations between the City of Melbourne , the developer and state government planning officers.

The minister stated that the redesign is a win for the public and I presume this was related to the overshadowing concerns mentioned in the article.

The area of public open space has been reduced from 2,370 square metres to 2,100 square metres.

The new minister has approved a large number of planning applications because of the unprecedented number of applications submitted over the past year.

Back to top
johnproctor's picture
#23

Worth taking a trip through time on this development for Qantas benefit.

Guy rezones f bend. Little property buys 85-93 lorimer. Little property develops original scheme with no strategic guidance (or limits) to what is and isn't allowed or planned in f bend. This initial scheme submitted as a planning application. The initial scheme included 2 towers of about 40-50 stories!

Guy releases f bend strategic framework plan which shows 85-93 lorimer street affected by an open space overlay. Little thinks what the fuck can I do to maintain yield on this land now that guy has fucked me? Decides to go to a single 74 storey tower increasing the amount of ground floor space for the now designated park. The 'design' of the 74 storey proposal is all a bit back of the envelope because little is pissed that having done a full original scheme he isn't prepared to spend 100,000's to change scheme without being sure guy knows what he wants yet.

This single 74 storey scheme is described in the article above as the original proposal is in fact a redesign because of guys incompetence.

New minister comes in with different view of the world... Developer reverts back to their original scheme for the site.

Questions about park space are a different question. Without 2 (or 3) ground plane plans it is impossible to know whether there would be additional park space available or not. I do agree wynne is using it as good rhetoric to 'chop down' this proposal, whether it actually makes any difference in size of park or not is unclear. There were some other ground floor factors at play here that might have been rejigged to increase park size as well (eg. E 74 level proposal included a bit of a yarras edge style podium for above ground parking and apartment amenities. And both the 74 and original 40/50 proposal included land to the east of the tower for a proposed public road that may have been negotiated out of existence.

Back to top
johnproctor's picture
#24

So park reduces by 270sqm or 10%. Not as some could take it to be say a 50% reduction because it's 1 tower to 2.

It's a decent sized park opposite the yarras edge point park and adjacent to yarra river linear open space walking and cycling tracks... Not the end of the world.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#25

I was commenting about the misleading headline in relation to open space. The single tower proposal was less bulky and was a better outcome regardless of the reasons why the design was changed.

I agree that Matthew Guys completely stuffed up the implementation of Fisherman's Bend and that the plan he approved had huge issues, but one of these issues was not the lack of mandatory height controls in this precinct.

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#26

You'd also have to say that the developer would have been incredibly naïve to buy such an expensive piece of real estate and assume that no further changes would happen re: planning controls for the new residential precinct (given that there were barely any when they acquired the land). Sure Little Projects knew that this was a distinct possibility and included this in their risk?

Back to top

Pages