22 posts in this thread / 0 new

SOUTHBANK | 28 Clarendon Street | 145m | 39L | Mixed Use

Mark Baljak wrote on Sat, 11/03/2017 - 10:54

Demo plan

Tower footprint

Ground

Serious penthouse

Elevations

Images

db2 wrote on Sat, 11/03/2017 - 12:04

I love a tall building as much as anyone but I absolutely detest this proposal.

This is one instance were I hope Wynne actually does go full karate chop mode.

Awful.

Primal Beauty wrote on Sun, 12/03/2017 - 21:34

I think it is perfect development for that site...funny how opinions differ...it brings the Tea House out of its misery, sitting there lonely on that busy intersection; one never notices the building anymore...but with this development I can see how it can bring it to life once again and gently nurture it under its auspices...great development in my eyes!

3000 wrote on Sat, 11/03/2017 - 12:42

Not going to lie, that penthouse is seriously cool.

Mark Baljak wrote on Sat, 11/03/2017 - 12:49

Yes, everyone should have a retreat within their master bedroom

Anyways no too much scope to shift the tower further south-west away from Tea House

Melbourne_Fragments wrote on Sat, 11/03/2017 - 13:03

I love how the 'plaza' they think will get them a tick for public benefit is actually just a driveway for cars.

SYmlb wrote on Sat, 11/03/2017 - 13:54

^ Yeah was about to say the same. It's replacing like-for-like at best.

I'm still a bit torn on this one, however I would have to say that overall I think it is overdevelopment. Replacing the extension on the side I do not mind, but the tower is just too overbearing. Not a bad design overall, just not sold on it.

Peter Maltezos wrote on Sun, 12/03/2017 - 09:06

The Tea House is mostly intact, the new tower is better than average, OK with me!

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

Qantas743 wrote on Sun, 12/03/2017 - 20:53

I like it.

#10

Michael Berquez wrote on Mon, 13/03/2017 - 09:05

I don't have a problem with any of this......

#11

Garmatt wrote on Mon, 13/03/2017 - 10:46

I'm actually surprised this hasn't been proposed much sooner. It makes sense.

#12

Nicholas Harrison wrote on Mon, 18/09/2017 - 15:02

This application has been amended and hander over the City of Melbourne for a decision.

#13

3000 wrote on Mon, 18/09/2017 - 15:36

I'm on the fence with this one. The location is a traffic-sewer.

#14

Danny Boy wrote on Wed, 10/01/2018 - 17:34

24 levels now

#15

zenith wrote on Wed, 10/01/2018 - 19:54

Of course the shorter height is SO MUCH BETTER. YAY FOR HERITAGE.

I'll hurt myself if my eyes roll back in my head any further.

#16

3000 wrote on Wed, 10/01/2018 - 20:33

Have fun with that, Zenith

#17

Aussie Steve wrote on Thu, 11/01/2018 - 11:43

A much better outcome. Separation and reduction in height were critical for a successful application that would be looked upon favourably by Heritage Victoria.

#18

Michael Berquez wrote on Thu, 11/01/2018 - 12:01

The design of the lower levels is better.....but the height chop seems pointless

#19

db2 wrote on Thu, 11/01/2018 - 15:47

For this site I very much prefer the new shorter version. For once a good height chop.

Nice outcome, nice design.

#20

Primal Beauty wrote on Thu, 11/01/2018 - 17:06

I agree DB2...the proportions are just right in regards to the rest of area, since nothing is going to be built on that block apart from proposed development ...and design wise very well executed; especially the lower 5 levels being sympathetic with the old Tea House, almost creating a modern version of adjoining Tea House with the lovely sinuous glass extention on the top of it...excellent!

#21

3000 wrote on Thu, 11/01/2018 - 22:19

Yeah I have no problem with this current proposal.

#22

Rohan Storey wrote on Sat, 29/12/2018 - 15:11

Just got a letter from HV - they said NO !
Most unexpected.
"..the construction of the 24 storey tower ...would have a substantial detrimental impact on the cultural heritage significance of the place and on the setting and views of the Robur Tea Building."
"..the refusal would not prevent the reasonable or economic use of the place; also the viable economic use of the place does not require teh level of change proposed."

Lookingupatbuildings