29 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

SOUTHBANK | 71-85 City Road | 50L | 157 metres | Residential

Mark Baljak's picture
#1

Images courtesy Doig Architecture

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture
#2

Well bowl me over with a fishfork, they've kept the unprotected heritage building. Not the world's most sympathetic treatment, but bugger me it's there.

Back to top
Peter Maltezos's picture
#3

^^ Interesting, very good for CE. smiley

I collect, therefore I am. thecollectormm.com.au
Back to top
Riddlz's picture
#4

So is this 2.4m or 1.6m for the ground level?

Shouldn't it be 226.2-1.6 so 225m rounded up.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#5

Central Equity actually have quite a good record for retaining heritage buildings in their developments.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#6

Entrance is 1.6 AHD so overall height above ground level is 224.6

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#7

umm spot on

Back to top
Rohan Storey's picture
#8

Interesting that it was presumably submitted before the recent tower rules, but complies with them, at least to the extent that the minimum setbacks on all sides are 5m. I guess this has been an informal minimum for some time. Also interesting that it looks like it's been designed with the possibility of another tower to the west, with those apartments in the middle on the west side having views directed towards the street rather than relying on views over the adjacent site.

Lookingupatbuildings

Back to top
MelbourneGuy's picture
#9

Just wondering as to what caused CE to deviate from their normal offering? Not that I'm complaining.

Back to top
3000's picture
#10

Even CE have to mix it up a bit guess.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#11

The standard of applications in Southbank improved after the planning controls were reviewed and amended controls were introduced in June 2013. Generally nothing has recently been approved with setbacks of less than 5m from the boundaries or within 10m of another building.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#12

Why are they showing A108 as AHD 313m?

Back to top
tiankd74's picture
#13

I don't like central equity

Back to top
3000's picture
#14

I think most of SB sucks tbh. Shit central.

Back to top
Dean's picture
#15

Set back, 225m and a not bad design.

Mark or tays are we rounding up??? 224.6 = 225m???

Back to top
Riddlz's picture
#16

MCC reccomending refusal and was cut back to 50L and 166m

Back to top
db2's picture
#17

Good on MCC.

CE is CE, crap is crap, at 200m+ this would have been a shocker.

383 LaTrobe Street getting MCC approval is huge.

Two good decisions by the MCC.

Back to top
32 Blocks's picture
#18

Good news, it would be better if they refused the entire development and sent them packing. CE are responsible for most of the warts in our city.

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

Back to top
Riddlz's picture
#19
Back to top
Riddlz's picture
#20

Back to top
MelbourneGuy's picture
#21

Has that been approved at the shorter level?

Back to top
Chris Seals's picture
#22

What a disgrace, reminds me of a cooling tower.

Back to top
3000's picture
#23

That's a no from me.

Back to top
SYmlb's picture
#24

@MelbourneGuy; Doig Architects mention it as a 49 level tower on their website and the latest render is clearly around that level, plus the Sept 2016 agenda where this was proposed shows 49 levels (plus plantroom). Seems likely they approved it at that height.

The DELWP website is a real mess and very user un-friendly. It's a worry when we have to rely on renders for a floor count. The Queensland equivalent is golden compared to this archaic platform.

Back to top
MelbourneGuy's picture
#25

Thanks SYMLB.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#26

Another victim of Edward Scissorhands.

Back to top

Pages