Horses for courses: Greenland Group's Flemington Life in detail

Horses for courses: Greenland Group's Flemington Life in detail
Horses for courses: Greenland Group's Flemington Life in detail

Located less than six kilometres from the Melbourne CBD, Flemington Racecourse occupies a 125ha site in an area undergoing significant transformation and growth. Managed by the Victoria Racing Club (VRC), a long-term master plan was developed for the facility during 2009, with the aim of maximising revenue opportunities for the ongoing investment in facilities for the racecourse and significant capital expenditure undertakings such as replacement of the Member's Old Grandstand.

Part of this master plan involved the sale of non-core land to generate the funds for investment in new facilities.

Enter Greenland Group, China's largest real estate developer which acquired two sites covering a combined 40,000sqm. Known as Flemington Green and Epsom Road, these land holdings were surplus to the needs of the VRC and were offloaded to Greenland Group with the expectation of large-scale development.

The revenue from their sale would then be invested towards the development of the new Club Stand seen below.

Horses for courses: Greenland Group's Flemington Life in detail
The Club Stand is expected to be built shortly. Image courtesy of Bates Smart.

Flemington Green occupies 30,000sqm of land, situated between Fisher Parade and Leonard Crescent. The site is located at the high point of the promontory above the Racecourse and the Maribyrnong River. The site's existing uses consist primarily of open lot car parks and three dwellings along Fisher Parade.

Epsom Road on the other hand occupies approximately 10,000sqm of land and is adjacent to the intersection of Epsom, Racecourse and Ascot Vale Roads, at the end of the Racecourse Road Activity Centre. The site is currently undeveloped with the exception of a single level building: the heritage listed Former Jockeys’ Convalescent Lodge which will be retained as part of any future development onsite.

Greenland's plans for the sites were revealed late last year when - together with the VRC - it submitted a Planning Scheme Amendment Request with the Minister for Planning, which sought to change the planning controls for both sites. This would allow for the developer to move forward with plans for its 'Flemington Life' development, consisting of four towers ranging in height from 14-storeys (AHD 73.7m) to 31-storeys (AHD 123.9m), supported by medium-density dwellings across a further six buildings.

Horses for courses: Greenland Group's Flemington Life in detail
Flemington Green height and dwelling types. Image courtesy Woods Bagot

An Indicative Development Concept (IDC) has been prepared for both sites which provides extensive details on the type of development that could be accommodated across the two sites. These do not represent the final form of any development on the site, but rather reflect the type, scale and siting of built form that maybe be permitted within the parameters proposed under the new planning controls.

The building envelopes shown in the proposed Comprehensive Development Zone for the low-rise component only allow for variations in height and setbacks.

The IDC for the Flemington Green site, as prepared by Woods Bagot, seeks the development of 736 dwellings, based on a built form that comprises three residential towers, two street level podia and a lower density precinct containing townhouse and apartment buildings up to 4-storeys. The proposal also includes scope for a small amount of ancillary retail, commercial space and community facilities that will provide local services for residents.

Horses for courses: Greenland Group's Flemington Life in detail
Flemington Green as rendered from Fischer Parade. Image courtesy Woods Bagot

The architectural design response adopts a rectilinear architectural language at the perimeter of the master plan and transforms this language to a curved formal language in the centre. This curved formal language continues into the tower geometry, referencing Flemington Racecourse’s distinctive curvilinear shape.

Woods Bagot

The three towers which are expected to form Flemington Green are all distinguished by individual responses to articulation of facades, which draw on the characteristics of the racecourse. These are summarised below:

Horses for courses: Greenland Group's Flemington Life in detail
Facade reference images. Image courtesy Woods Bagot
  • Tower 1, 25-storeys - The Veil: The design concept for the new facade expresses the Flemington’s fascination with fashion.The entire building is enclosed by a skeletal metal frame, which like a veil conveys a mysterious and ambiguous definition by discreetly revealing what is behind. The veil creates a dynamic gesture and form.
  • Tower 2, 20-storeys - The Farrier: The facade design concept is derived from the materiality and tectonic nature of the farriers tools. This is represented by the curvaceous external balconies forms which are asymmetrically offset to create a sculptural form.
  • Tower 3, 14-storeys - Silks: The facade design concept references the silky shiny colours of the jockeys outfit. The smooth curved form of the floor plan is emphasised by glassy exterior treatment, this is contrasted by the striking colours which highlight the recessed balconies.

The IDC for the Epsom Road seeks to deliver a high quality, high-density residential development at the apex of the Racecourse Road Activity Centre and Flemington Racecourse, providing a gateway to the precinct. The IDC allows for a 31-storey proposal with a total of 398 dwellings, based on a built form that comprises of a typical tower and podium format.

Horses for courses: Greenland Group's Flemington Life in detail
Epsom Road Indicative Development Concept. Image courtesy Woods Bagot

While heavy with detail, it is worth noting that the above designs and images still designated as development concepts created to provide an indication of the planning controls that Greenland Group and Woods Bagot are seeking push through. Whether the development team largely retain the above designs once each land parcel is subject to individual planning submissions remains to be seen.

Laurence Dragomir

Laurence Dragomir

Laurence Dragomir is one of the co-founders of Urban Melbourne. Laurence has developed a wealth of knowledge and experience working in both the private and public sector specialising in architecture, urban design and planning. He also has a keen interest in the built environment, cities and Star Wars.

Tags: 
Apartments Flemington Greenland Group Woods Bagot

Comments (14)

Help contribute to the Urban community by leaving your comments about this article
What would you like to say about this project?
bilby
Will you be a "whinging pom", too, Theboynoodle? That's the thing with playing the man, it descends into generalisation and dehumanisation, rather than addressing the basis of claims as either true or false or requiring further exploration. Why do "NIMBYs" get called what they do? Because the advocates of development and "urban renewal" all too often don't know how to respond with any level of subtlety to the issues raised by the very communities confronted with wholesale change to their neighbourhoods. The title of Jane Jacob's famous 1958 essay "Downtown is for People" sums it up, really. We need to think about who cities are actually for - i.e. the residents. Trampling over residents' concerns as if they are the problem getting in the way of the perfect urban expression is, frankly, backward. No one disagrees that there should be limits on the kind of development that can take place in neighbourhoods, so in that sense, we are all NIMBYs, just as all religious people are atheists when it comes to the gods of other religions. The more interesting question to ask ourselves is, what would and wouldn't we want to see built in a particular setting and why? Anything else is just avoiding the cut and thrust of the civic debate we need to have.
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?
theboynoodle's picture
[quote] I find it interesting that those who apply labels like NIMBY are almost invariably doing so coming from somewhere else (in some cases half way round the world) rather than from anywhere near the area of the community to which they refer.[/quote] Well if my logical fallacy is 'ad hominem', then yours is too. With a bit of 'straw man' for good measure. I do come from far far away, but I live in Melbourne. I don't live in Flemington.. but I do live in a suburb where all the same concerns apply. Flemington isn't special. Where I live is a step or three ahead of in terms of how it has been developed... 4-6 storeys is standard, but big towers would be a big change, and a challenge to the urban heritage and our massively over-crowded tram route (amongst other things). But if someone comes along and decides they want to build a tower or two then my response will be 'Ok, fine, how do we make this work'. At least, I hope it will. I believe more homes should be built. I believe as many homes as possible should be built in existing and established suburbs, and shared out amongst them all. I believe that more people is a good thing.. after all, it's all the people who settled here before us that gave us the city we have. I think that if I'm challenged by a proposal in my neighborhood I'll stick by these beliefs.. and if I don't then people can call me a NIMBY because that is exactly what I'll be.
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?
theboynoodle's picture
[quote]Calling "NIMBY" is just a way if arguing ad hominem. There is no such category - every resident will have their own reasons for objecting to a development, if they choose to do so.[/quote] I've thought about this.. and I disagree. Yes it is an ad hominem, but it is also a thing. There are lots of people who will resist development and will cite lots of reasons from the standard list of reasons but, when you finally break through it really does come down to the fact that they just don't want it in their backyard. There are also, let's be honest, people who'll be entirely open about simply not wanting it in their backyard. And it's often an understandable position. People tend to like the places they live, and have a rational fear of developments that might change those places - such as by adding lots of people. They may coat their objections in words about preserving the character of the area, or concerns about the traffic, or other totally concerns.. but if you boil those objections down then they really do often end up as 'don't build it here'.. aka. NIMBY.
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?
bilby
Calling "NIMBY" is just a way if arguing ad hominem. There is no such category - every resident will have their own reasons for objecting to a development, if they choose to do so. Let's address the actual arguments presented, rather than just sticking a label to someone's back and sniggering as they walk away ...
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?
Len's picture
A voice of reason you are Bilby - of course NIMBY is nothing more than invective that attempts to devalue and diminish the positions of those who legitimately have a concern about development that proposes significant change. Perhaps the Bilby could be an apt analogy ... a vulnerable little Aussie battler of a marsupial that had all but made extinct by an overwhelming tide of European settlement. I find it interesting that those who apply labels like NIMBY are almost invariably doing so coming from somewhere else (in some cases half way round the world) rather than from anywhere near the area of the community to which they refer.
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?

Pages