Advertisement
41 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

CBD | 295-309 King Street | 63L | 215m | Residential

Mark Baljak's picture
#1

Images sourced from the town planning submission and © Plus Architecture

site

context

goldfingers potential

neighbouring feasibility study

King St frontage

L19-39

L78 penthouses

elevation

renders

Back to top
Peter Maltezos's picture

Love it! yessmileyyes

Only I would have had it with the tower top bottom and bottom top.

Prima/Pearl's twin!

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

Back to top
MelbourneGuy's picture

I totally approve of the multi coloured glass.

Back to top
3000's picture

Looking good. The glass is a really nice touch.

Back to top
Adrian's picture

Only I would have had it with the tower top bottom and bottom top.

Nah I love the upside down shape !!

It's different and challenges the conventional shape of towers. If it was the other way round would just look like a cylinder. Far more interesting the way it is !

Back to top
Ryan Seychell's picture

Back to top
Riddlz's picture

Looks amazing! Thanks for posting Ryan.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture

Has anyone checked to see if it overshadows the Yarra/Northbank (serious question)?

Back to top
Melbourne Muse's picture

Not a chance (of overshadowing being an issue) from back there Qantas.

Marvelous Mega-Melbourne

Back to top
Chris Seals's picture

If the Yarra, at the point of the city runs east west, then how could something either north or south, create a shadow ? I know that would depend on the season with the sun rising further south in summer but that would not create the shadowing they the authorities are suggesting. Please enlighten me.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture

We can add this tower to the growing list of buildings unlikely to ever see the light of day.

Cut down to 215m and STILL opposed by council:

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCouncil/Meetings/Lists/CouncilMeeti...

Back to top
Riddlz's picture

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture

Nothing wrong at all with council rejecting a developer proposal that cannot even specify how far into the public realm they want to project their building.

The ongoing objections on this are NOT around height (sorry, you can put your broken records away). The main objections are around inadequate setbacks and apartment design.

Particularly on the question of setbacks, this is council doing their job in ensuring the rights of all who may in future seek to develop adjoining sites, rather than merely privileging the site that happened to get its proposal up first.

Back to top
johnproctor's picture

agree Adam.

does everyone want wall to wall buildings in the hoddle grid with no penetration of light at all? people complain about hte overshadowing requirements on open spaces aren't people worried about the possibility of the entire grid just being in permanent shadow if we keep letting ever tower build to the boundary?

I say it a lot but compare the setbacks on this tower to the 'classic' towers on the grid. 120, 101, rialto, melbourne central, Collins Place, Nauru House, chalk and cheese.

Back to top
Riddlz's picture

What was the point of reducing the height of the tower to 215m when it appears that the design hasn't changed and nothing has been done to address the setback issues?

Surely a tower with better setbacks that is taller, to compensate for the lost floor space, is preferable to a smaller tower without setbacks?

As for overshadowing, "entire CBD in permanent shadow" is tabloid newspaper level hyperbole.

Back to top
Laurence Dragomir's picture

The biggest issue is that FSR/PSR is no longer stringently adhered to or governed resulting in plot extrusions that can't provide the required setbacks.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

The FSR controls in the Melbourne CBD based on entire blocks rather than individual sites were always largely ignored because they were just unworkable and unfair. If you have reasonable, justified and enforceable setback requirements you don't need FSR controls. .

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

The setbacks are inadequate and should be increased to a minimum of 5 metres from King Street, Little Lonsdale and the northern boundary and 3 metres from Nicholson Place. This could easily be done with conditions of permit.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

Some allowance should be made for the fact that the circular floor plate means that the building is less bulky and the average setbacks will be greater than the minimum setback. If it was a square floor plate the setbacks should be greater.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture

MCC still recommending refusal for this one, despite the lower height and overall amended design.

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCouncil/Meetings/Lists/CouncilMeeti...

Another one for the never built thread.

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

couple more

Back to top
Riddlz's picture
Back to top
Dean's picture

Approved at 64 levels. :) :banana: :banana::cheers:

http://www.theurbandeveloper.com/king-street-melbourne-tower-approved/

Developer Farinia has received development approval for its proposed 64-storey mixed-use tower at 295 King Street Melbourne.

The project, which is predominantly residential, comprises two existing sites at the north-western corner of King and Little Lonsdale streets – an area earmarked by the Victorian Government for high-density urban renewal.

It includes 431 apartments (one, two and three-bedroom) plus nine luxury penthouse apartments.

Inspired by Brancusi’s ‘Bird in Space’ 1923, the development’s sculptural circular tower will become a unifying presence within Melbourne’s city skyline.

The creation of meaningful connections has been an important guiding principle in this project’s design – it has been designed to make strong visual and contextual connections with its environment, and it also provides opportunities for building strong connections between its future residents.

One level of the project has been dedicated to communal amenities and shared residential activities.

At street level, where the tower’s circular form allows generous corner setbacks, the development will include both retail and laneway lobbies and cafes will spill out on to the street, inviting people in.

The tower, with a facade of shimmering, iridescent glass, comprises three sections: the base, an upper, flared section that offers views of Flagstaff Gardens and beyond, and a central transitional section that connects the base to the soaring form above.

Back to top
Ryan Seychell's picture

Forgot about this one. Hope they push ahead with sales now but I won't be surprised if the site is for sale in a few weeks.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture

Now THIS is a surprise!

Credit where it's due.

Back to top
3000's picture

There you go, the sky isn't falling after all.

Back to top

Pages

Development & Planning

Friday, January 20, 2017 - 00:00
A rush of planning applications either side of the festive break are cumulatively seeking to add to South Melbourne's robust development scene, with four major apartment projects lodged. City of Port Phillip will now assess the respective merits of the fresh applications, along with a handful of other noteworthy towers already at planning that when combined, would provide the popular suburb with thousands of new apartments.

Policy, Culture & Opinion

Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - 00:00
On 2 January 2017, it was reported that several popular eateries and bars in Footscray had been vandalised, including the perennially successful 8 Bit Burgers on Droop Street, and Up In Smoke on Hopkins Street. 8 Bit had the warm new year's welcome gift of 14 smashed windows and the words “F**k off hipster scum” spray-painted on their entrance.

Advertisement

Visual Melbourne

Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - 17:00
Melbourne’s architectural landscape is a wonderful juxtaposition of modern and Victorian architecture. Although the CBD has been peppered with many skyscrapers, its historical structures have won Melbourne the title of “Australia’s most European city”.

Transport & Design

Sustainability & Environment

Tuesday, November 29, 2016 - 12:00
Timber mid-rise buildings are becoming the preferred choice for many stakeholders in Melbourne, due to a combination of factors, including cost-effectiveness, liveability, ease and efficiency of construction. Within the recent National Construction Code change, Deemed-To-Satisfy provisions allow mid-rise timber construction for buildings up to 25 metres “effective height” (typically, eight storeys).