Australia's New Tallest (Proposed) 82 Levels, 404m

Discussion on developments interstate and overseas.
Message
Author
contractor
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:41 pm

Australia's New Tallest (Proposed) 82 Levels, 404m

#1 Post by contractor » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:26 pm

From the Herald Sun:

ONE of the world's tallest buildings, a 404m super tower, has been proposed for Melbourne's CBD.

The 82-storey office skyscraper would be almost as tall as the former World Trade Centre towers in New York, but still needs planning approval.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy has paved the way for the Stamoulis group to apply for a permit after removing overlays relating to height and overshadowing of the Yarra River.

But Mr Guy stressed that the application had a long way to go.

He wants to see a full public debate on the extraordinary proposal that would dramatically change the city's skyline.

"I acknowledge that it's a very significant building. It is office, not residential. There will need to be a long discussion with the City of Melbourne about a permit," he said yesterday.

"With the size of the structure being proposed, Melburnians need to be aware of it and have a say about it, and ultimately we need a lot of feedback before any permit considerations are made."

Mr Guy and the city council have clashed after the minister approved a number of towers for the central city in the face of council concerns.

The most recent was the Australia 108 apartment tower planned for Southbank, but the State Government met most of the council's concerns by requiring a raft of conditions for the building, designed by Eureka architect Nonda Katsalidis.

The Australia 108 project will feature 664 apartments and a luxury hotel on top.

There had been concerns it would overshadow the Shrine of Remembrance precinct, but Shrine Trustees were satisfied it would not have an impact.

Under the Government's policy, the CBD and other inner areas will be subject to more intensive higher-density development to help accommodate the booming population.

Mr Guy has also approved skyscrapers for Elizabeth St and the Celtic Club in Queen St.

Issues such as Yarra overshadowing will still need to be considered for the 555 Collins St application.
Attachments
911037-super-tower.jpg
911037-super-tower.jpg (45.06 KiB) Viewed 8191 times

User avatar
spiller
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Australia's New Tallest (Proposed) 82 Levels, 404m

#2 Post by spiller » Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:22 pm

Australia 108 is an eyesore of epic proportions. This is mercurial. Lets hope it gets built.

User avatar
Maximus
Legendary Member!
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:05 pm
Location: The Bush Capital (Canberra)
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Australia's New Tallest (Proposed) 82 Levels, 404m

#3 Post by Maximus » Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:56 am

See the Australia 108 thread... I have two words (acronyms, actually) for this proposal: OLS and PANS-OPS.
It's = it is; its = everything else.
You're = you are; your = belongs to.
Than = comparative ("bigger than"); then = next.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: Australia's New Tallest (Proposed) 82 Levels, 404m

#4 Post by claybro » Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:39 pm

Maximus wrote:See the Australia 108 thread... I have two words (acronyms, actually) for this proposal: OLS and PANS-OPS.
And what is the bet this being Melbourne and not Adelaide that they find a way to work around these issues. A bit like our CBD heights that AAL cant tell us what height we can build to until the application is in.

Ben
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 6474
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 232 times
Been thanked: 923 times

Re: Australia's New Tallest (Proposed) 82 Levels, 404m

#5 Post by Ben » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:38 am

Seriously WTH Melbourne. Good on you. Very Jealous. I think Melbourne will have one of the great skylines of the world in the near future. The amount of construction and proposed buildings is crazy. Not long till it takes Sydneys mantle as Australias largest city.

User avatar
Maximus
Legendary Member!
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:05 pm
Location: The Bush Capital (Canberra)
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Australia's New Tallest (Proposed) 82 Levels, 404m

#6 Post by Maximus » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:40 am

claybro wrote:
Maximus wrote:See the Australia 108 thread... I have two words (acronyms, actually) for this proposal: OLS and PANS-OPS.
And what is the bet this being Melbourne and not Adelaide that they find a way to work around these issues. A bit like our CBD heights that AAL cant tell us what height we can build to until the application is in.
'Bro, any airport should be able to tell you what the OLS and PANS-OPS heights are at a particular location, but if the height of the proposed structure is in the 'corridor of uncertainty' (my terminology) -- i.e. between the OLS and PANS-OPS -- then no one can tell you if it will be approved or not, because they're all assessed on a case-by-case basis by the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport.

If Australia 108 penetrates the PANS-OPS for Essendon Airport, then this one almost certainly will, too. Hell, at this height, it might also penetrate the PANS-OPS for Melbourne Airport. In either case, the only way the building will be approved at that height will be if flight paths are changed such that the PANS-OPS surface is higher at that particular location. Whilst I could feasibly see that sort of change being made for Essendon Airport, I certainly can't see it happening for Melbourne Airport.
It's = it is; its = everything else.
You're = you are; your = belongs to.
Than = comparative ("bigger than"); then = next.

User avatar
Maximus
Legendary Member!
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:05 pm
Location: The Bush Capital (Canberra)
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Australia's New Tallest (Proposed) 82 Levels, 404m

#7 Post by Maximus » Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:33 am

And now down comes this one, too... Just goes to show that you can't negotiate your way out of a PANS-OPS penetration.
Skyscraper plans cut down to size
Date July 11, 2013
Simon Johanson


Two skyscrapers backed by state Planning Minister Matthew Guy have been scaled down by flight path restrictions over Melbourne.

A CBD office tower proposed by the property tycoon Harry Stamoulis is unlikely to go ahead, and air safety height restrictions forced the developers of another Southbank giant, the Australia 108 tower, to redesign it.

After being approved by Mr Guy in March, Australia 108 was touted - at 388 metres - as the southern hemisphere's highest residential structure, surpassing Melbourne's tallest, the nearby Eureka Tower.

Mr Stamoulis' 404-metre proposal at 555 Collins Street would also have beaten the Gold Coast's Q1, Australia's tallest building, which soars to 323 metres.

Both developers' big plans have crashed to earth following a Fairfax Media report that Australia 108 would infringe federal PANS-OPS regulations that protect air safety.

continues...
It's = it is; its = everything else.
You're = you are; your = belongs to.
Than = comparative ("bigger than"); then = next.

User avatar
Dog
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 393
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 pm

Re: Australia's New Tallest (Proposed) 82 Levels, 404m

#8 Post by Dog » Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:36 am

Both developers' big plans have crashed to earth following a Fairfax Media report that Australia 108 would infringe federal PANS-OPS regulations that protect air safety.

continues...[/quote][/quote]


I sometimes wonder if it is the media that drives all these issues. Was it actually Fairfax's role to pursue this? It appears Fairfax, like Adelaide's Advertiser make it their role to peruse any hint of a negative issue till it becomes a controversy. Issues become polarised, both sides have nowhere to go. When decisions are made under a media spotlight attempts to find compromise are thrown our the window.
Like our Adelaide building height limits they are not determined by any suggestions planes are actually going to hit them, but by issues around radar interference etc. there are probably solutions to all these, just need cool heads to work them out free of media heat.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

Re: Australia's New Tallest (Proposed) 82 Levels, 404m

#9 Post by monotonehell » Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:02 pm

Both developers' big plans have crashed to earth following a Fairfax Media report that Australia 108 would infringe federal PANS-OPS regulations that protect air safety.
So it's Fairfax's fault then? Burn down the newspapers so this never happens again!

:roll:
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
Maximus
Legendary Member!
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:05 pm
Location: The Bush Capital (Canberra)
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Australia's New Tallest (Proposed) 82 Levels, 404m

#10 Post by Maximus » Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:18 am

monotonehell wrote:
Both developers' big plans have crashed to earth following a Fairfax Media report that Australia 108 would infringe federal PANS-OPS regulations that protect air safety.
So it's Fairfax's fault then? Burn down the newspapers so this never happens again!

:roll:
Yeah, that was a very strange turn of phrase.

What I'm fairly sure has happened is that the developers didn't know and/or care that their proposals penetrated the PANS-OPS, for whatever reason the Victorian Planning Minister wasn't informed that the proposals penetrated the PANS-OPS, and subsequently everyone thought that everything was hunky-dory. Airports and aviation agencies have then approached the Victorian Government and/or the developers directly to inform them of the airspace problem, negotiations have ensued, and subsequently the developers have realised that there's no way out of it.

It's all part of the ongoing tension between airports and developers, not just with respect to airspace, but also noise.
It's = it is; its = everything else.
You're = you are; your = belongs to.
Than = comparative ("bigger than"); then = next.

User avatar
[Shuz]
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm
Has thanked: 857 times
Been thanked: 236 times

Re: Australia's New Tallest (Proposed) 82 Levels, 404m

#11 Post by [Shuz] » Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:39 am

So obviously the numerous Docklands supertall proposals will never get off the ground either due to airspace height restrictions - Grollo Tower and the Zaha Hadid proposals come to mind especially.

Such a shame. Essendon Airport really ought to be closed down and regional/private flights redirected to Avalon. The land could then be sold off for housing - its a big chunk of land in the middle-ring suburbs of Melbourne, which is just crying out to be better utilised and to relieve the city's urban sprawl. That and allow even taller buildings in the Melbourne CBD. It has the best skyline in Australia by far, and has so much potential to keep on getting better. Australia 108 and 505 Collins and CUB would only add to that.
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: Australia's New Tallest (Proposed) 82 Levels, 404m

#12 Post by claybro » Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:04 am

I's sorry, but I am more than a little sus here. Apparently the Eureka tower in Southbank is 297m and 91 floors. This proposal is for 404m and 82 levels? Eureka is apparently fine with Essendon Airport. What makes up the additional height in this new proposal. If it is not floor space then the extra height must come from architectural features or a mast or something? And without any comment form the airport authorities how do we know they actually squashed this? Or is the developer not able to get this off the ground and this is just an excuse. If in fact it is the airport, then I agree with Shuz, get rid of Essendon airport. There are many other suitable sites already in use as secondary airports.

User avatar
[Shuz]
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm
Has thanked: 857 times
Been thanked: 236 times

Re: Australia's New Tallest (Proposed) 82 Levels, 404m

#13 Post by [Shuz] » Fri Jul 12, 2013 1:57 pm

As for Australia 108, Air Services Australia advised the developers that they could only build to 312m AHD (309m) as Southbank is 3m AHD - not 388m. I don't know about 505 Collins, but it would definitely be likely that the same, if not lower height ~300m. The 505 Collins proposal was entirely office, hence the higher building height but lower amount of floors as office floors can vary from 3.6-4.0m floor to roof heights. Residential on the other hand only rises 2.4-3.0m floor to ceiling height. It seems to be tgat Eureka was built to the maximum PANS OPS.
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: Australia's New Tallest (Proposed) 82 Levels, 404m

#14 Post by claybro » Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:21 pm

I get that differing ceiling heights per floor changes the amount of floors per tower height, but aren't Eureka and this proposal both mainly residential towers? There is over 100m difference in height of the towers, this new proposal must have very high ceiling heights. Surely also this issue would have come up at the time of the Eureka construction, and would have been known to the developers of the current proposal. Or is it a case of similar to Adelaide that these proposals are considered on a case by case basis creating the uncertainty that exists here.

User avatar
Maximus
Legendary Member!
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:05 pm
Location: The Bush Capital (Canberra)
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Australia's New Tallest (Proposed) 82 Levels, 404m

#15 Post by Maximus » Fri Jul 12, 2013 3:11 pm

'Bro, see my post to you above from a few months ago. Yes, from the point of view of airspace, proposals are assessed on a case-by-case basis, although if it penetrates the PANS-OPS, it's pretty much always a 'no'. But it's a federal issue, not a state-by-state thing.

In any event, this is classic developers' tactics. They probably did know that there would be airspace problems, but nevermind... Announce your grand plans in the media, get everyone (including the state government) on board, and then when it all gets kyboshed you can make out the airport to be the bad guy. Like I said, all part of the fun and games between airports and developers. :wink:
It's = it is; its = everything else.
You're = you are; your = belongs to.
Than = comparative ("bigger than"); then = next.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest