Becton in Jolimont

peter_j

Ashton Raggatt McDougall's proposal for the controversial Jolimont railways site at the edge of the CBD has started people wondering if that part of town really needs a high-rise. That end of the CBD is crisply defined by a line of big buildings, with Seidler's Shell House clearly marking the corner. Still, Seidler once proposed a tall Grollo Tower at the same spot so he can't be too upset about it.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Tower-of-power/2005/02/28/1109546796495.html THE AGE 01.03.05

My vote would be to not sell the railway land to Becton for a measly $7.5M, but instead slowly turn it into a park/corridor eventually connecting Birrarung Marr to Treasury Gardens. This would connect Melbourne's gardens and preserve the only clearly defined corner of the CBD grid. Unfortunately the whole Jolimont deal, with it's secretive last minute approvals by outgoing ministers, reeks a bit of toast, from a Sydney Toaster. As a local resident says in this article, it's been assumed that the land must be developed, there is no ""none-of-the-above" option.

peter_j

Just three months after the previous plan was knocked back, Becton are back with a solitary 19 storey tower, and it's been approved.
AGE 02.06.05 (rego req'd)

mark_melb

You know what will happen in a few months/years time, don't you... We should never let things be watered down. Remember the line of sight issue from Flagstaff? Look at the splay on one building .......... then a few years later........an ugly tower for student accomodation.

peter_j

Yeah it is a shame, if we're talking along the same line (ie contentious buildings become accepted precedents). I'm not familiar with the Flagstaff case. That corner to the CBD is just so strong as it is. I would have at least liked to have seen a massing model of the new proposal in its context - hopefully City of Melb saw one before approving. The council are being very apologetic about it - saying their hands are tied etc etc by a 1993 planning scheme. Not sure why that site gets to live in 1993 and all the rest of us have to deal with planning schemes 2005 style.

Anonymous

peter wrote:

Yeah it is a shame, if we're talking along the same line (ie contentious buildings become accepted precedents). I'm not familiar with the Flagstaff case. That corner to the CBD is just so strong as it is. I would have at least liked to have seen a massing model of the new proposal in its context - hopefully City of Melb saw one before approving. The council are being very apologetic about it - saying their hands are tied etc etc by a 1993 planning scheme. Not sure why that site gets to live in 1993 and all the rest of us have to deal with planning schemes 2005 style.

why is a 'strong corner' a good thing - a new tower would simply add another layer to the city skyline - sounds like you can only understand the city in plan form.
more could be made of that corner of town, its a potential gateway - i'd like to see buildings on the vacant side of flinders st.

peter_j

A strong corner to a classic colonial urban grid is a good thing because a) it's rare and b) it works.

The land falls away to the east and south from the Seidler's Shell House giving this building great prominence along Wellington Parade.

Any picking away at this sole remaining strong edge of the CBD seems a shame and would set a precedent for further encroachment onto railway lands in that area.

sounds like you can only understand the city in plan form.

No, I understand the city to be quite 3 dimensional thank you. 4 if you add time.

If I might be so bold, it sounds as if you understand the southern open space to be vacant, empty rather than open, requiring filling with buildings. If a space is deemed to be underutilised, then there are other options to consider before plonking buildings on it for eternity.

Also, how could development of the south side of Flinders Street to this corner make it a gateway, and why do we need another gateway?