NIMBY

<html><body>
Apologies to Fry, but we just couldn't resist taking a bite at this topic. If you didn't read The Age on Saturday (5/10/13), you should peruse <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/apartment-towers-are-killing-the-worlds-most-livable-city-20131004-2uzs8">this piece</a> titled 'Apartment towers are killing the world's most livable city.' Call it part sensationalism, part truth, part fluff... but mostly ridiculous!

Upon reading the piece, imagine now the words "apartment towers" in the headline were actually sprawl-belt development or urban fringe development. Sorry, I forgot demonising the suburban establishment is taboo in certain circles and apartment living is the devil incarnate. Quite seriously, apartment living can have its negative aspects, some of which have been touched on within The Age Associate Editor's piece, yet what viable alternative is there? Have the masses live on Melbourne's fringes with its intrinsic lack of urban amenity, public transport, long distance to jobs, inadequate services and mounting social issues? It's all good and well to pot apartment living as part of an ongoing agenda but in doing so provide a viable, efficient and responsible alternative otherwise, well, its just a load of repetitive crap!

Notwithstanding the claim "world's most liveable city" is a load of gumpf bestowed upon us by an offshore economics magazine and perpetuated by local mainstream media and the odd politician looking for a soundbite, it was a curious headline &amp; opinion piece overall given the historic move to have the City of Melbourne, City of Port Phillip and Spring Street cooperate, and (what we can only imagine) sing kumbaya, then produce and release the Fishermans Bend draft vision (<a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/train-stations-treelined-boulevards-mooted-for-fishermans-bend-20130916-2ttux">reported by The Age</a> as well). A draft vision with apartment living at its heart.

The two previously mentioned councils are the stakeholders feeling the most pressure regarding Fishermans Bend where the Capital City Zone overlay sees planning applications automatically lodged at 1 Spring Street rather than Council House 2 or the St. Kilda Town Hall. For the best part of a decade the near bipolar stance in terms of ethos and development of these two councils and Spring Street has been a major source of friction and until now their discontent and bickering has been played out through the media.

These three entities, for all intents and purposes, were happy to put their logos on the same <a href="http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Draft_Vision.pdf">Fishermans Bend Draft vision document</a> where the so-called liveable city-killing apartment towers are very much a part of the draft vision within the Urban Renewal Area - surely all three can't be wrong?

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/fishbend_draft_cover.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Logos from the first page of the Fishermans Bend Draft Vision document"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="92" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/fishbend_draft_cover.jpg?itok=kxNg2m2G" title="Logos from the first page of the Fishermans Bend Draft Vision document" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Logos from the first page of the Fishermans Bend Draft Vision document</figcaption></figure><figure><img alt="Proposed general height limits throughout Fishermans Bend" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/pictures/article-images/height_limits.png" style="width: 700px; height: 677px;"><figcaption>Proposed general height limits throughout Fishermans Bend</figcaption></figure>So the question must be asked, is Fishermans Bend now dead in the water as according to The Age's piece where 8, 18 and "Towers above mid-rise podiums" are the type of development which are killing our so-called liveable city?

As for the assertion of placing a moratorium on all current planning applications, well yes lets put the brakes on a positive, jobs producing aspect of the local economy which by the by is now a driver of foreign investment into Melbourne. Ultimately opinion pieces are just that, but thankfully The Age also <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/developers-oppose-push-for-higher-design-standards-20131004-2uzuv#ixzz2gnfZrXAT">ran a piece</a> really worth reading on the same day - the topic of developer resistance to mandating design standards for new development - an issue far more relevant, which strikes at the crux of apartment living and what should be the housing medium's continual positive progression.

For those seeking a far more learned response to The Age piece, we highly recommend reading Alan Davies <a href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/10/08/are-apartment-towers-bad-for-our-cities/">The Urbanist</a> blog entry from yesterday.
</body></html>

silvermb

Fishermans Bend: will apartment towers kill it?

<html><body>
Focusing on the height of a new development has become somewhat of a sport in Melbourne of late. Yesterday was no exception with the Associate Editor of The Age Shane Green writing a column titled <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/highrise-utopia-or-another-pieinthesky-pipe-dream-20130621-2oo4s">High-rise utopia or another pie-in-the-sky pipe dream?</a>

In it, Green states "The real risk he [Planning Minister Matthew Guy] faces is that this [Fishermans Bend] will be another Docklands - our last big urban renewal idea that was so poorly executed that it has become a case study in what not to do, and a byword for unmet potential". Notwithstanding the organisation Green works for has been every much a part of the real problem with Docklands (Fairfax's Media House like many other new Docklands / CBD fringe offices - we call them groundscrapers - consume more land than an office skyscraper in an attempt to flatten organisational hierarchies yet these buildings occupy prime sites which are for the most part inactive outside of normal business hours), the comparison of the supposed non-success of Docklands and his main point "there are early signs it will be a place where high-rise is king, in keeping with the government's love affair of all things tall in the rest of Melbourne" is dubious at best.

I know Urban.com.au has only been live since March, but like the comment I made at the time in response to the op-ed written by ABC producer Daniel Ziffer and published in The Age a few weeks ago (<a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/buying/melbournes-future-a-sip-of-tsim-sha-tsui-and-a-gulp-of-brooklyn">my response</a>, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/caroline-springs-in-the-sky#content">response by Nick Harrison</a>), I'd like to point out Green's statement "in keeping with the government's love affair of all things tall in the rest of Melbourne" can be negated by spending just a few short minutes on our <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/developments">project database</a>. The "rest of Melbourne" has a very healthy mix (in built-form, use and height) of urban developments proposed, before planning authorities (local and state), at sales or under construction.

<h2>Human scale means different things to different people</h2>

Green needs to define what "human scale" means to him and what exactly his definition of a high-rise is otherwise the debate about our future development is going to be muddled in a large cacophony of hurbis. Quoting trusty (tongue-in-cheek intended) old <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_scale#Human_scale_in_architecture">Wikipedia</a>:

<blockquote>
Humans also interact with their environments based on their sensory capabilities. The fields of human perception systems, like perceptual psychology and cognitive psychology, are not exact sciences, because human information processing is not a purely physical act, and because perception is affected by cultural factors, personal preferences, experiences, and expectations. So human scale in architecture can also describe buildings with sightlines, acoustic properties, task lighting, ambient lighting, and spatial grammar that fit well with human senses. However, one important caveat is that human perceptions are always going to be less predictable and less measurable than physical dimensions.
<cite><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_scale#Human_scale_in_architecture">Wikipedia: Human scale</a></cite>
</blockquote>

Focusing on the cultural factors, personal preferences, experiences and expectations part of the quote above - we have a problem in Melbourne with regards to our shift toward a higher-density future. Like many Anglosphere cities, we are overwhelmingly suburban and we've had at least 3 generations of people growing up with cars as their primary mode of transport. "Human Scale" to many of the good burghers of Melbourne will mean the single family dwelling on its own land title with distant retail, employment and social destinations. If we only frame the future urban development debate around this mindset we are going to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Further quoting the same Wikipedia page:

<blockquote>
Human scale in architecture is deliberately violated for monumental effect. Buildings, statues, and memorials are constructed in a scale larger than life as a social/cultural signal that the subject matter is also larger than life.
<cite><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_scale#Human_scale_in_architecture">Wikipedia: Human scale</a></cite>
</blockquote>

In 1889, the <a href="http://www.walkingmelbourne.com/building3_apa-building-the-australian-building">APA Building</a> was completed and with its completion a title of being one of the world's tallest skyscrapers at the time. Can you imagine what Melburnians thought back then? A new 12 level building towering over everything else when the majority of the Hoddle Grid was in the 4-5 level range? The gall of it all, stop the press we have a crisis on our hands! Fast forward more than a century, design, construction and overall engineering capability has evolved to allow us create buildings such as Eureka and Rialto and with it, theoretically, our sense of what human scale means. These two towers are the leaders of the pack, they are not the norm and we shouldn't expect Fishermans Bend to be entirely comprised of buildings in this height range.

<h2>A modern story of progress, focusing on where all humans interact: the street</h2>

Back on the 2nd of April we reported on a planning application which depicts 3 high-rises sitting atop an active podium which would be completely out of place in the adjacent Southbank precinct. Why? Because the architect has taken a leaf out of the City of Port Phillip Montague structure plan and incorporated the design principles for streets and public areas. It's hard not to have high hopes for the wider precinct when <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/planning-application-123-125-montague-st-south-melbourne">123-125 Montague Street</a> has a strong focus on providing non-residential spaces to an area which is currently semi-industrial - new residents in the podium and towers above and the wider precinct, as it is developed, will benefit immensely from the mooted supermarket space and 16 other retail spaces at ground level.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/2s9t1et.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Ground landscape plan with ground floor uses © Peddle Thorp architects"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/2s9t1et.jpg?itok=cOzCIMZx" title="Ground landscape plan with ground floor uses © Peddle Thorp architects" typeof="Image"></a>

<figcaption>Ground landscape plan with ground floor uses © Peddle Thorp architects</figcaption></figure>Peddle Thorp have also incorporated a public laneway - attempted in Docklands, unheard of in Southbank - right through the middle of the site which can conceivably be the start of a network throughout other sites to the north and south.

The podiums have engaging facades which will wrap around the entire site allowing the car parks located behind them internally to be "out of sight, out of mind" (as they should be) - this concept is not new and has been deployed in many new developments in Docklands and Southbank.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/2s9t1et.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Engaging podium facade and calm street - exactly what we want for Fishermans Bend © Peddle Thorp architects"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/Image4.jpg" style="height: 429px; width: 702px;" title="Engaging podium facade and calm street - exactly what we want for Fishermans Bend © Peddle Thorp architects"></a>

<figcaption>Engaging podium facade and calm street - exactly what we want for Fishermans Bend © Peddle Thorp architects</figcaption></figure>Here's the current view looking East along Thistlethwaite Street

<iframe frameborder="0" height="400" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="https://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&amp;source=embed&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=Montague+Street,+South+Melbourne,+Victoria&amp;aq=0&amp;oq=Montague+Street&amp;sll=-37.860283,145.079616&amp;sspn=1.875722,4.22699&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Montague+St,+South+Melbourne+Victoria+3205&amp;t=m&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=-37.831717,144.951339&amp;panoid=4l6jSwe6j5WW0l5bO4LxUQ&amp;cbp=13,55.19,,0,-0.35&amp;ll=-37.839479,144.951382&amp;spn=0.027113,0.06094&amp;z=14&amp;output=svembed" width="702"></iframe>

<a href="https://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&amp;source=embed&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=Montague+Street,+South+Melbourne,+Victoria&amp;aq=0&amp;oq=Montague+Street&amp;sll=-37.860283,145.079616&amp;sspn=1.875722,4.22699&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Montague+St,+South+Melbourne+Victoria+3205&amp;t=m&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=-37.831717,144.951339&amp;panoid=4l6jSwe6j5WW0l5bO4LxUQ&amp;cbp=13,55.19,,0,-0.35&amp;ll=-37.839479,144.951382&amp;spn=0.027113,0.06094&amp;z=14">View Larger Map</a>

And this, straight from the planning application, is what Peddle Thorp have put forward for Thistlethwaite Street of the future, noting:

<ul>
<li>the strong emphasis on providing places for people to sit and converse with each other - you can't do that on City Road or Queensbridge Street.</li>
	<li>the significant reduction in space available for vehicular traffic which will calm the street even after new residents move in allowing dedicated bike lanes and urban greenery to become a signature piece of the street - you won't find that in Southbank when you step back from the Yarra promenade.</li>
</ul>
<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/2s9t1et.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Proposed Thistlethwaite Street cross-section © Peddle Thorp architects"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/Image15.jpg" style="width: 702px; height: 353px;" title="Proposed Thistlethwaite Street cross-section © Peddle Thorp architects"></a>

<figcaption>Proposed Thistlethwaite Street cross-section © Peddle Thorp architects</figcaption></figure><figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/2s9t1et.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Thistlethwaite Street - Peddle Thorp's vision © Peddle Thorp architects"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/Image1_0.jpg" style="width: 702px; height: 431px;" title="Thistlethwaite Street - Peddle Thorp's vision © Peddle Thorp architects"></a>

<figcaption>Thistlethwaite Street - Peddle Thorp's vision © Peddle Thorp architects</figcaption></figure>Here's the issue: Shane Green was oversimplifying what expanding the Capital City Zone means when he stated "the minister will be responsible for approving plans for projects over a certain size - high-rises". You will note I have intentionally left out the renders of the towers associated with this proposal (you can view them in the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/planning-application-123-125-montague-st-south-melbourne">original article</a>) for the simple purpose of highlighting: attractive, calm, urban streets and high-rises are not mutually exclusive. High-rises are very much a part of the solution for housing a growing population in appropriate areas - and I can't think of a more appropriate area than blank canvas Fishermans Bend - because at the end of the day, if you get the most important aspect of redevelopment right - the public realm - its attractiveness will lure people regardless of the usual negative connotations associated with high-rises: some overshadowing at certain times of the day and wind tunnel creation.

Just look at Queensbridge Square and Freshwater Place, an area prone to large wind gusts created by the towers behind and the East End of Collins Street which is perpetually in shadow throughout the day - both hyper-density precincts with a lot of localised activity owing to the attractive public realm created over the years.

The recently released <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/gazing-into-the-fishermans-bend-transport-crystal-ball">PTV plan</a> shows a rail line entering Fishermans Bend linking it with the CBD and the rest of the rail network which in turn will support residential and employment densities in the redevelopment zone well beyond the 200 people per hectare figure Green states in his comment piece. I believe the State Government was right to expand the Capital City Zone to Fishermans Bend with one caveat, and mentioned by The Age's Associate Editor, the structure plan should force all new development in the Fishermans Bend zone to have a strong public realm emphasis like 123-125 Montague Street does, and developers should be free to incorporate a diversity heights in their developments, excluding transition areas.

We should never aim to plan ourselves into a restrictive corner - we must resist the temptation to oversimplify what's actually happening and we must also not restrict architectural diversity via arbitrary height limits in areas which scream for more diversity - as they say in the financial world and how 123-125 Montague Street superbly illustrates: past performance is not necessarily an indicator for the future.
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

High-rises can work with the public realm

<html><body>
Daniel Ziffer, <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/developers-tall-tales-are-all-pie-in-the-sky-20130603-2nm20" target="_blank">writing a comment piece in The Age on June 4th 2013</a> argued Melbourne was not like New York where “the diverse mix of housing in Manhattan — tenements, walk-ups, low-rise apartment buildings — is supported by the services that you get when a city develops over decades, not years”.

Unfortunately to date, the majority of the Melburnians have only been drip fed snippets from the mainstream media regarding apartment living and it has been a daunting and cumbersome task to truly gauge the sheer change that is upon the entire metropolitan area - and the author's above piece does not help.  

Not only is Melbourne retrofitting its suburbs in areas with existing services, public transport, schools and retail outlets, the bulk of new urban apartment development proposed or under construction in Melbourne is in the same category as New York's existing housing stock – low/mid-rise.

This is why I along with my co-director Mark Baljak started the Urban.com.au project.

After more than a decade of inhabiting community forums dedicated to the observation and discussion of urban development around the world, we took great inspiration from <a href="http://www.urbantoronto.ca" target="_blank">Urban Toronto</a> and went about building a database of development projects in our home town which everyone could access and draw their own conclusions from.

Whilst most of the author's piece appears to be his own negative reaction to marketing strategies employed by various agencies working for developers, it would be tenuous at best to suggest "Melbourne is going along another model: Hong Kong". It is extremely naive to focus solely on the Melbourne CBD and Southbank with a passing mention of Richmond as the author has done. The redevelopment of the inner-core of Melbourne really only tells the tall story, not the complete one.

We created the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/developments">Urban.com.au project database</a> for the sole purpose to aggregate and share the knowledge which is located in different corners of the web - we're passionate about Melbourne's future development and want to work toward producing a content-rich and open data source so no-one in our community will be under any false pretense as to the direction in which Melbourne is heading. By spending just 5 minutes on the database, anyone will be able to understand 'medium and high-density development' are terms that are just as diverse as our city's population itself and it's not just the central core of Melbourne or any particular scale of development which is bringing positive change to our growing city - it's the sum of the whole.

Media industry professionals, academia, urban industry representatives and of course the community at large are all welcome to use and reference Urban.com.au as a tool to better understand the scope of change Melbourne is seeing - and perhaps over time we'll all recognise Melbourne's urban nodes of the future will have a little Midtown Manhattan/Tsim Sha Tsui and a lot of antipodean Brooklyn, Shoreditch or Lincoln Park.

Note to journalists/editors: feel free to republish this article with reference simply to "Urban.com.au".
</body></html>

Melbourne's future: a sip of Tsim Sha Tsui and a gulp of Brooklyn

<html><body>
The reaction from some Melburnians with regards to the marketing campaign by Hong Kong-based developer Far East Consortium, comparing its apartment development on the corner of Spencer and Lonsdale Streets to New York is genuinely one of amusement.
There is hardly the need for any in depth research to convince most Melburnians the comparison is rather silly. However the comment piece <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/developers-tall-tales-are-all-pie-in-the-sky-20130603-2nm20" target="_blank">‘Developers' tall tales are all pie in the sky’</a> ​by ABC Producer Daniel Ziffer and published in The Age yesterday seeks to attach a greater importance to the comparison beyond that of just a property marketer's strategy.
The main thrust of the article is the form of high density development currently underway in Melbourne will have “unknown consequences for the area” and result in “dense and grim neighbourhoods where skyscrapers block light and life from the streets” like Hong Kong compared to that amazing place called New York where “more than half the housing stock … is in small to medium developments, often ''walk-ups'' without lifts.”  And the “avenues are wider than Melbourne's street grid, and apartment buildings are set back from the street to allow sunlight to hit the ground.”
As the author was a one time resident and frequent visitor it would be assumed he might have seen one of the more than 70 apartment towers in New York taller than the tallest building in the Upper West Side development on Spencer Street. But maybe the views of these giants were blocked by the 4869 apartment towers over 10 storeys in height in New York City. I guess it would also be easier to miss the avenues in New York are generally 100 feet wide, exactly the same width as streets in Melbourne’s Hoddle Grid like Lonsdale Street.
Any recent visit to New York would also reveal the developing trend towards larger and taller apartment buildings in Manhattan. The latest example of this is the tower currently under construction at <a href="http://432parkavenue.com/?state=home" target="_blank">432 Park Avenue</a> which at 426 metres high will be taller than the former World Trade Centre twin towers.
The author has an issue with a developer utilising a New York inspired marketing strategy to sell some apartments but he has no qualms in comparing the same development on Spencer Street to Caroline Springs which is an even more ridiculous comparison.
This comment piece is just another in the ongoing campaign against the development of tall buildings in Melbourne by The Age newspaper. It is disappointing the same newspaper which has campaigned vigorously in the past against the environmental and social impact of urban sprawl, embodied in places such as Caroline Springs, now breaks with its previous consistency and publishes 3rd party commentary deriding the redevelopment of disused industrial sites in the CBD as an alterative to urban sprawl.
Nicholas Harrison is an urban planner with over 10 years experience.
</body></html>

nwharr

Caroline Springs in the sky?

<html><body>
On occasion I venture into the Eastern suburbs and more often than not catch a glimpse of Mitcham Village Apartments, successor to the failed Bates Smart designed 17-storey Mitcham Towers proposal (seen below) circa 2003. At the time Tony Hogg, head of Mitcham Residents Association described the proposal as "A complete eyesore."
<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/1108mitcham_towers_wideweb__430x308.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Mitcham Towers by Bates Smart"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/1108mitcham_towers_wideweb__430x308.jpg?itok=kXJZCeW4" title="Mitcham Towers by Bates Smart" typeof="Image"></a>
Well a penny for Mr Hogg's current thoughts as what the local community ended up with is a visually destitute outcome. Granted Mitcham Village Apartments is half the height of the original poroposal, yet City of Whitehorse was seemingly so eager to push through any development smaller in stature than what was approved they lost all perspective regarding good design and sensible urban outcomes. I'm so tempted to describe this development as insipid but i'm not sure whether it is.
Every party with a vested interest feels they have gained through this development. Council and community feel they've won due to a development half the size of what was initially proposed and subsequently approved by VCAT, the developer wins selling out the 200-unit complex while the architect wins designing a building within the acceptible bounds of council and within the brief of the developer.
Everyone walks away a winner, yet this hulking precast concrete blob remains.
<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Img_4378.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Mitcham Village Apartments from Maroondah Highway"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/Img_4378.jpg?itok=_iDSdC5X" title="Mitcham Village Apartments from Maroondah Highway" typeof="Image"></a>
<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Img_4376_0.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Spot the window, Mitcham Village Apartments"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/Img_4376_0.jpg?itok=EYWhViVf" title="Spot the window, Mitcham Village Apartments" typeof="Image"></a>
First submitted ten years ago, I wonder what would eventuate if the original Mitcham Towers scheme were to be submitted now? The world has turned more than a few times, attitudes toward high density living have changed - so much so a 33 level tower is under consideration in nearby Box Hill. In hindsight would the local comminuty prefer a taller, infinitely better design or what sits there now?  Or are people still so scared of tall buildings, they rally at the thought?
As Paul Keating once said: “In a two-horse race, always back self-interest because at least you know it's trying.” So I suspect the inferior eight level monstrosity would win hands down even though the closest residence in any direction is approximately 200m away. Conjecture has its place but one thing's for certain, every time I drive past Mitcham Village Apartments, a look of total disdain will be shot in a certain direction.
</body></html>

NIMBY

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

NIMBY

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News