Melb apartment sold for $25m

[chunho01]

Pure stupidity?

http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/a-chinese-buyer-has-forked-out-a-record-25-million-for-the-australia-108-developments-penthouse/story-fndba8uq-1227295381554

 

[pickle pickle]

The apartment is 750 square metres.

Good luck to the guy or girl.

 

[Ace in the Hole]

Nothing wrong with that.
If you really love and want something, paying asking price is fine.
I bet he felt absolutely awesome after signing the deal.

 

[datto]

Imagine the strata fees on the place

And what if you forget to draw the curtains in the bedroom (I normally sleep in my jocks with no blankets) then every roving aircraft could get an eyeful.

 

[Redwood]

Amazing - talk about stamp duty savings!

 

[CosmicTrevor]

Yikes

Imagine the strata fees on the place

And what if you forget to draw the curtains in the bedroom (I normally sleep in my jocks with no blankets) then every roving aircraft could get an eyeful.

From the black box recorder;
MELBOURNE TOWER QANTAS FOUR NINER FIVE HEAVY OVER
- MELBOURNE TOWER

REPORT REG GRUNDIES FLOOR 100 AUSTRALIA 108 OVER
- QANTAS FOUR NINER FIVE REPORT INTENTIONS WHEN ABLE OVER

QANTAS FOUR NINER FIVE EYES RIGHT OUT

 

[Mindmaster]

Hard to imagine a 750m2 house that is not a mansion, much less than a 750m2 apartment.

If you throw in multiple bedrooms, movie theatre, massive living room and more, that still leaves a lot of space left. Maybe include a ball room

 

[nomadic]

The apartment is 750 square metres.

It's actually 797.4 sq m but good to see "ordinary Aussies" with $9.5m are also buying in this complex which is 90% sold.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/southbanks-australia-108-hits-the-mark-with-apartment-buyers-looking-for-the-high-life/story-fndba8uq-1227194146292

ONE Melbourne family has snapped up five apartments in the city?s newest skyscraper, Australia 108, even before it officially hits the local market.

The extended family - a mother, her two sons and their wives and children - have splashed out more than $9.5 million for the five apartments on the 88th floor.

CBRE managing director of residential projects Andrew Leoncelli said the family planned to keep one apartment for the mother and turn the other four into two large floorplans for the younger generations.

Mr Leoncelli said the family members were "ordinary Aussies" who did not have a high profile.

"They're everyday Australians who just wanted to live on the same floor with all the facilities and close to their work," he said.

A lot of people from around the world on SC seem to like it.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1561606

 

[cimbom]

It's a nice apartment but I'm not fan of the building at all. It's a desperate attempt by the gov't (who obviously approved it) to make Melbourne seem like a world class and important city when really it's just a B-grade city masquerading as something bigger. The comparison with Dubai in that image is pretty apt as they have a similar attitude as well.

The building makes/will make the skyline look ridiculous and the whole idea doesn't make sense given the very few people in Melbourne who actually live within the CBD.

If a city like Paris can have a population density of 22,000/km2 and yet fit these people into largely ~6-8 storey apartment building, there is no way we need to have 100+ storey buildings (especially ones that are solely residential). It makes us look silly and juvenile IMO.

 

[evan1875]

If a city like Paris can have a population density of 22,000/km2 and yet fit these people into largely ~6-8 storey apartment building, there is no way we need to have 100+ storey buildings (especially ones that are solely residential). It makes us look silly and juvenile IMO.

Skyscrapers are a symbol of the male genital. The French already has the Eiffel Tower.

 

[zed_kid]

The comparison with Dubai in that image is pretty apt as they have a similar attitude as well.

Downtown Dubai is pretty amazing and very easy on the eye. Business Bay and DIFC next to it are both eye sores, Marina even worse

 

[Aaron Sice]

i still struggle with the 'crows nest' in the middle.

 

[nomadic]

i still struggle with the 'crows nest' in the middle.

It's an iconic 'starburst'.

 

[jackbak]

Unbelievable! Would that make this penthouse the most expensive sale ever in Victoria (including houses)?

 

[cimbom]

Downtown Dubai is pretty amazing and very easy on the eye. Business Bay and DIFC next to it are both eye sores, Marina even worse

My point is that a few big buildings is not what makes a city great or unique. Skycrapers of this height are terrible environmentally speaking as they use ridiculous amounts of electricity and that's excluding the huge amount of maintenence this building will require. I don't envy the body corporate fees the residents (or more accurately, investors) will end up paying in the long run. I challenge any of these developers to propose a similar development in say New York City and see how far they get. It'd be rejected in an instant IMO as the planning regulations there have a lot more criteria that needs to be met.

 

[sanj]

My point is that a few big buildings is not what makes a city great or unique. Skycrapers of this height are terrible environmentally speaking as they use ridiculous amounts of electricity and that's excluding the huge amount of maintenence this building will require. I don't envy the body corporate fees the residents (or more accurately, investors) will end up paying in the long run. I challenge any of these developers to propose a similar development in say New York City and see how far they get. It'd be rejected in an instant IMO as the planning regulations there have a lot more criteria that needs to be met.

I don't know where you're getting your info from.

Firstly, re new york there is one about to be completed of similar height and scale. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/432_Park_Avenue

I'm sure the body corp fees will be high but I really don't know how that affects you in any way.

As for the environmental impact you recognize that gping up and not out is actually better for a city don't you?

If the same number of residents lived in say 4 separate buildings of 25 storeys each do you think the total energo usage and maintenance of the 4 buildings combined 2 old be less than this building?

 

[cimbom]

That project in New York is the exception, not the norm. In addition, developers over there don't just get a tick and flick like here. You have to make a commitment to improve the amenities within the local area to support the increased population resulting from the development before any approval goes through. Over here, we are having towers like this and Eureka Tower built when there's not even proper schooling available in the local area. Is it a surprise that very few locals want to live there? It would certainly be difficult to raise a young family in such an area.

Also, I'm very familiar with the environmental benefits of increased density and I'm a big supporter of it. However, when buildings go over about 8 or so storeys, the environmental benefits start to be negated. That's why this size is close to the norm in most major cities where apartment living is not a novelty. There is certainly no environmental benefit to having 100 storey residential towers. In fact, I wouldn't be surpised if it was worse than many other types of housing.

Obviously I don't have to pay the body corp fees as I don't intend to live there. I think it will however be very difficult to make this a sustainable long-term option if the fees keep increasing due to increasing maintenence costs and end up driving a lot of people out. What a waste of resources that'd be.

It just seems to me that this is a very poorly thought out project agreed to for the supposed prestige factor of having "the tallest building in the southern hemisphere"

 

[sanj]

Do you have any references to back up your claim that the environmental benefits are negated and also that it might be worse than other types of housing?

I personally am not a fan of southbank but the demand is clearly there so your claim that it doesn't make sense is refuted imo. If very few locals want to live there are you saying the apartments are mainly empty? I looked up the census figures and it appears a touch over 50% of southbank residents were born overseas bUT the biggest household group is actually families.

 

[Tony3008]

Do you have any references to back up your claim that the environmental benefits are negated and also that it might be worse than other types of housing?

Old report but try http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/dmpp/pdf/energy_peak_multi.pdf. The results of this multi-unit residential energy study point to general trends and instances of great variability in multi-unit residential buildings. When expressed as annual greenhouse emissions per occupant, the study results reflect that people living in apartment buildings produce more greenhouse gas emissions than people living in detached houses. This is a result of energy consumption in common areas as well as lower occupancy rates of apartments compared to detached houses. Townhouses and villas appear to be the most efficient dwelling form on a per capita greenhouse gas basis.

This may have changed as buildings like mine move over to LED lighting in communal areas, but standalone house owners are doing that too.

 

[cimbom]

Have a look at the Census figures again, specifically the ones for number of people per household. There is a massive difference between the number of one and two person households compared to three and above. It's a pretty significant drop. That tells me that singles and couples are happy to live there but not too many parents with kids.

This is a random reference I found. I have more saved at home if you're interested:

The study, says Arnel, suggests buildings above three storeys begin to use more energy due to the need for lighting in common areas, lifts, security and the lifestyle of residents.

Certainly this is backed up by our earlier story where we reported that a NSW Energy Australia study found a high-rise apartment uses 30 per cent more power than a typical detached house, much of it in common areas such as foyers and car parks. On the question of water use, Sydney Water statistics show multi-unit dwellings account for 14.3 per cent of Sydney Water?s consumption compared to 45.7 for single dwellings

A recent energy and water audit by Willoughby Council of the common areas in 25 Sydney multi-unit buildings showed that high-rise buildings generated four times as much CO2 as villas/townhouses and three times as much as low and medium-rise buildings. The council undertook the audits as part of its ClimateClever Apartments program and the buildings included townhouses and low, medium and high-rise apartment buildings.

The overall use and intensity of use of both power and water was much greater in high-rise than the other three categories. Willoughby Council concluded this was potentially due to ?the additional centralised plant and equipment that often occur in high-rise buildings, such as swimming pools, spas, saunas, cooling towers, pumps and lifts.?

?The high energy usage may also be attributed to the arrangement of central hallways and underground carparks in high-rise buildings which generally have no natural light and must be lit and ventilated at all times to ensure safety and amenity for the large numbers of occupants.?

Embedded energy is another issue. A decade ago researchers at the School of Architecture, Deakin University, and the School of Architecture, University of Tasmania, found that high-rise buildings had 60 per cent more energy embodied per unit GFA in their materials than the low to medium-rise buildings. While the figure has improved due to improved manufacturing processes, embedded energy is still greater in tall buildings because of the higher load requirements.

http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/in...e-living-–-is-it-the-sustainable-answer/20345

Medium density, mixed use development is the best approach for urban planning going forward IMO.