Will the Grollo Tower benefit Melbourne?

When you see a line of coloured and underlined hypertext, this means that you can click on that text to go to another information page.

Will the Grollo Tower benefit Melbourne?

Echo Issue Outline 1999 / 3: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.

Issue outline by J M McInerney

Will the Grollo Tower benefit Melbourne?

What they said ...
`This is a symbol of a State really getting going, a symbol of confidence in the future'
Mr Bill Corker, of Denton Corker Marshall, the architects who designed the Grollo Tower

`It just doesn't fit the scale of our city. It's too big. It's like constructing a real hotel on a Monopoly board'
Mr Wil Anderson, commentator for The Australian

On December 7, 1998, the Victorian State Government announced that it had given the Grocon group approval to erect what is planned to be the world's tallest building as part of Melbourne's new Dockland's development.
The announcement sparked immediate debate in the media and elsewhere.
The prospect of Melbourne erecting such a building had been discussed over previous months but once it was revealed that what is commonly referred to as the Grollo Tower had been given the go ahead there was far stronger interest.

Background
The Docklands development on Melbourne's waterfront has been divided into a number of zones or precincts. One of these is the Batman Hill zone.
By June of 1998, the Docklands Authority had reduced the number of potential developments for this precinct to two - Grocon's proposal for the Grollo Tower and another proposal by the YarraCity group.
The YarraCity group proposed what it referred to as an `urban village' development, a mixed development accommodating the required residential space, office space, a sport complex, restaurants and cafes and a proposed multi-media centre.
The group's general manager, Mr Paul Lachal, claimed its proposed development would have a `gentle interaction' with the city.
In April of 1998 the Grollo project was rejected by a State Government-appointed panel which makes recommendations to the Planning Minister, Mr Rob Maclellan.
The panel disputed the tower's overall benefit to Melbourne, was concerned about its possible wind effects and claimed it could not support the removal or demolition of historic railway sheds to make way for the building.
However, the Grollo group remained confident it could overcome the panel's concerns.
In August 1998, the Dockland's Authority told both developers, Grocon and YarraCity, that it was not satisfied with their proposals. They were given a two-month extension to revise their plans.

Features of the Grollo Tower and the Batman Hill development
The tower has been designed by Denton Corker Marshall.
It will be approximately 560 metres tall with 113 storeys.
The building is to accommodate 450 residential apartments, restaurants, retail offices and a hotel. It will have two observation decks.
The surrounding precinct is to include a sports, entertainment, retail and hotel complex next to the Docklands Stadium.
It is also intended that an historic goods shed, already on the site, will become an international food and festivity hall.
Also included in the precinct development is to be a 20,000 square metre international multi-media and communications centre.

There are a number of Internet sites supplying information on the Grollo Tower and Melbourne's Docklands development.
The Age, in the special features/issues section of its Internet site, gives access to a variety of articles dealing with aspects of the Grollo Tower.
At the time of writing this outline, there were 19 items in all, dating from October 4, 1997, to December 16, 1998. These make interesting reading. There is a useful mix of news reports, comment and analysis and a range of views on the proposed tower is presented.
The index to these items can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/special/grollo/index.html

The Victorian Government has also set up a number of informative sites dealing with major developments in Melbourne.
The Victorian Government's Office of Major Projects has a sub-section of its site giving information on the Docklands development.
This sub-section of the site can be found at http://www.docklands.vic.gov.au/index5.html
It supplies, among other things, an interesting historical overview of the Docklands site.
It also gives information on the developments planned for each of the seven Docklands' precincts, including Batman Hill, the site of the proposed Grollo Tower.

The Victorian Government's Agenda 21 Quarterly is available on the Internet. This is a public affairs publication dealing with the Government's plans to create new public assets and infrastructure, especially as these plans affect Melbourne.
Edition 11 of Agenda 21 Quarterly dealt with the Docklands development.
It can be found at http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/projects/a21q/edition11/seven.html

There are a number of Internet sites given over to extremely tall buildings and those which under a variety of criteria claim to be `the world's tallest'.
One of the more interesting is produced by Mr Jeff Herzer. Mr Herzer makes no secret of his enthusiasm for very tall skyscrapers, however, his page accepts letters about these buildings from those with a wide range of view points.
There are a number of letters dealing with the Grollo Tower, and the site as a whole is a useful source of opinion on the very tall building phenomenon.
Mr Herzer comments on many letters and supplies answers to questions posed where he can.
The page can be found at http://www.dcircle.com/wtb/44.html

Arguments in favour of the construction of the Grollo Tower
The primary argument offered in favour of the Grollo Tower is the claim that its combination of height, aesthetic appeal and function will make it an internationally renowned building which will serve as both a major landmark for Melbourne and will act as a tourist attraction.
The Australian, in its editorial of December, claimed that Melbourne needs `grand projects with vision that match Melbourne's stature as a confident, ambitious and sophisticated city. The Grollo Tower offers such a sweeping prospect.'
Mr Bill Corker, of Denton Corker Marshall, the architects who designed the building , has claimed, `Melbourne as a city State has to compete and gestures like this show we have the courage to do so.
This is a symbol of a State really getting going, a symbol of confidence in the future.'
On the question of the enduring importance of the building, it has been argued that its design qualities should continue to make it a significant building even once it is no longer the world's tallest building.
It has also been argued that the tower's place as the world's tallest building will not be rapidly lost.
Two projects for the construction of taller buildings, one in Chicago and one in India, are currently on indefinite hold because of economic and market demand problems.
Dr Lynn Beedle, from the International Council for Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats, has suggested that the Grollo Tower `once completed, could be the world's tallest building for quite some time.'
It has further been argued that the Grollo Tower will not be a white elephant as some of its critics have suggested.
According to this line of argument there will be more than sufficient demand for the Tower's residential and office space to ensure it fulfills a useful function and makes a return on the project developers' investment.
A $5000 deposit is required of anyone who wants to secure an apartment in the new building. Defenders of the project note that the 450 luxury apartments to form part of the 560-metre tower have already been filled and there are another 150 people who have indicated that they want an apartment if any of the current potential purchasers drops out.
It has also been noted that the city apartments within the Grollo Tower will simply help accommodate what is said to be a growing trend toward residing in the central business district. The City of Melbourne's most recent figures for the number of people living in the CBD indicate that the figure has risen from 2426 residents in December 1996 to approximately 4100 in December 1997.
It has further been claimed that the building's office space will be filled. Freelance writer, Charles Stephens, who lives in Melbourne, has noted that in the CBD building boom that occurred under previous premier, John Cain, there was much unoccupied city office space. Mr Stephens claims that this has now been filled.
Mr Bill Corker, of Denton Corker Marshall, has maintained that claims that the tower would swamp the Melbourne office space market for years to come were `ill-informed'.
Mr Corker has claimed, `In fact, the tower contains nine months' supply [of office space] at the present take-up rate ...'
It has also been claimed that the tower's shadow will not present a serious problem for the city and surrounding areas.
Mr Terry Mason, an associate with Denton Corker Marshall, has claimed that the longer a building's shadow the more diffuse it is. Mr Mason has also claimed that shadows move quickly and so no area would be shaded for a long period of time.
Mr Mason has maintained that modelling has shown that the only time the building's shadow would fall down Collins Street was for a 20-minute period from 70.30pm in mid-summer.
Mr Adam Grollo, whose father Bruno Grollo, proposed the tower and is the builder and developer who will be responsible for its construction, has claimed, `As a city, we are better off going taller than lower as it provides more opportunity for public area and you lose less sky with one building rather than 12 smaller ones.'
Mr Corker has also claimed that the building's design has taken wind flow factors into account and that downdrafts will be kept within accepted standards.
The building's supporters have claimed that criticisms of its supposedly excessive height from an aesthetic point of view are simply a reflection of the difficulty many people have coming to terms with something which is new or different.
It has been noted, for example, that when the Sydney Opera House was being built there were many people who were critical of its design. It has also been noted that similar criticisms were made of other major buildings which have elevated Melbourne's skyline, including another Grollo project, the Rialto towers complex.
It is claimed that these buildings, including the Rialto, are now valued as landmarks and it has been suggested that the Grollo Tower will ultimately be valued in the same manner.
It has also been suggested that those who are concerned that the National Trust listed railway shed will either be totally overshadowed or even removed do not understand what is likely to be of enduring significance to Melbourne.
Charles Stephens has whimsically asked, `Can you imagine tourists in 2100 standing in awe, whispering, "Wow, nice shed'" and "Gee, you should see the view from the top."'
Mr Stephens has suggested that if concerns about the railway shed are a consideration it might be better if it were dismantled and relocated.

Arguments opposing the construction of the Grollo Tower
One of the main arguments offered against the construction of the Grollo Tower is that it is not in keeping with Melbourne's current architectural identity.
According to this line of argument, any major new development, especially one of the importance of the proposed Grollo Tower should respect its existing environment.
Those who hold this view claim that although new projects can have their own distinct look, this should not be at odds with the character of the area in which they are being built.
This argument has been put by the chairman of the National Trust, Mr Simon Molesworth.
Mr Molesworth has written, `An intelligent community ensures that those features and buildings of the city that contribute to its identity, its character, are retained ... Preferably new development should reflect, even accentuate, existing character. New development should not mimic the past, rather it should achieve respectful harmony.'
Mr Molesworth claims that although the Grollo Tower has an elegant design, if it is built in its proposed location, it will be at odds with key elements of Melbourne's architectural character.
Mr Molesworth argues that one of the key features of Melbourne is its grid layout `giving us streets of sufficient width and blocks of sufficient size to allow us to build a modern city while maintaining human scale and the joy of being able to stroll along at lunchtime in sunshine.'
Mr Molesworth argues that the shadow of the Grollo Tower will affect this, claiming that if the tower is built were it is currently proposed it will shade the Yarra River, the `increasingly popular venues along the whole southern bank' and principal streets in the CBD and other important public places.
Mr Molesworth is also concerned that if the building is constructed on the currently proposed site it will threaten `that most remarkable of heritage buildings, Railways Goods Shed No 2'.
It has been claimed that the size of the building is out of scale with the rest of Melbourne. This point has been made by columnist for The Australian, Wil Anderson. Mr Anderson has suggested, `It just doesn't fit the scale of our city. It's too big. It's like constructing a real hotel on a Monopoly board.'
It is further claimed that a major skyscraper of the proposed dimensions is inappropriate in a city without a large population by world standards and where there is room for expansion on the ground.
Norman Day, adjunct professor of architecture at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, has claimed that the skyscraper `works well enough, where there is precious little land, like Hong Kong, Manhattan and Singapore,' however, Professor Day, suggests that there is no geographical necessity for a major Melbourne building to go up rather than out.
Professor Day has also suggested that the views likely to be gained from the top of the building do not justify its construction. Professor Day claims `the views over our geography are, honestly, prosaic.'
It has further been claimed that the scale of the building will make it very difficult to develop other facilities in its immediate vicinity.
This point has been made by David Yencken, emeritus professor of architecture, building and planning at Melbourne University.
Professor Yencken was one of those who through the 1980s initiated the revival of the Yarra's south bank.
Professor Yencken has said of the Grollo Tower, `an intrusion of the highest order.
Its scale is so unrelated to everything else. I think it will be very hard to develop effectively around it. It's working against all the other efforts to create a lively and attractive city.'
Concern has also been expressed about the physical effect of the building on its immediate environment. Apart from concern about the shadow it will cast, there are those who fear that a building of its proposed size will generate significant downdrafts which will make the area immediately around it uninviting.
It has further been suggested that a building the size of the Grollo Tower will serve no useful purpose. Those who hold this view argue that the added residential and office space that the building will give Melbourne is not needed.
Those who take this view are sceptical about the supposed growth of interest in residing in the CBD.
Professor Kevin O'Connor, a geographer from Monash University has argued that the supposed increase in interest in living in the city precincts has been overstated, especially as a long-term demand.
`A fair bit of it is being driven by rental investors. The renters are recently formed young households. They are going to be in relatively diminishing numbers in 15 years' time.'
Professor O'Connor claims that on current demographic trends the number of young couples with few or no children will decline over the next decade and so, presumably, will demand for residential accommodation in the CBD.
Ros Hanson, a planning consultant, has also suggested that many of those who have put down a deposit on an apartment in the Grollo Towers may have done so as an investment, not because they really intend to live there.
Further, it has been claimed that Melbourne does not need the `tallest building in the world' to make it a city of significance.
Wil Anderson has argued, `Melbourne is already a world-class city renowned for its culture and sporting events ... So why spoil it?'
Finally, it has further been argued that whatever distinction may be gained from having the world's tallest building will be short-lived.
Wil Anderson has argued it will last only until `someone else comes along and builds a bigger one, and then it'll be the second-tallest, then the third-tallest, until suddenly there's more relabelling taking place than in a Toys 'R' Us the last shopping day before Christmas.'

Further implications
It has been variously suggested that the Grollo Tower will take anything from five to ten years to complete.
Though it has received approval as the preferred development on the site, the Premier, Mr Jeff Kennett, has stated that its construction will depend on final economic feasibility studies.
The building already appears to have sufficient interested bidders for its residential space. Its developers will now be looking for a number of reliable long-term tenants for its office space.
Mr Bruno Grollo's eldest son, Adam, has indicated that the task of securing finance to ensure the building goes ahead is his.
The Grocon group has already invested $5 million in the planning process which has brought the building to this stage.
Other commentators have suggested that the tower's final form will be dependent not simply on the level of current financial interest in the building, but on the general state of the Victorian economy over the period it is being built.
As has already been noted economic downturns have put on hold the development of a number of other `world's tallest buildings' proposed in other parts of the world.
However, at this juncture, it seems likely that the so-called Grollo Tower will go ahead in something very like its currently proposed form.
Obviously only time will tell exactly what impact a building of these dimensions, and indeed, the whole Docklands development will have on the city of Melbourne.
It will clearly have economic, demographic, social and aesthetic consequences. It is also likely to effect the manner in which Melbournians perceive their city.
The focus of the city is clearly moving away from the former Collins Street, Bourke Street, Swanston Street/CDB nexus toward the Yarra, Southbank, and the whole Docklands development.
The consequences of this will take some years to become apparent.
It may take as long as a generation for the people of Victoria to adapt to their altered capital.
It will be interesting to note if the breaking of the grid pattern which binds all Melbourne's major streets by the extension of Collins Street gives rise to any further such extensions.
Though it is highly unlikely that any other Melbourne development will soon seek to rival the Grollo Tower in height, it does seem probable that this building, if successful, will encourage other developers to increase the height profile of the city. The results of such a trend could be more unfortunate than any negative impact the building itself might have.

Sources
The Age
17/11/98 page 17 comment by Norman Day, `Why the Grollo Tower is wrong for Melbourne'
26/11/98 page 19 comment by Bruno Grollo, `My tower is just what Melbourne needs'
8/12/98 page 1 news item by Ian Munro, `Grollo's landmark'
8/12/98 page 1 news item by Ian Munro, `Construction family triumphs and it's on top of the world'
8/12/98 page 2 news item by Sandra McKay, `Third runway needed sooner'
8/12/98 page 2 news item by Sian Watkins, Future icon or eyesore? It depends who you ask'
8/12/98 page 2 news item by Jane Schulze, `For Bruno, it's the tower and the glory'
9/12/98 page 1 news item by Ian Munro and Kerry Taylor, `No great depth to tower's base'
9/12/98 page 14 editorial, `The Grollo tower should not be built'
9/12/98 page 14 letter from David Maule, `Turning Melbourne into a visual nightmare'
9/12/98 page 15 comment by Shaun Carney, `Muddled Melbourne';
9/12/98 page 15 comments by Haig Beck and Malcolm Drake, `Will the Grollo tower enhance our city?'
12/12/98 page 12 analysis by Kerry Taylor, `The rise and rise of the city's skyline'
12/12/98 pages 4-5 (News Extra) analysis by Ian Munro & Ewin Hannan, `Melbourne in the new millennium'
12/12/98 page 4 (News Extra) comment by Simon Molesworth, `Will the Grollo Tower overshadow a sunny past?'
12/12/98 page 5 (News Extra) analysis by Joe Rollo, `Etiquette and the giant obelisk'
13/12/98 page 6 news item by Kerry Taylor, `Tower is magnet for city dwellers'

The Australian
7/12/98 page 6 analysis by Michael Bachelard, `City sweats on defining moment'
8/12/98 page 1 news item by Michael Bachelard, `Tall storeys: view from the top of Grollo's world'
8/12/98 page 7 news item by Rachel Hawes & Tim Pegler, `Going up, whether we like it or not'
8/12/98 page 7 comments by Haig Beck & Jackie Cooper & Norman Day, `The Grollo Tower: for and against'
8/12/98 page 7 news item by Tim Pegler & Rachel Hawes, `Now reach for the sky: it's the towering infernal'
8/12/98 page 13 analysis by Michael Bachelard, `Towering ambition'
11/12/98 page 5 comment by Wil Anderson, `World's biggest joke will spoil what's already on the map'
11/12/98 page 15 comment by Charles Stephens, `Sky's no limit for dreams'
12/12/98 page 12 news item by Tim Pegler, `Tall order for architects'
12/12/98 page 18 editorial, `Melbourne deserves projects with vision'

The Herald Sun
8/12/98 page 1 news item by Kylie Hansen, `Sky high: Grollo tower go-ahead'
8/12/98 page 4 comment by Kylie Hansen, `Question of confidence'
8/12/98 page 5 news item by Kylie Hansen & Scott Thompson, `Melbourne's tower of strength'
8/12/98 page 18 editorial, `Bruno's towering aspirations'
10/12/98 page 19 comment by Jill singer, `Call it the Towering Ego'
11/12/98 page 32 news item by Geoff Stead, `Top of the world'
12/12/98 page 29 analysis by Kylie Hansen, `Building a family'
14/12/98 page 9 news item by Regina Titelius, `Rush to live in tower'