Melbourne Central : A Case Study in Post-Modern Urbanization This lecture was presented to a post graduate seminar in Urban Planning and Design Institute of Technology Bandung Java September 1995 This case study draws heavily on the research of Nell Norris Fellow Martin Symes and his research assistant Kerry Wise in the School of Architecture at Melbourne University during 1984.
The history of development proposals for the Museum Station site.
The Melbourne street grid was laid out hy the surveyor Robert Hoddle in 1840. Most of the city is based on a one mile square grid oriented due north south east and west but the grid for the central city is composed of 32 square blocks (8x4) 200 metres on edge twisted about 15 degrees to line up with the bank of the river Yarra beside which the city was established. Each of these blocks is centrally divided by a street originally intended as a service lane of about 15 metres width and is separated from other blocks by a main street about 30 metres width. The relatively broad streets combined with the wide spacing of cross streets and a building height limit of 30 metres which applied until 1957 resulted in a low spread out city core. Despite the introduction of high rise buildings during the last forty years this is still the dominant feel of the city centre. When the height limit was removed in the late 1950's central melbourne comprised the most extensive and complete 19th century (Victorian) city core in the world. It is something of a tragedy that this heritage was not more carefully protected and it has now been substantially destroyed. The central city grid developd first in the south adjacent to the river which was the source first of water then later of commercial activity. The site we are concerned with is located in the central north of the city grid adjacent to the block allocated to the public library and museum. Until it was developed for its present use it was covered with small commercial and industrial buildings interspersed with small hotels. The block contains three buildings covered by preservation orders the St Francis church, the Chinese Baptist church in Swanston Street and the Shot Tower.
The development of this site which became known as the Melbourne Central site, is closely linked with the development of the public transport network in the central city and the development potential of the area had excited interest long before the eventual development took place. Between 1929 and 1969 various schemes were advanced for an underground rail loop system intended to end congestion at Flinders Street Station by providing additional central city stations and facilitate the development of the northern portion of the central city grid by improving access to public transport.
In 1964 the Chief Town Planner for the Melbourne City Council (MCC) produced a report setting out his vision of future directions in the development of the CBD. This included an illustration of a "state of the art" tower and plaza scheme for a new Town Hall - Municipal offices complex sited adjacent to the Melbourne Central site on the north side of Latrobe Street. This reflected the generally held perception that the existing 19th century town hall complex was too small and lacked civic presence in its location in the middle of the central city street grid.
In 1965 the Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA) held an ideas competition for the development of the site in conjunction with their annual Convention, held that year in Melbourne. Two of the premiated schemes, including the winning scheme by the old Melbourne firm of Leith & Bartlett included versions of the proposed new civic complex as part of their designs.
The Melbourne University Architecture priodical Cross Section reported at the time
"Melbourne City Council approved £14,000 feasibility study by George J. Connor & Associates, economists and planning consultants; of the city block bounded by Lonsdale Swanston, Lonsdale and Elizabeth Streets, the area which was the subject of the architectural competition last May. It seems now that the competition was hardly more than a P.R. venture designed according to Sir Bernard Evans (Chairman of M.C.C. building and town planning committee), to create "interest in the site". Which it did, of course, although the hurried organisation of the competition, in time for the Architectural Convention, lacked seriousness - a pity that it was not preceded by the feasibility study. In the meantime, a multi storey car park has been built in the area and will be another obstacle to total redevelopment. Building owners and ratepayers in the block are already claiming that an ambiguous future is depreciating their property and one gathers that they will fight any attempt at comprehensive planning. Nor does the M.C.C. itself seem to have much enthusiasm any more for the proposal for a civic centre on the north side of Latrobe Street, outlined in the 1964 Report of the council's former town planner Mr. E. F. Borrie; even though the winning scheme of the competition by architects Leith & Bartlett, assumed its likelihood. . . . The winner is a conventional plaza tower block arrangement, but is planned with ingenious skill to suit the site. Considering that there was no intention to build, the sameness of the premiated schemes was somewhat disappointing. For more than selfish reasons, one would have liked to see at least one of the more provocative entries given recognition. Greater interest from the architectural profession may have resulted, with no less public interest."
Legislation which was passed by the Parliament in 1960 established the present location of the Rail Loop but it was not until the passing of a further Act in 1970 that a construction program was undertaken. The Act created an Authority "to co-ordinate the financing and construction of an underground rail loop for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the existing rail network".
Construction of Museum Station commenced in 1971 and land was acquired south of La Trobe Street to enable traffic to be diverted during the cut and cover construction phase.
It had been predicted by the Metropolitan Transportation Committee that Museum Station would become the busiest of all the city stations. In 1973, because of the importance of the Museum Station in the future development of the Central Business District, the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Authority (MURLA) and the Melbourne City Council (MCC) together commissioned a planning feasibility study for the whole block. It was completed in December, 1973 and confirmed:
(i) the strategic location and considerable development potential in the area.
(ii) that the land should be developed in association with the adjoining properties necessary to ensure access through to Lonsdale Street.
In September 1975 Cabinet appointed a Steering Committee to study the block bounded by La Trobe, Swanston, Lonsdale and Elizabeth Streets. This area adjacent to Museum Station had been gazetted an "Investigation Area" under the Development Areas Act in January 1974 following publication of the joint study.
The Steering Committee prepared an outline planning recommendation for the development of the area and the Government passed amendments to the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Act which gave MURLA the power to purchase the additional land in the Museum Station area.
The scheme had not been without controversy and even scandal. In December 1970, a Labour member of the Victorian Legislative Council told the council that a former lord mayor was, at the time of the allegations, chairman of the Melbourne City Council's building and town planning committee, vice-chairman of the Board of Works' planning and highways committee, and had been appointed as one of the two council representatives on an underground railway investigation committee. At the time he was also director of a company which paid $300,000 for property at 453-5 La Trobe Street before the underground investigation committee decided that the city's underground loop should run along LaTrobe Street instead of Lonsdale Street (as was originally recommended by a parliamentary committee in 1954). The company also bought the next door property for $183,000 in 1965. A year later it bought the burnt-out Salvation Army building next to its existing holdings for %150,000. In 1973 it was paid $4.3 million compensation for this property, which the government acquired for the underground railway - a profit of almost $4 million. The first architectural scheme for the Museum station site was prepared for this land and no doubt contributed to establishing its value. The city council had also purchased land adjacent to the government holdings.
In 1977 MURLA in conjunction with the Melbourne City Council sought registrations of interest from competent and experienced parties for the redevelopment of the whole of the land owned by the two bodies. This resulted in the appointment of a department store retailer, David Jones Ltd. of Sydney, as both developer and major occupier, and the second architectural scheme was prepared. However, difficulties were encountered because MURLA had only limited powers, and because David Jones Ltd. decided instead to buy out Buckley & Nunn, establishing their department store in the Bourke Street Mall.
In May, 1980 a further Act of Parliament gave MURLA the additional powers necessary to proceed with the planning, financing and construction of redevelopment proposals and the power to negotiate with Melbourne City Council for the acquisition of the Council's land. In that year, MURLA commissioned property consultants to undertake a review of earlier proposals and an up-to date market study. Their report proposed "a modern retail facility, linking Museum Station with the retail core, integrated with both public transport and shopper car parking facilities and with a large international hotel with supporting convention, exhibition and recreational facilities rising above the retail element". An architectural competition was held with two invited participants and in November, 1981, MURLA applied for a planning permit based on a scheme (the fourth for the site) prepared by the Melbourne firm, Bates, Smart and McCutcheon - (see Figure 6).
Their concept, for which the permit was issued in August 1982, provided for four levels of retailing incorporating a Galleria and enclosed pedestrian malls linking Museum Station at concourse level to the south side of Lonsdale Street via a bridge over a tunnel under both Lonsdale and Little Lonsdale Streets. An international hotel of 560 rooms with exhibition/convention and recreational facilities was included, as was short-term parking of a maximum 1,000 cars.
Prior to the issue of this permit protracted discussion took place with potential tenants of the major retailing area in a climate of record interest rates, declining results in the retail scene and take-over struggles affecting both local and interstate operators. No finality was reached and the permit expired in August, 1984.
In 1983 the Victorian Cain Labour Government then decided that a developer with the necessary financial resources and support should be sought for the site and the Ministry of Transport was given responsibility to co-ordinate development.
In mid-1983 Richard Ellis Pty. Ltd. were selected to carry out a national and international campaign to market and promote the site. They prepared a document entitled "Melbourne Central" which included the most recent architectural scheme and three others together with a video presentation "Melbourne Central" and called upon interested parties to register their "Expression of Interest".
When registrations closed on 26th March, 1984 a total of 58 were in hand of which approximately one-third had originated from overseas.
Within the category of "Developer", 28 groups registered.
During April, May and June, 1984 interviews were offered to all parties who had lodged Expressions Of Interest as Developer and as a consequence, in July, 1984 eight "selected organisations" were invited to respond to the Development Brief upon payment of a $50,000 refundable deposit. Lustig and Moar with architects Daryl Jackson were one of these eight organisations.
The other teams bidding for the Museum Station site development were (in alphabetical order):
Australian Development Corporation (based in Sydney)
with architects from Sydney.
Becton Corporation (based in Melbourne)
with Melbourne architects: Peck, Denton, Corker and Marshall.
Essington-Kumagai-Gumi (joint venture between a Sydney firm and a Japanese company).
with architects: Hassell and Partners.
Melbourne Land Development Company (a Malaysia group)
with Melbourne architects: Peddle Thorpe and Learmonth.
Multiplex Constructions (based in Western Australia)
with architects Stephenson and Turner from Sydney.
The bids for developing the site were invited by the Ministry of Transport after an international marketing campaign led by their real estate advisers Richard Ellis, but they were not the only government department with an interest in the site. In April 1984 the Victorian State Government published its Economic Strategy. It sought: "to maximise the trend rate of growth of income and employment...largely by making the trade-exposed sector... more competitive...and...(by) promoting areas (which)...can compete well on national and international markets".
This involved, it was stated, using Government resources in cooperation with the private sector. The government argued that the development and growth of Melbourne's competitive strengths would require close attention to land use strategies and singled out the LaTrobe Central Action Area, which includes the Museum Station site, as a zone of crucial importance. So although the property development division of the Ministry of Transport would be responsible for managing the selection of a preferred developer (or "winner") for this site, the decision was to be finally made by the Cabinet Economic Committee (which included the Premier). The Department of Management and Budget, the Ministry of Planning and Environment, Melbourne City Council, the Department of Industry Commerce and Technology and the Premiers Department would also be involved.
By chance the Ministry of Planning and Environment was currently headed by an architect, Jackson's former partner, who had gone into politics some years before with the Australian Labour Party. Both the Ministry of Planning and Environment and the Ministry of Transport were also in the throes of reorganisation.
The site was in the Central Activities District of the city, for which planning powers were held by the State Government rather than the city council, which had planning control over the rest of its municipality. Council officers and some members would be consulted where appropriate.
3. The Submission Requirements
Selected developers were asked to lodge their submissions by 31st October 1984, together with an unconditional bank guarantee for $A250,000. The submission should be in three parts:
A Financial Submission either for purchase of the site or for a long lease accompanied by a profit-sharing agreement with the government.
B Report, including details of the programme envisaged and of team membership.
C Drawings, including plans at 1:500, elevations and sections at 1:200 and a rendering showing the relationship with the State Library.
The project objectives stated that:
The Ministry of Transport will be seeking Development Submissions which:
(i) provide an outstanding major Development for this section of the C.B.D. of Melbourne to the order $200-$300 million;
(ii) exhibit exemplary and exciting architecture which is compatible with adjacent registered historic buildings;
(iii) conform to the Government's overall strategy and objectives for Central Melbourne to the maximum possible extent (detailed in the City of Melbourne (Central City) Interim Development Order 1982...)
(iv) integrate successfully with the Station, and provide a weather protected pedestrian access link from the Station to Lonsdale Street and thus to retail core of the City;
(v) present a viable functionally mixed use Development;
(vi) offer an acceptable financial return to Authority.
It was stated that:
Development Submissions will be evaluated inter alia on:
(i) financial viability of the Development proposed
(ii) the prospective financial return to the Authority
(iii) the overall design concept of the Development
(iv) the Development team.
Precise methods of evaluation to be employed were not given, and the document also "stressed that any reasonable proposal would be given due consideration". The site was to be seen in the context of which was summarised.
Possible uses covered a wide range including retail shops, offices, a hotel, a place of assembly, residential accommodation, banks, restaurants and entertainment facilities. The retail function was especially significant as the site offered "an ideal opportunity to extend the city's existing retail core northward" and it was suggested that a discount department store be considered as a component. Office development would be supported. Residential serviced units were considered desirable. Parking details would have to be negotiated. but a figure of 1,000 had been suggested at an earlier date.
There were various restrictions of vehicular access from the main streets surrounding the site and pedestrian links across the site in both directions above and below ground were considered possible.
The historic buildings to be retained included the Shot Tower, St Francis Church and the Church of Christ. A number of other buildings on the site might be suitable for conversion.
The landscaping of open spaces was required.
An important section of the brief described relationships with adjacent owners:
"- Myer Stores would seek to collaborate with Selected Organisations by considering significant changes to the Lonsdale Street Store in order to facilitate connection to the Melbourne Central Site.
- Jensen House in Swanston Street is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia, which has indicated that it would consider selling and moving into a new development in Melbourne Central, with rent holidays to the value of their existing property.
- The owners of the Downtown Carpark in Lonsdale Street have indicated that they would be prepared to consider the opportunity of expanding their operations into the Development Site if at all possible.
- The open car park immediately adjacent to the Melbourne Central Site at the corner of St Francis Street and Lonsdale Street is leased by a carpark operator from the St Francis Church Authorities who are the owners of the land.
- The owners of the two-storey building adjacent to the Shot Tower, Photogravures Pty Ltd., have indicated a readiness to sell."
The site area immediately available and owned by the Metropolitan Transit Authority comprised a tee-shaped parcel of 18,000 square metres (see Figure 5). A plot ratio limit of 5.0 applied to the whole of what was described in the Government's interim Development Order as the Museum Station Precinct, but this could be increased up to a maximum of 10.0 if some or all of the following amenities were provided:
(i) a through block arcade;
(ii) a through block passageway;
(iii) a pedestrian/railway station link;
(iv) footpath reconstruction;
(v) upgrading of a lane;
(vi) a plaza in an area deficient in open space available for use by the public;
(vii) a small open space; or
(viii) an atrium or courtyard.
No height limitation is generally applicable to this area but specific limitations were in force for:
(i) the area around the Shot Tower, where the limit is 15 metres
(ii) the area south of Little Lonsdale Street, where the limit is 40 metres
Detailed urban design requirements included the stipulation's that buildings over 16 metres in height be designed so as not to create undesirable wind conditions and that no building should be constructed which would overshadow certain public spaces in the city between 11am and 2pm on 22nd June (i.e. at mid winter).
4. The design process
The project leader in Jackson's office (Daryl Jackson Pty. Ltd.) was David Morrison. He knew that Lustig and Moar had registered an interest in the Museum site and that the firm would do the design work if they were short-listed. Early in August 1984 they heard that this had happened and that there were just three months to prepare a submission - With the development brief had come a market analysis, by Richard Ellis for retailing, hotel accommodation and parking space in Melbourne.
Lustig and Moar, however, were not interested in a hotel as they were already involved in the Hyatt.
MELBOURNE CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT CASE NO.2
"To create the magical palace"
1. The incident
The panel's report was dated 10th May 1985. It recommended that the Melbourne Central City Interim Development Order should be amended to permit the government's preferred scheme, designed by Hassell Architects for EKG Developments, to go ahead. The architects had every reason to be pleased.
There was no doubt that Hassell had won the battle, which as Tim Shannon their leading designer said, was very hard fought. It was anticipated that a development agreement would be signed between EKG and the Ministry of Transport, who owned the majority of the site above Museum Station on the underground Rail Loop. Then the architects would be able to undertake a thorough reappraisal of the project, based on working with the actual financiers and the real operators of the hotel and discount department store they had proposed, as well as with office design specialists. In preparing for the panel hearing required under the Town and Country Planning Act, Hassell had carefully moulded the design around the planners' requirements and had made a number of revisions to the scheme submitted in October and selected in January. So all was going well. There was only one snag in the last sentence of the panel's report. This had made a positive recommendation dependent
"On the proviso that the design and the internal layout and function of the atrium is re-examined".
Hassell's architects certainly needed to discuss the significance of this proviso with others on the team. Had the Minister accepted the panels recommendation in its entirety and would he insist on the implementation of this proviso? If so, what would the proviso actually mean? Could the team have to redesign the atrium and if so, would it be in any fundamental way or only in detail? And how would this affect the overall design concept and the developer's assessment of the scheme's viability? One of the three members of the panel had made a suggestion that the atrium design
"should be given as a concept to one of the world's great architects/engineers to create the magical palace that the developers suggest it will be".
Hassell's architects would have to think about a number of questions if they did decide to work on the atrium design again. At a practical level, it might just be a question of how the structure required to support the glass roof could be given an appropriate architectural scale. The atrium was, however, an important part of Hassell's design strategy for bringing the disparate elements of a multi-functional brief together architecturally. If this strategy was in question, then more fundamental questions about the perception of urban form would need to be tackled. The panel had commented that the "image" they were seeking
"devolves ultimately into what people think about a place".
Could these thoughts be influenced in favour of the existing solution or any proposed revision? Since the panel had mentioned the international significance of the project, would the designers have to understand international differences in perception? Would the addition of another designer to the team help or hinder the design development?
The design presented to the panel contained floor areas as set out below:
Offices 133,890m2
Retail 48,000
Entertainment 9,065
Accommodation 35,050
The resultant plot ratio was 9.45:1
Further information follows:
2. Participants
EKG Developments Limited was a joint venture of Essington Limited and Kumagai-Gumi Co. Ltd. The former was described as an investment and development group with diverse interests in property, finance, hi-technology and venture capital, engineering and the film and entertainment industry, while the latter is one of Japan's largest construction organisations with a value of operations exceeding $5.5 billion per annum. In October 1984 EKG Developments Limited was involved in Australian city development projects with capital values in excess of $100 million. The combined property investment and development activities of Essington and Kumagai Gumi in Australia were in excess of $1,000 million.
Research, planning, architectural and financial consultants were selected by EKG as "leading national professionals with records of high achievement".
In introducing this group's submission, EKG's chairman, Malcolm Edwards wrote
"We commended the Government for the vision it has shown in seeking private sector involvement in the Melbourne Central development. Our concept - VICTORIA is bold and dramatic. The magnitude of our venture reflects the confidence we have in the economic growth of assets of the site - EKG Developments Limited is one of the few companies in Australia with the capacity to implement what we propose to be the nation's largest and most imaginative city redevelopment. The Directors of EKG Developments Limited and its related companies and consultants are sure that our proposal will engender further community pride in the attributes of Melbourne and stimulate admiration from visitors to this great City".
Hassell and Partners Pty. Ltd. is an architectural practice which, together with its associated companies Hassell Planning Consultants Pty. Ltd. and Land Systems Pty. Ltd. offers a range of services throughout Australia.
They have offices in Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide. the combined staff numbers approximately 70 and their principal skills include architecture, landscape architecture, landscape planning, urban design, urban planning, interior design, sociology and economics.
Since inception in 1938, the practice writes, it
"has striven to maintain the highest standard of design. this has been rewarded by successes in architectural competitions and by the presentation of design awards for building projects of widely varying characters".
They
"believe that is of paramount importance to provide a service which enables projects to be completed on schedule and within a pre-arranged budget".
Further they state that
"With every project our patient search continues and our philosophy continues to develop. The diversity of our architecture and its consistent quality are evidence of the broad minded and totally committed attitude we have towards our work."
and argue that
"To infuse each building with it's own spirit, it's unique social characteristics must be understood, distilled, and integrated into the design. The Architect must be an astute observer of people to ensure that his design provides comfortable places for people to be in. Beyond this, the Architect must have the imagination and the skills to take these everyday places and arrange them to create the poetry of spirit and identity which is essential to architecture".
Panel to hear objections necessary as EKG Hassell scheme did not conform with IDO. The panel, appointed by the Minister of Planning to hear submissions concerning the amendment to the City Interim Development Order required to permit the scheme to proceed, consisted of:
Helen Gibson, Chairman (a lawyer)
John Chamberlain (an engineer and planner)
Dimity Reed (an architect) and at the time President of RAIA Victorian Chapter.
Ms. Reed does not practice urban design but has written and lectured widely on the subject. She is also the current President of the Victorian Chapter of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects. She thought this position might have had something to do with her appointment to the panel but stated that she had been invited to sit on it in her personal capacity and not ex officio.
The Panel received a large number of written submissions prior to the hearing.
The following organisations were represented at the inquiry by counsel:
The Ministry of Transport
EKG Developments
Swanston Street Church of Christ
Blessed Sacrament Fathers (St. Francis Church and Monastery)
Mrs. H. Johnson (owner of car parking land in Little Lonsdale Street)
Others represented but not by counsel were
The National Trust of Australia
The Conservation Council of Victoria
Melbourne City Council
In addition appearances were made by
A group of students from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
A planning consultant, John Bayly
and three other individuals.
These wrote submissions but were not present at the hearing:
Museum of Victoria (overlooking the site)
Myer Properties Ltd. (owners of the adjacent Department Store)
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (overlooking the site)
The Commonwealth Department of Local Government and Administrative Services - Victoria (occupants of Jensen House)
Bicycle Institute of Victoria
The City Council's evidence on urban design was prepared by Robert Adams, a recently appointed consultant. On a number of other points of debate, expert witnesses were also called.
3. The Inquiry
The proposal to amend the I.D.O. stemmed from the fact that the Hassell scheme infringed various detailed provisions of the I.D.O. as quoted in the development brief (reported in Case No. 1). The amendment proposed inserting the proposal in Part 6 of the I.D.O. This part is exempt from detailed provisions regarding land use and design detail, and it thus provides a simple means of approving any scheme for which the Minister recommends that these provisions be set aside. The panel was required to advise the Minister on submissions made to him about the proposed amendment.
The panel sat for four days in April 1985. Two days had originally been set aside at the beginning of the month but it became evident that more time was needed and a further two days were found at the end of the month to complete the hearing. After the hearing the three panel members spent a further day together on the site before writing their report.
As the hearing continued, at least one member of the panel came to feel that economic issues outweighed the design problems. To some extent this change in emphasis was linked with an extensive technical discussion of carparking arrangements since the retail space might not be so attractive to tenants if parking had to be reduced. The panel concluded that Hassell's arrangements were satisfactory.
According to one panel member, the atmosphere in the hearing was affected by press reports appearing at the time which questioned the bonafides of a director of EKG. See Exhibit 6. This press campaign had no direct effect however on the outcome of the inquiry and the drafting of the report. The major recommendations were those reported above.
4. The Design Development Process
Hassell had taken their original submission in October seriously. Their first objective was to become the preferred developer. At a later stage they would aim to have a development agreement signed and later again they would work on implementation. Their plan of work was similar to that of Lustig and Moar team. Not much was done in August, a number of alternatives were investigated during September, and a crucial decision-making meeting was held in October. Hassell, however, decided not to talk with anyone outside their team except the landowners as they did not want to show their had too soon. Their analysis of the site was that there was no point in developing ti in the normal rational manner, as the local property market had known for years that "it wouldn't work".
The only decisive step would be to make the site a "market leader" by giving it "a life of its own". The physical constraints (i.e. height limits) around the Shot Tower were strong but it was clear from the brief that you could deviate from them. EKG and Hassell decided to attempt economic viability by going for "the biggest, the best and the brightest" and to tailor their appeal to the Cabinet. Capitalising on the railway station "in a grand manner" was as important to them as having " the tallest building in Melbourne". The added significance of the atrium structure was that it held the hotel, office and retail structures together visually and physically.
Hassell produced the largest drawings they had ever created, they had a model prepared and a video tape made with montages of the building appearing in the centre of Melbourne. The developers had reached an agreement with the Museum that it would take space in the scheme and the team asked to make their presentation in the Museum itself. They also asked, and were allowed, to be the first of the five competitors to present and felt that "it was a difficult act to follow". Malcolm Edwards himself made the presentation to the Cabinet Committee.
A week after the presentations, Hassell were asked to a number of meetings with Ministry officials. In January 1985 a press announcement informed the public of their success. After this a new series of discussions began which were aimed at preparing for the public hearing and it was during this period that the design revisions presented at the hearing were negotiated. The public exhibition (of the scheme as first submitted) required by law was held in the City Council and Ministry of Planning offices. It was therefore not organised by Hassell themselves.
Hassell's architects were dismayed by the number of committees they had to face but felt the confidentiality of these discussions was "amazingly" well maintained.
The decision to select the EKG proposal had been taken by the full Cabinet, its economic committee being responsible for checking certain details of the submissions. A list of evaluation methods and responsibilities was drawn up (See Exhibit 7.). A planning balance sheet or matrix was suggested by the City Council Officer present.
Doubts over Malcolm Edwards' business connections had been known about shortly after submissions were made and were investigated by other government departments. It was decided to handle any problems this might raise through conditions attached to the development agreement when that stage was reached. After selection, the implementation committee was established. It was chaired by Ian Withell for the Ministry of Transport. Edwards and another Essington director had been named in the Costigan Painters and Dockers Royal Commission and linked with taxation fraud, international money laundering and the failed and some what shady Nugan - Hand merchant bank.
Subsequent to this Essington was removed from the process by the State Government and the contract was signed between the Government and Victoria Central P/L a newly formed subsidiary of Kumagai Gumi NSW itself a subsidiary of KG international.
At this stage Kumagai began to get cold feet with no major retail tenant and a period of negotiations with the State Government ensured, in which the project was scaled down. The tower was reduced to 72 storeys and the hotel removed.
Telecom was still to be the major tenant of the tower but they pulled out in mid 1986 to develop their own tower. Telecom's withdrawal completely disrupted the process. KG were getting desperate they didn't want to "lose face", and the Government wanted the development - important as a symbol of the new entrepreneurial spirit and important to their credibility with the electorate.
Government was sick of constant changes required a $70 million development bond from KG in exchange for permission to go ahead with reduced scheme (55 storey tower). KG backed by the enormous Sumi tomo Bank - No. 2 in Japan so this no problem.
Amendment 47 to the planning scheme which permitted the project to go ahead was finally signed in May '87. Somewhere in the negotiations between Government and Kumagai the Japanese architect Kurakawa was added to the team and Hassell's and BSM were compensated by becoming the joint documenters of the scheme.
Also, during this period, presumably with the leverage the Sumitomo Bank could provide Daimaru was induced to come in as the major retail tenant.
The final step postscript to the process was the Lonsdale St Bridge saga in which the Minister for Planning in what was by then the Kirner Labour Government the dreaded Tom Roper returned it through SK6.. What does this project show us?
Firstly in is a fine early example of the so-called corporate style of the Cain-Kirner governments - a willingness to directly involve Governments in entrepreneurial activity which was so badly discredited by the end of the decade.
It is a good example of the difficulties caused by the fragmented and cumbersome planning administrative network which had been allowed to take shape through-out the 20th century: Look at the number of ministries and other instrumentalities which were involved. It is also a good example of the complexities of such project and the dangers faced by governments which involve themselves directly in such process Berry has referred to these.
Third there is the possibility that a government already displaying strong tendencies to directly intervene in the private sphere might be increasingly likely to involve itself in ultimately risky joint ventures of various kinds. These, of course do not always have the anticipated outcomes. Witness for example the Victorian State Labour Governments' liabilities in respect of the failed Bayside Project. According to an Auditor General's report released in 1992 and reported in the age of June 13, 1992; "Bayside will cost taxpayers more than $120 million according to the Auditor General even though no firm contract has ever been signed between the project's erstwhile partners the Sandridge Company and the State Government. It is probably the most expensive vacant block of land in the State." [Kelly 1992] Twenty million dollars was required for the necessary 'clean up' of soil pollution which resulted from the heavy industrial use of the site over more than a hundred years. As I have already noted two Environmental Impact Statements were prepared for the site prior to the Government's approval fro the project to proceed.
As Berry [1988 : 35] says, "this raises a prior question - why have governments in Australia pinned so much faith in the mega project? One answer might be naivety and inexperience. Public servants and politicians, as proponents of the New Right ceaselessly remind us, are poor entrepreneurs. They, like many voters, are impressed by size, glamour and novelty, by colour and movement, by 'cranes on the skyline'. Closer to the mark however is the observation that today's mega - projects are seen as only the most visible reminders of a long and continuous dependence on foreign investment. Haven't we always depended for our development on public and private borrowing abroad? We might have always ridden on the sheep's back - but we paid the fare in sterling, U.S. dollars and yen. But such a view totally ignores the historically specific structural changes to the international capitalist economy in its current phase of crisis, characterised by increasingly mobile productive and financial capital channelled through the institutional reach of the multi national corporation, largely beyond the control and even the awareness of national and supra-national government agencies. Thus Australian governments, even at the State level, cannot simply assume the spin off benefits of all foreign investment for their regional economies in line with past experience; such a cargo cult mentality suspends judgement just at the point at which critical faculties should be sharpest".
It is also a good early example of the willingness to short circuit existing checks and balances in the planning framework in partial the requirement for public discussion comment and feedback to be incorporated into the urban planning process.
The most fundamental point made to the Planning Appeals Tribunal set up to hear objecting to the variations in the IDO necessary, for the EKG - Hassell's scheme to go ahead was made by the planner John Bayly who commented. "the manner of approval, in which well established procedures have been bypassed... may undermine confidence in the integrity of the Victorian Planning System" - an understatement perhaps.
It is a good example of the manner in which changes to our urban built environment are being driven by global investment capital seeking to locate to its own best advantage.
The involvement of Richard Ellis in the project is significant in this respect. Richard Ellis is a prime example of the global service network which has sprung up around the global property industry. Richard Ellis money match making between global property developers and development opportunities world wide.
It is a good example of the role of design in the process driving the re-making of our cities. It was clear to the teams competing for the job that design quality was not going to be a prime determinant of the outcome, from quite early in the process. The financial credibility of the team members and the projected financial returns on the package were the sole criteria for deciding the winner.
When Rob Adams on behalf of the Melbourne City Council raised some predictable design objections to the scheme for the Planning Appeal he was ignored. On the other hand there was clear evidence of awareness on the part of the authorities of the importance of design as a marketing tool.
Finally, as well as becoming Melbourne's first globally financed mega-structure the complex became Melbourne's leading example of the inside- our mega-scale planning which has come to characterise cities such as Houston and Dallas where streets have become no more than traffic conduits and opportunities for mugging's and the public realm has become the responsibility and property of the corporate property developers subject to their whims tastes and controls.
S17,18,19.