Tasmanian Times


Do we really wish to be known as Phallus City … ?

*Pic: An anonymous architect’s portrayal of the scale of the hotel …

As a keen observer of human-nature I have often found it puzzling people’s tendency to destroy the very thing they purport to desire the most.

Some buy ‘Bush Blocks’ as their ideal for living with nature and then promptly bulldoze every tree in sight, build an enormous house and plant a manicured lawn …

… then spend the rest of their days developing haemorrhoids from their ride-on lawnmower, obliterating nature sounds with loud audio and killing wildlife.

Others purchase houses in heritage precincts and immediately demolish as much as they can get away with before erecting monstrous, out-of-character additions and leaving nowhere for the children to play.

They spend the rest of their lives walking straight through the old house and into their glass and shiny concrete paradise.

Developers such as the Fragrance are not immune to such sentiments. Incidentally my nose always twitchers when I hear that word, perhaps it’s a Pavlovian response to particular deodorants!

The company has come to Hobart because of what it is … but wish to make it into something else; a bit like their home in Singapore.

I like Singapore, the people are polite, friendly and unlike here it is disability friendly. High-rise, endless shopping centres, places to eat and just a fraction left of the old Chinese and Indian towns – which of course is where tourists actually want to go.

For me it’s different and worth visiting.

Singaporeans come to see Hobart because it’s different and worth visiting.

The proposed skyscraper is a clone of a myriad of others in Singapore although its erect status does give the subconscious inklings of failed amorous ambitions.

In fact I understand a high-level marketing team has a proposal to go before the Nomenclature Board to change our name to ‘Phallus City’ as a mark of inclusiveness to the emerging MONA community.

Great selling point!

There is however, a positive to the proposed developments …

It will save us all a great deal of money.

I will be able to appreciate Singaporean architecture from my home and no longer need to travel there while our Singaporean friends desire to come here will rapidly fade as they realise we have simply replicated what they can see from their homes.

On the other hand if the new name (Phallus City) is approved we may become a deliciously desirous place to visit.

EARLIER on Tasmanian Times …

Richard Flanagan: ‘They do not allow the construction of high rise buildings in their cities’ historic heart … ‘


*Dr Ian Broinowski PhD, MEd, BA(Soc Wk), BEc, Dip Teach, worked as an advanced skills teacher in children’s services at the Institute of TAFE Tasmania in Hobart, Australia for many years. Ian has a background in Economics, Social Work and Education. He has taught in a wide range of subjects in aged care, disability services, children’s services, community and youth work. He worked for a period as a house parent in Bristol, England and Northern Ireland. He has also held positions as a child welfare officer in Tasmania and NSW. Ian’s publications include Child Care Social Policy and Economics, (1994) Creative Childcare Practice: Program design in early childhood, (2002) and recently managed Children’s Services 2004. He has spent the past five years studying his PhD at the University of South Australia in which he examined the relationship between enchantment, imagination and creativity, and the quality of the work of the early childhood educator. Ian was awarded the Jean Denton national scholarship in 2001. He is currently teaching online from Hobart in Education with Open Universities Australia at Curtin University in WA and is a member of the Health and Medical Ethics Committee with the University of Tasmania. In 2013 he presented a paper at the Future of Education Conference in Florence Italy on the ‘Use of Humour in Online Teaching’.

Fragrance Davey Street Media Launch …

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. Second Opinion

    June 1, 2017 at 12:28 am

    There is much to see here, not just Fragrance.


  2. Robin Charles Halton

    May 31, 2017 at 12:17 am

    #34 Thank you too Jon, its a great piece of promotional material for the 120 meter Tower, it could happen in the future although I would prefer to see the miserable low lying area of Wapping at the arse end Collins St/ Broooker Highway construct the 83 meter tall hotel with convention centre on top.

    As far as I am concerned when this development goes ahead the unappealing Grand Chancellor and its awkward el cheapo gas tank attachment is dismantled.

    Hobart still lacks the “wow” factor with its string of mainly dislocated architectural styles, too many clashs over the city not many improvements but the recent Fragrance development at 173-177 Macquarie St which is almost complete, at a height of 37 meters looks far better than Myer’s half hearted attempt in Collins St of which 6 stories remain incomplete while the wet hole behind the facade around the corner is at last starting to show signs of moving skywards since the long winded goings on with the breaching of the Hobart Rivulet last winter.

    In my opinion the “former retail giant” Myer had to be bought by the State government and the Hobart City Council before Myer “reluctantly” rebuilt in Hobart.
    The current retail half store is dull and the shopping experience uninspiring as Myer was already on the decline before the fire.

    Myer is unlikely to recover its investment in Hobart rebuild, I hate to think where this is all going to lead to given our State Governments and Hobart city Council financial contribution, there could be a “fire sale” of the Hobart asset prior to completion as I suspect money has to run out.

  3. John Biggs

    May 30, 2017 at 1:17 pm

    #34 Thank you Jon, that is a very graphic illustration of exactly why we don’t want the Collins St excrescence. Fragrance Macquarie St is much lower and — now the bloody thing is there —
    just acceptable. But that should be it.

  4. Robin Charles Halton

    May 30, 2017 at 7:06 am

    #27 Romy, of cause I am essential to existence by choosing to retire and reside in the Greater Hobart area and most importantly contribute “my bit” to the growing need to smarten up the city offering a balance of the old and the new and hopefully the exciting!

    Despite the recent developments around the city it still lacks a “wow” factor to draw visitors 24/7/365.
    It must be remembered that Tasmania is limited by its cooler climate in particular those episodes of “wet cold misery” that we have experienced over the past few days and will continue to experience over the next few months.

    I agree the Myer building needs completion, the six stories are still vacant and the hole in the ground around the corner will be an overly expensive outlay as the mystery surrounding the breaching of the Hobart Rivulet remains above public knowledge by the developer.

    The Myer “Precinct” shows no sign of becoming a “wow” factor as Myer had to coached by the State Government and the Hobart City Council to rebuild, in fact I dont think they really wanted to reinvest in retail within Hobart at all, so far he new “half” is pretty dull and shockingly expensive place to shop.

    Back to the Fragrance investment to smarten up the miserable hole of lower Collins St where recent developments have been very hotch potch citing more inconsistently associated with architectural ugliness and lack of standard.

    The 83 meter high building proposal with its unique design is an opportunity of a lifetime waiting on our doorstep by a developer who is actually willing to step onto the local scene.

    This would make the dated Casino and the dumb Grand Chancellor look out of place for venues for inviting tourists and conventions to the State.

    We need to think beyond the plight of the Battery Point syndrome, after all we live in a globalised world, any English Village would surpass anything BP has to offer.

    Hobart needs its “wow” factor architectural display and not a continuing clutter of straight sided cardboard boxes stacked on top of each other which is currently happening, look at the RACV Tourism Accommodation in Collins St awkwardly tucked in behind the sandstone facade of the former Cascade shop.

    I am sure that we will be hearing more of Fragrance in the coming season, the more the better for a developer who has volunteered to showcase their unique offering for Hobart.

  5. Lynne Newington

    May 29, 2017 at 11:41 pm

    @17, I’m sure China has the same views and surprised it hasn’t already put it’s feelers out.

  6. Jon Sumby

    May 29, 2017 at 10:24 pm

  7. garrystannus@hotmail.com

    May 29, 2017 at 9:36 pm

    Second Opinion (#1, #29 and #32): I don’t imagine that the problem was created by TasTimes. I’d suggest looking further afield for the reason behind the message:

    Action Denied: Blacklisted Item Found …

    Fingers crossed, the following url should allow readers to access the website which you tried to make available:


  8. Second Opinion

    May 29, 2017 at 4:37 pm

    Regarding my comments at #1 and #29.
    Those ‘free’ newspapers distributed in Glenorchy, Hobart, and the Eastern shore, are publications linked to Corporate Communications, which is Tony Harrison.
    The URL of Skyscrapercity Tasmania, is still being determined as black-listed, by Tas Times.

    Please explain.

  9. Christine Simons

    May 28, 2017 at 12:43 pm

    I’m with the anti-skyscrapers for Hobart. Good architecture is about solving problems in a creative way.There must be alternatives to the present problem of tourist accommodation in Hobart.I don’t care if 1500 Chinese cannot be accommodated for a conference. Not so long ago it was the Japanese were flavour of the month for tourism.Everything changes, planning and building construction should be flexible. What happens if skyscrapers are built, and for some reason tourism is no longer the cash cow. Melbourne has many unoccupied buildings built for investment purposes. How many ‘developers’ are public spirited? Most are just after profit.They usually are not to be trusted.

  10. Barney Rubble

    May 28, 2017 at 10:01 am

    #23 Rom, I appreciate you don’t enjoy modern architecture and I agree some of the concrete monstrosities in the cities you note are bloody awful but not all. Hobart has reached its potential for accomodating visitors and residents require the sprawl to continue and strangle access through our great city. If not up then how does Hobart continue to grow or is this it for eternity?

    Let’s look at a few efforts of Hobart in the past with that putrid building on the corner of Campbell and Davey Streets, is exhibit A, is this what you want Hobart filled with?

    The govt is often spruiking about Tasmania and its links to China and let’s say for a minute a Chinese company decides to hold a “small” week long conference in Hobart for say 1500 delegates. Where do they stay and how many hotels would the need to be shuttled too and from?

  11. Second Opinion

    May 28, 2017 at 1:59 am

    There is a weblog called skyscrapercity: just add a dot com.
    I do not append a link, because TT doesn’t allow it.

    A site for high-rise enthusiasts ..

    Has a thread on Tasmania, with local tyro’s contributions providing some welcome detail.

    Ed: TT does allow links … but through links it’s got to be the whole url

  12. John Wade

    May 27, 2017 at 8:59 pm

    Ros Barnett @3 – Perfect! Could not agree more with your personification. I love to read someone else’s appreciation of the finer points of living.

  13. Rom

    May 27, 2017 at 6:38 pm

    Its amazing that people like Robin Charles Halton exist

    “Hobart dull and limited by poor performing progress”. Thats your opinion and not one shared by the majority of people who live here. We see Hobart as a still relatively beautiful city, despite the creeping ugliness of monstrosities like the Myer building and the rubbish that crowds the docks. If you want to see ugly great shadow casting concrete abominations… please move to another city. There are plenty of dumps on the mainland to choose from.

    Maybe its you who need to think a bit. Those ugly cities are places people are leaving in droves because they are unlivable. “Development” for the sake of sticking more ugly blocks in a city is patently stupid and represents a complete lack of understanding of our city and our state. Even if that ugly bitch of a building were to be built it would provide no extra view of the SW, a view of a city of the people who are in it and the start of the end of Hobart as a livable city, for everyone else. Let one of these towers in and within a generation, Hobart will be a series of freezing cold wind tunnels within a generation. I’ll fight this rubbish architecture right to the end.

  14. Lynne Newington

    May 27, 2017 at 6:00 pm

    At least it isn’t a steeple…..I recently heard the most ghastly association connected to same due to a patriarchal institution and expected to be taken seriously.
    All too fetish in my opinion, although Malta had an “accidental” one the papal motorcade would’ve had to pass on the way from the airport to the city on an official visit some time ago.

  15. Robin Charles Halton

    May 27, 2017 at 4:03 pm

    There would be no need for a cable car with the significant elevation of the top floor which should be made available for the public to view Hobart and its environs.

    by using state of the art digitalised telephoto technology transposed onto a large screen or to be downloaded onto everybodys personal gadgets they carry the mountain would be available to all visitors and local alike.

    it would be more than amazing during the time the Hobart city Council cracks down on motorists during the winter when road closures favor council fears of OH&S compliance especially by those crazy Asian drivers on our roads ( no offence intended but with greater influx of visitor numbers better facilitation for them is necessary.

    Now I am offering to go one step further to sell our amazing scenery of the SW from the mountain which is hidden from general view from thee summit with the installation of of remote “towers” that will transfer imagery back to the base at the Fragrance on Collins development.

    Visitation to the top of the mountain is fine but what is beyond is absolutely spectacular.

    The overall plan to raise the profile of what is a dull uninspiring location around Wapping precinct must be considered by inviting more public consultation by way of “field”, information days at PW1 to promote what we are missing out on in Hobart.

    There is no reason why the Chinese Junk motif cannot be exchanged for an impression of local water craft such as a trading ketch which represents what Hobart stood for in times past.

    I only wish that Tasmanians especially those living around Hobart would only take the time and think beyond historic Battery Point and the ugly ducking Casino which blots the approach to the city from the estuary.

    There are opportunities with the limited grond plan of what still is a relatively dull city limited by poor performing progress with vehicular transportation and adaption to the modern world with any architectural consistency that represents what is a small time inward thinking provincial city stuck at the end of the earth.

    Foward thinking politics, people and progress please before we all fall into the Derwent River over the winter months.

  16. Chris

    May 27, 2017 at 1:59 pm

    I know we could get overseas financiers to build a hideous structure or two which could accommodate countless people from elsewhere at their rates, transport to the ugly facade would be via an airline, owned or financed, by the “developer” landing at our taxpayer funded airport and fares for the “developer owned buses”.
    Then the imported staff could clean the rooms, feed the multitude and conduct the tours guided by a Luke of Liebral sympathies who advocates enormous influx of tourists in numbers but of no benefit to the local economy.

  17. Rom

    May 27, 2017 at 1:43 pm

    Simple. If people want to look at ugly concrete monstrosities… go to Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, the Gold coast… etc etc. All hideous, abominations that make me and many others, sick to the stomach.

    We have a couple of capitals left in this country that have not been totally screwed over by developers, yet. It seems we are next, unless we continue to face down these arseholes who are in it for the money and to hell with what the locals want, or the existing planning schemes allow.

  18. Robin Charles Halton

    May 27, 2017 at 1:42 am

    #17 and #21 Christopher Eastman- Nagle is on the right track with his reeducation program for Tasmanians to ascend beyond their inward thinking and lingering for the old times!

    What one sees in Hobart today especially around the CBD is a jumble of architectural styles which has been happening since the 1930’s when most of Hobart’s old colonial hotels got an Art Deco face lift.

    Some very good examples of Art Deco exist in the T&G building, HEC building now the HCC HQ, the facade of the Royal and the Nettlefolds tower proudly destroyed by Hazell Bros.

    Since the 1960’s Hobart, without any real set style went on benders and we ended up with uglys just about everywhere, I dont have to name them including the Casino and Empress Towers.

    Considerable effort has been made in recent years to reuse PW1 without destroying its poured boxed concrete industrial heritage.
    Thanks to former Premier David Bartlett.

    The Silos re adaption nearby and alongside Salamanca Place still takes some getting used to as does the Bolt brutalist behind Parliament House. I still cannot believe what I see today, dreadful!

    To cut the story short, we should not let Fragrance disappear as some parts of Hobart are yet to evolve beyond the despair and shocking attempts at two lots of round houses plus the uglist duckling the Grand Chancellor with a weird and detached gas tank thing beside it in the Wapping precinct.

    Fragrance have almost delivered a reasonably smart looking Hotel of 37 meters ht at 173-177 Macquarie St, I say give them the opportunity for something more exciting to lift the city out of its architecturally dislocated doldrums.

    Whist I can understand the 120 meter Phallus maybe overly adventurous for its location below Franklin Square I am more impressed by the style of the Chinese Junk building of 83 meters ht on the corner of Brooker Hwy and Collins St.

    As the area is low lying, depressing environs with the most ugly building nearby, upon arriving into Hobart from the airport via the Tasman Bridge the hideous Grand Chancellor and its surrounding ugliness would be hidden by the new Fragrance hotel with a convention centre of incredible proportions on top that would make it one of the most sought after venues in not only Tasmania but within Australia for top notch international conferences.

    I can say now with confidence the Tasmanian Government, the Hobart City Council and the people of Tasmania must not lose sight of Fragrance as the Singaporean company presents the best opportunity for the Southern region to move foward to shake off its characteristic bad design and muddled architectural experiementation around its CBD area.

    The City has no established sense of style, the Fragrance flowing Chinese Junk building offers relief from the monotony of decades of poor designs since the post war period.

    The time is ripe for Tasmania to lift its game dont pass this golden opportunity.

  19. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    May 26, 2017 at 8:30 pm

    Pete, I can see the arguments for preserving Tasmania’s wilderness areas and its old towns, like Evandale for instance.

    Miners have rather blotted their copy books by leaving behind environmental disasters for the tax payer to fix, so making it really hard for them makes sense.

    Launceston has such a dense and unique mixture of period architecture, there would be powerful arguments to require all new development to blend in with what is there, and incorporate as much of the original building as is practicable, even if it is only the facade.

    Hobart has some fabulous areas of old architecture, like Battery Point and Salamanca Place, where no one would advocate pulling any of any of it down, for any reason, ever. But not all of the Hobart CBD is like that.

    If you don’t allow forestry or much mining, then really it is only service industries and agriculture that are going to be employing Tasmanians into the future.

    The tourist industry is a big one and the Chinese are coming. Behind that is settlement, if they like what they are seeing as visitors. And they bring industriousness and enterprise in their wake, with stronger links to the leading power of the 21st century.

    That means that the tourist accommodation industry is going to get much bigger and the people who are proposing the new high rise are betting a lot of money that you are wrong Pete. And if they are right, it will mean a lot of good jobs for Tasmanians.

    I imagine you have got kids Pete. And the bet is that if any of them have much get up and go, and if there aren’t the opportunities for them in Tasmania, they will have to go to the mainland to live and work. Tassy might be just fine for you as is, but what about them and their children?

    We won’t be doing hunting and gathering Pete, even if everything goes pear shaped. So what are they going to be doing to keep body and soul together in Tassy? Peasant farming?

  20. Simon Warriner

    May 26, 2017 at 6:29 pm

    I hate to break it to you Hobartians, but there are a sizable number of NW Tasmanians that would think that the headline was a pretty apt description, and some of them actually use far worse terms when referring to that city south of Oatlands. It appears more prompted by the quality of decision making emanating from certain buildings than anything deeply personal towards the inhabitants, if that makes you feel better.

    I doubt building a phallic symbol shaped hotel will alter anything in that regard.

  21. Barney Rubble

    May 25, 2017 at 10:00 pm

    #15 that’s why we have planning laws however these planning laws need to evolve not just be entrenched forever. Yes build it, the city is strangled in restrictions. You need only look how the planners in Melbourne blend the history in with modern day d velopment. It looks beautiful the old stone buildings surrounded by modern day development, far from the end of the world some in tas bleat.

  22. Pete Godfrey

    May 25, 2017 at 8:56 pm

    #17 Christopher you make some strange assumptions.
    First I don’t want the Asian or any other tourist dollar to grow. I live here because it is a beautiful quiet backwater. From my point of view I would love it to stay that way. I do not support the “growth is good” economic viewpoint.
    Sorry but I support a stable population, stable economy model.
    You say that you don’t think anyone wants a repeat of the Gold Coast. What a short memory you have.
    Do you remember the proposal to fill in Lauderdale bay and turn it into a suburb. Of course with a tiny bit of sea level rise it would compete with the Everglades in Florida. Then of course the Cable car idea is very much along the lines of a Gold Coast theme park idea.
    My take is that there is no proven market or requirement for this out of place building.
    If Tasmania as a whole really wants to attract visitors maintaining our individuality and character is the best way to go about it.
    Many absurd ideas have come before mine and succeeded magnificently.
    Take the one example of a bloke who cut the side off a small hill, built himself an art gallery and has done what many said was impossible. MONA.

  23. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    May 25, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    Look Pete #14, your comment is a cheap shot reductio ad absurdum.

    It is true that a lot of what Tassie offers is charming because the place has attracted so little development over the years, that the old stuff was never thrown down with quite the same abandon as it was in Bjelke-Peterson’s Queensland, back in the day.

    I don’t think anyone wants a repeat of the Gold Coast. It is a truly ghastly testament to laissez-faire gunghoism.

    But by the same token, the notion of ‘neighborhood character’ has equally become a lurid caricature in its own way, to justify maintaining a third rate status quo.

    Maintaining the status quo is generally a poor argument if it isn’t accompanied with a critical eye for what is worth keeping and what isn’t. There are parts of Hobart that are truly iconic and it would be an insane idea to mess with them.

    There are some areas where there are a few decent old buildings, but it is mostly pretty ordinary stuff. If the developers want to come in a change the character of such an area, let them fund restoration of some of the more iconic old buildings in it that might otherwise deteriorate and eventually get pulled down anyway, because they are no longer safe, or their rundown character detracts from local amenity, or converting them to more modern use is just too expensive on the basis of existing capital value.

    The environmental arguments over high rise are surprisingly complex, and I am not sufficiently over the top of them to canvas them here, other than to say that they are not straightforward and clear cut, when you take in all the variables like height to footprint ratios, alternative infrastructure costs of a much larger footprint, the materials used, energy efficiency cost and use variables over building lifetime etc etc.

    Developers always go for max, and expect to get a few stories knocked off in the negotiation process to get permits. They will trade higher quality environmental and energy design to get their plans through.

    Singapore itself is moving very quickly into Green building mode. See https://e360.yale.edu/features/singapore_takes_the_lead_in_green_building_in_asia It shouldn’t be too hard to make the developers meet the same standards as they now do back home.

    And maybe it might make sense to push the developers to be a bit design innovative in ways that will give the city some architectural mojo and demonstrate that it is ambitious, proud of what it has to offer, old and new and isn’t just complacently sitting on its historical laurels.

    Hobart needs more unique pieces of infrastructure and design, like Mona. It is just as valid to reach for the sky as dig underground in pursuit of that.

    Tasmania is a pretty backwater that is lovely to visit or retire to, but it isn’t that attractive to people with a bit of career in front of them, because although the real estate is cheap, the other costs of living aren’t so cheap, and employment is ‘difficult’ and limited.

    It seems to me Pete that if you want to grow the Asian tourist dollar, you are going to have to make a few compromises and up the local game, and not just in Hobart.

    When I was last in Sheffield Tassie, the local second hand shop (which was a veritable treasure trove of goodies I haven’t seen on the mainland since the 1960s) had black and white pictures of Mao Zedong and Chou En Lai plastered around the place, to make the Chinese tourists feel more ‘at home’.

    Sweet…..And that Pete is the kind of provinciality you are arguing for.

  24. garrystannus@hotmail.com

    May 25, 2017 at 2:21 pm


    What about a sustainable population? That is, living without ever increasing demands on our planet, on our oceans, forests, cities, towns and communities?

  25. John Biggs

    May 25, 2017 at 1:41 pm

    #13. Revitalise the state with just build build and thus kill what is worthwhile about the state. Such uncritical macho talk is no answer.

  26. Pete Godfrey

    May 25, 2017 at 11:54 am

    #13 Barney you are right, rather than stay the same we should look to different ways.
    How about we start tunnelling in under Mount Wellington. We could build new suburbs and underground shopping malls there.
    What a tourist attraction that would be, to have a city of troglodytes. Each dwelling or building could have windows looking out over the Derwent.
    How would that be, every room with a view. Protected from sea level rise, no need for air conditioning and little need of heating.

  27. Barney Rubble

    May 25, 2017 at 11:12 am

    Just build it, this state needs to bust off the shackles of its costly development tag due to this public consultation a small few want. There is a process for objecting to a development via planning laws but that should be it. We can’t keep turning away investors to this state and accept our stalled growth and battling economy. A generation has argued against a cable car and still it’s nowhere near being built or alternatively shelved for eternity. It’s just sitting there being argued for and against, developers money wasted and lining the pockets of smart consultants. I see the same will be talked of in decades to come for extending the city in a vertical direction. Hobart can’t sprawl much wider due to the geographic constraints so it’s a no brainer that the move up should be the favoured method. Public transport and traffic congestion is a joke in a city of such a small population. A solution to this is to provide accomodation (permanent and tourism) in the heart of the city. If we can’t go up we have to go down. Who wants to live six floors under ground? Ludicrous, it’s time to build up.

    So I say just build it, let the moaners and wingers take flight and we will revitalise this state to one that encourages development not costly consultation.

  28. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    May 25, 2017 at 2:43 am

    Ian, Hobart is a small provincial town and thinking small and provincially is consonant with that. So you may be right.

    I do recall that people said roughly similar things when Melbourne’s small time provincial skyline was rudely interrupted by the first high rise, which was completed back in 1958; the ICI building.

    But if Tasmanians want to see some really big time Chinese tourism to help transform their struggling little economy, make them feel at home.

    The essence of tourism Ian, is to give the punter everything they are used to at home, but with foreign scenery to look at in between and including their sojourns in their little bit of Singapore in the South.

    And the thing is, and this may be an argument against it, unlike Singapore, all the views from every room of this proposed monstrosity will be so fantastic, the tour guides will have to drag them away to go and see any other sights.

    They will love it.

  29. Robin Charles Halton

    May 25, 2017 at 2:14 am

    #9 Rolf, including a visitor from Tasmania, back in 1985 when I managed to ascend to the highest point for the public on the Ulm Munster an der Blau Donau.

    Very impressive feature at a height of 161 metres when visiting Baden -Wurttemberg.

  30. john hayward

    May 25, 2017 at 1:01 am

    Rather than feebly aping Trump Tower, why not something distinctly Tasmanian?

    I can envision a giant CBD hologram of a forestry waste burn, which would require no blow-in wealthy tenants, but would flicker spectacularly each night, and quickly eclipse MONA and the aurora australis as tourist bait.

    John Hayward

  31. rolf ellersiek

    May 24, 2017 at 11:13 pm

    We’ve got one of those high-rises right in the middle of town.(…has been there for almost 700 years.)

    Everybody seems to love it,even the odd visitor from Singapore.

    Best wishes from Ulm! (Germany)


  32. Pete Godfrey

    May 24, 2017 at 7:41 pm

    It is a Phallussee if we believe that our voices matter. With the design so advanced it is pretty obvious that the company have already donated to the right political coffers.

  33. Chris

    May 24, 2017 at 6:53 pm

    Well may we say god save this government because their heritage values will not.
    When I am assigned to a home for the confused, I shall never forget the charlatans who intend to destroy our heritage and environment for their own greed and follow their disciples like Gray, Barnett and Erica Betz into their vision of a great society ruled by elites and those bound to rule.
    The ascendancy of Rocky with the nephew of Otto’s backing is about to remove the leader after an early election.

  34. TGC

    May 24, 2017 at 6:19 pm

    #2 “Hobart is a small city surrounded with bush”
    It’s a bit of a journey until the ‘bush’ is reached and inevitably that journey will take longer as more ‘bush’ is subsumed into built.

  35. Greg James

    May 24, 2017 at 4:49 pm

    This building already exists in Bilbao as their water board offices. You may see it when at the Guggenheim, Bilbao, set slightly away from the rest of the city centre. It does not look horrible in situ, I think mainly because their architecture is far more sophisticated and has a greater charm than Hobart’s ever will.

    The monocultural building developments in Hobart are the product of many years of commercial atrophy and inbred town planning which have not allowed the city to expand its imagination.

    This can be seen in the ugly government buildings erected since the 1950s – Murray St and Marine Board come to mind easily. Also through the town planning schemes that currently exist and the bureaucratic mindset of the state and city employees.

    The ugliest building is of course the Casino, erected on the waterfront as a gigantic penis waiting to ejaculate the state’s money into the Farrell Family coffers.

  36. mike seabrook

    May 24, 2017 at 3:50 pm

    check out the car parking – sydney prices for parking anyone??

  37. Ros Barnett

    May 24, 2017 at 3:39 pm

    Perhaps it would be better to be known as the vagina city which is often damp but warmly welcoming to those who come with good intentions, an open mind and a warm heart.

    Vaginas are not flashy and conspicuous but offer enormous pleasure when treated respectfully.

  38. Christine Simons

    May 24, 2017 at 3:29 pm

    Fragrance is ‘on the nose’.

    My father lived in Singapore in the transition from British colony, to a modern totally ‘man’ created city. I remember the beautiful old city. It is now transformed, well-planned and slick, designed for a big population, on a small area of land.

    What has happened in Singapore suits their economy.

    Hobart is a small city surrounded with bush, has heritage buildings, a beautiful mountain and a harbour.

    In the world, we are remote and not so ‘developed’, which is a main reason for Hobart’s appeal.

    We need to keep the unique attractions we have.

    No skyscrapers in Hobart.

  39. Second Opinion

    May 24, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    Did I notice one Tony Harrison pictured in the Xsquared Architects project team photo.


    He of Trinity Projects fame, and of the Blundstone Boot (in my view) Blight on Bellerive?


You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive Our Weekly Tas Roundup

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top