$100m James Packer backed project's wellbeing, longevity boost
A wellness retreat inspired by Hotel Chadstone that features a gym and mix of saunas, a curated library and reflection garden are among the features planned for its well-heeled future residents.
The former 52-bed Aveo aged care centre at 23 Maleela Ave, Balwyn, was bought by the NPACT investment firm which is heavily funded by one of Australia's richest men, Mr Packer, and headed by former Crown Resorts strategy and development vice president Todd Nisbet.
Melbourne lawyer, businessman and former ABC board member Joe Gersh is also part of the group behind the planned $100m revamp that will ultimately feature 31 homes.
The project will be developed alongside Chapter Group and has been designed by Cera Stribely Architects, with landscaping by garden guru to Melbourne's elite Jack Merlo.
Mr Nisbet said the project would aim to nurture the body, mind and spirit of residents with a view to increased longevity and overall wellness.
'We have focused on providing features within the development which not only promote physical health, such as the gymnasium, saunas and cold shower, but also to create opportunities for socialisation and the building of friendships through our club lounge facility, and relaxation and enrichment in our library and reflection garden,' he said.
The largest residences will span 'mansion proportions' of more than 600sq m, including one with its own swimming pool and a rooftop retreat on offer.
After previously working on One Barangaroo, the tallest tower in Sydney and home to one of the nation's few six-star hotels, he added that the 31-apartment complex in Balwyn to be named Maleela Rise was also intended to create a balance between hotel luxury and a sense of home.
'We have done this in many ways; for example, we are incorporating a concierge service to provide not only a convenience, but also a welcoming presence to our residents at the end of a long day,' Mr Nisbet said.
'It's an opulent environment, but its designed for every day living.
'Inside the apartments, we have also added moments of extravagance through the use of incredible natural stones, such as Arebescato Rosso, but they are grounded within an overall neutral palette which will make it liveable and timeless.'
European oak flooring will be complemented by marble and travertine throughout the homes, while many residences will also have fireplaces and bars.
A mix of two and three-bedroom floorplans will be offered, all homes will have butler's pantries in their kitchens, large terraces and multiple carparks.
There has already been interest from local business luminaries in the largest homes.
Apartment prices will start at $1.7m for a two-bedroom home, while penthouses will commence sales from $5.6m.
It comes shortly after James Packer and developer Time & Place had a legal win to compel the sale of a studio apartment holding up plans for a Potts Point redevelopment in Sydney.
Packer is helping to fund plans to buy out the 80-apartment The Chimes tower, with expectations it will cost about $100m all up to acquire.
It will then be overhauled as a new project.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
11 minutes ago
- AU Financial Review
New fund looks to snap up stakes in ageing VC funds
Advance VC has signed up high-profile backers including Stake founder Matt Liebowitz and Decjuba owner Tania Austin for a new fund that will buy up unwanted stakes in the investments of venture capital operators such as Blackbird and Tidal. As start-ups stay private for longer and VC firms extend the life of their 10-year funds, Melbourne-based Advance VC has emerged as a buyer for investors who need to sell their holdings for reasons including financial distress, divorce, or wanting to rebalance their portfolios.
ABC News
11 minutes ago
- ABC News
Off the productivity round table: What won't be discussed this week
Problem and productivity. It's a pairing that has become inseparable in recent times, given our productivity growth is the lowest in half a century. It'll also be a major point of discussion at the Economic Reform Roundtable that kicked off in Canberra this week. For a while, it appeared the entire forum would be devoted to the topic with our best and brightest assembled to nut out a way to address it. But solutions generally can only be found if we truly understand the root cause of the problem. And that's where things go horribly wrong when it comes to any discussion around labour productivity. A seemingly simple concept — the amount of product produced over a given period of time by the same amount of labour — understanding what drives it can be complex and prone to misinterpretation. And that's before you consider the difficulties in even measuring labour productivity, particularly in an economy such as ours where the vast bulk of workers, instead of churning out easily countable widgets, are providing services to other people. Professor Roy Green from the University of Technology points to Australian manufacturing's demise — which now accounts for just 6 per cent of our GDP — as a major contributor to our productivity conundrum. There is, he says, "an almost exact correlation between the decline of manufacturing, the decline of business expenditure on research and development and the decline of productivity growth, now at its lowest level in almost 60 years". And then there are factors that are totally off the agenda. For such a pointy headed topic, finding answers often involve traversing areas that are socially, culturally and politically explosive. In many cases, economists — fearing a community backlash — refuse to even mention some of the more obvious topics that have a legitimate bearing on productivity. That involves two other P-words: population and property. Many business leaders and most politicians confuse productivity with profitability. There's a common misconception that, if only we could keep wages in check, our labour productivity problems could fix themselves. True, there's a link between wages and how much we produce but, even then, it's not completely understood. If lower wages were the key to better productivity, company executives should have penalties imposed for underperformance rather than bonuses for turning up. Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock lamented last week's decision to downgrade its labour productivity forecasts for the nation, a move that sent headline writers into a frenzy. Rising productivity, she said, lifts living standards as it provides the scope for workers to earn higher wages without putting pressure on inflation. But there's a catch. Businesses need to invest in new technology to help workers lift productivity. And they'll only do that if wages are rising, so they can reduce costs and boost profit. So, what comes first? Do higher wages lead to better productivity? Or does better productivity lead to higher wages? Just between us, no-one really knows. Luckly for the RBA governor, she declared it well and truly outside her remit. "All the Reserve Bank can do is make sure we have low and stable inflation, and if we have full employment, both of those things are very stable environments for businesses to think about how they might improve productivity, how they might produce more for the same amount of labour and capital input," she said. Once upon a time, there was no such thing as an automated carwash. You either did it yourself or paid people to do it by hand. When the first auto washing machine opened in Australia in 1968, it sparked what should have been a trend to lay waste to the old style, expensive hand washing. Cheaper and quicker, with minimal labour input, it's a perfect example of a productivity improvement. But in the past 20 years, there's been a resurgence in car hand washing operations. You'll find them everywhere, in shopping centre car parks and on highway corners. Why? Perhaps hand washing delivers a superior finish. But the biggest factor may well be that hand washing comes at a competitive price because labour costs are no longer prohibitive. Regardless of the reason, it's a negative for our productivity numbers. Sydney University academic Salvatore Babones penned an interesting piece in the Australian Financial Review this week, sheeting home the blame for our tardy performance in labour productivity to our surging population growth. Most new arrivals, he points out, are not highly skilled, nor are they permanent. "Massive influxes of low-skilled workers are obvious drivers of trends in labour productivity," he wrote. "But they're not even mentioned in recent Reserve Bank of Australia and Productivity Commission reports." Only around half the 1 million students — who make up about 10 per cent of the workforce — in Australia attend a university. The rest are in courses primarily designed to deliver a working visa. The huge influx has artificially kept GDP numbers elevated. But it's been at the expense of productivity. In those proportions, they act as a cheap source of labour which, when combined with a rigid wage setting system, maintains a lid on wages growth, and dampens the incentive for businesses to invest. "If you flood the labour market with low-skilled immigrants, real wages (adjusted for inflation) will fall, and productivity will decline as labour is used less efficiently," he wrote. "It's that simple." As Babones points out, Australia may look down on other countries that exploit cheap, imported labour. But we do the same, under the guise of education visas. As they hunker down in working groups in the national capital this week, the dominant topic for conversation will be tax. There'll be furious debate about cutting the corporate tax rate and increasing the GST. But there is no guarantee either of those measures will lead to increased business investment or improve productivity. That's because businesses that earn bigger profits don't automatically invest the windfall gains. Most of the time they hand it back to shareholders, or at least a large slab of it. Our productivity may be among the worst in the developed world and our business investment woeful. But there is one area where Australians exceed on the investment front. Our obsession with real estate has resulted in a deluge of cash directed into housing. It's why our real estate is so horrifyingly expensive. According to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, as a nation we are in hock to the tune of $2.3 trillion on property mortgages. And that's expected to rise as interest rates ease. More than 2.26 million Australians own an investment property, largely because of favourable tax policies that deliberately direct investment into real estate. It may be a radical idea but altering some of those tax policies, such as negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, might have two beneficial impacts. It may lead to more affordable housing in the future. And it might result in resources being better allocated to more productive means. Just don't mention it in Canberra this week.
ABC News
41 minutes ago
- ABC News
Productivity summit begins with a warning on NDIS spending
Treasurer Jim Chalmers says this week's productivity round table will be about writing "the next chapter of economic reform" as he calls on business leaders, union chiefs and advocates attending the summit to provide "concrete ideas" that help the Albanese government turbocharge the economy. Opening the three-day event in Canberra, Mr Chalmers will urge participants to focus on three objectives: making the economy more productive to lift living standards, measures to sandbag Australia's economy and repairing the budget. "Global uncertainty surrounds us, big economic challenges confront us, and our ambitions must meet this moment," he is expected to say. "Our progress in the near term … gives us the time and space to attend to the bigger, more persistent structural issues." The treasurer will point to pressures in energy, demography, technology and geopolitics, warning that Australia must act despite global instability. "We are realistic about the impact of all of this but optimistic too," he will say. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is set to loom large over the summit, with Thursday's session on budget sustainability and tax reform expected to examine its rapidly escalating cost. That conversation will come a day after Health Minister Mark Butler is expected to make a significant policy announcement on Wednesday aimed at tightening elements of the disability insurance scheme amid reports that 16 per cent of six-year-old boys are now recipients. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Monday flagged the need for reform, citing concerns about its growth trajectory. "We need to make sure the system's sustainable," he told Sky News. He added that reforms passed last year to rein in NDIS spending growth to 8 per cent was an "interim target", with that growth rate still well outpacing broader GDP growth. With annual costs projected to surpass $64 billion by 2029, the NDIS is on track to become the third most expensive item in the budget, behind only health and aged pensions. The Coalition has signalled it is open to further savings, with Shadow Treasurer Ted O'Brien saying in July the scheme must be made sustainable. The NDIS, as well as defence, debt costs, health and aged care will be among the structural issues up for discussion. In an interview with the ABC, Mr Chalmers framed the productivity discussions as an effort to "work out what additional steps we need to take to make our economy more productive so that we lift living standards over time". He told the ABC his case has been strengthened by the Reserve Bank's downgrade of growth forecasts from 1 per cent to 0.7 per cent last week. "The contribution from the Reserve Bank was confronting but nonetheless welcome because it helps people understand what we're up against," he said. RBA Governor Michele Bullock will address the summit on Tuesday morning. Another looming challenge is how to replace the billions of dollars raised each year from fuel excise as Australians switch from petrol to electric vehicles. A road-user charge is under active consideration, but both the model and timing are yet to be finalised. Government sources told the ABC a likely approach is a tapered model, beginning first with heavy vehicles before being extended more broadly. The aim would be to balance fairness for early adopters with the long-term need to protect the revenue base that funds roads and infrastructure. Mr Chalmers confirmed the issue is on the agenda, but stressed the government is not rushing. "The tax base is going to change dramatically over time … We're in no rush to make changes here. We want to work through the issues in a considered, consultative, methodical way," he said. He added that discussions with state and territory governments have been ongoing since before the election, given their shared reliance on road funding. "We haven't settled a model, we haven't set a time frame. This work will take a lot of time to get right. But a government will address this challenge and we've said we're prepared to grapple with it with our colleagues and that's what we're doing."
