Mixed-use development at 5 Blue Street, North Sydney

Jason Cooley
Group General Manager
View Hotels
17 Blue Street
North Sydney NSW 2060
29 July 2026
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Submission – State Significant Development Application
5 Blue Street, North Sydney (SSD-86270706)
Dear Assessment Team,
I write on behalf of View Sydney Hotel, located at 17 Blue Street, North Sydney, regarding the above State Significant Development Application.
At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the importance of investment in North Sydney and the continued revitalisation of the CBD. The adaptive reuse of existing buildings and the delivery of new housing and commercial opportunities are important to the long-term growth and sustainability of the precinct. Accordingly, View Sydney does not object to this proposal in principle.
Our submission is made to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to the operational requirements of an established accommodation and hospitality business located immediately adjacent to the proposed development.
View Sydney is a 213-room hotel operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We provide accommodation, conference and event facilities, food and beverage outlets, and parking, welcoming thousands of corporate, leisure, government and international visitors each year. Maintaining safe access and delivering a positive guest experience are fundamental to both our business and North Sydney's reputation as a leading destination for visitors.
While we recognise that this proposal involves the adaptive reuse of an existing building rather than a new high-rise development, the construction works and associated activities still have the potential to impact surrounding businesses. We therefore respectfully request that the following matters be addressed through the conditions of consent.
Construction Management
Construction activities should be carefully managed to minimise disruption to neighbouring businesses and visitors. We request that:
• High-impact construction works be restricted to standard construction hours wherever possible.
• Out-of-hours works only occur where necessary and following advance notification to surrounding businesses.
• Appropriate measures be implemented to minimise construction noise, vibration and dust.
Traffic and Access
Maintaining uninterrupted access to the hotel is essential throughout the construction period.
Conditions should require:
• Continuous pedestrian and vehicle access to View Sydney.
• Protection of taxi, rideshare, coach and emergency vehicle access.
• Maintenance of supplier loading and servicing arrangements.
• Advance notice of any temporary road closures or traffic management changes.
Pedestrian Safety and Wayfinding
Construction hoarding and temporary pedestrian diversions should ensure safe movement throughout the precinct while providing clear directional signage identifying access to neighbouring businesses, including View Sydney.
Communication and Stakeholder Engagement
We request that the developer nominate a dedicated community liaison representative who will:
• Provide regular construction updates.
• Notify neighbouring businesses of significant construction activities and milestones.
• Respond promptly to operational concerns as they arise.
A structured communication process will assist local businesses in planning around potential disruptions and maintaining service standards for customers and guests.
Business Continuity
As a major accommodation provider operating continuously throughout the year, reasonable steps must be taken to minimise impacts on surrounding businesses during construction.
We encourage the Department to include conditions requiring the developer to implement practical measures that reduce disruption to hotel operations, maintain public accessibility and preserve the amenity of the surrounding area wherever possible.
Conclusion
View Sydney supports the continued investment and renewal of North Sydney and does not oppose the proposed development.
Our submission is intended to ensure that appropriate conditions are included within any development consent to protect neighbouring businesses, maintain safe public access, minimise construction impacts and facilitate ongoing communication throughout the construction period.
Thank you for considering our submission. We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the assessment process and would be pleased to discuss any of the matters raised if required.

Yours faithfully,

Jason Cooley
Group General Manager
View Hotels17 Blue Street
North Sydney NSW 2060

I strongly object to this development from proceeding in its current form. There is little consideration on the impact this development will have on the surrounding homes and parklands.The sheer scale of the proposed building is also inconsistent with the surrounds.Re skin the building, turn it into apartments etc but above all keep the footprint as it currently is. There must also be consideration for the other major developments in close proximity that are either in plan or under consideration. Each development cannot be looked at in isolation.This is just another greedy developer capitalizing on lax, poorly thought through local Govt laws.
Shadowing. At 22 Walker St we live in a permanent shadow in winter from 9am onwards. As the shadowing diagram points out we get some sunlight at 3 pm.The proposed height extension removes that. Please respect and consider how we as rate payers have to live.This construction is one of many proposed, all of which are going to turn our neighbourhood into a dark windy place to live.
Car spaces. The building currently has 85 car spaces.This will be reduced to 73. Ridiculous! There will be a total of 148 units (62 units & 86 affordable) and with 73 parking bays this equates to just 49% of occupants owning a motor vehicle. I find this very optimistic! And what happens when residents have visitors arriving by car? It is bizarre to think that with the dire parking issues that we all face in Lavender Bay (and it's only going to get worse with all the other developments in plan) , reducing the number of available car parks is a good thing.Also mixed use zones such as this one have no residential parking permits,which means parking for tenants and their guests will happen along any of the adjacent streets such as Blue Point Rd,McKenzie St, Walker St. I urge Govt and the developer to come and visit any of these streets and see for yourself how dire the parking situation is, and better still actually try and find a park at the weekend.
Traffic congestion.Miraculously this new development is going to make traffic congestion better!To arrive at this assumption they have used the outcomes of surveys of high density residential developments across Sydney, apparently with the North Sydney area demonstrating one of the lower traffic generation rates during morning and evening peak hours. Their assumption is AM Peak hour: 0.15 vehicle trips per parking space and PM Peak hour: 0.12 vehicle trips per parking space. This has to be overly optimistic. Peak hour traffic is currently 24 (AM) and 23 (PM).This is going to drop by over 60% to 11 (AM) and 9 (PM)!
Construction period. Their forecast of 10 vehicles per day coming in and out of the site on a typical workday and 20 on a busy day seems overly optimistic given the scope of the development. Secondly, with Saturday earmarked for construction work between 7am till 5 am (this is in contradiction to current guidelines which call for Sat 8am to 1.00pm)and with many of the streets in the Lavender Bay area being unrestricted over the weekend, there will not be a tradie working on this site who is going to pay for his parking when he or she can park for free all day in Lavender Bay, making our weekend parking nightmare even worse. Exacerbating the parking situation even further there is no mention of equipment or tool storage in the EIS during the 24 month construction period, making it very likely that street parking will be further impacted during construction.
Cumulative impact of concurrent development.The EIS concludes that this development will not have an unacceptable cumulative environmental impact. How do they know this when the St Francis Xavier development and the Fijitsu developments have yet to be lodged, and the Lavender st/Middlemiss developments are not considered as a nearby relevant development. These projects are all enormous and they will all have a profound impact on traffic, parking ,noise, pollution, vibration etc.With no plan or proposal as to how these massive projects will all be integrated during the construction phase and later on completion, it would be naive to think the impact will be minimal.Govt MUST consider all of these projects as one and plan accordingly.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to object to the proposed mixed-use development at 5 Blue Street, North Sydney (SSD-86270706).

I am a local resident and parent who is deeply concerned about the cumulative impact this proposal will have on the existing community, local infrastructure, public services and the amenity of surrounding residents. While I recognise the importance of providing additional housing, I do not believe the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) adequately demonstrates that the surrounding area has the capacity to absorb the significant increase in population that will result from this development.

1. Inadequate Infrastructure Capacity

The proposal seeks to introduce 86 co-living dwellings and 62 residential apartments within a single development. This is occurring at the same time as numerous other large-scale developments are proposed or underway throughout North Sydney, Lavender Bay and the surrounding precinct. The proposal itself acknowledges the existence of multiple nearby developments and concerns regarding cumulative impacts.

My primary concern is that existing infrastructure is already under significant pressure. Local roads regularly experience congestion, particularly during peak periods, and there is no clear evidence that the cumulative impact of multiple developments has been properly assessed.

The EIS appears to consider this development largely in isolation rather than evaluating the combined effect of the substantial population growth planned across the area. Residents deserve confidence that road networks, transport infrastructure and community facilities can accommodate this growth before further approvals are granted.

2. Existing Community Services Are Already Overloaded

As a local parent, I have firsthand experience of the pressure already being experienced by community services.

Local schools and childcare centres are operating at or near capacity, with many families facing significant waiting periods for enrolment. Healthcare services are also under increasing demand. Despite this, the proposal provides little evidence of how the additional population generated by this development will be supported by existing social infrastructure.

The planning system should not assess housing delivery in isolation. Residential growth must be accompanied by corresponding investment in schools, childcare facilities, healthcare services, open space and other community infrastructure. The EIS does not satisfactorily demonstrate that these services have sufficient capacity to support the projected increase in residents.

3. Parking Impacts Have Been Underestimated

The proposal provides no parking for the 86 co-living dwellings and no visitor parking. The accompanying community analysis identifies this as a significant concern.

The assumption that residents of co-living accommodation will not own vehicles is unrealistic. Even where public transport use is high, residents, visitors, carers, tradespeople and service providers will continue to require vehicle access.

Parking in the surrounding streets is already extremely difficult, particularly during evenings and weekends. The addition of a substantial number of new residents without corresponding parking provision will inevitably increase demand for on-street parking and place additional pressure on neighbouring residential areas.

The burden of accommodating parking demand should not be shifted onto existing residents.

4. Loss of Amenity and Community Character

The proposal will have a significant impact on the character and liveability of the local area.

Many residents have chosen to live in Lavender Bay and surrounding suburbs because of the area's unique character, village atmosphere, access to sunlight, harbour outlooks and established community networks. While change is inevitable, development should occur in a way that respects and protects these qualities.

The proposal includes increases to height controls and building bulk, which will impact the experience of nearby residents. The accompanying community analysis identifies concerns regarding overshadowing, solar access and the removal of planning controls that currently protect sunlight access to surrounding residential areas.

The cumulative effect of repeated high-density developments risks fundamentally changing the character of the area and diminishing the qualities that make it a desirable place to live.

5. Construction Impacts

The proposal anticipates approximately 24 months of construction activity.

Residents will be subjected to prolonged construction noise, dust, traffic disruption and loss of amenity. Concerns have also been raised regarding proposed extended construction hours beyond standard guidelines.

Given the number of major developments occurring concurrently within the area, the cumulative impact of construction activity on residents should be given far greater consideration.

6. Failure to Properly Assess Cumulative Impacts

This is perhaps the most significant concern with the proposal.

The EIS acknowledges a number of nearby developments yet does not appear to provide a comprehensive assessment of their combined impact on traffic, parking, public infrastructure, noise, solar access and community services.

Approving developments sequentially without fully understanding their combined effect creates a risk that the true impacts on residents will only become apparent once approvals have already been granted.

The community should not be asked to accept significant population growth without a transparent and comprehensive cumulative impact assessment.

Conclusion

I respectfully request that the Department refuse the proposal in its current form or, at a minimum, require a substantially more rigorous assessment of cumulative impacts, infrastructure capacity, parking demand and community services before any approval is considered.

While additional housing is important, growth must be matched with the infrastructure and services required to support it. Existing residents should not bear the cost of inadequate planning through increased congestion, reduced amenity, loss of sunlight, parking shortages and further pressure on already stretched community services.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours faithfully,
Emma

Submission for No 5 Blue Street, North Sydney
Zurich Building Development

As a resident of Lavender Bay I am not opposed to the building of new apartments but it is the scope of these proposals which will have an adverse impact in what is one of the smallest residential suburbs in Sydney.

My concerns are as follows:

Lavender Bay is a small heritage conservation area of low rise homes & the NSW Government is not taking into account that there are another nine potential developments in various stages taking place. The strain on our existing infrastructure including roads & parking will be enormous. Let alone the impact on the local schools (which are already at maximum capacity) & hospital. Other major issues as quoted in the North Sydney Community Strategic Plan 2025-2035:
Ageing assets including water, sewerage, gas, electricity, schools & childcare
Loss of space due to major infrastructure projects
Traffic congestion in an area which has narrow streets & limited road capacity
“Too little open space for the existing population, let alone the planned massive increases in population density” quote from Zoe Baker the North Sydney mayor
Council’s financial position is not sufficient to fund many of these major upgrades

Zurich should not be allowed to rezone this area to a MU1 & seek a further height limit. This impacts the controls North Sydney Council placed in 2013 in restricting the height of buildings in order to maintain a solar corridor. NSW Government seems to completely ignore these restrictions & has its own agenda, mainly letting developers exceed heights all in the name of “assisted housing” which quite frankly is a joke - it’s all about how high a building can go so that developers can command a huge price for all these apartments which will overlook the harbour.

The 73 parking spaces & no visitor parking is not sufficient in a building of this size. Parking is a huge issue in the area, especially for those who only have access to on road parking. The weekends, in particular, are a major issue & has become so bad that it’s impossible to take our car out as we cannot find parking on our return.

During the building of No 5, the developer should have very strict working hours, as stated in the Current Guidelines & not be approved for extended hours which would be unreasonable for the residents of Lavender Bay. Also, parking should be made available on site for the workers so as not to impact local residents more than they will be already.

At present, I am on the fence regarding this project.

To say that this is "State Significant Development" on the basis that it provides much-needed new housing is a long bow at best. We are all aware that, apart from the requisite percentage of low-income housing, the rest of these apartments will be sold at stratospheric prices in order to increase profit margins for the developers. Given the location (less than 10km from the CBD and in a suburb that used to be one of the most liveable), the views (as noted in the plans - Anzac Bridge, Harbour Bridge, etc. and acknowledged by the fact that the low income housing is on the lowest levels - aka the apartments without views), and the price point, these apartments will not be purchased by first home owners nor families nor essential workers who need to be close to public transport; but rather, wealthy landlords who will rent them as Air BnBs for a higher profit or use them as a city pad (leaving them empty for a large portion of the year). Hence, this development will do nothing to assist Australia's current housing issues (which are a result of legislation and loopholes permitting people to use property as a get rich quick scheme rather than a roof over someone's head).

That being said, I am supportive of the adaptive re-use of non-heritage buildings; particularly the conversion of office buildings to residential (given the working from home culture we have adopted since the pandemic).

My specific concerns with this proposal are as follows:

* Extended construction hours on a Saturday will make living in the area unbearable for the duration of the project. As it stands, this area has already been a major construction zone for the past few years due to various ongoing road, rail, and building projects; and, due to the topography, noise is amplified and echoes throughout the area (I am in Waiwera Street and can hear the Greenwood Hotel's entire playlist on weekends). I would be supportive of the extended weekday hours; with a half day (9am-1pm) on a Saturday and no work on Sundays or public holidays.
* There seems to be some conflicting information in the various documents attached to this Major Project. One of my major concerns is any proposed height increase to the existing building. What I believe are the original plans for a huge building envelope (increasing heights by 40+ metres for one side and nearly 100 metres for another) would be entirely inappropriate for the area. Yes, North Sydney is full of high rise; however, directly behind the 5 Blue Street site is a heritage conservation area, various heritage listed buildings, parklands, and much smaller scale development (such as 1 and 2 storey Victorian terraces and cottage dwellings). The south side of Blue Street being slightly lower in height than the high rise to the north provides a gradual "step down" towards these smaller dwellings; and if we keep allowing rezoning to change existing building heights based on the heights of the tallest adjacent buildings, the justification will soon be that the whole of Lavender Bay should be high rise. Given the history and the character of the area, this is entirely unacceptable. On the other hand, if the rezoning is limited to a change from Commercial to Mixed Use; and the change in height is limited to the building envelope as illustrated in Pg 33 of the drawings (Code z5b, Sheet 3001, Rev 02) - aka both the height of the proposed development AND the rezoning is limited to an increase of only 1-2 metres (RL) above the current (RL) height limits for each area of the site (allowing the proposed adaptive re-use to proceed, but preventing future developments which are out of scale and character for a street which borders a smaller community which retains its village character and heritage appeal), I would find this acceptable. The other concern regarding this (and other planned high rise developments in the near vicinity which are all claiming "State Significant" status) is overshadowing; not only of smaller adjacent properties, but the nearby public green spaces as well. North Sydney is already a high density LGA; and green spaces and parklands are of the utmost importance to both residents (mostly living in apartments) and visitors to this beautiful area. Due to the natural topography of Lavender Bay, a lot of the parkland areas sit in a bowl-like shape below the higher elevation areas to the north and west. This means they are subject to significant runoff during wet weather; and already receive minimal sunlight throughout the day. They will become useless mudpits (as opposed to useful community green spaces) if overshadowing from high rise development causes any reduction in sunlight to these areas. As it stands, with climate change causing longer and heavier downpours, some of these areas are already struggling (and the heritage buildings around them are constantly having to mitigate damp issues due to lack of sunlight, proximity to the harbour, and Sydney's high humidity). Building new housing for Air BnB guests while decimating the business of nearby hotels, reducing the quality of life, and impacting the health of other residents in the community is hardly "State Significant".
* I am aware from the reports that a reduction in vehicle movements on site has been anticipated (when converting from commercial to residential). While I very much doubt this will be the case, to note, if there is any kind of increase (particularly during peak periods), it will need to be mitigated. As it stands, it is nearly impossible to turn right (towards the north/city) from the Zurich driveway in peak periods without causing an accident (and going left will only get you as far as McMahons Point); turning right from Blues Point Road into Blue Street is also currently nearly impossible (due to oncoming traffic and the lack of a green arrow); and turning right from Blue Street onto the Pacific Highway in the morning is also a nightmare (due to pedestrians crossing, oncoming traffic, and lack of a green arrow). I am well aware, as I drive this route once or twice on a daily basis. This, as well as any impacts on local street parking (which is presently nearly impossible to find, particularly on a sunny weekend or a summer evening) need to be adequately managed. It is all very well to say most people will catch public transport; however, even with a plethora of options, I still drive to and from work (as it is a shorter commute and more cost-effective than taking a train and then the light rail).
* When considering glazing, please ensure that it isn't the same type of highly reflective glazing used on several of the high rise buildings in Milsons Point. During afternoon hours when the sun is going down, these huge windows act like magnifying glasses (catching the sun and beaming it from hundreds of metres away to blind everyone else). Hopefully facade technology has improved since these buildings were constructed.
* Likewise, please ensure any exterior lighting is appropriate for a building adjoining a heritage conservation area with a village feel. Recent additions to the area (namely, the Stone Real Estate billboard on Blues Point Road and a neighbour's new outdoor pool lighting on Waiwera Street) are so white and bright you feel like you are about to be interrogated by the CIA or beamed up into a UFO. All jokes aside, these lights are so bright they nearly blind you when driving; so if any exterior lighting could be managed appropriately (the new warm street lights with the black barn doors that concentrate light spill to directly underneath them, instead of beaming light into someone else's windows are a good example), it would be greatly appreciated (particularly by those of us living in heritage buildings where air-conditioning is not possible; hence we must spend summer with the curtains and windows open).
* I am happy to hear that the views from the public plaza will remain (and it will remain publicly accessible).
* I am happy that fjc are the architects for this project (I used to work for them in an administrative capacity, so apart from the above comments, I have no doubt that the building and the interiors will look beautiful when completed; and certainly be an aesthetic improvement over the current Zurich building).

Hi - I'm a mid-30s woman and I live in Milsons Point (in a 10-floor apartment building) with my husband. I've been a renter here for over 4 years now and I love living in this area.

While I've lived here, my rent has soared by 30% in 4 years and my apartment is among the more affordable ones. I routinely see 1 bedders advertised for 800-900 a week and a recent apartment sale of a 3 bedder in our building was 3.25m. We cannot see our way to buying an apartment in this area or anywhere on the lower north shore while these prices continue, and we will very likely have to move out of the area if we decide to even rent a larger space. To me this says something is broken in the housing market, and that is very much the supply of housing.

I would welcome new apartment buildings in this area that make it possible for myself and others like me to keep living near the city and near amenities. Every large European city has only high-density living within a 10km radius of the city and 'houses' only appear outside this radius - Sydney is unique in that houses and low-density buildings even exist this close to the city.

I suspect most younger people feel this way and we need to look to the future for the current and future generations rather than clinging to a past of village-like inner-city living, which inevitably requires that young people are pushed to areas 2 hours from the city so they can buy a house.

I would strongly urge you to approve this building and any other similar projects to come. Thank you.

I support the project, I believe it will significantly improve housing affordability and availability in the area.

I would however like to see the number of units and storeys significantly increased as well as units set aside for essential workers.

Generally supportive of the redevelopment of the existing building but concerned about the proposed cantilevering of the new residential floors over the open-air plaza between Zurich and North Sydney Station. This area is already highly developed and the degradation of publicly accessible open space with great views which can be enjoyed by everyone seems very short sighted. It is noted that the plaza remains open and accessible but degraded by the new building overhang. Seen in the context of the 15 Blues Street proposal, this part of Blues Street would become considerably less attractive with questionable net benefits

Businesses being affected due to low density of people — more than 4 establishments closed down just on Alfred St. and nobody wants to open up in their place.
Milsons Point / Kirribilli will become a dead suburb if we do not increase the density of housing, especially near the train station. We need more people to become patrons of cafes, restaurants, and other local businesses if we want this suburb to thrive.
Following establishments closed down and their commercial spaces are lying empty since long:
Sidando (cafe)
Mani (restaurant)
La Capannina (Italian restaurant)
The Lounge Bar (pub)
Hato (Japanese restaurant)
It’s a shame and very sad to see these places go, but it’s just not economical for them with such low-density population, high rents and high cost of living.
Hopefully the new units also ease the pressure on cost of living so people can spend more on eating/drinking out.

The fact this project does not involve a substantial change in the overall height of the premises presently occupying the building is encouraging, especially in light of other nearby SSD proposals of which there are many in the Lavender Bay / North Sydney area which are beyond excessive.

I am however very concerned about the following items:
- there will be substantial additional demand on parking in the local area as it appears more than half of the dwellings do not have parking allocated. The local streets already face exceptional demand on parking, and now a further 86 dwellings with no parking will provide inevitable extra demand. On top of this, 2 years of construction can assuredly mean many of those workers will attempt to park on the local streets.
- I cannot see where an overall assessment of the cumulative impact of 5 Blue St combined with all of the other proposed new buildings under SSD has been made. Noting the proposed developments for the Fujitsu site, Lavender/Middlemiss, others in North Sydney. The additional stress on already busy roads, full schools, parking, other infrastructure must be enormous and yet this seems to be overlooked and parked to some future date when it will be too late.

A fuller analysis of the above issues must surely be undertaken BEFORE the government can possibly be in a position to assess the viability of this project and the ability of the local area to absorb it without inevitable mayhem arising.

As a resident of Lavender Bay, I would first like to express my disappointment that the Department of Planning has not compelled the proponents of SSD-86270706, SSD-88702457 and SSD-86299960 to work together to assess and minimise the cumulative impacts on heritage, traffic, overshadowing, construction disruption and public amenity that three developments will have on the Lavender Bay Heritage Conservation Area.
These large-scale developments are in close proximity to one another. Yet residents are being asked to assess each application separately, without a clear understanding of the cumulative impacts they will have on the surrounding area.
I am providing comments rather than objecting to SSD-86270706 because I believe that retaining and adapting the existing Zurich building, rather than demolishing it and replacing it with a significantly taller tower, is a more appropriate outcome for this site.
My comment relates to the proposed rezoning of the Blue Street Plaza. The applicant is seeking changes to the planning controls across the site, including amendments to the land use zoning and an increase in the maximum building height to RL116 metres. These changes also apply to the Blue Street Plaza.
The application states that the plaza will remain a publicly accessible open space and that its retention and enhancement are key public benefits of the proposal.
If the intention is for the plaza to remain as a public open space, it is unclear to me why it also needs additional development potential through amended zoning and increased height controls.
I encourage the Department to carefully consider whether these changes to the planning controls over the Blue Street Plaza are necessary to enable the proposed development to proceed, or whether the existing planning controls should be retained for this part of the site.

Please refer to the attached document

The only concern about this project is the proposed rezoning of the open air plaza between the building and the North Sydney train station. Rezoning the area to RL116 would result in an oversized tall building that would dominate the area.

Dear Ms Moiso, please refer to my attached letter. Thank you.

Please see attached comments submitted by Residents Opposing Lavender Bay Overdevelopment.

Please see attached.

I attach my submission

See objection attachment

Refer to attachment.

I support the project for the following reasons:
- The existing building looks a bit tired, is of no particular architectural merit, and is very well located for public transport.
- There is no lack of commercial office space in North Sydney but there does seem to be demand for residential apartments.
- The proposal includes a meaningful provision of affordable apartments.
- The proposal doesn't materially increase the height or size of the building. My property does have some incremental shadowing but not materially so.
- The community consultation has been positive and genuine.

I do have two questions/comments:
- I don't understand the height rezoning, specifically why the plaza area requires rezoning from RL65 to RL116? Is there some further development of this area foreseen?
- There seemed to be some inconsistency in the parking allocation to the co-living apartments. Is it 17 spaces or none? The relevance is that there is no spare on-street parking capacity within the Lavender Bay HCA. If in doubt, one need only wander around the HCA on the weekend!