211 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

Mark Baljak's picture
#177

Happy to see this one at planning - Architects EAT

BRUNSWICK (East/Central/West) | 3055 + 3056 + 3057 | Projects

BRUNSWICK (East/Central/West) | 3055 + 3056 + 3057 | Projects

Back to top
theboynoodle's picture
#178

I like this. Needs a good finish though.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#179

It really picks up on the mediterranean heritage of the area without using corinthian columns.

Back to top
zenith's picture
#180

A design to make Il Duce proud.

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#181

Couple of completions - Rima & 8 Lygon

BRUNSWICK (East/Central/West) | 3055 + 3056 + 3057 | Projects

BRUNSWICK (East/Central/West) | 3055 + 3056 + 3057 | Projects

BRUNSWICK (East/Central/West) | 3055 + 3056 + 3057 | Projects

BRUNSWICK (East/Central/West) | 3055 + 3056 + 3057 | Projects

BRUNSWICK (East/Central/West) | 3055 + 3056 + 3057 | Projects

BRUNSWICK (East/Central/West) | 3055 + 3056 + 3057 | Projects

BRUNSWICK (East/Central/West) | 3055 + 3056 + 3057 | Projects

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#182

141-153 Lygon by Buchan Group

BRUNSWICK (East/Central/West) | 3055 + 3056 + 3057 | Projects

BRUNSWICK (East/Central/West) | 3055 + 3056 + 3057 | Projects

BRUNSWICK (East/Central/West) | 3055 + 3056 + 3057 | Projects

Back to top
zenith's picture
#183

Bye bye privacy.

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#184

Nightingale 7

BRUNSWICK (East/Central/West) | 3055 + 3056 + 3057 | Projects

Back to top
toholio's picture
#185

More chatter about the building proposed near CERES: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/east-brunswick-environmental...

Back to top
Urban Jones's picture
#186

I am curious what people opinions are on B.E. Apartments at 11-15 Brunswick Rd BEast?

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#187

In what sense?

Back to top
Urban Jones's picture
#188

Mainly in terms of design + architecture, but any insight/opinions would be wonderful :)

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#189

From a buyers point of view it's Rothelowman designed so the internals will be solid and functional - really needs the internal floor plans to know exactly how good they are though.

Externally it's ok, bit of a gap filler really - just my opinion

BRUNSWICK (East/Central/West) | 3055 + 3056 + 3057 | Projects

Back to top
George D's picture
#190

The irony is strong with the Greens and the 'organic' crowd. They fervently oppose medium-density (and social housing) living in locations which have great access to public transport and parks (including Ceres' nice facility), because they don't actually stand for urban sustainability.

Back to top
toholio's picture
#191

The CERES objectors hardly speak for all the "Greens and the 'organic' crowd".

I've generally found the opposite of what you're saying to be true but I'd welcome actual evidence showing I'm wrong.

There's a lot of talk about "deep green" developments like the Nightingale Village and they're mid-rise. Those buildings also include low-income housing by design. The greenies are all over that development because it's thoughtful and not purely profit motivated.

Back to top
theboynoodle's picture
#192

> The greenies are all over that development because it's thoughtful and not purely profit motivated.

1) Everyone involved in Nightingale is getting paid. Rightly so. And they're not, I understand, maximising the returns to the 'developer' in the way that others might.. but, even so, they're all going to be doing ok. The model is about better housing with a reasonable return... it's a commercial project.
2) Who cares if developments are profit motivated? If someone can get good buildings put up that serve the needs of those who use them and the community around them, they're welcome to a slice of that value. Most of the money to be made in property development attaches to the land, not the building, in any case. And the people who sell the land add nothing at all of value. I'd like to see the Greens getting a bit more outraged at that than 'opposing inappropriate development' (which is usually code for opposing anything that non millionaires might live in).

Opposing bad developments is fine. Opposing the needless handing of profits to the property industry (from landowners through to banks) is fine. But opposition which seems to suggest that profit, in itself, is a problem is *actual* extreme-left ideology. I think it's nonsense, but you can pick your own view. And I think it's every bit as dangerous as the extreme-right stuff we hear from One Nation and the likes. I'd generally pick the Greens over any other established party, but it shits me when they play that card. It's not as if there isn't plenty of money swinging around the pockets of their own representatives and supporters. You've got to question the marxist credentials of guys with a support base centered in Melbourne's inner north.. *literally* one of the most privileged corners of the planet.

Back to top
theboynoodle's picture
#193

> Externally it's ok, bit of a gap filler really - just my opinion

Hmm. I think Brunswick would be well served by more of that kind of filler than some of the 'architectural' stuff it's got. The amount of street level given over to the car park (etc) isn't great... but otherwise it's simple and unobtrusive so it passes the 'does no harm' test that most mid-rises in Brunswick don't. There are no pointless adornments and there's a nice vertical presentation. It's reasonably capable of being well maintained and aging gracefully.

Mind you, the set of renders in the sales pages show a few levels atop the ones on that render.. so it could all go wrong further up. That render seems a little selective in what it shows. Possibly even dishonest.

Back to top
3000's picture
#194

The um...'street art' is kind of pandering. A friend of a friend who knows the artist told me he is getting quite the kickback indeed but uses a different name to keep his cred.

Back to top
toholio's picture
#195

Right, I agree, which is why I said "not purely" was in my post.

Perhaps I should have said something like "not being done only for the absolute maximum profit" but I didn't think anyone would misunderstand.

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#196

Franco Cozzo site

BRUNSWICK (East/Central/West) | 3055 + 3056 + 3057 | Projects

BRUNSWICK (East/Central/West) | 3055 + 3056 + 3057 | Projects

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture
#197

"Franco Cozzo Towers" - we'll do you an awesome deal on all your plastic baroque furniture needs.

Is that actually an image of Franco himself of the side wall?

Back to top
Laurence Dragomir's picture
#198

Yep

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture
#199

test

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture
#200

Oops. sorry about that. What I meant to say was WHERE DO I SIGN!?!?

Also developers take note - for a tower behind a heritage facade, that looks to me like a pretty exemplary benchmark, setback, clearly delinieated, respectful. And presumably we don't need to worry about the interior on this thing ...

Back to top
theboynoodle's picture
#201

Agreed, Adam.. that looks pretty good. It also avoids (badly) mixing six different design approaches in the one building, which is nice. Perhaps this is what you get when the man behind the development has a genuine affection for the existing building. I don't really know who Frank Cozzo is, or why he is 'a thing', but fair play on this one. Even if the mural is not to my taste.

Back to top

Pages