45 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

CBD | 17-23 Wills St | Wills Place |116m | 35L | Residential

Melburn21's picture
#1

Back to top
Peter Maltezos's picture
#2

Architects: Karvellaris Urban Design

A 1930's Moderne (Artdeco) building covers the entire site and has been retained and integrated with the new building.

The new tower will be inserted within the envelope of the existing Moderne building and will sit on large columns that penetrate through and beyond the existing building thus creating a separation between the old and new.

The four level void 30 levels high in the sky will provide sporting/recreational programs that are associated with urban living and will offer views of the city from a vantage point not often found with such spaces.

I last heard that the developers of this building were planning to use mirors called heliostats to reflect light into the void (light shaft) between the existing Wills Court apartments and their proposal.

I believe this proposal is still at the planning stage, not yet approved.

I collect, therefore I am. thecollectormm.com.au
Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#3

new design

images © Kavellaris Urban Design

existing facade changes

ground

L2

Back to top
MelbourneGuy's picture
#4

I like it. It's bold, daring, and offers something different to what we're used to.

Back to top
Melbourne_Fragments's picture
#5

tower look alright, but they just HAD to add some generic bold colour feature things to overwhelm the Art Deco facade didnt they?

Back to top
Dangerous Beans's picture
#6

I like the colour on the tower, it's welcome in the sea of grey that exists in that area. Agree that the red shroud they are proposing to add to the entrance of the Art Dec building is neither necessary or appropriate.

Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture
#7

I love it...

Back to top
Kycon's picture
#8

Looks like the north facing facade of A'beckett tower...but horribly wrong. Even Brady's job across the street are better then this.

Back to top
Andrew Mck's picture
#9

The unique roof park is gone.
That was the best thing about this.

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#10

approved

Back to top
MelbourneGuy's picture
#11

I hope the colours stay true to the render.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#12

Site for sale with permit.

Back to top
Rohan Storey's picture
#13

ITs OK design wise, but the renders downplay how close much of it is to other buildings - again the setbacks for apartments all round are pretty minimal. The (unofficial) minimum is 10m, but here, while the apartments in Wills Court get a 6m gap for light instead of a light shaft, if there are apartments facing only the side or rear lane of the actual site, they only get about the same ! (the plans show a 12 storey building to the only undeveloped site to the west, but CofM says its 22 storeys.)

So the new minimum is 6m ? How much light will any of those apartments get, especially ones facing south ? Barely enough to read by I would think, but who actualy knows ? We need some reasonable standards.

ps are there plans of the actual apartment layout ?

Lookingupatbuildings

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#14

VCAT considered the issues you have raised in great detail before approving the latest design:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/2094.h...

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture
#15

I'm sorry, but all that concrete when you could have had glass on all sides is just a cheap waste.

Back to top
drunkill's picture
#16

Don't worry, if the site is being sold it'll probably be redesigned now.

Back to top
Rohan Storey's picture
#17

Well both VCAT decisions discuss the setback on the north side in great detail, and the second one concludes that 6m is reasonably given 'development equity' and the size of the site. (and that the north wall of the new tower should be painted white).

Neither of them examine the separation between towers on the south side (6.1m) or the west side (9m) and whether this is enough to adequately light apartments that look only onto those gaps, or indeed disadvantage the apartments at the rear of 350 or 360 (under construction). So I guess 6m is the new minimum, at least when 'development equity' is the overriding consideration.

They both note that the current guidelines recommend 25m (!!) unless habitable room do not face each other.....

Lookingupatbuildings

Back to top
johnproctor's picture
#18

If 6m was applied on both sites the minimum would be 12m but someone years ago approved and built wills tower on the adjoining site with no setback... Equity relates to not completely screwing this site because of he mistake of the past.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#19

Sales on this project will start soon. Latest render:

Back to top
Ryan Seychell's picture
#20

Isn't the site still for sale?

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#21

Sorry, yes site is for sale not the apartments.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#22
Back to top
3000's picture
#23

Lovely outcome.

Back to top
Ryan Seychell's picture
#24

Display suite i think:

Back to top
3000's picture
#25

I really want this built.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#26

Display centre open this Saturday.

Glassified:

Back to top

Pages