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.
images © Kavellaris Urban Design
existing facade changes
I like it. It's bold, daring, and offers something different to what we're used to.
tower look alright, but they just HAD to add some generic bold colour feature things to overwhelm the Art Deco facade didnt they?
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.
I love it...
Looks like the north facing facade of A'beckett tower...but horribly wrong. Even Brady's job across the street are better then this.
The unique roof park is gone.
That was the best thing about this.
I hope the colours stay true to the render.
Site for sale with permit.
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 ?
VCAT considered the issues you have raised in great detail before approving the latest design:
I'm sorry, but all that concrete when you could have had glass on all sides is just a cheap waste.
Don't worry, if the site is being sold it'll probably be redesigned now.
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.....
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.
Sales on this project will start soon. Latest render:
Isn't the site still for sale?
Sorry, yes site is for sale not the apartments.
Display suite i think:
I really want this built.
Display centre open this Saturday.