Images courtesy Buchan Group
Just what this street needs, another tower. How thoughttful of them to keep some heritage too.
When was the application submitted?
This is one of the buildings Matthew Guy personally intervened in to take off of heritage listed a few years ago.. suprise suprise that a development was in the works
Also can't see any of the Art Deco interior, including nice stairwell retained....
The balconies look fine, not a fan of the side of the buildings though. 200m of that could be bad.
Good to see a brick building for the streetscape and not pre-cast walls, fixing up and extending the original building is good for the area, at least it retains some of the frontage.
in what sense are they fixing up and extending the original building?
Melb Frag a few years ago the developer didn't exist. A long shot to suggest the building wasn't given a heritage listing in favour of this development.
Also DELWP aren't impressed that the interiors haven't been retained in any way, which has gone against their initial advice. Recommendation for the above design is for non support.
Guess we'll get our hands on a redesigned proposal in due course
I don't see any great loss over the dilapidated building currently there at least least the exterior gets a decent freshening up.
But surely this breaks all the new planning rules for setbacks and plot ratios etc ?
Adrian, the exterior of this "B" graded building is not dilapidated to any great extent, Adrian - nor does it need any particular "freshening up". As heritage buildings go, this one is in superb condition - what are you referring to specifically about the building's condition? You may not see any "great loss", but this building has the second highest heritage grading available in Melbourne - on par with many buildings in the "Paris End" of Collins Street - e.g. The Alexandra Club building: http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/BuildingandPlanning/Planning/heritagepla...
Your comments show ignorance about the significance of Streamline Moderne and Art Deco in Melbourne. This site is completely irreplaceable and very rare - it really would be better to learn more about such important cultural issues before commenting. Are you aware of its design / architectural provenance, for example?
Whatever spurious heritage value it may have, the exiting building is just plain ugly and out of touch. Better to get rid of the whole thing.
I usually don't like these boxy, modernist architectural styles but it works well here. Reminds me a bit of 432 Park Ave in NY.
There is no doubt that this building should be retained and the developer has accepted this. The question is how much of the interior should be retained.
I am not sure why the new planning minister has not approved the heritage overlay over this property, and some of the others that Matthew Guy refused, despite a panel finding that they should be under a heritage overlay.
That's the best freudian slip I've come across all year, Riddlz ... "the exiting building'.
Here are some of the amazing Moderne interiors from this remarkable survivor of Melbourne's industrial past:
That isn't a freudian slip at all, just a mistype. It doesn't reveal any kind of hidden subconscious desire, I expressly stated my disdain for the building.
That's what they all say. Who doesn't love a spiral 1930s Moderne Stair rail, Riddlz?
It'll probably get gutted. It's AB street, the Southbank of the Hoddle
Did they submit a context plan with the layout of the existing building?
Adrian, the exterior of this "B" graded building is not dilapidated to any great extent, Adrian - nor does it need any particular "freshening up". As heritage buildings go, this one is in superb condition - what are you referring to specifically about the building's condition?
Are you kidding me ? If it's in the same state as that picture about you need to get your eyes checked.
Let me rephrase 'no great loss' - yes I'd like to see this building retained and based on the renders it looks like the exterior will get a decent makeover doing justice to it's design. Yes shame if the interior is lost I agee on that point.
For me the loss of this building pales into insignificance compared to the loss of Lonsdale House for Emporium to build a glass box - ever since that crime was committed all bets are off for Art Deco in this town I'm afraid. I'm sure Mitchell House will be next.
Mitchell House looks terrible at the moment. Bombed and not looked after throughout the years. I don't want to see it go but I would not be surprised if it ends up getting a facade for some shitbox calling itself a "landmark" to be pushed right to the boundary.
As article says applied for before the rule changes, but actually more or less meets them ! or at least the setbacks, but certainly not the 24:1 plot ratio.
It has a 5m setback from street (above so called podium), 5m from centre of lane, and even set back at the rear and the side, beyond the blank wall of city tempo anyway. Which is just as well, since a whole lot of apts in that block have an outlook in this direction. And flats at the lowest levels will be facing blank walls or the mirror wall of the offices behind.
The bit I dont like is the way the front bulges forward, supposedly to create a 'podium' effect, and to block the tempo's blank wall, but neither of those justifications make sense, since it doesnt create a podium at all, its just the tower bulging out a bit, and the bit of blank wall is only a 5m sliver, hardly ugly or dominating; much prefer the tower just go straight up.
it should also leaves whats left of the heritage building as the podium (and from these plans seems sadly to be very much a facade, with an actual gap between the tower and the retained walls on the west side anyway, turning whats left into a curio rather than an actual retained building). Prefer some actual building fabric behind the facade retained, including that great stair, and the tower setback more, logically behind the retained front office portion (about 13m?) - the tower can bulge forward to the 5m mark at some point way above if they really have to.
There in lies the problem Adrian, your basing your entire conclusion on a grainy, blurry google street view photo that partially obscures the building too boot, an just dismissing it out of hand. I'd invite you to actually walk past the site, after reading why it's significant of couse
Page 18 in the document below
Ideally I would have the office space retained and the tower further setback as well.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be retained but it's definitely not in pristine condition the way it is.
Again, interior treatment aside from the renders I like how the existing building has been freshened and opened up to the street and I like the tower body cuts in at the bottom to pay respect to the existing building and allow it stand alone rather than just appear as another example of facadism (ala A108).
It does nothing for the streetscape in it's present condition and usage, if it takes more high-rise developer $$$ to rejuvenate another heritage building rather than let it rot I don't see how it could be done much better than this.
doesnt that fact that they've punched out all the windows and made it clear the facade is nothing but two walls with another building setback behind make it even worse facadism? I'ts not even pretending to keep the existing building as a building, just as a large fence for all purposes.
There are countless example of it being done much better than this IMO. I'd nominate for instance the Herald Sun tower as actually keeping a building as... a building, which a tower setback. why is it always 'let it rot' in regards to heritage buildings and development. its a little bit shabby, but its not a slum building falling apart unless it's lucky enough to be gutted for a concrete tower.
I won't argue it's a perfect example of streetscape usage, but I wouldnt say it does 'nothing'. how many heritage buildings still exist being used for original purposes? does every single streetfront need to be a cafe or retail entrance to be 'active'?