Error message

Warning: array_flip(): Can only flip STRING and INTEGER values! in EntityAPIController->load() (line 219 of /srv/www/drupal7/sites/all/modules/entity/includes/entity.controller.inc).
64 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

Adrian's picture
#27

Love this !!! Who cares if it's office or not it looks stunning much better than the original design with the cathedral roofline ...

I presume this is with the planning minister for review .. ?

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#28

Lacking in style. Where are all the good architects?

Back to top
MelbourneGuy's picture
#29

Christ Bilby, you're damn hard to please!

Back to top
3000's picture
#30

The tower itself is nice but can't say the same for the podium.

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#31

Or you're too easy to please, Melbourneguy. But quite seriously, where is the rigour in this work? It is unresolved, both in terms of form, materials, junctions and ideas. What is going on with that concrete extruded form that extends out of a flat precast panel wall, with a mural applied to one face? Why the yellow cantilevered City Link style 'cheese stick', and how does it relate to the adjacent angled entrance wall? The whole composition is awkward.

Back to top
Adrian's picture
#32

I think the podium is good most importantly they seem to have added retail wrapped around the ground level which will enliven what is currently a dead CBD corner with the existing office block.

This is another good step forward Brady contributing to enhancing Melbourne's street life. I was in Short Stop Cafe below Melb Sky down the road at Sutherland St and it's brilliant what they've done there.

Back to top
Dean's picture
#33

lol... at the standard bibly response. :-) Such an angry man.

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#34

Dress it up however optimistically as you like, Dean - this is a second rate design done on the cheap. We have genuine architectural talent in Melbourne - this developer isn't using it.

Back to top
troy's picture
#35

Well i like the design.

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#36

Bilby I'm sure you'd know not every developer works at the premium end of the market and uses the very best of everything on offer, including architects.

For what it is and the segment of the market the developer targets the tower is a very good result, the podium is clumsy though. I'd guess in this case the developer doesn't judge the merits of a tower by its podium design, but by potential yield.

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#37

Good architects can still do reasonable work on a modest budget. In any case, I wasn't making an evaluation based on the business model for a tower like this in the current market and regulatory environment. I was arguing that it's absolutely not a great piece of architecture worth getting excited about (as opposed to some commenters who felt it was). It seems you agree with me on this, Mark.

Back to top
Adrian's picture
#38

Even if we had minimum apartment design standards this tower would be more than acceptable in my book - Brady have raised their bar sufficiently with their recent projects.

It's Central Equity and their like who should be forced to tear down their buildings and allowe other developers to start again ..

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#39

I wasn't referring to amenity standards (although that is another important issue, of course). The fact that the bar has been set so low in recent years by Brady and Central Equity says it all, really. Are we to conclude that better than absolute rubbish is something to applaud in Melbourne? Given that these buildings are going to be around for a minimum of 50 years (and probably more), Melburnians are entitled to ask for high quality architecture inside and out. And this isn't it.

Back to top
3000's picture
#40

I've often wondered what the life expectancy of these buildings are. Will we only keep the particularly special buildings years from now? Will much of the CE crap be torn down for something better?

Back to top
Adrian's picture
#41

I wasn't referring to amenity standards (although that is another important issue, of course). The fact that the bar has been set so low in recent years by Brady and Central Equity says it all, really. Are we to conclude that better than absolute rubbish is something to applaud in Melbourne? Given that these buildings are going to be around for a minimum of 50 years (and probably more), Melburnians are entitled to ask for high quality architecture inside and out. And this isn't it.

Well as I've mentioned before I completely agree with every single CE development, and some of the early Brady developments but their most recent apartment towers I think are above the line for architectural quality as this one is also.

As opposed to buildings like Abode 318 which everyone seems to fawn over but I think looks cheap and pre-fabricated. Would not have approved this if I was in charge ..

Back to top
3000's picture
#42

Who fawns over abode? It's one of the worst outcomes in recent memory. Too tall and looming over the library with a podium that looks like it's been boarded up. Terrible.

Back to top
Adrian's picture
#43

Who fawns over abode? It's one of the worst outcomes in recent memory. Too tall and looming over the library with a podium that looks like it's been boarded up. Terrible.

Plenty of people over at SSC seem to possibly because it has the EF trademark wavy design - but yeah I totally agree with you.

Back to top
MelbourneGuy's picture
#44

IMO, the back of Abode looks better than the wavy front. In fact it almost makes me seasick looking at it. I like skyscrapers but Abode just doesn't do it for me.

Back to top
3000's picture
#45

If you chopped 20-30 meters off its height, bulked out the tower so it's not so skinny and redesigned the podium it might actually look alright. The wave/ripple idea is a good idea but not in it's current form.

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#46

Yep - the wavy Gas & Fuel tower that is Abode seems to be universally disliked. It looks especially unpleasant from up the hill in Carlton.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#47

Council have asked Wynne to reject this.

Back to top
Rohan Storey's picture
#48

Yes apparently on basis that there are too many too small units - no room for dining table or dresser in the bedroom - but given its on a corner should have good light at least ! This one might be a case of smarter layouts allowing for smaller sizes....?

Lookingupatbuildings

Back to top
Danny Boy's picture
#49

Plans for 399 Little Lonsdale indicate that this has been cut down to 226m AHD

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCouncil/Meetings/Lists/CouncilMeeti...

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#50

Probably just based on OLS approval bs?

Back to top
3000's picture
#51

226 the magic number

Back to top

Pages