98 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

Melbourne_Fragments's picture
#52

Screen space didnt need windows, but the painting gallery above it definitely did

Back to top
Danny Boy's picture
#53
Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#54

The serial chopper strikes again.

Hopefully they appeal the condition to VCAT.

Back to top
pdoff's picture
#55

Why? So we get a taller ugly boring box?

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#56

The reduction in height has resulted in a ugly box compared to the original taller tower that was proposed.

Reducing the height to 140.5m will result in no benefits whatsoever to the surrounding streetscape or the Guildford Lane precinct, it just means the developer hasn't bothered to put any effort into the new design.

How is this outcome better than letting the developer go to 213m if they retain the first 5m of the existing building on the land?

Back to top
pdoff's picture
#57

I agree, I liked the 213m version. But the fact is they changed the design and appealing to VCAT wont restore the original.

Qantas' comment was the usual 12 year old pointless Wynne bashing. Keep it to SSC

Back to top
3000's picture
#58

Careful, people over there are saints and cannot be insulted (as I've learned). Never mind that it's even more cynical and depressing than the forums here at their worst.

Back to top
Rohan Storey's picture
#59

Approved apparently. And yes, the new design is very plain indeed, just seems to be filling in the setback envelope and I assume meeting the new plot ratio max. Not even a skygarden or similar. Yes, taller with a retained facade would be fine with me, but sadly heritage retention is not one of the things that gets you a 'floor area uplift' in the advertised CBD guidelines now at Panel. Plus I expect they didnt want to retain anything because the ground plane is in part an open drive through (no plan of that exactly though) which sadly opens up what is currently a great, tight little urban laneway precinct.

Lookingupatbuildings

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#60

This is surely one of the most destructive approvals, in terms of what makes Melbourne unique, in recent years. The erosion of the core character of the Guildford Lane precinct, combined with the loss of the unique (and 150+ year old) Duke of Kent puts it on par with the truly shameful decision making behind the wrecking of Lonsdale House under the watch of the City of Melbourne and Minister Justin Madden back in 2010. Then we lost one half of the built character of Caledonian Lane, which also saw the widening of the roadway, destroying the tight, gritty feel of one of Melbourne's most iconic laneway spaces:

www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/melbournes-heritage-building-lonsdale-...

History has already judged Madden and the decision to demolish this iconic art deco building and its laneway frontage very badly indeed. And in future, the assessement will be bleaker still, as Melburnians increasingly come to understand the important and unique urban qualities of their historic back streets and laneways.

I'm genuinely surprised that Minister Wynne would wish to be so tarnished by this significant blot on his legacy to Melbourne.

Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture
#61

Are they really demolishing the DOK pub for this?

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#62

The streetscape to be demolished:

CBD | 303 La Trobe Street | 43L | ~150m | Residential

Back to top
Adrian's picture
#63

For once I 100% agree with you Bilby .. Justin Madden should be deported for that as well as the Persian style building on Bourke St that made way for the truly uninspiring Citadines Hotel.

The destruction of Caledonian Lane for a loading dock is just horrific as I've said several times.

Losing the Duke of Kent is another huge loss as well. And having what looked at least like a decent tower chopped down to a boring box in the process is just the extra kick in the guts ..

Back to top
3000's picture
#64

Goodbye Duke

Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture
#65

That's actually really gross. Hard to believe.

Back to top
theboynoodle's picture
#66

Does anyone know how successful it is as a pub?

I ask because back in the UK where I'm from, traditional pubs have been having a bad time for a long time (whisper it quietly, but whilst it's been a decades trend, smoking bans put a rocket under the number of closures) and this does pose a risk to a lot of great buildings back there. Combine a lower value in use with a valuable rest plot and it's a real risk.

I see no way that losing this building benefits anyone except the person who sold it. And there will be a lot of pubs that are in great buildings in great spots and I can see a lot of cases of people wanting to do things like this.

(and, for the record, I 100% echo the dismay of all those above)

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#67

This is basically demolishing the facade to Guildford Lane, as well as removing the last of the north light to the area.

Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture
#68

I suppose the difference is that "traditional style pubs" are ten-a-penny in the UK, there's about 30 alone in the Bloomsbury and Covent Garden area...here they are not so common, which makes it even more hurtful.

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#69

Launching this weekend:
CBD | 303 La Trobe Street | 43L | ~150m | Residential
CBD | 303 La Trobe Street | 43L | ~150m | Residential
CBD | 303 La Trobe Street | 43L | ~150m | Residential
CBD | 303 La Trobe Street | 43L | ~150m | Residential
CBD | 303 La Trobe Street | 43L | ~150m | Residential

Back to top
Danny Boy's picture
#70

Another chop down let down, it just looks stumpier now.

I can undertand re-jigging apartment configuration, but how is this a better design and street level ouctome than the original DKO tower?

Back to top
Danny Boy's picture
#71

Website up as well

http://303latrobe.com.au/

Back to top
Melbourne_Fragments's picture
#72

What a nice DRIVEWAY that actually leaves enough room to have kept the heritage pub in situ.....

The Duke of Kent isn't being demolished for a tower, it's being demolished for a pathetic blank entrance to a tower..

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#73

Not sure why they didn't appeal the permit to VCAT - they most probably would have got the full 60 levels.

Just a bland filler now.

Back to top
pdoff's picture
#74

Why would an extra 15 or so levels make in any less of a bland filler?

Back to top
3000's picture
#75

Classic Q, height height height. How would height make a crap design any better? Instead it would just be a tall crap design. Adding a few levels won't suddenly make it better by default.
I agree that the height (or lack of) isn't the issue here, but you do tend to focus on it a lot Qantas

Back to top
Danny Boy's picture
#76

^^ Hey there 3000

Could you also critize my comment too?

I think it's a bit unfair to launch only on him and not me when I said much the same thing about the tower being bland and stumpy now.

Wouldn't want to be percived as needlessly bashing one user would you?

Kind Regards

Riddlz

Back to top

Pages