51 levels, 158m high, 490 apartments.
Article in the Australian today:
Former Archer site.
Rendering of Archer Tower proposal (35 levels, 128m):
In 2002 this was a pretty significant project today it is just one of many :-)
remember it more fondly than most, Edgard Pirrotta Architects
Amended to approx. 119m and 37L
Can I have some free land, too, City of Melbourne?
Will it overshadow the Northbank promenade at that height?
OK just read the main article.
The proposed building will overshadow Batman Park at 1 pm and 2 pm on 22 June, contrary to Clause 22.02 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme. 7. The changes to the development required to render it consistent with requirements of the Melbourne Planning Scheme are considered so significant that they cannot be addressed by conditions.
Report to the Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee, 7 July 2015
I don't understand CofM's objections on setbacks to the street. This looks excellent at street level. Apartment wrap on the podium is a big tick. CofM's approach is going to force the developer to produce another f-ing podium carpark.
However lack of setback to the south of the site Is obviously a problem ...
What's the reference to free land about?
I am always dead against any over hanging of buildings into public spaces, unless they are awnings or some minor architectural fenestration. The lack of lower level set-backs from the property boundary are a major issue that need to be addressed as well as the overshadowing, which is prescribed in the planning scheme. Back to the drawing board I say.
It would appear that the building cantilevers out over the street, Adam, in which case, this is effectively "free land" for the developer (or at least free public air space). Given that this is such a narrow street, it would be preferable for the developer to do a zero setback with additional pedestrian undercroft, if they still feel that the design requires this. Either that, or pay council for the airspace.
I'm a bit confused, what seems to be the problem with this one? The setbacks look reasonable and ground level also isn't the worst around.
Is an all glass shopfront the most interesting thing we can do in a laneway Peddle Thorpe?
There are no setbacks at all 3000, in fact it actually overhangs the street
I just read the article on the main pageregarding this. Fair enough. The way it hangs over the sidewalk is a bit concerning.
I dunno. like it. Every second building on Swanston or Elizabeth has an inappropriate bloody awning hanging several meters over the footpath.
And we were all quite happy for Upper House's pods to jut out.
The intrusion in this case looks like a couple of feet at most. I don't think it would seem oppressive at street level, and in fact the intrusion for mine is what makes this kind of interesting.
I am certainly NOT happy with Upper House's pods projecting over the footpath. We shoudl not use that stupid mistake to justify any other projections, unless, as stated before, they are awnings or similar.
I don't mind projecting buildings per se - I just don't see why they can't use their own airspace to do it. That would also create a net benefit in terms of a more spacious public realm at street level, too.
I go the other way. I think it's one thing if you're addressing something that is part of the fabric of the building itself (Upper House, this case). Awnings and additions that are not structural elements of the building should NOT be allowed to extend into the public realm. Specifically because on Swanston and Elizabeth all of the awnings prevent pedestrian interaction with the actual building (a two storey Victorian turns into a metal roof and contemporary retail space from street level). None of those (excluding the small number of original Victorian awnings still extant) should ever have been allowed. The effect is of systemic damage to the public realm by intrusion into it.
Here, I see contextually appropriate and interesting intrusion that would enhance pedestrian experience at street level.
But, heck. At the end of the day it's all accounting for taste. I'd love to see MCC going much further down the path of planning processes that include design guidelines that could stipulate under what circumstances and how much intrusion into the public realm is appropriate, etc.
I keep looking at the 3rd to last image and asking myself "would I feel in any way overwhelmed as a pedestrian walking down that street?"
I can't find a way to get to "yes".
Had a height cut down to 106m AHD and 33L before approval.
Quick change to thread title
Corten to balcony up stands and soffits + perforated mesh screens by the looks of it. Interesting to see how it turns out. The corten could easily be VM'd out.