69 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

Adam Ford's picture
#52

Wouldn't it be great if we valued our heritage buildings enough to have at least prevented this being a nightmare at street level????

BLAME RESTS ENTIRELY WITH CITY OF MELBOURNE here. What self-respecting planning officer waves shite like this through. Unless council staff raise flags Councillors mostly just tick the boxes on these projects, so we have a CULTURAL problem ...

Back to top
johnproctor's picture
#53

yep work nearby and this is absolutely woeful. no redeeming features at all unfortunately.

Back to top
3000's picture
#54

This looks like a soviet-era prison imo. What a disaster.

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#55

Garbage and a classic Melbourne deco building was demolished for it ... hardly a great trade off for urban heritage, is it? Before and afters ...
CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential
CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential
CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential

Back to top
Adrian's picture
#56

That makes me sick to my stomach to see this replace that Art Deco facade not to mention the facade next door that was demolished for Citadines. We have Justin Madden to thank for that who do we have to thank for this latest destruction of our street level heritage ?

Shit like this of course gets a free pass because it's low rise and inoffensive and because our heritage controls are so weak even though it's destroying the street level fabric while world class and world headline grabbing designs like Premier have to jump through hoops simply because they are 'tall'

Epitomises what I hate about Melbourne and its Bureacracy ..

Back to top
Melbourne_Fragments's picture
#57

For anyone iffy about the purple builidng, here's how it would have looked with paint removed and some minor restoration
CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential

The problem is Adrian is that CoM planners have no say over aesthetics, if it ticks the minimum amount of boxes in terms of height and carparking spaces etc.. they can't do anything but approve it, otherwise you just end up losing at VCAT

Back to top
SYmlb's picture
#58

Adding to this, why was this building not heritage protected to begin with? That should be a prime candidate for protection surely?

What can be done to save these buildings? Maybe keeping records of before and after shots can help the cause. That is a real shame to see gone, irrespective of the fact it was replaced by that abomination. There is no excuse for that IMO.

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture
#59

City of Melbourne has recently committed to a new comprehensive heritage survey of CBD and Southbank, the idea being to bring all significant buildings under heritage overlays. There will no doubt be shitfighting through the process, but we do have a process to work through now.

Back to top
3000's picture
#60

How could they not work that Art Deco into something good? Or even restore it?
It's like someone having done the work for you. But no, they did this. There are a ton of lame buildings (londsdale street has a few) they could tear down. Sometimes COM baffle me.

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#61

CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential
CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential
CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential
CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential
CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential
CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential

Back to top
MelbourneGuy's picture
#62

A team of talented architects must have spent many months working on this iconic design!

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#63

CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential
CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential
CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#64

CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential
CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential
CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential
CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential
CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#65

CBD | Metropolitan - 137 Bourke Street | ~60m | 19L | Residential

Back to top
MelbourneGuy's picture
#66

What a brilliant piece of architecture. Not!

Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture
#67

I hate that it was even allowed to be built there in the first place, but I'm going to say something really controversial...It looks pretty (surprisingly) good.

Back to top
3000's picture
#68

It's passable compared to say, a CE tower (no blank, grey walls at least!). But this is the epitome of shitty setbacks as it literally spews out onto the street.

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture
#69

The street-on aspect is actually OK, per Michael's comment.

But for God's sake. That side aspect. "I think maybe we'll put a window .... here .... and another one ... yeah let's put it ONE FOOT MISALIGNED to the left from the last one. That's it. Cracking."

Then think about all the nineteenth century buildings that had a stonemason doing the detail you can't even see from street level five floors up. Something fundamental in the way we think about and purpose buildings has completely changed since then, and that's not hand-wringing - it is what it is, human andvancement. But I really honestly think we've flung FAR too far in the wrong direction.

And I tender the number of engineered rather than designed projects, and million myriad bad outcomes like this that do have an accumulated effect if policy allows them to be repeated across an urban area for why we should veer towards the PREscriptive in our planning policy.

Meaning yes, I'm going to say this, mandatory setbacks make outcomes like this CONSIDERABLY less likely. And should therefore be supported.

Back to top

Pages