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).
99 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

Adrian's picture
#27

To argue that this building "deadens the streetscape as do similar dilapidated buildings around it" entirely misses the point about reusing and adapting heritage buildings.

With that sort of attitude, we would have demolished all of Fitzroy, South Melbourne, St. Kilda and Carlton long ago when they were slums (many argued for this, and some progress was made toward this aim with the construction of the Housing Commission towers and the clearance of "slum" blocks).

I am actually 100% in agreeance with you that the Guildford lane precinct should have a heritage overlay and be kept intact - and turned into a thriving busy warehouse precinct. Though bare in mind so many of those buildings are residential or private down to the ground level so it will never have the life of a Degraves St. It will merely be a fascinating historic precinct to walk around.

I guess my point was the frontage on Lt.Lonsdale St currently deadens the area and unfortunately unless such heritage overlay is applied forcing owners/developers to do something creative with it rather than landbanking until the right offer comes along, the only way it is going to be spruced up is for developers to grab hold if it and build something above it and introduce fresh retail - again I cite the example of how Melbourne Star/Sky has completely activated the south end of Sutherland Lane where once there was just empty parking lots.

I'm with you on this one, I'm just against you on keeping the entire CBD from high-rise development saving each and every single old brick building sparing none (even the truly shit ones) and halting the cities natural growth upwards ...

Again - far bigger crimes have been committed elsewhere like Central Equity being allowed to actually remove an entire bluestone laneway at the expense of a truly hideous piece of s**t (Australis) - at least here the laneways are being kept intact and those concrete walls - well nothing a good bit of street art couldn't save.

Back to top
Melbourne_Fragments's picture
#28

Guildford lane is as busy and interesting as Degraves St, just with a different aim and vibe, it's full of apartments, 2 cafes, studios and art galleries. Just because it doesn't have constant active glass frontages doesn't mean it's not a vital laneway to Melbourne

Back to top
Melbourne_Fragments's picture
#29

Adrian, there are many many sites in the CBD still availalbe for development with zero heritage impact, we actually can hold onto all of these historic brick warehouses.
and it's not an either/or game, this building could be kept and restored with development above, it might just make the developers profit margin smaller to do so though

Back to top
Adrian's picture
#30

Did I not just say in the first line of my response ..

I am actually 100% in agreeance with you that the Guildford lane precinct should have a heritage overlay and be kept intact

I'm saying if there has to be development tho then anything that activates the streets as Eporo sounds like it will is better than a blank wall at least.

As for Guildford Lane just as busy as Degraves St ?? Haha no I don't think so - but I'm also not suggesting that it should be or that it diminishes it in any way it's fantastic as it is. When I said the area was quiet I was more referring to the other laneways (the ones being eroded by concrete walls) not Guidlford Lane itself.

Maybe we should seriously start an action group ala. Save the Palace to actually get some media attention on this. I hate seeing it being destroyed bit by bit as much as you guys.

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#31

Out to tender.

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture
#32

Adrian, please get on board ...
Melbourne Heritage Action
http://melbourneheritage.org.au/

there is a specific campaign around Guildford in the making ....

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#33

Go Guildford! The best remaining lane way precinct in Melbourne.

Back to top
Danny Boy's picture
#34
Back to top
melbourne's picture
#35

Demolition has begun:

CBD | Union Tower | 296-300 Little Lonsdale Street | 42 Levels | Residential

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#36

Great. One of the most interesting old industrial facades in this part of Melbourne torn down for another bland tower.

Back to top
Adrian's picture
#37

I agree they could have at least easily retained the facade on this one, though once again I am looking forward to another fresh frontage to help revitalize my street.

Sadly that old building was detracting from the street more than it was giving.

Back to top
3000's picture
#38

Does the podium have retail?
I think this is a terrible outcome for the site but hey, our laneways aren't anything special according to developers. *proceeds to launch Chinese ad campaign touting the very thing they are shitting on....our laneways*

Back to top
Steve Raider's picture
#39

I think we can have fun debating the merits of developer choices but in the end our opinions count for naught.

What I AM pleased about though is that SOMETHING is happening to the site which is way, way better than nothing happening.

To me, the inner city seems very underdeveloped. The potential projects are almost countless. It'll take another 100 years for Melbourne to come close to being 'fully developed'. Just wish I'd be around to see it.

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#40

^ Nope, it's way worse than nothing happening. At least had the old building been left alone, we would have had a valuable historic site to rehabilitate next year, the year after or in 5 years' time. Now it is lost forever - along with much of Melbourne's historic red brick industrial heritage.

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#41

CBD | Union Tower | 296-300 Little Lonsdale Street | 42 Levels | Residential

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#42

Shame on the decision makers and developers who continue to permit and promote the erosion of important historic elements of the city's fabric. There are two matching historic facades soon to be demolished here - one to the street frontage and one to the rear laneway. What a waste of a valuable and limited urban resource.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#43

You already said that.

Back to top
Bingo Bango Boingo's picture
#44

Thank goodness this new build is proceeding.

It would have been a terrible outcome for the city if a home for hundreds of people, and its architecture, were to be compromised by the continuation (to any extent) of the utterly forgettable and unhistoric pre-existing building, which was as derivative, amateurish and unexceptional on the day it was built, as now.

Any attachment to this kind of middling (and, let's face it, architecturally dishonest) Edwardian pap-as-building needs to be called out for what it is: a slightly bizarre form of fabric fetishism.

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#45

Retaining what is left of our Edwardian heritage in a prime historic block is not "fabric fetishism", Bingo - it's progressive urbanism. Your ideas are very much stuck in a 1950s urban renewal mindset.

Back to top
Bingo Bango Boingo's picture
#46

The evidence suggests that my ideas are very much of the present moment, wouldn't you agree?

As a general rule urbanism (progressive or otherwise) has much to recommend it, but when it veers towards the fetishism that I have diagnosed here it really doesn't help.

Back to top
Primal Beauty's picture
#47

Yay...we have a doctor in a house !
Hear, hear bilby! And you know what Sigmund Freud thought about fetishism!
Bilby's fetish inclinations would be fine if practiced within his own privacy and his proclivities did not intrude upon other people's rights to enjoy this site without being dragged down into bilby's dungeon of fantasies and set ideas!
Bingo Bango Boingo have you got a remedy for our bilby!?

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#48

Let's not bring Freud and object fetishism in to a discussion about high rise towers knocking over heritage buildings - it could get very silly, very quickly.

For those who came to this thread late - here's the building in question again (with matching red brick facade to the laneway behind): CBD | Union Tower | 296-300 Little Lonsdale Street | 42 Levels | Residential

Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture
#49

It's really not very interesting looking or even culturally or historically important to be honest. lol

Back to top
Adrian's picture
#50

I gotta say I empathise with Bilby greatly on this one and on all the others around Guildford Lane. The brick facades as a whole bring so much character to the neighborhood.

Sad reality is so few owners are interested in converting them into anything exciting. 1000 Pound Bend being one of the exceptions of course. Given this particular building has felt derelict for the whole time I've lived up the street if it means bulldozing and redeveloping to spruce things up I'd rather see that. From what I can see of the plans it might just complement whats supposed to happen with Timothy Lane & 380 Lonsdale St across the road - if that every actually gets going.

Back to top
Primal Beauty's picture
#51

C'mon Michael!
It is fascinating to look at it; so statuesque and shapely and full of vigour!
I am falling in love with it as I am writting this!

Back to top

Pages