Images © Elenberg Fraser
Another one for this street. At least they are keeping what's there.
Excellent design, retained heritage building, good setbacks, no blank walls.
yep this one looks fairly likely based upon correspondence between the parties post lodgement
The difference between this and Vision Tower is like night and day,
How did this one slip under our radar?
Aside from FSR, would this make it through under C262?
No, it would have to be setback 10.5m from the side and rear boundaries.
That's only fair considering this street is basically the reason for all this.
Yes Mark and Nicholas, the tower above podium conforms to the new rules. Only needs to be 5m from boundaries, or from centre line of laneways (this lane is 10m wide so no setback required).
The thing these rules dont address directly is whether the design allows for a good level of lighting and some kind of outlook for the apartments, or ensure the same for existing ones next door. So in this case the apartments in the lowest third of the tower on the west side just face apartments 12-16 m away, and only thanks to reflective glass may have enough light in the middle part of the day, while those on the south side face a sheer office tower wall, and will get very little natural light. Probably have to turn their lights on to see anything for most of the year. Not very sustainable, or pleasant for the occupants. We should be able to do better.
We can do better by spacing landmark towers away from each other. 13m distance to Eq. does seem too close to me.
It is almost impossible to design all apartment buildings with no south facing apartments without having big blank walls.
There is a 10-12m gap between the Argus building and the south facing apartments apartments.This combined with the very large windows for the living areas and all bedrooms will ensure that these apartments will get as much ambient light as possible.
Won't the apartments be looking directly into EQ's?
It's not quite as bad as MY80 and avant but I still worry about where they are taking this street. It's become the poster child for bad planning along with Southbank.
Nicholas, south facing apartments are fine as long as there;s enough sky to visible to reflect enough light - I has a south facing apartment once looking over rooftops and was perfectly happy with the light levels (until apartments 5m away going three floors above my windows were proposed, then I sold up). So in this case the apartments in the top half or 2/3 of the building will be fine - it helps that the Argus building is unlikely to get higher any time soon but the higher up you are the more ambient light. Its the ones down the bottom facing a wide tall wall that will not be getting much natural light, though yes with floor to ceiling windows theylll get as much as possible, but will that be enough to read a book by without having to turn the light on ? - i dont know what the solution there would be, except perhaps for that part to be hotel / service apartments / student accommodation or reconfigured to be larger and face the sides maybe.
The setbacks between the buildings here are more than double the setbacks in the cluster**** that is 48 A'beckett, 54 A'beckett and MY80.
It looks like EF are delivering the goods here, particularly in keeping the existing building (they typically design bad podiums but great towers) and are actually trying to make some reasonable setbacks. But tbh I think they are doing it because they want to not rock the boat with the new planning regs, otherwise it would be the usual for this street. I'll also be surprised if they get the full 211 meters.
That not a good reason nicholas, most likely those setbacks will result in a lot of dark apartments too.
MCC supports this one.
do they deserve praise for keeping a facade they would have replaced with another bland podium if not forced to 3000?
Well, this will cover the eastern side of Eq.'s concrete wall.
Queens Place will cover the western side.
Design has been improved a bit. Not sure if the height has decreased, but Meinhardt has it as 62L/203m
Seriously...... just every site every corner are turning into massive skyscrapers. Really don't know what they are thinking. The CBD can no longer sustain this kind of development. Where are the supermarkets, where are the amenities.... Overcrowded footpath...... etc
Your opinion only, my neighbourhood has me spoilt for choice when it comes to supermarkets, restaurants and convenient stores.
Footpaths are still comfortable to walk on and a reminder that we do have a planning department with qualified professionals deciding what gets built!
Looks like this one is called Myriad, found this from Tong Eng Group
Alec T do you actually live in the CBD or are you only judging things based on a once in a blue moon visit to the Vic Market ?
That particular block can sustain plenty of increase in foot traffic and trust me the supermarkets will come when the demand is there. Woolworths is said to open up at the old Thrifty Car Rental almost literally across the Rd on Elizabeth St.
Where exactly do you want Melbourne's 100k yearly population addition to go live instead ? The people of Fitzroy sure don't want them if the article in today's Age on that new mid-rise apartment block near Brunswick Oval is anything to go by.
The only CBD footpath up that end of town that is now at critical breaking point all day every day is Corner of LaTrobe & Swanston at Hungry Jacks - the number of students and general pedestrians crowding that corner is becoming unsafe. Hopefully whatever they do with that site post Metro Tunnel will address it.