301 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

Michael Berquez's picture
#152

I agree with you Bilby and Dean...what a shocking and poor piece of architecture.
Bland, ugly, totally out of scale and completely unsympathetic to it's surroundings.
A total redesign should be called for, better treatments of each side and perhaps a tiered set back approach to a max of 5 storeys.

Back to top
Primal Beauty's picture
#153

Agreed also!
What is going on...we are all agreeing today...lol

Back to top
3000's picture
#154

Awful.

Back to top
Aussie Steve's picture
#155

That Kerr proposal is just far too high. I think the new development to the right is a good outcome.

Back to top
theboynoodle's picture
#156

That Kerr St thing is an abomination.

I am in favour of building that sort of scale in decent-sized pockets of places like Fitzroy. I think it's worth sacrificing some of the character of some of our streets of worker terraces and low-rise in order to make provision for a decent number of people to get decent living spaces within decent range of the city. I live nearby and have regularly walked and cycled that street. I'm not aware of anything about it that merits heritage protection over and above any other street (but happy to be educated).

So let's say that the street is a viable one for significant development to provide a material increase in number of dwellings. I mean.. with the population growth projected for Melbourne I'd support a strategy that worked on doubling the population of established inner-burbs. This development is not how to go about doing that. The development required - both in terms of delivering the number of dwellings, and positive short-medium term street outcomes, cannot be done on a plot-by-plot basis and permission should only be give to build such height on MUCH larger blocks. Force site owners and developers to get together.

I live in a relatively new development nearby that it is a crime on an aesthetic level (in my opinion) but works well for residents and sits ok within the surroundings.. whilst also being very big (8 levels in part), because it takes up a significant chunk of a block. This allows more efficient parking provision, communal open space, variable scale and setbacks, and no massive concrete walls.

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#157

As Aussie Steve says, the development next door is a very well designed building. However, with respect to 36-38 Kerr Street, it beggars belief that the developer has even bothered to submit such an undercooked, poorly designed proposal for such a sensitive site in a heritage overlay! And as for the architect ... was the work experience student involved with this? Because if so, it is clearly time for some better supervision in the office.

Back to top
Laurence Dragomir's picture
#158

Koichi Takada Architects are responsible for Queens Parade.

Back to top
Peter Maltezos's picture
#159

A seriously crap proposal and for so many reasons already mentioned!!no

One would have to be a total imbecile to approve this shit.

FITZROY + FITZROY NORTH | 3065 + 3068 | Projects

I collect, therefore I am. thecollectormm.com.au

Back to top
3000's picture
#160

This is actually a bunker. Even by Melbourne's worst standards, this is a shocker.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#161

Ridiculous . Should have been refused immediately without advertising.

Back to top
drunkill's picture
#162

Queens Parade proposal is shit hot. Kerr St proposal is shit house.

Back to top
Danny Boy's picture
#163

I actually love those blank walls, they're both intimate and epic at the same time. ;)

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#164

You know, Riddlz, there's blank walls and blank walls ...
FITZROY + FITZROY NORTH | 3065 + 3068 | Projects

Back to top
Primal Beauty's picture
#165

True...walls are not there just to divide, they can bring people closer also!

Back to top
Primal Beauty's picture
#166

....

Back to top
3000's picture
#167

You mean the album, right? Because that's a great wall.

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#168

FITZROY + FITZROY NORTH | 3065 + 3068 | Projects

FITZROY + FITZROY NORTH | 3065 + 3068 | Projects

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#169

Few more of 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North

How to get maximum apartments out of a site
FITZROY + FITZROY NORTH | 3065 + 3068 | Projects

Staging
FITZROY + FITZROY NORTH | 3065 + 3068 | Projects

Site concepts
FITZROY + FITZROY NORTH | 3065 + 3068 | Projects

FITZROY + FITZROY NORTH | 3065 + 3068 | Projects

Back to top
theboynoodle's picture
#170

So the Queens Parade project has garnered some attention..

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/highrise-plan-casts-long-shadow-in-fit...
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1814868248745584/

FITZROY + FITZROY NORTH | 3065 + 3068 | Projects

It looks a good proposal architecturally, and the location is almost a 'must' for high-density - but it *is* very tall. I can see why people are irked - but I do find it ironic that people are complaining at how this tall building will block views to the city.

It's hard for me not to keep coming back to my default view that if you can't put a building like this on a site like that, how are you going to house the growing population in a balanced fashion around the inner suburbs (which, I think, is where that growth should be going).

I know people living in places like North Fitzroy love the 'village feel' of those suburbs. But they're not villages. They're suburbs close to the centre of a major city and that comes with upsides (rising home values, jobs, transport, amenities etc) and, sorry guys, the downside that people will want to build more and more homes to cash in on those amenities. Those who want to keep that village feel can sell up and go live in a village. They can't, in my view, expect to have the best of both worlds (unless they care enough about their precious views to club together and buy the site.. and they don't.. because people never do.. they think everyone else should pay instead)

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#171

I don't have a problem with this development in principle, as long as the existing industrial heritage buildings on site are respected. The architecture seems to be of a high standard and the site response relatively well considered. Is it too tall? Maybe, but the basic idea seems acceptable - particularly in comparison with the urban rubbish going up high in Brunswick, Northcote and Thornbury of late.

Back to top
3000's picture
#172

I think with a height reduction and as you mentioned, some respect shown to be existing heritage (after all, this gritty look is what draws people to this area to begin with) this could be an okay outcome.

Back to top
theboynoodle's picture
#173

The thing about the height is that the stepped nature of the design is such that it's trading height for bulk. If you reduce the height then you either increase the bulk, or you reduce the number of dwellings. The developer won't go for the latter if there's a choice, and if they do then it's a loss to all those people who can't now live there.

An increase in bulk would possibly mean ending up with a poorer design/realm outcome than the current proposal - which this board seems to agree is a quality design. Bilby is spot on by comparing to the general (and abysmal) standard of mid-rise design around the inner burbs. People are making a fuss about the 16 storeys, but it's pretty narrow by that point. Would they really rather replace this for a flat 8 storey building like the ones seen elsewhere? Methinks the complainants need to take a walk around Brunswick, and maybe down the nearby Smith Street, and they might think that the height is a fair exchange for dodging the bullet of current trends in mid-rise architecture. The chosen design is much better than the concepts in the renders above which, themselves, are significantly better than the norm.

From a heritage POV I think the design just retains some facades. That's probably enough. Although that gritty look is, indeed, an appeal of the area - I (personally) think that this site is kinda just off the edge of the gritty (which is to be found in the heart of Fitzroy). It's cut off and exposed due to the road, and I think that the old industrial feel of the area lives in the tighter streets and laneways.. if that makes sense? And, to be honest, if you're building a large and unashamedly modern new building you're never going to maintain a heritage 'feel', even if you do (rightly) retain some fine heritage features.

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#174

423 - 425 Smith Street, Fitzroy - 8L office + 1 penthouse

FITZROY + FITZROY NORTH | 3065 + 3068 | Projects

FITZROY + FITZROY NORTH | 3065 + 3068 | Projects

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#175

St Vincents expansion into planning

59-61 Victoria Pde Fitzroy
Development of the land for constriction of a 10 storey building as an extension to the existing hospital, including part demolition and alterations to the existing buildings on the site and streetscape works.

$57,625,000

Greens and Socialitst - seriously!!!

Apartment height limits 'not a NIMBY thing', says Yarra mayor

New apartment blocks in Melbourne's inner north should be capped at four levels, a council says.

And Yarra Council has also asked the Andrews government to almost completely curtail the development of apartments along inner-city shopping strips.

The Greens and Socialist dominated council – which covers booming development zones including Fitzroy, Richmond and Abbotsford – on Tuesday night met for the first time since last month's local government elections.

A controversial application by developer Gurner was before the council, for 476 apartments in North Fitzroy.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/apartment-height-limits-not-a-nimby-th...

Back to top
Peter Maltezos's picture
#176

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/when-is-heritage-a-code-word-for-nimbyi...

When is 'heritage' a code word for NIMBYism?

NOVEMBER 27 2016 - 11:45PM Bianca Hall

FITZROY + FITZROY NORTH | 3065 + 3068 | Projects

An artist's impression of the plan for 26-56 Queens Parade, North Fitzroy.  Photo: FloodSlicer

Twenty years ago, you could get a cute little worker's cottage in North Fitzroy for less than $165,000.

These days, you'd be lucky to get change from $1.25 million, and you'd need to save about $130,000 in deposit and stamp duty to afford even the most modest house in the heavily gentrified suburb.

As population pressures build, and would-be homeowners are priced out of the market, it's no surprise developers are proposing masses of apartment buildings for the inner city. They can just about guarantee a sale.

But these developments are increasingly being opposed by those who want to shut the door on entry to their suburb after themselves.

All in the name of amenity, of course.

Inner-city councils like Yarra are pitching themselves against developers in a battle for the character of inner suburbs, taking a stand against the practicalities the state planning authority and government are forced to reckon with – that with a booming population, rising property prices and infrastructure pressures in the outer suburbs, something has to give.

The latest incarnation of this battle is over a massive apartment development proposed for North Fitzroy, which would involve 476 apartments being built on a sprawling development on Queens Parade.

You might think that building apartments on a public transport corridor, on the doorstep of the CBD, and within walking distance of civic facilities and the bustling retail hubs of Smith Street and Brunswick Street, would be supported by a progressive council like Yarra.

Not so.

For all the Greens' talk about limiting urban sprawl, and encouraging walking and cycling communities, the Greens and Socialist-dominated council's response would move the population problem into someone else's backyard.

I collect, therefore I am. thecollectormm.com.au

Back to top

Pages