Images courtesy ARM Architecture
....Errr, I think that this above was an early proposal for the Royal Elizabeth site.
As far as I know this below is what's being constructed at the moment designed by Elenberg Fraser.
I collect, therefore I am.
That ARM proposal above, looming over the historic building is very overpowering and disrespectful. It would certainly be a poor outcome if approved.
Peter it was lodged this month
You can see the two here
and this is why people complain about minimum design standards and lack of decent planning in the state government. will essential block off the entire side of apartments being built from any views or sunlight if approved
And it will rip out the bank interior. Gah.
This is absolutely unethical, if nothing else. And there is certainly a lot else wrong with it. Come on, ARM, this is amateur second-rate architecture unbefitting of a world class firm. Have some self-respect and ditch this client.
I hope this is not approved, imagine the poor owners of the Royal Elizabeth apartments with windows and balconies facing a wall only a metre or two away.
Current design for Royal Elizabeth:
I actually thought that the old bank on the corner was part of the Royal Elizabeth site, apologies for the mistake in my previous post.
Cant find plans for tower levels of revised Royal Elizabeth, but the planning report for this one implies that the only windows facing their site are in the little lane off Pelham street - so what looks like glass and green fins must be a blank wall ? Has anyone got plans of the revised design ? I notice that the Royal Eliz marketing site doesnt show this new application at all .. and now can work out that theres one bed flats that have a lounge room looking into the 'laneway' between the sites, which appears to be about 2m wide ! and a bedroom with a window only onto the north boundary...
This one is off to VCAT
This one has been refused by VCAT. Does anybody now why they amended the plans to develop the old bank site separately from the Royal Elizabeth site behind? it does not seem to make any sense.
So which design is the one they want to build? Both seem pretty unsympathetic to the existing building.
As much as I would like the existing building left as it is, this top-hat tower extension actually works!
The existing building looks to still be alone with a modern tower floating above it, like it.
Still not feeling this one, it's like they are struggling with having to work the existing property onto the site.
Council should just say no. This is hardly a buildable site, given the other building already approved.
It's somehow managed to be even less sympathetic to the heritage site. A hat? That's the best they could do?
An amended version of this proposal has been approved by VCAT. The amended plans increase the height of the skirt structure above the bank building. Conditions of permit will also require a more substantial restoration of the bank building. It has been approved at 75.6 metres, 22 levels high.
Future Melbourne will badly regret this era of trash the past and build fast.
I like the design, just think it is over development. Interesting it was approved at full height.
I think this is a joke.
Aren't there balconies that will be stuck behind this building that will never see the light of day?
I understand that these are student accommodation 'investor apartments' but you would still think this would be a terrible outcome for their investment.
Like SYMLB, I like the design, but think this is over development.
While generally I agree with Bilby on this the design of the development behind is so horrendous that I'd take some stripping of the old bank to get something up in front of that shocker.
It's quite interesting that VCAT approval this type of project (no respect to the neighbour). Since the developer can bring the authority to the VCAT, just out of curiosity can the investor/owner of the next door bring the developer to VCAT again?
Obviously this is a terrible outcome for the neighbour - but that's not a reason to refuse. There's no 'first mover' advantage whereby people can develop a site such that their neighbour is prevented from doing likewise. And nor should there be.
The way to prevent outcomes like this (as well as various blank walls and other poor outcomes) is to 'encourage' developers to either purchase air rights, or purchase adjacent sites and build co-ordinated developments. And by 'encourage' I mean 'refuse to give permits'. Perhaps apartment standards that mandate a certain level of natural light will mean that developments will not be able to proceed unless that light is guaranteed in perpetuity - which would have prevented the first building going up, irrespective of the second.
Weirdly enough, it seems, I kinda like both the hat and the green building currently rising. I like the look of the two together, and if both had been designed with each other in mind then I'd think it all kinda cool. I admit that I don't know anything about the heritage building, so I can't comment on whether the developments are problematic on that front. If this is an overdevelopment it's only on heritage grounds - because the scale seems perfectly reasonable for that site. It would be interesting to read this thread if the existing site was all car park.
This isn't about scale - it's about amenity and respect for heritage. This development provides neither.