102 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

melbourne's picture
#77

^ Looks to be:

SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#78

SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#79

SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#80

Probably their best project to date in my opinion
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#81

SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#82

SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#83

SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#84

SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#85

SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential

Back to top
3000's picture
#86

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture
#87

The very best thing I can say about this building is that it doesn't distress (or impress) me.

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#88

There's a few retail tenancies in this one, seems to be one of their better projects.

SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#89

Not bad at all:

SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential

SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential

Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture
#90

Ok, so I'll admit I gotta eat my words...the last two picks make it look......even good....

Back to top
Melbourne_Fragments's picture
#91

why even bother keep heritage facades if you just turn them into whitewashed filmsets with a big ugly wall immediately behind

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture
#92

What's more annoying than big ugly walls behind is the complete failure of pretty much any of the developers to do any proper activation of the heritage facades.

I mean, look at that, above, full streaming glorious bloody sunshine. Am I mad in picturing a cafe there? And this as much as anything is why City Rd is what it is. Lack of street activation. The sites are all there. It's just half of them have facilities rooms built behind them or other such imaginative re-uses.

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture
#93

And this, rather than vague never-implemented masterplans, or fretting about exact heights, for the record is what council should have had its eye on as City Rd developed. Special City rd zone that mandates any property fronting City Rd, pending heritage approval, must present some kind of mixed use - retail, food, gallery, small business, etc to the city rd frontage, allowing for foyer entrances, etc. Spend some money on proper pedestrian linkages to the CBD/Southgate , plant a few more bloody trees. You're done/

Back to top
3000's picture
#94

Okay, this looks quite good. I really like that colour. The podium is trash though. Like Melbourne-Fragments said, looks like a film set.
Honestly? This probably would look better without the facade.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#95

A majority of that frontage along CIty Road has been developed as retail but they have trouble leasing it because City Road is just not a pleasant environment with the amount of traffic and the lack of amenities.

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture
#96

Yes, and that's everything that's missing from the new masterplan.

How do you incentivise the devlopment of street life? You give people rental or rates holidays, you let out your spaces to flipping art collectives, you have a SPECIFIC COUNCIL PLAN to address this.

What's Council's vision for the Southbank built form? How much retail and mixed use are we actually aiming for on City Rd? What sorts of destinations WOULD attract foot traffic to the area? Could council pro-acticvely manage the letting of these spaces on behalf of developers? What amenities are most pressing for local residents?

There have never been clear goals around any of these ideas. Nor were there in Docklands. And now we're about to do the same thing again in Fishos. And this is quite categorically Council's remit MUCH MORE so than tut-tutting over floor counts.

As for the concept that the above would look better WITHOUT the heritage structures, I'm not going to bother. I can't see how anyone with functioning aesthetic faculties could make that statement, so there's no common ground at all.

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#97

Part of the reason that those heritage facades look so bad is that the return wall has been demolished and the rebuilt structure poorly detailed at the junction. Victorian buildings typically don't have cornices and string courses terminating over blank walls! Obviously, reconstruction is never an ideal way to deal with heritage, either - we've seen that with the very poor "Disneyfied" outcome at the Banco site on Smith Street, Collingwood, where a so-called "accurate" rebuild of the Foy & Gibson building there ended up with window reveals of 0-70mm rather than 260mm. Details like this make all the difference! Secondly, that little piece of contemporary infill wall is set too far forward to the facade wall, making it seem 2D, rather than setting it back and letting the corners of the building breathe - previously this had a full 3-dimensional appearance. And lastly, demolishing the western side of the heritage building and then rebuilding a few metres of the wall has left the building looking more like a facade and less like what it was - a significant Victorian corner industrial building.

SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential
SOUTHBANK | 141-155 City Rd | Southbank Grand | 43L | Residential

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#98

^ Facadism at it worst.

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#99

The paint scheme is odd, too. Why the different treatment on the corner reconstruction?

Back to top
3000's picture
#100

Thanks for the info Bilby, I now understand what's going on here.

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture
#101

OK, yes it's facadism. Yes it's not great from a purely heritage angle, but all it would take to improve the above image 300 per cent is to have the paint matching across the two sections, rather than demolishing the heritage buildings, which was the original thesis here.

The reconstructed section actually looks surprisingly good, it's a pity they weren't forced to keep more of that wall and/or recess that join section by like two feet. But how anyone can look at the picture above and surmise "what's wrong here is there's too much heritage on display"....

City Rd more broadly actually has a reasonable street-level realm on an architectural basis because all of these structures have been retained at least exist as facades. It's the feeling like you're walking down a traffic sewer, the lack of inviting street furniture, the wind tunnel effects, the lack of sunlight, and as stated the lack of actual activation of the facades that are all the far bigger issue. The above picture with the Central equity signage removed and replaced with retail tenancies is, in the context of City Rd pretty good.

Back to top

Pages