Pirovich's daring Abbotsford CLT/Passive House building unveiled

Pirovich's daring Abbotsford CLT/Passive House building unveiled
Pirovich's daring Abbotsford CLT/Passive House building unveiled

A daring design has emerged for one of Johnston Street's premier corners.

Developer Pirovich is proposing a unique 9 level building on Johnston and Nicholson Streets, complete with hanging greenery and a distinctive central staircase that may well define the design. Fieldwork have created 329 Johnston Street, which also holds secondary frontages to 236 Nicholson Street and 37 Hunter Street.

The cross laminated timer (CLT) proposal would follow in the steps of the pioneering 10-storey Forte residential building and Docklands Library, both of which utilised the CLT method and are located within Victoria Harbour.

Pirovich's daring Abbotsford CLT/Passive House building unveiled
Nicholson Street perspective. Image: Fieldwork Projects

Wall, floor and roof segments are fabricated offsite, with the building method's official website showing CLT can:

  • Provide a carbon-neutral construction method
  • Allow for more economic foundations and shorter construction time frames
  • Allow for immediate access and easy procedures for follow-on trades

For their part, Pirovich describes 329 Johnston Street in the following fashion:

At 329 Johnston Street Abbotsford we are proposing a beautiful and sustainable new building - retail, offices, medical suites and a hotel. The building structure will be cross laminated timber, wrapped in a stunning expanded mesh.

The building fabric is seeking to achieve Passive Haus, giving future occupiers of the building a happier and healthier place to work, rest and play.

As part of the new development we are setting the building back at ground level and ceding over 200sqm of the site to the public realm.

Pirovich's daring Abbotsford CLT/Passive House building unveiled
Project perspectives. Image: Fieldwork Projects

The particulars of the prospective development sees a retail mix including café's, a convenience store and shops across the ground floor, with medical suites and offices accounting for levels one and two.

Subsequent floors carry 41 serviced apartments, split between 8 x 1 bedroom, 26 x 2 bedroom and 7 x 3 bedroom options. At its tallest point 329 Johnston Street would be 30.1m above ground, which would see the project as one of Johnston Street's tallest, with the yellow open stairwell facing Johnston Street running the height of the building.

Three levels of basement parking include provisions for 157 car parking spaces, whilst 70 bicycle spaces are at ground level. With an estimated cost of development at $20 million, Pirovich's ground breaking Abbotsford project is currently at advertising.

Mark Baljak

Mark Baljak

Tags: 
Pirovich Abbotsford Apartments Fieldwork

Comments (15)

Help contribute to the Urban community by leaving your comments about this article
What would you like to say about this project?
gobillino
And quite a timely feature in The Economist about a global tendency to mandate minimum car parking, and impact on city planning, in spite of the great disruptors of ride share and self driving cars - http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21720269-dont-let-people-park-free-how-not-create-traffic-jams-pollution-and-urban-sprawl
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?
johnproctor
You are both right. The market is yelling at developers saying 'we don't need car spaces' and yet City of Yarra stupidly requires developers to build spaces anyway pushing up the cost of development and housing (either for purchasers or renters). Meanwhile once that space is built it opens up various options for people to exploit it either by personally driving a car or allowing someone else to drive a car to that car spa. Some people who might have thought about not having a car without anywhere to park it will buy one anyway (or accept a 'hand me down' from a parent, or keep a car running when they might otherwise have let it die etc). Others will lease out the space to a third party perhaps another owner in the building who has multiple cars or a nearby worker. Through my job I know of a residential building in the CBD with 100+ car spaces where about 50% are leased to CBD office workers who drive into the City, a particularly perverse outcome. Meanwhile economically suggesting that parking provision is some sort of inter-generational wealth issue is a bit strange. If you don't buy a carpark for $50,000 (which will sit on most peoples mortgage at 5% per year for 30 years) you could basically afford a yearly Myki, a new bike and a top of the range car share membership every year for the life of the mortgage and still have vehicle costs (purchase price, fuel, rego, insurance, servicing) as a hip pocket saving. The inner city livers are aware of this and its why car ownership rates are so low and why on almost every measure millenials have lower (and later) license rates, lower car ownership and lower vkt. And to your last point, actually it is that simple. car ownership rates are going down not up, public transport, uber, car share, bike ridership, motorbikes/scooters are going up. Carparks are likely to be even less necessary in the future than they are today. And even if they do become required in the future then the market will guide a response and carparks will become a development typology filling in the gap. a 10 storey strata titled carpark in Collingwood providing spaces for people who don't own a space in their own building.
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?
gobillino
But I think what John is saying is that Yarra are making new developments provide for car parking that the market isn't necessarily demanding. If the developers couldn't sell apartments without spaces, they wouldn't have been pursuing development where not all apartments have spaces. I think Melbourne City Council used to have similar requirements, but thankfully relaxed these before the more recent apartment boom. When I was looking to buy a city apartment pre-boom, i struggled to find anything semi-habitable that didn't come with a car space. I ended up buying an apartment that came with a space (and consequently sits empty 99% of the time), and paying a premium for something i didn't actually want.
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?
theboynoodle's picture
I dunno.. he said "realise is that the best way to guarantee people drive places is to give them a carpark." Which is, in effect, saying "if you build it they will drive". I agree that if the market wants units with no parking then the market should be able to provide them - albeit that the council still needs to balance that market desire, which is a short-term one, with the long-term requirements of residents both in the new developments and the wider area. It's not as simple as a developer saying "I can sell 20 of my units off-plan to people who don't want a car space". The developer doesn't give a fig about all the people who might own that unit down the line, but the council does.
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?
theboynoodle's picture
@ John Proctor [quote]And the commons is not a great example as while their may be some interest of individuals wanting parking there was none provided so even if 50% now want parking it is still consistent with my stats above.[/quote] It's a perfect example of why the 'don't provide parking' policy doesn't (yet) actually work.Even if your stats are correct (and I am sure they are.. and a lot of 1 beds don't come with parking.. and there probably is a good argument that developments/owners corps could be more inventive about parking so that spaces are owned collectively and rented out to those who need them.) [quote]Also They won't need to park a car somewhere because almost all of Yarra is permit parking Which an owner in this building wouldn't have access to. So they won't be able to park them anywhere.[/quote] Er, yeah. So therefore people who want the option of a car won't buy the apartments. Or, if they do, they'll suffer severely diminished amenity. I agree that it should be a public policy objective to reduce the use of cars. It does not necessarily flow from that that the objective is to reduce *ownership*, at least not by the same amount. Getting people off busy city roads and into trams is good. Removing their ability to take other journeys where public transport is inappropriate/unavailable is not so good. But you can't do this by making it harder for new (and only new) homeowners to own cars. That's dumb and regressive. It means that the majority of better off people who already own their homes with parking provision aren't targeted by your policy. Your intention's might be good, but the effect of what you're asking is that worse off people are pushed away from the utility of owning a car. It's unfair, and it's not going to make much difference because the vast majority of road users are unaffected. Someone buying a flat at the corner of Johnston and Nicholson is paying a premium to be within a quick tram hop of the CBD.. walking distance, even. Plus having lots of neat stuff to do in the immediate vicinity. They're probably not going to be driving to the place they shouldn't be driving to anyway. Edit: This is at the corner of a different Nicholson St to the one I assumed - but I think the above still applies.. albeit the PT isn't quite as good as the other Nicholson/Johnston junction.
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?

Pages