Advertisement
41 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

CBD | 111-125 A'Beckett Street | 210m | 65L | Residential

Mark Baljak's picture
#1

Images © Elenberg Fraser

existing

proposed

ground

L8 communal

typical floor

facade

setbacks

elevation

renders

Back to top
3000's picture

Another one for this street. At least they are keeping what's there.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

Excellent design, retained heritage building, good setbacks, no blank walls.

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

yep this one looks fairly likely based upon correspondence between the parties post lodgement

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

The difference between this and Vision Tower is like night and day,

Back to top
Qantas743's picture

How did this one slip under our radar?

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

Aside from FSR, would this make it through under C262?

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

No, it would have to be setback 10.5m from the side and rear boundaries.

Back to top
3000's picture

That's only fair considering this street is basically the reason for all this.

Back to top
Peter Maltezos's picture

yessmileyyesheartcool

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

Back to top
Rohan Storey's picture

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.

Back to top
db2's picture

We can do better by spacing landmark towers away from each other. 13m distance to Eq. does seem too close to me.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

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.

Back to top
3000's picture

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.

Back to top
Rohan Storey's picture

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.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

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.

Back to top
3000's picture

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.

Back to top
Rohan Storey's picture

That not a good reason nicholas, most likely those setbacks will result in a lot of dark apartments too.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture

MCC supports this one.

Back to top
Melbourne_Fragments's picture

do they deserve praise for keeping a facade they would have replaced with another bland podium if not forced to 3000?

Back to top
db2's picture

Well, this will cover the eastern side of Eq.'s concrete wall.
Queens Place will cover the western side.

Back to top
Ryan Seychell's picture

Design has been improved a bit. Not sure if the height has decreased, but Meinhardt has it as 62L/203m

Back to top
Alec T's picture

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

Back to top
Peter Maltezos's picture

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!

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

Back to top
Ryan Seychell's picture

Looks like this one is called Myriad, found this from Tong Eng Group

Back to top
Adrian's picture

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.

Back to top

Pages

Development & Planning

Friday, January 20, 2017 - 00:00
A rush of planning applications either side of the festive break are cumulatively seeking to add to South Melbourne's robust development scene, with four major apartment projects lodged. City of Port Phillip will now assess the respective merits of the fresh applications, along with a handful of other noteworthy towers already at planning that when combined, would provide the popular suburb with thousands of new apartments.

Policy, Culture & Opinion

Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - 00:00
On 2 January 2017, it was reported that several popular eateries and bars in Footscray had been vandalised, including the perennially successful 8 Bit Burgers on Droop Street, and Up In Smoke on Hopkins Street. 8 Bit had the warm new year's welcome gift of 14 smashed windows and the words “F**k off hipster scum” spray-painted on their entrance.

Advertisement

Visual Melbourne

Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - 17:00
Melbourne’s architectural landscape is a wonderful juxtaposition of modern and Victorian architecture. Although the CBD has been peppered with many skyscrapers, its historical structures have won Melbourne the title of “Australia’s most European city”.

Transport & Design

Sustainability & Environment

Tuesday, November 29, 2016 - 12:00
Timber mid-rise buildings are becoming the preferred choice for many stakeholders in Melbourne, due to a combination of factors, including cost-effectiveness, liveability, ease and efficiency of construction. Within the recent National Construction Code change, Deemed-To-Satisfy provisions allow mid-rise timber construction for buildings up to 25 metres “effective height” (typically, eight storeys).