Advertisement
77 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

CBD | 42-50 La Trobe Street | 43L | 131m | Student accommodation

Mark Baljak's picture
#1

Images courtesy Hayball

ground

communal

tower

Back to top
Ryan Seychell's picture

I quite like this

Back to top
3000's picture

Same but it's really quite close to its neighbour. Is there any setback at all there?

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

The tower next door is being constructed with no setback to the side boundary and it was expected that a tower on this site would also be built to the boundary.

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture

And here's all the history they're set to obliterate.

Bah. Melbourne has too many mansard-style roofs already ...

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

The mansard roof is a clumsy addition to the original 1915 building:

A late twentieth century addition of two floors in the form of an exaggerated mansard, clad
in slate tiles, considerably detracts from the early facade.

Back to top
Melbourne_Fragments's picture

No way this will be approved under the new setback rules
Also, more importantly this is the heritage we will lose, for a bloody atrium entrance

Back to top
3000's picture

This would look alright with original building retained and scrubbed up but we all know that won't happen.
Re: the answer I got on the setbacks, so it was assumed that both buildings would just be pushed next to each other? Weird.

Back to top
Dean's picture

Disappointing that this may go but having said that developers will only build what they're allowed to. If council ever gets off it's ass, gets some adult supervision, and actually contribute something meaningful in relation to heritage retention - rather than just blow hot air and look for the first newspaper it can find to print its hypocrisy - then we can have a city where you have a true duality of heritage and modern buildings.

Until then however councils should really just stick to collecting bins and mowing nature strips.

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

nailed it!

Back to top
Melbourne_Fragments's picture

Ironically these aren't heritage listed because council bended over backwards to allow the development of 40 La trobe Dean, when that was also considered for heritage listed.
Sadly it's still an either /or for many councillors, rather than pushing for development and heritage to combine in ways more fitting of the 'design capital' Melbourne is suppose to be, and there's also incosistancy on when they will favour a developer and when they want to be NIMBY, depending on the whim of the day they vote

Back to top
Clifton over the hill's picture

Is it correct in the render image that there will be towers situated either side of this development? That is, on the sites of 54-56 La Trobe Street and 30-34 La Trober St?

I don't recall the Trillium as 36-40 La Trobe has any privacy screening above the lower levels, nor does the 42-50 La Trobe tower.

Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture

Does Trillium even have windows on it's side? If not, I think this is a good outcome. Build it.

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture

Dean, that's completely incoherent.
"Council needs to get off its arse". OK. And do what?
"Get some adult supervision" ... ok that's just rhetoric ...
"actually contribute something meaningful in relation to heritage retention", kind of just rhetoric too, but
"rather than just blow hot air and look for the first newspaper it can find to print its hypocrisy" ... literally what and who are you referring to? I am really struggling with the argument at this point ...

If there's an argument here that "Council needs a more comprehensive heritage protection regime and URGENTLY needs to conduct a comprehensive review (for the first time since the early eighties) of graded but unprotected structures in both the CBD and Southbank", then you are absolutely spot on but it couldn't have been expressed less coherently.

Back to top
Clifton over the hill's picture

I meant to ask, are towers going to be built either side of the 42-50+Trillium pair? Like in this image?

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

No definitive plans but it's fair to assume it will happen at some point

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture

If anyone is interested in objecting to the demolition of the Burton's Carriage Workshop, there's now an online petition up and running: LINK IS NOW WORKING

https://www.change.org/p/lord-mayor-robert-doyle-lord-mayor-doyle-please...

Back to top
Bilby's picture
Back to top
Chris Seals's picture

signed

Back to top
Bilby's picture

Over 350 signatures in just a couple of days - more needed!
https://www.change.org/p/lord-mayor-robert-doyle-lord-mayor-doyle-please...

Back to top
Adrian's picture

Just as Sydney has its Urban Taskforce to promote tall building development Melbourne really needs a more organised and vocal Heritage Action group to save all this small scale stuff that slips past the nufties at the council ..

It's a disgrace this history is being eroded but us squawking about it on a forum isn't going to change anything ..

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

there was a well organised and well publicised campaign to save these buildings by the public and Council officers a couple of years ago but the Council voted to allow them be demolished anyway.

Back to top
3000's picture

I tend to agree. Sydney sold its soul and lost its heritage long ago, we don't need to do the same.

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture

Adrain, there is a very organised and very vocal group that is pursuing this. You may have noticed their name at the top of the petition.

You can sign on HERE if you truly want to help out: http://melbourneheritage.org.au/get-involved/

Anything we need to do to be better "organised and vocal", we'll we're always open to suggestions ...
Though a little surprised at the clearly informed revelation that we've been disorganised and mute the whole time ...

Back to top
Bilby's picture

Melbourne Heritage Action has been far and away the most effective force in protecting CBD heritage over the last few years - without MHA, so much more of Melbourne's heritage would have been lost by now, including, no doubt, many of the buildings now listed under Heritage Amendment C186: https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/BuildingandPlanning/Planning/planningsc...
MHA drove the public campaign to have this important CBD study completed and signed off by the minister (and are still pursuing the remaining inter-war buildings in the amendment that are still without protection).

At any given time, Melbourne Heritage Action are fighting for dozens of threatened sites in the CBD - either behind the scenes or in very public campaigns such as those to save Melbourne's unprotected laneways and heritage lanescapes, the Burton Livery Stables and Carriage Works, or the Palace Theatre.

Back to top
Riddlz's picture

"In 20 days that popular rendezvous, Stewart Dawson’s building, at the corner of Collins and Swanston Streets, will be demolished, shovelled into trucks, and used to fill a clay pit and make a site for a new factory. Such is progress; but it means the disappearance of a Melbourne landmark and regret which will not be relieved by the knowledge that on the old site there will soon arise something bigger and more magnificent with better and more convenient appointments. Sentiment is rarely in step with the march of progress."

The Manchester Unity Building was declared the "travel postcard centre" of Melbourne and, in a triumph of progress over sentiment, Steward Dawson's Corner was hardly spoken of again.

-A City Lost and Found: Whelan the Wrecker's Melbourne
By Robyn Annear

Back to top

Pages

Development & Planning

Wednesday, August 23, 2017 - 07:00
Hawthorn's Queens Avenue is emerging as an apartment hot spot of sorts, as developers realise the worth of converting the light industrial and commercial strip into a higher density apartment enclave. Running parallel to Burwood Road, Queens Avenue now has six apartment developments in progress.

Policy, Culture & Opinion

Wednesday, August 9, 2017 - 12:00
Carolyn Whitzman , University of Melbourne Liveability is an increasingly important goal of Australian planning policy. And creating cities where residents can get to most of the services they need within 20 to 30 minutes has been proposed, at both federal and state level, as a key liveability-related mechanism.

Advertisement

Visual Melbourne

Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 12:00
Part Three follows on from the Part One: Yarra's Edge and Part Two: Victoria Harbour. The focus of today's piece will be NewQuay and Harbour Town, the northern most precincts within Docklands. NewQuay NewQuay was the first precinct to open way back in 2003 and has probably evolved the most.

Transport & Design

Wednesday, August 23, 2017 - 12:00
The Victorian Government has announced the winning bidders in the tender to power Melbourne's tram network by renewable energy. At the same time, the Victorian Government has announced plans to legislate the Victorian Renewable Energy Target (VRET) ensuring that by 2020, 25% of Victoria's energy will come from renewable sources and the target rises to 40% by 2025.

Sustainability & Environment

Monday, August 21, 2017 - 12:00
The notion of Melbourne becoming a 20-minute City has been explored heavily in recent times. Seeking to provide Melburnians with the ability to 'live locally', the 20-minute City, in essence, strives to provide people with the ability to meet most of their everyday needs within a 20-minute walk, cycle or local public transport trip of their home.