Advertisement
29 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

CBD | 9-27 Downie Street | 33L | 106m | Residential

Nicholas Harrison's picture
#1

51 levels, 158m high, 490 apartments.

Article in the Australian today:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/strip-club-owner-peter...(The%20Australian%20%7C%20Property)

Back to top
Peter Maltezos's picture

Former Archer site.

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

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

Rendering of Archer Tower proposal (35 levels, 128m):

In 2002 this was a pretty significant project today it is just one of many :-)

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

remember it more fondly than most, Edgard Pirrotta Architects

Back to top
Riddlz's picture

Amended to approx. 119m and 37L

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

west elevation

north elevation

Back to top
Bilby's picture

Can I have some free land, too, City of Melbourne?

Back to top
Riddlz's picture

Will it overshadow the Northbank promenade at that height?

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture

OK just read the main article.

The proposed building will overshadow Batman Park at 1 pm and 2 pm on 22 June, contrary to Clause 22.02 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme. 7. The changes to the development required to render it consistent with requirements of the Melbourne Planning Scheme are considered so significant that they cannot be addressed by conditions.
Report to the Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee, 7 July 2015

I don't understand CofM's objections on setbacks to the street. This looks excellent at street level. Apartment wrap on the podium is a big tick. CofM's approach is going to force the developer to produce another f-ing podium carpark.

However lack of setback to the south of the site Is obviously a problem ...

What's the reference to free land about?

Back to top
Aussie Steve's picture

I am always dead against any over hanging of buildings into public spaces, unless they are awnings or some minor architectural fenestration. The lack of lower level set-backs from the property boundary are a major issue that need to be addressed as well as the overshadowing, which is prescribed in the planning scheme. Back to the drawing board I say.

Back to top
Bilby's picture

It would appear that the building cantilevers out over the street, Adam, in which case, this is effectively "free land" for the developer (or at least free public air space). Given that this is such a narrow street, it would be preferable for the developer to do a zero setback with additional pedestrian undercroft, if they still feel that the design requires this. Either that, or pay council for the airspace.

Back to top
3000's picture

I'm a bit confused, what seems to be the problem with this one? The setbacks look reasonable and ground level also isn't the worst around.

Back to top
Melbourne_Fragments's picture

Is an all glass shopfront the most interesting thing we can do in a laneway Peddle Thorpe?

Back to top
Melbourne_Fragments's picture

There are no setbacks at all 3000, in fact it actually overhangs the street

Back to top
3000's picture

I just read the article on the main pageregarding this. Fair enough. The way it hangs over the sidewalk is a bit concerning.

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture

I dunno. like it. Every second building on Swanston or Elizabeth has an inappropriate bloody awning hanging several meters over the footpath.
And we were all quite happy for Upper House's pods to jut out.

The intrusion in this case looks like a couple of feet at most. I don't think it would seem oppressive at street level, and in fact the intrusion for mine is what makes this kind of interesting.

Back to top
Aussie Steve's picture

I am certainly NOT happy with Upper House's pods projecting over the footpath. We shoudl not use that stupid mistake to justify any other projections, unless, as stated before, they are awnings or similar.

Back to top
Bilby's picture

I don't mind projecting buildings per se - I just don't see why they can't use their own airspace to do it. That would also create a net benefit in terms of a more spacious public realm at street level, too.

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture

I go the other way. I think it's one thing if you're addressing something that is part of the fabric of the building itself (Upper House, this case). Awnings and additions that are not structural elements of the building should NOT be allowed to extend into the public realm. Specifically because on Swanston and Elizabeth all of the awnings prevent pedestrian interaction with the actual building (a two storey Victorian turns into a metal roof and contemporary retail space from street level). None of those (excluding the small number of original Victorian awnings still extant) should ever have been allowed. The effect is of systemic damage to the public realm by intrusion into it.
Here, I see contextually appropriate and interesting intrusion that would enhance pedestrian experience at street level.

But, heck. At the end of the day it's all accounting for taste. I'd love to see MCC going much further down the path of planning processes that include design guidelines that could stipulate under what circumstances and how much intrusion into the public realm is appropriate, etc.

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture

I keep looking at the 3rd to last image and asking myself "would I feel in any way overwhelmed as a pedestrian walking down that street?"

I can't find a way to get to "yes".

Back to top
Riddlz's picture
Back to top
Riddlz's picture

Had a height cut down to 106m AHD and 33L before approval.

http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/294776/201460431...

Back to top
Ryan Seychell's picture

Updated design:

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

Quick change to thread title

Back to top
Riddlz's picture

Back to top
Laurence Dragomir's picture

Corten to balcony up stands and soffits + perforated mesh screens by the looks of it. Interesting to see how it turns out. The corten could easily be VM'd out.

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).