Advertisement
306 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

CBD | Avant | 54-64 A'Beckett Street Melbourne | 172m | Residential

Fedsquared's picture
#1

Big one. Should be pushing 300m.

Application No. 2010026164A

Demolition and construction of a mixed-use multi-storey tower comprising accommodation (residential apartments and serviced apartments) and ground floor retail premises (other than adult sex bookshop, department store, hotel, supermarket and tavern).

Extension of 34 levels to existing permit (81 level development, plus 1 basement level and 2 levels of roof plant) and construction of an additional 284 dwellings

Aspial Group

Existing permit is for 49 storey building

Site is the one circled in red

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

funny when 200 metres + is the norm these days

Back to top
Ryan Seychell's picture

Unbelievable

Back to top
Andrew's picture

So, carrying on from the SSC conversion from three years ago, is the red brick building part of the site or not?

That street has changed now, RMIT SAB is on the corner and the new temporary park/basketball courts have gone in on the old gravel carpark between this site and SAB. MY80 has topped out directly west of this site. Things are shaping up, hopefully some of the heritage in the street is retained with the red brick building, even if it is incorporated to the new plans.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture

PANS-OPS are only around 250-260m there.

FFS these flight paths HAVE TO GO!!

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

^^ big deal, 260m is enough

Back to top
MelbourneGuy's picture

Speaking of flight paths, it beats me how Hong Kong managed all those years with planes flying into their original airport.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

The approved tower only replaced the building at 58-64 A'Beckett Street. The new plan includes the adjoining site at 54-56 A'Beckett Street.

I am not sure that replacing an approved tower with a whole new design that is almost twice as high is a planning permit amendment.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
Back to top
Ryan Seychell's picture

76 levels, 233m. Designed by Elenberg Fraser. One of their best designs yet in my opinion. Reminds me a bit of Hearst Tower in a way, the lower half anyway.

Back to top
Ryan Seychell's picture

Back to top
Melbourne_Fragments's picture

such an easy job to retain both historical facades instead of a boring glass wall at street level, but EF never have any imagination in that regard

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

That would probably be a decision made by the client I'm not sure you can blame EF.

Back to top
Paul_D's picture

Love the "crumpling down" treatment they've styled the facade with. It's a very elegant outcome in my opinion and actually quite sculptural. I'd be very happy to see this one rise.

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

yep, epic design

Back to top
Kycon's picture

Elenberg Fraser have a purple fetish nowadays..

Back to top
Andrew's picture

Great design, boring street level.

As Ryan said, reminds me of the Hearst tower but without the heritage integration.

Back to top
Andrew's picture

And what seems like a goal to design the northern CBD all on their own, at least those three or four blocks around Elizabeth Street.

Back to top
Peter Maltezos's picture

Ideally they should have retained the brick building in the design, an excellent modern skyscraper design anyway. yessmileyyes

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

Back to top
Bilby's picture

Yep, an epic design and epic heritage fail at street level. We are losing two significant buildings here - a very rare 1915 car showroom and the Edwardian factory: They are both in the City North Heritage Review for those interested.

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/BuildingandPlanning/Planning/planningsch...

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

^^ give me this then

I concede the podium is weak and the existing buildings are worth maintaining. Do you concede that as a tower it's unique and visually impressive?

As Nick said above it's likely designed to the clients brief, if they have no regard for the existing buildings...

Back to top
Bilby's picture

Yes, this is certainly one of the better EF buildings I have seen - mind you, I find much of their work uninspiring. I don't have a problem with the tower design as such, from what has been revealed of it so far. The thing is, there will be many more opportunities to employ great architects and produce outstanding buildings in Melbourne in future, but once these two historic structures are gone - they are gone forever. Our Victorian, Edwardian and other unique historic architecture will never return - we can't change our minds as a city and revive them in 20 or 50 years time (nor should we). These buildings are part of a living culture, as is the ongoing change and development of the city - why we can't have both in this culture is utterly beyond me. There are no technical reasons why we can't meaningfully retain our remaining heritage buildings in Melbourne, while developing the sites of lesser importance all around them to their maximum use value to the city. So yes, let's build those outstanding contemporary structures, but let's do it with a view to the bigger picture with regard to the kind of city we will be left with once the dust settles from all these unnecessary demolitions of of the last pieces in the jigsaw of old Melbourne.

Back to top
Andrew's picture

Send the architects and the developer a letter with your views, who knows, they might take it into consideration or at least attempt to incorporate a section of the existing facade.

Back to top
Bilby's picture

I have written to EF before re: 36-40 La Trobe Street, without so much as receiving an acknowledgement of my email. Ironically, the real estate agents are now touting 36-40 La Trobe as "...Situated at the east-end of the city's historic La Trobe St precinct" (see link below). Yes, it will be when it's built - albeit minus the last significant 19th century livery and stables building in the Melbourne CBD, since they are knocking it over to build on top of the ruins of said "historic precinct". EF pride themselves on their adaptive reuse of the old Goods Shed in the Docklands, so what's up with their support of the destruction of so many of Melbourne's best remaining historic buildings? Why claim the honours for good work done at one site while supporting the erasure of Melbourne's heritage elsewhere? I know that EF are no longer the architects on this job, but as far as I understand, that has nothing to do with their concerns about working on a project that would result in the loss of a significant heritage site. If anyone knows otherwise, I would be interested to hear about it.

http://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-115469843

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

Is it not a fundamental failure by City of Melbourne or State to provide the necessary, crystal clear overlay.

Architects and developers will do what they do, why not give them definitive parameters to work in - what must be retained/potentially demolished?

Back to top
Bilby's picture

Assume you mean this is a fundamental failure, Mark? I would certainly agree there.

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.