Advertisement
34 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

MELBOURNE | 696-708 Elizabeth Street | 75m | 20L | Residential

Mark Baljak's picture
#1

Images courtesy ARM Architecture

site

demo plan

podium garden

elevations

materials

images

Back to top
Peter Maltezos's picture

....Errr, I think that this above was an early proposal for the Royal Elizabeth site.

As far as I know this below is what's being constructed at the moment designed by Elenberg Fraser.

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

Back to top
Aussie Steve's picture

That ARM proposal above, looming over the historic building is very overpowering and disrespectful. It would certainly be a poor outcome if approved.

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

Peter it was lodged this month

You can see the two here

Back to top
Melbourne_Fragments's picture

and this is why people complain about minimum design standards and lack of decent planning in the state government. will essential block off the entire side of apartments being built from any views or sunlight if approved

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture

And it will rip out the bank interior. Gah.

Back to top
Bilby's picture

This is absolutely unethical, if nothing else. And there is certainly a lot else wrong with it. Come on, ARM, this is amateur second-rate architecture unbefitting of a world class firm. Have some self-respect and ditch this client.

Back to top
Peter Maltezos's picture

I hope this is not approved, imagine the poor owners of the Royal Elizabeth apartments with windows and balconies facing a wall only a metre or two away.

Current design for Royal Elizabeth:

I actually thought that the old bank on the corner was part of the Royal Elizabeth site, apologies for the mistake in my previous post.

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

Back to top
Rohan Storey's picture

Cant find plans for tower levels of revised Royal Elizabeth, but the planning report for this one implies that the only windows facing their site are in the little lane off Pelham street - so what looks like glass and green fins must be a blank wall ? Has anyone got plans of the revised design ? I notice that the Royal Eliz marketing site doesnt show this new application at all .. and now can work out that theres one bed flats that have a lounge room looking into the 'laneway' between the sites, which appears to be about 2m wide ! and a bedroom with a window only onto the north boundary...

http://www.royalelizabeth.com.au/apartments/apartment-204

Lookingupatbuildings

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

This one is off to VCAT

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

This one has been refused by VCAT. Does anybody now why they amended the plans to develop the old bank site separately from the Royal Elizabeth site behind? it does not seem to make any sense.

Back to top
3000's picture

So which design is the one they want to build? Both seem pretty unsympathetic to the existing building.

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

take that

Back to top
Peter Maltezos's picture

As much as I would like the existing building left as it is, this top-hat tower extension actually works!

The existing building looks to still be alone with a modern tower floating above it, like it.

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

Back to top
3000's picture

Still not feeling this one, it's like they are struggling with having to work the existing property onto the site.

Back to top
Bilby's picture

Council should just say no. This is hardly a buildable site, given the other building already approved.

Back to top
3000's picture

It's somehow managed to be even less sympathetic to the heritage site. A hat? That's the best they could do?

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

An amended version of this proposal has been approved by VCAT. The amended plans increase the height of the skirt structure above the bank building. Conditions of permit will also require a more substantial restoration of the bank building. It has been approved at 75.6 metres, 22 levels high.

Back to top
Bilby's picture

Future Melbourne will badly regret this era of trash the past and build fast.

Back to top
SYmlb's picture

I like the design, just think it is over development. Interesting it was approved at full height.

Back to top
3000's picture

I think this is a joke.

Back to top
V.Melb's picture

Aren't there balconies that will be stuck behind this building that will never see the light of day?

I understand that these are student accommodation 'investor apartments' but you would still think this would be a terrible outcome for their investment.

Like SYMLB, I like the design, but think this is over development.

Back to top
johnproctor's picture

While generally I agree with Bilby on this the design of the development behind is so horrendous that I'd take some stripping of the old bank to get something up in front of that shocker.

Back to top
tiankd74's picture

It's quite interesting that VCAT approval this type of project (no respect to the neighbour). Since the developer can bring the authority to the VCAT, just out of curiosity can the investor/owner of the next door bring the developer to VCAT again?

Back to top
theboynoodle's picture

Obviously this is a terrible outcome for the neighbour - but that's not a reason to refuse. There's no 'first mover' advantage whereby people can develop a site such that their neighbour is prevented from doing likewise. And nor should there be.

The way to prevent outcomes like this (as well as various blank walls and other poor outcomes) is to 'encourage' developers to either purchase air rights, or purchase adjacent sites and build co-ordinated developments. And by 'encourage' I mean 'refuse to give permits'. Perhaps apartment standards that mandate a certain level of natural light will mean that developments will not be able to proceed unless that light is guaranteed in perpetuity - which would have prevented the first building going up, irrespective of the second.

Weirdly enough, it seems, I kinda like both the hat and the green building currently rising. I like the look of the two together, and if both had been designed with each other in mind then I'd think it all kinda cool. I admit that I don't know anything about the heritage building, so I can't comment on whether the developments are problematic on that front. If this is an overdevelopment it's only on heritage grounds - because the scale seems perfectly reasonable for that site. It would be interesting to read this thread if the existing site was all car park.

Back to top
Bilby's picture

This isn't about scale - it's about amenity and respect for heritage. This development provides neither.

Back to top

Pages

Development & Planning

Tuesday, December 12, 2017 - 00:00
City of Port Phillip will this week indicate that it has sufficient reason to object to two pending projects in Port Melbourne. 17 Rocklea Drive and 365-391 Plummer Street are both within the Wirraway Precinct of Fishermans Bend, and both projects are under the authority of the Minister for Planning.

Policy, Culture & Opinion

Monday, November 20, 2017 - 12:00
The marriage of old and new can be a difficult process, particularly when the existing structure has intrinsic heritage value. In previous times Fitzroy's 237 Napier Street served as the home of furniture manufacturer C.F. Rojo and Sons. Taking root during 1887, Christobel Rojo oversaw operations though over time the site would become home to furniture manufacturer Thonet.

Advertisement

Visual Melbourne

Friday, August 25, 2017 - 07:00
The former site of John Batman's home, Batman's Hill is entering the final stages of its redevelopment. Collins Square's final tower has begun its skyward ascent, as has Lendlease's Melbourne Quarter Commercial and Residential precinct already. Melbourne Quarter's first stage is at construction and involves a new 12-storey home for consultancy firm Arup along with a skypark.

Transport & Design

Saturday, December 9, 2017 - 00:00
Spring Street has released details of a large shutdown of the Pakenham/Cranbourne and Frankston lines which will allow workers to complete major upgrades to the rail infrastructure. The work is required to allow for the introduction of the new High Capacity Metro Trains (HCMTs) and will involve upgrading power & catenary, signalling and communications equipment in the Dandenong (Pakenham/Cranbourne) corridor.

Sustainability & Environment

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - 12:00
Cbus Property's office development for Medibank at 720 Bourke Street in Docklands recently became the first Australian existing property to receive a WELL Certification, Gold Shell and Core rating. The WELL rating goes beyond sustainable building features with a greater focus on the health and well-being of a building's occupants.