Advertisement
18 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

SOUTHBANK | 71-85 City Road | 67L | 224 metres | Residential

Mark Baljak's picture
#1

Images courtesy Doig Architecture

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture

Well bowl me over with a fishfork, they've kept the unprotected heritage building. Not the world's most sympathetic treatment, but bugger me it's there.

Back to top
Peter Maltezos's picture

^^ Interesting, very good for CE. smiley

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

Back to top
Riddlz's picture

So is this 2.4m or 1.6m for the ground level?

Shouldn't it be 226.2-1.6 so 225m rounded up.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

Central Equity actually have quite a good record for retaining heritage buildings in their developments.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

Entrance is 1.6 AHD so overall height above ground level is 224.6

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

umm spot on

Back to top
Rohan Storey's picture

Interesting that it was presumably submitted before the recent tower rules, but complies with them, at least to the extent that the minimum setbacks on all sides are 5m. I guess this has been an informal minimum for some time. Also interesting that it looks like it's been designed with the possibility of another tower to the west, with those apartments in the middle on the west side having views directed towards the street rather than relying on views over the adjacent site.

Lookingupatbuildings

Back to top
MelbourneGuy's picture

Just wondering as to what caused CE to deviate from their normal offering? Not that I'm complaining.

Back to top
3000's picture

Even CE have to mix it up a bit guess.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

The standard of applications in Southbank improved after the planning controls were reviewed and amended controls were introduced in June 2013. Generally nothing has recently been approved with setbacks of less than 5m from the boundaries or within 10m of another building.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture

Why are they showing A108 as AHD 313m?

Back to top
tiankd74's picture

I don't like central equity

Back to top
3000's picture

I think most of SB sucks tbh. Shit central.

Back to top
Dean's picture

Set back, 225m and a not bad design.

Mark or tays are we rounding up??? 224.6 = 225m???

Back to top
Riddlz's picture

MCC reccomending refusal and was cut back to 50L and 166m

Back to top
db2's picture

Good on MCC.

CE is CE, crap is crap, at 200m+ this would have been a shocker.

383 LaTrobe Street getting MCC approval is huge.

Two good decisions by the MCC.

Back to top
Sydney Struwig's picture

Good news, it would be better if they refused the entire development and sent them packing. CE are responsible for most of the warts in our city.

Connecting ideas, places and people. #ohyesmelbourne

Back to top

Development & Planning

Monday, January 23, 2017 - 00:00
Prominent builder Hickory Group has added a third Melbourne project that will utilise the Hickory Building System (HBS). A proponent of prefabricated construction methods, Hickory Group's latest HBS-driven project will be Brisbane outfit Blue Sky Funds' 42-50 La Trobe Street.

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).