Advertisement
34 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

WEST MELBOURNE | 488 La Trobe Street | 19L | 64m | Residential

Mark Baljak's picture
#1

Rothelowman / Spacious Property Development Group Pty Ltd

La Trobe perspectives

Jeffcott

Back to top
Bilby's picture

You absolutely 100% have to be kidding me. We're going to knock over yet another of Melbourne fine Victorian heritage buildings for this pathetic design? Please. Melbourne needs to wake up to the value of its built heritage assets - and fast. Why can't the facade, including the rare and original Victorian timber shopfronts and a bit of setback be incorporated here? 36-40 La Trobe has just been demolished - now this?

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

Why did City of Melbourne not list it in the CBD heritage review???

Back to top
Melbourne_Fragments's picture

This is outside the CBD, but a lot of CBD buildings were missed in that review anyway

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

It is located within the area that was reviewed in the City Heritage Review.

Back to top
Bilby's picture

If heritage reviews picked up everything of significance, then we would never have to do gap studies, and amendment C186 and the City North Heritage Review would have been unnecessary. This one was indeed 'missed' this time around - but that doesn't mean it's not historic and not worth protecting. How many Victorian buildings are left in this stretch of La Trobe Street?

Back to top
Chris Seals's picture

Saving this building certainly has merit, but I must stress that a lot of buildings that come under protection do not deserve too. Not everything that is old is good.

Back to top
johnproctor's picture

Should have posted a pic of the ground floor mark. Another example of building standards killing streetscapes..the frontage is about 1/3rd electricity substation for building, 1/3 carpark entry, 1/6th residential foyer and 1/6th fire hydrant and other fire safety requirements. I.e. 0% active frontage.

Regardless of heritage requirements I still just can't believe developers don't see the value in retaining that as a frontage to give some character to their building...

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

^^ didn't even pick up on it

Back to top
Rohan Storey's picture

No its was only the CCZ, which stops at south side of latrobe, but does include market area, bounded by william, peel, victoria, swanston.

Back to top
johnproctor's picture

they should just delete those three apartments at the back that will have bugger all amenity at the base of the 30 foot tower and push stuff deeper into that space eg. all the stores shifted back into that space. the visitor bike parking shifted to the bottom of page 'stores' area then the area that is the visitor bike parking and stores could have been the substation and gas meter room still accessible from the internal driveway... the substation footprint could then have been a retail space.

(btw. no idea on exact building code rules and whether that is possible - eg. maybe the substation MUST have street frontage not just 'be accessible')

Back to top
Riddlz's picture
Back to top
Qantas743's picture

This has been rejected by VCAT.

Back to top
Rohan Storey's picture

Do you know why Qantas ? Could it possibly be windows built on the rear boundary and two tiny looking apts on the east side with only windows being in a re-entrant 2m wide setback ? Glad to see that being flanked by strata titled properties is not being taken as definite protection from future high-rise - i do think that with such property values, the low rise places like Royal Flagstaff Latrobe st side could easily be bought up and built up.

Back to top
Riddlz's picture

Full VCAT ruling here:

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/1895.html

We conclude that the proposed building is not an acceptable design response to it physical and policy setting due to its overall height, massing and lack of side or rear setbacks. We consider these are inconsistent with its existing and preferred character setting. We do not seek to determine what an appropriate response is for this site as this is not our role. However, based on our concerns about visual bulk and direct amenity impacts we note that even if the height of the building was significantly reduced (even below 40 metres) it would not resolve our concerns about the direct building interface on boundary to the north and east or concerns with internal amenity.

Back to top
SYmlb's picture

In other words, the design was rubbish and even though it's not their job to comment on it, they did.

This raises the question though, if it's not their job to comment on the design, who does? This was obviously mediocre at best with huge blank brown walls - even the render was terrible. No wonder so much mediocrity gets through and built, including CE and Brady projects.

Surely aesthetics should count when considering a large proposal?

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

23/06/2016
488-494 La Trobe Street WEST MELBOURNE

Proposed mixed use development with waivering of carparking and loading bay requirements

Back to top
Riddlz's picture

18L from Hayball

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture

Ummm ... well in the meantime the building on site has acquired an interim heritage overlay under the West Melbourne heritage review.

So seeing as this seems to propose complete demolition of that, Hayball might care to try again?? There is literally no way this is happening.

Back to top
Bilby's picture

Hayball were also forced to back down on full demolition of the Macrobertson's Garage building for their "Lyric" project in Fitzroy after it was found to be of heritage significance. As you say, Adam - try again.

Back to top
Riddlz's picture

Better image

More retail street frontage now, better than that junk frontage.

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture

By "junk frontage" I gather you mean "rather fine 1905 late Victorian-era warehouse building"??

Well the "junk frontage" has a heritage overlay on it now. So why are they even shopping these designs around?? That building can no longer be built in this form. Full stop.

But yep. Wthat that stretch of La Trobe is crying out for is more RETAIL activation and LESS heritage, especially given what a retail destination that block has already become.

Am I doing this right???

Back to top
Riddlz's picture

Cool stuff m8

Was actually referring to the terrible street frontage of the original proposal (as pointed out by JohnProctor) not the heritage facade.

Stop being so tetchy.

Back to top
Adam Ford's picture

Fair enough, Not sure where the idea comes from that this has "good frontage" though??

Look at the street level diagram. That's a DRIVEWAY RAMP occupying about a third of it along La Trobe.

And why are we seeing these unbuildable images NOW? Has nobody informed the owner about their heritage overlay? This is obviously a response to VCAT, but obviously not a response to the new heritage context. Pretending the overlay doesn't exist won't win you approval any quicker. Or at all. Strange.

Back to top
3000's picture

This will probably get flipped anyway.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

There is still no heritage overlay over this property.

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).