tip off
22

Does this look like it’s a ‘landmark’ building?

Proposed development of 545 Station St (developer's render)

Whenever I see a proposal like this one (first exhibit), I have to remind myself that architectural taste is a very subjective matter. People like different things. One man’s meat is another man’s poison, etc etc.

But if I were the developer, this is not the look I’d be going for. Residents and Councillors in Australia tend to have mainstream taste and this looks like it’s bound to provoke opposition. I’m not sure what it evokes but I have an image in my mind’s eye of Darth Vader’s Super Star Destroyer or maybe Mukesh Ambani’s new house .

The proposal is from the Barton Group & AXF Group. It’s for a 109 metre high, 33 storey tower in suburban Box Hill, Melbourne. It comprises 275 apartments with 238 parking spaces, plus shops, restaurants and a function centre with 53 shared parking spaces (more detail here).

Like the proposal in Bundoora I discussed last week, it seems like a perfect and obvious fit with the location. It’s in one of Melbourne’s six suburban Central Activities Areas, which sit at the top of the activity centres hierarchy and aspire to be mini CBDS.

The site is large (2,417 sq m) and currently used as a car park. It’s zoned for intensive development and has a valid planning permit, issued in 2004, for a 23 storey building with an additional seven levels of basement car parking.

Box Hill is served by a tram line and the Melbourne to Lilydale-Belgrave rail line. The site is right beside the existing public transport interchange. The number of parking spaces averages just under one per apartment.

A major development on this site could improve pedestrian linkages, help “activate” dead street frontages (see the Centro centre next door to the site!) and help establish Box Hill as a major centre.

Efficient use of a premium location like Box Hill demands that appropriate sites be developed at high density. I don’t have an in-principle problem with the proposed height of the building, provided traditional planning concerns like over-shadowing, wind and local traffic can be addressed satisfactorily.

Some argue that high-rise isn’t necessary – similar densities, they say, can be achieved with lower buildings configured differently. That could work with a very large development area such as Fishermans Bend, but it overlooks the fact there’s a multiplicity of sites and owners in a place like Box Hill. Moreover, each prospective site has a peculiar history – there are differing planning obligations and expectations associated with each one.

The proponents work hard in their submission to Council to emphasise the building will not be as visually prominent from a distance as most would assume. Surprisingly, they make a good case, but I’d quite like to see a prominent building in Box Hill, or two, or three!

Melbourne’s suburban sprawl lacks much in the way of visual interst – it’s boring and monotonous. That’s because it’s flat, because the major roads lack a sense of containment, because the key intersections don’t have a sense of occasion, and more.

In the absence of a mountain or two, a visible cluster of well-designed buildings would be a very welcome addition to an otherwise boring skyline. Melburnians are suspicious of tall buildings though, so it’s vital any building that breaks the mould of flatland has wide appeal.

That’s where I’m not convinced by this proposal. It looks awfully heavy and squat to my taste. It’s also overly fussy. It’s like a painting the artist knows isn’t quite there, so he keeps adding bits and pieces in the hope it’ll serendipitously all come together.

There are some interesting ideas and parts to the building but to my eye they don’t all come together as a whole. I feel the tower should be slimmer, more elegant, more urbane and less of a pastiche of materials and forms. Above all, it should feel lighter, not so much like a medieval castle.

But that’s just how I feel – my subjective opinion. What worries me more is I fear this design won’t garner the sort of widespread acceptance the Eureka Tower acquired in spite of its visiblity.

I can’t find anything in the documentation to suggest the proponents or their architects have tested the external look of the building on either potential buyers or the sorts of people who typify the neighbours.

If that’s right I’m astonished – apart from minimising the risk associated with an investment of hundreds of millions, if you’re going to be this obvious in the suburbs of Melbourne, you need to look very, very good. And I don’t mean by the standards of the architectural community. You need to look extraordinarily good to buyers and the wider community, because they’re the ones who’ll decide if this building gets up.

Postscript: It’s interesting to note the proponents say in their planning assessment report that under Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme, their proposal requires more than a thousand parking spaces: 550 for the dwellings; 443 for restaurants; and 93 for shops. They are therefore seeking a reduction in the rate of required parking.

22

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



  • 1
    Anderson Paul
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    Really enjoy your articles Alan – and again I agree, this is a great site for a development and we need more higher density projects, however this is an “eye sore” plain and simple.

  • 2
    suburbanite
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

    My first impression was that it looked completely out of scale, like the hovering space ships in District 9. The building isn’t pretty, but it does have a kind overwrought cyberpunk appeal, with the yellow bits at the top making it look perpetually under-construction which is what the CBD is, why not formalise it into a design. After looking at it a few times I don’t really mind it.

  • 3
    MDMConnell
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    I tend to think that somewhere like Box Hill would benefit more from a large number of low-rise high-density developments that are a better “fit” and better integrated into the overall town centre. One or two high rise towers that stick awkwardly out of nowhere and are completely ill-fitting don’t really please anybody.

    True, there may be limited sites for development at the moment, which may affect “integration” to some extent. But there are quite large tracts of car park and under-utilised land around the shopping centre that could form part of a more extensive development.

  • 4
    boscombe
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    “taste is a very subjective matter. People like different things.”

    But there’s also educated and uneducated taste. The building is a dud, like most Australian buildings, because the developers are philistines. Barbarians. Carpetbaggers.

    I couldn’t live with a tower like that within a mile of me because I’d look up, from my once private yard, and see windows, and wonder if anyone with binoculars was looking down at me. But if I had to live in Box Hill, I’d rather they bulldozed the street and created an avenue of towers – ugly though they would undoubtedly be. You look at that picture above and don’t know whether you’re Arthur or Martha – it’s a scene that doesn’t make aesthetic sense.

  • 5
    wilful
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    I don’t know what this new style in architecture is called, Hong Kong Highrise Tenement perhaps? I’m pretty happy and willing to consider modern architecture that breaks a few moulds here are there, tries something new, but that building jsut looks confused, busy and basically ugly.

    But, is planning to be the ruler or architecture? This is a perfect site for a highrise development, I hope something decent does get built here.

  • 6
    Alan Davies
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    Another building this proposal puts me in mind of: Qld’s Parliamentary Annexe in Brisbane. Then there’s any number of buildings from the 60s and70s in the ‘brutalist’ style.

  • 7
    Karl
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    “Whenever I see a proposal like this one (first exhibit), I have to remind myself that architectural taste is a very subjective matter. People like different things. One man’s person’s meat is another man’s persons’s poison, etc etc.”

    Let’s keep it PC please Alan. ;)

    Karl: You’re wrong there, Karl, I’m very politically correct on this score! If you look back over other posts you’ll see I alternate between using “she” and “he” when I use the device of an imaginary person (although I probably err towards “she” and “her”). In this case I conciously went with “man” because that’s the way the saying is commonly known. I’m confident enough in my correctness not to have to be silly about it! AD

  • 8
    Sue B
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Box Hill is a great place for a high rise like this. Can’t really object to it just because it’s a high rise (though I myself would prefer if they built four-floor walk-ups if they want to infill because they are far less intrusive on the neighbours and also much less expensive without a lift from a corporate body standpoint).

    What I object to is the appalling design of it. It looks like it’s still under construction. If that’s what they think people are willing to look at PERMANENTLY, well they need to think again. Even before the height aspect of it is addressed, locals will riot over the ugliness of the design. And THEN they will raise a fuss about the height.

  • 9
    Elizabeth Meredith
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    This proposal is inappropriate -too high, and poor architecture, and in an inappropriate position – at the corner of two streets that are often at gridlock already. Even Justin madden called in a smaller proposal for this site!!
    Box Hill can do with some buildings around 9 levels, but say, on Whitehorse Road.

    Leo

  • 10
    Holden Back
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    Maybe it’s a decoy scheme?

  • 11
    melburnite
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    Fussy, clunky, tricksy, messy – I bet they ‘broke down the volume’ in order for it too look less massive, but it makes it more of an aethetic assault; they probably reacted to reactions to previous design (a few years ago) that was probably said to be ‘too monumental’ (lots of probables there I know).

    Box Hill great place for larger things, higher density, but should be part of master plan with sites for more at various scales, not just one monster – unless its somehow beautiful which of course is hard to manage to everyone’s satisfaction. But if this one gets up and is successful, then wont be long till another one just as huge is proposed, probably next door….

  • 12
    Bill Parker
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    LEGO comes to mind.

  • 13
    Krammer56
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

    Alan, I suspect they did consult potential purchasers if the yellow is actually meant to be gold, a favourite of asian buyers – for good luck I think?? You may recall the dissatisfaction in 2005 when buyers promised gold features on a Melbourne CBD development were disappointed with a plain yellow colouring.

    However, I do agree it’s certainly not a pretty building. But beauty is in the eye of the (most senior) beholder. In this case, that will be the purchasers of the apartments. Given the current financial conditions it won’t proceed unless they have pre-sold nearly 100% of the building, so the look will need to appeal to many hundreds of apartment and office buyers. I suspect it won’t!

  • 14
    hk
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

    Hopefully someone will consider design modifications to reduce wind gusts at the base. Such an isolated and high tower will play havoc with amenity at the base. The simplest design change, if any thought is to be given to the walkers at street level, is to reduce the proposed building height.

    hk: The proponents claim the car parking levels in the podium are expressly designed to ameliorate wind issues at ground level. They have porous walls – I’ve no idea how effective this would be. AD

  • 15
    wilful
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    a plain yellow colouring.

    More like poo brown. The place on the corner of Docklands way and Lorimer street with a brown box placed awkwardly on the top.

  • 16
    jeremy jose
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    I live less than a km from the site and agree that it’s a perfect location for it. You can hardly get more integrated with an existing public transport and shopping/residential/educational hub than this and I imagine there could be a lot of demand for apartments in the area.

    I’m not a huge fan of the design aesthetically, but if useful and presumably commercially attractive buildings only ever got built because they passed some public veto based on visual appeal then nothing would get built, and it’s certainly not so offensive as to be able to reasonably object to it.

  • 17
    Selah Selah
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    I agree with many other posters. It’s a perfect site for development (and I look forward to Box Hill being dotted with towers), but the design is all wrong. It looks cheap and the yellow boxes on top make the building look like it’s still under construction. I’m excited about this first major development in Box Hill, but for the sake of the wider appeal you mention, I hope the designers return to the drawing board.

  • 18
    f s
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    I grew up in Box Hill in the 70′s & 80′s and even though I don’t live to far, I avoid the place as it has degenerated into a shopping precinct dominated by cheap 2 dollar shops. It lost it’s lustre many years ago. The Council have tried to improve the Main & Market Street Malls to no avail. Box Hill needs this site to be redeveloped although the proposal lacks any architectural merit. If this development is going to be taller than what most people are comfortable with, then it should set the ‘bar’ high when it comes to Architecture therefore becoming a landmark building that sets the benchmark for further development. Unfortunately this proposal is out of scale and a poor design. It reminds me of the apartment developments in Southbank and the northern end of Swanston Street. Residents of Box Hill deserve better!

  • 19
    michael r james
    Posted June 11, 2012 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    When I first glanced at it, I too thought it was the Ambani building–though not as dramatic with its odd counterlevered floors etc. Of course “pastiche” is de rigueur these days, and there are definitely too many straight lines in this local design for it to measure up; look at all those horizontal balconies–they really need to be at whacky angles! (Of course those angles add a lot of cost in engineering etc. as anyone who has commissioned a showcase building from Frank Gehry knows.)

    I also agree that there is something reminiscent of the Qld Parliamentary Annex, and that should be a major red flag since that thing was an eyesore the day it was completed and even worse today. It has the wonderful rotting concrete ascetic because it has that 70s pebble-dash preformed concrete walls. (Aside: one wonders and shudders in anticipation, of what Campbell Newman will allow/encourage his developer buddies to do now that he is going to sell of whatever buildings in George Street the government owns. More shades of Bjelke every day!)

    Like AD I am not against bold designs that do not necessarily immediately appeal. Witness the Brisbane Square redevelopment with its pod-like podium-level parts and decidedly uninspired rainbow colours (sheesh that was all played out in the 70s, no?). A lot of Brisbanites don’t like the building–either the low podium structures (nice library inside though) or the hi-rise above it all. However with time I think it does ok for the site and the area is lively enough at ground level (those open plazas are a real risk of dead zones; seems to have been avoided here). It will probably age ok too.

    But, as usual in contrast to AD, I do object to the height. As MDMConnell (at 10:37 pm) says, it is completely out of scale with the area. And if fs (at 7.57pm) says about the area is correct, this kind of building will not improve the ambience. Now, I suppose you can say that the area is about to change and eventually there will be a lot of similar size buildings. Well, I would still object and for the same reasons AD knows well. One does not need hi-rise to achieve the objective of density. It is simply NOT needed. And low-rise, up to about 8 floors, has proven nice features in a dozen great cities around the world.

    But Australians and Australian city planners do not get it. Or more likely the developers do not like the concept–they can make much more profit from a project by going high. To create a successful TOD the city and planners need to designate a zone around the T (transport hub)–from a few hundred m up to about 500m or more, all depending on exact context (and political art of the possible). This zone needs to have strict design rules which in my perfect world would be a height limit of 8 floors (but it can be built to the property line, unlike hi-rise which must have set-backs) and a MINIMUM of 8 floors, with ground floor of 1.5 normal height. This will create the desired density AND eventually a pleasing harmonious cityscape. And of course the aforementioned nice living environment with lots of small local shops, cafes, restos, markets and enough ground floor space for commercial stuff like doctors, offices etc.

    But Australians are a weird mob. They should do one of those SBS type docos (Go back to where you came from) with a bunch of people and take them to live in, oh say Paris, Barcelona, Upper West Side NYC (which is mostly low-rise, Friends/Seinfeld territory), versus say, Melbourne Docklands, some outer-HK New Town hi-rise cluster or the medium-rise cluster in Lower East Side NYC (slum projects but pretty good on location!). I am pretty confident of their final preference–despite those ritzy Dockland apartments.

  • 20
    Dudley Horscroft
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

    “Wilful” asks what style it is. Bill Parker (and AD) has the answer – it is LEGO BRUTAL. To be preferred to NCDC brutal, I suppose.

    Karl is definitely wrong re the saying, and so is Alan. “Man”, “he”, “him”, and “his” are all both masculine and generic nouns/pronouns/adhjectives. So whenever you are referring to a large number of people, or even one person of whom you don’t know the sex, the correct words to use are the generics “Man”, “he”, “him”, and “his”. Remember “words have gender, people have sex” – so when you come across a badly worded form asking for your gender, cross that word out and write “sex”. The alternative version of the saying is “One man’s fish is another man’s poisson.”

    Back to topic – the tower is ideally sited, and if anything it is too small, at only 33 stories. Here on the Gold Coast the Q1 residential tower is, IIRC, 81 stories, and it does not look excessively high or overpowering or absurd. Looks far better than the Lego Brutal look of the Box Hill tower.

    My big beef is in the final paragraph: “their proposal requires more than a thousand parking spaces: 550 for the dwellings; 443 for restaurants; and 93 for shops. They are therefore seeking a reduction in the rate of required parking.” The reduction proposed is to 226 car spaces for the 275 residential apartments (including 4 share car spaces) and 12 motorbike spaces, with 53 car spaces for the shops and restaurants. This is considered to be “appropriate” in the Planning Assessment Report from SJB Planning P/L. The number of bicycle spaces for residents is more than trebled, from 55 required to 179. Given these massive changes from the ‘statutory requirements’, one must question if the “requirements” are reasonable.

    Perhaps developers should be allowed to make up their own minds as to the number of car spaces they should provide. Will Whitehorse Council accept the Planning Assessment Report? Would other Councils be willing to be completely flexible? If so, why bother with ‘requirements’?

  • 21
    David Ruffler
    Posted April 1, 2013 at 12:50 am | Permalink

    I am going to “ruffle” some feathers here with a short and (not so) sweet comment!

    Some of you will take it as “racial” and if so…well that’s your choice…so be it!

    It certainly is not intended to BE a racial comment per se!

    I just want to observe that THAT is one God-damed UGLY building and is totally out of “character” for Box Hill and is not at ALL in keeping with the surrounding architecture, nor the Landsacpe in general!

    Also…If one that size and height gets built…that will be the START of a never-ending “swarm” of high-rise monstrosities invading the area!

    Someone commented above that it reminded them of a “Star Wars” ship…well to ME it brings back memories of the Tripods in “War Of The Worlds” and actually looks to a degree…”menacing”! It truly is Butt-Ugly!

    However…since 90% of the people who actually LIVE in Beijing…sorry, I mean Box Hill…since 90% of the People are Chinese, you can guarantee that if THAT buiding shape/size/look actually appeals to Chinese people…it WILL get built!

    End of story…and I feel qualified to comment, because I actually LIVE in Box Hill myself!

  • 22
    Alan Davies
    Posted October 28, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    The developers have prepared a revised proposal

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...