butter paper australasia : greaseproof architecture links 2000 - 2014

news in all places

533 hand-picked results
...

narrow to country

Finding planes see more

I’ve spent a little time taking part in the aerial web search for the missing plane, MH370. Here are a few useful links I’ve found, and tips if you’re considering having a go. It’s good to have Photoshop or Gimp on hand… as well as an internet connection.

tomnod screenshot
TOMNOD screenshot

  • TOMNOD MH370 grid search: link
  • Boeing 777-200 safety card, with emergency slide positions: link
  • Boeing 777 liferaft information: link and then scroll
  • Boeing 777 product page: link
  • Boeing 777 drawings with dimensions: link
  • Malaysian Air livery: search at google images.

Step 1: Scan the aerial photos -TOMNOD will drop you somewhere in the Indian Ocean and you can navigate from there. You can create a login to keep track, but it’s optional. Bear in mind that the scale is small, the ruler at the bottom should give you an idea of the approximate size of a 777 (63.7m long with a 60.9m wing span). Remember the aircraft may have broken up so also keep an eye open for yellow octagonal liferafts and grey slide-rafts. Also note that these images were taken a few days later. When you think you’ve seen something…

Step 2: Screenshot the area of interest (on a mac hold command+shift+control+4) and paste it into a new photoshop document. Zoom in. Adjust the levels to darken it a bit. If you think it’s a contender, enlarge the image two or three times.

Step 3: Paste in the plane plan from the boeing link above and scale to the correct size using the ruler. If it still looks like a possibility, use the TOMNAD controls to register the location.

Here’s my example. It’s from the upper left of map 114154. I thought I found some liferafts nearby too, but it’s always going to be a long shot.

plane search method

19.03.14 in random-debris 

comment

page listing related:  
 

Problems see more

The site was shifted today to a new server and there are a few problems. Sorry about that, attempting to fix them all now. The new server is running slightly different software causing some scripts to choke.

Update: the frontend problems are hopefully just limited to the forum now. As for the backend..

27.02.14 in random-debris 

comment

page listing related:  
 

Pruitt Igoe - the film see more

You know the photos and the footage. In case you don’t here it is, complete with prevailing attitude courtesy of Robert Hughes.

According to Hughes, “every sort of Corbusian amenity” did not “improve” the tenants, who ripped it apart. I’ve been waiting a while for the film “The Pruitt-Igoe Myth” to become available and now it is, and for a short while (until mid February) it’s streaming freely on the web at World Channel.

Spoilers follow
As the film will only be up for a short time, and because I can’t stop thinking about it, here’s a very quick run down.

It wasn’t Corbusier who killed this St Louis project. Or Minoru Yamasaki. Tenants initially loved the place – and its cleanliness. It was a far cry from the toxic inner city slums they left. But it wasn’t a popular development with local politicians, bankers and developers – they didn’t mind helping to construct it with federal funds but it had no use to them after that. So there were no funds to maintain the giant complex – all operational costs had to be paid out of the tenants’ rent.

The estate was built in 1952 to cater to an optimistic population explosion in St Louis that never came to pass. Not only did St Louis’s population steadily decrease from then on, it also spread out as the suburban dream took hold. As elsewhere, the city started to empty and rents dropped. Pruitt Igoe was not full, and could not be maintained with the rents of those who remained.

There were good reasons for people to move out and back into private dwellings if they could, but they weren’t architectural. Public housing, according to the film, was a sort of punishment for being poor and you weren’t allowed to forget it. Able-bodied men were not allowed in, so families had to separate to gain access. Fathers were occasionally smuggled in and frequently had to hide in closets. If that doesn’t sound punitive enough, how about the ban on telephones and televisions in the early years?

As the complex deteriorated physically and socially, vandalism increased and drug lords took over empty buildings. Emergency services refused to go anywhere near it. It’s a sobering tale, but its fault lay more with its city fathers and its size, rather than its architecture. This film tells the story well, from the tenants’ point of view.

Also:
Why they built the Pruitt Igoe project Alexander von Hoffman
Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University.
Pruitt Igoe Now 2012 competition.

04.02.14 in urban-planning films

comment

Melbourne: why parts of it are starting to feel like Hong Kong  see more

by contributor Rohan Storey

Having worked in the fringes of the planning industry since the early 1990s, especially dealing with big projects in the central city, I now have to concede that all that I thought was good about planning in the city area has now basically gone.

Podiums are out of fashion, and wind effects, not to mention tower setbacks from each other, and cumulative shadowing of streets (when the tower is on the north side anyway) seem not to be a concern. Tall skinny towers on small sites exacerbate all these issues. My take is more political than architectural, but both are in the mix for driving the changes that will soon make parts of our city very dense indeed, in a way quite the opposite of the vision set down in the 1980s, and still, supposedly, in force. Amongst many other things that was a vision that saw the comfort of the pedestrian as primary, and so encouraged towers setback above people-scaled (and heritage-building scaled) podiums, which also avoided the notorious wind effects towers in Melbourne create, and spaced enough to ensure some sunlight made it to streets level.

Vision, 500 Elizabeth Street
Vision, 500 Elizabeth Street, 72 floors

I was shocked when images started appearing of designs of tall no-setback towers, because I knew that the City of Melbourne Urban Design Guidelines stated that a podium should be included – but I realised that since 1999, with the introduction of new-format ‘performance-based’ Planning Schemes, it’s not mandatory, it’s ‘policy’. The same thing happened to plot-ratio, the tool that most cities use to encourage or force good design and control densities – it was made into policy, and applied only per-block rather than per-site, and now it’s simply ignored.

The other big change in the last 10 years was that most of these towers, suddenly it seemed to me, were so tall they were over 25,000 sqm, and so were dealt with by the Department of Planning, not the City of Melbourne. The Department has its own culture, and under Justin Madden started allowing no-setback towers from the early 2000s, without a peep from the City of Melbourne, or at least noises that anyone could hear. The City of Melbourne didn’t help by starting a trend – issuing a permit in 2001 for the silly apartments-on-the-boundary on Wills Street that is now causing problems for next door. The Department at the same time permitted the BHP Billiton tower with no setback on Lonsdale Street, and Elenberg Fraser’s Liberty Tower on Spencer & Collins, with no podium to speak of and no setback on Collins Street. Looking back, they were the first relatively minor breaches of the guidelines.

Then came the towers on ever smaller blocks – perhaps this was pushed by developers, or by architects as developers, or by architects using new technologies to assist developers to maximise site potential. They were also assisted by a lack of concern from the Department who apparently had only minimal requirements, and soon developed a culture of more and taller is better, perhaps mixed with an admiration for all the glassy wibbly-wobbly designs (which I quite like actually, assuming they turn out as glamorous as the renderings) and didn’t see any problems with wind effects, street overshadowing, or tower spacing. They probably started off with a vague notion that towers in the central city should get some slack because it’s the best place for them, and will slow urban sprawl (though they obviously aren’t), but certainly under Mr Guy’s leadership, the intention is now that they will take the pressure off the leafy middle suburbs (where now a 3 or 4 storey height limit will soon apply over most of those leafy streets).

Phoenix Apartments
Phoenix Apartments in contrsuction, Flinders Street. When complete 29 floors (reduced from 41). VCAT approved following council rejection.

The Department has its own culture because they do everything without scrutiny. They rarely get challenged by public submissions, since there are rarely dedicated residents or businesses nearby who can make professional submissions, there are no meetings to attend, and the CBD is an everything-goes zone anyway, so no possibility of VCAT. In fact the Department has been surprised on occasion when I said I wanted to make a submission!

So it has merrily gone on its own way, ignoring all the Urban Design Guidelines about podiums, tower spacing and plot ratio. The CBD is in the process of being dotted with towers with no or minimal podiums, some very close to other towers (or each other) that themselves were built too close to side boundaries, many in the 10m wide ‘little’ streets, or even smaller lanes, some even facing each other, and a big cluster between the Vic Market and RMIT, and of course Southbank. These little sections of our city are indeed going to look Hong Kong-ish pretty soon, though a bit zippier. But these no-or-practically no setback towers are now creeping into the city proper, like the giant 35 Spring Street, and Tower Melbourne. Collins Street will be next, and there goes years of careful planning that has retained a low scale streetscape, with setback towers in the most part. In the future, only the height limited heritage-listed precincts of the city will still feel like ‘Melbourne’, assuming those controls aren’t dumped as well …….

Rohan Storey

26.10.13 in urban-planning 

comment

There are worse places to become like…at least Hong Kong has character! Though I do of course see your point

by Ben on 6 February 14 ·#

And then the pause see more

For anyone still happening to pass by here of their own volition, it’s been a little quiet. Blogging is a funny thing. You start off wanting to share anything you touch, then after a certain number of years you become much more selective. And interrogative. That seems to be the case here. The short pithy posts you will find on social media, here I’m now trying to do something more. You’ll see the most of the posts this year are quite long – in fact they took several months to put together – I’m not sure how the likes of Geoff Manuagh et al manage to do them so swiftly, but I seem to take my time.

There are in fact about five or even ten posts simmering away that I have written, and a couple by others. I will get to them eventually. I think they are pretty interesting. It’s perhaps a luxury of a problem – I get too busy at work and my “to do” list gets a lot longer than my arm, and this blog ends up trailing at the end, waiting for some attention. I end up doing paid work that is very similar to what I do here for nowt.

I am thinking of terminating the events section, which takes a lot of time for little response, and making this more of a ‘pure’ blog. Others are now in the fray doing that ‘current events’ stuff more effectively, with salaried people. Not sure where I’ll end up with this, but I’m afraid it ain’t going to stop for a while.

Thought burst over. Hopefully a real post soon.

17.10.13 in random-debris 

comment

page listing related:  
 

The missing link see more

The term “missing link” was originally applied to old fossils. It’s fitting that it is now being used to describe Melbourne’s East West Link. This little project has been floating about since the 1950s, but in it’s current form it can be traced back to a suggestion from Premier Jeff “the quiff” Kennett in 1999. It’s been looked into since, but has always been a political impossibility, and a waste of money… until now. The planets are aligning and Dr Napthine and Tony Abbott can see the project’s “electoral” potential. As long as it’s sold in the right way to the right voters. These voters live in Melbourne’s East, in some of the most marginal electorates in the country. They’re been tempted with a big carrot – a faster run down the Eastern Freeway in the morning rush. We’re told that this run has slowed down 20kph since 2001, which is true, but only because there was a short-lived speed spike in 2001 after the opening of City Link.

Once they’ve had their leisurely drive on the Eastern, most of our drivers will land straight back into the usual traffic jams. There are no tunnel exits along Alexandra Parade, where most drivers continuing beyond Hoddle Street turn North or South. It’s the lucky one in 5, or 1 in 10 depending on where you read, attempting to journey beyond Royal Parade who will now have the option of driving through the $6 – $8B tolled tunnel, saving quite a few minutes. The lucky tunnel drivers may be a little intimidated when they realise they’ll be sharing these tunnels with the B-double and B-triple trucks for whom this expensive short cut is really being built (an East West planner told me so). Imagine what it would be like to drive between two of these road beasts in a tunnel…


A B-triple up close

These trucks currently haul their freight between the ports and industrial hubs using CityLink, the Monash, and Westgate bridge. The growing number of container trucks enables our collective preference for cheap imported goods over locally-manufactured ones. By weight, imports at the Ports of Melbourne far outweigh exports. Most are from China, and many are cars. Most attract no import tariffs. Demand is straining the ports’ capacity to deal with its cargo. The East West Link’s purpose is to redistribute some of this load from CityLink and the over-stretched Westgate Bridge. It’s odd that they’re starting at the Eastern end, as the Westgate is over in the West.

Freight through Port of Melbourne

Just before they left office in 2010, Labor announced that West Link construction would start by 2014, though they hadn’t found the money. The newly elected Liberals swapped the start point over to the Eastern end without much explanation. It’s pretty easy to guess the main reason…

2010 electoral results map
2010 state election results map showing East West Stage 1 (wikipedia)

You’d expect oddities like this to be made sense of in the business case. But the short form business case issued to Infrastructure Australia is a promotional brochure containing some rather hopeful numbers and, oddly, lots of photos of trams. The most optimistic number, and the most important, is 1.4. This is the benefit-cost ratio that pushes East West Link just ahead of the Metro Rail project (1.2). West Link was only 1.16. Quite how the benefits came to be this high isn’t explained. The clue is in the small print. This BCR contains within it “Wider Economic Benefits” for the state. This is naughty, as the BCR required by Infrastructure Australia is meant to be for the project alone – otherwise it gets very difficult to compare apples. Allan Davies at Crikey has found that the figures don’t even add up. The case was submitted after the deadline, after announcing that Easy West would proceed, and after securing a $1.5B starter fund pledge from federal opposition leader Tony Abbott. If the Coalition win next month’s election, Infrastructure Australia has been bypassed.

Infrastructure Australia’s current head honcho is Rod Eddington, who under a different hat wrote the influential 2008 report recommending the East West Link. He knows more about the big picture than the state government, and he well knows what’s wrong with this version of his project – the more important Western end has been neglected, and his integrated rail improvements have been omitted completely. That last one will be particularly grating for Eddington, as he went to great pains in his 2008 report to point out that for Melbourne’s transport system, no action on rail was not an option. He found that suburban rail improvements cannot start until the CBD has the capacity to absorb the extra trains, which is what Metro Rail is there to do.

In mid August, Premier Napthine finally got behind Metro Rail, though he did say he didn’t like the name. Tony Abbott however remains against it: “We will not be committing to the Metro Rail scheme, I’ve made that absolutely crystal clear”.

Based on the costs of Perth’s rail line down the middle of the Kwinana Freeway, a rail line running from Victoria Park along the Eastern’s median to Doncaster could be built for $894M. An extra $300M would take it through to Parkville and Metro Rail, and provide the only East West rail in the city. Instead parts of this median will become asphalt, limiting future rail options.

“Manningham has a population comparable with Geelong, but while Geelong
has a frequent train service to the city with 160 kilometre an hour trains,
Manningham residents have no such service. They also face a longer journey by bus if they choose not to use their cars.” Professor Bill Russell, Unimelb ABP

Then and now, across Melbourne’s road network.

  2001 2011
Population 3.5M 4.1M
Vehicle kms 23.5 billion 27.5 billion
Truck kms 1.7B 2.1B
Avg. car speed, AM peak 37kph 35kph
Avg. tram speed, AM peak 15.2kph 15.0kph
AM rush duration 1.75 hrs 2.75hrs
People per car, AM peak 1.20 1.12
Road traffic increase 120%
Public transport increase 160%

{ sources: vicroads and charting transport }

Traffic (per day, both directions)
Westgate Bridge: 170K, growing at 2.1%
Eastern Freeway at Hoddle St: 135k, growing at 1.8%p.a.
{source: The Age }

This project will increase traffic on the Eastern Freeway, providing an alternative to the M1. Here’s a live traffic map from right now, at 6.55pm on a Friday illustrating why this might be required.

Melbourne traffic on a Friday night in August
Google Maps + traffic overlay

Google Maps now allows you to display average traffic flows from any time of the day or week. It’s a powerful and accurate tool that lets us take a closer look at the Eastern Freeways traffic problem. The “slow = red” problem on the inner Eastern is a little hard to find, as it only gets bad between 8.00 a.m. and 8.15 a.m. from Monday to Thursday. I’m sure those stuck in it will have a different perspective.

So who is stuck in it? Recent monitoring tell us that 80% of morning car commuters are travelling alone – this percentage has increased about four percent since the government discontinued car pooling initiatives. 70% (not a typo) of freeway drivers in the morning rush aren’t going to work, they’re dropping kids at school, or going to the gym. 17% are off to off to the shops or to play, compared to 3% 35 years ago. The current government is keen for all these drivers to stay in their cars as they offer no demand-side initiatives to lower vehicle use, their sole focus is to supply more road for them. This only buys a little more time.

There is a small, quietly announced element of the East West Link that doesn’t defy common sense. Traffic lights and variable speed limits are to be installed along the Eastern Freeway. This will relieve congestion, for a while. This is about all that is being done that’s of direct benefit for the bulk of commuters driving into town. Outbound drivers will get a new bridge to drive over or under. It won’t improve travel times a jot but it will be a lasting “cheese sticks” monument to Premier Napthine.

They’ve already tried traffic calming measures on the M1 (Monash), as part of the recent improvements. The tollway flowed more freely for a while – now it’s back to where it was. This is the way it works – make a road faster and more people will opt to use it instead of arterial roads or trains, slowing it back down till it is barely tolerable.

A government that says it’s broke and can’t fund TAFE is throwing all its coins (and more) into a new road that will benefit few for not very long. Infrastructure Australia classifies it as a freight project yet it’s being sold as a commuter congestion fixer. In committing to this, other more urgent projects are put in the back seat (post 2020). It’s this last effect that makes East West Link a good example of a vote-driven government that is blind to the big picture.

This brief summary of events hardly scrapes the surface. There is more to this argument than the “trains vs. tolls” placards tell us. Being a fat line through the inner North of Melbourne, the East West Link touches on many issues beyond its immediate neighbourhood. I believe they are all important and affect how we will dwell in this city in the future.

I have brutally compacted some of the other chapters of the East West Link story below. These are extracted from a 6000 word post that got a little out of control.

  • The often stated 20km speed drop on the freeway over the period 2001 to 2011… is not. The 2001 figure spiked, probably due to the opening of CityLink. Less dramatic figures are found for the period 2002 to 2012.
  • Traffic estimates for the new tunnel (80 – 100,000 per day) would require significant extra traffic on the Eastern Freeway.
  • The Linking Melbourne has private evidence that, “most of the traffic is trying to get across town”. This evidence contradicts all other reports and monitoring.
  • In 2003, 37% of incoming freeway traffic turned South onto Hoddle Street. Using freedom of information laws, The Age obtained a recent study for the government and concludes from it that, “only a small proportion of the cars, trucks and buses clogging Hoddle Street are likely to use the tunnel as an alternative if there are no off-ramps to the city.” There are no on or off-ramps proposed except in Royal Park.
  • The tunnel would reduce Alexandra Parade traffic only negligibly and temporarily as 90% of it is not making the full trip across to Flemington Road.
  • Options to lessen the Eastern Freeway congestion through time-of-day congestion charges are not being examined.
  • Peak hour traffic has doubled since the Seventies. The morning peak is now much greater than the afternoon peak, being heavily concentrated around 8.30 a.m. The afternoon has a double peak now due to school pickups, which generate more trips than evening commutes. Initiatives to spread the morning peak don’t exist.
  • All-day traffic on Alexandra Parade has been steadily decreasing since 2002.
  • The stated aim of easing congestion does not take into account unlocking latent demand.

“It is not evident that the impact of the East West Link on future traffic congestion levels has to date been adequately analysed and assessed.” Auditor General, April 2013

  • Increases in traffic are driven in part by land use decisions in the outer suburbs, which do not take into account their affect on the greater road network.
  • Traffic congestion’s effect on productivity is a reason for the project, yet public transport congestion is not shown the same respect. There is an assumption here that public transport can’t assist economic growth, yet the concentration of jobs can’t occur without it. The industries most favoured by this proposal, manufacturing and transport, are the only two that grow better without job agglomeration. They are also the two poorest performing industries in the country.
  • The funding model for the project places the risk with the taxpayer, and prevents private operators from profiting from traffic increases. The operator, should one be found willing to accept the conditions – will build the road and then be its caretaker.
  • All new transport infrastructure in Victoria needs to be assessed using the Transport Integration Act (2010) framework. The Act requires a triple bottom line assessment. This would be interesting to see…
  • Making roads like this more free-flowing probably leads to a short term reduction in emissions, but this is soon cancelled out by increased patronage of the road.
  • Replacing the rail easement with new lanes at the Western end of the freeway is just startlingly short-sighted. Premier Napthine says this project is about “choices and options”, but not for rail.

The Property Council responded to Eddington’s report in 2008 by saying, “We are pleased that Sir Rod Eddington and his team have adopted what appears to be an integrated approach, which does not just provide for the construction of tunnels and roads but seeks to incorporate other improvements to our public transport network, while at the same time promoting alternatives like cycling as part of the solution to our traffic woes”.

  • In 2010 the government implemented four smart buses, optimisticly calling them “Doncaster Area Rapid Transit” (DART). While there is a transit lane on the Eastern Freeway, there is only a South-running one on Hoddle Street, where these buses travel. Crikey author Alan Davies writes that Transport Minister Mulder rejected a North-running one as it would require a clearway, a concept the government has some trouble with. Presently 10,700 DART customers are delayed 15 minute every evening so that 175 on-street car parks can be maintained.
  • Allan Davies (Crikey) recently calculated that subsidies to car travel are equal to those for public transport, but much harder to measure.
  • The argument for public transport isn’t helped by the dire state of the subsidised private system.
  • The Melbourne airport CEO has called for extra lanes on the busy Northern section of the Tullamarine, saying they’ll be immediately needed if the government doesn’t progress the airport rail link (which has been set back further by East West Link’s prioritisation).
  • In addition to the hundreds of private properties that will be flattened in Clifton Hill, Kensington and Moonee Ponds, several public parks, creeks and wetlands are heavily impacted upon.
  • An historic hand-cut railway cutting (GSA ML 69) in Royal Park, used for 120 years as a site for geological tuition, will be removed for the tunnel head. Also the hill behind it.
  • The main sewer for the North East runs along Alexandra Parade and Princes Street. It is a historic structure and will mostly be left intact by the tunnel, meaning that the tunnel will be built beneath housing on the North side of Princes Street.

Sewer along Alexandra Parade

  • The diesel truck-laden City of Maribyrnong, factored out of this project, has more than 20 cases of child respiratory illness requiring hospital admittance per capita, over ten times the figure for the Eastern suburbs.
  • The government is under pressure to find jobs to replace those vanishing on Peninsula Link and the Western Ring Road upgrade, but there appears not to be the same urgency to find jobs for rail builders once the Western regional rail upgrade is complete.
  • Eastern drivers will benefit from the next project in the pipeline – to connect the Eastern Freeway to the Western Ring Road, probably going under the Bulleen wetlands.
  • In 2009 the Labor state government voted in the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Bill, which allows the usually check and balances to be bypassed in the interest of cost and efficiency.

The RACV, in response to Eddington’s 2008 report, “Melbourne’s transport network remains incomplete and there is no comprehensive transport plan for the next 30 to 40 years to provide a context and direction for ongoing developments.” They supported an East West tunnel as part of a multimodal solution, major components of which were to strength cross-town public transport and improvements to rail freight.

Melbourne 2040 - new inner roads
VicRoads wet dream for 2040 – six lane arterial roads connecting a whole lot of “missing links”.

Factual references available on request – there were too many to add.

20.08.13 in urban-planning cities

comment

Great, if deppressing stuff. Sydney road network history shows that roads authority wet dreams have a habit of coming true.

by Ross Turnbull on 20 August 13 ·#

Whereabouts is the diagram titled “VicRoads wet dream for 2040” from?

by Marcus Wong on 22 August 13 ·#

Marcus, ‘tis from here: http://www.theage.com.au/pdf/Melbourne2040.pdf – a 2012 leak.

by peter on 22 August 13 ·#

Wonderful analysis peter – so basically its to please truck operators and outer eastern suburban voters – though does anyone know whether those voters actually want it in its current form ? Only helps drivers get to airport or footscray quicker.

The thing that bugs me – besides the huge cost wrong priority and not only no rail but making it harder – is that the design is messy indeed, surely they looked at other possibly better designs / routes, but I guess we will never see them.

Cant help redesigning it in my head for instance having the main tunnell continue under the park and flem road and surface adjacent to exist citylink furtger south. More expensive but so much neater. And no new freeway even closer to that huge new apt tower and flem commission high-rise- theres already a sound barrier so if new one is even closer will it be totally enclosed ?

I wonder what paramters they used – probably least cost and least property purchase, so it comes out in the park (free space) rather than further away, also explains the only exit being in the park (with a crazy sunken intersection where one in and one out ‘ramp’ cross – traffic lights ???). Guess they thought all that use of parkland could be brazened out, but cut and cover in the park couldnt, though that would make far less expensive.

I feel like sketching out something thats really more of an arterial road with only a short tunnell under the cemetary – all thats needed is three continuous lanes all along, removing bottlenecks, make it faster tbrough traffic management rather than huge tunnell – widening elliott ave to three lanes each way would prob use less park than the current design !

So its all a fait accompli, instead of the commjnity being led through options – even in the us they often have hearings to discuss options. Its like moscow here – you will be purchased theres no options full stop.

by rohan on 14 September 13 ·#

page listing related:   in  Australia   Victoria   Melbourne  
 

Flinders Street maybes see more

For almost a hundred years, Melburnians have been looking at ways to better connect the city with the Yarra River, which had been rudely taken away from them by the Public Transport corporation. One story is well known, the drawn out Gas and Fuel to Federation Square saga. On the other side of the bridge, it’s been no less drawn out.

Who would have thought that less than two decades after the 1910 completion of Flinders Street station, there would have been calls to start again. That was in 1925, and the reason was congestion. The next attempt was in 1949, when James Alexander Smith proposed to rebuild it and roof over the railway yards. Again, that proposal didn’t take hold. In 1958 theatre architect Neville Hollinshed had a go. He was responsible for the Comedy, the Metro, Horsham Town Hall, and many other buildings. He wanted to see a new station, civic square, and public buildings there.

Neville Hollinshed's design for Melbourne rail yards.
N.Hollinshed, 1958

Woolbroker William Lempiere followed in 1961, and then a couple of years later came a plan that almost made it into being. As The Age described it in 1975 , 60 year old Keith Herbert Jones…

went to see the then Minister for Transport, Sir Arthur Warner, but was told by Sir Arthur to wait outside his office for a minute because he was expecting some idiot who wanted to talk about roofing in the Flinders Street yards.

“I said I was the idiot, but I wanted to roof in the whole station,” said Mr. Jones.

Jones created the scheme over many beers at the RACV club with an [unknown] architect friend. They, “sketched their ideas with their fingers in spilt beer on the bar.” How Australian is that?

Keith Jones' Flinders Street scheme
1963 scheme ( NAA )

The scheme roofed over the yards between Flinders and Queen Streets, demolished the existing station, and provided a new concourse along Swanston Street. a 60 storey skyscraper would grace the new development, surrounded by a shopping plaza podium. Other buildings and hotels would be scattered through the development, and a, “scenic drive on the bank of the Yarra [would extend] form Batman Avenue to Queen Street.”

A few years later in 1969, with the scheme now in the hands of Lend Lease, Local Government Minister Hamer gave the go ahead. After millions had been spent on planning, Transport Minister Meagher told The Age in 1975 that this one wouldn’t fail, as it had funding and parliamentary authority.

But the atmosphere was changing. The ALP, architects, the Anglican Church, the National Trust and retailers were raising concerns. The 1970s brought with it a new awareness about ‘heritage’, and the old buildings were no longer just seen as hindrances to progress.

After a long break, and some underwhelming renovations to the Swanston Street concourse in the 1980s and 90s, congestion was once again enough of a worry to look at a major rebuild. This time round it would have to be self-funded by private development over the tracks.

There is little controversy about the need to develop, as it is getting horribly busy down there, and the Flinders Street facade and dome will be retained. Skirmishes instead erupted over the cloaked way the competition was proceeding. In response to a breakaway initiative by Melbourne architects to hold an exhibition of Stage One entries, Major Projects Victoria issued a veiled threat to shortlisted winners, hinting that exhibiting may result in disqualification. That didn’t go down terribly well in the media, even being reported in ArchDaily.

Possibly addressing this lack of transparency, the latest press release from Major Projects Victoria, dated 23rd April, makes a great deal of the upcoming People’s Choice Awards. People may not have much time to make a choice though if MPV hold to their original programme, exhibiting the developed shortlisted entries on the internet for a short time this July.

“This level of public engagement is the first of its kind. To have a People’s Choice vote in an architectural competition is only fitting giving the importance of Flinders Street Station… We want everyone to have their say on the future of the station precinct.” David Hodgett

They don’t forget to mention that, thanks to Australian Institute of Architects competition guidelines, the jury can’t take any notice of the People’s Choice Award, though they may look at the comments later, “to inform future plans”.

To be continued

Search for previous related articles.

28.05.13 in competitions heritage

comment

To. Be continued?

by Matt wardell on 30 August 13 ·#

That fallen wall - part 3 see more

Perhaps read these first or things won’t make sense: FIRST POST SECOND POST

Late last week I received a batch of photographs taken in 2010 and 2011. The sender wishes to remain anonymous. This was something of a relief as I had been scouring the web looking for high resolution images taken of the rear of the wall – a mesmerising task. So thanks, whoever you are. Thanks also to the two others who have previously provided privately-held images of the wall.

Swanston Street CUB wall - rear view from malthouse
This photo, from a window high in the old maltstore, shows the September 2011 installation of super stops adjacent to the wall.

After staring at these new photos for a while, I wondered if the southern part of the wall was leaning a bit. The photographer remembers, “a slight outward lean of the wall at the time.” So I extended some vertical lines to vanishing point from several nearby buildings to see if I was right.


That showed the South end of the wall was on a lean, but I wasn’t convinced. As the adjacent lamp post is shown on a similar apparent lean I thought the lens was interfering. So I started again and used Photoshop’s new adaptive wide angle lens filter to horizontally correct the horizon, then vertically straighten the lamp post and the wall beneath it.

twisted pier
Having manipulated the perspective so that the lamp post was true, the Southernmost pilaster is still showing a bit of a twist or lean, of about 25mm. This probably isn’t surprising given the lack of restraint, brick expansion, and the three-sided exposure this part of the wall was receiving.

The following photos were all taken in late 2010.

Entire wall 2010
The Northern end of the wall, demolished on the night of March 28th.

Southern section of wall
The Southern half, after some site preparation work (removal of asphalt).

Swanston St wall - panel next to gate.
The brick panel next to the gate

Vamos-southern-section-of-wall
The next panel down, the northern end of the collapse. The gate bracket may have prevented further collapse, but it also caused local cracking. This panel was over-sprayed with new graffiti in early 2013.

North end of collapsed wall
A zoom, showing cracks under the gate bracket (red arrows), and the extent of the wall collapse (blue zig-zagged line).

View south along fallen wall
Southern panels. Note the missing capping bricks on the closest pilaster.

Two southern-most panels
Far Southern panels, note the capping brick that’s fallen away on the left.

swanston street wall cracks
Zoom of previous pic, to 100%. The cracks to the pilaster and end panel mentioned in the Herald Sub existed in 2010.

Cracks in Swanston St wall
Closer inspection of this new photo shows more cracking and lost mortar, especially in the last panel.

Piers vs. pilasters

The vertical columns are pilasters, not piers as I’ve previously described them. The U.S. Brick Industry Association defines a pilaster as, “simply an increase in effectiveness of a wall at a specific location”. Its effectiveness extends only six times the thickness of the wall (about 1.4m in this case), measured from the edge of the pilaster. The distance between each pilaster is about 4.4m, which would mean that the pilaster thickenings were not providing any benefit to a 1.6m span at the centre of each panel.

The authorities

A series of proposals for the site never came to fruition, being stymied by the economic jitters of October 1989 and October 2008. Things came close to happening in 2008, when the asphalting behind the wall was scraped up, and an archaeological dig took place.

The Capital City Zone 2 C126 amendment was issued that same year by the then Minister for Planning, Justin Madden. Apart from exempting the development from public notice and review (in the interests of speeding things up), it stated that a planning permit was not required for, “site preparation and retention works including security fencing, site offices, bulk excavation and piling, footings, ground beams and ground slabs”.

The site was the first major development in town to be “taken in” by the Minister for Planning, in 1989. After several permit applications in the 1990s and 2000s, in May 2012 the current minister issued another permit with conditions for Building 5, then going with the name “Portrait”.

The permit required the lodgement of a Construction Management Plan explaining how the developers would go about demolition and construction in a safe and considerate way.

“Prior to the commencement of the development, including demolition or bulk excavation, a detailed construction and demolition management plan must be submitted to and be approved by the Responsible Authority.”

Five months later in October, an updated planning permit was issued for the same development, in response to a new application by ARM Architecture on 5th June. Oddly, the revised requirement for a demolition management plan did not need to be lodged before demolition took place. Perhaps this had been deemed to have taken place already, or that it was too minor that it didn’t require a permit?

“Prior to the commencement of the development, excluding demolition or bulk excavation, a detailed construction and demolition management plan must be submitted to and be approved by the Responsible Authority.”

Grocon completed a Construction Management Plan for Stage 1, which is behind the maltstore and doesn’t include the street frontage.

The only hoarding application I could find was lodged in April 2003, at the City of Melbourne. It was withdrawn four days later. It was for the “erection of advertising on the existing hoarding.” No further details are available online.

The council released a carefully-worded statement on Tuesday. Here’s an excerpt:

“We can confirm that the City of Melbourne has not issued a permit for the structure attached to the wall… There are four relevant legislative frameworks – Planning, Building, Occupational Health and Safety and Local Laws. There are intricacies in the way in which these interconnect and overlap. These complexities are likely to be considered by the investigating authorities.”

The council doesn’t say if the billboard should have required their permission, only that they didn’t issue a permit. They go on to underline that they aren’t responsible for the site, noting that the building site was private property, and that the Minister for Planning issued the planning permit. The Minister has previously said he hasn’t ever issued a permit for a hoarding either. This is a bit of a worry – the Minister is responsible for building sites all over the CBD which may have similarly confused boundary jurisdictions.

Signage normally falls under regulation 52.05 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme. Clause 52.05-4 mentions the sorts of signs for which permits aren’t required.

“A sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 2 square metres concerning construction work on the land. Only one sign may be displayed, it must not be an animated or internally-illuminated sign and it must be removed when the work is completed.”

There is other advice from the City of Melbourne saying that two advertising signs are permitted, each 2m by 1.2m. Hoardings are to be between 1.8m and 2.4m high. As the sign was approximately 3.2m high and 200 square metres in area, with another sign of about 29 square metres on the stacked containers, this one definitely required a permit from someone. As part of an application, the owner has to lodge details of the, “height, width, depth of the total sign structure including method of support and any associated structures.”

Clause 52.05 does refer to safety, but only to say that a sign shouldn’t distract or slow drivers. This perhaps doesn’t fulfil one of the clause’s purposes: “To ensure that signs do not cause loss of amenity or adversely affect the natural or built environment or the safety, appearance or efficiency of a road.”

A summary of sorts

I’ve read here and there that I’ve been overdoing it a bit, that sometimes walls just fall. I have overdone it, at some cost, but partly out of fear that no one else would and the issue would quickly fall out of the news. So I’m glad that the mainstream media picked out several items from the first post. Depending on where you read, different final conclusions have been made already. The wall fell because of the strong gust / the hoarding / the cracks. It was a combination of all three, and many more reasons that have their roots in events decades ago. This wall did not “just fall”.

The brick wall was an inbetweener. Not quite of the site and not quite of the street, it became invisible to owners and authorities. It was nobody’s business, a forgotten relic poorly built and not maintained. But it was a useful relic for keeping the curious out of the CUB site, for their own safety. Not that it stopped them – most of the useful photos of the wall were taken by urban explorers and graffiti enthusiasts.

The wall’s context has changed out of recognition since the closure of the brewery in 1987. Firstly Elders demolished the brewery behind it in 1989, exposing it to Westerlies it had never had to deal with before. The buildings that abutted the wall at its Southern end were also pulled down.

In more recent times, a large apartment building was built directly across the street, tram works and a super stop installation have taken place, and the bitumen area immediately behind the wall was dug up then used as a tip for mountains of spoil. Then it was all removed. There was also a decade long drought and a number of half decent earth tremors. That’s a lot to deal with for a wall that had been ready to fall for quite a few years.

Competing and overlapping jurisdictions have led to confusion about who was meant to be doing what and when. There are quite a few aspects that any inquiry will have to cover. Rather than having multiple internal inquiries, some held by bodies that may be partially liable, a better way would be to have one independent public inquiry. It is the general public who have been let down here, so they should be able to have faith in the inquiry and know what is going on during it.

Just a few questions

  • Why was a hoarding placed on a wall showing evidence of cracking? Was the wall inspected?
  • Why place the cracking panel under further stress by strapping a lightweight wall to its South end?
  • Where is the regulation requiring that hoardings and signs and their supports have structural integrity?
  • Why was a building permit (apparently) not sought for structural work (the hanging of 1.6 tonnes of plywood to an unreinforced brick wall).
  • Vacant and derelict sites increase in danger as they age. Who checks this and what are the owners’ responsibilities?
  • What are the rights of Responsible Authorities to access and inspect derelict private properties? Do they?
  • Why have the heritage-listed Maltstore and bluestone buildings been allowed to deteriorate into such a dangerous state since the brewery closed?
  • Why wasn’t a building order or emergency order slapped on the unsupported wall at any time in the last 24 years?
  • Where is the site dilapidation report?
  • Where is the 1989 demolition permit and demolition management plan?
  • Was the original wall designed by a structural engineer? Did it have a permit or was it built illegally?
  • Were the different brick types that made up the wall, some probably older and recycled, tested when it was built? Will they be tested now? And the mortar while we’re at it.
  • What is the immediate intention for examining the foundations to the wall, which are the only part still intact?
  • Can CUB or Elders provide any photography of the wall between its construction and the 1989 site demolition?
  • Which part of the wall was hit by a truck in the 1980s, then quickly repaired?
  • Why do we have two authorities in charge of planning in Central Melbourne, unable to work out where the line is between them?
  • Why did the rest of the wall get pulled down hours after the collapse, preventing a microscopic sort of examination of the bricks and mortar?

( This post is posted as a draft on Thursday night, and revised and completed on Sunday )

12.04.13 in buildings 

comment

That fallen wall - part 2 see more

A week ago three people died while they were walking down Swanston Street. One was a French research fellow at Monash. The other two were a young brother and sister on their way to the footy. I published a post about the wall that collapsed on Sunday, gathering together what I could find from publicly available web pages. I didn’t expect the level of reaction I got. I was contacted by all sorts of mainstream media outlets, many in search of speculative comment. My investigations were made not because I consider myself an expert in walls and wind, but because I knew how to do it relatively quickly, and because I wanted to do something.

This was an accident of the “waiting to happen” variety. No one wanted it to happen, but no one seems to have done anything to prevent it happening either. The organisations involved, the way they interact, and the regulations governing them all, could do with some improvement. But conclusions should be left to the inquiries. We should be watching these inquiries, demanding an independent one, and making sure they have all the information they can get to work with.

On Thursday I happened to pass the site again. Once again it had altered. A bulldozer was scraping up the debris while a man hosed the dust down. A WorkSafe officer was taking photos of what remained of the footings. A group of random people were gathered at the makeshift shrine, paying their respects .

Here are some further observations about the wall – they aren’t conclusions. The previous post is here.

wind and contour overlay
Overlay showing ground (2009), contours, approximate wind direction, and approximate positions of the collapse (red line), the mounds on March 28 (green ellipses – about 1.5m high), and the 7.2m high stacked containers.

The billboard and the brick wall

redbaron_012 2012
Wall from North East ( Red_Baron_012 )

The red hoarding was built in October 2011, after a rebranding of the development by Cornwell from ‘Portrait’ to ‘Swanston Square’. WorkSafe visited the hoarding on October 12th to inspect the installation, following up concerns about the lack of a pedestrian management system. NEWS

The height of the brick wall was about 2.5 to 2.7m on the street side, depending on where you count bricks. The hoarding extended above the wall by about 250 to 500mm. It varied as the top of the hoarding was sloping while the brick wall stepped down the hill at intervals. The land drops by about two metres across this 78 metre street frontage.

Brick - lightweight wall connection
Rear view, January 2013. (supplied by R.Liao)

The bricks composing the wall were of two types – extruded “wire-cut” bricks with hollow perforations, and older pressed bricks stamped with “CITY BRICKS”. City Bricks, now absorbed into Boral, had been pressing bricks since 1923. This mixing of bricks suggests that the wall could have been built from recycled bricks of varying ages, compressive strengths, and abilities to withstand moisture.

Brick types

The freestanding wall had piers at about four metre intervals along the rear side, which might have been useful buttressing against winds off Swanston Street. [ design guide PDF ] But these piers were not reinforced or tied into a footing, and were much wider (2 bricks) than they were deep (half a brick). It might be more appropriate to call them decorative pilasters, making the wall look more substantial than it actually was. The outer skin of the wall was apparently not bonded to these piers at all. A photo shows how one pier failed in the gust of wind.

Aun Ngo - Meld Magazine
Left: View from apartment block across street (crop). ( Meld Magazine / A. Ngo) Right: North end of wall – pier imprint on odd concrete upstand – perhaps this predated the brick wall? Also shows that the bricks continuing down in front of the wall were in direct contact with the concrete. (PJ)

These ‘piers’ ‘supported’ twin-leaf wall panels with all bricks laid in the same direction. There was no cavity between the two leafs at their base, though there appeared to be a small one further up. This could have allowed the internal faces of the bricks to trap damp lower down.

Swanston street brick wall cavity
Possible cavity or bowing showing in distorted telephoto image, March 28th ( Herald Sun / H.Blair )

The Southern end of the wall ended at one of these piers. This pier once abutted a rickety timber paling fence. In late 2011 this fence was replaced with a new steel one for the red hoarding. This new fence appears to have butted into the brick wall, and may even have been supported by it as not much else appears to have been holding it up. The hoarding was fixed to both the new fence and the wall, so any wind load placed on the elastic lightweight wall could have transfered to the rigid brick wall through the hoarding. This has been covered in the comments below the first post, and since by media.

Lightweight wall Alex Coppel
Left: Southern end of brick wall abutting lightweight hoarding. There is a noticeable bow in this pier, but this could be lens distortion. The horizontal member of the lightweight fence appears to be fixed to the top of the pier. ( Herald Sun / Jem Richardson ) Right: Metal framing of lightweight wall where it abutted the Southern brick pier (ADL NOW / Alex Coppel)

Rear of wall at south end
Another photo showing the lack of support at the North end of the lightweight hoarding. The supporting steel post is to the right. (ADL NOW / Alex Coppel)

Cracks to north end of wall
North end of wall (9 News). Much blurrier inset: Google 2009

On March 28th, a 9News bulletin panned over a vertical crack visible at the North end of the remaining wall, without comment. News Ltd has also found photos of diagonal cracking along the rear of the southern portion of wall. News Ltd found this shocking, but as the wall had no control joints or reinforcement, probable moisture problems, and.. who knows what in the way of footings, it’s hard to be surprised. News Ltd’s photos also show black matter at the base of the Southern wall segment. Hopefully this was a damp proof course (which I can’t see anywhere else) and not some kind of mould. From the Swanston Street side, there is also black staining visible on the internal face of the wall which does look more like a mould colony, indicating rising damp.

Black goo
TOP: Black stuff? December 2012 (Herald Sun / Jes Richardson) BOTTOM: Swanston street side, March 28 (SBS/AAP)

At the Northern end of the collapse, there is a suggestion of what may have prevented the collapse from continuing further. A sliding gate rail is fixed into the wall at the point the collapse stopped. Then again, the fixing may have caused cracking, weakening the wall so that it failed at this point.

northern extent of collapse
Northern extent of wall collapse, showing rusted door rail and fixing ( ADL NOW )

This part of the wall also seemed to have succumbed more to mortar problems than elsewhere. The front face of the wall showed efflorescence between the paint-sealed bricks, and the local pier, taller than the others, was quite uneven and looks to have eroding mortar. The end capping piece is an extruded brick on end, allowing water to penetrate with ease.

@funkineering
Left: Google Street View 2009 showing pier at Northern end of failure. Right: Northern end of failure, 2010. ( twitterpic by @funkineering )

Until 2012 the brick wall was partly shielded from Westerlies by a mound of earth and overgown grasslands. This was replaced with a much larger mound in February, after the overburden scrape. By March 28th, all mounds had been shifted and the area was flat. Clear new photos showing the location of this mound last December, and the nature of the land around it, have been sent in by Rita Liao.

Rita Liao 2012
Rear of wall, January 2013, affected area in rectangle. This also shows the asphalt and fencing that were removed in March. (R.Liao / butterpaper)

Rita Liao 2012
Rear of wall, January 2013, taken from beside the malt house (R.Liao / butterpaper)

Earth Mound A Wurster
A photo at Flickr shows the mound in 2011. (AR Wurster ). Another at the Herald Sun shows it there in 2008.

Some time after 1967, a brick wall was built from the Queensberry Hotel right along to the remaining two terraces (557-561 Swanston Street, but shown as 45-47 Madeline St in the plan below). Terrace houses used to stretch the whole way up to the Queensberry Hotel, but had been gradually done away with bu CUB. A timber fence later replaced the two last buildings, which were demolished soon after the brewery closed. The removal of these buildings exposed the end of the wall to the elements and removed a boundary wall that may have been acting as a return.

Overlay MMBW and google maps carlton
1896 MMBW plan overlaid on Google map, red line showing collapse area, blue shaded areas indicating 19th Century cellars. (SLV)

Trade Quality Control office - CUB
Trade Quality Control Office, at 557 Swanston Street, shown as 45 Madeline Street in the map above. This building contained an 8 foot deep cellar. The doorstep and the bluestone pavers in front of this office at the right of this photo still exist. (1987 CUB video, 2013 PJ)

Here are some further images plotting this part of the street through the ages.

queensberry hotel on corner of madeline street
A view from the north c.1870s. Patrick Fagan’s Queensberry Hotel is on the right and buildings along the line of the wall are to the left of the hotel. (SLNSW )

1938 Carlton CUB
Swanston Street in 1938, with the Queensberry Hotel at the right. Terrace occupants included residents and a diverse set of businesses: the Swanston Battery Service, a Chinese herbalist, a silver-plater, the Maternal and Infant Welfare Division, the Air League headquarters, Peter Kaye’s appliance shop, and the CUB Personnel office at No. 561. ( SLV / Lyle Fowler )

CD Pratt aerial - crop
Aerial photograph from 1946 showing two storey terraces the length of the frontage. ( SLV / Lyle Fowler )

1952 view of Swanston Street wall from North East.
A 1952 aerial view from the North East. ( SLV )

1953 aerial CUB site
1953 aerial from the North West ( SLV )

site in 1963
Buildings adjacent to Ballarat Street & Malt Store, 1963. At the time, these buildings at 557 – 561 were used by the Manufacturers Bottle Co. ( SLV / Lyle Fowler )

Here’s a low-res 1968 aerial photo , and another from the year after.

Swanston Street 1979 - Wolfgang Sievers
To date, this is the only photo I can find of the wall prior to the demolition of the brewery, taken in 1979 and showing the “top yard” behind the wall and the buildings at the South. This is the blurry online version. ( NLA: Wolfgang Sievers ).

The Malthouse

The adjacent malthouse has been in a state of neglect for decades. Built in 1904 and out of use since at least 1987, it too has moisture problems. Moisture is trapped and spreading behind the paintwork added some time before 1988. Demolition of the abutting pier in 1989/90 without any remedial work didn’t help things. I hope that the deteriorating condition of this building is quickly examined in case it too poses a risk to passersby.

Malt store water ingress
Water penetration at the Malt Store

The Brewery

The first brewery on the site was established in 1858. In 1907 a merger of six breweries formed Carlton & United Breweries who then operated from the site. Numerous owners performed building works on the site over its 129 years of production.

The brewery was used only for keg production after 1949, and was closed in 1987. A three part video documents the closure, which makes reference to an outdoor ‘top yard’ used for empty keg deliveries. It had an entry from Swanston Street. From a process of elimination, I’m assuming this to be the yard behind the fallen brick wall.

Rita Liao 2012
Rear of wall and ad containers, showing old asphalt, now removed. January 2013 (R.Liao / butterpaper)

The authorities

The Australian asserts that there is a “squabble” between the City of Melbourne (CoM) and the Ministry for Planning over who is responsible for the wall. It comes down to a matter of definition – whether the wall is a free-standing hoarding (ministry resposibility), or a street advertisement (council). This wall is both.

The Minister says he didn’t approve the hoarding, and the council was “unable to locate paperwork relating to any application”. The Australian believes the council approved the immediate demolition of the rest of the wall. LINK

In its report of 14/03/13, Heritage Victoria list what is included within the site’s heritage registration.

  • 1. All the buildings known as the former Carlton and United Brewery buildings B1 and former Malthouse B2 marked on Diagram 26 held by the Executive Director.
  • 2. All the land marked L1 on Diagram 26 held by the Executive Director, being part of the land described in Certificate of Title Vol. 7620 Fol. 130 and Vol. 4617 Fol. 290.

On Tuesday 2nd April, City of Melbourne issued a press release stating that would not comment further, “at this time”. CoM

More wall zone photos through the decades

This section will be updated as any new photographs are found. The photos at the linked Flickr pages can be clicked on to see much larger versions.

2000?

  • Southern end of hoarding – white and about 1.8m high. Incorrectly dated. Flickr

2006

  • Black paling fence at south end Flickr

2007

  • Photo showing glimpse of rear of timber fence at South. FLICKR

2008

2010

  • Southern timber fence from street (part). FLICKR
    -
  • September: More photos of the red-shrouded woman (by artist urban cake lady) pasted to the wall. View full size for extreme close-ups of the Eastern brickwork at North point of collapse. FLICKR1 FLICKR2
  • October: Tram ride footage – black brick wall Video

2011

  • Rear of timber fence (large). ARTYGRAFFARTI
  • ~Early 2011: New livery – a fabric(?) panel. (Google)
    Swanston banner
  • April: Signage: “New City Living Carltonbrewery.com.au”
    Flickr
  • April: “Portrait” signage and stacked containers in place. Click to view.
    Carlton Reflection
  • November: Red wall just visible. NEWS
  • November: Glimpse of rear of wall. FLICKR
    Dwarfed
  • December: News Ltd sources new photos dated December 2012 showing minor cracking on the rear of the some Southern section of the wall. This photo also shows lightweight wall abutting the Southern pier. NEWS 04.04.13

2012

  • January: distant aerial video shows pink stacked “SQ” containers. Video
  • February: Glimpse of red wall form south. Flickr
  • Sept 2012 rear view showing piers and mound. Flickr

2013

  • January: Bike-mounted video shows wall clearly. Video
  • March 28: Wall collapses at about 3pm.
  • March 28: 9News footage shows cracks at Northern end of wall where it abuts the Queensberry Hotel lot. Video
  • A good gallery of images taken from the rear side of the wall, immediately after the collapse, is available at Adelaide Now

CUB site development timeline (potted)

1981

  • Merger of Elders and Henry Jones (IXL) gives CUB a stake in Elders. NEWS

1983

  • Elders buys its shareholder CUB.

1987

  • Brewery closes in June.
  • Council trades plot ratio concessions for community benefits (60 apartments, underground parking, preservation of historic buildings, a podium to the tower).
  • Site rezoned by council.
  • Site value jumps.
  • Site control taken by Minister for Planning due to importance to state.
  • November: Elders Investments buys 25% stake in developers Hudson Conway

1989

  • February: Elders IXL / John Elliot’s Melbourne Wintergarden development (architects Perrott Lyon Mathieson), including a 35 storey blue glass office tower wins planning approval from Minister for Planning. A plaza replaced the podium, most parking was above ground, and the apartments were marked “Stage 2”. Council were disappointed and worried that the minister’s takeover of the site set a precedent. NEWS LINK & PHOTO

Architecture graduate Paul Morgan, on behalf of a group, describes loss of podium as “architecturally regressive”. “Responsibility for the symbolic sense of the city has been abrogated by the State Government… The character of the city is being left to the developer and the architect.”

  • Hudson Conway’s Lloyd Williams, site developer, denies that there was ever an agreement with council.
  • October (Black Monday): Elders delays $400M glass tower NEWS indefinitely

1995

  • Pacific Central Development planning application prepared by Ashton Raggatt McDougall architects. DPCD

1998

  • RMIT purchases site for $25M. NEWS

2002

  • December RMIT prepares to sell, during financial crisis. NEWS

2005

  • RCH considers site for new hospital.

2006

  • Site on shortlist for new ANZ HQ. NEWS
  • October: Grocon buys most of the site for $39M from RMIT. Expects to start $800M development in late 2007. Project architects: NH Architecture. NEWS

2007

  • January: Masterplanning working group meetings begin, which include representatives from RMIT, City of Melbourne, DPCD, and the State Government architect, and appearances from Heritage Victoria and National Trust.
  • June: Grocon announces competition winners, including ARM & DCM. NEWS
  • July: RMIT and Grocon apply to Minister for Planning to prepare an amendment to expedite planning process for this site. DPCD

2008

  • March: Minister for Planning Justin Madden exempts himself from notice of amendment clauses of Planning and Environment Act 1987 in respect of this site’s C126 amendment. One reason is that, “the critical timeline for development of the project would not be met through the normal permit application process.” Minister Madden noted at the time that due to the number of agencies involved (DPCD, Heritage Victoria, VicRoads and the City of Melbourne), he would become the “single point of planning approval”. DPCD
  • C126 Amendment states: “A permit is not required for: Site preparation and retention works including security fencing, site offices, bulk
    excavation and piling, footings, ground beams and ground slabs;…” DPCD
  • March: Intention to build, archaeological dig NEWS1 NEWS2
  • March: Aerial photo. FORUM
  • April. From Bouverie Street(?), geotech begins. FORUM

2009

2010

  • Kmart to be anchor retail tenant of $1.2B development to start in early 2011.
    NEWS
  • September: Grocons sells apartments despite no planning permit having been approved for building 5 (than called Portrait). NEWS

This post has been continued: PART 3 is here

EDITS: 10/4/13: add new image links, minor corrections, 12/4/13 lens distortion note, 26/5/23 new images.

07.04.13 in buildings 

comment

Hi again Peter. Great work on this. Keep it up.

A few general thoughts after reading some of your latest updates. Hope these can add to the discussion:

- a cavity? Yikes! Substantially weaker than a solid wall. – mounds and other obstructions can slow the wind but can also accelerate the flow locally – damp can weaken certain types of brick. Particularly if underfired. But.. – a membrane type damp proof course can substantially weaken a wall by providing less friction and less bond than a mortar joint. An over fired, pressed brick can have a very smooth surface, which can also reduce bond.

by Greg Killen on 8 April 13 ·#

Hi Greg, great to have your struct. engineering input.
I’m not sure that was a cavity – may have been the lens – it didn’t look like one in some other pics but all too far away to properly see.
I was thinking along the lines of a mortar DPC – what was the norm back in the ’70s?
Can the level of firing be gleaned from the darkness of the brick?
P

by peter on 8 April 13 ·#

That fallen wall see more

On Thursday afternoon two young pedestrians were killed by a falling brick wall in central Melbourne, and another 18 year old was ferried to hospital in a critical condition but died on Easter Sunday.

This article tries to assemble some of the publicly available information on this wall, it isn’t trying to point the finger anywhere. The initial reason for doing so was that the newspapers missed quite a bit and got some things wrong. Please note that this article contains imagery and descriptions which may be distressing.

Grocon, the police, WorkSafe, and the coroner are all launching investigations into the collapse. But on the night of the accident, the full length of the partially-collapsed brick wall was removed and thrown in a heap. The stacked advertising containers next to the site of the collapse were also pulled down and rotated so that the Swanston Square branding didn’t show. The site in no way resembles what was there before the incident.

In the haste to remove everything to do with the sad event, the tidy-uppers neglected to remove the blood stains on the footpath. They were not even cordoned off on my visit a day later. Such haste at what is possibly a crime scene is troubling. I hope it was all with the permission of the council, police, and coroner. They have hardly had any time to make a detailed investigation into the structure of the wall that was left, and now they can’t.

Interactive imagery from Google Street View, dated 2009:

View Larger Map

There has been misinformation in the news. The brick wall in question was not heritage-listed, nor was it a century old. It was not even there in 1967, when the area was occupied by a row of shops. The brewery was unfortunately not well photographed by CUB, whose sole set of publicly available online photos was taken from the rooftop in the 1920s – not very helpful. The wall was probably built as part of major rebuilding works that took place in the Sixties – a photo shows what might be the continuation of this wall into the malt store.

CUB malt store in the 1980s
Malt store in the 1980s, showing brick arch over laneway matching fallen wall. ( SLV image )

CUB site eastern shops on Swanston Street - SLV H2011.52/74
1945 view South down Swanston Street, showing CUB and buildings where fallen wall was. ( SLV image )

Image from CUB rooftop 1920s showing Swanston Street
Across CUB rooftops in 1920s, showing Swanston Street shops circled at location of fallen wall. ( SLV image )

THE ADDERLEY SMITH BLUES BAND 1967, next to CUB site
The Adderley Smith Blues Band posing in front of the Queensberry Hotel, 1967. Some shops at the location of the wall are at the left of the photo. (credit: Len Weigh )

Looking at the wall on Good Friday, what remains of it, the rear two-thirds sat along a badly poured concrete strip footing, the streetside third of it continuing downwards in modern wire-cut brick for several courses. The wall appears in news photos to have fallen forward off its concrete perch.

Area of collapsed wall, taken the day after (March 29 2013)
Area of collapsed wall, March 29th 2013. (PJ)

CUB site base of brick wall
Zoom in to 7News footage, March 28th

The wall fell for a length of at least 15m. It was anchored at the Northern end of the fallen section by a hefty Parallel Flange Channel with ties into the wall. This PFC is one of two still flanking an old vehicle access way in the wall that was covered by the new hoarding. There was nothing holding the all in place at the Southern end.

North end collapsed wall
Northern end of collapsed wall – bricks now removed. (PJ)

South end of wall
Unrestrained Southern end of collapsed wall. (Google 2009)

The wall may have been laterally supported at some stage if it was part of a larger structure continuing on towards the Malt Store.

Photographer Len Weigh, who graciously supplied the Adderley Smith Blues Band photo above, provided me on Sunday night with 174 images he took of major tram works in Swanston Street in 2008. He wonders whether the integrity of the wall may have been affected by the tram works, which involved four jack hammer vehicles working together. Following are a few of his images showing the then black wall in the background. Further major road works occurred over two weekends in late 2011 when a tram super stop was installed and the road realigned.

Len Weigh 2008

Len Weigh 2008, Swanston Street tram works

Len Weigh 2008, Swanston Street tram works
All photos Len Weigh, 2008

Grocon bought the site from RMIT in 2006. At that time it was covered in ageing and weedy bitumen. Until this year, not much was happening. There has been a lot of activity on the back side of the wall in recent months. Grocon have stated that there was no construction activity happening at the time of the incident, but site preparation has been taking place in earnest.

In January, the asphalt and topsoil (“overburden”) was scraped up, including asphalt very close to the wall. [ 2007 2013 ] In February, a large mound of fill appeared behind the wall, presumably consisting of this overburden and tailings from the La Trobe archaeological excavations which finished at the end of last month. This month most of the mound disappeared. Heavy machinery would have been required to put the mound there, then to take it away. The ground around the stack of containers, immediately North of the collapse, appears to be flooded in TV helicopter footage.

Glenn Wilson Feb 2013 photo of CUB site
Late February, 2013. ( Credit Glenn Wilson )

Archaeological dig at CUB site, with hoarding and mound in distance
February view Eastwards from archaeological dig towards the East, showing mound and hoarding. ( VHD )

9News photo 280313
Mounds gone, March 28th, 2013 ( Credit: 9News )

Possible flooding at collapse site
_Possible flooding around site of collapse, March 28 ( 10 News video )

The entire length of the wall was recently covered in a 12mm plywood hoarding, constructed in early 2012 or before [ May 2012 photo ]. It’s now lying in shards in the debris. This was fixed to the brick wall through thin vertical straps, possibly on ‘top hat’ furring channels which are present in the debris. The hoarding extended beyond the top of the wall, to even out the steps in it, but also creating a sail of sorts. The straps created open vertical cavities the length of the wall. All of this would be visible had the remainder of the wall and hoarding not been removed on Thursday night in the interests of what – safety? cleaning things up? Lateral braces would have done the job.

Zoomed image of CUB site hoarding
Zoom of the archaeological dig image above, showing the hoarding extending well beyond top of the brick wall.

CUB collapsed wall- news image
Photo from a 7News helicopter showing the hoarding being lifted on March 28th.

Discarded hoardings of remaining wall, March 29th.
Demolished hoardings from the remaining wall, and furring channels. March 29 2013. ( PJ )

The two stacked 40 foot shipping containers raise another possibility. At about 7.2 metres high, they act like a building as far as wind is concerned. The failed wall was one of the only stretches of the Eastern boundary without a structure to deflect the wind – and so took extra funnelled wind because of it.

Images showing location of container advertising.
Two images showing the location of the three stacked shipping containers used for advertising. Left: Late February (Glenn Wilson). Right: March 28th (news).

Rotated containers
The containers disassembled and rotated so that the Swanston Square advertising is not visible. March 29th, 2013 PJ.

Lots of questions are raised and I hope they are answered by the four separate investigations. Hoarding collapses are not uncommon in Melbourne, though they should be. Last year I took photos of two in a single bike ride in February. Luckily they didn’t hit anyone. They weren’t reported.

Fallen hoardings Feb 5, 2012
Fallen hoardings in Elgin Street and Wellington Street, February 5, 2012. ( PJ )

From an admittedly quick reading of the current regulations, there seems to be a gap in hoarding regulations when construction or demolition has not commenced, and where hoardings are not the “over-the-footpath” type [ CoM Code of Practice PDF ]. The City of Melbourne encourages solid hoardings rather than open chain wire ones – “to secure a building site and
form a barrier against noise, dust and debris” – but for WSW wind gusts of up to 76kph, like Thursday’s, the more porous the fence the better. Before the new hoarding was installed, there were many gaps to allow the wind through.

Many Codes of Practice have become redundant following the advent of the new performance-based OH&S regime in 2004. Try finding one for the construction industry that hasn’t been archived: WorkSafe Victoria Search. There is a new federal code of practice for demolition , but it seems to cover states other than Victoria, and again misses this situation where there is no construction or demolition taking place. All these codes place the worker at the centre of attention rather than the general public – I guess that’s WorkSafe’s remit.

Compare this tangle of code in Victoria with somewhere like Alberta, where the safety of passersby is up front and central in new regulations. This is because three year old Michelle Krsek was killed by flying metal in 2009 while walking past a Calgary construction site with her family in strong wind conditions. It shouldn’t have to take a death… or two three to wake people up to dangerous sloppiness.

Alberta safety code

[ article edited 31.03.13, three additions; 01.04.13 link added, wind speed lowered, minor amendments, further reference links added; 02.04.13 furring channels, super stop construction, and possible flooding added; 08.04.13 minor deletion ]

Part 2 of this post, dated April 7th, is here

31.03.13 in buildings 

comment

The wooden hoarding to the left of the masonry wall was fixed to the masonry wall. This section of plywood could conceivable have been blown by a gust of wind and acting as a lever pulled the masonry wall over.

As you have reported the City Council local laws require a permit for the construction of building site hoardings. The construction company should have applied for a permit to construct the new advertising hording and the City Council Engineering services should have inspected it.

If the wooden paneling was designed in such a way that the panels allowed for independent movement or a control joint they might not have applied levered pressure to the masonry wall causing to to tumble.

You need to look at the photos showing the parts of the wall left standing and the design and quality of the construction of the left wooden section.

The 2009 Google Street view photos show a fill in panel that was structurally separate from the masonry wall.

The city council, the developer, engineer and the company that built the hoarding share responsibility for this tragic accident.

by Archimedies Leverage on 31 March 13 ·#

Try building a wall to scale out of Leggo bricks and subject it to a wind load. (Grand design or Air-crash investigation style)

Next attach a piece of solid cardboard to simulate the hoarding and apply the same wind loading, The wind would catch the hoarding and lever down the wall from the unsupported left hand side. It only needs to move a few cm and the walls integrity is compromised.

If you look at the remaining concrete foundations there is no sign of rotation or foundation collapse. The most likely suspect is the hoarding.

Council by-laws require a building permit for the construction of a hoarding. The City of Melbourne should have plans and details of the hoarding and hopefully also inspected it.

The walls mortar may been weakened by the construction of the tram stop but the most likely case is the left hand edge of the wall and the open hoarding combined with the extra height.

by Stuctural Model Under Load on 1 April 13 ·#

You are right. The fact that the hoarding was fixed to the wall without a break joint would have added pressure and leverage magnifying the wind load placed on the unsupported masonry wall.

There was inadequate lateral support to the structure.

This should have been identified by the City of Melbourne who should have inspected the site as part of the building site permit process.

The hoarding on the western wall is stronger construction and had solid support, but it also has a large span that is unsupported. Ideally there should be support bracing every 5-10 meters.

The fact that the plywood hoarding was fixed to the brick masonry wall without lateral support on the southern edge most likely was the cause of the walls collapse.

The previous hoarding was a separate unit and as such allowed for independent movement.

The increase in height is another factor that would have contributed to the walls collapse.

The design and engineering of the hoarding needs to be inspected and subject to a thorough review and engineering wind load testing to determine if it met industry standards set down for the City of Melbourne.

I hope the owner, developer, engineers and city council have good insurance cover as the underwriters could conceivably not pay out in what will be a very expensive law suit and compensation claim against all parties involved. Watch them run for cover and avoid owning up to their responsibility. Shares in the project site will undoubtedly be effected.

by Anonymous on 2 April 13 ·#

Perspective see more

I was just cycling home from the Bob Mould concert at the Corner Hotel, with an extra ring in my ears beyond the usual tinnitus, when I was reminded of something, that I dwelled on for the rest of my ride. It was just another rental truck…

20 years ago I was working in my father’s home office, while studying architecture in Auckland. One of his clients drove up onto the lawn, unannounced . He was called Duncan I think, quite a lovely man. He wanted to give his company’s logo a quick overhaul, and for some reason thought his architect was the best place to go. My father and I assisted him for about an hour, and then he was off, with some coloured pencil sketches on the back of recycled paper. He thought the current logo was a bit Seventies, heavy, and dated. We helped him add the colour and sense of distance to it that he wanted. Though I had my reservations, as the old Budget Rentacar logo was one of my favourites. I’m not sure who did what, as it was a while ago.

Even further back, in 1986, I was doing work experience in an advertising studio responsible for the local Ansett account. I can’t remember any stand alone graphic design studios at the time. They put me in a corner with coloured pencils and asked me to come up with an ad for Ansett. I went for something with a little perspective, a runway. Not too uncommon in the 80s, as I did like triangles. I’ve just realised how uncannily close to the ‘new’ Budget logo it was. There is some extra irony as Bob Ansett used to own the Budget brand in Australasia.

Maybe I was more involved that I remember in the ‘renewal’ of one of my favourite logos. I would like to think I was at least responsible for the retention of the old font, which I vaguely remember arguing for. That was the beginning and end of my graphic design career. Anyway, now I am reminded of that sunny morning in a suburban Auckland office every time I see that logo, pasted on trucks all over the globe. Funny how the tiniest things you do can end up following you for a long while.

Googling for images of the logos, I found out that it was just been updated again, for the first time in ages. Now the font and the colour have gone. Looks a bit weak to me.

Budget 1970s – best I could find – it was black with orange strips representing tire tracks.
budget 1970s logo

Budget 1993 – straight outta Milford, Auckland
Budget 1990s logo

Budget 2012 rebrand
Budget 2012 logo

  • By the way, I have no idea why the Auckland office was able to rebrand the company. I think it was a moment in time when the power in the corporation swung over this aways.
    • Dad if you’re reading, please feel free to correct me!

13.03.13 in graphic-designers 

comment

To infinity and beyond see more

“I want architectural excellence and height … I want buildings that inspire Victorians. If this can be done in the right place, and with beauty, then the sky’s the limit.” Matthew Guy, April 2012

Tower Melbourne
Tower Melbourne – approved November 2012

Continuing in the Melbhattan vein… it’s mildly amusing if developers insist on adding cred to their towers of dogboxes by naming them after more considered New York locations. But what if the Minister for Planning was thinking along the same lines. A Manhattan of the South! It appears that he is. In early 2012 he announced a “Grand CBD”, stretching from Richmond to Fishermans Bend. The Herald Sun labelled it a “Manhattan-style” metropolis, and quoted Planning Minister Matthew Guy, who believes height restrictions need to go to, “make Melbourne an icon in terms of Western cities.” To be an icon these days must mean that a city has to be really big.

Some hint that the proposed relaxation of height controls, already relaxed in the ’90s by Premier Jeff Kennett, is aimed more at Chinese investors and developers wanting high density high-rise. The Age recently noted that, “some established Chinese business and political leaders in Melbourne caution against importing an Asian model of super high-rises and shaded city streets, of “ghost towers.” A ghost tower is one in which apartments are bought as an investment, and not occupied – land banking in the sky.

Is an ‘iconic’ Western city what Mr Guy thinks it is? Or is he building what an iconic Western city once was? James Howard Kunstler would think he is out of step. In this podcast (21 minutes in) he reminds us that apartment blocks had their beginnings in Paris and that their New York equivalent was the result of a craze, assisted by elevators, to imitate 19th Century Paris.

“I’m not a champion of towers and skyscrapers, and I tend to think that the really tall building, that is buildings over six or seven stories… that will really turn out to be a phenomenon of our time, of the 20th and early 21st Century, because you really needed a cheap energy economy to make that possible. But I think that the nett effect will be that we are going to end up with an idea of an optimum scale of the city, and it will be under seven storeys.” James Howard Kunstler

There’s more on the energy inefficiency of living in the sky at Fifth Estate.

Reading many of the minister’s press releases about recent tall buildings that he’s approved, you could be forgiven for thinking that he isn’t so much interested in the grand scheme as he is in more immediate objectives such as job creation and attracting investment to Melbourne rather than somewhere else.

This laissez-faire Brusselisation of Melbourne’s core is proceeding at a gung-ho pace. The 70-odd storey Tower Melbourne was approved by the minister in mid-November. No one in the media noticed for a month – perhaps because the ministry’s planning register is rather effective at burying approvals. While the site has no building height restrictions, it does have a plot ratio limit of 12:1. This building is more like 60:1.

Then on the Friday before Christmas, as the citizens of the metropolis shifted their focus to things sandy, Premier Ted Baillieu released Securing Victoria’s Economy: Planning. Building. Delivering. On page 39, he gets to planning. Its aim is deregulation, the removal of red tape and “green tape”. One item among many other eyebrow curlers is the, “making of new criteria for the Minister for Planning to act as the Responsible Authority to approve major developments with the potential to make significant contributions to the economic future of the state”. No details on what that means, but I think I get the gist of it.

“Continuing reform of our planning system to increase opportunity and productivity will maintain this advantage [in economic confidence] and ensure a strong construction sector.” Matthew Guy, November 2012

How his current powers might be expanded is hard to gauge, given that his department is pretty busy as it is. The following large developments have recently gained approval directly from Mr Guy in recent months, in the City of Melbourne alone. This is an incomplete list cobbled together from various online sources. I am imagining City of Melbourne planners sitting at their desks, glumly sharpening pencils while all the action (or vandalism) happens up the road. Maybe they’re reading the planning scheme’s urban design provisions for the central city[ PDF ] and remembering the good old days when they use to mean something.

February 2013

  • 50 storey office building
  • Y4, 839 Collins Street Docklands / multi-storey office tower
  • 272-282 Queen Street / 50 storey office building
    “The redevelopment site is located in an evolving area where planning policy encourages development that supports a vibrant and economically competitive central city while making efficient use of existing infrastructure.” Matthew Guy
  • 54-56 Clarke Street, Southbank / residential tower

January 2013

  • 250 Spencer Street (The Age) / 6 towers 39 to 63 storeys / 3,000 apartments
  • New Quay, Docklands / 43+16 levels / 425 apartments
  • 568-580 Collins Street / 67 storeys / 588 apartments
  • 245-263 City Road / Southbank 46+51 storeys / 786 apartments
    “The Southbank area is characterised by a mix of use and large apartment-style towers and bq. I believe this proposal would sit comfortably in this area.” LINK

December 2012

  • Y3, 839 Collins Street Docklands / 21 storey office tower
  • 706-738 Bourke Street / 24 storey building for Medibank Private
  • 559-587 Collins Street / 26 level office tower
  • 35-47 Coventry Street / 21 level apartment tower
  • 42-48 Balston Street, Southbank / 2 x residential towers
  • 374-380 Lonsdale Street / multi-storey office and residential tower

November 2012

  • Tower Melbourne / 71 or 68 storeys / Elenberg Fraser ( permit )
  • 450 Elizabeth Street / 62 storeys / 541 apartments
  • 316 Queen Street (Celtic Club) / 48 storey residentil
  • 4C, 735 Collins Street / Multi-storey commercial building

October 2012

  • 316-322 Queen Street / 48 storey mixed use.

It isn’t guaranteed that all these approvals means there will be a lot of construction coming our way. Some of these properties will be put back on the market at a higher price, with the permit. Because of the inflated price, the incoming owner needs to increase the number of floors, and so on. The AFR wrote about these phantom buildings in 2011, mentioning the Balston Street development which was again approved last December.

This free-for-all may soon run its course, considering the allegations of croneyism and racketeering at both state and council levels, and the upcoming state elections. But these flats will be well out of the bag by then.

06.03.13 in urban-planning urban-design

comment

A lack of zeal see more

Driving past Waiheke Island’s new library construction site last month, I raised a bushy eyebrow on seeing the hoarding announcing Mainzeal Group as main contractor. I hadn’t seen their name anywhere for a very long while. I had thought they had been laid waste to on Black Monday, 1987. But I am an infrequent visitor to Auckland, my old home town.

The other eyebrow was raised today, seeing Mainzeal Group has gone into receivership, finally. It was apparently the country’s 3rd largest builder, with many new builds in Auckland and repairs in Christchurch on the books. The company’s collapse came as quite a surprise to everyone except the board. So there will be an awful lot of collateral damage.. not only have subbies probably lost any money due to them, all their tools are locked into sites around the new Zealand.

Mainzeal logo

Mainzeal emerged into my consciousness during the boom times in Auckland in the mid 1980s. It was a good time for architects, but an appalling time for anyone interested in the city beautiful. There was not much left of the pedestrian-friendly Victorian Auckland by the time I departed in 1995, it had all been laid waste to for cheaply built towers and at-grade Wilson’s car parks. I saw a few too many of my favourite buildings disappear, and this became on of the 16 reasons I left Auckland for Melbourne.

Mainzeal brought about a particular hatred in my teenaged self. I, and many others, thought Mainzeal were scum for illegally knocking down His Majesty’s theatre and arcade in Auckland in 1987. That arcade was something any city would kill for. I think they paid something like a $500 fine.

Robin Morrison’s beautiful photo of the lost arcade is linked to here as I can’t reproduce it. When questioned by police as to why builders were all over the site in the middle of the night, Mainzeal said they were removing some seats from the theatre. By morning the whole lot was razed, and for years after there was only an at-grade car park and pie cart to replace it.

A year later, the equally covert overnight demolition of Brown’s Mill was carried out without even bothering to turn off the power and water, or removing artworks stored in the building. I was so annoyed that I cut the article from the paper, and very weirdly happened to have it sitting on my table today, 25 years later…

Brown's Mill demolition

10.02.13 in builders heritage

comment

Yay! I thought I was the only one be celebrating MainZeal’s demise due to their appalling behaviour in the 80s. They deserve only part of the blame though; they were acting under instruction of the building’s owners and no doubt another company would have taken the contract if Mainzeal had demonstrated integrity and/or a spine. In part it still rankles because decades later the site on Elliot St is still just an ugly hole in the ground instead of a gracious row of 100 yr old merchant buildings. That does not mean I don’t feel for the sub-contractors. I do. It tells me the core values at Mainzeal didn’t change much over the last 25 odd years.

by mark yelspal on 20 February 13 ·#

page listing related:   in  New Zealand   Auckland  
 

Bright Lights Big City, Melbhattan see more

Melbhattan from Oslo Davis on Vimeo.

I recently watched cartoonist Oslo Davis’s Melbhattan. I wondered, from the awkward Anglo-Unami title, whether this might be a reflection of Melbourne’s spruikers’ predilection for magnifying the tiniest evocations of foreign places found in our midst. Come to Melbourne and imagine you’re in New York, Paris… anywhere but Australia. But Davis says he was trying to ridicule this mindset in his film, “to both charm and roast without being mean”. It is a charming piece of work. The roasting doesn’t quite eventuate, probably because Davis was recreating in Melbourne each shot of the brilliant opening sequence to Woody Allen’s “Manhattan”, using locations here, so didn’t have a lot of room to move.

“Manhattan” – Opening Scene from ajr on Vimeo.

Not that New York hasn’t ever borrowed from the cachet of another place. In 1962 urban planner Chester Rankin christened the area south of Houston St “SoHo”. The reason for the name sticking is probably to do with its close resemblance to Soho in London, which in the ’60s became the swinging place to be thanks to Carnaby Street. Melbourne developers like naming after New York. It’s easy to find blocks of flats with names like ‘Madison’ and ‘Manhattan’. There’s even a ‘Tribeca’ even though it is not in a TRIangle BElow CAnal Street.

South Jersey (NJ) borrowed and transformed SoHo into SoJo. Now areas in Collingwood are becoming known as SoJo (South of Johnston), and NoJo (I’ll leave you to guess that).

The Eastern end of Collins Street has long been nicknamed “Paris End” since the establishment of a small clothes shop with a french name. Now we have a real estate-sponsored “New York End” of Collins Street too. Age contributor Julie Szego rightly thought “Bucharest End” might have been more appropriate.

Melbourne isn’t alone in selling itself as an “almost New York”. Canberrans can soon “wake up in Manhattan” at Manhattan on the Park. They might get slightly less of a surprise when they look out of the window at Penthouse Manhattan in Sydney, or at Manhattan Hill in Hong Kong.

I went looking for an apartment building named after Melbourne, but not in Melbourne. Google couldn’t really understand what I was talking about, but did reveal that a small wedge of Antarctica is named after a long dead Melbourne confectioner know for his white suits.

09.02.13 in cities films

comment

Well, it’s not an apartment building, but in Seattle’s downtown, we have this: http://www.melbournetower.com/
I stare at it often as I wait for the bus.
Thanks for Melbhattan, it’s beautifully rendered. Each new corner was a memory test and a reminder of home.

by Melissa Cameron on 10 February 13 ·#

This man is making a clever and logical response
to a question that is naive to the point of triviality.
The proposition that the world’s bankers should
in effect buy a massive “world park” from a sovereign
nation for the safeguarding against environmental
degradation (which is the result of chasing profits first)
sounds like a similar idea from the R.C.L. classic
“Corporate Whores Design Utopia”.

by lipsiusr on 5 April 13 ·#

The opportunities start today see more

The Victorian Minister for Planning has issued the following statement to the AIA, following a meeting representatives from the ministry, AIA, and ACA last Wednesday. The AIA had asked for “further clarification on the reasons for the ARBV inclusion in the reforms and the process for consultation that the Minister is proposing to undertake.”

Reform of Regulatory Arrangements

“A strong and buoyant building sector is vital to support Victoria’s continued growth – our economic growth, our population growth and the growth of our cities and towns. The Coalition government was elected with a commitment to foster change and growth in a manner that respects the built form. One of Victoria’s greatest assets is the built form of our cities and towns.

In delivering on this commitment, the Government has announced a major reform to the regulation of the building industry. The new Victorian Building Authority will integrate the regulatory functions of Architects, Building Practitioners and Plumbing practitioners.

This change is important to support the building industry overall and consultation has commenced with all of the regulatory bodies that have a role to play in the delivery of our built form outcomes.

The Government wants to ensure that the new Authority delivers on best practice regulatory outcomes from day one. This means that we need to be very clear about how this organisation should be structured. It is important that we get all the details right.

An independent consultant will advise on the proposed structure and arrangements.

Detailed consultation with the AIA and the ARBV on the new structural arrangements of the new Victorian Building Authority will take place late January, early February 2013. This will ensure that the changes to the regulatory process of the State’s building system are holistic and cognisant of all relevant matters.

The key functions of the ARBV such as determining qualifications and experience required for registration, regulating examinations and accrediting courses in architecture will continue. Working with architects on continuing professional development and in developing mutual recognition models will also continue.

The ARBV will continue to operate as usual until the structure of the new Authority is finalised and the Victorian Building Authority is established which is expected to be in the third quarter of 2013.

Being part of a larger integrated Industry regulator brings exciting opportunities for all elements of Victoria’s building sectors. The opportunities start today.”

Okaaay. Once the spin is spun out of that statement, what are we left with that we didn’t already know?

In terms of reasons, this is about it..

  • “This change is important to support the building industry overall.”

In terms of proposed consultations

  • consultation has commenced
  • detailed consultation with AIA and ARBV to occur late January, early February 2013.
  • The VBA launch has been pushed back to 3rd quarter 2013.

The retention of ARBV functions in the VBA
The Minister lists the “key functions” of the ARBV that will continue, presumably as architecture-specific entities within the new authority. Oddly the ARBV’s disciplinary role is not listed, and neither is its role in the investigation of title breaches. In fact everything post-registration has gone other than CPD and mutual recognition talks. Either they forgot, or these roles are “non key” and will be dropped, or they will be rolled into into the main functions of the VBA.

The Architects Act
No word what’s happening to this, but it looks like any future act will be rather lightweight and concentrate on education and CPD.

New South Wales
It looks like we’re being left in the dark here, with an opportunity to comment that comes a little bit late in the process to be of any use. Compare this situation with its parallel in New South Wales. There, the government’s Red Tape Review has put its anti-regulatory cards on the table very early in the process, and is calling for community input prior to making any decisions. [ NSWARB ]

The NSW Red Tape Review wants to cut $750M from administrative expenses by 2015. It applies to all types of licence authorities. In addition to cost-saving, that state government is quite plain about its views:

“Licences… also act as a barrier to new businesses entering a market, thereby stifling competition, potential efficiency gains and economic activity.
bq. The costs of licences are unnecessary if they are greater than those needed to achieve the regulatory objective or the objective is now redundant.

In NSW, stakeholder submissions and licence holder surveys end on Wednesday. In late February there will be a “public roundtable”, followed by a draft report in March with a six week response period, and a final report to government in mid 2013.

The Victorian government has skipped all bases and bounded straight to an announcement on legislative changes, that it initially hoped to pass within a few months. Vive la différence.

(The Minister for Planning’s statement above was sourced from the AIA’s Vmail service today)

10.12.12 in authorities 

comment

page listing related:   in  Australia   Victoria  
 

Registration board death knell part 2 see more

Well, Mr Guy did issue his press release, which read a lot like the Fairfax article discussed yesterday. It makes the same points, and avoids any discussion of the architectural profession other than implying that its registration board is one of an ad-hoc band of cowboy building industry entities that befuddle the consumer.

Guy does say though, that there will be industry consultation next month, ahead of the introduction of legislation in the first half of next year. Better too late than never. This is all the result of a report ( PDF ) which was also released yesterday. It’s fresh and green in design, and is called, “A fresh start for building industry regulation: Reforming Victoria’s building system.” It’ll be good for us, like a Granny Smith.

A fresh start

Inside, Matthew Guy introduces the report by talking about the need for building permit reform. He refers to the Victorian Auditor General’s report into building permits. He doesn’t mention that the current system which privatised building surveyors was introduced by the previous Coalition government in the ’90s. Because of recent PR problems at the Building Commission, where people were doing what they weren’t supposed to, Guy has decided that it needs to be closed down and a new building industry-wide authority needs to take its place. That decision just happens to sweep away the ARBV.

As a commenter to the previous post pointed out, deregulation of the profession has been on the creep for decades. Odd that an earlier spurt of deregulation by the Kennett government set up the environment for the current difficulties with the building permit system that have prompted this reform. Wheels and roundabouts.

In New Zealand, after some disastrous problems with shonky building work, the building permit system was renationalised. Guy isn’t opting for that here. Instead the Building Commission becomes the Building Authority and advances deregulation by sweeping the plumbers and architects into the new system, for reasons of competitiveness, transparency, soundness, and safety.

Architectural bodies are quite out of the picture. Next month’s consultations are described thus:

Throughout December 2012, meetings will be held with key industry stakeholders including the Housing Industry Association, Master Builders Association Victoria, Australian Institute of Building Surveyors and the Property Council of Australia.

In addition, existing government advisory forums such as the Building Advisory Council, the Plumbing Industry Advisory Council and the Building Regulations Advisory Committee will be used to provide industry with information about the proposed changes and seek members’ views on transitional and implementation issues.

Then, having spoken a lot about building permits, but without mentioning architects, architecture, or architectural registration, the report introduces the new authority.

The new VBA will integrate the functions of the Building Commission, Plumbing Industry Commission and the Architects Registration Board of Victoria to provide a single point of governance for building and plumbing practitioners and architects.

The reports other points, abridged.

  • The VBA will streamline processes and reduce duplication of effort.
  • The VBA will contribute to reduction in regulatory burden for industry and consumers. This means that resources can be targeted to areas of greatest
    need with an increased focus on risk-based approaches.
  • The VBA will be more proactive in the identification of issues and address them before they become significant issues of non-compliance.

While there are pages and pages referring to the practice of building surveying, there is no reference to the practice of architecture. The ARBV’s functions are some distance from building permits. It appears to have been scooped up in the rush.

There are about 606 building surveyors in Victoria. There are 112 registered architects with surnames beginning with ‘A’ (sorry my patience ran out). There are a lot more architects than there are building surveyors, yet the entire registration and educational accreditation system is about to be upended for no stated reason, on the back of building surveyor reforms. As a young person might say, “WTF?!”

/ ~ /

Updated 1/12/12
Reading this on the ARBV’s website today, I wonder if anyone in the profession was aware of the proposal…

“Victorian Building Authority

The announcement of the Victorian Building Authority and the inclusion of the Architects Registration Board of Victoria in it, has come as a surprise to the Board which has a long history of excellent work dating back to 1923.

We will try to keep people informed during the promised consultation period.

If you wish to have your views noted, please email registrar [at] arbv.vic.gov.au…

/ ~ /
Updated 3/12/12
Turns out now that even the Institute was not aware of the government’s proposal to kill off the ARBV. LINK

29.11.12 in authorities 

comments closed

Peter
To quote from the recommendations of the 1999 Review of Architects and Building Legislation

“Chapter 7: integration of the architects legislation and the building legislation.
We find that there are potential net benefits to be obtained from integration of
the architect legislation and the building legislation. We take the view that
integration, subject to any appropriate transition period, should procure
administrative costs savings and should allow consistent application of
construction industry policies for all participants. The experience and apparent
effectiveness of the ARBV should assist an amalgamated ARBV and BPB to
achieve higher levels of compliance with the building legislation.”

On the face of it it seemed to suggest that the ARBV works, the Building Practitioners Board doesn’t so lets move architects into the BPB. Didn’t make sense then, still doesn’t.

At the time Matthew Guy was a a protege of Rob Mclellan who was the minister responsible for the report and was on Premier Geoff Kennet’s staff taking a keen interest in planning and building regulation. Mr Guy is certainly persistent.

You never know though, there may be some benefit to the architectural profession and the public of their being inside the building regulation structure rather than outside. Perhaps mandatory endorsement of documents as in USA or Spain. Maybe architects could certify compliance of their designs with planning schemes? Now that would speed things up.

by David White on 30 November 12 ·#

tony arnell is an architect.

by info on 30 November 12 ·#

I’m not an architect, I’m an engineer – we don’t even get a mention in Mr Guy’s press release.

by Ross on 5 December 12 ·#

I don’t see what the problem is. As long as i can keep my title as Architect and practice on an unlimited range of buildings thats fine. Draftees can practice as long as they make the public aware of their limited qualifications and require certification from Architects on more complex buildings.

Just like the Building Surveying profession has two categories. Unlimited for those University educated. And Limited for those who have diplomas from TAFE.

by Anti-Narcissist on 7 December 12 ·#

If you’re not an Architect you must be called a Designing Drafts person not anything else .

by Anti-Narcissist on 7 December 12 ·#

page listing related:   in  Australia   Victoria  
 

ARBV RIP? see more open website in same window

The Age newspaper this morning revealed that Victorian Minister for Planning Matthew Guy will at any moment announce the disbanding of the Building Commission, the Plumbing Industry Commission, and the Architects Registration Board of Victoria. They are to be replaced, says The Age, by a new building authority.

The ARBV , in existence since 1923, is at the core of the Architects Act . The Act governs how architects are educated and registered, and how complaints against them are handled. The Age quotes Matthew Guy as saying, “The establishment of the Victorian Building Authority in conjunction with these other reforms is a critical step in ensuring the ad hoc approach to industry regulation over the past decade is brought to an end.”

It’s very early days, but if Mr Guy is serious about this there are many aspects that will affect the profession in Victoria. Here are a few to perhaps keep an eye on.

  • The future status of the Architects Act.
  • The watering down or altering of offences in the Architects Act. For instance, will a building industry authority be particularly interested in protecting of expressions such as “architectural design” if it is also the authority for building designers.
  • Whether the Architects Tribunal is also to be disbanded and folded into the larger authority, which the article suggests may rely on an expanded VCAT.
  • What the problem is with the ARBV as it currently is. The Age ties this revamp to the recent and heavily publicised problems at the Building Commission, but doesn’t mention any at the ARBV.
  • The effects on the long-proposed Australia-wide registration system if Victorian architectural registrations are integrated into a new state building authority.
  • The fate of the four staff members at the ARBV, and architect-elected board members.
  • The effect on the accreditation of architectural courses.
  • Changes to the architect-governed registration examination.
  • Fee increases, as happened when the old NZ board was replaced by the NZRAB.
  • Mandatory CPD governance.
  • Alterations to the roles of the AIA and ACA-Victoria, to cover ARBV roles lost in the transition.

If the disbanding of the ARBV goes ahead, it’s going to be messy, and I suspect will leave many wondering what the point of it all was. Apparently it’s all about consistency and transparency. Hopefully Mr Guy will let us know a bit more than that.

29.11.12 in authorities 

comment

Peter
This was all done and dusted in 1998. Heres a link to my summary of the process presented to the Productivity Commission in 2000.

http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/architects/docs/submissions/bruno_taut_institute_

by David White on 29 November 12 ·#

Thanks David. I am working through this and your forum post now. I did not see this ‘reform’ as being a continuation of the recommendations of the PC report but I guess it is. Haven’t read it for years. I wonder if Mr Guy has read it.

by peter on 29 November 12 ·#

Parliament Square bill passed see more

Parliament Square Hobart
Parliament Square – original proposal (FJMT + Citta)

Six days ago, the Tasmanian government introduced a bill to remove Hobart’s Parliament Square project from the planning process, where it has been battled over since 2009 (at least). Late tonight, the fast-tracked bill was passed 10-4, according to Save 10 Murray spokesperson Briony Kidd.

The new bill removes all planning impediments and rights to appeal, and pulls all buildings on the site out of the heritage register. The bill was introduced soon after the Supreme Court, for the second time, overturned an approval handed down by the Planning Appeal Tribunal. Justice Blow said at the time that the tribunal had failed to consider “the prudence or imprudence of alternatives to [the] demolition” of 2-4 Salamanca Place. This was in response to the Planning Tribunal’s conclusion that retaining the heritage-listed Government Printer’s Office wasn’t “prudent and feasible”.

Corner view from Murray Street
The threatened 10 Murray Street State Office Building (1967)

The new bill removes all rights of the Heritage Council to reinstate buildings to the Heritage Register under the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995, unless the Planning Minister is in agreement – which is rather unlikely.

The bill received support from Labor, The Liberals, Citta, The Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce, and was opposed by the Planning Institute and The Greens… and of course Save 10 Murray.

The bill states that any action or proceeding against it, or Judicial Review of it, is not permitted, by anyone. This short and hastily-written bill reads as if it has been written in a state of anger.

The renouncement of rights to object by any means to parliament’s approval of a scheme already rejected by the courts is not exactly unusual in Australia – the Victorian Planning Minister routinely does the same. This doesn’t stop it from being utterly depressing. The minimally-resourced Save 10 Murray group has been playing by the rules for three years, with a valid cause, and has now basically been told that any further noise from them and they’ll get smacked with a fine made just for them – up to $6,500, followed by up to $1,300 per day that they remain mischievous. I think it’s a sad day for Hobart, and any group there who thinks they might have the democratic right to question a development and be taken seriously.

[edited 23/11 – the Supreme Court action concerned 2-4 Salamanca Place, not 10 Murray Street, which does not have a heritage listing (it was nominated for one by the AIA but never assessed).]

THE BILL (PDF)
Supreme Court decision
Planning Institute point of view
Previous butterpaper articles
Save 10 Murray at Facebook

/~/
UPDATE 2/12/12
10 Murray Street architect Dirk Bolt’s opinion piece in The Mercury

20.11.12 in heritage planning

comment

the image of the proposed Parliament Square project currently used extensively in the media is in fact the first proposal that was rejected in the first tribunal hearing ironically because it had an adverse impact on the heritage values of Parliament House in particular and Sullivans Cove in general. Setback, height and massing changes were imposed to preserve views of Parliament House without the imposition of the new offices overbearing the symbol of Democracy….further irony as that was the principal criticism of the Ten Murray Street building…despite this circumstance being similar to many cities in Australia including Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.

by Paul Johnston on 21 November 12 ·#

Thanks Paul, will alter the caption. I found the image on the front page of the Parliament Square website yesterday – maybe they didn’t want to believe it was rejected?

by peter on 22 November 12 ·#

they continue to use that image and we have yet to see the revised project from the same vantage point !

by Paul Johnston on 27 November 12 ·#

Green Square Library - a look in the dust bin see more

Someone tweeted to me the other week that the Green Square Library entrants are online. Must admit I was barely aware of the competition. The 167 entrants have been whittled down to a shortlist of five by the jury… here is the list for anyone who missed the coverage elsewhere.

  • Sydney: Stewart Hollenstein in association with Colin Stewart (entry #124)
  • Adelaide: JPE Design Studio (entry #171)
  • Melbourne: John Wardle Architects (entry #172)
  • England: Flannery & de la Pole (entry #195)
  • Fremantle: Felix Laboratories (entry #197)

You can find bite-sized looks at the shortlisted entries at ADR and A&D, or see all of them on display at Green Square for a while.

But what of the 162 others, architects the world over slaving away, gladly endangering their lives with bad pizza and late night coffee, for the hope that they just might get picked, if the jury ‘got’ them. That last part is a bit of a lottery. The architects on this jury were John Denton, Glenn Murcutt, and Rachel Neeson, all celebrated for their back catalogues of important buildings, and all modernists of various flavours. There’s nothing wrong with that… but it is unfortunate that the jury was announced the day before registrations closed, six weeks after the competition launched, and four weeks before submissions closed.

I was delighted to discover that all the entries are online. This delight diminished when I reached the online depository, for it is a bandwidth-heavy mountain of PDF files. I almost gave up at that point (as many probably have), but thought that these may not last long online. Public websites have a habit of being rebuilt and spring-cleaned from time to time. Only having the stamina to download one file, as I’m bleeding onto the keyboard (bike mishap), here’s a quick walk through. Inevitably shallow, but better than nowt.*

Sooner or later we might see some of the entries appear here at kompete.com, a new initiative by Death By Architecture (I think).

The following images have no credits, as the competition was anonymous. If you know to whom a design belongs, please let me know in the comments or by email and I’ll add a caption.

Green Square Library and Plaza competition

Green Square Library and Plaza competition

Green Square Library and Plaza competition

Green Square Library and Plaza competition

Green Square Library and Plaza competition

Green Square Library and Plaza competition

Green Square Library and Plaza competition

Green Square Library and Plaza competition

Green Square Library and Plaza competition

06.11.12 in competitions 

comment

Tall skinny stories see more open website in same window

elenberg fraser towers
Tower Melbourne (left and middle), Abode 318 (right). Elenberg Fraser

“This is where Melbourne comes of age” Callum Fraser, Tower Melbourne architect

Elenberg Fraser’s elegant Tower Melbourne proposed for Bourke Street has triggered a couple of opinion page articles in The Age that quickly skew off to talk about other things – public housing towers and suburban sprawl, but what about the city itself?

The tower takes advantage of a rule stating that any development over 25,000 square metres be referred to the state planning minister for approval, not the local council. These developments are are deemed ‘major’, therefore of state significance, no matter what the site area or intended use. It is a crude tool, meaning that there end up being two competing planning strategies for the same area. One is concerned with the macro – jobs and metropolitan density, the other micro – pleasant environments and a consistency of skyline.

The Tower Melbourne site is only 923 sqm, so the tower uses up as much as it can of it. Podiums and setbacks went out with Cona coffee. These devices gave some consideration to the surrounds, especially things like sun and wind. This tower has two shear elevations right on the street, 71 storeys high. Eureka Tower is only 18 storeys higher. Architects accept this now more than they once would have. I remember seeing a late ’70s cartoon by Barry Marshall (DCM) lampooning the design of IM Pei’s Collins Place. It suggested that the tall towers, set at 45 degrees, would cause people to have to walk at a 45 degree lean at a nearby intersection, due to the wind.

A few years ago I sat a Lyons Architecture’s presentation to the AIA jury, they were seeking an urban design award for their BHP tower at the corner of Lonsdale and Russell Streets. I was interested to hear the jury’s questions about the now windblown environment at street level. The council had even had to install wind breaks across the street so that people could sit outside the greek cafes without being blown away. There were no questions about this. Perhaps this was because the jury realised that the volume of the buildings on tight sites is determined by the developer and the government, not the architect. What is the architect to do in such a situation other than to play along, or resign.

I had thought that this was the case with these new towers. That they are the inevitable result of a scarcity of larger sites, and the removal of height limits in the ’90s. But the AFR’s interview [ PDF ] with Shane Rothe set me straight. According to this, it’s an “architect-driven” typology that developers happily came on board with because the small sites are cheap. Advances in structural concrete have also allowed these heights to be reached on small footprints. These new towers are proving popular with Chinese investors.

The towers of the ’70s and ’80s were typically set back from streets with podiums or plazas. They had rear lanes for vehicle entrances. Nowadays the towers are more likely to be residential. They use all of a small site, rather than some of a large site.

Due to the planning minister’s state wide considerations, the urban design concerns relating to these skinny podium-free towers count for little. Other justifications like jobs and density gain prominence. Robert Nelson suggests in his article that if you’re against density, you are automatically for suburban sprawl. “Every time an inner-city development is foiled because of the visceral attachment of residents to low density, Melbourne is forced outward.” Sprawl is more complicated than this, but that’s fodder for another article. This point of view, commonly echoed by developers in planning applications, suggests that all inner-city intensification is a good thing, as it will further activate it, and put a belt on the periphery.

Commentators such as Richard Florida and Edward T. McMahon question this assumption that density is always good, even if it’s a high-rise. McMahon thinks that “Buck Rogers” skylines can be thrilling, but down on the street, they are “often dreadful”.

The problem is that many developers and urban planners have decided that density requires high rises: the taller, the better. To oppose a high-rise building is to run the risk of being labeled a NIMBY, a dumb growth advocate, a Luddite — or worse… Today, density is being pursued as an end in itself, rather than as one means to building better cities. Edward T. McMahon ( citiwire )

McMahon lists a string of cities where high density has been achieved without resorting to towers. A City of Melbourne report ( PDF ) also lists cities like Barcelona and Vancouver, and argues that six to eight storeys are more than enough to achieve, “high density compact cities of the future.” They also note that in these buildings, you can open the windows. Nice touch.

The counter argument, which I’ve read and managed to lose, would seize on that word “future”… Sure we could get a high density city at eight storeys, but that’s a long way off, and complicated by multiple landowners and heritage registered buildings. We can put up a smaller number of tall towers and address the issue quickly.

This does beg the question, what happens to all the neighbours of these towers. Will they run into trouble when they want to rebuild? Fraser believes that good design will get us around that one – everyone can have a view and light if it’s done right. But it isn’t always done right, as recent cases in Southbank and the city illustrate. A tower in Wills Street was recently rejected at VCAT because it would steal daylight from the adjacent residential tower. This is despite the proposed tower ‘sucking in’ in the middle to give a bit of space to the neighbours.

This surge of development in Melbourne’s CBD is largely occurring outside the local planning strategy. We have two planning strategies in use, with quite different aims, and they clash. One looks to Vancouver and Vienna, the other to Shanghai. We are starting to see a different sort of cityscape emerging. A city with many tall and blank concrete boundary walls that you won’t see in the renders.

Anyway, the developers must be pretty confident as they have apparently pre-sold Tower Melbourne. The planning minister is rumoured to be about to approve it, but we’ll have to wait and see. Once a project is “brought in” by the planning minister, transparency disappears. Once he decides one way or the other, there is no way to appeal at VCAT. You’d have better luck enlisting Miley Cyrus to help.

Crikey founder and City of Melbourne candidate Stephen Mayne thinks the Planning Minister’s powers are, “way too extensive”.

If the Minister wants to play God, there should be far more comprehensive public explanations of his interventions. The City of Melbourne has considerable planning expertise yet no power to determine any application greater than 25,000 square metres. This should be changed. Stephen Mayne, 2012 ( PDF LINK )

The minister’s response to complaints isn’t very illuminating. Last month he suggested to News Ltd that people whinging about over-development should move to Adelaide. “Growth in the CBD is where Melburnians expect it and where they want it and it is adding to what is the best CBD for work or play anywhere in Australia.”

There are currently 13,000 apartments either under construction or awaiting approval in central Melbourne. Some of these are listed below.


Adobe 318 55 storeys, Russell Street, Elenberg Fraser
Prima Pearl 67 storeys, Southbank
“33M“http://www.33m.com.au/ 33 level, Mackenzie Street, Elenberg Fraser
36 – 40 La Trobe Street 35 level tower rejected by council in 2012, Elenberg Fraser
Queen & La Trobe Streets, 47 levels
441-447 Elizabeth Street, 50 levels, Peddle Thorp, with the minister.
568 Collins Street, 65 floors.
Phoenix tower, 27 levels
276 Russell Street, 36 levels
Melbourne Star tower , Little Lonsdale Street
Melbourne Sky tower , Little Lonsdale Street
48-50 A’Beckett Street, 39 levels
450 Elizabeth Street, Elenberg Fraser, was 55 levels, now 63 levels, with the minister.
410 Elizabeth Street, 51 levels
380 Lonsdale Street, 47 levels, Spowers
399 Bourke Street, 46 levels, Fender Katsalidis
199 William Street, 21 levels
350 William Street, 35 levels
360 William Street, 12 levels
320 Queen Street, 48 levels, with the minister.
272-282 Queen Street, 57 levels
Vision 500 Elizabeth Street, 67 levels.
Clarendon Street, 33 levels, Elenberg Fraser
27 Little Collins Street, 32 levels
108 Flinders Street
17-23 Wills Street, 35 levels, refused at VCAT
Fulton Lane, 45 levels and 29 levels
33-43 Batman Street
35 Spring Street, 42 levels

[ list from multiple sources, including this skyscraper map ]

29.10.12 in buildings urban-design

comment

Impressive visualisations

by Dan on 8 November 12 ·#

the towers look shaky already,lucky there is no
earthquake…not a good design…looks unstable
and is in fact an eyesore…if not scary effect of about to fall or slip down effect..sorry to say…
consider wraps of curtain-style facade so it’s neat
yet soft vertically to achive style…elegance…
good luck…if you need help please feel free to email to me…

by Iva on 15 November 12 ·#

And they get taller: 108 storeys tall

by peter on 18 November 12 ·#

page 1  2 ... 27