the brief the site in context: north fitzroy in the 21 century › - › media › all-images ›...

26-56 Queens Parade and Rear 26-56 Queens Parade

Expert Evidence

VCAT Reference No P2079/2016 and P147/2017

The Brief Roger Poole was instructed to provide independent expert architectural evidence to inform the VCAT Proceedings No P2079/2016 and P147/2017, which are examining the proposed development at 26-56 and Rear 26-56 Queens Parade, North Fitzroy. The permit applicant/applicant for review has requested that I conduct an in-depth examination principally of the Cox Architecture proposal supplied to me and formulate my own opinion, within the limits of my expertise, with respect to the appropriateness of the proposal in its context. Here I will set out my independent opinion of the proposal and its appropriateness as a solution for development of the subject site. I do so mindful of the proposal by Koichi Takada Architects for the Rear 26-56 Queens Parade. The Site in Context: Melbourne in the 21st Century Metropolitan Melbourne now has a population of more than 4.5M, and will reach 5M by 2025 if not sooner. As Co-Chair of the Committee for Melbourne Task force “Melbourne Beyond Five Million”, I have a clear idea of future metropolitan growth, and a realistic expectation of 7.5M-8M in the 2050 to 2060-time frame. While a good deal of this growth will occur in the North and West of Melbourne, governments have no power to control the choices of new residents, and can only influence them through rather broad policy measures. I anticipate that demand for housing in the inner suburbs will continue to be high due to all of the manifold advantages of the CAD: jobs, amenity, entertainment, transport and infrastructure. Many of Melbourne’s inner suburbs have extraordinary infrastructure for living. Excellent housing stock, good local shopping and open space, access to schools and childcare, and efficient public transport. State governments, in particular, are struggling to balance the expectations of local residents while facing market pressures and the views of metropolitan planners who argue that on equity grounds more people should have access to existing infrastructure and amenity.

The Site in Context: North Fitzroy in the 21st Century North Fitzroy is a much-loved Inner Melbourne suburb, with distinctive character and history. Highly valued for its historic architectural fabric and mature street trees, North Fitzroy combines intimacy and small scale associated with an urban village with excellent proximity to Melbourne’s CAD. In this sense, North Fitzroy already represents part of the oft-desired 20-minute city – a place where work, family life and education can be accessed within a twenty-minute travel range. Melbourne is experiencing rapid urban growth driven by migration and expanding economic opportunity. As one of the world’s most liveable cities, Melbourne is attractive to long term residents and new arrivals. In particular, North Fitzroy has direct tram access to the CAD, as well as Melbourne and RMIT Universities. For all these reasons, there is substantial unmet demand for dwellings designed for present and future residents of North Fitzroy. The issue facing planners and urban designers is how to balance the amenity of existing residents with the need to accommodate higher residential densities. North Fitzroy, as a part of central Melbourne, will be expected to make some contribution to absorbing Melbourne’s new and relocating residents.

26-56 Queens Parade North Fitzroy

Evidence of Roger W Poole LFRAIA RIBA MAPI

Roger Poole Architects Pty Ltd Architecture Urban Design Strategy 2

The Role of Apartments in maintaining Social Diversity The increasing cost of housing is a great challenge for both younger and older households. Where once a family’s first home might be a small attached terrace in North Fitzroy, such properties are beyond the financial reach of a great many people. What some people call gentrification is essentially the effect of market forces. In order to retain the current diverse mix of ages and cultures which give North Fitzroy much of its neighbourhood character, the housing solution for younger families and for smaller, older households must often be an apartment. The challenge to planners, architects and urban designers is how best to incorporate new apartments into rather delicate and finely balanced urban contexts, such as that surrounding the subject site. If local streets and historic dwellings and streetscapes are to be preserved, and yet increases in residential density need to be accommodated, then larger sites provide the best opportunity for designers to create contemporary apartment developments which respect neighbourhood character and the heritage fabric. The architectural design response must be innovative and contemporary, yet show a deep understanding and level of respect for the heritage and neighbourhood fabric. Boulevards and Local Streets The design solution for the subject site needs to address another important challenge. Queens Parade is one of Melbourne’s great boulevard approaches to the Central City. The width of these great streets and their dual carriageways, often with several rows of mature street trees, allows them to accommodate buildings of greater substance and height. Often defined by local landmarks, such boulevards can often benefit from greater definition. Carefully designed taller buildings can enhance the character of the street. If larger sites have multiple street frontages, the design needs to respect the smaller streets and be based in part on a careful study of commonly experience views from the smaller local streets.

The Site and the Urban Design Context The Subject site is located near the intersection of Queens Parade with Alexandra Parade and Brunswick Street in North Fitzroy. It is an important site in the municipality. The size of the site, together with its prominence and visibility from Melbourne’s boulevards, suggests that the flexibility exists to accommodate greater density. The Hansen Partnership Built Form Review The Queens Parade Built Form Review, prepared by Hansen Partnership, identifies the subject site as one worthy of “intended built form controls”, noting that the site is designated for future residential and mixed use. The large size of the subject site and its exceptional frontage width present significant opportunities for design. Hansen divided the road network into three categories, with the boulevard category as the largest. Queens Parade itself has a 60m typical width, developed in a varied manner. Hansen notes that “a well-proportioned street wall to street width ratio could assist in developing a consistent sense of enclosure, or encourage a sense of open streetscape to foster a more urban, high quality pedestrian amenity and legible public spaces where appropriate.” [Hansen Chapter 2]. Hansen identified the subject site as part of their Precinct 2: Boulevard Precinct. This was designated for “Consolidated midrise infill addressing the Boulevard and its sensitive heritage context. Hansen anticipated a high level of change and defined a preferred typology of “midrise infill” with a maximum building height of 10 stories or 31 metres on the strategic redevelopment site. Precinct guidelines define these parameters.




Establishing Clear Built Form Guidelines The purpose of the foregoing is not to offer planning evidence, which will be provided by other consultants. The Hansen report is cited here as evidence that a well-credentialed and duly appointed consultant was charged by the Yarra City Council to deliver a comprehensive built form review of the relevant precinct and establish clear guidelines. This review, which was supplied to me in Final Draft form dated February 2017, provides guidance about the role and form of the subject site. The Cox Architects strategy for the Amended Plans (dated 24 July 2017) responds directly to urban design concerns raised in the Hansen report and DDO 16 arising from Amendment C229. A contemporary podium is defined after close study of the surrounding building fabric, and then four separate midrise structures are placed above the podium. The podium itself is an organic assembly of pedestrian “streets” reflecting local neighbourhood character. The Effects of Amendment C229 I understand that the Minister for Planning has intervened in order to establish further guidance for development on the subject site. The submission of a 16-storey proposal for the subject site led the Minister to conclude that relevant controls did not provide “sufficient guidance to ensure such large-scale development appropriately considers the impacts on the heritage qualities of individually significant buildings, the Queens Parade streetscape and surrounding residential streets”. Evidence of detailed compliance with the provisions of Amendment C229 will be presented in town planning and related evidence by others. A significant design and regulatory journey has brought us to the current built form proposals for the subject site. The significance of the site, the heritage and urban design issues, and the landmark positioning of the site at the southern end of Queens Parade, have inspired a vibrant dialogue on the form and nature of mixed use development on the subject site. The Amended Plans by Cox Architects have had the benefit of this dialogue and of the Minister’s intervention in Amendment C229. The plans before VCAT and before me

are an entirely new design – a “clean sheet” approach which in my view is all that could have been done having regard to C229. The Amended Plans by Cox Architecture I am advised that the preparation of amended plans began with a close analysis of the regulatory envelope created by C229 and other relevant studies and guidelines. The architects then proceeded to make a detailed study of what Hansen has called Precinct 2A and surrounding districts. The Architectural Design Solution Following this analysis, the Architects proposed a solution involving a two/three storey podium surmounted by four delicately scaled mid-rise elements, each with its own lift core. The podium varies according to the context of the surrounding streets. The podium presents to the surrounding streets as an assembly of town or row houses defined by party walls. The rhythm of columns reinforces the character of the neighbourhood’s relatively small-scale houses. The predominant material used in the podium is face brickwork in a warm charcoal hue, relieved by Brighton Light concrete and white plaster detailing and as well as timber balcony ceilings. The podium is not a single object but a network of urban elements formed around pedestrian “streets or lanes” which take an organic form. The main site is an irregular polygon, which might have been defined by Queens Parade’s diagonal relationship to Alexandra Parade, which aligns with the overall Melbourne grid. Trapezoidal geometries can generate awkward spaces and places. Architects need the flexibility to shape spaces without being hostage to a complex angled geometry. Cox Architecture overcomes this problem in an innovative way. Cox follows the 19th Century North Fitzroy precedent of small streets and lanes, yet introduces an organic geometry into the small spaces which separate the podium elements. With this design device, Cox Architecture has introduced a very human and yet contemporary character into the neighbourhood. The softer geometry creates greater




flexibility to position the four midrise elements above. The form language bestows great freedom on the designer to shape the mid-rise elements in order to respond to DDO 16. By way of explanation, urban design and planning envelopes are often highly irregular and geometrically complex. Formed by studies of view lines and often sculpted to avoid inappropriate shadowing, these planning envelopes are usually established without any real concern for the challenges they pose to architectural designers. Architects who attempt a literal translation of these envelopes into built form have produced some strange and regrettable buildings. The Cox Architecture response is quite ingenious. By freeing themselves from conventional orthogonal planning and inventing an organic, layered strategy which is almost a derivative of contour mapping, the architects are free to compose the mid-rise forms efficiently within an envelope sculpted by the path of the sun. The mid-rise elements can and do change every floor when they need to in order to respect a shadow effect or view restriction. Generally, the cost consultant’s view of apartment towers favours large floors to share the cost of lifts between as many units as possible. Here, however, the size of the towers has been determined by view lines and sunlight patterns rather than lower building costs. In the Amended Plans, the four mid-rise elements are independent, each with an individual core. These cores serve the podium and the tower alike. The lift cores and their lobbies define local zones in the podium – they will be much more intimate and personal than the foyer of a large building. Each mid-rise building is completely freestanding and has been crafted in response to the others, yet all are united by the form language adopted for the intimate urban spaces at ground level. I have learned that the design resolution of these four mid-rise elements was a long, iterative journey where each tower element needed to be adjusted in response to the others. Apartment Design Quality There are a great many individual apartments in the proposal. It is a positive virtue that few are alike. The four mid-rise elements have at least sixteen

“corner” apartments per level, and there is great variety in the podium. In such circumstances, it is to be expected that not every apartment will be perfectly resolved at the planning stage. However, the submitted plans show eight units of representative types. With one exception, all bedrooms are fully glazed across their width. Unit planning is competent and fairly well resolved for this stage of work. I recommend that any further development should be benchmarked against the latest apartment design guidelines of the Victorian government, the Better Apartment Design Standards. My experience in detailed apartment design, which is very extensive, suggests that good design practices are being employed but there is room for some further refinement. Ground Plane Landscape Design I have received plans showing comprehensive landscape design for the ground plane and rooftop open spaces prepared by Jack Merlo. I am not a landscape architect, and I understand that this work is to be peer reviewed by an appropriately credentialed landscape architect. However, I have worked in concert with landscape architects for many years and am a good critic of landscape design. The design work appears to be extremely competent and comes from the studio of Jack Merlo, a widely acclaimed landscape designer of note. The Merlo Studio has captured the Architect’s design intent and produced a very well resolved design showing a great deal of skill. One example is the subtle introduction of pergola-covered security entry points which perform their critical function while maintaining the strong sense of visually accessible space. The ground spaces are fluid and elegant, the materials high in quality, and the planting choices appear thoughtful. The landscape spaces between the buildings, under the care of the Owners Corporation, will mature into high quality local open space of great value. The public areas along Queens Parade are very well designed with appropriate materials. The entire landscape proposal, including the gardens on roof terraces, appears to be of a very high standard and can be implemented after peer review.




The Question of Building Height The Cox proposal defines four mid-rise towers which are always seen in juxtaposition. The maximum height is defined by the DDO. Under that document the developer might conventionally have produced a group of box-like forms with limited variation. In the Amended Plans, Cox presents an unusual but innovative solution. I believe that the proposed tower heights are appropriate and should be maintained. The overall mass of the taller elements of the buildings is quite small. The four separate midrise elements are a much better solution than a single structure or fewer larger ones. Cox Architects show a good understanding of the urban design context of this proposal. Even though the submitted plans are primarily confined to the subject site, there is a clear appreciation of the role the building needs to play in the future of North Fitzroy. I strongly support the introduction of this new complex of buildings. The design solution is highly innovative and responds directly to AmC229. The Independent Site at Rear 26-56 Queens Parade, North Fitzroy I have examined the proposed development designed by Koichi Takada Architects [KTA] for the smaller site at the rear. This is a well-conceived proposal which appears to me to be quite sensitive to its context. The project consists of four small townhouses which have their car parking provided as part of the basement on the main site. The town houses provide a good transition from the neighbouring houses to the north. Similarly, the development of the main site at 26-56 Queens Parade has been designed to have no detrimental effects on this small project.

Architectural Design Response to Am C229 This project has been given unusually specific guidance through the creation of Am C229 as expressed in DDO16. It is appropriate to examine the Amended plans against this document. DDO Schedule 16

• The Cox Architecture proposal contributes positively to the urban character of North Fitzroy.

• The heritage façade has been retained, enhanced and incorporated into the redevelopment.

• In my opinion, the new development does not diminish or detract from the heritage values of the boulevard streetscape and the relevant skylines.

• Heritage buildings retain their three-dimensional form.

• Appropriate transitions in scale have been achieved across the site.

• The low scale and fine grain format of existing development has been recognised.

• Repetitive stepped built form at the upper levels has been avoided. Stepping is organic in form and generally formed to achieve urban design objectives.

• Amenity impacts on neighbouring properties have been considered and a high standard of internal amenity has been achieved.

• Development above the street wall has been designed as a series of separate development parts and this maintains views to the sky.

• Permeability within and through the site has been maintained.

• Appropriate solar access has been provided to the Queens Parade boulevard.

• Mandatory building heights have been respected.




• Projections above the street wall are not dominant.

• Mandated and preferred setbacks for elements above the podium have been respected.

• Good building separation has been maintained between the mid-rise elements.

Queens Parade Clifton Hill Built Form Review

• The architectural quality design and resolution of the Amended plans is very high, and has addressed issues of scale, height, materials, mass and visual bulk in an innovative and appropriate form.

• The profile and impact of redevelopment along Queens Parade and from Newry Street, Coleman Street and the Edinburgh Gardens has been considered and appropriately addressed.

• The interface with existing low-scale residential properties has been well considered.

• The project contributes to and improves the pedestrian environment and the public realm.

• The proposal’s response to the presence of heritage buildings within and close to the site is appropriate and thoughtful.

• The design for the streetscape interface and for vehicle access and egress have been well-considered and is effective.

Statement of Compliance This evidence has been prepared in compliance with VCAT Practice Note PNVCAT2 - Expert Evidence. I have closely inspected the site from many vantage points commonly used by members of the public. I have visited the site in varying climate conditions and with varying amounts of vehicle movement. I have relied upon the material supplied, comprising documentation referred to in the body of this work. I have made all of the necessary enquiries which I believe are required to give this evidence, and no information known to me has been withheld from the Tribunal. Signed

Roger William Poole LFAIA RIBA MAPI 18 August 2017




APPENDIX 1: CV OF ROGER POOLE

ROGER WILLIAM POOLE B Arch LFAIA RIBA MRAPI

Director, Roger Poole Architects Pty Ltd

EDUCATION

University of Washington, Bachelor of Architecture (Honours)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, PhD programme in City Planning and Urban Design

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

Life Fellow, Australian Institute of Architects

Member, Royal Institute of British Architects

Associate Member, American Institute of Architects

Member, Australian Planning Institute

ACADEMIC AWARDS

1969-9 US Office of Education Doctoral Fellowship to MIT (Boston)

1966 AlA Urban Design Fellowship to Massachusetts Institute of Technology

1966 AlA Silver Medal - First in Class Final Year Architecture

1965 Rockefeller Foundation Fellowship for Study in Japan

PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEES

Member, Infrastructure Committee, Victoria University

Board Member Chunky Move Ballet Company

Committee for Melbourne - Honorary Life Member

Committee for Melbourne - Former Executive Board Member

Committee for Melbourne - Co-Chair, Shaping Melbourne Task Force

Committee for Melbourne - Co-Chair, Transport Task Force

Property Council of Australia - Former Council Member

Chairman - RAIA Public Architecture Jury, 2007

Chairman - RAIA Heritage Architecture Jury, 2006

Former RAIA Chapter Vice President

LICENCES

Registered Architect - Victoria, Queensland.

OVERVIEW

Educated in Seattle and Boston, Roger Poole is an architect, urban designer and planner with over 45 years of professional and experience in architecture and urban design.

Roger Poole joined Bates Smart in 1974 becoming an Associate in 1974, an Associate Director in 1979, a Director in 1981 and Chairman from 1998 to 2015. Until July 2015, Roger Poole was the executive Chairman of Bates Smart Architects and one of Australia’s leading architectural and urban designers.

In July 2015, Roger established Roger Poole Architects Pty Ltd as a specialist architectural and urban design practice providing independent architectural and urban design advice.

Roger Poole is a strong strategic and conceptual architect, committed to an innovative and enduring approach to architecture. Roger has extensive experience in planning, designing and realising high quality, innovative buildings to meet human needs and to reflect the dynamics of contemporary urban life.

Roger believes that innovative buildings must be carefully detailed and be designed to stand the test of time. His work has received extensive peer recognition, detailed in the attached list of architectural and industry awards.

Roger has contributed, on a pro bono basis, to the work and governance of the Committee for Melbourne, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, the Property Council of Australia, and one of Melbourne’s leading independent schools. As a Life Member of the Committee for Melbourne, Roger continues to contribute to CFM task forces advising Infrastructure Victoria and Melbourne 4.0. Roger is a Board member of Chunky Move, Victoria’s leading contemporary dance company, and a Member of the Infrastructure Committee of Victoria University.




PROJECT EXPERIENCE

COMMERCIAL PROJECTS

171 Collins Street, Melbourne

Chadstone Shopping Centre Office Tower, Chadstone, Melbourne

447 Collins Street Design Competition, Melbourne

735 Collins Street, Village Docklands, Melbourne


Federation Square East, Melbourne


346 St Kilda Road, Melbourne


1 Spring Street, Melbourne


Perth DFO Proposal, Perth

Media House, The Age Headquarters, Melbourne

250 Spencer Street, Melbourne

CBW 181 William Street, Melbourne

CBW 550 Bourke Street, Melbourne

Freshwater Place Stage 2, Southbank

Freshwater Place Development, Southbank

11-33 Exhibition Street, Melbourne

Victoria Harbour Precinct Master Plan, Docklands

Yarra Waters Waterfront Development Master Plan, Docklands

Southbank Riverside Promenade, Melbourne

140 William Street Refurbishment (former BHP House)

BP Australia Headquarters Melbourne Central

Collins Place Project, Melbourne

RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS

The Eastbourne, East Melbourne

Classic East Melbourne, East Melbourne


Capitol Grand, South Yarra

Convesso Concavo, Docklands

424 St Kilda Road, Melbourne


Salta, Victoria Park, Abbotsford

25 Coventry Street, Southbank, Melbourne

150 Clarendon Street, East Melbourne

Freshwater Place, Southbank, Melbourne

The Melburnian, St Kilda Road, Melbourne

54/55 Queens Road, Melbourne

Yarra Waters Residential Redevelopment/Docklands

Constitution Hill Road, Sorrento

The ‘Breakers’, Lorne

INSTITUTIONAL AND SPECIALISED PROJECTS

Australian Embassy, Berlin

Federation Square, Melbourne

Monash University Clayton Urban Plan

University of Melbourne, Engineering Faculty, Parkville

Children’s Court of Victoria, Melbourne

Metropolitan Fire Brigade Headquarters, Melbourne

Necropolis Crematorium and Chapels

Parliament House Master Plan, Melbourne

HOSPITALITY PROJECTS

The Club Stand, Victoria Racing Club, Flemington Racecourse, Melbourne

Crown Queens Wharf Design Competition, Brisbane

Belford Street Hotel, St Kilda

Alexandra Club, Melbourne

Hilton, Adelaide

Crown Metropol, Southbank, Melbourne

Chadstone Shopping Centre Hotel, Chadstone

Crown Promenade Conference Centre, Melbourne

Aspers, United Kingdom

W Hotel, 20-30 Bourke Street, Melbourne

Crown Promenade Hotel, Southbank, Melbourne

Crown Entertainment Complex, Southbank, Melbourne

Crown Towers Hotel, Southbank, Melbourne

55 Southbank Boulevard, Melbourne

Regent Melbourne Hotel (Sofitel), Melbourne




HEALTH PROJECTS

New Bendigo Hospital, Bendigo, Victoria

The New Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville, Melbourne

Dandenong Hospital Redevelopment Stage 3, Melbourne

Emmy Monash Aged Care, Caulfield

Alexandra Gardens Aged Care, South Yarra

Peter Mac and Parkville Cancer Precinct

The Alfred Centre Stages 1 and 2, Prahran

Parkville Precinct Strategic Plan, Parkville

Cabrini Medical Centre Stages 2 + 3, Malvern

Cabrini Hospital Redevelopment, Malvern

AWARDS


Urban Taskforce Awards, Sustainability Development Award, 2014

United Nations Association of Australia World Environment Day Awards, Hanson’s Green Building Award, 2014

Asia Pacific Property Awards, Best Commercial High Rise Development, 2014

Asia Pacific Property Awards, Best Office Development, 2014

Australian Property Institute’s Pinnacle PR Environmental Development Award, 2013

Illuminating Engineers Society Excellence Award for foyer/atrium/lift lobby, 2013

Dandenong Mental Health, Melbourne

AIA (Vic) Public Architecture (New), 2014

Crown Mahogany Room, Melbourne

AIA (Vic) Commercial Architecture Sir Osborn McCutcheon Award, 2013

International Association of Lighting Designers (IALD) Awards 2013, Award of Excellence

Illuminating Engineering Society (NSW), Award for Lobby chandelier, 2012

Concavo Display Suite, Docklands

Australian Interior Design Awards, Commendation for Residential Decoration, 2012

The Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville

World Architecture Festival Awards Health winner, 2012

Emirates Glass LEAF Awards International Interior Design Award winner, 2012

Interior Design Excellence Awards: Public Space winner; Overall Winner award, 2012

AIA National Architecture Awards: National Award for Public Architecture, 2012

AIA (Vic) Awards: Victorian Architecture Medal winner, 2012

AIA (Vic) Awards: Public Architecture William, 2012

AIA (Vic) Awards: Wardell Award winner, 2012

AIA (Vic) Awards: Melbourne Prize winner, 2012

AIA (Vic) Awards: Interior Architecture Marion Mahoney Award commendation, 2012

Illuminating Engineering Society (NSW), Award for Atrium Lighting, 2012

Australian Property Institute Excellence in Property Awards, Investa Environmental Development Award, 2012

Australian Steel Institute Victorian Steel Awards, Steel Clad Structures winner, 2012

Melbourne Design Awards, Wayfinding winner, 2012

Design & Health International Academy Awards: International Interior Design Project winner, 2012

Design & Health International Academy Awards: International Sustainable Design, 2012

Design & Health International Academy Awards: Health Project over 40,000 sqm, 2012

Design & Health International Academy Awards: International use of Art in the Patient Environment highly commended, 2012

Australian Interior Design Awards: Premier Award for Interior Design Excellence & Innovation, 2012

Australian Interior Design Awards: Public Design Award, 2012

Australian Interior Design Awards: Colour in Commercial Design Award, 2012

Australian Interior Design Awards: Best of State Commercial Design Award, 2012

National Infrastructure Awards: Project of the Year Award, 2012

Building Products News Sustainability Awards: Public Building & Urban Design Award, 2012

Building Products News Sustainability Awards: Best of the Best, 2012

Dulux Colour Awards: Grand Prix Winner & Commercial Interior, 2012




Media House, Melbourne

Property Council of Australia/Rider Levett Bucknall Innovation & Excellence Awards: Australian Development of the Year, 2012

Property Council of Australia/Rider Levett Bucknall Innovation & Excellence Awards: Colliers International Award for Best Office Development, 2012

Property Council of Australia/Rider Levett Bucknall Innovation & Excellence Awards: Project Control Group Award for Best Workplace Project, 2012

Property Council of Australia Regional Awards (Vic): Victorian Development of the Year, 2012

Crown Metropol, Melbourne

AIA (Vic) Architecture Award, 2011

Australian Interior Design Awards, Hospitality Design (National), 2011

Belle Coco Republic Interior Design Awards, Best Hospitality Interior, 2011

Interior Design Excellence Awards (IDEA) Hospitality – Highly Commended, 2010

Freshwater Place, Southbank, Melbourne

Urban Development Institute of Australia National Awards for Excellence, Best High-Density Development, 2007

Urban Development Institute of Australia (Vic) Awards for Excellence, Best High-density Development and Best Master Planned Development, 2006

Property Council of Australia Award (Vic) Category Winner – CBD Office Buildings, 2006.

Federation Square, Melbourne

Australian Stone Architectural Awards, Best Civic Project, 2006

Property Council of Australia Award (Vic), Overall Winner, 2005

Urban Land Institute, Asia Pacific Award for Excellence, 2005

AILA Victoria & Tasmania Awards in Landscape Architecture, Overall Winner and Award for Design Excellence, 2003

RAIA National Awards, Walter Burley Griffin Award for Urban Design, 2003

Architecture + Cityscape Awards, Dubai, Winner, Urban Design Category, 2003

RAIA Victorian Chapter Awards, Victorian Architecture Medal, 2003

RAIA Victorian Chapter Awards, The Melbourne Prize, 2003

RAIA Victorian Chapter Awards, Urban Design Award, 2003

RAIA Victorian Chapter Awards, Institutional – New Architecture Award, 2003

Kenneth F Brown Award Asia Pacific Culture and Architecture Design Award (Hawaii), Honorable Mention, 2002

The Ian Potter Centre at Federation Square, Melbourne

NGV Australia at Federation Square, Interior Design Awards Australia: Australian Design Awards Interior Design Selection; Public/Institutional Interior Design Award, Design Excellence and Innovation Award, 2004

RAIA National Awards, Award for Interior Architecture, 2003

RAIA Victorian Chapter Awards, Interior Architecture Award, 2003

FX International Interior Design Awards (UK), Best Museum, 2003

Dulux Colour Awards, Category Winner, Public Spaces & Temporary Structures, 2003

The Labyrinth, Federation Square, Melbourne

C&CAA, Public Domain Awards, Category Winner, Sustainable Design, 2003

Crown Promenade Hotel, Southbank, Melbourne

Property Council of Australia (Vic), Hotels category winner, 2006

RAIA (Vic), Commercial Architecture Award, 2004

The Melburnian, Melbourne

Property Council of Australia (Vic), Overall Winner, 2003

Urban Development Institute of Australia National Award for Excellence, Medium Density Development, 2003

Urban Development Institute of Australia (Vic) Award for Excellence, High Density Development, 2002

HIA Victorian Housing Awards, Category Winner, High Density, 2002

RAIA (Vic) Chapter Award for Residential New – Multiple, 2002

MBA (Vic) Excellence in Construction, Master Builder of the Year, 2002

Children’s Court of Victoria, Melbourne

Property Council of Australia (Vic), Category Winner, Public Buildings, 2001

RAIA (Vic) Chapter Award for New Institutional Buildings, Award of Merit, 2000

Southbank Promenade, Southbank

BDP National Urban Design Award, Finalist, 1998

RAIA (Vic) Chapter Award for Urban Design, Award of Merit, 1998




APPENDIX 2: Design Process Diagrams This set of six diagrams shows how Cox Architects evolved the design for the site. Beginning with the notion of a podium, then introducing pedestrian “streets” positioned for good solar access, a series of podium elements was established which responds to the neighbourhood “grain.” Reflecting on the DDO envelope, the massing is split into three wedges which must contain the mid-rise elements. These wedges are then transformed into four non-identical buildings, each of which is shaped by considerations of solar access, building separation and overlooking, and views from local streets.

The resultant form is innovative, yet recessive. Each building takes on its own character shaped by a wide variety of

influences. The forms can continue to evolve as the design develops.




APPENDIX 3: View from Queens Parade This typical view of the podium and tower interface illustrates the three-storey podium with a refined vertical rhythm, good use of face brickwork and finely-detailed screens timber to link the complex to the surrounding residential neighbourhood. Mid-rise elements use Brighton Light concrete, timber screens and timber ceilings in a timeless palette which also relates to the materials used in the podium.




APPENDIX 4: 26-56 Queens Parade South Elevation In this image by Cox Architects, the incorporation of the historic building fabric is clearly shown. The brick and timber podium elements have a delicate rhythm and proportion related to typical Victorian and Edwardian streetscapes. The use of brick and timber reinforces this domestic connection. The mid-rise elements, in contrast, are fluid and intermittent, allowing good solar penetration to the Boulevard. Timber screens and ceilings link the mid-rise elements to the podium and the surrounding neighbourhood.




APPENDIX 5: Finishes Schedule for 26-56 Queens Parade supplied by Cox Architecture

This finishes schedule shows clearly how grey brick and painted brick, clear glazing, timber balustrades and timber soffits

are used to link the podium and mid-rise elements. In my opinion, this is a thoughtful and appropriate use of materials to

define, differentiate and yet link the elements of the design.

The materials appear to be designed to have enduring merit. Colours are neutral or natural. There is no positive colour.

The buildings should age well.

the brief the site in context: north fitzroy in the 21 century › - › media › all-images ›...

Documents