Save Dimmeys. Yarra Council. Urban Design Advice. McGauran

8/6/2019 Save Dimmeys. Yarra Council. Urban Design Advice. McGauran

1/10

A,rchitecture Plaoning Interior Design

INDEPENDENT URBAN DES!GN ADVICE

PBOPOSED MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTDIMMEYS SITE _ 140.160 SWAN STREET RICHMOND

December 2010

Prepared ByHobert McGauranB. Arch. (Hons. Melb), B.A. (Fine Arts Melb.), P.D.M. (Melb.), LFRAIA, Architect

McGauran Giannini Soon fty LtdABN 13 006 488 30210-22 Manton LaneMelbourne 3000 AustraliaTelephone 61 3 9670 1800Facsimile 61 3 9670 1808Email: mgs@mgsarchitects com auwww-mgsa rchitects-com,ait

DirectoB:Robert McGauranB Arch lHonslUM|AM (Fire Arts)Eli GianniniM Amh UFAIA[rrlK SoonB Arch (Honsl FBAIAChris JonesI Arch MIA


2/10

t a

CONTENTS

1, Background2. Strategic Planning Gontext3. Assessment4. Documents forming the basis of the report

)

MGS Architects


3/10

1. BACKGBOUNDiurthei'to my earlier report in April 2010 and subsequent advice regarding alternative treatments I havebeen requested by the City of Yarra to review the proposal for a mixed use redevelopment 0f theDimmeys site at 140-'160 Swan Street, where it falls within my areas of expertise.I have specifically been asked to comment on the proposal having regard for state and local planningpolicy provisions of the Yarra Planning Scheme as they relate t0:. The appropriateness of the design treatment of the proposed development and its streetscapelmpact. Siting, bulk and height of the proposed building and its impact. Does the proposal achieve a high architectural and urban design 0utcome. lnternal AmenityDeclaration of interestI have in the past provided representation for the owner of the subject property for a retail developmentin Tecoma in 2009, I have no ongoing relationship of any kind with the applicant or owner.

2. STBATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXT2.1 State Planning Policy. Clause 11 and Melbourne 2030 encourages more lntensive development in Activity Centresincorporating regard for Melbourne @ 5miltion. lt outlines a vision for the sustainable growth ofMelbourne for the next 30 years.. Clause 11.01 relates to 'Activity Centres'- lt seeks to:> Encourage a diversity of housing types at higher densities in and around activity centres.

> Reduce the number of private motorised trips by concentrating activities that generate highnumbers of (non-freight) trips in highly accessible activity centres.> lmprove access by walking, cycling and public transport to services and facilities for local andregional populations.> Broaden the mix of uses in activity centres to include a range of services over longer hoursappropriate to the type of centre and needs of the population served,> Provide a focus for business, shopping, working, leisure and community facilitie's.> Encourage economic activity and business synergtes.

. Clause 11.04 Metropolitan Melbourne seeks to establish a hierarchy of centres and to providetargeted new housing within these centres. Within MAC's like Bay Street the SPPF seeks to:> Have a mix of activities that generate high number of trips including business, retail, servicesand entertainment.> Are well served by multiple public transport routes and are on the Principal Public TransportNetwork or capable of linking to that network.> Have the potential t0 grow and support intensive housing developments without conflictingwith surrounding land-uses.> Encourage Major Activity Centres with good public transport links to grow in preference to. other centres with poor- public transport !inks serving the same catchment.

. Glause 15 Built Environment and Heritage - notably 15.01 Urban Design - encouragesdevelopment "To achieve arch[tectural and urban design outcones that contribute positively to localurban character and enhance the public realm while mininising detrinentd impact on neighbouringpropefties."MGS Architects


4/10

)

Policy guidelines to consider where relevant include:> Design Guidelines for Higher Density Hesidential Development (Department of Sustainabilityand Environment, 2004) in assessing the design and built form of residential development offour or more storeys.> Activity Centre Design Guidelines (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 200b) inpreparing activity centre structure plans and in assessing the design and built form of newdevelopment in activity centres.> Safer Design Guidelines for Victoria (Crime Prevention Victoria and Department ofSustainability and Environment, 2005) in assessing the design and built form of newdevelopment.> Urban Design Charter for Victoria (Department of Planning and Community Development 200g).

' Clause 16 Housing, encourages housing in and around activity centres and the prioritising ofopportunities in these areas for intensification of housing- More generally it looks to creatinghousing diversity and increased housing in established areas that respects neighbourhood character,more effectively utilises existing infrastructure and adds housing diversity. lmportantly it seeks tolncrease the supply of housing in existing urban areas by facilitating increased housing yield inappropriate locations, including under-utilised urban.land.

. Clause 17 encourages economic development ol Activity Centres to build employment andcommercial opportunities.n Glause 18 Transport, encourages solutions that 'ensure an integrateci anci sustainable transportsystem that provides access t0 social and economic opportunities, facilitates economic prosperity,contributes to environmental sustainability, coordinates reliable movements of people and goods,and is safe.

integrate planning for bicycle travel with land use and development planning and to encouragecycling as an alternative mode of travel.. GIause 19.01 Promotes renewable energy use in development. Clause'lg-03-0S seeks tominimise waste and encourages recycling.

Melbourne 2Gl0 : A Planning Update - Melbourne @ 5 Million acknowledges the higher thananticipated growth of the city directs that obliges established areas are to accommodate 53 per centof new dwellings.State of the Environment Report - Victoria 2008.Higher Density Residential GuidelinesSafety by Design Guidelines

2.2 local Planning PolicyThe following clauses in the MSS are relevant to this application:c Clause 2f .05-1 Element 1: Urban Design Franiework. Clause 21.05-2 Element 2: Besidential Land Use and DevelopmentThe site is not a designated 'strategic Redevelopmenl Site' on the Residential Land Use andDevelopment Framework Plan, but given its scale presents a significant development opportunity.. Glause 22.-3 Landmarks and Tall Structures: The Dimmeys clock tower is identified as one of B

landmark structures with the policy aiming t0 protect key views to these iconic skyline elements.

aaa

MGS Architeats


5/10

o Clause D.-10 - Built Form and Design Policy _This policy seeks to ensure that the resolution of new buildings limits their impact on the amenity ofsurrounding land, lt also seeks t0 ensure new development makes a positive contribution to thestreetscape through high standards in architecture and urban design- The policy comprises ninedesign objectives to guide the assessment of built form:> The lnner Melbourne Action Plan> Economic Development Strategy (2009)

> Cremorne and Church Street Precinct Urban Design Framework (2007)> East Richmond Station - Access and Amenity lmprovements (200g)23 Policy SummaryAs noted in my earlier report, the planning policy mainly emphasizes.' A significantly higher than previously forecast population projection for metropolitan Melbourne.' A significantly higher groMh than previously anticipated for the established urban areas then thatenvisaged when Melbourne 2030 was released inZ00Z.' ln this context (and even in the earlier forecasts for both the City and Municipality), the PAC's andMAC's, as established in Melbourne 2030 have an important capacity function,. With the policy announcement of the new government that new development out of centres alongtram routes will be discouraged, there is an argument that even greater intensification should beanticipated for Activity Centre areas-' The facilitation of a "more compact city" is best achieved by encouraging employment, commercialactivity, housing and community groMh in and at the edge of these activity centres therebyenhancing their dynamism and effective utilisation of existing infrastructure.' The mixed-use, public transport rich zones such as this area favoured location in strategic planningpolicy terms for these objectives to be achieved.. The heritage overlays existing over the Swan Street streetscape and the individual state listedheritage significance of the building will impose some constraints on developmenl over and abovewhat might typically be envisaged on a site of this scale and location.

Typically this will mean that:' lmpacts on the public realm via eithervisual bulk or height will be significantly mitigated.' Built form changes will need to respond to the significance of and desired legibility of key landmarkfeatures of the building, notably the tower form and streetscape facades when seen fromsurrounding streets, key vantage points and spaces.. Notwithstanding, a significant number of successful precedents exist within the municipality whereutilisation of heritage fabric and modest change have been accommodated whilst preserving thevalued attributes of the place. Examples within the municipality include redevelopment of much ofthe Foy and Gibson complex and the Bryant and May site.' Local policy and more recent strategic Planning initiatives such as Cremorne UDF have continued toproactively direct significant change into preferred locations such as the Cremorne and EastBichmond precinct.o The site's location relative to shops, services and public transport underscore its locationalcredentials for higher intensity development. In this context it should be widely acknowledged thatthe site is underutilised in its presentform. Subjectto a satisfactory design response acknowledgingits heritage credentials, it should be deveioped rnore intemively if Melbourne 2030 principles are to

be achieved.o The immediate context has been one where modest chanQes and intensification have occurred.More significant change has occurred in Cremorne, in the former industrial areas along ChurchStreet south and to the eastern end of Swan Street and in the area between Coppin Street andHoddle Street south where large scale warehouse conversions or brownfields redevelopment hasoccurred.MGS Architects


6/10

)t-

. An issues and opportunities paper for, the Swan Street Structure Plan prepared by David Lock andAssociates is presently out for public consultation. Dimmeys is identified as a key iconic complexwithin this plan.2.4 ZoningThe Site is within a Business 1Zone.2.5 OverlaysThe Site is affected by a Heritage Overlay H0335 for the Swan Street Retail Precinct and is individuallyof local (H0360) and State Heritage (H21 84) significance.2.6 0ther Relevant Provisions. Clause 52.06 Car Parking. Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities

Clause 52.35 Urban Context Beport and Design Hesponse for Residential Development for Four orMore Storeys. Clause 52.36 lntegrated Public Transport Planning. Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

,

3. ASSESSMENTThe project is now configured with 2 basement levels of car parking (in lieu of 3) - the lowest forresidential carparking for 100 cars, along with 35 bike spaces (25 resident and l0 visitor), with directaccess to Byron Street and the upper level for commercial parking for 74 car spaces and B bike spacesinclusive of a residential bin area, trolley bay areas and lift and travelator access to the retail level.The retail ground floor level now incorporates 2 separate retail tenancies - a larger tenancy of 2168sqm. and a srnaller 423 sqm, corner tenancy: The absence of separate access and back of house areaswould suggest that this is a related tenancy (liquor store or similar being conventional partners forsupermarkets).The access to upper level residential areas is via a glazed gallery entrance down the Byron Streetalignment from Swan Street and also from an entrance: at the iear or south end of the Green streetfrontage. . The first floor incorporates 15 warehouse style loft apartments, 2 sguth endapartments reflecting the footprint of the oval tower over, community facilities for theproject and office/amenities for the lower level major supermarket, linked by a lift.The Plant area for the supermarket is located to the south of Apartment 1.01 and .l.02.. Level 2 incorporates the upper levels of 2 apartments 11.10 and 11.12 to the north-western end of the site and an eastem wing of 5 x 2 level townhouse style units 3.06to 3.10 and 5 x 1 bedroom units 3.11 to 3,15. The ovaltower footprint incorporates afurther 7 units with the primary lift core to the Byron Street interface. Setbacks toeach frontage are modest, with the setbacks to Green Street 2.54m., Swan Street3.62m. and Byron Street 2.0ZSn.. At levels 4 to '10 , I apartments occupy the oval tower.

A ficuiew oi the Schenre. The site is an appropriate one forthe inclusion of higherdensity housing above ground level retail. ltenjoys close proximity to diverse fixed rail public transport and many of the key venues andattractions in Melbourne.. ln general terms I am satisfied that the layout of units provide for a reasonable level of amenity foroccupants. The exceptions are as follows:a. Juxtaposition between units of less than gm., such as between 3.16 and 3.15

)

MGS Architects


7/10

r)

b. The interface of units 1.01 and 1.02 with the proposed Equipment area to theirimmediate southc. The juxtaposition of Unit 1.i 7 with the plant room area to the eastBecommendations1. Delete Unit 1.01, incorporating this area into the adjacent office amenity zone.2. Provide a suitably configured acoustic barrier and acoustic window and wall treatments between thesouth facing windows 0f Unit 1.02 and the adjacent equipment area and the eastern facing windows

and doors of Unit 1.17 with the adjacent equipnent plant area.2. I am satisfied that the proposed restoration works to the Swan Street elevation and to theclocktower will enhance the resilience and long-term sustainability of these heritage elements andappear to be consistent in their approach with good heritage practice.3. Similarly, the proposed extensions and treatmen.t t0 the Byron Street heritage fabric and theproposed rear podium extensian, incorporating a major graphic image to the railway line inteiace inparticular is one that borrows from the mural treatments adopted for Green Street in a clntemporaryway and is meritorious in its approach4. The separation of loading and plant area zones from the original rear facade graphics has enhancedvisibility of these areas.

5. 'The configuration of entries and the provision of supermarket access and access to parkingproximate to residential entrances and delivering access to the street frontage means that theground floor retail facility will provide a valuable parking resource not only for the site itself but forthe broader retail precinct. This embedding of car parking fotr commercial use under part of the siteis a strategically valuable inclusion within the Swan Street context and its incorpdration into anextended-hour. facility such as a supermarket will ensure that princifles of safety by design areachieved.6. I am generally satisfied that residential and retail entrances have been satisfactorily handted.The appropriateness oI the design treatment ol the proposed building and its streetscape:'i::l satisfied that whilst visible, the siting of the above podium tower form is tocated andconfigured in a form that enables key views to the Dimmeys tower and the legibility of the historicbuilt form to remain lgg&le. The removal of a level off the tower in combination with its reconfiguration has resulted in a solutionthat I believe is satisfactory in the built form context.. The adoption fi"T[ffid form has created a contrast between the existing historic rectilinearpodium form and the language of the new building that has generally resulted in convincing solution.. The photomontagqs provided by the applicant confirm that the location of the tower form is suchthat it does not unreasonably impact on the legibility of the juxtaposition of the Dimmeys Tower andpodium or the '19'h and early 20'n century key streetscape views.Layout and AmenityThe proposed conversion of the first floor areas for a perimeter zone of lofts or warehouse shells and acentral zone accommodating communal facilities is supported.. Similarly, the inclusion of a new edge treatment to the rail reserve incorporating an integratedgraphic and the inclusion of a fringe of apartments set back from this edge above ai level 1 is also. ,. supportedo The proposed streeiscape expression in Green and Byron Streets of these edges as well as therailway reserve is well handled.. The amendments t0 form openings in the Byron Street frontage clearly acknowledge archedfenestration attributes of the main facade without absolutely mimicking them. As a secondarystreetscape I believe this approach is acceptable.

MGS Architects


8/10

]t

. ln my earlier report I noted that the typological model that I would advocate in this context is onemore consistent with applying to the Foy & Gibson Precinct. The context is not one in which therehas been widespread use of tower forms in conjunction r,rrith a heritage streetscape, Bridge Hoadwest is where such an approach has been widely used and formed part of both council strategy andcharacter for the precinct. The same cannot be said in this instance- ln response to this concern thedesigner has reduced the footprint of the upper level form, lowered the height and increasedsetbacks form the Dimmeys tower and street frontage. The methodology is similar in response tothat which has been adopted for some of more prominent inner city developments such as theHerald and Weekly Times complex, the Drill Hall development (Designed by our firm in VictoriaStreet. Melbourne), a number of the Paris-End Collins Street redevelopments and on for example, theproposed Smith St Banco development. The approach has been as I understand it approved byHeritage Victoria. I am satisfied that the work and revision undertaken by the applicant justifiessupport of the revised development. They have been careful to acknowledge the key views in theirpositioning and scaling ofform and have developed a design solution that has adopted a form that isconsidered from all aspects and varies in its view. Whilst seen it is.acknowledged that it occupiesone of the larger sites in the immediate local and sits behind the street wall of heritage buildings.

whether the proposal achieves a high architecturat and urban design outcomeln a strategic sense, adaptive use of the ground floor for a supermarket. inclusion of a large scale carparking footprint beneath and activation and enhancement of podiums in Green Street, Byron Streetand to the railway reserve, are all meritorious.The restoration of some highly regarded facade and tower elements seen within the Swan Streetcontext and associated with Dimmeys is also supported. The adaptive re-use of the first floor issimilarly consistent with such an approach.The inclusion of an integrated art strategy for the south wall is supported. I note that the proposalalso considers the existing commissioned artwork on the eastern wall.BecommendationsThe management of this existing aft mural installation to the Green Street elevation shoutd beprotected via a management plan (ta the approval of the responsible authority) through theconstruction works and should be the subject of a permit condition ensuring that the work ispratected and made good on completion.The ESD report prepared by GIW notes a number of ESD inittatives that when combined result indevelopment of acceptable standards. I would however recommend the inctusion of shortlerm bikeracks within the streetscape zone, in pafticular to the Swan Street frontage and adjacent the GreenStreet residential entry for visitors to the complex. The placement 0f these racks should be to thesatisfaction of the responsible authority.I note the report from MEL Consulting indicates that the design measures adopted have resulted inthe retention of high comfart levels for pedestrians at each of the street interfaces.1vershadowing impacts are noted to the adjacent residential developments to the south east ands1uth west in the afternoon and morning respectively. I am of the view that.these impacts are not..--^^^^-^Lt-Ul ll EdSIll ltillle

lnternal amenityThe internal amenity is generally acceptable. Most corridors have at least one area open to an externalwindow with the main entry to the Byron Street frontage having a generously scaled lobby to eachtower levei, enjoying views to the street and exterior. Hattway *idthi grnrrrlly excee,J i.Bm. hence,with the eiception of the units luxtaposed with the supermarket plant area the outcome is acceptable.The plant area will require specific considerations for all units interfacing with this zone to ensurereasonable standards of amenity are not compromised.I am not in receipt of the acoustic report but see this resolution as an essential issue to address for alleastern wln0 apartments (1.l.0'l-11.02,3.12-3.17,4.07-4.09, etc.). lf rhis rs not specifically addressed in

NOTH' N6RFMERITOT'T.'--wtr_]R

MGS Architects


9/10

this report it will be necessary to do so. lt will similarly be important to ensure this plan does notimpact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties.Simila.rlv, screening will be necessary between Apartment 3 15, Unit 3-16 and units such as 4.08 over.RecommendationScreening is to be provided between Apaftment 3.15 and 3.14 and adjacent elevate tlwer units to theeast s0 that overlooking is avoided to private lpen space and habitable rooms within gm.Stafl AreasAccesstothestaff arealofticeforthecommercialtenancyisviaaliftbutnotstairs. This seemstobean unfortunate and impractical outcome. lt is recommended that a stair be incorporated in conjunctionwith a lift to rhis area.Access to the staff area via the adjacent residential area is not supported. This should be foremergency use only if necessary at all. lt would be desirable to provide this area with direct egress t0the street without traversing an otherwise unrelated residential area. This would appear to be possiblethrough the inclusion of a stair down to the BOH area below south of the retail tenancy wall.BecommendationProvide stdir as well as lift access from the retail tenancy to staff areas over.Salety and SecurityThe indented laneway linking the Retail B0H area t0 Green street is currently unsecured. The inclusionof a security gate t0 this area to prevent the creation of areas of concealment would be desirable.Becommendationlncorporate an luter gate to the eastern walkway from the fretail B1H ta Green Street t0 avoido pportu n iti es f o r conce a lment.

4, DOCUMENTS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE REPOBTArchitectural Drawings - Armsby Architects - November 2010. Drawing No. TPl0l -Site Plan. Drawing No. TPl02 - Basement 2 Plano Drawing No. TP103 - Basement 'l Plano Drawing No. TPl04-Ground FloorPlan. . Drawing No. TPl 05 - First Floor Level 2 Plan. Drawing No. TPI 06 - Second Floor Level 3 Plan. Drawing No. TP l07 - Typical Fourth-Seventh Floors Plano Drawing No. TPl08 - Fourth Floor Level 5 Plano Drawing No, TPl 09 - Fifth Floor Level 6 Plan. Drawing No. TPI 1 0 - Sixth Floor Level 7 Plan. Drawing No. TPl l 1 - Seventh Floor Level 8 Plan. Drawing No. TPl 12 - Eighth Floor Level 9 Plano Drawing No. TPl 13 - Ninth Floor Level l0 Plan. Drawing No. TP'l 14 - Boof Level 1 1 Plan- Dr"wing N0. TP20'l - North + East Elevationso Drawing N0. TP202 - South + West Elevationso Drawing No. TP301 - Sections A+B. Drawing No. TP302-Sections C+D. Drawin0 No TP501 -Site Survery Ground Floor. D'awirrg No. fp501 _ Site Survey First Floor. Drawing No. TP503 - Ground Demolition Plan. Drawing No. TP504 - First Demolition Plan. Drawing No. TP505- Hoof Demolition Plan. Drawing No. TP506 - North + East Elevation

. Drawing No. TP507 - South + West Elevation

. Drawing No. TPI50 - Basement 2 Plan. Drawing No. TP151 - Basement 1 Plan. Drawing No. TPl52 - Ground Floor Level 1 Plan. Drawing No. TP'I53 - First Floor Level 2 Plano Drawing No. TPI 54 - Second Floor Level 3 Plano Drawing No. TPl 55 - Third Floor Level 4 Plano Drawing N0. TPI 56 - Fourth Floor Level 5 Plani . Drawing No. TP157-Fifth FloorLevel 6 Plano Drawing N0. TPl58 - Sixth Floor Level 7 Plan. Drawing No. TPl59 - Seventh Floor Level 8 Plano Drawing No. TPl60 - Eighth Floor level g PIanr Drawing No. TPl6'l - Ninth Floor Level 10 Plan.. . Drawing No. TPl 62 - Boof Level 1 1 Plan. Drawing No. TP203- North Elevation. Drawing No. TP204 - East Elevationo Drawing No. TP205- South Elevationo Drawing N0. TP206 -West Elevation

r ,Drawing No. 1P303 - Section A. Drawing No TP304 - Section Bo Drawing No. TPll{}S - Section Co Drawing No. TP306-Section D. Drawing No. TP307 - Sightlinesr Drawing No. TP308 - Sightlines.

MGS Architects


10/10

aaaa

aa

Urban Context Report - Armsby Architects - November 2010ESD Beport - GIW Environmental Solutions - November 2010Enr.,ironmental Wind Assessment - MEL Consultants - November 2010Proposed Artwork Concept Dimmeys South Facade - Ralf Kempken Stencils & Screens - September2010Planning Beport - Planned FX - December 2010Landscape Concept Plan - Harrietie Conway - November 20'10

Dated: December 2010

)

)

MGS Architects 10