20 April 2024

Yay or nay ? The idea of demolishing all the 1960s housing commission high rise towers is in the Age today. Architect Peter McIntyre, who helped design the red brick ones in Nicolson Street Carlton, one of the first on the list (last pic), points out they’re likely quite structurally sound. Those ones are almost the only ones that arnt built with the pebbly beige and brown precast panels of the other 20 or so estates, which are not at all pretty but I’m used to them. The most striking one is the tallest, Park Towers in South Melbourne, 31 floors of massiveness, but lots of greenery around, and nominated to Heritage Victoria. My view is yes at least one example should be kept if they’re all going to be demolished, but also I don’t see the point of demolishing them – the redevelopment will only see an extra 10% of public housing, when what we actually need is like 30,000 new units. Also, any rebuilding as lower blocks would have far less open space. The towers have a bad rap, but I’ve been in a flat, and it wasn’t terrible, though bigger windows would be nice, and since they added security in the 90s, safety is the same as low rise or even the new public housing blocks. The landscaping is pretty terrible though. Im pretty sure the main reason it’s proposed is because these private rebuilds mean the state government doesn’t spend much, including future maintenance, which is the responsibility of the developer, and of course the development industry thinks it’s all great. Pics 1-3 Park Towers, 3 from @naagovau, 3,4 the Atherton Gardens estate in Brunswick Street.

11 May 2018

“Park Towers was the pinnacle of the Victorian Housing Commisions high rise public housing program which led the world in the development of the precast concrete panel high rise from 1964 to 1975” (Emporis). Completed 1969, 31 storeys, the tallest of the many #HousingCommission towers, and thought to be tallest in the world at the time (a few in the UK by then were 28 floors, and the Trellick Tower was 32, completed in 1971). Not sure if we ‘led the world’ in prefab housing towers though ! The Soviet world was building zillions of precast. The UK built many dozens in precast but all using the same systems. R R Prentice, who was Chief Architect of the HCV until mid 1971, is noted specifically as the architect of Park Towers. RJB Hiscox was the Engineer, and CV Hore the Chief Technical Officer and also an engineer. Info from the Heritage Victoria post war study 2009.

Many responses to the Instagram post re demolition, strong feelings both ways :

• multiplicitymuckabout NAY in capitals and we don’t do capitals so angry!
• phunnyfotos.on.flickr I’m undecided. But I do wonder where ‘they’ think ‘they’ are going to accommodate the current tenants for the years it will take to demolish and rebuild 🤔
• deddle8ug Peter McIntyre’s 16 storey towers on the corner of Nicholson and Elgin were so much better than the earlier versions, they had balconies that presumably provided occupants with some greater experience of the world outside.
• thomasryanphotography
• I find it fascinating that some despise these units whilst all over there are enormous tower blocks being built in far more crammed conditions etc. And the fact that so many homes are needed for people doesn’t seem to address the issue of housing people
• othermoderns Embodied carbon anyone?? Adapt and re-use for gods sake
• mutt_elvis We should be looking at the work of Lacaton and Vassal in France where they renovated and extended the existing apartments whilst the residents resides inside by basically attaching a new building with new services to the facade. Google “Transformation of 530 dwellings / Lacaton & Vassal + Frédéric Druot + Christophe Hutin architecture”
• ornament_crime Adaptive re-use – I think they should stay – look at what Lacaton & Vassal have done in France
• b.o.o.t.private Demolish all, keep one or two as relics. They’re far too tall and too cramped. Tiny windows. No balconies. No double glazing. No rooftop gardens. For once let’s have a visionary conversation about the future.
• squidjum Just fix it and let people stay there. This constant demolish-rebuild is disruptive and bad for the environment.
• marcioncoelhojr Due to cultural and environmental preservation reasons, demolition should never be the answer.
• regional_suburbia Keep, maintain, re-furb if needed. There is already too much waste in the world.
• clariphonication Yay – they’re not in keeping with the heritage overlay
• pedestriansociety Privatisation of public housing. Labor is a disgrace.
• urbantrek Knock them down but keep 1 or 2 for historical sake…
• forbesclark Crazy to knock them. There is no way they can replace them and add another 10pc in stock. It won’t, can’t, happen. Once again public housing, not a big voter base, is used as a headline grabbing BS, hard-hatted, high-vis, excuse for a cheap tv spot.
• sh1gg1s Well written tallstorey. The social history and fabric of these towers are important, therefore can be discussed for inclusion for heritage Victoria. I personally like them and don’t want them to be demolished. That being said, the new housing being developed needs more ‘ground model’ (the official term) DFFH owned public housing tenancies within them, not just 10%. The decisions being made are definitely in relation to cost and maintenance.
• matthewquick My understanding is that the understanding of social ramifications inherent with these complexes has fundamentally changed from the idealised expectations of the 50s. In short, it was discovered that these complexes contribute to generational inequality and ghettoisation.
  The demolition of the Pruitt–Igoe estates in the US is considered the death of the model.
  Yes, the alternative has only a comparatively small increase in tenancy, but the society implications represent massive and generational improvements.
• nicksugarbaker If you’d been inside them I think you might feel differently. They are not by any stretch acceptable accommodations anymore.
• hennnnnno Has anyone asked the opinion of the residents ?
• inveesible I grew up living in housing commission, studied architecture to understand how spaces affects occupants, now practising in the industry. got myself out of living there in the recent year and felt it was the best decision. it does not do well for people’s wellbeing and mental health. Trust me
• markowitzdesign Read Utopia on Trial by Alice Coleman. The flaws are inherent in the design type, and there’s a stack of hard evidence for why. Too much anonymity without enough private & semi private space. The ville radieuse plan creates a no man’s land instead of gardens where ownership is unclear and you can’t tell neighbour from intruder. There’s some great examples of medium rise housing in Carlton and nth melb though.
• yannisbananas Mental health workers need police protection when visiting clients in these buildings. That in itself is evidence that this experiment in social and physical engineering is a failure. And let’s not even start to explain why the windows in these high rises only open by a fraction…. Caso cerrado.
• helodare My mum lived at 380 Lygon, and was instrumental in getting that block upgraded for the elderly who lived there. It went from bed sit to one bedroom, and was so much better. That the government wants to sell these off makes my blood boil. It also makes me angry that the lifts were never designed for a stretcher should someone take ill. However this is still better than sleeping on the street
• bonnieconquest Demolish 🙌
• radam75 I’ve not been inside these but how do they compare with the apartments being built these days that you could barely swing a cat in and have no external bedroom windows ?
• bradhooperarchitect Retain
• decobroad Yes, I think we should preserve one. And if you had to choose, one close to the beach? Heck yeah!
• robnerlich The idea of binning all that embodied carbon is irresponsible to say the least. If they are structurally sound they should be refurbished. The state government needs to stop listening to developers and contractors. Of course they want to build new buildings. It’s much easier and less risky than refurbishment.
• jeremymasters I am very rarely pro-demolition, but these have got to go. They are a blight on Melbourne.
• trayshelle1 I always wanted to know what they looked like inside.
• spareroom33 I’m leaning to nay, simply because they’re part of the visual fabric of the city. But it would be best if the people who live in them have say. If life there is alienating and depressing, and what amenities there are are either obsolete or deteriorating, then they deserve something better.
• mrvonbraunI don’t think they’d be a nice living experience for the people who live there, I feel it’s time to let them go and make way for better quality of life for the residents
• peterchookorourke Money money money money money money money , enough !
• clnougat Where will the current tenants live in the meantime? I love the pebbly, beige, brown look; although that could be a bit of nostalgia on my part. New apartment builds seem so shoddy and ugly! Well said regional_suburbia, there is too much waste in the world!
• h.edquist Keep them
• rumpole48 You could not reasonably expect anyone actually to live in these hideous buildings today. If you are going to keep one , it would have to be empty, and then perhaps it would be a fitting monument to what appalling architecture looks like.
• west_horton Housing shortage ? More housing is required, not less 👍🏾.
• j_h_arch Keep and retrofit
• anavision Keep them ! What a waste of resources. Not happy Dan
• marilyn_ella They should absolutely NOT be demolished unless and until replacement housing is built. I no longer trust governments let alone our current government @victorianparliament @victorianlabor to manage anything that’s philanthropic if they can see a quid in doing something that will feather the nests of their developer mates. And that opinion is coming from a left wing voter!
• jamesbowyer_82 I’ve been in a couple and I find them better designed than a lot of newer private apartments. For non-English speaking migrants whom live in some of these towers, they have built their networks there. To move those residents somewhere else risks breaking that important support for them
• unfolddesignI heard Peter McIntyre on the radio yesterday talking about it. Not bad for a 90-odd old architect. Totally agree…why demolish it when building more new housing is much more important. Why go backwards before you go forwards.
• architectureworkshop_nz Yes there are partial demolition alternatives that can extend the life of these valuable inner city communities for another 100 years at least -E.g. as Danish firm @3xnarchitects achieved in the Sydney Quay Quarter tower – WAF 2022 worlds best building – The #1967 #precastconcrete eggcrate structures have enough inherent strength (with some new work to the basement frame) to fully comply with current Victorian structural codes (Vic seismic loading is 60% of NZ lowest level) – so this is a relatively easy one for the shakey isles to solve.🤓
  Concrete ‘cancer ‘- the rusting of the reinforcing because of the thinness of the precast concrete cover. – is one of the main issues – but this could be dealt with by replacing the exterior facade panels (where cancer is the highest) with a new high performing insulated envelope and at the same time adding long north south structures (precedent @lacatonyvassal.arq) to add services circulation and exterior living space to enhance the 2.4m internal amenity. Alternatives that reuse some percentage of the ‘eggcrate’ structure and save carbon should certainly be compared. The report making the case for the towers demolition has been requested but so far not released. Let’s see the case for the full demolition of all of them. There are certainly great possibilities for other mixed density alternative master plans that keep some of the precast structures and provide increased living density in #Melbournes central city. #transparency #comparescheme #costoptions #sequesteredcarbon #architectureworkshop #dtc #moreconcreteresearch #moreconceptdevelopment #revitmodel
• alissaclareI wonder how many of those who think these monstrosities are worth venerating actually lived in them and suffered the stigma and social problems associated with high rise social housing wherever they were built around the world. Demolish these monstrosities as they are reminders of a social experiment with disastrous consequences. And build alternative housing which respects the tenants and provides them with a life of dignity. Of course, it will take time and money, but these were never the answer.
• jerom_____It’s a shame the green areas around them aren’t inviting. People give them wide berths
• amandaelarkins It’s a lot of housing to demolish without alternatives in place! I’m sure I’d prefer one of these flats, than no home whatsoever.
• the_melbourne_edit They’re probably better built (sturdy) apartment buildings. May be better and less wasteful to see what could be done to freshen up the colour palette/render cosmetically. Maybe more natural light is possible too?
• bronlovestolunch The Bang Street Prahran ones that were demolished have been replaced with some very nice looking apartments,
• timbertripRenovate and re use, add balconies to lower levels. I live near the Flemington ones and the thought of breaking up and dislocating the community there is heartbreaking. My son plays basketball at the courts there which integrates the community. When I walk through the precinct I note a lot of the open area is used for car parking- if some underground parking was built then more landscaping could be regenerated for more integration between locals and residents.
• jesperolsen11 The issue is, making sure all of the residents are rehoused. Not taking the land for private sales.
• alana.dsmith Sure the government would prefer to sell the prime land these towers are on and rebuild in cheaper areas.
• loverichmond3121 I’m finding the discussion, prompted by the announcement they would be demolished, hard to follow. For years experts and advocates have said they are terrible places and people who live in them are going to be trapped in cycles of poverty and exposed to bad people/drugs etc. I’ve been in one and it was small and over full with stuff. People have long said they were awful but suddenly they are not. I get that there is a risk that people who are moved away while these towers are progressively replaced might end up in some far flung place. But my understanding is they are guaranteed a return but I have heard of cases where people have preferred to stay in the temporary homes rather than return to high density public housing. I gathered the cost to retrofit was huge. Signed. Confused.
• rmcbrmcb I’d rather we build new public housing like they do in Vienna than hold on to the nostalgia of when we built it like post war Britain.
• dannybaihuberNah, tear them all down, they are an eyesore and have been there too long.
• leroyland Get rid of them
• julee.calvert Well said, tallstorey. These towers are historically significant to Melbourne’s streetscapes. Soon there will be no history left, just soulless streets full of million dollar carbon copy houses and no room for the poor, out on the streets. So sad.
• n.t.architecture By all means renovate them, make them more energy efficient and more comfortable. But it would be hiltonmarlton Antipodean blue skies somehow lend an air of acceptably to otherwise dehumanising slums. Set against a grey European sky scape, these buildings read in a very different way. Modernism has been a gigantic experiment that has failed on aesthetics. More importantly it is having a very detrimental effect on the planet with its mindless and insatiable appetite for high carbon materials. Climate change will kill off modernism. One of the positive spin-offs of this crisis.
• trd.enthusiastsNow I’m really angry 🤬😡
• reggiedarling Hideously ugly, and banal in the extreme. The mean little windows seal the deal: either tear it down or radically redesign.

• Uncategorized