Freo's View

DOLLAR SIGNS BLINDING WEST END VISION

Posted in architecture, city of fremantle, development, heritage by freoview on March 29, 2017

 

Anyone who believes that this is appropriate development for Pakenham Street in Fremantle’s historic West End must have rocks in their head and dollar signs blinding their vision.

This is disrespectful rubbish that has no place in a street of stunning facades and in a historically very significant  and unique heritage precinct.

Those who take our history for granted assist in helping to destroy our future.

Roel Loopers

 

10 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Rob Fittock said, on March 30, 2017 at 8:55 pm

    my comment regarding the MSC infill was not a criticism Murray….it was just stating a fact that many people like the architecture and obviously the MSC hierarchy were more than happy with the outcome

  2. Steve said, on March 30, 2017 at 11:36 am

    The major difference between the MSC building and the atrocities pictured in this article and being built all around Fremantle is style. While style is hard to judge and is very subjective, it is not hard to list the poor style aspects that are blighting Fremantle and will serve as a long-standing reminder of this day in age’s poor taste and priorities (until they are knocked down). Poor style components commonly seen in new buildings in Fremantle – out of place height (MSC building is same height as neighbours), boxy/tilt up style (MSC building is rounded), awkward boxy windows not matching fremantle’s rounded window style (MSC is flowy/rounded), gaudy red/yellow/orange colours (MSC is natural), poor/no interaction with street level, and I could continue but won’t.

    I concur with Roel’s earlier comments about re-starting the Architect cornerstone naming. This way we would all know who is to blame for the blight, and would make architects think twice about designing average buildings because they will forever be remembered for their mis-placed priorities and will miss out on future work. While saving money is often to blame for the poor designs, a smart developer/building owner would know that a well-designed building rents and sells faster than an exceedingly average orange tilt up cage cluster (see building on corner of Tydeman rd and Queen Vic in North Freo for perfect example of modern day meh).

  3. Suzanne said, on March 30, 2017 at 10:45 am

    I agree with Paula and her question/statement.
    If owners of historic homes
    have rulings, how is it that major heritage buildings are not protected
    from these outrageous destructive add ons?
    Fremantle was forgotten for so long, thus the glorious streetscapes were retained. Now, every where you turn some insensative developer is attempting to whack up an ugly monstrosity. Or another booze outlet on ‘THE’ A Class reserve.
    Notre Dame, owner of 46 buildings in the cbd, has the worst example of heritage ignore with their latest ghastly example.
    Imagine trying to play ‘Monoply’ with a Freomantle board. One would keep landing on Notre Damn.
    Monopoly in all senses.

  4. freoview said, on March 30, 2017 at 10:20 am

    MSC is now an iconic Fremantle building and many visitors photograph it, as I witness daily when I am in the West End.

    To stick five-storey boredom behind glorious historic facades is criminal.

    Roel

  5. Murray Slavin said, on March 30, 2017 at 9:39 am

    I’d like to reply to your comment about MSC, Rob. The building is apparently much-loved by the community – although we are aware of a number of academics that consider it to be inappropriate. I’m more interested in the response of the community. It’s become a photo-opportunity, and at least one tour organiser has it as a destination. That tells me two things. The first is that we need more sophisticated developers such as MSC who brought their understanding and love of European cities to the table. Secondly, the community is not stupid. When the building was proposed it was criticised by the DAC, which resulted in an remarkably negative report by the Planning Dept. That’s despite the fact that there were about 30 public submissions in favour of the development (five against), and its as unanimously endorsed by the city’s Planning Committee, and then by full council. So, it seems to me there’s a divide in our processes and that something’s not working in our system.

  6. Lionel said, on March 30, 2017 at 7:55 am

    Shithouse architecture

  7. Cate Rose said, on March 29, 2017 at 6:53 pm

    Hideous. Something must be done.

  8. Rob Fittock said, on March 29, 2017 at 6:51 pm

    a subjective opinion Roel just as many people think that the MSC infill building has architectural merit or is this latest offering an attempt at brutalistic architecture?

    As for me it does not offend me :o)

  9. Murray Slavin said, on March 29, 2017 at 5:23 pm

    The rape of the Gracious Ladies

  10. Paula Amaral said, on March 29, 2017 at 3:23 pm

    Everyone who owns a heritage building in the West End thinks that it is alright to plonk a modern building inside the old one. I live in an old house, heritage listed as level 3, and I’m not allowed to do this, nor do I want to.
    One would think that the Heritage level of this area would not allow for the hybridisation of historic buildings to occur at such a large scale or to occur at all. Do the City’s guidelines permit this type of development?
    The beauty of the West End is precisely because it has so many buildings that have survived in their original condition.
    Has everyone gone mad?


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: