I'm going to go against the grain and say I think the proposal is reasonable in form but concerning in materiality. Until maybe last week, it appears Brown Falconer had designed the building to be entirely covered in a metal mesh (applied over glazing and precast sections). This has been deleted and it is now proposed to be an exposed precast concrete with 'repetitious rebate' pattern and 'anodised aluminium vertical fins in pale bronze' affixed to all elevations. There is, however, no clarity of the colour of the precast. It's hard to imagine the relationship between the metal fins and concrete. It could look amazing if there's tonal harmony, but it could look disjointed if not. Their choice of Brighton Lite precast doesn't instil confidence given Dwell used it and ended up a monotonous grey instead of two-tone sandstone.
On a more positive note, the following design progression proves the utility of the design review process (it also resulted in a much improved interior):
Most of the visualisations in the document had not been updated to reflect the proposed new external treatment. This is one of the few that gives an idea:
My ideal scenario would be the titles of this site and 200 North Tce being rejoined and a development conceived that addresses the neighbouring heritage elements as one property. In lieu of that, however, this proposal responds fairly to the location for its desired purpose as student accomodation -- pending materiality. As a silver lining, the heritage façade will be restored with reinstatement of symmetrical windows where the vehicle entry was cut through. Also, an extra 341 residents in the location is a positive.
