New DA up. Can't access it at the moment though.

DA# - A002973777

I cant contain my excitement...

/sarcasm

I wish pdonline would hurry up and work so I can see what the damage will be...

There are no files up yet anyway, so even if you get it to work you won't be able to see anything until probably tomorrow.

The anticipation in unbearable. This is like the straight to DVD sequel to the blockbuster that was Empire Square, only for 1/10th the budget, with shitty CGI and starring Kylie Minogue and Steven Seagal.

The anticipation in unbearable. This is like the straight to DVD sequel to the blockbuster that was Empire Square, only for 1/10th the budget, with shitty CGI and starring Kylie Minogue and Steven Seagal.

:lol: HAHA! Thanks Locke, that post made my morning!

Really disappointing knowing what was approved, however it is a cute little filler.

http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/2594/76600302.jpg
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6279/30513070.jpg
http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/5599/48595694.jpg
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3272/39521488.jpg
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7494/26200766.jpg
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/7151/32827726.jpg

LMAO has to be one of the biggest come downs in Brisbane's history. The biggest disappointment of 2010 in terms of Brisbane projects!! It looks like it is in mourning for Empire Square, don't like it one bit.

DID I HEAR SOMEONE SAY "MINCOM"?????????

http://www.goldenbellsmag.com/APG_1.jpg[/QUOTE]

This one suddenly doesn't seem as awful as originally thought!!:lol:

Not real street activation there - a straight down line the office building. I so much prefer having treasury row there as it is at least interesting to have some shops there for Elizabeth St, and adds character to that part of the street. I was never happy with Treasury Row being demolished to make way for Empire but it was a sacrifice I was willing to bear to have a quality proposal. But for this? No thanks. Keep Treasury Row I say.

Treasury Row itself isn't any bit loss, it never was what I would consider attractive. I'm more disappointed about the loss of what could have been a very cool little alley way around the back of Treasury Row, and the old warehouse and the little indie coffee shop it houses.

If something spectacular was going to replace it, I wouldn't be as sad about it as I am about having this fat boy sitting there!

Meh...

If you look at the Public Domain Engagement Report you will notice that pedestrian access would still be provided to the rear of the tower.

IMO, I'm not unhappy. Yes it is small, but it isn't just a simple box. If Empire had never been proposed I doubt many of you would care. There are many other sites for a tower like Empire to go.

This is a small site.

^^ That provided access is to one of the other alleys that runs between Elizabeth St, Albert St and Charlotte St (there's one that runs behind Elizabeth House, and another running down beside the Telstra site.)

Looking at the elevations on here, it appears that this will take out the alley way I'm referring to, and the old warehouse where the coffee shop is. Both are directly behind Treasury Row, with the warehouse between it and the Telstra building. Check out the site on Google Maps, you will see what I'm talking about.

I understand, and yes it was a cool little location for a coffee shop so hopefully they will relocate to a cool laneway elsewhere.

^^ I hope so! I do know that there will be a lot of people who will miss them if they can't find a similar kind of venue to set up in! They have quite a following, despite being in a position that gets no passing traffic really.

Getting back to the building, do we know how much retail space they'll be putting in? It's probably in the plans I know, but I'm at work and can't access PD Online.

Just the one tennancy at ground level.

Oh dear, did they only render the podium, maybe they had the tower objects set to invisible in render properties? What a schoolboy error.

Seriously! Might as well keep Treasury Row.

I mean... What. The. Frak.

Time to retitle pleaze:

#Audacity to be Proposed/The Stump - 1FL/3m /Com (pletey crap)

How the frek did Grollo escape from Mordor to do this to us. I thought he was a Mexican, but he's a Mexi-can't! It actually looks like a stump, like someone came along and fell the beautiful green leafy tower that was Empire and all that is left is this dry, withered up stump.

I can't wait to see what he does to Trilogy!

Locke? Should you be going out for a prescription?

Well, my nickname for this development was going to be "Fatboy" but "Stumpy" also works!

That single retail tenancy looks HUGE! Surely separating them into multiple shops would be a smarter idea. The inclusion of a little laneway cafe/retail area down the side is a nice touch, but that too makes it seem to me that they haven't really thought out the retail areas.

Why so many vertical lines? It's just a brown mess of lines and squares. Plus the thing is not even any taller than the Telstra Exchange. It's not worth it, I'd rather see the laneways kept as they are.

meh, i dont really care, if you want to get all excited when things are going well then you should be prepared to accept when things crash as well..

I have to admit, I am starting to warm to this a little...

It's still a stumpy little thing, I still hate that it's killing the old 1920s warehouse/boutique coffee shop and I think the layout of the retail is plain bizarre, but it will help rejuvenate Elizabeth St.

In conjunction with the Regent Tower & Wintergarden project, the new Novotel Project (between the Myer Centre and Irish Murphy's), and the Elizabeth Street section of 123 Albert, it'll prove to be a bit of a kickstart. Add to this, there's also the main part of 123 Albert and the new Cairncross Building Project (190 Albert St) just around the corner, and it might result in Elizabeth St becoming a bit more than just the backend of the mall!

And the addition of an included pedestrian laneway that goes halfway through that block makes up a bit for losing the existing one.

:nuts: Just read this update today, knew empire was scrapped a while back, errr; so this site will only contain a total of 15 stories, not 20 or 64!?!?....

oh well i guess on the plus at least it's going to be a "sustainable" office tower with an alright design look to it. In a way it matches the heights of the nearby buildings and would keep the neighboring residential towers residents happy as they won't all be losing their views anymore :lol:

btw in the future would it be possible for this office tower to be scrapped and replaced with a taller building (say in decades to come)? or is it simply not realistic or worth it as in due course the cost of demolition, redo earth works for deeper footings and redevelopment etc would be too much trouble/expensive .... ????

Can't wait to see the fun time Grocon are going to have constructing this one. I don't think BCC will be too keen to give up one of their lanes in one of the busiest streets in the city as a construction workzone...

Locke? Should you be going out for a prescription?

Stopped taking them:P

Anyway, I always suspected Grollo hated Queenslanders after the whole Q1 spire Eureka bruhaha , but didn't think he was this angry!

Can't wait to see the fun time Grocon are going to have constructing this one. I don't think BCC will be too keen to give up one of their lanes in one of the busiest streets in the city as a construction workzone...

I think BCC will need to get used to doing so. Between this, The Regent/Wintergarden, and possibly for the Novotel as well (although most of that would be from George St I would think) there's going to be a lot of construction along Elizabeth St for the next couple of years!

There are two main points where I am a little annoyed about. Generally, I didn't give a shit about the loss of height from Empire... thats the market, nothing we can do about it... and there will no doubt be another tall proposal somewhere else when the market starts running again. What I do care about is the loss of potential civic urban space.

1) The laneway off Elizabeth street will now be more like an arcade because they plan to build over it. Loss of light and 'laneway feeling' would be really sad.

2) You would think that a Melbourne developer like Grocon could have utilized the back laneway and put retail down the back (like what they plan on doing with that one cafe in part of this new arcade).

Brisbane has a great opportunitiy to get our laneways program moving. The least Grocon can do is set aside some space for future retail and shift the void to the back, rather then having the plant in the way of future laneway redevelopment potential. Surely something more innovative can be done here.

PS that is one big mother of a retail store... you know to me that looks like an Apple store layout with the tables there :P

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/gro1-1.jpg

There are two main points where I am a little annoyed about. Generally, I didn't give a shit about the loss of height from Empire... thats the market, nothing we can do about it... and there will no doubt be another tall proposal somewhere else when the market starts running again. What I do care about is the loss of potential civic urban space.

1) The laneway off Elizabeth street will now be more like an arcade because they plan to build over it. Loss of light and 'laneway feeling' would be really sad.

2) You would think that a Melbourne developer like Grocon could have utilized the back laneway and put retail down the back (like what they plan on doing with that one cafe in part of this new arcade).

Brisbane has a great opportunitiy to get our laneways program moving. The least Grocon can do is set aside some space for future retail and shift the void to the back, rather then having the plant in the way of future laneway redevelopment potential. Surely something more innovative can be done here.

PS that is one big mother of a retail store... you know to me that looks like an Apple store layout with the tables there :P

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/gro1-1.jpg

Grocon won't give a rats ass about the 'laneway'. Its called highest and best use.

Exactly. If BCC really wanted to keep it the would've had a cross block link in the planning scheme or they would've resumed it for road reserve.

Many (most) of the Melbourne Laneways are road reserve.

^^ Technically there is still a cross block laneway connection within this development, just a different alignment to the existing one. While there is no laneway behind the building, the one down the side still provides access to the rear of Elizabeth House I'm pretty certain, which then can be followed around and would come out between the Police Station and the little blue heritage listed building beside the "John Mills Himself" building. The plans describe it basically as a partial link that could be continued through a building redevelopment in Charlotte St if one were to happen (say, the redevelopment of the Police Station.

While a laneway behind the tower could be very very cool, the problem is that the laneway up the side of the Telstra Exchange building isn't open to the public, which would be required to make such a laneway viable.

Exactly.

A little update on this one, the council has come back with some questions for the developers about this one that relate to, among other things, the proposed included laneway. They've basically told them to go back to the drawing board. To quote from their Information Request:

"The applicant is encouraged to look at the Brisbane Streetscape Design Guidelines under cross block links to see what council’s vision of this looks like and then to design it appropriately (as a shared space). The current emphasis on servicing and traffic access is not the intention that council had in mind for this link."

Other raised issues of note were regarding the lightwells included to provide light to the heritage listed buildings on either side of the site (ensuring that they will work correctly), issues regarding the creation of 'blind corners' thanks to the facade's columns that jut out onto the footpath and also the fact that no landscape trees had been included in the plans, something that pretty well all developments have to include these days.

As a side to this, I actually walked through the site to see whether it is possible to cross through from Elizabeth St to Charlotte St, and that lane way that I thought existed between the Police Station and the blue heritage listed building in Charlotte St is actually blocked off by carparks and a fence, so the only cross block link between Elizabeth and Charlotte Streets on that block, is via Elizabeth Arcade. I think a second one should be added in there somewhere if possible!

YES!! thank you BCC planners! I may be pro-development but I know a uninspiring proposal when I see one. A great outcome for Elizabeth street. Let's hope they return with something that actually incorporates the laneway more.

^^ Thought you might like the sound of that! I'll be very interested to see what the developers come back with in response to this.

Thanks for that, Nathan. I thought Grocon seemed to have rushed the proposal...

Love to see the programme for this one. If they are the frontrunners for ATO as most seem to think they are, their timeline to meet ATO's occupancy date must be extremely thin.

I would say they are going to have problems with the ATO in light of this.

Good, the tower looks drab, plus it's so small, like where's it's mommy?

This ain't Ipswich city centre so back to the drawing board chaps. If I were running the BCC I'd stick a 240m minimum height limit on this site, and every time a developer complained about it I'd raise it 10m... What's did you say... 250m!, 260m! 290m!

Love to see the programme for this one. If they are the frontrunners for ATO as most seem to think they are, their timeline to meet ATO's occupancy date must be extremely thin.

what's the ATO's alternative??

111 eagle??

^^ Would the ATO hire out space in a development like 111 Eagle? I thought they usually went into custom-built premises?

If Grocon don't get ATO, I wouldn't be surprised if Devine find a way to snag them at their Margaret Street site.

If Grocon don't get ATO, I wouldn't be surprised if Devine find a way to snag them at their Margaret Street site.

Devine's Margaret Street site? Which Margaret St site is this? Surely not Camelot Tower, it only has half a floor of office space or something stupid like that doesn't it?

Next to Camelot Tower.

Next to Camelot Tower.

You mean their 111 Margaret St development on the other side of Beatrice Lane and past the heritage listed buildings there? That development is dead, Devine officially withdrew the DA.

You mean their 111 Margaret St development on the other side of Beatrice Lane and past the heritage listed buildings there? That development is dead, Devine officially withdrew the DA.

Or not...

BrissyMan is correct. Watch this space.

Or not...

BrissyMan is correct. Watch this space.

A joint venture may also be on the cards for the 111 site.

Damn you guys and your inside knowledge! :-P

I look forward to seeing what does come to light, although the fact that it is Devine is still a little unsettling...

A joint venture may also be on the cards for the 111 site.


I didn't realise they had taken it off the market. Depending on how it goes, they could have some luck as prior tenant targets for that site haven't gone away either.

Or not...

BrissyMan is correct. Watch this space.

assuming you are both correct......

the 111 margaret st doesn't have DA, does it?? so if grocon is "too slow" for the ATO then it's not like devine is going to be any faster??

assuming you are both correct......

the 111 margaret st doesn't have DA, does it?? so if grocon is "too slow" for the ATO then it's not like devine is going to be any faster??

Actually, that's a very good point! At least Grocon have a DA submitted. At the moment, there's no DA for 111 Margaret as Devine have withdrawn the DA for their original proposal.

I can't see Devine being able to submit, gain approval and build before Grocon can (especially if 111 Margaret isn't going to be a little stumpy like this one, which given the site I sincerely hope it won't be!)

But they already have an info request that they can respond to. it would be a very quick process IMO.

^^ Exactly! They just need to tell the architects to modify the ground floor level + laneway to suit BCC requirements. I doubt this would impact on the timeline that much, a few months maybe at most?

But they already have an info request that they can respond to. it would be a very quick process IMO.

...but isn't grocon also at the info request stage?? so grocon's approval should take about the same time as devine's??

then the grocon building is nearly half the height and half the GFA, so it'd probably be quicker to build...

^^This is true, however Grocon's tower will require significant changes as a result of the info request.

^^ devine's info request wasn't all sunshine & lollipops either.. there was a fair bit that needed to be revisited i think. that said, they have had a lot longer than grocon to prepare their response... so they might be quicker.. or they might not, because i am guessing that their building will change a fair bit to accomodate the ATO and it'll take BCC longer to assess it. so who knows?? i guess you could say devine *might* be a month or two quicker. all up to the ATO really.

Another thing, is there any difference in the amount of time it takes to lodge a new application with council, which Devine will need to do, as opposed to simply replying to an information request within a current application? Are there more hoops for Devine to jump through, so to speak?

Ok, we have an updated proposal which seems to address every issue that council had except one - the laneway, which appears to be unchanged from the original proposal. It will be interesting what Council say about this, as it was one of their specified concerns.

I still think that the retail area would be better if broken into several shops linked by an arcade...that single shop is HUGE, and I don't know what shop would take up that kind of space, especially due to it's location (it's hardly a high street location). And looking at the laneway cafe/restaurant, I'd personally split it into two smaller cafes by putting in a wall in line with the back of the lifts. Here's some images, including lighter, clearer elevations. Nothing different here really.

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/2132/update0.jpg (http://img718.imageshack.us/i/update0.jpg/)
http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/6779/update1.jpg (http://img846.imageshack.us/i/update1.jpg/)
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/5355/update3e.jpg (http://img192.imageshack.us/i/update3e.jpg/)
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/6972/update4.jpg (http://img593.imageshack.us/i/update4.jpg/)
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4329/update5w.jpg (http://img228.imageshack.us/i/update5w.jpg/)

I certainly hope BCC keeps on them about the laneway. I'm sure it's possible for the design to be improved, and with the council's Vibrant Laneways project recently canned due to the cost of rebuilding after the floods, making the developers put them in is the only way we're going to get some good ones!

Grocon have neglected to modify the laneway which was a key concern of the proposal. Why would the city council approve it now?

I agree Soul, IMO it looks like they are trying to rush it through and this may change with negotiation. They can continue to redesign under council's timeframes, knowing what they are going to complain about.

It really pisses me off to see this.

I agree Soul, IMO it looks like they are trying to rush it through and this may change with negotiation. They can continue to redesign under council's timeframes, knowing what they are going to complain about.

You've got a point there. Apart from the laneway, all the other issues council had with the design were either clarifications regarding the light wells for the two heritage sites (addressed), equitable access issues (at least one main one has been addressed, with a stair climber in the laneway restaurant) and the lack of trees and landscaping on the footpath (addressed).

Basically, they've sent through a barely changed concept that addressed all the relatively minor, easy to address issues that don't require a redesign. They're probably working on the laneway now, with this submission buying time.

Well, the developers have put up their final response document relating to council's queries, and having just read it, it is their opinion that the laneway has been designed appropriately and have no intentions to modify the current design. Their thinking for this view can be seen in the final response document HERE (http://pdonline.brisbane.qld.gov.au/MasterView/modules/documentmaster/viewdocumentftp.aspx?key=p4j9mRT%2fiFY%2bBsDk1W2P6S1ynTJOpAatMtN1HO%2fUcw7DvWLQX966ig%3d%3d) and starts from page 14.

They do make some understandable points, such as the fact that it is first and foremost a vehicle access-way for neighbouring properties, but it still seems to me to be a bit of a copout. They seem to be doing only as much as they are legally required to do and nothing more, which is annoying as this has the potential to become an example of the right way to make a modern, highly activated shared laneway.

I hope this won't be the end of the story.

Council really need to stand up on this one. Brisbane CBD is severely impoverished in terms of human scale spaces like laneways and even potential for them, probably due to crap planning decisions in the past. Cannot really afford to lose this one, particularly not for a building as dull as this one.

Totally agree. Especially when its clear that Grocon just want to make a quick buck from this with no regard to improving access or the urban form.

Piss off back to melbourne grocon!

Walking down Gresham Lane today, even with everything there closed, just reinforced how good a properly planned laneway can turn out. I too hope BCC force Grocon back to the drawing board! I've love to see this laneway become a second Gresham Lane!

Could we possibly lodge a submission against the current ground floor redesign? Or is this too late?

Could we possibly lodge a submission against the current ground floor redesign? Or is this too late?

CBF'd checking, but I assume this is code assessible. That being the case, no public submissions will be considered.

If it were Impact assessible, public submissions for approx. 30 days would be possible following councils 'sign off' of the concept. This is yet to occur (the last Grocon response would be considered their RFI response to BCC's information request.

^^ It is code accessible, so we've got to trust council will not cave in on this!

Council have officially rubberstamped this one - approved on the 17th. I guess they decided that the laneway proposed by Grocon was good enough, which I still reckon was a case of the lowest common denominator to get it through. :ohno:

I guess all we can do now is to hope that the laneway and associated retail shown on the plans turns out alright in the flesh and is an overall improvement to this section of Elizabeth St (and might spur some of the neighbouring properties to fork out for a facelift/restoration of their buildings.)

^^ Disappointing stuff :(

Disappointing indeed.

I'm not entirely disappointed. Almost all traffic will be in peak outside of the hours the laneway would be utilised for pedestrian traffic.

Many of Melbournes laneways also have vehicle traffic at one time or another.

We have to wait and see if the standard and quality is high or if it is just feels like a sewer.

^^ That's basically where our disappointment stems from.

As you said, most laneways provide vehicle access predominantly during peak hour and not often otherwise, but based on the plans, they've still designed it as basically a driveway with a skinny footpath down one side, not exactly pedestrian friendly, and not a shared zone which would have been a better outcome. Hell, from memory there wasn't even any mention of public artworks like the ones that adorn most of our other lanes, including the one behind Treasury Row currently. Ok, if it has to be an access corridor, at least take some notes from Burnett Lane and make it visually appealing and pedestrian friendly!

^^
As you said, most laneways provide vehicle access predominantly during peak hour and not often otherwise, but based on the plans, they've still designed it as basically a driveway with a skinny footpath down one side, and not as a proper shared zone which would have been a better outcome.

These things are easily changed. They are required by the conditions of development to get final finishes and detailed design approved by the council architect.

Hell, from memory there wasn't even any mention of public artworks like the ones that adorn most of our other lanes, including the one behind Treasury Row currently. Ok, if it has to be an access corridor, at least take some notes from Burnett Lane!

Artwork is also a condition of approval. A minimum of 0.5% of the cost of the entire tower IIRC. This also must be approved by councils architect.

These things are easily changed. They are required by the conditions of development to get final finishes and detailed design approved by the council architect.

Artwork is also a condition of approval. A minimum of 0.5% of the cost of the entire tower IIRC. This also must be approved by councils architect.

Ok, well I'll reserve final judgement until I see details of finish and artworks, but based on what I'm reading from the plans thus far it still looks and feels far too much like a driveway with a footpath than a proper shared zone. And sadly it is still a laneway to nowhere at this stage, and not a full cross block link.

The fact that they did nothing creative to even come close to the BCC's vision shows that they don't give a stuff about it.

How about encouraging outdoor dining on the laneway rather then making it a designated service lane.

Yes this has always been a service lane but why should that continue? The coffee supplier will be forever now staring at a concrete wall which won't have any chance of being converted into retail. The best they can do is spend that 0.5% on a mural to camouflage the massive concrete wall that will be built there.

Very poor decision in my opinion. A complete void of creativity and out of the box thinking.

Will the coffee suplier still exist? Isn't the building they are in to be demolished with the construction of this tower?

I was under the impression that it used the existing treasury row building footprint!? If so that is even bloody worse! How could you 'not be that disappointed'? Brisbane will loose a great civic space!

If any of you have been down there on a Friday night it is very lively and interesting, I would recommend doing so before the bulldozers arrive. What a sad day.

Yes I am dissapointed, however, I also understand that to get all worked up and say the development shouldn't go ahead, is as bad as NIMBY's saying they don't want their corner store in West End to get redeveloped because the character will go, or we can't redevelop the industrial area of West End because it adds grit and character.

I didn't see people complaining about these things with Empire Square? And the truth of the matter is, there are many many spaces such as the coffee supplier in the CBD that could be used for such things.

Will the coffee suplier still exist? Isn't the building they are in to be demolished with the construction of this tower?

Yep, their building is going to be flattened as well, which is a shame in itself, as it dates back to 1920-1930 I believe, but isn't protected. I personally hope that they will become the tenant of the laneway retail/cafe site (I might die a little if it's another Pie Face!)

Yes I am dissapointed, however, I also understand that to get all worked up and say the development shouldn't go ahead, is as bad as NIMBY's saying they don't want their corner store in West End to get redeveloped because the character will go, or we can't redevelop the industrial area of West End because it adds grit and character.

It's a bit different to the west end situations because this site, a prime inner CBD development site had the potential to include a laneway component that could have been the best in Brisbane, which would have made it something special. When Empire Square was the proposal, that would have been an iconic tower for the city, providing something that is special in it's own way, something worth losing the laneway over. It's not about stopping it because it's new, but because it's little more than filler, and we don't need more filler in the CBD, Brisbane should be beyond that.

But what we've ended up with here is a short commerical building that, architectually, isn't anything better than alright looking, that removes this laneway and replaces it with what still looks like nothing more than a token effort. The sign of a good development should be that we gain more than what we lose, and I don't think we do...ok, improved streetscape and a nicer building that Treasury Row, but other than that, what?

^^The look of the retail would say to me that it wouldn't suit a Pie Face.

Also, it isn't close to a 7-11.


I'm personally surprised they haven't opened the retail into the Lobby.

The retail component really puzzles me. It's a single large retail space like an Apple Store or something, which might work on Queen St or maybe down closer to Edward St, but currently Elizabeth St houses a lot of smaller retail. Look at Elizabeth Arcade. That it what they should be going for IMO. Either open it into the foyer like you suggested, or make it more like an arcade with smaller retail spaces.

I think they are trying to contain two large restaurant/cafe's.

Either that or an IGA sized supermarket in the site that fronts Elizabeth Street.

^^ I highly doubt it'll be an IGA, firstly it's not the right shape and doesn't have enough back of store (unless it was an IGA Xpress convenience store maybe), but mainly because one is going into the bottom of the redeveloped 300 Queen St (HSBC Building).

I was thinking more convenience...they way they having shelving identified in the plan.

I think it would be too large a space for a convenience store. Look at how small and pokey the 7-11s are. Granted IGA Xpress stores are a bit more substantial a convenience store than 7-11s, but I can't see it fitting just there and in that type of store. Restaurants might be a better bet...there's a lot of different ones along that stretch and they all seem to do alright.

this building has been custom designed from the ground-up to suit a single tenant with demanding requirements

i dare say that they didn't want the laneway and they are probably getting a corporate cafeteria as the retail space

This is a really sad day for Brisbane! It is actually a really cool space in that lane way behind Treasury Row. Just when that area was starting to get some life it will be snuffed out by this souless development.......

this building has been custom designed from the ground-up to suit a single tenant with demanding requirements

i dare say that they didn't want the laneway and they are probably getting a corporate cafeteria as the retail space

This. The tenant is excruciatingly demanding. I don't think some realise that.

This is a really sad day for Brisbane! It is actually a really cool space in that lane way behind Treasury Row. Just when that area was starting to get some life it will be snuffed out by this souless development.......

It really is a sad state of affairs! It wasn't ever the nicest laneway visually, but it was centrally located, and there aren't that many usable lanes in such a central location (Burnett and Spencer being the only other ones, but Burnett gets a fair bit of traffic, and Spencer is a little out of the way and, failing a really cool redevelopment of the burnt out building there, doesn't have much more activation potential apart from Laneway Bar.)

his building has been custom designed from the ground-up to suit a single tenant with demanding requirements

i dare say that they didn't want the laneway and they are probably getting a corporate cafeteria as the retail space

Yes, I realise that they have a demanding tenant, but the laneway down the side was a required element of this development, so surely a bit more effort could have been made with regards to usage and making a true shared zone that feels like a shared zone. Look at what 123 Albert did with the connected Elizabeth Street building for example.

My neighbour, who has a shop just down Elizabeth Street from Treasury Row, has been advised that demolition will be commencing in a month's time.

I've no idea who owns this website or how often it gets updated, but it seems there are a fair few people out there who aren't too keen on this development either:

http://www.brisbanedevelopment.com/

Erm... That's SoulVision's site.

Guilty :)
And you're exactly right... i've been getting a fair few emails stating how appalled they are that the laneway will be wiped out and if there is anything we can do to halt it. :(

Anyone know the approximate age of the building which is earmarked for demolition? (the one behind treasury row)

- They have marked where the proposed buildings footprint is going.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/photo3.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/photo1.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/photo2.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/photo4.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/photo5.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/photo.jpg

Considering that there is a boom gate across the laneway I take it that it is privately owned land. In this case, there's not much that can be done about losing the laneway and certainly nothing Council could do, unless the driveway was shared, i.e. if there was an easement over the driveway to provide access for other properties.

It would be like protesting against the demolition of your neighbour's driveway when they apply to redevelop their house.

It is a shame though, there was a very different character to that little precinct than for most of Brisbane CBD.

Dear Grocon, please go back to Victoria.

That is all!

Anyone know the approximate age of the building which is earmarked for demolition? (the one behind treasury row)

- They have marked where the proposed buildings footprint is going.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/photo2.jpg

I'm pretty sure it is circa 1920s-1930s and I think it was formerly housed a printing press or something. It was talked about in the DA somewhere, I will try and find it when I can. Thanks for the photos btw Soul! :-)

Considering that there is a boom gate across the laneway I take it that it is privately owned land. In this case, there's not much that can be done about losing the laneway and certainly nothing Council could do, unless the driveway was shared, i.e. if there was an easement over the driveway to provide access for other properties.

It would be like protesting against the demolition of your neighbour's driveway when they apply to redevelop their house.

It is a shame though, there was a very different character to that little precinct than for most of Brisbane CBD.

You're right, the laneway around the the back was private property, but the laneway down the side from Elizabeth St is a protected easement, hence why it had to be included in the development. It will be a great loss IMO.

Erm... That's SoulVision's site.

Ah whoops! hahaha... sorry SV....

If you're interested in doing something about it go to...
http://www.facebook.com/pages/LOL-BNE/192348890803690
We're hoping to convince Grocon/the ATO to retain the 1920's building and laneway precinct. A tough ask but it could be an amazing feature of the development!

There is no way either of them will budge on it. Grocon and the ATO have a deadline to have a new building ready in two years. If they have to go back to the drawing board and redesign it it will cost them at least 3 months, something they cant afford.

^^ Sadly, this is probably going to be the case, but anything is worth a shot. At the very least it might let Grocon know that people in Brisbane do appreciate laneway spaces, for any future developments on the cards.

It might be too little, too late, but there's an online petition now to stop the development. Get writing!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/lolbne/#sign_petition

Oh, and the facebook page, too:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/LOL-BNE/192348890803690

^^ Done and done. The facebook page has some great photos of the laneway, and the artworks in it. I get a little bit of solace in the fact that the very cool demon-lady muriel is in the part of the lane which isn't affected by this development.

A dedicated website is also now up:

http://www.loveourlaneways.com

This sucks, and is a prime example of why Brisbane's CBD is seriously lacking in character. I was really hoping council might have got some clues, its not like we have character laneways to burn. Massive fail.

The story has made the Brisbane Times (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/property/laneway-loss-lamented-20110328-1cd9n.html), just in time to coincide with the last day of business for The Coffee Supplier.

Apparently Grocon has offered the laneway retail space to the Coffee Supplier, and I hope they take it up. It won't be quite the same of course, but if the business can continue to supply coffee to it's dedicated customer base, then it will be some small consolation.

Oh, and don't get me started about the comments on the article!

A video is being shot this morning and MX will be down there, too. So if you happen to be in the area I'd suggest popping by!

If you take the trouble to read the Brisbane Times article you will see that this was never a public laneway - it is a driveway on private land that allowed access to neighbouring properties.

It was never part of BCC's laneways project.

^^ Does that matter? Why not expand on this trend and create a unique laneway precinct which would add a lot of value to the project. Build taller and keep the 1920's gem and laneway at the back.

^^ Does that matter? Why not expand on this trend and create a unique laneway precinct which would add a lot of value to the project. Build taller and keep the 1920's gem and laneway at the back.

To be fair to the landowners, I would be pretty pissed off if I wasn't allowed to develop part of my property simply because some neighbours liked what I had there and had taken it upon themselves to frequently come on to my land and use it like a public space and demand it not be changed. If they wanted, the landowners could in fact have erected a big security fence/gate at the lane entry and only supplied those with the benefit of the easement with a key. It's simply advantageous that the owners didn't do that and the laneway had the opportunity to grow organically - if only briefly.

The only way this could have been avoided was if the laneway space and building were heritage listed - but too late for that now.

Have a look at the lane that comes off Charlotte St, and should connect through to this area. Telstra uses it purely as a driveway and a fence is erected to prevent through pedestrian access from Elizabeth St to Charlotte St - this always pissed me off when I went to the Coffee Supplier, but can't do shit about it.

Its not over till the dosers come around.

For starters the 1920's building at the rear was part of the whole site... so if they didn't want people to access it or even use the laneway then they should never have even rented out the space (Metacap, not Grocon).

The easement is for neighbouring properties too, so they can't close down the easement.

If anything was to be heritage listed it should be the old building at the rear like I said. This image was taken in 1924. The building in question is below the Parsons sign. So in essence this building has had no modifications to it and still retains all internal support beams etc. It should be heritage listed, however because its located at the back, no one really bothered to nominate it.

If you've been inside the building, you'd appreciate it's unique woolstore style character which would definitely add to any future project.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/Screenshot2011-03-29at114813PM.png

To be fair to the landowners, I would be pretty pissed off if I wasn't allowed to develop part of my property simply because some neighbours liked what I had there and had taken it upon themselves to frequently come on to my land and use it like a public space and demand it not be changed.

I agree totally. Grocon (and Metacap before them) are entitled to develop the land. It would be unreasonable to impose restrictions at this stage.

Have a look at the lane that comes off Charlotte St, and should connect through to this area. Telstra uses it purely as a driveway and a fence is erected to prevent through pedestrian access from Elizabeth St to Charlotte St - this always pissed me off when I went to the Coffee Supplier, but can't do shit about it.

This is also a driveway on private land with right of access for Casino Towers and 171 George Street.

For starters the 1920's building at the rear was part of the whole site... so if they didn't want people to access it or even use the laneway then they should never have even rented out the space (Metacap, not Grocon).

So you believe that if a developer chooses to rent out the existing buildings on a site temporarily before commencing their development, then this should be allowed to change the status of the land?

Allowing public access to your private land does not make that land public land.

i am sad to see the 'laneway' close down too, but in this case you are not picking your battles wisely.

The easement is for neighbouring properties too, so they can't close down the easement.

the easement is for access only. the grocon scheme actually improves the usefulness of the easement. the easement does *not* permit anyone to put tables or chairs or shops in the easement or for people to congregate in the easement.

does anyone else find it funny watch SSC's most one-eyed white shoe wearer turn into a NIMBY??

You simply don't understand where i'm coming from or what a NIMBY actually means.

"Not in my back yard". I want this development to be successful, I am completely for this, however the design of it CAN BE BETTER. I don't think we should all just roll over when a development comes to town. If the project has been designed poorly, then someone needs to stand up, and in this case there is so much potential to restore a building that should be heritage listed into a successful environment for people.

Hell, I would love to see a development that could build over the entire back section but keep the thoughoutfare and 3 floor building, or just build the tower taller and retain the back, do it up to be a food lane.

I really don't want to say you have no vision or creativity, but sometimes I think people here just think "its all too hard" and don't think of other alternatives which would see a better outcome for the city. We all want to better Brisbane and live in a more prosperous society, I am doing what I think will help achieve this.

this is a picture of you, wondering why the laneway can't be fixed

http://www.thechad.com.au/gallery/d/8882-1/reality+suxzors.jpg

http://img3.visualizeus.com/thumbs/08/11/04/art,black,change,clean,composition,creativity,digital,inspiration,life,minimalism,quote,quotes,text,tipografia,type:words-4382b999c38d8596b14b992029d3f2d9_m.jpg

The truth is, if people really wanted the laneway, they should've fought BCC prior to the application even going in.

BTW, it's NIBYISM because I didn't notice the same arguments for Empire Square.

whatever it is, the argument for the laneway is weak as piss and nothing is going to change.

With regards to Empire Square, there are two main points of difference: we were going to be getting a 200+ m tower as opposed to a stubby 15st box, and the organic activation of the back of that site is only a fairly recent phenomenon. It was Metacap leasing out sites that allowed it to start to develop, and it was becoming quite successfully activated as well.

Personally, my main beef with this development isn't just the loss of the warehouse and the lane way as it currently exists, it's that the site could easily allow for the new building to include it's own laneway/arcade part to allow for more public use of the site.

Include a proper shared space rather than a driveway with a footpath, and include a few more cafes down the side rather than a single one (and make sure The Coffee Supplier is in one of them), and continue it through the site and turn the big retail space next to the family services building into a connecting arcade.

The redevelopment of sites in the inner city should always be a game of comparisons - are we getting something which is an overall improvement from what we are losing.

The new development does tick some boxes: it improves the Elizabeth St Streetscape, it is a reasonably nicely designed building , it hides the hideous Telstra exchange from sight. But in the same breath, the included retail is insufficient given it's location in an area driven by retail, we are losing a cool, fairly original 1920s warehouse and the site has great lane way development opportunities which could be realized to great effect, but simply aren't due to lack of interest on the developer's part.

I think the campaign is probably going to be a dead end (pun), but why ridicule? i say go for it, because if it gets a better laneway for the people of brisbane, then that is definitely worth pursuing.

My 2c, Im not convinced the building has enough merit to even replace the existing treasury row buildings. Maybe I'm the nimby.

^^The energy should be in pressuring the BCC to protect other laneways in the CBD that have the ability to be demolished under current planning.

Use the energy to get results rather than just being a thorn in someone's side. They get irritated and the public gets nothing.

Well said nathandavid 88.

BTW, it's NIBYISM because I didn't notice the same arguments for Empire Square.

That was a few years ago, and I think Brisbane is now much more aware of laneways as a viable usable spaces. So i think if Empire was to go ahead now, people would like to see this laneway space kept and enhanced if possible.

^^The energy should be in pressuring the BCC to protect other laneways in the CBD that have the ability to be demolished under current planning.

Use the energy to get results rather than just being a thorn in someone's side. They get irritated and the public gets nothing.

Who said we aren't doing that? Thats one of our key objectives. Is to stop this from occurring again. Hence the love our laneways campaign which won't end anytime soon.

New BT article:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/entertainment/if-you-build-it-they-wont-come-20110330-1cfvi.html

Why would anyone rather a laneway over a beautiful new skyscraper?
Seems like NIMBYism to me, an anti-progress attitude that limits the growth and increase in density of the city... same argument we have in Sydney, and the Sydney council is far more protective of them than Brisbane, which I do not think is good for Sydney.
I think only Melbourne has laneways actually worth preserving, with the vibrant street art scene and cafe culture in them.

Isn't that because in Melbourne, the laneways have had adequate time to mature and become a part of every day life? If Brisbane keeps messing up every opportunity at establishing a decent laneway... there will be none left. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Why would anyone rather a laneway over a beautiful new skyscraper?
Seems like NIMBYism to me, an anti-progress attitude that limits the growth and increase in density of the city... same argument we have in Sydney, and the Sydney council is far more protective of them than Brisbane, which I do not think is good for Sydney.
I think only Melbourne has laneways actually worth preserving, with the vibrant street art scene and cafe culture in them.

All well and good if that beautiful new skyscraper is a multi-use iconic 240m skyscraper like Empire Square, but that's not exactly what we are getting here is it.

^^ Exactly. To call this a skyscraper is like calling a Commodore a Rolls Royce.

As for Brisbane's laneways, they are still very much in their infancy and because of this they need to be protected now more than ever. But at the same time, as said in that second Brisbane Times article, they can't end up becoming token laneways created by council solely to be a laneway...they need to be adopted by the community.

Look at Burnett Lane - the most successful business to make use of the lane appears to be Brew, which is in Lower Burnett Lane, which wasn't touched by BCC. Although, with the work happening to 30 Burnett Lane and 32 Adelaide St, the main part of Burnett Lane might be starting to pick up. And with a successful restaurant/bar with entrances off Spencer Lane, and the businesses in Gresham Lane, some are starting to take off.

Why try to emulate Melbourne anyway? Why not come up with something unique to Brisbane?
Sheesh ... at this rate all Australian cities are going to look as generic as each other.
Lets leave it so that trams and laneways are Melbourne, beaches and bridges are Sydney and so on and so forth..it helps create diversity and therefore makes each destination interesting to visit in it's own right.
And before anyone jumps on me I don't necessarilly think Melbourne trying to 'create' it's own Harbour (ie. Docklands) is a good idea either. It needs to let Sydney do the 'Harbour' thing and concentrate on it's own strengths without stealing those of other cities.

Brisbane has its own take on laneways. Just as New York has its, and London has its etc etc.

OMG BRISBANE TRIED TO COPY BONDI BEACH AT SOUTHBANK...

no

Why try to emulate Melbourne anyway? Why not come up with something unique to Brisbane?
Sheesh ... at this rate all Australian cities are going to look as generic as each other.
Lets leave it so that trams and laneways are Melbourne, beaches and bridges are Sydney and so on and so forth..it helps create diversity and therefore makes each destination interesting to visit in it's own right.
And before anyone jumps on me I don't necessarilly think Melbourne trying to 'create' it's own Harbour (ie. Docklands) is a good idea either. It needs to let Sydney do the 'Harbour' thing and concentrate on it's own strengths without stealing those of other cities.

Ummm, Brisbane's tram network opened in 1885, the same year as it did in Melbourne, ours were just phased out like many places around the world, a mistake Melbourne was smart enough not to replicate. And very soon, the Gold Coast will have it's own rapid transit network. As for beaches, I think the Gold Coast would object to saying beaches are definitely Sydney, and I would argue that many great cities are entitled to great bridges, like Brisbane's Story Bridge.

As for laneways, ours are/will be very different to those in Melbourne as Dime said. Many cities have public areas such as laneways, not just Melb.

There's that copying mentality, and there's the argument that we can adopt what has been successful in other cities in order to transform dingy, ugly parts of the city into nice urban environments.

Brisbane's laneways would naturally evolve into our own 'type'. We have warmer weather, thus there might possibly be more vegetation in our laneways.

I just think the whole "lets not copy Melbourne" saying is stupid when clearly they have been successful and great for lots of cities around the world. The style of them would grow to be different. So why should we leave our laneways to be an embarrassment?

How could anyone prefer yet another boring and ugly concrete box over a laneway with interesting businesses and a small scale urban feel that Brisbane generally lacks?

As for not emulating Melbourne, I have seen this brought up a few times but never accompanied by a suggestion about what awesome unique thing Brisbane could do.. I know, Melbourne can have laneways, Sydney can have the harbour and Brisbane can have medium height office blocks made out of concrete and hot asphalt. Pulls the visitors in like nobodies business.

How could anyone prefer yet another boring and ugly concrete box over a laneway with interesting businesses and a small scale urban feel that Brisbane generally lacks?


How could anyone pick a laneway over a beautiful new piece of architecture that decorates the street?
Usually they're an empty piece of asphalt with the ugly rears of dozens of buildings to the sides, possibly there's a small cafe or bar if you're lucky.
I think what Melbourne does with them is unique and very hard to replicate.

I know, Melbourne can have laneways, Sydney can have the harbour and Brisbane can have medium height office blocks made out of concrete and hot asphalt. Pulls the visitors in like nobodies business.

Ohh come on, architecture is an art form. Brisbane is great at being a unique dense collection of modern towers on a river front, with a strong riverside bar and restaurant culture. The city has true beauty with the mix of the amazing architecture from modern to old, the river and the tropical Botanic Gardens, from some angles it looks like an amazing city sitting on the amazon.
So Brisbane should be focused on making that even better, more riverside park land, more skyscrapers of quality and height.

Ohh come on, architecture is an art form. Brisbane is great at being a unique dense collection of modern towers on a river front, with a strong riverside bar and restaurant culture. The city has true beauty with the mix of the amazing architecture from modern to old, the river and the tropical Botanic Gardens, from some angles it looks like an amazing city sitting on the amazon.
So Brisbane should be focused on making that even better, more riverside park land, more skyscrapers of quality and height.

:nuts::lol:

Some architecture can be classed as art - 111 Eagle, Riparian and even Brisbane Square I would place in these categories, likewise older buildings like the Treasury Casino and Hotel, the Regent, the two NAB buildings in Queen St, etc. But this new building? it looks alright but I wouldn't consider it a work of art by any stretch.

As for laneways being "an empty piece of asphalt with the ugly rears of dozens of buildings to the sides, possibly there's a small cafe or bar if you're lucky", laneways are much more than this. For one, they provide smaller, more diverse retailers the ability to set up their cafe/bar/boutique restaurant/boutique shop in the middle of the city without being needing to pay the expensive prime rents that would lock most out of the city.

The Coffee Supplier and The Alley are two perfect examples. They got no walk through traffic, but both developed a loyal customers base/performers that wanted to hire out their venue, through word of mouth only. And they did this over what? No more than a couple of years max?

Keeping in mind that Melbourne's laneways have taken decades to develop to their current state, ours are only in their infancy, but have the potential to become something as special for Brisbane, as Melbourne's are for them. And ours are definitely developing -

Brew in Lower Burnett Lane: a coffee shop built from a loading zone which has now gained a liquor licence and appears to be considerably popular and successful whenever I go in there.

Laneway Bar, built behind Urbane/The Euro restaurants in Spencer's Lane, is probably one of the best places for a drink in Brisbane IMO.

Gresham Lane - a more modern laneway that houses several smaller cafe and takeaway style eateries that would do a roaring trade during the week.

These are just the beginning...work is being done currently on buildings facing both Burnett Lane and Spencer Lane which may further activate these lanes, and more organic growth is occurring in the Valley's laneways currently. It is this kind of activation that Brisbane needs...many of these laneways aren't going anyway as they are road reserves, or are protected by listed buildings like Burnett Lane and Spencer Lane are, so why shouldn't we activate them, diversify the businesses that operate in the city.

I'd much rather go to Brew or something similar, rather than a Pie Face or Coffee Club! The only way this can happen is to activate these areas and give Brew and it's contemporaries the opportunity to create a niche for themselves.

Posted on "Love Our Laneways" facebook page this morning:

Hey folks, we're about to go into a meeting with the developer to discuss what we're about and show them an alternate proposal to integrate the 1920's Printer's Warehouse into the design. Keep your fingers and toes crossed!

I've no doubt that this will have no effect, though.... (unfortunately)

^^ Just getting the developers to meet with them isn't a bad effort regardless IMO.

I'm thinking about it in terms of, while it may not change the outcome of this project, it could potentially help shape the development/creation of new laneways throughout Brisbane.

And the latest:

Just completed our meeting with the developers. We thank them for taking the time to meet with us. Unfortunately we disagreed on the future direction of this project and the potential value of this building. As it stands it will be demolished. :( Stay tuned for future news about the next step.

As you said, it's not surprising...retaining the old building would involve redesigning the new building from scratch essentially.

Treasury Row is rapidly emptying. Hairdressers have gone. Pen shop closed today. DVD store is closing this weekend.

Looks like there will be some demolition action soon.

Will be great to see that crappy warehouse out the back gone :storm:

A warehouse which happens to be older then the heritage listed Teneriffe Woolstores and has very similar design characteristics. Lets bulldoze those while we're at it shall we. :ohno:

^^ Just to play devils advocate, I would say that the you can't really compare the warehouse to the Woolstores. While similar architecturally, the differing uses (the Woolstores were part of a much more important industry), difference in sheer size and have a superior street presence in their area, puts the two in differing boats so to speak.

Not saying that the warehouse shouldn't be saved, just that the woolstores are, in my eyes at least, something that it much more important to retain. Part of the issue with the warehouse, as I see it, is that it isn't adorned with a striking facade which seems to be a common feature of the old commercial buildings that have been heritage listed and retained (for example the 2 Smellie Buildings, the Spencer Buildings, Watsons Buildings...etc etc). This doesn't seem to occur as much in the Valley though...they have a fair few relatively plain commercial building still standing.

Speaking of the valley, there looks to be a very good example of a laneway reactivation being done right in the Valley. The Bakery Lane project looks very exciting!

Also, you do know that there are other warehouses of a similar nature still standing in the CBD (albeit not necessarily for too much longer) in Mary Street right? Next to the Watsons Building on the old 111 Margaret site. Not identical, but at least part of the site I think would date from a similar era to the warehouse.

Also I hate to say it but this is why Brisbane is bleeding a lot of artists and people interested in culture who move to Melbourne. This was such an excellent music space, and there are less and less music venues now in Brisbane which is becoming extremely sad.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/photo1-1.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/photo2-1.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/photo3-1.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/photo4-1.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/photo5-1.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/photo-1.jpg

^^ I must admit I didn't know about this until very recently, but it's a great little venue that they set up. Reminds me of The Zoo in the valley, similar kind of set up.

As for artists and people interested in culture moving to Melbourne, looking on the Melb thread there are some developments being proposed/approved down there that are as bad as this one in terms of destroying 80+ year old buildings, and seriously mutilating the look and feel of cultural areas, such as the well known AC/DC Lane. You would think Melbourne would know better!

That really is a tragedy.

'Ohh come on, architecture is an art form. Brisbane is great at being a unique dense collection of modern towers on a river front, with a strong riverside bar and restaurant culture. The city has true beauty with the mix of the amazing architecture from modern to old, the river and the tropical Botanic Gardens, from some angles it looks like an amazing city sitting on the amazon.
So Brisbane should be focused on making that even better, more riverside park land, more skyscrapers of quality and height.'

Oh dude.. positive attitude is nice, but for a great city you need a lot more than some nice angles on a skyline. You need life at ground level, and if you think Brisbane does that anywhere near as well as it could you need to get out and about a little more.

Caught a bus past Treasury Row yesterday, looks like two stores have closed and are all boarded up. It's getting closer to D-Day for this one...

D-Day is very close for Treasury Row and the printery/laneway out back I'm afraid. 7 out of 8 tenants in Treasury Row have vacated as of today (only the Hazel Tea shop is left), and the printery and laneway have been fenced off/boarded up with demolition signs stuck around the place.

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/9822/1005049i.jpg (http://img820.imageshack.us/i/1005049i.jpg/)

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/4314/1005046x.jpg (http://img38.imageshack.us/i/1005046x.jpg/)

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/3754/1005045x.jpg (http://img130.imageshack.us/i/1005045x.jpg/)

http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/6991/1005044k.jpg (http://img847.imageshack.us/i/1005044k.jpg/)

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/1881/1005047j.jpg (http://img200.imageshack.us/i/1005047j.jpg/)


http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/6357/1005059r.jpg (http://img811.imageshack.us/i/1005059r.jpg/)

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/1788/1005058o.jpg (http://img819.imageshack.us/i/1005058o.jpg/)

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1844/1005057g.jpg (http://img233.imageshack.us/i/1005057g.jpg/)

Here's a photo of the lane from tumblr

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljbm7fDGgR1qzhgee.jpg

^^ It's a good photo that one, I've seen it before. Still very sad to see the warehouse go...that lane did have a lot of unrealised potential, and as Soul's photos show the warehouse itself was a cool, unique building that is becoming extremely rare in the CBD.

I'm on the "Love our Laneways" and this is their latest email. Get on it kids!

Dear Lover of Laneways (and perhaps character buildings) in Brisbane,

You were kind enough to sign the petition to save the Elizabeth Street Printery and Laneway. Now you have a chance to do something about it.

We have submitted a heritage application to the Queensland Government's Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM). In our research we have discovered this building is even older than the Brisbane City Council originally thought and was completed in 1915. To put this in context, this is the same year the ANZACs went ashore at Gallipoli. It also means the Printery was constructed in the same era as the oldest of the heritage listed Teneriffe Woolstores. Yet the developer Grocon will soon demolish this beautiful 96 year old building to make way for a loading bay.

As the BCC has washed its hands of this issue, an immediate protection injunction from the state government is the only chance of saving this building. There is now only one person who can do this, the DERM minister Kate Jones. She has the power to place a stop work order on the demolition. That will give the DERM officials time to properly assess the heritage application, especially in light of the new information we have discovered.

So what can you do?

Please write to the minister expressing how disappointed you are with the BCC, and how you hope the Queensland State Government will come to the rescue by placing an immediate protection order on the Elizabeth St Printery.

MP Kate Jones's email address is... kate.jones@ministerial.qld.gov.au

We all have to live in this city, and this development takes away so much more than it gives to Brisbane. The developer has already erected barricades and demolition signs, so time is extremely urgent. Please don't leave it to others, your email will make a difference. Start writing now and forward this email onto anyone who may be interested in saving this unique building.

Thank you also for supporting this campaign, your laneway loves you for it!

Cheers,

LOL BNE

Destroy a 96 year old character building and CBD laneway precinct for a loading bay? No way!!!

lalalalnimbylalala

We need a 'Love our Brisbane Tall Buildings' facebook page and Grocon should be meeting with us to explain why this building is so short!

Since when did we all become berret wearing latte sipping Victorians looking for laneways to roll some twine down. No one cared the slightest about the laneway when Empire Square was the proposal. Because it was a beautiful glass glad 240m mixed use tower, with a 5 star Westin Hotel and a bar at 220m.

I put it to you that the issue is not the laneway, but the actual development! As Zoolander would say 'it needs to be at least three times bigger', only here it needs to be more like actually six times bigger!

^^ I think the issue here is neither the laneway or the development, but about usable, public space that benefits Brisbane and its residents. Yeah, there was no where near as much opposition with Empire, but I think that has a lot to do with the gains to posed Brisbane.

Personally, I'd still be sad to see the laneway and printery go if Empire was miraculously brought back from the dead, but at least there would be some benefits.

The Empire proposal was like someone punching you in the face but giving you a hundred bucks to do so. The ATO proposal is like someone punching you in the face then pissing on you for good measure....

We need a 'Love our Brisbane Tall Buildings' facebook page and Grocon should be meeting with us to explain why this building is so short!

Since when did we all become berret wearing latte sipping Victorians looking for laneways to roll some twine down. No one cared the slightest about the laneway when Empire Square was the proposal. Because it was a beautiful glass glad 240m mixed use tower, with a 5 star Westin Hotel and a bar at 220m.

I put it to you that the issue is not the laneway, but the actual development! As Zoolander would say 'it needs to be at least three times bigger', only here it needs to be more like actually six times bigger!

As I've said before, the reason the laneway issue wasn't raised during the Empire Square period was that there wasn't any activation of the laneway at the time. It was actually the people behind Empire Square that facilitated the activation by renting out the printery to The Coffee Supplier and The Alley, both of which became considerably successful enterprises which really had few contemporaries (The Alley especially was the only venue of it's type in the CBD, while The Coffee Supplier was the first of it's type, now replicated by Brew and several others) and allowing public access to the private laneway.

Personally, I'd still be sad to see the laneway and printery go if Empire was miraculously brought back from the dead, but at least there would be some benefits.

The Empire proposal was like someone punching you in the face but giving you a hundred bucks to do so. The ATO proposal is like someone punching you in the face then pissing on you for good measure....

Very well said Leesome, and it's exactly how I feel. The more I see and read about the printery, the more I think that perhaps it should be granted at least a temporary reprieve while an investigation into possible heritage status is determined.

lalalalnimbylalala

I dont think this is akin to nimbyism at all. I would guess many of the members of that organisation are not opposed to the new building as such (apart from the fact that it is a bit bland and not anywhere near the icon of Empire Square), more just to the destruction of the heritage building and the associated lost laneway space. IBefore lumpiong them in with the nimby's, I think people need to remember a NIMBY stands for "not in my back yard". But in this case if the heritage building could be saved, the laneway activated more and the new building still built, Im sure that would satisfy "almost" everyone.

I dont think this is akin to nimbyism at all. I would guess many of the members of that organisation are not opposed to the new building as such (apart from the fact that it is a bit bland and not anywhere near the icon of Empire Square), more just to the destruction of the heritage building and the associated lost laneway space. IBefore lumpiong them in with the nimby's, I think people need to remember a NIMBY stands for "not in my back yard". But in this case if the heritage building could be saved, the laneway activated more and the new building still built, Im sure that would satisfy "almost" everyone.


I agree, its not like we are getting the amazing empire square, instead we are losing so much to gain very little

I agree, its not like we are getting the amazing empire square, instead we are losing so much to gain very little

Not only that, but it's being delivered to us by Grocon, who's previous works show us that they are capable of much better, including developments that include good laneway activation!

It is totally wrong to liken this to Grocon's previous works. YES, they are capable of much better in a TOTALLY different economy. NO they are not capable of much better in the current economy. They are meeting demand and building small. They are supporting jobs for their construction workers and a construction portfolio for their company. This sort of thing is necessary to keep them going until they can return to larger projects.

If they don't do this sort of thing, they will go broke and we'll never see another great project from them again, so stop being so interventionist and accept the reality that we have a problem called the economic cycle which will always cause this sort of thing out of necessity - not because Grocon has an agenda of hatred and tardiness toward Brisbane.

^^ That does not excuse the fact this could have been designed better! We've had architects draft up some cheap modifications to the design which would retain Poles Printery at the back + laneway and create a great food precinct. However obviously Grocon's already got approval so there's no incentive to change.

If a heritage submission was made on the 96 year old Poles Printery building 6 months ago and it had gone through, Grocon would be forced to do something interesting.

Using the 'current economy' excuse for bad design is a cop out.

^^ Exactly. I'm seeing many well designed developments that have been proposed and are being built during the current economy, they haven't had to be dumbed down to a lowest common denominator design. We're not even asking for Empire 2.0, just a design that better addresses the urban environment it is in, and provides better activation at ground level for public benefit.

However they also bought the site knowing it could be developed across the entire footprint (or most thereof). Soul, how much more expensive would it be to maintain the ATO's requirements, keep the site's out the back and still start construction in the required timeframe?

^^ The exact expense would depend on the negotiation between Grocon, the ATO and the architects. Our design allowed for the building to be built over poles printery creating a cavity at the back. Sure it would cost a bit more then the current design but would add more value in the long term while still easily making a good profit.

These modifications aren't unreasonable and are definitely possible. Just look at the ground level cavity of 111 Eagle, sometime similar can be done here.

if i was mr grocon i would be pretty pissed off about all of this

the time to have input into the design was during the DA process. that's when the design is subject to scrutiny and when the decisions are made about how the building should look and what special things need to be incorporated. that's the process and everyone should know the rules.

once the DA is approved it should be final. how can a company make investment decisions when they have special interest groups trying to take a second bite at the cherry?

I would be pissed off too. But we are not them, and frankly i couldn't care less about the head of a development company or the company itself, and Im sure they feel the same. I would prefer a result that is better for Brisbane and makes Brisbane a better city, not the profits of a company I have no association with.

I think many people would have expected Council to have been more persistent on addressing the laneway, but unfortunately that did not happen. And in reality, something only becomes more precious once it is threatened. I think the attention on this issue was only gathering momentum after the DA was approved. So in many ways it is a natural progression that there is this opposition to it at this late stage. Same thing happened to Emerald Tower. However it seems to me that Emerald is a more clear cut case of NIMBYISM. There was complete opposition to it with little valid argument (IMO). But in this case it is people just wanting a better outcome/design, not halting the project altogether.

i think brisbane would be better served if it respected due process, than trashing hte process and trying to change the rules if it suits a vocal few.

who in their right mind would spend tens of millions of dollars buying a development site in brisbane if a special interest group could force a change their building AFTER it is approved?

That's why they should have done proper risk analysis before purchasing this site. It's pretty bloody obvious that there is a character building out the back housing a coffee shop and live music venue. People aren't just gonna roll over and let them wipe it out.

i think brisbane would be better served if it respected due process, than trashing hte process and trying to change the rules if it suits a vocal few.

who in their right mind would spend tens of millions of dollars buying a development site in brisbane if a special interest group could force a change their building AFTER it is approved?

I disagree. Frankly i dont care about the process, it's a necessity sure, but all rules can be broken, they always have and always will. As for buying the property, well its assessing the risk. There are no certainties (esp in business) - kind of like the mining rights on the land that you bought your house, or councils ability to buy your house from under you to put in a freeway.

If they produced a more sensitive design, there would be no issues. That is a risk they decided to take to maximise their profits, and there is a small chance that risk may not pay off. I have no strong opposition this project, (apart from the fact that it is isnt anything special and i would rather see Treasury Row remain) but I do believe they have a valid case to argue its alteration - even at this late stage

Well, you've successfully disagreed without addressing the issue raised.

"There are no certainties" is not good enough where businesses are forking out tens of millions. Businesses will always go where there IS certainty.

38921111 is absolutely correct. You missed the boat and you should be told to shut up and lump it.

Additionally, I can't get past the fact that this is less about the precious laneway and more about the fact you simply don't like the development. If the ATO needed 3x the space and it was a beautiful, glassy building nobody would have brought this up.

I am merely stating a fact, that there are no certainties. I have had projects signed, sealed and delivered to a point where I believe that nothing could halt it, and only to be proved wrong. So I think you mean business will alway try to minimise risk, which as a generalisation is probably true.

I didn't miss any boat Marty, I am in no way affiliated with any party in this process. As a member of this forum, I was merely stating an opinion that i believe the cause has merit. My opinion of the design of the building and the fact that i would rather see Treasury Row remain in this instance is merely a contributing opinion to this forum on the design proposal. I don't have disdain for this building, i simply would ideally like to see a better proposal based on my ideals.

I think you have confused me with someone arguing for a cause, where i am simply stating my opinion.

I think many people would have expected Council to have been more persistent on addressing the laneway

The problem is that you don't seem to be able to understand that it was never a laneway - it was (and is) a driveway on private land. The neighbouring properties have an access easement over it. Just because the general public were allowed to use it to access the building at the rear of the site doesn't change the status of the land.

Maybe you didn't get the point that i don't have any real opposition to this proposal.

The problem is that you don't seem to be able to understand that it was never a laneway - it was (and is) a driveway on private land. The neighbouring properties have an access easement over it. Just because the general public were allowed to use it to access the building at the rear of the site doesn't change the status of the land.

Although it is a privately owned driveway, as the site is being redeveloped the easement was still subject to the council's guidelines regarding cross block links and laneways (the latter is what Grocon themselves described the link as being). In this case, council considered the laneway as part of a potential future cross block link to Charlotte St. One of the larger questions Grocon was required to address in their Final Response was regarding their proposed design for the laneway as council indicated that the proposed design "wasn't what council had in mind for this link."

However, due to the unique nature of this laneway (having to provide rights of access to the carparks of neighbouring buildings) Grocon successfully convinced council that their design of the laneway was appropriate given this unique arrangement, and it was subsequently approved. While Grocon's design is appropriate, in my opinion that's all it is.

This is what it comes down to - I, and others like Samuel, Soul and Leesome all believe that the design could have been better -we're getting the lowest common denominator when it comes to ground floor and laneway activation with this, and we're losing what in many people's eyes should have been a heritage listed building, which is adding insult to injury. We're not against the development in a NIMBY fashion, but rather are lamenting the fact that the development could have been better.

I don't hate the building outright - in fact, I like certain aspects of it. I don't mind the overall design, and it will mean a revamp of that portion of the Elizabeth St footpath and street scape, with some new trees put in (both of which will be an improvement), and it will help cover up the hideous POS Telstra Exchange. But I still feel that it could have been designed better, and that Grocon are capable of coming up with a better outcome.

They could have potentially looked at the possibility of retaining all or part of the printery in the initial design (I know and accept that modifying the design at the 11th hour to retain it so late in the design process isn't really going to be feasible) and improving the laneway usage by making it more of a shared space at least in appearence...plans make it look more like an extension of the building's driveway with a footpath down the side that only goes down part way, which I feel is a bit of a letdown (unless Grocon have something really good up their sleeve in way of detailing and public artwork). Also, they should have considered providing more retail space/with a better retail layout (something I really think is a major issue for this building - providing what appears to be one single large retail space, which doesn't fit with it's position and the types of retail businesses that are present in Elizabeth St, mostly smaller shops and restaurants).

Well, it appears that efforts to save the printery haven't let been exhausted according to an article in the Australian Financial Review...

The Love Our Laneways group has petitioned Kate Jones, Minister for Environmental and Resource Management to place an injunction on demolition of the printery pending a full DERM assessment of the building.

BCC approved the development with the belief that the printery was built in 1924, where it has since been discovered that it was actually built in 1915, and while that is only 9 years older, it makes it as old as the oldest of the Teneriffe Woolstores and therefore possibly a much more important building and one deserving of heritage protection.

To quote the article: "The Minister said on Friday she had directed the department to 'expedite an assessment of the property for any heritage values.'"

Here's a link to a photo of the AFR article that's been posted on the LOL BNE facebook page: LINK (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/photo.php?fbid=202315853140327&set=a.192367797468466.45264.192348890803690&type=1&theater)

Interesting... Grocon's just today put up a new DA up for this one - A003072331.

No docs up yet, so no telling what it's relating to.

probably building works application

I figured it might just be something like that. Trying to handle these sort of building works on Elizabeth St is bound to be a nightmare!

It'll be interesting to see the results of the DERM investigation into the Printery as well, as it has the potential to really throw a spanner into the works for Grocon if it is successful, which I think could be a distinct possibility. LOL BNE has put together a convincing case on the building based on it's age, method of construction and similarities and industry links to other neighbouring buildings that are already listed.

The printery issue has made it onto the front page of MX today.

This could open a real can of worms with a potentially huge compensation claim. Would also create a dangerous precedent. This site has had two development applications approved and now at the very last minute there is a potential heritage listing to be thrown on the site.

I would have thought that if the printery were truly significant rather than just being an old building that the heritage bodies would have taken action before now.

Internal demolition has now begun on the shops - visible from the Telstra laneway.

^^ Depends on your definition of 'truely significant'. The initial light research that somebody - not even sure if it was a proper independent body undertook was actually incorrect in 2004. It took frickin ages going through the BCC archives at Moorooka, but we finally found a date it was constructed. Also note that there has never been a heritage application for this building.

I just want to say that we are not nut cases, nor nimbys, nor even against this development. I love Brisbane a LOT, and I want to see this city succeed in every way possible.

I would love to see this development proceed, but in the right way, and Grocon have not designed something which preserves and enhances the character of this building - something which they would not get away with in Melbourne, so why should they be able to in Brisbane?

We have put together a list of further reasons to convince those people who may not see this building as valuable as we do.

http://loveourlaneways.tumblr.com/post/5300516754/the-historical-argument-for-why-the-elizabeth-st

Front page of the MX:

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/photo-7.jpg

This is a design concept that we did which would retain the same amount of car parks, would need some tweaking however eg where the driveway is.

Sorry about the size / quality of these. Just gives an idea of what is possible.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljihd3eX4R1qhnfnt.jpghttp://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljihdorjBU1qhnfnt.jpg
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljihf7lyv51qhnfnt.jpg

A combination of the vast majority of people not even knowing there was even a building back there until recent years, and council's incorrect age on the building are probably the big reasons that there's never been a listing.

Am I correct that DERM works largely through working through received public/corporate/government submissions on buildings that should be listed, rather than they themselves scouring through all the potential buildings that might fit the criteria? If the public didn't know about the building, and BCC's information about the building was incorrect, no wonder there's never been a heritage submission made for it until now.

As for creating a dangerous precedent, yes, perhaps it might, but realistically how many times would there be a situation such as this. There aren't that many buildings around where this kind of issue would arise, as not as many of these buildings still exist (the 111 Margaret Site is the only one I could think of).

:applause: I applaud the commitment for not settling for second rate.

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

WOW.
Not taking sides and don't intend to throw fuel on the fire but a bit strange that i was just reading about this article last night:

http://www.flynn.org.au/category/heritage

To be fair to Grocon, at the end of the day they brought this site and got their approvals.

Now, make no mistake, I really don't like what they are doing with the site, the tower is short, it's quite ugly, it doesn't do anything for that part of town, it's no Empire Square, that is for sure.

BUT...

BUT...

It's their site and they have their approvals, so fair play to them and let them build their tower.

This does set a dangerous precent and whilst here we might entertain this because there isn't anything much at stake, it would be quite another story if this was occurring on say the Vision site. Imagine Vision's 300m replacement being canned because of an extremely late heritage application... that would suck.

So I support Grocon, but I do wish after they build this they leave town or build a 250m tower somewhere in town because they will owe us one.

^^ I understand what you're saying, and if anything this site should have been inspected by DERM long ago. How no one though to get it inspected is a mystery to me, and yes, Grocon did buy the site and go through the whole approval process, and understandably could be rather pissed if the building gets protection. If I were Grocon's owner, I'd be annoyed.

But I'm not Grocon's owner. What I am is a resident of Brisbane and as such my interest lies in the outcome which is best for this city I live in, and what is the best outcome in my opinion is if the printery is protected, and Grocon have to go back to the drawing board to redesign their building in a similar fashion to the sketches Soul posted. I want both a new development, and a heritage building retained, and yes, I know I'm having my cake and eating it too, but as I said, I want the best possible outcome.

If they have to amend the plans, then I feel for the architects, I hate revising designs, but after you get over the initial irritation sometimes you have to concede that the outcome is better....... sometimes.

This does set a dangerous precent and whilst here we might entertain this because there isn't anything much at stake, it would be quite another story if this was occurring on say the Vision site. Imagine Vision's 300m replacement being canned because of an extremely late heritage application... that would suck..

As long as it doesnt halt the project, I wouldn't mind if they amended the base of any building to retain a heritage building, even Vision. I think i would feel the same for most projects.

I love my glass and steel, but i also like character buildings, particularly when the are combined or adjacent. I really like to see old and new together.

To be fair to Grocon, at the end of the day they brought this site and got their approvals.

Now, make no mistake, I really don't like what they are doing with the site, the tower is short, it's quite ugly, it doesn't do anything for that part of town, it's no Empire Square, that is for sure.

BUT...

BUT...

It's their site and they have their approvals, so fair play to them and let them build their tower.

This does set a dangerous precent and whilst here we might entertain this because there isn't anything much at stake, it would be quite another story if this was occurring on say the Vision site. Imagine Vision's 300m replacement being canned because of an extremely late heritage application... that would suck.

So I support Grocon, but I do wish after they build this they leave town or build a 250m tower somewhere in town because they will owe us one.

The whole process is nothing new. Groups tried 2 or 3 times to heritage list parts of the Regent on ISPT / BMPX...they failed.

This same application will fail as well. The 'design concept' indicates the people who put the idea together have no clue about building development. The cantilever proposed would require increased structural requirements that would warrant the develop unfeasible (In fact I'd question if its even possible though I am not a structural engineer). Honestly its a stupid idea....just lines on paper by people who don't know what they are doing.

Soul, your messing with the big league here buddy and you're completely out of your league.

LOL at the cantilevering proposal.. it would look tokenistic and lame... it would cost a fortune.. and it'd make the lower level floorplates smaller and unsuitable for their intended use. may as well just propose one of these as a better outcome for the site

http://29.media.tumblr.com/2j8c8GI4eqr1j36lpVw4KrKjo1_500.gif

The whole process is nothing new. Groups tried 2 or 3 times to heritage list parts of the Regent on ISPT / BMPX...they failed. This same application will fail as well.

Comparing the Printery to the Regent Cinema Box is like comparing apples and oranges. The Cinema box is just that - a box: the empty shell of a grand old theatre that had been completely gutted and a new 4 cinema floor plan built within the original walls, and even then the original outer walls and roof line did get altered as well. This is why the cinema box wouldn't ever get protection - the amount of original, unmodified material was far too small and far too altered to be considered for listing.

The same would be true of the Treasury Row, for example - it contains remnant 1870s fabric, but has been substantially altered over it's life so little original fabric remains.

The Printery, however, appears to be largely original both inside and out. The original external brickwork is intact, albeit with 4 windows bricked in, which is nothing new for heritage buildings, while internally the original timber structure, which is visually similar to that used by the Woolstores, is still intact and in good condition. It is easily in as original a condition, if not moreso, that the neighbouring John Mills Himself building, which itself was a printery, indicating a possible early printing industry link to the immediate area.

In addition, the building has two heritage listed buildings on either side, and in close proximity to several more which already form a precinct (John Mills Himself, the retained facades on the Telstra Exchange, the Pancake Manor and the little one story building next to John Mills that has that Singaporean restaurant are all listed and are considered as a heritage precinct, similar to the old government buildings on George St are. The Printery could easily be considered an extension of this existing precinct, as it is not a dissimilar style of building, and has the aforementioned industry links to at least one of them.

Soul, your messing with the big league here buddy and you're completely out of your league.

Maybe so. But hey, this is everyones city, our history, under the heritage act we have the right to do this and we are. I'm sorry if you see trying to save a nearly 100 year old building as stupid. I find this design stupid and 2nd class, Grocon would not get away with this in Melbourne.

BrissyMan, like Nathan said I think you are definitely extending the truth by comparing this to the Regent. Its completely different in terms of design and circumstances.

Also need I remind some that Brisbane Square uses a cantilever design too.

LOL at the cantilevering proposal.. it would look tokenistic and lame... it would cost a fortune.. and it'd make the lower level floorplates smaller and unsuitable for their intended use. may as well just propose one of these as a better outcome for the site

http://29.media.tumblr.com/2j8c8GI4eqr1j36lpVw4KrKjo1_500.gif

I'm sure ATO would appreciate a forest, lake and trees for their staff. I believe the second option would be their favourite.

Maybe so. But hey, this is everyones city, our history, under the heritage act we have the right to do this and we are. I'm sorry if you see trying to save a nearly 100 year old building as stupid. I find this design stupid and 2nd class, Grocon would not get away with this in Melbourne.

BrissyMan, like Nathan said I think you are definitely extending the truth by comparing this to the Regent. Its completely different in terms of design and circumstances.

Also need I remind some that Brisbane Square uses a cantilever design too.

You are absolutely correct about Brisbane Square, though you'll notice 1. The massive columns that assist the cantilevers and 2. The cantilever's don't accommodate half the buildings floor plate.

Lots of projects / developments incorporate them, just in a properly design & feasible manner.

yes but i'm sure most australian taxpayers would attest that the ATO is evil. and the fourth one looks the most evil, so perhaps that would be best? once we reach an agreement we should let mX know so they can put it on their front page.

Comparing the Printery to the Regent Cinema Box is like comparing apples and oranges. The Cinema box is just that - a box: the empty shell of a grand old theatre that had been completely gutted and a new 4 cinema floor plan built within the original walls, and even then the original outer walls and roof line did get altered as well. This is why the cinema box wouldn't ever get protection - the amount of original, unmodified material was far too small and far too altered to be considered for listing.

The same would be true of the Treasury Row, for example - it contains remnant 1870s fabric, but has been substantially altered over it's life so little original fabric remains.

The Printery, however, appears to be largely original both inside and out. The original external brickwork is intact, albeit with 4 windows bricked in, which is nothing new for heritage buildings, while internally the original timber structure, which is visually similar to that used by the Woolstores, is still intact and in good condition. It is easily in as original a condition, if not moreso, that the neighbouring John Mills Himself building, which itself was a printery, indicating a possible early printing industry link to the immediate area.

In addition, the building has two heritage listed buildings on either side, and in close proximity to several more which already form a precinct (John Mills Himself, the retained facades on the Telstra Exchange, the Pancake Manor and the little one story building next to John Mills that has that Singaporean restaurant are all listed and are considered as a heritage precinct, similar to the old government buildings on George St are. The Printery could easily be considered an extension of this existing precinct, as it is not a dissimilar style of building, and has the aforementioned industry links to at least one of them.

You need to understand that a building doesn't qualify for heritage listing simple because of its 'age and intactness'.

What advantage / contribution does the building make to Brisbane's history? Why would people remember it? To be honest, I didn't even know the thing existed.

You need to understand that a building doesn't qualify for heritage listing simple because of its 'age and intactness'.

What advantage / contribution does the building make to Brisbane's history? Why would people remember it? To be honest, I didn't even know the thing existed.

As I said, the building, just like it's neighbour the John Mills Himself building, was an early printery. This points to the immediate area being a possible hub of Brisbane's early printing industry, further evidence coming from the old Govt Printing Office being only several minutes walk up the road. That gives the building some historical significance relating to the industry it was involved in, and also the light industrial industries that developed in this area of Brisbane in the early 20th century.

In terms of architecture, the building shares the same basic form of construction and a similar exterior design as the Woolstores (particularly with the earlier ones), and dates from the same era. Unadorned, industrial brick architecture of this type and this scale from that era are becoming increasingly rare in Brisbane and surrounds, with only the woolstores, the John Mills Himself building, and a couple of smaller, younger warehouses in Fortitude Valley being the only similar examples of this style of building that I can think of .

In a current context, the building is right in the middle of a sizeable collection of heritage buildings, with 4 heritage listed buildings and one heritage facade directly adjoining the site, with quite a few other heritage and/or period buildings on situated on the same block. This creates a rather large heritage collection on this city block, and more specifically, it would build on the heritage precinct on Charlotte St with the addition of the Printery.

As I said, the building, just like it's neighbour the John Mills Himself building, was an early printery. This points to the immediate area being a possible hub of Brisbane's early printing industry, further evidence coming from the old Govt Printing Office being only several minutes walk up the road. That gives the building some historical significance relating to the industry it was involved in, and also the light industrial industries that developed in this area of Brisbane in the early 20th century.

I see, so because this piece of crap shares the same use as the adjoining, genuine heritage significant building, it has significance? You'll need to be better than that sorry.

In terms of architecture, the building shares the same basic form of construction and a similar exterior design as the Woolstores (particularly with the earlier ones), and dates from the same era. Unadorned, industrial brick architecture of this type and this scale from that era are becoming increasingly rare in Brisbane and surrounds, with only the woolstores, the John Mills Himself building, and a couple of smaller, younger warehouses in Fortitude Valley being the only similar examples of this style of building that I can think of .

Yes, this picture definately shows how the building is a fine architectural example in line with the Woolstores. http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5583734397_5bfff2d79c.jpg

In a current context, the building is right in the middle of a sizeable collection of heritage buildings, with 4 heritage listed buildings and one heritage facade directly adjoining the site, with quite a few other heritage and/or period buildings on situated on the same block. This creates a rather large heritage collection on this city block, and more specifically, it would build on the heritage precinct on Charlotte St with the addition of the Printery.

Once again, using other, genuine heritage listed buildings in the area as a reason to list this one is a poor argument.

Time wasters....

lol r u mad brudda?

Yes, this picture definately shows how the building is a fine architectural example in line with the Woolstores. http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5583734397_5bfff2d79c.jpg

The least you could do is get a photo of the CORRECT building we're talking about. That's the neighbouring building, the former Queensland Teacher's Union building. And it's already got a heritage listing on it, regardless of the rear fire damage!

And regardless of your personal thoughts on it, the reasons I listed will be some of the things that DERM will look at in their criteria for heritage listing, and are some of the things that the listings of the neighbouring buildings were judged against (I checked their DERM listings).

I'll accept my error in posting an incorrect image of the building in question. Regardless I maintain my opinion on the matter.

Soul, your messing with the big league here buddy and you're completely out of your league.

:rofl: you never cease to amaze me brissyman

:cripes: The image you should have posted BrissyMan1:

Neighbouring heritage listed John Mills Himself Building (a former printery).
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkvfhiEBhR1qhnfnt.jpg

To be honest, I didn't even know the thing existed.

And nobody else did until Metacap decided to get some revenue from the Empire site by renting out the building for uses which encouraged public access to the rear of the site.

Next the LOL group tried to claim it was a laneway when it was just a particular configuration of driveways on private land.

When that failed then LOL come up with a bogus heritage claim - apparently based solely on its age. Surely the fact that DERM are having to investigate to determine whether the building has significance is the answer. If the building was significant then it would already be known. Just because it was built 95 years ago doesn't automatically make it significant.

Anyway, returning to the real world - the awning on Treasury Row was demolished last night.

What bugs me, is that you have nice streetscapes like the pic below which were demolished in 2011 (it's a replica, but so what, half of Europe is) and replaced with horrid modern apartment entrances, and nobody cares at all, but *but* people get up in arms over laneway of dubious heritage value and some ugly brick buildings (not everything old is of value after all!). I ask, which one in the real world is more of a loss? This streetscape to my mind (especially considering the replacement), and yet here we are.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/15062008004.jpg

Have you guys actually been inside poles printery?? Or even gone down the laneway? I wonder this because the inside honestly resembles a few of the early Woolstore buildings in teneriffe and has not been modified since its construction.

Its beautiful inside, a class of its own. The fact that some are saying that there is absolutely no value in the printery just indicates to me that they haven't actually been inside or even down the alleyway before.

Also agree about the replica demolition. Sad that developers don't see the value in retaining classic looking facades like what the developer of Aurora Tower did.

Im trying to play to any sides here but there is two questions that I think need to be answered by those who put forward the Heritage Claim.

1. Why is it that if this building was so important to Brisbanes heritage that you have only tried to have it listed well after the original demolition approval was given?

2. Did you ever raise an issue with this building when Metacap were going to build a massive tower on it, or is it only now that you are not happy with it because you feel the new design is mediocre?

Lets be honest this isnt about the old building, this is because you dont like the design. So first you tried to get them to incorporate a better laneway design. Then that failed so now you are trying to heritage list the building that no one in Brisbane even know exists and never will even if it is saved.

Did you guys ever raise the old building being saved as a wish when you went and had your meeting with Grocon?

Also Im sure you know how serious Grocon are taking this, they are still spending money demolishing the buildings at the front and they are still hiring staff to work on the project. You guys have lost, tuck your tails between your legs and walk on him.

Next the LOL group tried to claim it was a laneway when it was just a particular configuration of driveways on private land.

Laneways and cross block links do not have to be on public land, they can be on private land such as the easement in this case. And it's not just LOL that claimed it was a laneway - BCC see the easement as being half of a potential cross block link to Charlotte St, and Grocon themselves labeled the easement as a laneway in the development application.

When that failed then LOL come up with a bogus heritage claim - apparently based solely on its age. Surely the fact that DERM are having to investigate to determine whether the building has significance is the answer. If the building was significant then it would already be known. Just because it was built 95 years ago doesn't automatically make it significant.

If this heritage claim was completely without merit as you claim, Kate Jones wouldn't have directed DERM to investigate it, committing DERM's time and resources to verify if the building could be worth protecting. The fact that DERM are investigating shows that there is this possibility of it being significant.

Do I know what the outcome will be? No, I don't, and as such I will be trusting DERM's judgement on this. All I know is that it has elements that could potentially mean it would be considered heritage worthy, so it's best to get DERM to cast a trained eye over the building. And personally, I'd much rather know definitively whether or not it has heritage potential, than seeing it knocked down and then wondering "what if..."

Also agree about the replica demolition. Sad that developers don't see the value in retaining classic looking facades like what the developer of Aurora Tower did.

Personally, I think that, due to the time and effort required to retain a facade, that it's best used for true heritage buildings like the Queensland Country Life facade on Aurora, or the R.S Exton facade on 333 Ann St, or even the John Reid & Son facade on the Telstra Exchange. I'm not a big fan of producing 'faux heritage' buildings (except in certain circumstances). We marvel at heritage buildings for the workmanship and craftsmanship of the people who built it. Modern reproductions don't always have that quality in their work, and in turn it can lessen the importance of the true heritage work, especially if the fake is in close proximity to the genuine article.

:rofl: you never cease to amaze me brissyman

Honestly, its like the local division 3 rugby league player running on to play against the Broncos. No one wants to see them get hurt, but ultimately you can't help but enjoy the entertainment value it brings.

If this heritage claim was completely without merit as you claim, Kate Jones wouldn't have directed DERM to investigate it, committing DERM's time and resources to verify if the building could be worth protecting. The fact that DERM are investigating shows that there is this possibility of it being significant.


I'm no heritage pro, but aren't DERM obliged to consider all applications?

Im trying to play to any sides here but there is two questions that I think need to be answered by those who put forward the Heritage Claim.

1. Why is it that if this building was so important to Brisbanes heritage that you have only tried to have it listed well after the original demolition approval was given?

2. Did you ever raise an issue with this building when Metacap were going to build a massive tower on it, or is it only now that you are not happy with it because you feel the new design is mediocre?

Lets be honest this isnt about the old building, this is because you dont like the design. So first you tried to get them to incorporate a better laneway design. Then that failed so now you are trying to heritage list the building that no one in Brisbane even know exists and never will even if it is saved.

Did you guys ever raise the old building being saved as a wish when you went and had your meeting with Grocon?

To address your questions regarding why there wasn't an attempted listing earlier, the simple, honest answer is many of us just didn't know of the building's existence. It was a largely unused warehouse hidden from all sides by other buildings, and only people who had a reason to venture down the laneways that lead to it knew that it was there. It was only when Metacap decided to rent the space out that we began to rediscover the building was even there.

I'd compare it to the stories you hear of people who go through the house of an elderly family member who has either passed on or is moving into a care home, and when going through the house filled with 50 odd years of belongings, people sometimes find something that is now rare and valuable that had been forgotten with time, and left hidden for decades. Brisbane, and all of it's residents, basically forgot about this building.

As for whether saving the building was raised with Grocon, that was the single main thing LOL wanted saved. Look at the conceptual plans posted on the last page. The laneway that runs parallel to Elizabeth St was only included as it is required to provide access to the printery's ground floor tenancies. What use would we have for a laneway that runs though the middle of a building and goes nowhere? As for the laneway running down off Elizabeth St on the side of the site- it's an access easement. Grocon are obliged to retain it and will be keeping it open to the public anyway.

Let's clear up any misconceptions - this is 100% about saving a building that was recently rediscovered and then put to good use as a coffee shop and live music venue. A building that we believe is worth saving. It's not to just include an empty laneway to nowhere through the middle of the building -what benefit would that have for any of us? And the laneway down off Elizabeth St Grocon will be retained regardless.

As for the design of the building, we generally have nothing against it as a design. If it was on an empty site, we'd be all for it (maybe wishing for more height, but that's it). And even on this site, it's not that we don't want to see it built. I said previously that the new building will be hugely beneficial to Elizabeth St, and at no point have LOL said that they don't want the new building outright -we aren't Nimbys - we just want it to be built in a way that allows the continued co-existence of the Printery down the back.

I'm no heritage pro, but aren't DERM obliged to consider all applications?

Surely not ALL applications would be considered. I highly doubt that they would investigate a claim on something that was obviously not heritage worthy in any way shape or form, like a generic 70s office block or an old tin shed or something. Add to that, that LOL made their submission to Kate Jones, and I'm sure that, again, she wouldn't have done what she did if the building was a 70s office block with no hope of passing.

As I said, as much as I hope the printery will be listed, I can't tell you for certain whether it will or not and I'll leave that to DERM to decide, but it definitely has reason to be considered for a listing (well, maybe not in everyone's opinion). And it's still better to have had it investigated so we definitively know for certain - for better or worse.

This threads getting heated. Makes interesting reading. I think the argument that because it isn't a well known building in brisbanes history somehow invalidates it for heritage listing is not a strong reason. Isn't that part of the reason for it's retention? So that it makes people aware of Brisbane's history? It uncovers more of the story of Brisbane. I reckon many people didn't realize the relevance of many heritage buildings until they are actually brought into the public eye. As nathandavid88 has highlighted, it seems to be painting a better picture of the uses and companies of the small area of the cbd.Also I think age is also a very strong point to consider, as long as it satisfies other criteria and looks ok, or can be restored.

Hypothetical for you Soul, if Grocon amended their plans to create a 300m, world class architectural skyscraper, would you still have lodged your heritage application?

If that 300m world class architectural skyscraper integrated the printery's unique character into its design, definitely not.

Let me ask you a question... If you had to choose between two designs for a tower:

A 300m tower which complements and restores the printery building to create a unique cultural/eatery/laneway/nightlife precinct which people would use OR a normal 300m skyscraper with little culture or character, maybe a nice cafe or two?

It is about quality design, using the ~100 year old building to its advantage to create something new/old, something different which sparks interest and creates a unique environment for people to eat in - rather than another 123 Albert St food court with pie face and the coffee club (not bagging them out, just my opinion - they have their uses).

There are countless examples of this being done. I want people in Brisbane to walk past and say "that's cool". You can talk to me about it not being financially viable, but that's just not true because these things have been done countless times.

It would be very sad to see this opportunity lost. If this building gets on the heritage register it would require grocon to create something more interesting, or leave it for another developer to do.

4 floor office building ontop of old building using a cantilever design - Holland:
http://www.holland.com/uk/system/Images/tr_MO_rotterdam_old-new_architecture_560x350_VUK_tcm503-138903.jpg

Romanian office building built into historic building:
http://planetromero.com/rome.ro/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/bucuresti_01.jpg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_hVOW2U7K4-M/SW2SgE7RY0I/AAAAAAAA268/dtAPMWk1Lug/s640/dytjsfgthjsdfgd.jpg


Hamburg - look at how blocky this old building is, its actually an abandoned 1960s-era brick warehouse ~50 years newer then poles printery... yet they kept it and proposed something contrasting/interesting atop it:
http://newyorkguide.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/26/elbphilharmonie_3.jpg
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/Hamburg-Germany-Elbe-Philarmonic-1.jpg
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/Hamburg-Germany-Elbe-Philarmonic-2.jpg

Melbourne:
http://media.lonelyplanet.com/lpimg/27123/27123-9/preview.jpg

Sydney - Scots Presbyterian Church:
http://www.encorevoyages.com/photogallery/Encore%20II%20Voyages/2007%20Sydney/Scots%20Church%20Sydney.jpg

At the moment in Brisbane, architecture has been less then inspireing. Lets elvolve from the Joh Bjelke Petersen knock it down mentality into a 'what can we do to make this interesting' menality. All I want is a better outcome for Brisbane's urban character by retaining the little history we have in tact.

100 years from now, they will be able to see an architectural evolution from the old printery building to the modern Grocon building.

Enough said.

Nice how you didn't actually answer my question Soul.

'A 300m tower which complements and restores the printery building to create a unique cultural/eatery/laneway/nightlife precinct which people would use OR a normal 300m skyscraper with little culture or character, maybe a nice cafe or two?'

You're talking about a small laneway in a poorly trafficed part of town here. You're expectations for the area are significantly over estimated (Please do not post your 'laneway design study').

If that 300m world class architectural skyscraper integrated the printery's unique character into its design, definitely not.

Looks like he did answer your question... albeit differently. By the sounds of it, he would not have supported the development of a '300m world class architectural skyscraper' if it didn't include the printery... thus, he would still be pushing for a heritage listing...

And, do you expect laneways to explode with pedestrian activity overnight? You're stupid. Period.

And, do you expect laneways to explode with pedestrian activity overnight?

That's a good point Dime. Look at the money that Brisbane has spent on it's laneways projects, and how long it's taken to see some activation as a result.

Gresham Lane was the most successful as it is a new lane, with the building and lane was both designed from the beginning to house small eateries.

Burnett Lane is just now starting to see the signs of activation. It started with Brew (which is so successful, there's a queue on Friday nights as capacity is capped by its liquor licence), a building redevelopment at number 32 that is rumoured to be for a restaurant, and the brand new liquor application for number 42 Burnett Lane (details are in the News and Gossip thread).

While this lane, which received no upgrade at all, and was in a less central, "poorly trafficked" part of the CBD, became home to The Coffee Supplier coffee shop, and The Alley live music venue, both of which were quite popular and successful. They were some of the first laneway venues to open in Brisbane! In terms of activation, this lane was really Brisbane's stand out example, with other lanes only now catching up.

Looks like he did answer your question... albeit differently. By the sounds of it, he would not have supported the development of a '300m world class architectural skyscraper' if it didn't include the printery... thus, he would still be pushing for a heritage listing...

And, do you expect laneways to explode with pedestrian activity overnight? You're stupid. Period.

'albeit different'...IE: twisting the question for his own benefit.

Seems there is only one stupid person here Mr ridiculous sounding name. Now back under your rock please.

To his benefit, how? You didn't ask for a simple 'yes or no' answer, and you didn't get one. Soul quite obviously said he would support a '300m world class architectural skyscraper' should it include the printery in its over all design.

If that 300m world class architectural skyscraper integrated the printery's unique character into its design, definitely not.

What's the opposite of that?

If that 300m world class architectural skyscraper were to overlook the printery and fail to include it in the design, definitely.

You understand?

Demolition work underway today. Grocon must be fairly confident of the outcome of the DERM process given that they have already erected scaffolding.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l228/johnthay/IMG_2360.jpg

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l228/johnthay/IMG_2359.jpg

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l228/johnthay/IMG_2361.jpg

It will be weird going down Elizabeth St on the bus and not seeing Treasury Row there anymore. At least parts of the complex date back as far as 1870, (extensive modifications done over that 140 years mean that only remnant 1870s fabric remains) so it is a bit of a local landmark, having been around that long.

I have to say, it looks better without the awning than it did with it!

So D Day for Derm's decision was today. I've heard they rejected the application, Grocon are knocking this down come Monday.

^^ As far as I know, LOL BNE haven't received an official response from DERM as yet, so they're still holding out hope until they get the official word. I hope DERM give a descriptive explanation of their reasoning. I'd like to know how they came to which ever decision they go with.

If you're not satisfied with the depth of the response, lodge a RTI ( right to information) request, and they will have to 'show their work' and provide the documents they used to make their decision.

They will provide reasons. It's part of what they do.

Taking out the developers/approved DA side of things out of the equation, I actually can't see a valid reason for not listing this. I would also be interested to read their reasonings, if only to get a better understanding of how criteria are judged.

I actually can't see a valid reason for not listing this.

I have to disagree with you.

I hadn't looked at this building until I took my photo last week. It is fairly nondescript brick factory and doesn't seem to have any particularly redeeming features to me.

I have to disagree with you.

I hadn't looked at this building until I took my photo last week. It is fairly nondescript brick factory and doesn't seem to have any particularly redeeming features to me.

It is a divisive issue because, as we can all see, a lot of people would agree with you saying it's nothing special and not worth saving, while a lot of people like myself, Samuel and Soul do see the value of saving it. There are lot of things to be considered by DERM to see if it meets enough of the required heritage criterias to be listed. I don't think they will find an issue in meeting some criteria in isolation, but it's if they can meet enough of the core criterias together, as meeting a single criteria usually isn't enough. The similar John Mills Himself building gives me hope, but it does have a street frontage that relates to other heritage buildings on Charlotte St.

I think the fact that the building is an unadorned brick warehouse building is one of the important features of the building. While we have retained a lot of warehouses from different eras, many of them are ones that have an ornamental, street-facing facade, but very few warehouses with a truly utilitarian design remain within the CBD area, fewer still from this era and, to my knowledge, none of the size and scale of this one, which is pretty substancial. Also, part of the importance exists in the building's interior structure, which was in good condition and was largely still visible and hadn't been hidden with modern interior walls as is in a lot of retained buildings.

I have to disagree with you.

I hadn't looked at this building until I took my photo last week. It is fairly nondescript brick factory and doesn't seem to have any particularly redeeming features to me.

Yeah I see what your saying in that it doesn't have any notable architectural features, or contribute to the streetscape in any way.

I probably didn't word my previous post quite right, i actually was meaning to convey that putting the developers aside, I could see the weight of argument lying with approving this. But as I am not familiar with the approval process i am interested to hear the justification either way.

Although this building is quite plain architecturally speaking, I don't see this as a major drawback. I don't think it is ugly in anyway, in fact I quite like industrial warehouse feel it has to it. As it doesnt have that grandness that a lot of historic buildings have, I view the fact that being recessed from street is actually a bonus for this building (for the approval process), as there is a chance it may have detracted from the current streetscape. So I think its position is suited to the style of building it is. It seems it is the interior of this building that actually shines - in my opinion. The interior space of this building could make for some interesting establishments. Although i haven't been inside to make a proper judgement.

So D Day for Derm's decision was today. I've heard they rejected the application, Grocon are knocking this down come Monday.

are you sure??

this seems to indicate that the submission period ends 7/06/11

http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/public_notices/pdf/hpole_and_co.pdf.pdf

^^ According to LOL BNE's facebook page, Kate Jones and Grocon have come to a voluntary agreement that no work will be done to the printery until DERM have finished their investigation. So a bit of time to go yet, as they also allow for public submissions as part of the process.

For those who have seen it, you have to admit treasury row looks pretty nice with the awnings removed.

It really, really does! A lot of older buildings do look better without awnings, but seeing just how good Treasury Row looked without them really drove the point home. It's just a shame they came down only as a precursor to the whole building coming down.

I hope to get a photo of Treasury Row without the awnings before it's pulled down completely, but I can't get into Brisbane until the weekend so I hope Grocon aren't too efficient in knocking it down! They do have to wait a few weeks for DERM's decision anyway...

FYI there is a lot of demo plant on site and there is also security to stop anyone walking down the private easement.

^^ It's to be expected, while they can't touch the printery yet, they're free to take down Treasury Row, which they appear to be well in the process of doing.

I wonder if the easement is still open for neighbours to access still, or whether they have to find alternate parking during the demolition stage due to OH&S?

Another cantilever design in adelaide... (98m) (Approved)

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d22/UrbanSG/NewPicture1-4.png

^^Isn't that facadism?

Yeah it looks like they have just kept the facade, a good example of a blend of old and new. Also the Barracks building itself is a very similar design - a very blocky runned down building which was heritage listed and restored to complement the new development:


Not listed:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/52/145399456_4e1afe925a_z.jpghttp://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/222920_203488919689687_192348890803690_513796_6945764_n.jpg
Heritage listed:

A Boxcopy event in the laneway:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5177/5441197993_7de6349d5c_z.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/boxcopy/5441197993/

From previous page:
Another cantilever design in adelaide... (98m) (Approved)

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d22/UrbanSG/NewPicture1-4.png

^^So if it's facadism, it isn't cantilevered.

Yes, the facade is the only thing retained. The tower is also using a cantilevered beam design like Brisbane Square. As you can see part of the tower is being supported by large beams which transfer weight down. That is just an example of the cantilever design in action to preferve an old building.

I wouldn't have called Brisbane Square cantilevered either. It is essentially not filling in part of a tower with office space. From what I understood, for a tower to be cantilevered, it actually has to overhang. (The Lennons hotel and the Government Annex are the two I can think of quickly)

From previous page:
Another cantilever design in adelaide... (98m) (Approved)

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d22/UrbanSG/NewPicture1-4.png

Soul, that isn't cantilevered mate. Suspended yes, but cantilevered - no.

Wow. So something is happening here. Walked past on way to Börders to check out how their book sale is coming on.

^^ Demolition work on the front buildings (Treasury Row) is already underway, so that is what you would have seen.

Is there much left a Borders? I saw some people walking out with the genre signs the weekend before last.

The heritage application has officially been rejected...

Ok guys so the verdict:

Grocon applied for heritage immunity - which basically stops the heritage application from proceeding any further and bans any new heritage application for a site for five years.

After a meeting with the heritage council this morning they have decided to accept the immunity application due to the fact Grocon's application is in it's advanced stage. This means that the heritage submission which was not rejected, cannot continue it's process and will be retired due to the immunity.

Without going into too much of a rant, the immunity application process is utterly ridiculous and gives the developer who already has a large amount of power, unfair advantage.

So basically this means that poles printery will be demolished pretty soon. There goes another 100 year old character building.

A few days ago Grocon announced it would design a project with a suspension design to preserve an old building in Sydney. What a slap on the face and a sad day for Brisbane's character.

Goes back to what I had said earlier in the thread. They have a development approval to knock down an old building that wasn't heritage listed.

It is unethical to remove an approval away from a developer that has ethically and rightfully gained an approval over a site. If this became a precedent, you would start to see a reduction in developments that think outside the box and NIMBY's would be able to holt developments after a full approval has been given.