Thanks to Brissie_Lad.

Regent Towers - 34 floors Office/Retail + Roof (RL 128.800), also include Hilton & Wintergarden Refurb.

I'll be interested to see how it is built around the heritage areas of the Regent. if done properly it will be great to get some height in the area, otherwise it could be a disaster!

You could have at least titled the thread in the proper fashion.

Anyway, Brissy_lad, when can we expect the DA to be submitted?

...

Nice, love the teaser. Will be checking BCC fairly regularly.

Oww, lots of shiny glass, nice. I'm just really gunning for preservation of the old Regent Theatres interiors.

That's one of my only large concerns

ohh nice! I love and hate waiting for projects to come on line... :nuts:

Is it just me or is the vBulletin generated forums not working very well??

^^This is going fine at the moment. SSL is a dog currently.

It'll be good to have 2 glass towers opposite each other on Queen Street there.

^^ Yeah, works now... (was my computer) SSL is acting up at the moment though..

"include Hilton & Wintergarden Refurb" << does that include a reclad of the Hilton hotel?

That's my assertion. Brissy_Lad mentioned in another thread the Hilton was getting a refurb inside and out.

I like the teaser, glass looks great!!

...

Queen Street Mall will look great with a bunch of commercial towers.
Will add a lot more white collar workers to that part of the city - which is generally concentrated along Eagle Street.

Noticed signs up out front of the regent this morning saying the bus stops are closing there.

...

Any news on this yet?

no da lodged yet

Nope, but there one there for Wintergarden.

yeah, but its only for a modification to a shop's awning isnt it??

A new set of pedestian crossing lights have been installed on Elizabeth st out side of the site. They are located where the construction crossover will be - so I am guessing this is connected with the impending development.

I think you'll find it's nothing to do with the development and more to do with making the CBD more pedestrian friendly.

...

Did you want to put it online know that it is in at BCC ;)

Looks like the DA is online!

On the DA, they call it the Regent, The Wintergarden and The Hilton developments.

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h318/cj_81_/TheRegent2.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h318/cj_81_/TheRegent3.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h318/cj_81_/TheRegent4.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h318/cj_81_/TheRegent5.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h318/cj_81_/TheRegent6.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h318/cj_81_/TheRegent7.jpg

Interesting.

Thanks for that...for me the files wouldn't download. I don't mind these simple buildings that aren't ugly! Great filler...and yes, it's interesting!

looking good... that end of the mall will be awesome with that complete... with the new broadway tower almost opposite, and Queens Plaza it will "modern" up that end of the mall.

I can't see the ramps off Elizabeth St for the Wintergarden carpark.
Are they still there in the DA? Would be great to have a better solution to that.

Curtain to fall on Regent Cinema
Shannon Molloy | February 13, 2008 - 1 (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/curtain-to-fall-on-regent-theatre/2008/02/12/1202760296210.html)2:09AM

The historic Regent Theatre in Queen Street Mall will be transformed into a conference centre and back entrance to a new 38-storey office building if a planned development is approved.

Multiplex has lodged a development application with Brisbane City Council to revitalise the Wintergarden Shopping Centre, Regent Theatre and parts Hilton Hotel.

In addition, a 38-storey commercial high-rise will be built on Elizabeth Street, with access from Queen Street and the hotel.

As part of the development, the Regent Theatre will be turned into a conference and function space complete with auditorium and seminar rooms.

While the historical facade would remain, as well as the heritage-listed foyer and grand staircase, the primary purpose of the Regent would be to provide access to the new tower.

Plans describe the theatre as an "interface between old and new", with much of the paint work and intricate feature tiling to be restored.

Meanwhile, the exterior of the Wintergarden centre would be clad in ultra-modern ornamental screens.

Four levels of interior retail space will also be refurbished and integrated with the Regent Tower development.

An enclosed walkway above the mall's information centre, which has not been used for years, would also be removed to create a greater feeling of open space.

Some alterations would be made to the external facade of the Hilton Hotel, but plans submitted to the council detail them as only minor changes.

However, hotel guests will be able to enjoy new recreational facilities, thanks to a roof-top pool and landscaped terrace.

The new leisure space will sit on top of the eight-storey podium of Regent Tower on Elizabeth Street.

Hotel conference facilities and the grand ballroom are also listed for a possible refurbishment.

Development of the site will see more efficient use of Queen Street-level retail, while on Elizabeth Street, the construction of Regent Tower will transform a drag and tired block into a bustling and contemporary city space.

I can't see the ramps off Elizabeth St for the Wintergarden carpark.
Are they still there in the DA? Would be great to have a better solution to that.

Carpark entrance has moved south, ramps are GOOOOooone (thank god). Perpendicular entrance looks adjacent to Brisbane Central about where the current laneway is.

The new pedestrian crossing is now in use (on Elizabeth), what a pain (for drivers).

also note that in that Brisbane Times article, the walkway above the mall will be removed. A bit of a mixed blessing in my opinion. I don't mind it too much.

also, there's a whole gallery of pics of this development at BRISBANE TIMES (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/photogallery/2008/02/12/1202760297794.html)

The price of this is $800M!!!!!

So I'm guessing there is basically a complete demolition and rebuild of the Wintergarden in this? Putting the carpark underground?

No - carpark stays where it is and they build a new ramp up to it in the new Regent building. The Wintergarden is up for a big refurb though.

It will be sad to see the Regent Cinemas go. I have watched many films from the back row there and it is a very nice cinema complex.

How funny are the comments for the newspapers!

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,23836,23207207-952,00.html

...Plans describe the theatre as an "interface between old and new", with much of the paint work and intricate feature tiling to be restored.

Meanwhile, the exterior of the Wintergarden centre would be clad in ultra-modern ornamental screens.

Four levels of interior retail space will also be refurbished and integrated with the Regent Tower development...



This word scares me.

I'd also rather they kept the cinemas in place, and built the tower. Hopefully that can be done, it's better than turning them into some "conference space". Maybe they could comprimise and keep the lower 2 cinemas, I think they are more historic style anyway.

Article in today's Fin Rev, reiterating that a precomm. is to be waited for b4 commencement.

Very modern and sleek, I like it!

big project!
personally i'd prefer to see the cinemas remain.. i think they might find the majority of the general public feels the same way

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23208920-25658,00.html

Tower stars in theatre production
Fiona Cameron | February 14, 2008
A 36-level office tower will be built over Brisbane's historic Regent Theatre on Queen St Mall in an $800 million scheme that will add to the city's multi-billion-dollar development boom.

Industry Superannuation Property Trust and Multiplex have lodged an integrated development application for the 55,000sqm tower, and aim to deliver the A-grade space to the market in the first quarter of 2011.

Under the scheme, the office tower will be a joint venture between ISPT and Multiplex Developments, but ISPT alone will redevelop and refurbish its two adjoining properties, the Wintergarden Shopping Centre and the Hilton Hotel.

The office tower will be built over the Wintergarden and the rear of the Regent site.

ISPT chief executive Daryl Browning said the opportunity for the project had arisen after ISPT bought the Regent Theatre last December.

ISPT has owned the Wintergarden since 2003, when it paid $154 million to buy the centre from Daysun Australia.

Mr Browning said the proposed development would incorporate the Regent Theatre's heritage-listed "grand foyer". The partnership had committed more than $1 million to conserve and enhance the foyer.

Multiplex development manager Chris McCluskey said the theatre foyer would become the office tower's Queen St entrance and would link into the main foyer on Elizabeth Street.

He said the partners hoped their development consent would be achieved by the end of this year, after which office leasing agents would be appointed.

It was hoped "a significant pre-commitment" could be secured before construction began.

The project adds to the large and growing Brisbane portfolios of Multiplex and ISPT.

ISPT last December paid $385 million for the Central Plaza One office tower and in 2006 it bought the Green Square development at Fortitude Valley. It also owns a 21,000sqm building at 100 Creek St and a string of retail and industrial properties in Brisbane.

Multiplex has a large proportion of its national development program in Queensland, after a year ago winning the government tender to develop the $1.7 billion North Bank project along the river in the CBD, and last November announcing plans for a $420 million business park on part of the Parmalat site in South Brisbane.

Last year it also completed stage one of its Portside Wharf development on the river at Hamilton, and is now proceeding with stage two.

Queen St Mall has been the focus of significant developer activity recently, with the opening of the new David Jones store last weekend completing CFS Retail Property Trust's upmarket Queens Plaza centre.

The ornate Regent Theatre dates from 1929 and its Gothic/Romanesque features include vaulted ceilings and a marble staircase designed to reflect Hollywood's "golden era".

Mr Browning said the new office tower would be known as the Regent Tower and would aim for a five-star Green Star rating.

"The entire development will be a much-needed catalyst for the rejuvenation of Brisbane's Queen St Mall and Elizabeth St," Mr Browning said.

"The project will create a new landmark for the city, bringing an extra 4000 workers to the precinct and enhancing the Wintergarden as a premium retail destination."

I'm cringing at the idea of more speculative office proposals.
However i like the proposal on it's own merits; the removal of the ramp along Elizabeth Street will finally open that side of the street up instead of the #### corridor that currently exists. The Facade is amazing, so long as the aluminum is sufficiently coated to last decades. I like opening up the whole wintergarden etc especially ground floor and the void to the tower lift lobby, however i can't really see the scale of demolition taking place, does it worry anyone that all we could be left with are heritage pieces that look tacked onto a flash fresh footprint?
We shall see...

This isn't speculative. They said they wouldn't start building the Office section until they had pre-commitments!

Cinemas there are boring! Good chance for a change. Good to keep the foyer, and get rid of those damn ramps. Next, need to get rid of the ramps further up stream.

Cinemas there are boring! Good chance for a change. Good to keep the foyer, and get rid of those damn ramps. Next, need to get rid of the ramps further up stream.

Boring compared to what? Haven't been there for a couple of years but I thought they were the nicest in Brisbane.

They are.....and now it can be the nicest conference centre in Brisbane...if not Australia. Now we can show it of to the rest of the nation...if not the world!

People need to get over this whole Regent Theatre thing (i'm speaking about the general public not people in this forum).
The old theatre was demolished decades ago....there is nothing of heritage value to save given that the remaining heritage component was salvaged from back then and is being included in the new development.
A friend went to see SweenyTodd in the Regent 2 days ago and she was the only person in the cinema....says it all really about their viability.

Heritage is not just a physical thing. Generations of Queenslanders have been going to see movies at the regent. It's not just about the building it's also about what people do in it.

I believe the poor patronage at the Regent is all to do with poor management. If Cineplex were to take it over they'd do a roaring trade.

LOL if cineplex took over most cinemas they would do a roaring trade. However with BCC/GU/Hoyts however owns that place. They concentrate on the newer Myer Centre complex and the loss of these three cinemas probably wouldn't impact too much on there bottom line.

There was a news article about this on ch10 tonight with Campbell wanting to keep the cinemas and wanting the developers to build around the complex after the public backlash. Is there an election coming soon or am I just cynical?

Purely election. The good thing is, by the time the council have a say, the election will be long gone. Also, if it gets to the P&E court, Heritage won't be an issue.

actually i dont think the patronage at the cinema has much to do with it.

The managment of the cinemas operating there said they were suprised by the proposal because they had a lease at the building until 2010.

The decision to redevelop the building has nothing to do with the fact that the cinemas dont get much patronage, the owners bought the building a while ago with the full intention of redeveloping it.

To lose the Regent Theatres which are one of the most interesting theatres in Brisbane for some mediocre nondescript generic highrise tower and conference centre is a travesty. Newman is correct in trying to protect them. A city like Brisbane which has minimal historic architecture needs to retain as much of it as it can. It amuses me that skyscraper nerds on this forum would be prepared to sacrifice these cinemas for some generic highrise which gives zero back to the public and Brisbane. This development is nothing more than a cash grab. Brisbane gets nothing positive from it.

^^ the actual cinemas are from the 70's. whats heritage about that? all historic value of the theatres was destroyed when hoyts demolished it in the 70's. the foyer is all that remains and it always will.

^^The fittings in one of the cinemas were salvaged from the original theatre and, once again, it' not just about preserving the physical aspect of the building.

^^ the actual cinemas are from the 70's. whats heritage about that? all historic value of the theatres was destroyed when hoyts demolished it in the 70's. the foyer is all that remains and it always will.

Exactly. Cinemas can be easily built elsewhere. The historic facade and interior aren't going anywhere, and that's what counts. Don't see what the big issue is. We'll be getting a sleek new tower in place of a huge concrete travesty that is there currently.

Still build the tower, but keep the 2 cinemas on the bottom level that they moved the fittings into. Use the 2 higher level cinemas for the new conference space. Everyone happy :)

Yeah, although I like the proposed building, I do like those cinemas on the bottom level. So, I like your idea Aussie Bhoy.

the whole interior is hideous... its like some awful dreamworld styrofoam haunted house.

Skyscraper nerd says the old atmospheric Regent looked fabulous in photos I have regularly seen of it, the new cinemas are a dreadful dud in comparison. Can have new cinemas in there if they want but the present ones have zero heritage value, the foyer is fabulous and is being kept. Skyscraper nerds have been calling for density to the CBD for yonks and this is what is happening. I go to those cinemas because they are empty, don't like crowds in the other successful ones.

the whole interior is hideous... its like some awful dreamworld styrofoam haunted house.
Dreamworld doesn't have a haunted house, but they do have terrible theming in general...so I get what you mean. ;)

yeah ive never gone in there that i know of (ie if i have it was as a very young child).
If they put in some new cinemas (perhaps managed by Cineplex) to actually offer a respectable alternative to the myer centre ones.. id go...

isnt the very 90's idea of going to the movies becoming a little old. everyone now rips the movies off the internet before they even get the cinemas. so why bother paying half a week's wage to go and sit on some filthy seat and be annoyed by mobile phones and giggling teenagers.

Well, I still very much enjoy a visit to the movies - I pick my movies carefully though :)

Mind you, BCC/Hoyts etc have brought in allocated seating these days which infuriates me - but I overcome my rage by openly sitting where my ticket says not too :)

I just realised the Heritage foyer will be used as a thoroughfare from the Mall to Elizabeth Street. This would arguably open up the heritage for more to enjoy!

I'm for using the two classic cinemas and fittings for conferences.
Imagine going through a lobby like that and into conference rooms of the design of the lower cinemas.

Would be fabulous and we would still have our tower to boot.

isnt the very 90's idea of going to the movies becoming a little old. everyone now rips the movies off the internet before they even get the cinemas. so why bother paying half a week's wage to go and sit on some filthy seat and be annoyed by mobile phones and giggling teenagers.

You must have a thrilling life. Watching a pirated movie on a tiny 19" screen with little speakers will never, ever, compare to the experience of going to the cinemas.

The fight to preserve the Regent was lost 2 decades ago. The beautiful theater that was is no more.

The sad, and now second rate multiplex usage is so dated that it is like seeing some classic form attached to a 80's kitsch piece of plastic.

Any remodeling which would see the foyer re-purposed to suit it's original grandeur must be applauded not derided. It would be a wonderful entrance to a 6 star hotel, or a new (well designed) auditorium. Even as part of just "public flow' space would allow it to be seen, rather then ignored as it is now as Hoyt's lesser of 2 city multiplexes.

That foyer space deserves better then it has now. I'd love to have the original theater back, but that's kind of impossible isn't it, so as long as the use is an improvement, I'm all for it, and honestly, it can't be much worse then it is at the moment.

mossnd

PS. OK when it was first completed in the 80's is didn't seem that bad, but it hasn't aged well at all.

Can't please them all, and there's always an element in the community that don't like any change whatsoever. The irony of their distaste to this development is that probably none of them have gone anywhere near those horrible theatres in years. No one does. The actual historic elements of the Regent will remain, and will be more accessable to everyone to appreciate with this development, because you won't need to buy a ticket to go and look at them. Of course this won't matter to those who don't like this building. Common sense is thrown out the window for most of them, as all development and change is seen as a bad thing...

This development does a fantastic job of retaining the theatre entry and utilising it as the main thoroughfare through the podium.

The fight to preserve the Regent was lost 2 decades ago. The beautiful theater that was is no more.

The sad, and now second rate multiplex usage is so dated that it is like seeing some classic form attached to a 80's kitsch piece of plastic.

Any remodeling which would see the foyer re-purposed to suit it's original grandeur must be applauded not derided. It would be a wonderful entrance to a 6 star hotel, or a new (well designed) auditorium. Even as part of just "public flow' space would allow it to be seen, rather then ignored as it is now as Hoyt's lesser of 2 city multiplexes.

That foyer space deserves better then it has now. I'd love to have the original theater back, but that's kind of impossible isn't it, so as long as the use is an improvement, I'm all for it, and honestly, it can't be much worse then it is at the moment.

mossnd

PS. OK when it was first completed in the 80's is didn't seem that bad, but it hasn't aged well at all.

Why is it impossible to have the original theatre back? The need for a commercial theatre in Brisbane as growing and this would be a great place for it seeing as half of it's already there. A lot of the fitting from the old cinema are in the old theatre so I don't think it's out of the question for us to, one day, have the old regent back. But only if this project doesn't go ahead.

Out of the thousands of movies I've seen in Brisbane cinemas, I've maybe seen 10-12 in total at the Regent Cinemas. The coolest experience was in one of the really older cinemas and watching Moulin Rouge. The setting fitted very well.

Aside from that, as cinemas, they were total crap. Myer Centre cinemas are far more advanced, as well as most suburban ones.

isnt the very 90's idea of going to the movies becoming a little old. everyone now rips the movies off the internet before they even get the cinemas. so why bother paying half a week's wage to go and sit on some filthy seat and be annoyed by mobile phones and giggling teenagers.

People still need somewhere to have a snog in the back row!

Brisbane Rocks is right, if the developer keeps the historical elements all parties will then hopefully be somewhat satisfied.

the argument that there is no heritage value is a little bit flawed, and can easily be discounted if you actually visit the theatres.. and it is very similar to the shingle inn argument.

the logic goes something like this:

original theatre built way back when (say 1920's)
approval granted to modify the theatre some time ago (say 1970's)
that approval is granted on the condition that the theatre be reinstated after the works are completed
new developer in 2008 argues that because it was modified in the 1970's, it has no heritage value

that's not really playing within the spirit of the rules i feel

^^^ Case in point. You just can't penetrate stupidity. I don't recall the developers, or anyone, saying there was no heritage value of the Regent. The areas of original importance are remaining in a rejuvinated scheme. If all their biff is 'oh the theatres are going, the theatres are going' then that says it all really...

If the cinemas were to important to Brisbane than why aren't they utilised more often by us all? Simple, they're run down, and not as appealing and accessable as others.

...
original theatre built way back when (say 1920's)
approval granted to modify the theatre some time ago (say 1970's)
that approval is granted on the condition that the theatre be reinstated after the works are completed
new developer in 2008 argues that because it was modified in the 1970's, it has no heritage value

that's not really playing within the spirit of the rules i feel

So, was the theatre reinstated after the works were completed? From prior comments I've read here, I assumed not. I was born too late to know for myself! :)

If the cinemas were to important to Brisbane than why aren't they utilised more often by us all? Simple, they're run down, and not as appealing and accessable as others.

Cinemas, theatres, heritage etc etc - some of it will be important to some, not so important to others. I personally believe that Brisbane has so little heritage left, it should do all in its power to preserve and restore whatever it can salvage. And believe it or not, I don't believe this needs to come at the expense of progress - the two can and do co-exist - take a stroll through Melbourne if you don't believe me.

I don't know the full history of the theatre and its ill-fated alterations, however my understanding was that the heritage elements of the theatres were relocated into the foyers, in which case a true restoration would include restoring the theatres, not the restoration of an altered foyer.

Throughout this whole debate, I can't help but think of Melbourne's Capitol Theatre - it was a truly beautiful theatre completed in 1924 and designed by the celebrated architect Walter Burley Griffin, but in a 1960's scheme not too dissimilar from this proposal, the building was more or less destroyed with the addition of a new arcade at street level, and major alterations of the rest of the building to accommodate this arcade.

Over the next 30 or so years, the building was neglected and its condition deteriorated dramatically, and was facing closure by the late 90's when RMIT stepped in and purchased the property. In 2005, a mere 40 or so years after the unfortunate (but no doubt well-intentioned) alterations, work began on restoring the interiors and the remaining lobby of the theatre to their former glory - a massive undertaking that would not have become a reality had it not been for the investment of RMIT, the state government, and a band of volunteers who lobbied endlessly to retain and restore the heritage of what had originally been a magnificent building.

The theatre is now primarily used as a lecture theatre for RMIT, but it's also used for events such as the Melbourne International Film Festival and the Melbourne International Comedy Festival. The loyal band of volunteers also continue to run tours through the theatre for those who may not otherwise get to experience it.

One would hope that BCC et al would be wise enough to learn from this kind of experience, but their record to date doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

Here, here Catherine. At 30 years of age, as I look through historic picture books of Brisbane, I am disgusted to see what he had and have since allowed to be destroyed. What do we have left? Customs House and the Casino? Wow! As much as I hate to admit it, Melbourne does/has embraced its physical history and preserved it for future generations. With the pending Northbank disaster around the corner, let's just rename Brisbane to Multiplex shall we! Barf!

Restoring the theatre, or re-creating it? Looks to me like it was thoroughly smashed, is the shell there? Restoration of the Civic Theatre in Auckland was possible because most of the theatre was still there. Regent to me looks like it is a goner.

Interesting:

Rush slams Regent demolition
Shannon Molloy | February 21, 2008 - 12:06PM (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/rush-slams-regent-demolition/2008/02/21/1203467249163.html)

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2008/02/21/470_newregent,0.jpg

Australian actor Geoffrey Rush has slammed the proposed demolition of the historic Regent Theatre, warning the Queen Street Mall could soon resemble a "Lego village" unless action was taken to preserve its heritage.

Developers Multiplex and ISPT have proposed closing the Regent and demolishing the rear cinemas to make way for a 38-storey office tower.

Angry locals and heritage activists have created two Facebook groups and a website to protest the plans.

Thousands of locals have pledged their support, and now one of Australia's most celebrated actors has leant his name to the cause.

Mr Rush, star of a string of international film successes - including Shine, for which he won an Oscar for Best Actor - said developers' plans to preserve the Regent's heritage foyer and facade was a "token gesture".

He warned the Queen Street Mall was at risk of losing its "unique splendour" and could soon be mistaken for a Lego village or "some high-fiving idiots' version of their own pea-brained future".

"We must challenge and deny these most venal minds that Queensland too-regularly puts in charge of our city's character," he said.

"We must fight very hard to maintain this building."

The Regent Theatre was built at the end of the 1920s and for decades has entertained patrons, but could soon close its doors to make way for development.

Lord Mayor Campbell Newman voiced his opposition to the proposed closure of the Regent, and Labor's Lord Mayoral candidate Greg Rowell started a petition. The Greens also oppose the plan.

Mr Rush said the real damage to the Regent was done in 1978, when the grand auditorium was demolished and replaced with four cinemas.

"...but they left us with a bit of it in tact - how generous, how cunning, how manipulative, (and) how patronising."

He urged Save the Regent campaigners to make their voices heard and labelled the proposed office building a "bland corporate monolith".

Mutliplex last week defended its plan, and said the redevelopment of the Regent would see it given a new purpose.

You must have a thrilling life. Watching a pirated movie on a tiny 19" screen with little speakers will never, ever, compare to the experience of going to the cinemas.

home cinema usually does the job. and i live a more thrilling life than sitting indoors all day watching movies too.

They cannot be serious about demolishing the Regent. It's a wonderful building. Just restore it and the build the tower on top.

Restore, I think it would have to be 'rebuild'?

They cannot be serious about demolishing the Regent. It's a wonderful building. Just restore it and the build the tower on top.

They are not at all demolishing the Regent.

Here, here Catherine. At 30 years of age, as I look through historic picture books of Brisbane, I am disgusted to see what he had and have since allowed to be destroyed. What do we have left? Customs House and the Casino? Wow! As much as I hate to admit it, Melbourne does/has embraced its physical history and preserved it for future generations. With the pending Northbank disaster around the corner, let's just rename Brisbane to Multiplex shall we! Barf!

People often overestimate what has been lost: the proportion is not so dissimilar to Melbourne or Sydney, the difference is that they had a lot more to start with.

If you really think that all that has been saved is Customs House and the Treasury you need to get your head out of books and actually get out to have a look for yourself.

^^Ignoring the Heritage that was burned to the ground or by other unavoidable causes. This includes things like the Supreme Court etc.

Other Heritage areas is the Government precinct with the Mansions, the government club, parliament house and government house. And that is just one precinct in the CBD.

They are not at all demolishing the Regent.

I know the theatre will remain, but they are demolishing the existing struture and replacing it with a new one.

^^That part though is not a wonderful building. It is a tired and falling apart extension completed in the 70's

Somebody should start something in Facebook or MySpace that is pro this development and that points out the truths of this development so the Nimbys dont get their way on this.... :bash:

lol:


Regent Theatre not worth saving: historian
Shannon Molloy | February 22, 2008 - 1:22PM (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/regent-theatre-not-worth-saving-historian/2008/02/22/1203467350143.html)

Brisbane's historic Regent Theatre is not worth saving from closure and partial demolition because most of its heritage was destroyed 30 years ago, a local cinema historian believes.

Developers Multiplex and ISPT have proposed closing the theatre in Queen Street Mall to make way for a 38-storey office building.

While historical components would be retained, including the building's protected foyer and marble staircase, thousands of locals have promised to protest the development.

However the Queensland convenor of the Cinema and Theatre Historical Society said he had no issue with the closure of the Regent, provided all the building's historical elements were saved.

"A lot of the blog comments I've seen on various websites say we've got to save the Regent, as if the old theatre is still there," Steve Maggs said.

"It's almost as if they haven't realised the theatre was demolished in 1979."

A campaign was launched in the late 1970s to save the Regent from planned demolition, and protesters eventually reached a compromise with developers.

The facade and foyer of the building was kept, but the grand auditorium was destroyed and replaced with four cinemas.

When that happened, the Regent lost most of its historical significance, Mr Maggs believes.

"It would be nice to still have a theatre there at the Regent, but there's no issue (with closing it) as long as we've kept the heritage components.

"If the old theatre was there, there'd be no question at all - we would have to save it."

Original plasterwork from the old auditorium was removed 30 years ago and installed in a new cinema, he said.

"The bottom line is there's really only one cinema at the Regent that looks nice, and it's not original anyway."

It was vital that developers saved the plasterwork and used it in the new development or somewhere else, he said.

What would an actor who spends most of his time overseas know about developments in Brisbane anyway.

Geoofrey Rush lived in Brisbane and started his acting career with the Qld Theatre Company, so I dare say he would know a fair bit about the Regent theatre but would he really care or has he just been roped in with propaganda from anti-developers.

Somebody should start something in Facebook or MySpace that is pro this development and that points out the truths of this development so the Nimbys dont get their way on this.... :bash:

Hence why I got off my backside and made this:

tbKocO_Cd7U

I hope Multiplex sees this and knows that we love them :hug:

...love is such a strong word...

That article makes more sense, as long as the heritage listed components are incorporated into the development.

partner works for the government..apparently they now have control and is no longer going ahead since friday

I heard the state had control, but that is ridiculous!

^^Ignoring the Heritage that was burned to the ground or by other unavoidable causes. This includes things like the Supreme Court etc.

Other Heritage areas is the Government precinct with the Mansions, the government club, parliament house and government house. And that is just one precinct in the CBD.

That's also the primary heritage precinct within the CBD - other heritage buildings throughout the city are few and far between. And this "high concentration" heritage precint (i.e. 5 or so buildings - that's the best Brisbane can do!) is the very same precinct that will be blocked off from the river by Northbank - just another example of how much Brisbane values its heritage.

partner works for the government..apparently they now have control and is no longer going ahead since friday

thats stupid.
The tower should still go ahead, and they can preserve/fix up the 'heritage' area.

if this is the case, i hope multiplex tries to design arround the problems rather than abandoning the project.

still, it was really pretty stupid to submit durring a local elections campaign.....this probably wouldn't have gotten as much press in a few months time.

At the end of the day they can build the generic clone tower anywhere at anytime (and they will). The Regent(with its debatable heritage value) cannot be rebuilt anywhere and once it is gone, it is gone forever. Wether its heritage value is of any importance to you is irrelevant as obviously given the public reactiion it still does hold importance to many people.

The loss of is this Multiplex clone tower is no great lost to brisbane as it held little iconoic value.

If the project doesn't go ahead, is the govt going to subsidise the cinemas so that they keep afloat so everyone can enjoy them but not actually patronise them.

I just wanna see something done with Elizabeth St.
Currently its shocking!

At the end of the day they can build the generic clone tower anywhere at anytime (and they will). The Regent(with its debatable heritage value) cannot be rebuilt anywhere and once it is gone, it is gone forever. Wether its heritage value is of any importance to you is irrelevant as obviously given the public reaction it still does hold importance to many people.

The tower is not the area of this development that excites me, however it is important to fund properly the areas that excite me about this project. It has the ability to really liven up Elizabeth Street by achieving street frontages from the building as well as getting greater variety and better quality retail facing Elizabeth Street. It also takes the focus of vehicles in the CBD by not having the vehicle ramps in full view and also by reducing the number of freely available carparks.

My biggest 2 issues with the protests against this are:

- The amount of people against this that have no idea what is going on. Where people hear of the demolition of the Regent they are automatically against it. Not exactly balanced.
- The local government hopefuls have turned this political, rather than it being a fair and reasonable assessment.



The loss of is this Multiplex clone tower is no great lost to brisbane as it held little iconoic value.

I would imagine this was designed for the site in question. Also, are you able to name a similar tower if it is a clone?

I would imagine this was designed for the site in question. Also, are you able to name a similar tower if it is a clone?

It is just a glass box with a slightly different facade to what you find in other towers. It reminds me of the DCM Tower in the South East Melbourne CBD. It isn't a bad design at all but there is hardly anything orginal about it.

^^And I think that's the style of tower you want for that area of town. Medium sized simple, classy tower.

if they kept the regent cinemas they'd have the public on side
i don't see what the advantage is in demolishing the cinemas and turning it into a conference centre??
i doubt the conference centre is going to be a goldmine.. why create a difficult public backlash??

anna gets it:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/25/2171399.htm

no one hates the office tower, they just hate loosing the theatres in order to get the office tower

of course, i'm guessing the catch 22 in all of this is that the office tower as it is designed now probably has massive columns through the middle of the theatre, rendering it useless.. so it looks like they will have to make a tricky structural design if they want to proceed.

But the cinemas are pieces of shit from the 80's. Why the hell do people want them kept??? Are the public that stupid and ignorant!?

It is not about the cinemas as a physical thing. Stop thing of heritage as just being something built. The Regent is a place where the people of Brisbane go to the movies not to shop or go to conferences or live. Preserving our heritage is as much about our traditions as it is about the built environment.

I won't be supporting that extension of the definition of heritage listing, really difficult enough sticking to saving brick and mortar at the moment. It also opens up to much leeway for idiots putting protection orders on some ghastly 60's and 70's monstrosities that really need to knocked down. And jumped on a few times.

It is not about the cinemas as a physical thing. Stop thing of heritage as just being something built. The Regent is a place where the people of Brisbane go to the movies not to shop or go to conferences or live. Preserving our heritage is as much about our traditions as it is about the built environment.
Ok, it was a little hard to understand what you just wrote, but I think I got it.

From what I can tell, you say it is a place where people go to the cinemas and we have to keep this tradition. Ok, well, let me put this lightly. As cinemas go, they are now probably the worst in Brisbane. Worst for sound, comfort, viewing, accessibility and price. There is no redeeming factor whatsoever about the cinemas themselves. The Regent Cinemas I would imagine, for inner city cinemas, wouldn't even come close to the patronage of Soutbank or the Myer Centre, and this will continue into the future, most likely in a downward trajectory.

Going to the cinema is a tradition among many Australians, yes. But that is a general traidition, not just for these crappy cinemas. If you asked probably 99% of people who go to the movies, if they have been to the Regent cinemas in the last 5 years, I think you would struggle to find a single person.

But the cinemas are pieces of shit from the 80's. Why the hell do people want them kept??? Are the public that stupid and ignorant!?

i think that's where the disagreement is.

the cinemas were not built in the 1980's.

the cinemas were created in the 1970's as an adaptive re-use of a 1920's theatre.

and what you are saying is that because the theatre was modified and turned into cinemas that they have somehow lost all their heritage value.

what other people are saying is that it dosn't matter that they were modified in the 1970's, the 1920's heritage still exists (albeit in a modified form), and should be preserved.

do you see the other side of the argument?

The site has lost its heritage value.....as cinemas.


This is what the whole conflict is about! Not about the removal of physical Heritage, but of a heritage use....which I believe is not there.

Were they modified???? Looks like 'totally destroyed' to me.

Or should I say 'it,' singular, as it was one building wasn't it? What is actually left to restore, apart from the foyer, which is being retained?

^^That is what I thought. The theater was destroyed and the materials from the theatre was used in the new cinemas that were built.

But the cinemas are pieces of shit from the 80's. Why the hell do people want them kept??? Are the public that stupid and ignorant!?

I just like the idea of that site still having a cinema on it. They can put as many stories as they like over the top of it, but retain a working cinema element.

In the same way I would have like to have seen the Festival Hall site keep some sized concert/sports space, instead of what we ended up with.

Then the state should purchase it and run it.

This whole situation disgusts me....Bligh should hang for this !!! I cant stand her (him)...:bash:

^^That is what I thought. The theater was destroyed and the materials from the theatre was used in the new cinemas that were built.

so, the chain goes:

1920s: theatre built
1970s: approval granted to redevelop
1970s: foyer and steps kept, but theatre dismantled and reinstated to create cinema complex
2000s: approval sought to redevelop the site, claiming that foyer+steps should remain but theatre has no heritage value

my hunch is, the 1970s approval would have been on the condition that they reinstate the theatre to create the cinema complex.

now they want to go and claim that the cinema has no heritage value!??

you can't have your cake and eat it too.

If the govt wants to reinstall heritage values, bring back the trams, sorry off topic.

so, the chain goes:

1920s: theatre built
1970s: approval granted to redevelop
1970s: foyer and steps kept, but theatre dismantled and reinstated to create cinema complex
2000s: approval sought to redevelop the site, claiming that foyer+steps should remain but theatre has no heritage value

my hunch is, the 1970s approval would have been on the condition that they reinstate the theatre to create the cinema complex.

now they want to go and claim that the cinema has no heritage value!??

you can't have your cake and eat it too.


The initial application, I'm quite sure was to demolish the whole theatre to build a megaplex (or the equivalent)

I'm with Aussie - keep the two classic style cinemas (with new, non-megaplex management), or even better reinstate a proper theatre, and then build the pretty tower.

For those who state that the current theatres have absoultely no heritage value:
pre-70's
http://theatreorgans.com/southerncross/Queensland/auditorium%20r%20wall.jpg

2006
http://theatreorgans.com/southerncross/Queensland/m_BrisRegent2006.jpg

If the govt wants to reinstall heritage values, bring back the trams, sorry off topic.

:lol:

There are two very distinct values that are being debated - but the distinction does not seem to be clear among everyone here:

Value 1 - Physica Heritage: That is very cut and dried - the foyer and stairs are protected and nothing else is.
Value 2 - (which I'll call) Emotional Heritage: that is, the concept we should preserve an activity or use rather than a structure as in value 1 above.

Value 2 is what the public is getting all hot and bothered about - and I believe justifiably, regardless of whether I agree or not. Poeple aren't saying (Anna Bligh, included) that the physical cinemas are all of great heritage value and we should keep them but rather that the use of the building is a highly valued tradition worth preserving.

I believe Anna Bligh is set on the idea of maybe building a new set of cinemas (maybe including preserving the nice looking one) in order to retain the use of the building and then letting them build a building on top.

The only problem, as I see it, is economic viability of a new cinema there.

Assertions that the public is completely ignorant I think is to, generally, misinterpret what the public is crying out for us to preserve.

I don't see why we have this problem with changing the usage of a building, even a beautiful one. If done well, the result can be a new centre with greater public contact, and everyone can be a winner. Certainly there are some bad examples, and I often hear moans about "Churches being turned into Pancake houses", and while that isn't always the best outcome, it's certainly better then having the "church" still in a slum state, or worse, now gone, and replaced with a soulless glass box. The Regent Cinemas are poor Cinemas, and Hoyts will not be spending the money to get them up to the current stadium style seating we currently enjoy in the newer multiplexes. Instead we have the shoebox designs of the era that was, and these were not making much money a number of years ago, and I doubt they are now.

It would be wonderful to see an auditorium as part of the redevelopment here, topped off by a construction befitting the class of what remains of the original building.

I don't know .... it's just that no one seems too concerned that "Customs House" is no longer being used for it's original purpose. The Wintergarden was a Theatre too, it wasn't a shopping centre you know. It's facade was designed to pay homage to the original theatre, and no one seems to be upset that that will be lost in the change.

I think of greater importance is that we start to treat Elizabeth street as more then the "back door" of city. The Myer Centre leaves the Street looking like a back alley, and the current Hoyts/Wintergarden/Hilton design doesn't help much at all. Elizabeth St deserves much better then it's been getting.

My rant for 4.44am ....

mossnd

This following "opinion column" pretty much sums up the absolute incompetence of Brisbane's politicians and will power.
Welcome to the smart state.

Shame on every politition in this town! especially Anna Bligh and Greg Rowell, (who wants a cricketer over a former engineer running a city anyway). Everyone knows this proposal is fantastic, everyone wants it to go ahead, but for some sad sad reason politicians assume people won't vote for them if the support it. Sad and frustrating situation indeed.

Multiplex & ISPT better sue the hell out of the Queensland Government for interfering in the BCC planning processes. (I would If i were them)

Bringing the house down
By Des Houghton | February 29, 2008 11:00pm | link (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23296761-3102,00.html)

THE Regent Theatre opened in Queen St in November 1929 with a lavish musical comedy Fox Movietone Follies featuring the song Big City Blues.

The big end of town was singing the big city blues again this week after a grubby political stoush threatened to derail an imaginative plan to construct a 38-level office tower as part of a Regent redevelopment.

The $500 million project may now be doomed after two weeks of shameful double-dealing.

Trouble flared when Labor lord mayoral candidate Greg Rowell said the old picture palace should be saved, and launched a petition to stop Lord Mayor Campbell Newman demolishing the building.

Rowell's campaign was pure spin.

Unable to put a scratch on the Liberal machine, Rowell's minders were attempting to drag Newman into a phony heritage row.

With his political aspirations fading, Rowell needs a platform and he needs it fast.

If he could show Newman was recklessly pro-development and willing to do a Cloudland on the Regent, perhaps he could inflame public sentiment and give his campaign some traction.

Keen to show he was no developer's lackey, Rowell hit the airwaves, saying the historic building was in danger.

The truth is Rowell's bid to save the Regent is 30 years too late.

As these pictures show, the grand auditorium, with its combination of Gothic and Roccoco styles, fell to the wrecking ball in 1978.

The main auditorium was replaced by four smaller cinemas.

As a sop to heritage campaigners of the day, the foyer and entrance lobby and a marble staircase were preserved and are listed on the heritage register.

Thirty years on John Wardle Architects again plans to save the foyer, lobby and stairs.

Rowell's attempt to ignite a heritage debate left Labor mate David Hinchliffe in a vexing position. Hinchliffe is the council's planning committee chairman – with a 17 to 10 majority – and he seemed to indicate on ABC radio that he supported the redevelopment.

"The applicant has clearly undertaken that none of the heritage areas of the building, that is the foyer and the stairs, will be changed," he said.

"So they will be included in the final development."

Then he added: "I think the sad commercial reality is that a prime site like that in the middle of Queen Street simply was not viable."

Such is life.

Next to join this weird political fandango were none other than Premier Anna Bligh and her deputy Paul Lucas.

Bligh said the Regent held fond memories and she had seen Star Wars there. She didn't. Star Wars played at another cinema.

Bligh's spin doctors also issued a ridiculous press statement saying "the Bligh Government will press ahead in a bid to save the historic Regent Theatre . . ."

Like Rowell, they were 30 years late.

Bligh said: "It is more than just a building. It is part of the unique heartbeat of our city."

This is humbug – not even the Heritage Council says the Regent cinemas are worth saving.

In a bid to pump up Rowell's campaign, the State Government was sticking its nose where it was not wanted.

It has no business usurping the city council's planning authority.

Now Lucas intends to ride roughshod over City Hall by issuing a ministerial directive.

He said the Regent was a "priceless piece of their culture".

It isn't really, and he knows it.

Beyond the original foyer are four cinema boxes with fake trim.

I'm told Bligh and Lucas haven't even bothered to inspect them.

The state intervention rang alarm bells in the business community with concerns Lucas was misusing the new Integrated Planning Act.

And they wondered where it would end.

As well as providing much-needed office space, a 38-storey Regent Tower would provide a multi-million dollar rates windfall for council.

The project would also involve a major refurbishment of the Wintergarden shopping centre and Hilton Hotel.

It would revitalise the Mall and clean up the dead zone at Elizabeth St which, right now, is exceedingly dangerous for pedestrians.

John Wardle Architects completed a similar office project in historic Lonsdale St Melbourne with wonderful results.

Wardle's Regent plan envisages a corporate foyer, bistros and a fine dining restaurant. There is even space for a small theatre.

And, if you want to see a local example of Wardle's work, take a look at the University of Queensland's Brain Institute. It is outstanding. Lucas and Bligh should have a look at it.

The Regent redevelopment proposal should stand or fall on its merits without any more interference from George Street.


This is just not fair... to the good people of Brisbane, and the Developers following all the set out planning guidelines.

That wasn't an article, its an opinion column by a guy whose liberal party leanings have been more and more obvious by the week. His writing of that has more to do with him helping out his friends at the election than the Regent or the application.

^^ Well its pretty obvious he's doing both.

That wasn't an article, its an opinion column by a guy whose liberal party leanings have been more and more obvious by the week. His writing of that has more to do with him helping out his friends at the election than the Regent or the application.

exactly - this is probably the only Des Houghton opinion piece ever written that is pro-development and this is purely because of the political point scoring available.

"In a bid to pump up Rowell's campaign, the State Government was sticking its nose where it was not wanted. It has no business usurping the city council's planning authority."

For better or for worse, if anyone has business in overruling city council planning and development decisions, it's the state government, just as the federal government can overrule both the state and local government decisions. It's odd that for a man who's clearly pushing the political barrow that he doesn't seem to have his head around a fairly well-established hierarchy. Then again, Des Houghton is quite renowned for writing about topics he clearly has no idea about...buildings for example.

clearly state labor is trying to clean sweep the brisbane voters by sticking up for local labor, in turn, giving them free reign on city development with 4 years of unopposed political decisions. rowell has no chance imo. fuck politicians shit me off!

"In a bid to pump up Rowell's campaign, the State Government was sticking its nose where it was not wanted. It has no business usurping the city council's planning authority."

For better or for worse, if anyone has business in overruling city council planning and development decisions, it's the state government, just as the federal government can overrule both the state and local government decisions. It's odd that for a man who's clearly pushing the political barrow that he doesn't seem to have his head around a fairly well-established hierarchy. Then again, Des Houghton is quite renowned for writing about topics he clearly has no idea about...buildings for example.

Constitutional Law lesson #1: The Federal Government can only usurp state heads of power where the Constituion provides either exclusive jurisdiction to the Cth, o,r where s 109 allows Fed laws to overide state laws where the states and the Cth share jurisdiction!

Constitutional Law lesson #1: The Federal Government can only usurp state heads of power where the Constituion provides either exclusive jurisdiction to the Cth, o,r where s 109 allows Fed laws to overide state laws where the states and the Cth share jurisdiction!

Which in short means that the Federal Government can overrule the State Government on particular matters, and when it doesn't have the authority to do so, it can just refuse to provide federal funding, e.g. Newman's ridiculous tunnel schemes.

...or enact a law, I suppose.

So will the state provide the funds to totally restore the old long gone cinemas?

clearly state labor is trying to clean sweep the brisbane voters by sticking up for local labor, in turn, giving them free reign on city development with 4 years of unopposed political decisions. rowell has no chance imo. fuck politicians shit me off!

Sydney City Council faced a similar situation four years ago when the Carr government sacked the council so the ALP could get control of Town Hall from then mayor Lucy Turnbull, an independent. It backfired and Clover Moore got in. I had the same concerns back then that the ALP would allow rubbish, and thank goodness that never happened.

I can never trust the ALP with highrise development in our major cities. The developers will just become cowboys and expect rubbish to pop up. Is this what people want at days end in our cities - No!!!

We must ask the question, if there wasn't a council election coming up would this have been played out like it is? I don't think so! The developers are keeping the so-called heritage values in place so why the big fuss? This projects has so many plusses, I wish Rowell would piss off and bowl something else over.

Which in short means that the Federal Government can overrule the State Government on particular matters, and when it doesn't have the authority to do so, it can just refuse to provide federal funding, e.g. Newman's ridiculous tunnel schemes.

Yes in a way - S 96 allows the Federal Gov to fund anything for which it does not possess exclusive or shared jurisdiction, and to do it on 'its own terms'. However, this does not compel the states to accept the intervention! A basic concept of our Federation.

Wed 5th March 2008

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/6844/p2130107ft6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

^^ mmm. thats worth saving!!!!

the outside isn't much chop.. but the inside is


http://theatreorgans.com/southerncross/Queensland/m_BrisRegent2006.jpg

^^Pity that isn't original. All cut and paste if you will. That could easily be done if needed in this development!

The plans I have say it is a 143m tower and 36 storeys.

^^Pity that isn't original. All cut and paste if you will. That could easily be done if needed in this development!

So why don't they....

I suspect they'll end up doing just that:
build 4 relatively small but pretty cinemas all on the second level at the top of the marble staircase and allow the lower level to go through to the foyer of the new building (as is currently the plan) which would be plonked on top.

As someone has said previously, it would make designing the supporting structure more difficult but not impossible.

The Queen St side is worth saving, but not the Elizabeth St side.

Developers tight-lipped over Regent plans
Shannon Molloy | April 1, 2008 - 5:00AM

Developers behind a failed bid to demolish part of Brisbane's historic Regent Theatre and replace it with a 38-storey office tower remain tight-lipped about their plans for the site.

Multiplex and ISPT lodged a development application with Brisbane City Council in February to redevelop the iconic theatre as part of an $800 million project.

While they pledged to retain the heritage-protected facade, entry and marble staircase, the planned closure of the iconic Queen Street Mall cinemas angered thousands of locals.

The application was also lodged in the middle of a heated council election campaign, prompting candidates to speak out in support of protest efforts.

The State Government intervened and used a provision within the Integrated Planning Act to ensure the Regent continued to operate as a theatre.

Multiplex was forced to scrap its plans, but remains in discussions with the government, a company spokesman told brisbanetimes.com.au.

The development was currently in the "redesign phase" and Mutliplex was ensuring it could find an alternative that suited the government, he said.

He would not comment on how the developer planned to integrate the theatre.

Several protesters were joined by Oscar-winning actor Geoffrey Rush earlier this month when they called for the Regent to be restored to its former glory as a 2000-seat live opera, theatre and music venue.

The Regent's grand auditorium was demolished in late 1970 during redevelopment, which saw it replaced with the current cinema box.

Article (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/developers-tightlipped-over-regent-plans/2008/03/31/1206850801576.html)

Get rid of the cinema It is useless.
But if they want to return it as Geoffry Rush wants, to a 'opera, theatre and music' venue, sounds great. And get the tower on top!

isnt this tower 142.65m

From the Brisbane Times as posted by Soulvision in the SSL forums.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2008/03/15/1403regentplannew.jpg
A design study prepared by historical cinema enthusiast Mike Gillies shows a proposed 2000-seat live venue for musicals, stage shows and operas.

Push for Regent to become live venue
Shannon Molloy | March 15, 2008 - 6:00AM

Brisbane's historic Regent Theatre should be restored to its former glory as a live performance venue with seating for up to 2000 people, campaigners and an Oscar-winning actor believe.

Developer Multiplex lodged an application last month to demolish the rear of the building to make way for a 38-storey commercial high-rise, but public outcry saw the Queensland Government intervene and quash the plan.

Now protesters want to see the Queen Street Mall theatre returned to its former glory, before the grand auditorium was destroyed in the late 1970s and replaced with four modern-style cinemas.

Local campaigner Vicki Bridgstock said it may not be commercially viable to continue operating the Regent as a cinema in the future, signalling a need to alter its purpose.

And a practical option for the Regent's future was ready to be implemented, she said.

Historical theatre enthusiast Mike Gillies prepared a submission last year calling for the Regent to be transformed into a live venue.

He created design drawings and sent the plan to the State Government, Brisbane City Council and "anyone else with a vested interest".

Ms Bridgstock believes the plan could now be used, seeing the space transformed into a venue for musicals, plays and operas.

The "modern" Regent could then be integrated with Multiplex's planned commercial tower, should the company proceed with an altered plan, Mr Gillies said.

"This is a huge development and there is room for a theatre at ground level," he said.

Similar transformations had been successfully carried out in Sydney and Melbourne, he said.

"Brisbane is lacking a venue like this - a classical-style theatre that could be used as a popular venue for live theatre patrons and become a tourist attraction," Mr Gillies said.

Many who fought to save the Regent agree with the idea, including Academy Award-winning Australian actor Geoffrey Rush.

While he applauded the move by Premier Anna Bligh to save the theatre from development, he said the government must act now to ensure its long-term viability.

"Give Brisbane a character it so richly deserves ... a fabulous 1500- to 2000-seat theatre," Mr Rush said.

He also called for the proposed high-rise to be built on another site.

Save the Regent campaign coordinator Brett Debritz said the State Government's intervention was a temporary fix, and a change of purpose could cement the theatre's position.

It would also contribute to the revitalisation of the city precinct and provide an economic boost, he said.

"I'd argue that a restored live theatre that could bring up to 2000 people a night into the mall would do much more to create economic and social benefits for inner Brisbane (than an office building)."

A spokeswoman for Multiplex said the developer remained in discussion with the State Government.

She could not confirm if an adjusted development application was being considered.

^^
Do we need these hypothetical articles from over a month ago in here?

that design is shit. It still has a loading dock/blank wall on elizabeth street.

The developers have now bought the HMV store next to the Regent. They still want to do something with the site!

Hey why are the avaters so small on this one, they're smaller than SSl.
I'm all for development, but this just doesn't seem popular with the government, I think if they are going to do anything they should change the design to meet the governments standards.

Hey why are the avaters so small on this one, they're smaller than SSl.
I'm all for development, but this just doesn't seem popular with the government, I think if they are going to do anything they should change the design to meet the governments standards.
If you want to come over from SSL and start posting here, use a bit of common sense.

SSC isn't a children's playground like SSL.

SSL is just where all the outspoken people from SSC go, or anyone banned from SSC goes. It has very little credibility. Sort of like Wikipedia in a way.

Hey why are the avaters so small on this one, they're smaller than SSl.
I'm all for development, but this just doesn't seem popular with the government, I think if they are going to do anything they should change the design to meet the governments standards.

The government has standards?! :shocked:

I thought this was supposed to be the matter of the council?

It is, however that state is allowed to intervene if they believe it is of State significance. (From what I understand this is similar to NSW, however the QLD government only do it about once or twice a year, whereas the NSW government seem to do it with every major project.)

Information request has been submitted. Multiplex now have a year to respond. It will be interesting to see what they come up with!

Pardon my ignorance but, information request regarding what and to whom?

The council will almost always issue a request to the applicant for more information regarding their development. This is the next stage of the process. The applicant now has up to 1 year to respond to the information request.

This is now in the decision stage. It will be interesting!

After the Info response, this has been boosted to 158m. RL height is now 163.6 with the entrance from Elizabeth Street at RL5.4

They are really trying to sneak this one in under the radar it seems. I had hoped they would add the theatre back in, as it is the outcome is pretty poor, just a walkway for executives no? The function is lost. Another 150 odd metre box also hardly inspires.

It is a tad more than a 150m odd box and they still have a theatre in the complex.

To me this is one of the best towers going around in Brisbane ATM.

Sure, but I'd like to see the traditional theatre restored. This is the only chance to do it. I mean how many real nice theatres do we have like that? We can always have another Northbridge Tower, but we could do better here.

I mean look at it, it's a tall ask but still:
http://www.ourbrisbane.com/files/gallery/user-submitted/auditorium%201957%20L.jpg

As for the design, as it stands, it has a nice facade and finish but it's still a run of the mill boring box in shape. For me that's like sticking a stunning evening dress on a donkey. The dress is nice and all, but it's still a donkey underneath.

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h318/cj_81_/TheRegent7.jpg

Now if they stuck like a Norman Foster twisty twirly type of thing on it then maybe we'd be talking.

Come on Multiplex, do something that inspires the people, learn the lessons from North Bank.

So, is there an updated design or something?

Sure, but I'd like to see the traditional theatre restored. This is the only chance to do it. I mean how many real nice theatres do we have like that? We can always have another Northbridge Tower, but we could do better here.

I mean look at it, it's a tall ask but still:
http://www.ourbrisbane.com/files/gallery/user-submitted/auditorium%201957%20L.jpg

As for the design, as it stands, it has a nice facade and finish but it's still a run of the mill boring box in shape. For me that's like sticking a stunning evening dress on a donkey. The dress is nice and all, but it's still a donkey underneath.

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h318/cj_81_/TheRegent7.jpg

Now if they stuck like a Norman Foster twisty twirly type of thing on it then maybe we'd be talking.

Come on Multiplex, do something that inspires the people, learn the lessons from North Bank.

Bringing back the theatre like that is like rebuilding the Canberra Hotel or the Bell vue Hotel. The thing is, the history as it was has been destroyed and if it is to be rebuilt, the Government needs to pay for it and that isn't going to happen.



Re. the design, it has been altered a littleand it looks significantly less like a box.

Are there any pics of the new design?

If you go into the DA on pdonline it will be in the documents under Plan proposed that have been submitted in September and October.

Hope this helps a little

Are there any pics of the new design?

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

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/Regent-1.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/Regent-2.jpg

To be honest, I actually quite like this. It's still relatively simple, but the top is rather interesting. It will be good to have both the Queen and Elizabeth street levels totally revamped as well.

Square box with fancy frills... when they need to cut cost, off come the fancy frills.

Anyone care to do the maths?

the Government needs to pay for it and that isn't going to happen.



Exactly, because Anna will be spending $1bn bailing-out the Airport Link to save the embarrassment of the project failing just before her election in 2010.

Exactly, because Anna will be spending $1bn bailing-out the Airport Link to save the embarrassment of the project failing just before her election in 2010.

Is that spectulation or is that actually already happening.

I bloody hope it doesn't happen. The Contractors are making a killing on that project.

No it won't - I saw an interview with the CEO of BrissConnections and he said it was all completely underwritten by the banks so if those investors don't come up with the cash, the banks will fill the shortfall.

Well the new design is an improvement, does look like the architects pen slipped when he was drawing it, but better than before all the same.

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

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/Regent-1.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/Regent-2.jpg

Hey I like that design. Very simple.

Hope it gets up.

J

I don't think the council would have drawn it out without a chance of being approved. If the council isn't going to approve it you'll often know at the Info Request period.

No it won't - I saw an interview with the CEO of BrissConnections and he said it was all completely underwritten by the banks so if those investors don't come up with the cash, the banks will fill the shortfall.

No Macquarie and BSC have stated they will legally challenge those who do not subscribe to the next instalment. Hence, the project will be delayed and be bailed out.

No Macquarie and BSC have stated they will legally challenge those who do not subscribe to the next instalment. Hence, the project will be delayed and be bailed out.

Maquarie (and Deutche Bank) can send the debt-collectors after whatever of the 2 part-payments the shareholders don't cough up, but they're still the liable parties for making up the difference. Unless Macqurie defaults the project should not be delayed.

Yeah, so either way, BrissConnections gets their money.

Any news on this one, alot have been neglected from the forum

They're not neglected if nothing has happened.

In any case, I still don't think the case has been made for this one, you gotta move me Multiplex, you gotta move me to justify something like this, and you haven't it's just OK.

It's in the assessment stage at council. That can take a long time. Nothing much happens in that time. That's why the forum is quiet.

Any news on this one, alot have been neglected from the forum

SHUT UP

They're not neglected if nothing has happened.

In any case, I still don't think the case has been made for this one, you gotta move me Multiplex, you gotta move me to justify something like this, and you haven't it's just OK.

I personally think this is a fantastic outcome for many reasons. My greatest concern is the addition of about 150 more car parks.

The 40 storey version was approved by BCC today.

AN $800 million redevelopment of Brisbane's historic Regent theatre and neighbouring Wintergarden Centre will be screened today by the City Council.


By Bruce McMahon
May 12, 2009 09:25am

Multiplex Developments' plan for a 40-level office tower became a long-running saga last year when the State Government stepped in and insisted the Regent should continue to cater for movie goers.

The 1929 theatre's heritage-listed entrance, foyer and marble staircase were always to be retained but original plans left no cinemas in the complex running from Queen Street Mall through to Elizabeth Street.

But Deputy Premier Paul Lucas, the former Planning Minister, ordered the development must include a 300-seat cinema plus two 60-seat cinemas. The office tower also had to be named Regent Tower.

The Multiplex proposal would include internal and external refurbishment of the Wintergarden shopping centre and Hilton Hotel with redesigned pedestrian entry from the mall and Elizabeth Street where vehicular ramps will be demolished.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25466476-3102,00.html

j

Thank God they are doing work on the Wintergarden! It has much more potential than to just be the poorer, uglier cousin of QueensPlaza. Hopefully a redesign will encourage higher occupancy rates within the centre, the top floor is currently a waste of space.

Nice to also see that work will be done on the Elizabeth Street side. Hopefully it can be made more pedestrian friendly and a bit more appeasing from that side.


I would like to see the Regent returned to a live theatre rather than it being a cinema complex still, however. That is disappointing.

How tall is the 40-storey tower?

158m if my calculations are correct.

Thank God they are doing work on the Wintergarden! It has much more potential than to just be the poorer, uglier cousin of QueensPlaza. Hopefully a redesign will encourage higher occupancy rates within the centre, the top floor is currently a waste of space.

Nice to also see that work will be done on the Elizabeth Street side. Hopefully it can be made more pedestrian friendly and a bit more appeasing from that side.


I would like to see the Regent returned to a live theatre rather than it being a cinema complex still, however. That is disappointing.

I had the same sentiments as you regarding the "live theatre" venue and told the Premier so.

Then I found out that The Regent was never actually a live theatre as such, only a movie theatre.

During world war two they did some broadcasts and recordings and some small concerts but that was all.

Apart from that the only music was by the organists of the day who sometimes came up from under the stage etc.

Still, it would be nice to have it used for small, live entertainment.

The tower looks relatively bland, but the podium looks stunning!

These pics were posted ages ago on SSL by Soul...

Apologies for the size....

http://www.leecrockford.com/pictures/RegentPodium2.jpg


http://www.leecrockford.com/pictures/RegentPodium1.jpg

Not a single thing about that render looks bland to me ;)

Looks ok.

The base will be a big improvement, the tower.....it may not be exciting, but it's not that bad.

Mediocre tower IMO. Another fatboy.

Some of the details are nice but lacklustre height, lacklustre outcome with the cinema, I would have made them go back to the drawing board.

Mediocre tower IMO. Another fatboy.

Some of the details are nice but lacklustre height, lacklustre outcome with the cinema, I would have made them go back to the drawing board.

So is there anything you like about it or would you rather see this project die quietly?

I like the details, facade etc, but I'd prefer something better be proposed. Taller and thinner for starters + more imaginative shape than the boxy dimensions it has. Ultimately I would have liked them to rebuild the original theatre into the design but I'm sure there's a million excuses why that's more impossible than going to the moon.

Remember its an office tower, so the floor space is premium, funny shapes compromise this and adds conciderable cost.

And I think this has a more interesting design than sazy 400 or 275 George which are both massive improvements (and a similar height). To me it has a similar interest to Santos (Northbridge).

I agree. Nothing wrong with the tower itself at all. Oh that's right, it's not Burj Dubai height... Qaulity over quantity, and this is quality. It would be a shame, though, if the end product missed out on the muted LED screen at the street podium.

I'm rather surprised by the negative sentiment... There is NO CHANCE of a supertower anywhere in Brisbane right now.

All things considered, this one is of reasonable height (similar to Northbridge and 400 George - perhaps a little bigger), it's all glass and it has some really interesting features to break up the facade both at street level and above.

It's not some indescribable dodecahedron-shaped, 300m futuristic star trek monolith with the world's most incredible reflective glass - I get that. But if we have realistic expectations, it's quite respectable.

I give it the thumbs up.

I'm rather surprised by the negative sentiment... There is NO CHANCE of a supertower anywhere in Brisbane right now.

All things considered, this one is of reasonable height (similar to Northbridge and 400 George - perhaps a little bigger), it's all glass and it has some really interesting features to break up the facade both at street level and above.

It's not some indescribable dodecahedron-shaped, 300m futuristic star trek monolith with the world's most incredible reflective glass - I get that. But if we have realistic expectations, it's quite respectable.

I give it the thumbs up.

I fully agree.

It would be a shame, though, if the end product missed out on the muted LED screen at the street podium.

It wasn't a "screen" as such...

Well whatever it was, it added some colour and impact. Brisbane ought to have more lighting effects/'screens'. 275 George is a half decent start.

I'm rather surprised by the negative sentiment... There is NO CHANCE of a supertower anywhere in Brisbane right now.

All things considered, this one is of reasonable height (similar to Northbridge and 400 George - perhaps a little bigger), it's all glass and it has some really interesting features to break up the facade both at street level and above.

It's not some indescribable dodecahedron-shaped, 300m futuristic star trek monolith with the world's most incredible reflective glass - I get that. But if we have realistic expectations, it's quite respectable.

I give it the thumbs up.

I agree. Hasn't this one been upped from 34 or so to 40 stories anyway? And aren't there restrictions on the height of buildings along the mall so that the street still has exposure to sunlight?

This one is on the Southside of the Mall so any shadow it casts should go over the Elizabeth Street side.

I agree. Hasn't this one been upped from 34 or so to 40 stories anyway? And aren't there restrictions on the height of buildings along the mall so that the street still has exposure to sunlight?

yeh thats what i read as well

Yes... As discussed earlier, and hence my saying the height is similar to that or Northbridge/400 George or a little taller.

KJBrissy pointed out that the revised height will be closer to 158m.

Yes... As discussed earlier, and hence my saying the height is similar to that or Northbridge/400 George or a little taller.

KJBrissy pointed out that the revised height will be closer to 158m.

Thank God they're focusing on the middle now

^^ Amen to that! Time for Broadway Tower to come back from the grave and we'll really be talking! I'm sick of the gap.

Indeed and as you said we have to downsize our expectations from 200m+ for the times.

I don't mind it.

Is this the site? Should be a good addition to the area.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/9008/dsc02874.jpg

^^
Yes that is it :)

Broadway Tower would be an interesting addition...
No doubt Broadway on the Mall also needs some work done to it too.

Broadway is officially off the books. They took too long Responding to Councils information request.

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

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/Regent-1.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/Regent-2.jpg

Is this the design that was approved (40 storeys), or the 34 storey version? It looks to be about 40 storeys (if you count the floors) and measures up at 129m, in comparison to the Hilton (which is 74m).

The 40-storey version was approved... But that would make it much taller than 129m. Try 150m+?

According to the plans the 40st version is 158m tall.

I'm not too sure if they are the most recent plans or if they are just out of proportion with the Hilton to make it look less significant.

It's hardly possible to put 40st in 129m. 400 George and Northbridge are 37 and 38st respectively IIRC both @ 150m.

~158m would have to be about right.

The 40-storey version was approved... But that would make it much taller than 129m. Try 150m+?

I would have thought so as well. If you count the floors on that rendering though there are around 39-40 storeys (depending on how many floors are in the podium), and if Hilton is 74m (I got that figure off Emporis) then measuring off the elevation, Regent Tower is around 129m.

I will be very pleased if that rendering was a previous design and the approved design is actually taller.

According to the plans the 40st version is 158m tall.

I'm not too sure if they are the most recent plans or if they are just out of proportion with the Hilton to make it look less significant.

That's a possibility...

Indeed and as you said we have to downsize our expectations from 200m+ for the times.

I don't mind it.

Is this the site? Should be a good addition to the area.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/9008/dsc02874.jpg

Really wish they could do an redevelopment to the Hilton Hotel and double its height with following its edges up.

Officially approved according to pd-online. In other words, approval documents have been sent.

Guys, the Hilton is actually 90 metres tall - or 295 feet - you can tell just by looking at it that it's more than 74m - don't ask me how they thought it was just 74m - I'm putting together some stuff for Culwulla because a lot of heights and dates are wrong.

when they gonna start construction?

Guys, the Hilton is actually 90 metres tall - or 295 feet - you can tell just by looking at it that it's more than 74m - don't ask me how they thought it was just 74m - I'm putting together some stuff for Culwulla because a lot of heights and dates are wrong.

Ah, I thought it looked too tall for 74m...

I don't think the skyscraper is particularly inspiring, I am more interested in how they reinvigorate The Regent and active the Elizabeth Street frontage. Hopefuly we will see some nice little cafes and restaurants along this section, at the moment Elizabeth Street has so many random shops. Adult store, adult store, designer boutique, hardware store, perfume, Borders etc...:lol:

A002381382


http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/masterview/modules/documentmaster/viewdocumentftp.aspx?key=p4j9mRT%2fiFYhIX8MySHAlylZxrp3imKykthmjqJ4QZvDvWLQX966ig%3d%3d

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/masterview/modules/documentmaster/viewdocumentftp.aspx?key=p4j9mRT%2fiFYhIX8MySHAlzA23WFSsdDcl0jic8MI%2fkTDvWLQX966ig%3d%3d

The council website is having a hissyfit at the moment. What exaxctly is the application for?

Looks like they're starting work on the new facades. Wish something could be done about the carparks though, like relocating underground. They should not be penalized with reduced spaces for such an endeavor.

if height is 158m, whats its RL? anyone know?

if height is 158m, whats its RL? anyone know?

Elizabeth St variers between RL10 adjacent to Brisbane Central and RL14 where the Hilton is.

ok, so maybe 170m? i wanted to include in brissy Rl diagram. i may lower height to 150m.

^^That'll double the towers though won't it ;)

The plans are saying the towers are RL163.8m.

thanks

In case anyone's interested here's the design Woods Bagot proposed for the site:

http://www.woodsbagot.com/en/Project%20Images/Regent_Tower_swestdd7.jpg

Thanks for that. Were the heights etc. the same?

Both I think were just as good as each other, however I think I prefer the ground levels of the proposed design.

Woods Bagot one was WAY better IMO, got a bit of Foster about it.

Looks fab.

That looks great but I still think a better render of the one that we're getting will establish it as being superior. Obviously the podium is better, but I'm also a fan on the facade treatments of the tower itself, and the interesting slant at the top. Will be an iconic tower for us much like Riparian, Brisbane Square, Santson etc

That looks great but I still think a better render of the one that we're getting will establish it as being superior. Obviously the podium is better, but I'm also a fan on the facade treatments of the tower itself, and the interesting slant at the top. Will be an iconic tower for us much like Riparian, Brisbane Square, Santson etc

This SO with not be an iconic tower, you won't even be able to see it unless you are standing directly infront of it.

Brisbane doens't have any iconic towers anyway, Q1 is an icon for the GC, Brisbane has nothing by comparison, maybe Vision would be if they ever built the thing, but questionabe.

Daft kinky top tower one would not be an icon. Rather an irritant really. As an innovation it seems rather pointless. I like the Woods Bag tower, interestingly bitsy in a neat and tidy although unecessary way, but would not be an icon for Briz. Oddest things can end up doing that, does not need to be tall, maybe Kpa Bridge will do it, it certainly will be loud.

It's all in the eye of the beholder...

And, what's with assuming an ironic tower has to be the world's tallest? Quality over quantity I would have thought...

And Locke, This will stand out at roughly 160m from where it is, dead set in the middle of the city with not much around it. Sulking because we aren't getting a Burj Dubai is more than childish.