#UC: 55 Elizabeth Street (ATO - Treasury Row) 15s/office

[KJBrissy]

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.

[nathandavid88]

Originally Posted by KJBrissy

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?

[KJBrissy]

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.

[nathandavid88]

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.

[KJBrissy]

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.

[nathandavid88]

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).

[KJBrissy]

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

[nathandavid88]

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.

[38921111]

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

[BNE01]

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.......

[Marty_]

Originally Posted by 38921111

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.

[nathandavid88]

Originally Posted by BNE01

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.

[duke]

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.

[Leesome]

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/

[Marty_]

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

[SoulvisionQ1]

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.

[SoulvisionQ1]

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.

[finn]

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.

[Locke]

Dear Grocon, please go back to Victoria.

That is all!

[nathandavid88]

Originally Posted by SoulvisionQ1

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.

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.