SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 82 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,323 Posts
Interesting tower, and an overall redevelopment I approve of. There is practically nothing of the original hotel layout retaining thanks to McDonalds, removing even the saloon bar mural painted by Margaret Olley!

That said, I don't approve of some of the external changes they are proposing, which are somewhat on the extensive side. The replacement of the awning and pressed metal soffit and removal of the moulded panels to the upper level windows, the tiled window hoods and the disused Ann Street entrance door, all of which appear to date from the hotel's 1930s remodelling, are proposed. I suspect that they might run into some heritage-related issues with council over these changes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Im usually not a fan of Ferro Architecture (the Gabba Central Anyone?) but this one doesnt look too bad! notwithstanding the concerns to the public interface
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,255 Posts
What will happen to the Grosvenor! Quite a popular spot at the moment, especially with tradies after work.
Hopefully retained and made into a classy bar not the sexist drivel that's there at the moment, but having said that some that work their are fine with their jobs so whatever.

I do like the design but perhaps the render does not show it off well. But, probably open in 2050 at this rate. Shame, it's nice.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
672 Posts
Well the building will be demolished, I hate the idea of just having a façade. It loses all worth. The Queen Street Mall buildings are so lovely until you realise there's nothing at all behind them, they've been demolished. It matters not how much the original material inside has been changed, it's the building itself that is important. Brisbane has lost so many heritage buildings why do developers want to knock down another one?
 

·
...........
Joined
·
23,969 Posts
I like it but wonder how its economically viable. It's a pretty thin office tower.

Also, is this not an office building? A cafe at the bottom doesn't really make it mixed use, does it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
I like it but wonder how its economically viable. It's a pretty thin office tower.

Also, is this not an office building? A cafe at the bottom doesn't really make it mixed use, does it?
2 apartments and a rooftop bar! It is a pretty unexciting design but decent enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,645 Posts
I like it but wonder how its economically viable. It's a pretty thin office tower.

Also, is this not an office building? A cafe at the bottom doesn't really make it mixed use, does it?
The two apartments at the top do though, barely. Having said that I am in favour of this. I think its worthwhile to preserve as much of the shopfronts and facades along George St as possible. Having a series of smaller developments that preserve that as opposed to one great block wide monolith is preferable IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
517 Posts
Well the building will be demolished, I hate the idea of just having a façade. It loses all worth. The Queen Street Mall buildings are so lovely until you realise there's nothing at all behind them, they've been demolished. It matters not how much the original material inside has been changed, it's the building itself that is important. Brisbane has lost so many heritage buildings why do developers want to knock down another one?
Well in this case, as nathandavid88 has mentioned, most of the original layout has been remodelled so other than the facade, there isn't much else worth saving. In this case it's ok.

In regard to Queen St Mall, that was all done at a time where we were still knocking down so much so it's great they retained them especially considering its the Myer Centre behind them and we all know how that looks on the Elizabeth Street side!
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,031 Posts
I like it but wonder how its economically viable. It's a pretty thin office tower.

Also, is this not an office building? A cafe at the bottom doesn't really make it mixed use, does it?
It won't work for large tenancies but perfect for smaller companies, firms and practitioners looking for small office suites.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
672 Posts
Well in this case, as nathandavid88 has mentioned, most of the original layout has been remodelled so other than the facade, there isn't much else worth saving. In this case it's ok.

In regard to Queen St Mall, that was all done at a time where we were still knocking down so much so it's great they retained them especially considering its the Myer Centre behind them and we all know how that looks on the Elizabeth Street side!
So it would be fine to demolish the Victory hotel or the Stock Exchange hotel? Their interiors have been gutted, but the building remains. If we demolished them and put a tower on top can you really say to people that there is still a heritage building there? No you've lost the building! It just becomes a façade, a sad reminder of what once was there but now looks out of place with what's above it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,323 Posts
^^ Interesting examples you have used with the Victory and Stock Exchange Hotels, as both have been subjected to similar proposals of their own, and they aren't the only ones.

Starting with the Victory Hotel, there was an approved development plan (A001870256) that would have seen the existing Victory Hotel completely demolished and replaced by a larger, entirely modern replacement (similar in design to the Melbourne Hotel in South Brisbane). This development approval was granted in 2008 but was never acted upon and eventually lapsed in 2014.

Then we come to the Stock Exchange Hotel, which has had several developments proposals lodged against it, with the most recent proposal (A004499822) being a large scale demolition where only the original 1863 core and 1887 Charlotte Street extension would remain, with the C1900 Edward Street extension and all infill development to the back of the site being removed for future redevelopment. As large portions of the rear walls of the hotel core and Charlotte Street extension have been knocked out over time, there won't be much more left than the facade, although it appears the current floor structure will remain. The demolition DA is still going through assessment, and the proposed redevelopment is reportedly in the pre-lodgement stage at this point.

Adding a couple more examples, there is the Conias plan (A004380224) to knock out the rear of the Embassy Hotel to allow for the redevelopment of the neighbouring annex. It was approved by council back in October, but has been appealed by ISPT in court. The loss of the rear of the building (and the top level of the hotel, added in the 1960s) I feel will be evened out by the proposed repairs to the facade (reinstating the original layout of windows).

While in the Valley, the redevelopment of the Foresters' Hall on Brunswick Street, as part of Gurner's FV project, follows a methodology almost identical to the the Grosvenor proposal – the original facades will be braced, the remainder of the structure will be demolished and effectively rebuilt from scratch to rectify structural issues and allow the new addition on top of the building.

To be fair to this proposal, I don't see there being any major issue in demolishing and rebuilding the internal structure of a heritage building such as these listed, where minimal to no original interior elements remain. In cases like that of the Foresters' Hall, rebuilding the interior can help improve the longevity of the building, rectifying structural deficiencies that have manifested during the life of the building, while also reinstating the original layout (reinstating the upper floor) and bringing the building up to relevant fire standards. In fact, it's not unheard of for heritage buildings to undergo similar structural rebuilding over their lifetime, be it to repair damage, or to adapt to changing uses. My issue with the development still involves the proposed changes to the facade I listed in my top post on this page. They are far more of an issue in my opinion, than the demolition of the internal structure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
517 Posts
So it would be fine to demolish the Victory hotel or the Stock Exchange hotel? Their interiors have been gutted, but the building remains. If we demolished them and put a tower on top can you really say to people that there is still a heritage building there? No you've lost the building! It just becomes a façade, a sad reminder of what once was there but now looks out of place with what's above it.
Well that's just it, if the former heritage interior is gone there is not much else worth saving other than the facade. That's just the unfortunate reality for these buildings due to past decision making. Be lucky that the facade is protected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,323 Posts
^^ Not all portions of the GPO have been gutted of their interiors, and many portions of the GPO have prominent facades to three or more sides, unlike the Grosvenor which has two prominent facades, one lesser facade (to the laneway off Ann Street) and one party wall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
^^ Love the building, hate the tenant.
Love the building. Love the current tenants. Where else can I get a beer and a hair cut whilst supporting someone through their psychology degree.

I wouldn't lump hate on them. I find it much more offensive to walk past a nail salon in the mall, and worry more about the health of their workers, than those at a risk of catching a chill whilst serving beers.
 
1 - 20 of 82 Posts
Top