East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): NSW Government Response (1997)

Looking back at recent entries in the series, 1997 was a major year in the redevelopment of East Circular Quay with the construction of the new buildings, criticism of the redevelopment, public opposition and from its opponents, alternative schemes to redevelop the area. 

This week, we will focus on the State Government's response to the redevelopment and its response to criticism from opponents of the redevelopment. 

East Circular Quay was under the jurisdiction of Sydney City Council, which regulated planning guidelines. As the redevelopment of both development sites at East Circular Quay was over $50 million each, the Central Sydney Planning Committee had the authority to either approve or reject a proposed development. The committee was not comprised entirely of those sitting or working for the council. Four members of the committee are appointed by the Planning Minister. 

Opponents felt that the State Government needed to take action to halt redevelopment. As mentioned in Part #18 (June 24 2024), the NSW Government had ruled out the acquisition of the site due to the cost - $700 million at the start of 1997.

David Brice Scheme

Last week, I provided an overview of David Brice's scheme to consolidate the sites of Quay Apartments and the Royal Automobile Club onto one site, build one tall tower, and scale back the development at East Circular Quay.

Source: Totaro, P. & Wainwright, R. 1997. "Quay question: will Sydney accept this trade-off?" The Sydney Morning Herald, June 4.1.

He was unable to persuade the State Government to consider his scheme. The State Government felt that the proposed park at East Circular Quay was not a suitable tradeoff in exchange for building the 55-storey tower south of the Cahill Expressway, citing the size of the park and the proposed height of the tower. 

Land Swap proposals were suggested such as redeveloping part of Observatory Hill Park, but were not supported by the government.

Source: Anon. 1997. "Architects want Bridge park swap". The Daily Telegraph, April 16: 15. 

Bob Carr's view

It was reported that Bob Carr (Premier) was privately supportive of demolishing the Bennelong Apartments building, though it was the cost of demolition that it would impose on the State Government that was holding him back

Source: Allen, L. 1997. "Demolition a tall order". The Australian, March 29: page unknown. 

Some cited articles mentioned in this post were sourced from the Factiva Database.

Entries in this Series

1. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): The first apartment block proposal (1979)
2. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): Opera Garden Centre Scheme (1984)
3. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): Unilever House Hotel Conversion (1986)
4. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): Opera Garden Centre Scheme Revisited (1986)
5. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): Unilever House Hotel Conversion (1987)
6. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): CML's 1990 Scheme
7. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): CML's Bennelong Centre (1991)
8. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): The Revolving Office Tower Scheme (1991)
9. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): East Circular Quay 'Ideas Quest' (1992)
10. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): Mirvac Hotel Scheme - 61 Macquarie Street (1992)
11. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): New Planning Guidelines unveiled (1993)
12. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): The shift towards residential development (1993)
13. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): Residential Scheme unveiled (1994)
14. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): Construction commences (1995)
15. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): Construction continues (1996)
16. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): Unveiling "The Toaster" (1997)
17. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): The protests (1997)
18. East Circular Quay Redevelopment (Series): Redevelopment Visions (1997)

1985: Saving the Brooklyn Hotel from demolition

The Brooklyn Hotel on the northwest corner of the intersection of Grosvenor, George and Bridge Streets was built in 1912 and was heritage-listed in 1980. The hotel also incorporates the Johnson Corner Buildings. 

In the 1980s, the Grosvenor Place development was approved. One condition of its development was that the Brooklyn Hotel, along with the neighbouring Royal Australian Naval House and Federation Hotel, be preserved and incorporated into the development, which included the 44-level/180-metre Grosvenor Place tower. 

On September 8 1985, fire swept through the building.

\  

Source: Anon. 1985. "Arson probe at historic sites". The Daily Telegraph: September 9: 3. 

Architect Harry Seidler and developers Kern Corporation submitted plans to demolish the buildings, citing fire damage and questions over its structural integrity. While this was withdrawn, the Minister for Planning and Environment Bob Carr, had to remind them that the restoration of the building was a condition of the approval of the Grosvenor Place development

 

Source: Glascott, J. 1985. "Seidler halts demolition on Grosvenor site". The Sydney Morning Herald, September 19: 5. 

In 1987, a second attempt to demolish the building was proposed for a public square. Carr had to remind them again that demolition was not permitted, and the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority also ruled that demolition was not allowed. That attempt failed.

Source: Hawkes, H. 1987. "Row over historic buildings". The Daily Mirror, February 16: 17.

The following year, it was announced that the buildings would be formally restored at a cost of $10 million. This was undertaken in 1989. 

Source: Bita, N. 1988. "$10m rescue for historic city buildings". The Daily Telegraph, September 15: page unknown.

1987: Skytower, city development and building height limits

As you may have noticed, I have taken a break from posting as I was recently on holidays in Melbourne during the school holiday break and didn't prepare any postings for the past week

In this past week, heights of city buildings have been discussed as The Daily Telegraph published visions of what Sydney's Central Business District and regional centres could appear in as little as two decades from now.

It envisions that Sydney will need to build towers double the height of the existing tallest buildings in the city to accommodate for future population growth and demand for commercial space.

This will be a huge subject of discussion because building significantly taller buildings would actually preserve existing low density neighbourhoods, as development would become more concentrated in fewer parts of the city. Restricting height limits could create more dilemmas and this would meaning zoning more low rise areas for high rise.

If we went back more than thirty years, the NSW Government wanted to restrict Sydney building height limits in 1987. Barrie Unsworth was premier and Bob Carr was the environment and planning minister. He was concerned that developers wanted buildings in excess of what was permitted but at the same time was also concerned about overshadowing of public parks and civic spaces.

One development that concerned him was Alan Bond's proposed Skytower at 2 Park street which I covered last year.

Below is an article from The Daily Mirror as published in November 1987.

Source: Farr, M. 1987. "Carr Cuts Skyline Down to Size for New Image". The Daily Mirror, November 3: 14-15.

Building height limits were based on the Sydney Strategic Plan of 1971, which was not as rigid as current policies are today.

In early 1995, building height limits for central Sydney were set to prevent overshadowing over public spaces and parks at a maximum of 235 metres. I have in a previous entry posted the article. Bob Carr did not impose the limit as at the time, as he was NSW Opposition Leader. He would be elected weeks after the plans were released. His idea certainly proved feasible at the time.

2000: Bob Carr & High rise Design

Below is a 2001 article from The Daily Telegraph, focusing on Bob Carr's proposal to improve the design of apartment blocks in Sydney.

The article does not mention it, but it is believed that Bob Carr was unimpressed with the architectural designs of highrise residential blocks in his electorate of Maroubra and wanted standards raised.

Some residential buildings were even designed by non-architects.

Source: Skelsey, M. "Ban on shoeboxes: Changes to stop 'lousy' unit plans". The Daily Telegraph, October 21: 7. 

This led to the passing of legislation in 2002. Under Section 65 of the State Environmental Planning Policy - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development. It meant that a registered architect could only design a residential building.

As we move towards two decades since the legislation has passed, and the results to the average person would appear to be mixed. Broadly speaking, there has been a general improvement in the terms of the architectural design of residential buildings in Sydney, particularly in the Sydney CBD and inner suburbs. As for suburban Sydney, it varies. In some suburbs, I have noticed that highrise buildings built in the past decade architecturally are more appealing than those built in the 2000s. I look at Rockdale for instance and have noticed an increase in the architectural standard of some of the unit blocks.

Even with this law, there are unit blocks that architecturally are not appealing to the eye, and tend to be in the outer suburbs, where the focus is on profit over quality. I think councils in suburbs further out may need to work on improving standards for architectural design.

There were critics that argue that architectural quality means higher house prices. I will concede that this is true, but sometimes we need to consider this cost in terms of providing quality streetscapes in which the buildings will shape, along with making a home as livable as it can be.