Love this article?
Republish this article on your website for free
Republish this article

Republish This Article

Feel free to publish this article on your website. We just ask that you do not edit the article and ensure that the author is correctly attributed! Just copy the code below into your CMS.

By copying the code below you are adhering to all our guidelines

1-5 Queen Street rejected by City of Melbourne

1-5 Queen Street rejected by City of Melbourne

Height, overshadowing and heritage; the Holy Trinity of inner-city development concerns that's sure to garner mainstream media attention. This was indeed the case during 2014 when plans were revealed for the redevelopment of the Fletcher Jones site at 1-5 Queen Street which sits directly opposite the Banana Alley vaults.

Malaysian-backed Creative Wealth (Aust) Pty Ltd commissioned the project with CBD-based K2LD Architects conceiving the residential tower which at 25 levels and 90.75 metres would have made an instant impression upon its more modest in height neighbours.​

-5 Queen Street rejected by City of Melbourne" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="342" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/1-5_queen.jpg?itok=Ql5SWl8J" title="Artists' renders of the rejected development. Image © K2LD" width="580" />
Artists' renders of the rejected development. Image © K2LD

According to a Business Day the 746sqm site was owned and occupied by retailer Fletcher Jones since 1955, until falling into private ownership post 1993. With the onsite Cobden Buildings structure originally dated 1872, groups such as Melbourne Heritage Action considered the redevelopment as little more than facadism with the Flinders Street edifice the most notable feature retained within the proposed redevelopment.

Enter 2015 and City of Melbourne have elected to reject the proposal in its current form. Almost six months to the day after the initial planning application was lodged, the decision to rebuke 1-5 Queen Street was made public on January 13. According to Melbourne Heritage Action, City of Melbourne's refusal was based upon a number of factors with the tower's adverse affect upon the heritage listed existing building and its Queen Street neighbours at the forefront.

-5 Queen Street rejected by City of Melbourne" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="338" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/queen_street_elevation_0.png?itok=La4Ptqug" title="Proposed Queen Street frontage. Image © K2LD" width="580" />
Proposed Queen Street frontage. Image © K2LD

Seen above was the intended Queen Street facade which was to have replaced the 1970's augmented frontage, which up until that point matched the Flinders Street frontage. A modern interpretation of what once was there, the facade would have employed stone and metal.

As with most developers Creative Wealth (Aust) Pty Ltd would now seemingly have two options at hand. A trip to VCAT may be on the cards as could be a new planning application that better addresses the concerns outlined by City of Melbourne.

The latest industry news on your website

Republish Urban content on your website

Republish this article

Discussion (4 comments)

Adrian's picture

Surprise Surprise .. looked like a nice bit of glass shard that too.

3000's picture

Well maybe the developers should try harder next time. Looked like a rather lame glass box to me.

MelbourneGuy's picture

I bet the CoM can't wait to knock back more proposals, just to show the ratepayers that they're on the ball.

3000's picture

Or maybe they want to stop shitty proposals that do the bare minimum under the guise of "facades".

Back to top
Note: Every effort is made to ensure accurate information is provided. If information is out of date, or factually incorrect, please get it touch so we can rectify. Urban accepts no liability and responsibility for any direct or indirect loss or damage which may be suffered by any recipient through relying on anything contained or omitted from our publication and platform. Opinions expressed by writers are that of the writer, and may not reflect that of Urban.
Are you a frequent user? Sign in or Register.