Palace Theatre Bourke Street development redesigned

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

Palace Theatre Bourke Street development redesigned

What's so special about the Palace Theatre?  Evidently quite a lot as in excess of 25,000 Melburnians have signed a petition to save the venue from demolition and redevelopment into a premium W Hotel and apartment complex.  Overshadowing within the historic Bourke Hill precinct, proximity to State Parliament, the potential loss of a cultural and live music icon, personal experiences and a general aversion to development would be amongst the reasons why the general public have made their displeasure with this development unequivocally clear. 

Yet of all those to voice their concerns, the most telling would be that of State Planning Minister Matthew Guy who on ABC Radio stated of the proposed development, "The developer is dreaming if he thinks the government is going to approve this in the form in which it has been submitted.  It is too tall, it is in the wrong location."

Palace Theatre Bourke Street development redesigned

With those words in mind and following preliminary feedback from State planning officials, the project team spearheaded by venerable architecture firm Bates Smart have returned with amended plans for the site.  Initially designed as a mixed-use tower some 99.75 metres in height and maintaining a setback of 8 metres to Bourke Street, the revised plans submitted late September produce in essence a lopped scheme where the tower is now expected to reach 72.25 metres.  In reducing height, the development team have decreased the setback to Bourke Street to 5 metres in order to somewhat mitigate the lessened development yield.

A roughly 27 metre reduction sees nine levels removed while 22 will remain within an altogether similar external design which sees a white 'layered veil' over blue glass; a nod to the Fairlie Apartment complex in South Yarra as cited within the planning application.  Overall apartment numbers have decreased considerably whereas hotel rooms stand at 200, a reduction of only five.  The revised scheme now calls for seven levels of residential living at the towers peak offering approximately 90 one and two bedroom apartments, down from 145 apartments initially included.

See below the expected view from Spring Street where the red line indicates the initial planning application envelope as opposed to the lower revised scheme.  Given the Windsor Hotel opposite recently received absolute approval to proceed with its redevelopment much to the chagrin of the Planning Minister, is it not hypocritical to prevent the Palace Theatre development proceeding in some way, shape or form?

Palace Theatre Bourke Street development redesigned

One could argue the case yes, and justifiably so in many people's eyes, although proponents of the Palace Theatre mount a strong case as well.  Included within the revised documents submitted late September is a letter of support from Starwood Hotels and Resorts, owner and operator of the W brand.  It maintains that after an extensive site selection process in which any properties considered must adhere to lofty selection criteria, the Palace Theatre site was and remains the natural choice.  Affirming their '100%' support to both the site and site owner, Jinshan Investment Group Pty Ltd, Starwood have very much pinned their Melbourne ambitions to this development.

An optimal compromise would likely see a development of some description set well back and separated from the Bourke Street frontage, therefore maintaining and incorporating a large portion of the existing Palace Theatre - akin to another Melbourne building, the former Herald & Weekly Times at 8 Exhibition Street.  This is not an option due to site constraints and height concerns, which at this point leads to an all or nothing outcome where total Palace Theatre retention or demolition are the likely outcomes.  

Whereas planning officials have voiced concerns over scale, height and overshadowing, I'd suspect the average person wouldn't be so much interested in the overall height and bulk of the tower, more so the retention of the existing building.

Palace Theatre Bourke Street development redesigned

State planners and ultimately Matthew Guy have a curly decision to deliver regarding this planning application.  Respect the wishes of the masses and maintain the Palace Theatre or approve redevelopment and enjoy the lasting economic boon the construction and ongoing operation that a five star hotel delivers.  An unenviable position where someone is bound to be disappointed!

The latest industry news on your website

Republish Urban content on your website

Republish this article

Discussion (2 comments)

Laurence Dragomir's picture

The proportions of the shorter version and with the lesser setback just don't look right. It just looks awkwardly squat.

I think a slightly taller version (say an extra 4-storeys) but with the 8m setback of the previous incarnation would be a better visual outcome.

Bilby's picture

Here is the objection by Melbourne Heritage Action:

Aside from the fact that this the economic impact of the loss of an important live music venue would be significant, this building also retains one of Melbourne's most historic and unique theatre interiors. The building is in a defined Heritage Overlay, and is also in a Height Control Overlay. The developer presumably knew this when they purchased the site - the benefits of a 5 Star Hotel are frankly of little concern in comparison with upholding the heritage values of the site. There are plenty of appropriate sites elsewhere in the CBD for such a venture that would not entail the negative impacts of this proposal.

See a gallery of images here:

'Save the Palace' website here for those interested:

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.