There is a derelict early 20th century building which is set to be demolished on Margaret Street in the Brisbane CBD. It is O'Reilly's Bonded Stores (old warehouse space) which was built around 100 years ago.
The building is not heritage listed and when viewed with an objective eye, isn't terribly attractive either, particularly in its present state. However an off-leash dog park will be its temporary replacement until the developers obtain the green light for what will likely become modern commercial/residential high rise.
The O'Reilly family was quite prominent in Brisbane during the late 19th Century and early 20th Century. The O'Reillys had a bonds store and forwarding agency business begun by Captain Henry O'Reilly in the 1860s - the stores originally operated from Mary Street until the new stores, the ones proposed for demolition, were built in 1912/1913.
Captain O'Reilly also owned the spectacular mansion called Toonarbin in Dornoch Terrace in Highgate Hill and you can read about the restoration of that home here. The suburb of Bowen Hills was originally called O'Reilly's Hill after the family. Clearly, the O'Reilly family were the movers and shakers of Brisbane during its infancy as a city.
You can read more about the proposed demolition and development of the stores here.
I was having a conversation with Jason about whether this building should be saved...Is it really worth saving if it's old? Would we be having the same discussion if Westfield Indooroopilly shopping centre was proposed for demolition in 2070 (100 years after it first opened)? (I'll be dead, no doubt!)
The Bonded Stores survived 100 years, does that give it the right to exist for a further 100 or so years? Would Brisbane be better served with a modern building in its stead or should we try to retain as much of our past as we can given the paucity of historical buildings remaining in this city? Is there a creative way for the developer to do both?
To keep or not to keep? is the question. And sadly, 'not to keep' is often the resounding answer.
Over the past couple of months, Brisbane has lost two well-known heritage listed buildings due to fire - the old Belevedere in West End and the Albion Flour Mill. Both properties were either up for development or holding up development, so these 'accidental' fires are not terribly surprising. The historical properties are now bull-dozed and are just a hazy memory to be remembered through photographs and newspaper clippings.
The building is not heritage listed and when viewed with an objective eye, isn't terribly attractive either, particularly in its present state. However an off-leash dog park will be its temporary replacement until the developers obtain the green light for what will likely become modern commercial/residential high rise.
The O'Reilly family was quite prominent in Brisbane during the late 19th Century and early 20th Century. The O'Reillys had a bonds store and forwarding agency business begun by Captain Henry O'Reilly in the 1860s - the stores originally operated from Mary Street until the new stores, the ones proposed for demolition, were built in 1912/1913.
Captain O'Reilly also owned the spectacular mansion called Toonarbin in Dornoch Terrace in Highgate Hill and you can read about the restoration of that home here. The suburb of Bowen Hills was originally called O'Reilly's Hill after the family. Clearly, the O'Reilly family were the movers and shakers of Brisbane during its infancy as a city.
You can read more about the proposed demolition and development of the stores here.
 |
| image from here |
The Bonded Stores survived 100 years, does that give it the right to exist for a further 100 or so years? Would Brisbane be better served with a modern building in its stead or should we try to retain as much of our past as we can given the paucity of historical buildings remaining in this city? Is there a creative way for the developer to do both?
To keep or not to keep? is the question. And sadly, 'not to keep' is often the resounding answer.
Over the past couple of months, Brisbane has lost two well-known heritage listed buildings due to fire - the old Belevedere in West End and the Albion Flour Mill. Both properties were either up for development or holding up development, so these 'accidental' fires are not terribly surprising. The historical properties are now bull-dozed and are just a hazy memory to be remembered through photographs and newspaper clippings.
 |
| image from here |
Anyway, it seems a lot of people are sick of old buildings being neglected and then demolished without some thought or say in the matter. There is a community campaign underway to help save the O'Reilly's Bonded Stores building. If you are keen, you can get on board here. There is a petition and information about how to put in a submission against the demolition application.
Perhaps if enough people were to raise an objection, then the developers may rethink their plans and incorporate the new with the old ...one can only hope in 2014.
The destruction of Brisbane's character buildings just fills me with rage. I can't stand it. And for what? So often the facades could be incorporated into newer developments rather than bulldozed completely. Not all can be saved but so many more should be. Brisbane hasn't come as far from the 70s as we'd like to think. I filed my submission via the Brisbane Heritage site this morning x
ReplyDeleteOh good on you! And yes, it still surprises me that older buildings have no value whatsoever in our city...there won't be anything left to make us appreciate our city! xx
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that I'm tired of people letting property deteriorate to the extent that they can justify demolishing it...because they've intentionally let it become beyond saving. We're fortunate in Fort Worth that our downtown area was restored and is a booming tourist spot, as are the old Stockyards.
ReplyDeleteGood to hear that Fort Worth has got its act together - I wish our government and local council could do more...
DeleteOh, this is THE dilemma in my line of business, Anita! My country has a lot of really old buildings, and the pre reformation ones are the only ones that are automatically preserved by law. Which means that a 1600s building could be demolished without too much fuss. This, of course, raises the question of what should be saved and why. There's a long list of criteria, and often the more pragmatic buildings are the easiest targets. In my profession there are all shades of conservationalists, in my office some are very pragmatic and others, like me, cry inside when an old charming building has to go to make room for new development. I find that when developers have their mind set on something, it's impossible to convince them otherwise. And if we are too stubborn, they just take their business elsewhere. It's often a terrible dilemma. We often hope the building authorities will deny them to demolish, but usually find that they don't lift a finger. It's often a question of cost too. Incorporating an old building into a new project is a wonderful way to go. Alas, it usually complicates the process, which leads to costs the developer is unwilling to spend. It's easier with private homeowners, making extensions to old homes is usually a fun task where the owners seek our assistance with the purpose of not destroying their homes.
ReplyDeleteThis topic really got me going.... Great post, Anita, we need more people like you in the battle against uncritical demolision!!!
Gosh, I do feel for you in your line of work. I can't believe a 1600s building could be demolished - it makes our 200 years history look very measely! I think Brisbane's oldest building is from the 1820s! Sadly, there will be very little left if we don't save what we have...Don't you wish developers could think outside of the box a bit more? xx
DeleteAbsolutely!! I'm on a crusade:-)
DeleteI'm with Edwina on this..., surely the designs can be integrated to incorporate the old and new? It's done all over the world and is worth it to retain character and history while still moving forward into the future.
ReplyDeleteI can't even look at the spot where the Albion Mill stood, it makes me so sad.
I know the Albion Mill site is heartbreaking. xx
DeleteI'm with Edwina and Elizabeth, surely this building is crying out to have the facade retained and then added to with a more contemporary addition? Why this would not be automatic is beyond me. And the fires that wipe out these old buildings seem to happen very frequently, I still get sad thinking about Cloudland which I never got to see but sounded incredible with the sprung floors for dancing. mel x
ReplyDeleteIt should be automatic that it be retained - it seems too easy that these buildings are demolished...xx
DeleteOf course they must remain. Makes me weep to see buildings like this demolished.
ReplyDeleteHopefully there will be enough of a response to the campaign - perhaps a more creative approach could be taken with the development... fingers crossed. xx
DeleteWhether to "do up" an old building or pull it down depends on how much of it can be salvaged. Those buildings that are structurally sound or can be made so without much extra cost may be worth salvaging and fixing up whereas a building that has been allowed to "go to rot" is typically worth demolishing. There are some of us who value the look of that old building but the original building has "had it" -- here they could build a "reproduction" of that building to "keep the look alive".
ReplyDeleteIf we keep knocking or burning down our old buildings Brisbane will become a modern city without any interesting buildings. I go to Sydney 2/3 times a year and love the Opera House but without all the beautiful and old heritage buildings Sydney would be just another bland city. Brisbane needs to appreciate and protect what old buildings we still have these are what tourists like to visit as we do in Sydney. Wake up before it is too late. Are you hearing this Lord Mayor and town planners
ReplyDeleteEvery generation should consider itself the custodian of their environment, whether natural or built. That so much has been destroyed in the past – by conflict, by development and re-development, by neglect – does not excuse the continuing ignorance of this fact.
ReplyDeleteIn Australia – and probably more so in Queensland than anywhere else – there’s been a marked tendency to obliterate the old in the favour of the new, rather than incorporating heritage into new building design as has been successfully practised in so many other places around the world. This isn’t to say that some structures were a mistake in either the structural or aesthetic senses, and that such buildings should make way for more intelligent design when there is consensus about their no longer having a place in our cities and towns, but where structures retain usefulness and/ or beauty, then surely the responsible thing to do is to refurbish, renovate or remodel rather than replace. After all, it’s not only financially wise to re-use the old but it’s also an ecological imperative given the damage every new construction project does to our natural environment by way of pollution.
However, to return to my initial proposition regarding our custodianship of established city- and town-scapes, there is arguably no more practical a way to retain links to our past than to conserve old and aesthetically pleasing structures. The Bonded Stores of Margaret Street, Brisbane, are a fine example of such buildings, retaining not only the beauty of vintage brick-and-mortar construction rarely seen since the advent of mass poured-concrete methods, but also the utility and durability of the careful and thoughtful approach to building that was common of eras past. To demolish the Bonded Stores would not only constitute an act of environmental disregard, but would represent a betrayal of trust, both to those who’ve gone before, and to those who will come after.