The Palace in Bourke Street: can it be saved?
Good companies know that good business is more than just about making a buck. The community expects the private sector to behave responsibly and sensitively – that old-fashioned notion of corporate responsibility. Do the right thing, and the people will respond positively. But let the community down, and goodwill is replaced by hostility.
So it is at the top end of Bourke Street, where a wrecking ball hangs over the historic Palace Theatre, with a developer wanting to knock it down and erect a boutique hotel.
While Melbourne City Council was moving to provide heritage protection for the Palace, workers were quietly stripping the theatre of interior features. After reports of the sound of jack hammers, plaster work and tiles from the 1912 Edwardian theatre were found outside in a skip.
I was shocked, disappointed that in what I had believed to be a more enlightened age, this kind of behaviour was happening in my town.
In its defence, the owner of the Palace released a statement under the headline: "Jinshan Investments operating within its rights." It went on to argue that the interior work was legal, was all about site safety, and was consistent with advice that the interior had been so altered that it wasn't in pristine condition.
Jinshan was obviously confident that it was within the law. Yet by its actions it has further galvanised opposition to its plans, and strengthened the determination of the growing numbers who want to save the Palace.
The Palace site has been an entertainment venue since the gold-rush days. The theatre as we know it was built in 1912, and in recent times has been a celebrated live-music venue, holding about 2000.
But Jinshan had other plans. First, it was a 72-metre tower hotel – despite the fact that it was in the historic, low-rise Bourke Hill precinct. That 2013 proposal was howled down, objected to by the Parliament itself, which feared being overshadowed and dominated by the tower.
The height was reduced to 50 metres, and shrunk again after new controls were introduced by the former Coalition government imposing height restrictions of 15 metres and 23 metres. The new plans are for a 23-metre, seven-storey hotel.
The opposition is deep and widespread. The Save the Palace group (with more than 37,000 likes on its Facebook page), the Melbourne Heritage Action group and the National Trust are leading the campaign. After the interiors were stripped, the groups descended on a suburban recycling yard and sifted through a 7000 kilogram pile of rubble. They salvaged tiles and plasterwork.
In part, the support for the Palace is about its heritage value. But it is not just about the building. The Palace's significance also lies in its social connection to the community, most recently as a live-music venue.
The case to save the Palace is compelling. Speaker after speaker lined up at a recent council committee meeting. They included Eddie Perfect, the talented boy from Mentone, who made the case for the Palace's value as a mid-sized venue, giving us an advantage over Sydney, where such venues have virtually vanished. The councillors agreed, voting 5-3 to oppose the plan.
But that isn't the end of the story. Because the application wasn't determined by the council within the statutory 60 days, the developer has now gone to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a decision. Will the final act be a tribunal decision to allow the demolition of the Palace?
There is another, better ending. Councillor Stephen Mayne, voting against the plan, made the excellent point that going to the tribunal buys some time, allowing people to talk, and for the new Andrews government to get its feet under the desk. It may also allow a talked-about white knight, interested in buying the Palace and keeping it as a venue, to firm things up.
So here's a solution that could save face: the developer sells the Palace to the white knight, or even to the government. Remember, the state government and the city council have a 50 per cent share in the Regent Theatre, which was saved from demolition in the 1970s when then premier Dick Hamer stepped in and responded to a Save the Regent campaign. Hamer knew what mattered in Melbourne.
There would be winners all round. Melbourne would get to keep a valuable part of its heritage, and the live-music industry would retain a brilliant venue. And a private developer would be shown to be sensitive to the community among which it seeks to do business.
Shane Green is an associate editor of The Age.
15 comments so far
More comments
New user? Sign up
Make a comment
You are logged in as [Logout]
All information entered below may be published.
Thank you
Your comment has been submitted for approval.
Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.