The Queens Wharf Redevelopment: Profit Versus Ethics

Written for The Avery Review

The redevelopment of Brisbane's Queen's Wharf is well underway, officially starting construction after the commencement of demolition works in late 2016. More than a year later, the Queensland's State Government's vision for a lavish tourist resort featuring five and six star hotels, extravagant river view bars and restaurants, apartments, local and international retailers, a hundred-metre high Skydeck, and a grand casino is finally coming to life. The resort is expected to be open for business by 2022. This $3 million project intends to bring approximately 1.39 million new visitors to Brisbane, bringing life to what once was a lifeless heritage site and riverfront. The redevelopment also boasts approximately 2000 jobs during construction and over 8000 available jobs once fully operational.

Browsing through the glossy renderings on the project's website, one may be impressed by the luxurious vision of the State Government, however looking over what was possibly the main motivation behind this lavish resort - profit. While there is nothing wrong with wanting to generate profit, it would appear in this instance, that profit had preceded the history, context, and citizens of Queensland. A grandiose entertainment centre in the heart of a government precinct that consists mainly of heritage buildings is out of place for many reasons. Firstly, it overshadows its neighbours both literally and figuratively. The resort would be imposing, blocking views to the river, perhaps even casting long shadows over its modest neighbours. Second, heritage buildings should be appreciated for its story and not overshadowed. Heritage buildings in this precinct are protected and maintained as they tell the history of the successes and failures of the Queensland Government. The placement and grand scale of this resort distracts from this narrative, drawing attention away from this history instead of complimenting it. The idea of activating the river's edge and old heritage site is not a bad one, however perhaps there should have been a better way of doing so without overshadowing the entirety of this context. While the developers had denied any demolishment of heritage buildings, they will, however, be building over its streets which are just as important as these buildings. Additionally, the resort may also encourage further developments of its like, adding more entertainment facilities among government offices.

Not only is the grand scale of this project inappropriate for its context, the idea of placing a casino resort opposite government office buildings and a nearby university is absurd. Given its location, it may be more appropriate to have a facility that signifies government purpose, perhaps civic buildings intended for the betterment of Queensland's cultural melting pot, a place where the people can be heard by the government, or a place to initiate change. Why a casino resort here? Are we encouraging office workers and university students to drink and gamble after hours? Are we placing tourists away from the homeless citizens living on George Street so they can be dazzled by the lights and views on the riverfront instead of facing life's grim reality? Or is the profit from tourism worth more than the values and importance of our people?

As if to add insult to injury, several articles have risen regarding this project, criticising the use of hostile architecture in this redevelopment. Particularly, fixed arm rests that prevent people from sleeping on benches, low walls to deter skateboarders and other anti-social behaviours. It makes sense for the casino developers to not want homeless people around their five and sixstar resort, more so because they are detrimental to the image of wealth the developers are trying to portray. Jonathan Sri, a Greens councillor raised an important point on this subject where he stated that "Public spaces should be for everyone - not just the mega-rich." Sri also mentioned the vulnerability of homeless civilians who are left with no choice but to sleep in unsafe areas as they are often unwanted in highly visible public spaces. Is this ethical? What does this say about us as a nation? Why haven't something already been done about the safety and wellbeing of our homeless community when we have the money and technology to fund a multi-million-dollar sky-high casino resort? Surely, if there is such a place for making these people feel protected and looked after, it should be right here in the government's precinct where decisions are being made regarding the welfare of our people.

In conclusion, architects, town planners and designers alike have an obligation to design for the benefit of people and the environment rather than for profit. Architecture and design should not discriminate against anyone. Just as we would find it abhorrent to not cater to the physical needs of the disabled, it should be just as absurd to design against the homeless. Not only does this reflect badly on us as a society, it serves as a poor example for aspiring designers. This is not to suggest that there is no room in our city for a lavish resort, rather there should be a more appropriate place for this environment, certainly away from our government precinct. Any changes to a heritage site should be treated with the utmost care lest an important piece of our history be erased and forgotten. Additionally, with the availability of land where it is almost impossible to find, there should have been a great opportunity for a strong symbol of democracy or government purpose. Citizens of Brisbane are proud of their city and deserve to have its heritage buildings celebrated and protected.