A thread was started over at SSP about this, I assumed something had already been posted over here about it?

It is the redevelopment of the Surfers Paradise Transit Centre, consisting of 5 plans, some include a tower over 80 FLOORS - more than Q1!

Does anybody know anything about this, it looks pretty major.

Heres a link to the council webs site -
http://www.goldcoastcity.com.au/t_std.asp?PID=4168

The PDF page, which includes plans, maps and basic diagrams -
http://www.goldcoastcity.com.au/attachment/promotions/pm279_bb_proposed_options.pdf

Is there already a thread on this, or maybe I am confused and this is just another development already announced???
Sorry if it is, but I havn't heard anything about this.

There is also an online comment box, so the community can give their opinion on the 5 options - make sure to give your opinion, and maybe provide some support for the taller options. :)

Geez, are the tall proposals going to be office buildings, if so, approximately how tall is 80 stories? One of them says 80 stories or more as well...

its Gold coast so there apartments not office!
i havent heard of this one? at 80storeys it would be approx 240-250m.
fantastic!! hope big one gets up?
for those who dont know where they are. its just north/west of Q1.
far bit back from beach which is good
heres a scan

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/new80storeyforgc.jpg

The height limit is 300m above sea level, so if the site is 3m above sea level then you could build up to up to 297m. Assuming standard office floor heights of 4 metres then you could build a 74 metre high office tower, but there is nowhere near enough demand to fill such a massive office tower.

You could potentially build a 100 storey residential within the height limit or a 90 storey mixed use tower with 25 floors of office space and 65 floors of apartments.

Is the council really going to get rid of the parkland for a tower? How many parks are there in Surfers?

height limit is actually 304.5m or 1000ft, thats why Q1 was originally 298m to spire, beacuse it sits at Rl6.5m. lol
it wont be office. 80storeys resi be lucky to be 250m. maybe a spire added later?
there are lots of parks in Surfers PD.
the 60 & 80 story option which is 1ts option is best.

i would prefer them to be office tho, since the only other office building on the coast is directly accros the road (the hexaganal building accross the road in the plan), this would create some sort of 'buisiness district' for the gold coast, affording the coast the title of a 'real city'

Option 1 is 60 storeys and 80 storeys....option 2 is 80+ storeys!!! :D

ive added the transit site into this location plan of the central "talls" area. as you can see it will have no problem with shadow issues on beach. top spot actually for super talls.
this area will be amazing in a few years!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/gcplan.jpg

These proposals have been around a while, and I was looking for site with the proposals on it so that I could post them, but couldn't find it at the time.

Can someone please post the other options if they can view them? I don't know why, but it won't let me access them.

Danubis: The Gold Coast has a business district. Southport.

oh?!! is that why they want the travel pods to run from southport to surfers? makes sense now, i thought southport was just for people who couldnt afford to live in surfers

well it not exactly a massive buisness district(southport) but in terms of affordability, its the next best location. The buildings are mainly low rise blocks like 2-3 stories and have offices and crap in there. There more like sub branches and distric centres to be honest, not many HQ buisnesses are around there.

does crazy johns have a national headquarters there?

i just likethe idea of Surfers getting little more diverse use of towers

:) Want some awesome news???
I called the phone number for further information but didn't talk to cathy i got ahold of some bloke who was not so forthcoming about information regarding my questions but
After i inputted my opnion that i like option 2b for a 80+ story tower and a 14 level tower he told me that it has had a good response and the majority of people seemed to opt for the taller options and that something 'unbeleivable' could very well be built on the site.
So anywhay i went on chatting about Q1 and asking how high can we go and will something possibly go taller, he laughed and said Q1 is nothing special and that the proposals allowed for 80+ storys and he made it clear that the '+' symbol doesnt mean under 90 storys. But my jaw really hit the table when he said that there is a possibility of multiple super-tall buildings and that they were thinking of twin towers because some developers or somebody (he wouldn't tell me) wanted way over 80 storys and he did use the word 'WAY' (hehehe me excited :D) but they would have problems with aviation authority's.

Now im kinda a noob on the development stage of buildings and such and i am really confused with some of this, the council own the land right? So why are they asking what should be developed on there if the are they selling it to developers? or is the GC City council going to build a super-scraper themselves? once they sell it how does the council get a say in the development options, doesn't the developer put in a proposal for the bulding then council approves it? Im so confused this guy was not very understandable he had an accent.

^Wow, that's interesting.
The CAA I believe have sway over anything over 300m RL as far as I know (ask Doctor Cul). Q1's spire was allowed to hit 322.5m so I'm sure a few more talls in Surfers can be avoided by birds en-route to Coolangatta....

well it not exactly a massive buisness district(southport) but in terms of affordability, its the next best location. The buildings are mainly low rise blocks like 2-3 stories and have offices and crap in there. There more like sub branches and distric centres to be honest, not many HQ buisnesses are around there.

Southport is the traditional business centre, but the Robina Chamber of Commerce recently became the chamber with the highest membership on the coast. Robina has the HeadQuarters of Austar, Compaq, IBM, and a couple of other companies that I can't think of because I'm too tired.

Now im kinda a noob on the development stage of buildings and such and i am really confused with some of this, the council own the land right? So why are they asking what should be developed on there if the are they selling it to developers? or is the GC City council going to build a super-scraper themselves? once they sell it how does the council get a say in the development options, doesn't the developer put in a proposal for the bulding then council approves it? Im so confused this guy was not very understandable he had an accent.

My guess is that the council is going to have the say on what we want built. And then the developers will tender for the construction. The buildings would remain public property.

^Wow, that's interesting.
The CAA I believe have sway over anything over 300m RL as far as I know (ask Doctor Cul). Q1's spire was allowed to hit 322.5m so I'm sure a few more talls in Surfers can be avoided by birds en-route to Coolangatta....
CASA has enforced a height limit for GC at 304.5m/1000ft above sea level. Sunland wanted Q1s spire above this at RL328m, it was granted beacuse it was just a spire. The skyscraper itself is limited to 304.5mRL or aprox 300m above ground depending on height of land where skyscraper is to be built. Most of the Surfers strip sits at RL2m -RL8m.
i cant see a skyscraper being built higher then Q1.

What's the rationale for allowing the spire to go above the 1000 ft ceiling? If a plane were to hit that spire it'd still go down (the spire, the plane, or both depending on the type of plane).

But only the spire, not the entire building.

still not a good result
with go down despite the "building merit"

My guess is that the council is going to have the say on what we want built. And then the developers will tender for the construction. The buildings would remain public property.

Thanks for clearing that up Toadman :)
Like Cul said i always thought the height limit was 300m because of air traffic and Q1 was only allowed because of the spire, well if we can still have upto 304m thats quite a bit higher than Q1's roof i hope they don't build a spire or if they do the roof still sits at 300m :)

i think you're more likely to hit the spire then a building of the same height... bit hard not to see a building in the way.

but there's always one of those red lights on top of the tower.

Hey, great idea. How good would it be if they had a revolving light around the top of the spire like on top of the Eiffel Tower. Or, on special national occassions, turn the spire into the world's tallest flagpole.

WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anger as tower plans in transit
24Nov04

THE Gold Coast's next Q1-size project was endorsed yesterday but it will be built at the expense of the Surfers Paradise Transit Centre and the Bruce Bishop Car Park.

The council's economic and development committee pushed ahead with a plan to sell the entire transit centre site, replacing it with two towers of about 80 storeys and 15 storeys high.

Area councillor Susie Douglas and Surfers business leaders fervently opposed the proposal, claiming one of the city's most valuable assets was being sold off.

Cr Douglas, who has fought the sale since being elected in March, said the decision was 'shortsighted'. "You can't sell off 600 car parks and a beautiful park," she said. "We've got towers dotted all over, we have got to keep our open space."

If endorsed by the full council on Monday, expressions of interest will be called from developers. The transit centre and car park will be demolished, with the five levels of underground parking providing almost 1000 car parks remaining on the Beach Road site. The council will require the future developer to provide four bus bays on the site, which will also include a large park.

Council economics director Greg Young pushed for the sale, saying the site had been a white elephant for long enough, costing ratepayers millions of dollars over the years.

Mr Young said Surfers Paradise had a surplus of car parks so the demolition of the Bruce Bishop Car Park was not an issue.

Earlier this year, a community working group investigated options for the site and suggested it be converted into the Australian National Wine Centre.

However, Mr Young said this was not feasible because the transit centre would be submerged in a major flood event, and it would cost millions to raise the floors.

Surfers Paradise Chamber of Commerce president Tom Tate said the overwhelming view of the community was to 'leave the transit centre alone'. "They always target Surfers Paradise, this reeks of wrongdoing," he said.He also said many developers had paid substantial contributions for car parking that would no longer exist.

"They need to replace the car parks or we want the money back," he said.

Sunland joint managing director Soheil Abedian said the decision was 'a great crime'.

"This site will become more and more valuable every day," he said.

Councillors considered a series of options for the site, including a three-tower option, partly developing the site, and replacing the buildings with a giant park.

They dismissed Mr Young's recommendation for approval of the three-tower option, saying it was overdevelopment of the site.

Cr Douglas said she was 'aggrieved'. The decision was supported by Mayor Ron Clarke, committee chairwoman Cr Jan Grew and councillors Greg Betts, David Power and Bob La Castra.

OMG!!! pinch me

Geez, so I'm assuming this is seperate to the meriton project? (as that was further south). How many possible 200m+ buildinds does that make now...5?

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!
lalalalalalalala i'm so happy now surfers is really going to have height :D

And everyone thought Q1 was a once off thing :bleh:
Surfers is going to have the ultimate skyline :)

And if they saturate the residential market it might actually become affordable to live in Surfer's.

I don't think any of these mooted 200m+ buildings will happen for another 3 years so there'll be some breathing space for the market. But it's still exciting how we can almost already see the next cycle taking shape. Good stuff.

Don't y'all get too excited just yet. The decision may not win support for the majority of councillors on monday, Douglas is pathetic, whenever there's pressure from business leaders and loudvoice members of the community she trembles.

The GCCC:
Require 8 of 14 votes.

Mayor Ron Clarke: YES
Hackwood: YES
Power: YES
Pforr:YES
Molehok: NO
Young: NO
Chrichlow: NO
Douglas: NO
La Castra: YES
Shepard: YES
Sarroff: NO
Grew: YES
Betts: YES
MacDonald: YES
VACANT SEAT

It'll pass.

What is happening here?

wow good numbers there so far

Update:

From what I've seen on the local news this week.

Council voted to partially sell the site on monday as in option 2a. This plan includes demolishing the bruce bishop carpark and transit centre, selling two pockets of the site to developers, one of the sites allowing for a tower up to 80 storeys under the town plan. The plan also includes a large public park at groundlevel.

There is a group of people opposing this decision, including councilor Susie Douglas and former conservative qld premier Bob Borbage. They are trying to get attention from the state government. Today our local representative in state parliament (forgot her name) gave support for councils decision. Also it is very unlikely the state government will get involved, they would only be concerned about public safety (the current park is proven dangerous, someone has been murdered there), encouraging less people to use their cars by providing cheap carparking (the bruce bishop carpark will be demolished), and abiding by the local town plan (the local town plan allows for buildings 80 storey buildings in that part of town). So with these three factors council will get 3 big ticks from state level.

So its looking pretty good...

yes, it is looking positive. i think the planners and councillors realize it will be a lost oportunity for a supertall if its passed by.
excellent

yes, it is looking positive. i think the planners and councillors realize it will be a lost oportunity for a supertall if its passed by.
excellent

The transit centre has been a burden on the city and they've been trying to get rid of it for years...I think they have grown tired of the debate and they're finally putting their foot down. Their plan is great, this kind of opportunity is rare in any city!

Full marks to the GCCC for actually supoorting this. Too many councils just sit on there hands with things like this but it's good to see that this one has some balls!

Hold your horses guys. The state government has stepped in. Desley Boyle went to see the mayor today. NOT HAPPY JAN. She said that it had all gotten out of hand too fast and too far. The public is not happy either.

Mayor to sell view at 'reversal' rally
9Dec04

MAYOR Ron Clarke asked organisers if he could speak at today's public rally aimed at reversing a city council decision to sell off the Surfers Paradise Transit Centre and demolish the Bruce Bishop Car Park.

Cr Clarke is expected to be the lone supporter of the controversial decision at today's rally, set for 5pm at Neil Shannon Park, above the car park.

Cr Clarke will follow speakers who are highly critical of the decision, including local councillor Susie Douglas, former Premier Rob Borbidge, former mayor and Surfers state MP Lex Bell, and councillors Rob Molhoek, Peter Young and Eddy Sarroff.

Cr Douglas said a petition would start at the rally and it would be tabled in State Parliament early next year by Surfers Paradise State MP John-Paul Langbroek.

Cr Douglas said she wanted the council to defer any action on the transit centre until after the Christmas-New Year break.

"I hope they don't try anything over Christmas,' she said yesterday.

"The Local Government Minister Desley Boyle has told the council it has gone too far and too fast on the issue and that the public needs to be better informed.

"Mayor Clarke has asked to speak and we'll welcome him on to the podium ... he wants to put the council's view."

I support the buildings. I support making a park that people may actually WANT to go to. But I don't want to see them get rid of the last permanent council carpark in Surfers. We can't lose 600 car parks. People may see it as expensive now, but it'll soon be considered cheap after the council raises metered parking from 40c per hour to $2 per hour. I love how this council is approving all these fabulous buildings, but they need to support the community. GET MORE CARPARKS. MAKE THEM MORE AFFORDABLE! I want the state government to sack the GCCC.

Last night on Today Tonight they had a storey about this site and had the grandson of the guy who gave the property to council how ever many years ago on and he said that the property was given to council to be used as a park and was always to stay that way and that was a condition of the handover. I didnt realise that this was part of it!!

GCCC are legends. Hope the 90 storey tower goes ahead! :)

I saw the story on Today Tonight too. It's the shittiest public park I've ever seen in my life! Crying to be developed... lol The grandson with an earring is a complete loser.

Go GCCC!

90 storey? I thought we were talking about 80 storeys.

the Today tonight mentioned a 98storey tower.maybe a miss print? andyway. if they want the 600 carparks, put it in the basement of the new developemnt! no big deal.
sheesh!

Totally agree but 98 storeys, gosh that would be something.

As much as I would love a 98 story tower, lets face it, the media tends to have a way of getting building heights and floor counts 'confused'.

hhmm. 98 stories

Could have 8-10 underground carparking?

OK, firstly, 98 is being thrown around because of CASA's 304.5mRL height limit, and the plan said 80+ storeys. So in reality, it could be UP TO 98 STOREYS.

Secondly, There is already underground carparking as well. I think there's a total 5 floors of parking. 2 above, 3 below.

I wouldn't say that this is definately going to happen. Too many big guns getting up against it. Rob Borbidge, Lex Bell, Max Christmas, Gary Baildon, Queensland Liberals, Surfers Paradise Chamber of Commerce, the list goes on and on.

Gives you an idea of why public transport is so crappy in this city. Lose a few parking spaces and the bastards go apeshit. Which is, ironically, also why the place is costing so much money to maintain in the first place.

Hold your horses guys. The state government has stepped in. Desley Boyle went to see the mayor today. NOT HAPPY JAN. She said that it had all gotten out of hand too fast and too far. The public is not happy either.



I support the buildings. I support making a park that people may actually WANT to go to. But I don't want to see them get rid of the last permanent council carpark in Surfers. We can't lose 600 car parks. People may see it as expensive now, but it'll soon be considered cheap after the council raises metered parking from 40c per hour to $2 per hour. I love how this council is approving all these fabulous buildings, but they need to support the community. GET MORE CARPARKS. MAKE THEM MORE AFFORDABLE! I want the state government to sack the GCCC.

Like you, there are many people who badmouth the GCCC, that is only because they are extremely misinformed and haven't a clue how the system works.
There are 5 floors of public carparking on the site that are always mostly empty...Plus the state government DOES NOT support providing cheap carparking, as it encourages people to um, well, use their cars...i'm trying to explain this to you as "primitively" as possible because I know you are conservative.

These demonstrators are mostly old and misinformed. They believe there will be a loss in carparks, when the fact is there will not. They think there will be a loss in a public park, when in fact it will be replaced with a much less dangerous one and at groundlevel. They think there will be a loss in a transit centre, when in fact a smaller one will be rebuilt.

Mayor Ron to Surfers: You decide what we do
11Dec04

MAYOR Ron Clarke wants a referendum to discover what each and every Surfers Paradise resident really thinks about the controversial sale of the transit centre.

But he won't stop there.

While he's at it, Cr Clarke plans to ask CBD residents their views on Indy, and find out whether they want the region's water to be fluoridated.

Cr Clarke's referendum plan, which he said would cost about $25,000, came after 700 people gathered in an extraordinary protest rally against the sale of the centre on Thursday.

The Mayor, who was booed and heckled when he tried to explain his side of the story, said he wanted to know what the other 28,300 Surfers Paradise residents thought about the council's decision to sell the Beach Road site but retain green space and underground car parking.

"That was a select-a-crowd, nobody who supports council would turn up to that because the protesters were too vocal," said Cr Clarke.

"The best way of solving this is by referendum."

He said all options for the transit centre site would be clearly laid out with the economic repercussions of each explained clearly.

Provided his colleagues agreed to a referendum during their last meeting for the year on Monday, Cr Clarke said the council would abide by its results.

"This council is not unreasonable - whatever they come back with, we will do," he said.

Options which were considered by the council for the transit centre site include three towers, one giant tower, partly developing the site or replacing everything with a giant park.

If Cr Clarke gets his way, the referendum would also include questions regarding fluoridation of the city's water supply, and would be used to gauge residents' views on Indy.

Cr Clarke will ask the Minister for Local Government Desley Boyle to review all the questions.

"That way we are seen to be fair, and are being fair," he said.

Although all three issues affect each resident in the city, economically or otherwise, Cr Clarke said it would be too expensive to allow every resident to take partin a vote.

"Surfers Paradise has about 29,000 residents, that's a good sample," he said.

However area councillor Susie Douglas said a referendum was unnecessary and would just be a waste of money.

"We've already had a referendum, the March election," she said.

"My platform was that I would fight against the transit centre, and I was voted in."

Cr Clarke, who controversially did not attend this year's Indy and spoke out against the event, wants to ask residents: "Do they believe that the disruption caused by Indy is overcome by the fact it has helped us economically so much?".

He said he was not trying to remove the motorsport event from the Gold Coast.

"There's no argument we're going to have it, that's a fact of life," he said.

"But there should be consideration given to the residents.

"If I'm wrong and they all support it, then that's fine."

He said he was interested in what the general public thought of fluoridated water, although the council decided last month not to fluoridate the city's water supply,

Meanwhile, Cr Eddy Sarroff, a strong supporter of retaining the transit centre site, claimed the economic figures which persuaded the council to sell up were skewed.

"The whole picture hasn't been put forward, it's all about talking down the potential income," he said. "There is a net profit for the overall complex but the officers conveniently don't want to refer to it."

Like you, there are many people who badmouth the GCCC, that is only because they are extremely misinformed and haven't a clue how the system works.
There are 5 floors of public carparking on the site that are always mostly empty...Plus the state government DOES NOT support providing cheap carparking, as it encourages people to um, well, use their cars...i'm trying to explain this to you as "primitively" as possible because I know you are conservative.

These demonstrators are mostly old and misinformed. They believe there will be a loss in carparks, when the fact is there will not. They think there will be a loss in a public park, when in fact it will be replaced with a much less dangerous one and at groundlevel. They think there will be a loss in a transit centre, when in fact a smaller one will be rebuilt.


Let me explain what I know, and my opinion. I know that there would no loss of the public park, and that it would be alot safer. WHICH I SUPPORT. No there won't be a lose of a transit centre, but there will be a loss in capacity. Not a good thing. And please explain to me how the hell there won't be a loss in car parking?

Oh, and just for your information, I am not old. I am not misinformed. And I do know how the system works, and with the GCCC, it doesn't work for the people. And the thing about the state government wanting people to get people onto public transport, is that you have to have a reliable public transport system. Here's a concept, maybe the state government could subsidise Surfside Buslines the same amount as BCC buses. At the moment, Brisbane's buses are subsidised 6 times more than Gold Coast buses are. Yes, I am conservative. So what. You're saying that I'm simple minded, just because I'm conservative. WHAT SIDE OF POLITICS IS IN POWER? CONSERVATIVE OR SOCIALIST?

And just a general note to everyone, don't count your chickens before they hatch. This won't definately go ahead.

I dont think it will lol. Simply because its a referendum. 700 people who care enough about would mean there are alot of others who also dont want it.

In the end it will probably go to the 3 towers plan. Simply because the majority of people would not know, and would not care, so theyd vote in the middle.

i reckon it will go ahead as a single tower option. if not 80 storeys, maybe 60 storeys.

Sell the site to help get a Gold Coast light rail system off the ground. Demolishing a car park to pay for light rail, perfect :-)

60 storeys is good enough for me! :)

The Light Rail system would be even better... :) :)

Sell the site to help get a Gold Coast light rail system off the ground. Demolishing a car park to pay for light rail, perfect :-)

Oh, if only. They might be able to fund the next 17 feasability studies.

Oh, and don't get me started on the buses. Handing some company a monopoly and expecting the benefits of a free market. They can't even get the right numbers on the front of the fucking things, or drivers who actually know which zones are which. (both of which I experienced today)

Let me explain what I know, and my opinion. I know that there would no loss of the public park, and that it would be alot safer. WHICH I SUPPORT. No there won't be a lose of a transit centre, but there will be a loss in capacity. Not a good thing. And please explain to me how the hell there won't be a loss in car parking?

Oh, and just for your information, I am not old. I am not misinformed. And I do know how the system works, and with the GCCC, it doesn't work for the people. And the thing about the state government wanting people to get people onto public transport, is that you have to have a reliable public transport system. Here's a concept, maybe the state government could subsidise Surfside Buslines the same amount as BCC buses. At the moment, Brisbane's buses are subsidised 6 times more than Gold Coast buses are. Yes, I am conservative. So what. You're saying that I'm simple minded, just because I'm conservative. WHAT SIDE OF POLITICS IS IN POWER? CONSERVATIVE OR SOCIALIST?

They are building a smaller transit centre simply because the current one is way too big and underutilised, it is a burden on ratepayers. There just isn't as big of a demand as there use to be for that sort of thing, airfares are cheap nowadays, not many tourists want to catch a bus to sydney when they can get a cheap 1 hour long flight. Brisbane is easy to get to via surfside, most people take advantage of the rail linkage... I mean seriously, think about it man. There are some real issues with the transit centre and that is why the actual brains behind the council (not the politicians) have been trying to get rid of it for years.

The main issue however is with the carparking. Despite what many may believe, there is never a net loss in public carparking in surfers and there never will be. There is a requirement by developers to provide public carparking on their sites. For example, The paradise centre has 450 spaces, ANA hotel has 373 (this is the one I frequently use myself, this place is never full in fact mostly empty throughout the year), The mark hotel 220 spaces. There is 110 secure spaces on view avenue and 228 on cypress avenues, plus Chevron Renaissance has 331 spaces.
In ADDITION will be in projects such as Q1, providing 118 spaces when complete. ConC will provide 305, Soul 171, dolphin arcade 96. The land on Cypress avenue has a condition on Lend Lease/Daikyo, that they will need to provide 600 public spaces when they develop the site.

Initially there will be a loss in public spaces on the transit site when the 2 level bruce bishop is demolished, but you need to keep in mind that there are 5 levels of underground carparking that will remain, there is around 500-600 car spaces here EASILY! At the moment most of them are not used because people fill up the 2 above ground levels first, the bottom levels remain untouched. Also consider that the pocket of the site sold to developers will have a requirement for ADITIONAL spaces to be provided.

Did you read the articles by Ron Clarke and Greg young in Saturdays Bulletin Toadman? If not then you probably should! When one is presented with the correct information it is quite clear that there is no problem with public carparking in surfers. The council has carried out survey upon survey and have been aware of this fact for years, unfortunately the people do not know this.

Actually yes, I did read those articles. And no, there is not any troubles with parking in Surfers. FROM MONDAY-THURSDAY! There is barely any parking on weekends(when people WANT to go into Surfers), Indy, Schoolies, New Years, School holidays, formals ect.

And inform me, HOW would the developers build 600 car parks, when there's already 5 levels of parking below them? And the Transit Centre isn't just McCafferty's buses. Surfside buses have an interchange there. Coaches park in there. Tours operate from there.

And don't get me started on Light Rail. That is the biggest dumbass pipedream ever. You don't need $400 million to give the ENTIRE GOLD COAST a good public transport system. You could do it for less than half. Ferries and buses are the only forms of public transport that are appropriate on the Gold Coast.

Actually yes, I did read those articles. And no, there is not any troubles with parking in Surfers. FROM MONDAY-THURSDAY! There is barely any parking on weekends(when people WANT to go into Surfers), Indy, Schoolies, New Years, School holidays, formals ect.

And inform me, HOW would the developers build 600 car parks, when there's already 5 levels of parking below them? And the Transit Centre isn't just McCafferty's buses. Surfside buses have an interchange there. Coaches park in there. Tours operate from there.

And don't get me started on Light Rail. That is the biggest dumbass pipedream ever. You don't need $400 million to give the ENTIRE GOLD COAST a good public transport system. You could do it for less than half. Ferries and buses are the only forms of public transport that are appropriate on the Gold Coast.

The 5 levels of carparking is only under the transit centre part of the site, not the whole site. As for the tours there is simply not enough of the market in tours to make running the centre viable at its present size, and if you think there would be then you are a clown, or just young or not very smart. "Surfside has an interchange there", are you kidding?? no seriously are you? Are you a joker? Shit surfside has an interchange there, fuck better increase capacity 300 fold!

As for you words on the light rail, are you Ron Clarkes son? Yeah I know you hate the idea in fact I have grown tired of hearing some of the nonsense that comes out of the mouths of people opposing the light rail, you really haven't a clue what your talking about. Buses alone are not an effective mode of inner city transport because they are too unpredictable and unattractive for users, and if you think that ferries along our slow speed, ever winding residential canal system would encourage people not to use their cars then you are even bigger clown than I initially suspected. There are many reasons why a light rail system is probably the best option (along with maybe a bus upgrade) for the GC but I honestly am not going to bother any further, anymore arguing with you would be wasting my time.

Oh by the way, on the weekends, yeah surfers is busy, yeah you probably find it hard to find a park in the streets (aww...), thats life, but believe me when I say you (and those old morons) should be grateful, finding a park in inner city Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane during busy periods is 50 times worse and much more expensive. Even during Indy there are plenty of vacancies in the cheap public lots I have mentioned above. The benifits of councils plan far exceed the cost of a few carparks, this whole debate is just ridiculous I am really annoyed with these people, there are serious moral oblications with the land and all these selfish idiots care about are their precious car spaces.

^^

What about trams

^^

What about trams

trams are in fact a form of light rail.

boo trams ! go metro of some sort

boo trams ! go metro of some sort

Metro would be nice, but extremely expensive. Light rail is more feasible because it's far cheaper, and less likely to die after an EIS.

Link the LR network in at a few locations with the rail line up to brisbane and you've got yourself an effective system that moves far more people than buses can. Link major tourist attractions with the LR, (a line out to the theme parks, for example), and you've got yourself another tourist attraction in itself, which also gets the tourists where they want to go.

As for where to put the line? Send one up along the beach, and put a small loop in central Surfers with a stop on the cavill mall. Easy. again, this would grab tourists. You get transit capacity back to the mall without screwing ped access (LR trains would come at the most every few mins as opposed to cars/buses being practically constant. Plus you expand the cafe feel of the street. Then you expand into the suburbs, crisscrossing across the place.

And maybe a canal ferry, but mainly for the tourists.

the proposed route.

http://www.pb.com.au/gclightrail/images/LR_Map.jpg

Would the light rail connect to the train line coming from brisbane? (i dont know where that is)

Would the light rail connect to the train line coming from brisbane? (i dont know where that is)

From what I can gather, the QR line will be extended to link with the parkwood station somehow. But I'm not sure how they plan to do that, Helensvale is the closest, and it's not the end of the line. I really don't see how they'll be able to completely eliminate a bus connection between the two without a lot of work.

http://www.pb.com.au/gclightrail/

website

If they can join the lines up (ie have the stations at the same platform so u can just jump off 1 and get on the other) it would make a bris-GC commute much easier and more people would do it.

If you click on the A circle, you get shown an aerial showing the area in more detail, and you can see the rail corridor runs between the Pac Mwy and the proposed light rail. The rail track is also relatively straight here, so building a station there wouldn't really be an issue.

Looks like an extremely good effort for a first route. It would be a success - running past shopping centres (which attract both tourists & locals), Surfers, and near the Casino by the looks of things. It'd be a great trip.

Light rail could be expanded into the suburbs easily; the city has a good network of cross-city roads which appear to have ideal placement for light rail lines.

I expect Surfside won't like it.

Now if you extended it out to the theme parks... :runaway:

The 5 levels of carparking is only under the transit centre part of the site, not the whole site. As for the tours there is simply not enough of the market in tours to make running the centre viable at its present size, and if you think there would be then you are a clown, or just young or not very smart. "Surfside has an interchange there", are you kidding?? no seriously are you? Are you a joker? Shit surfside has an interchange there, fuck better increase capacity 300 fold!

As for you words on the light rail, are you Ron Clarkes son? Yeah I know you hate the idea in fact I have grown tired of hearing some of the nonsense that comes out of the mouths of people opposing the light rail, you really haven't a clue what your talking about. Buses alone are not an effective mode of inner city transport because they are too unpredictable and unattractive for users, and if you think that ferries along our slow speed, ever winding residential canal system would encourage people not to use their cars then you are even bigger clown than I initially suspected. There are many reasons why a light rail system is probably the best option (along with maybe a bus upgrade) for the GC but I honestly am not going to bother any further, anymore arguing with you would be wasting my time.

Oh by the way, on the weekends, yeah surfers is busy, yeah you probably find it hard to find a park in the streets (aww...), thats life, but believe me when I say you (and those old morons) should be grateful, finding a park in inner city Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane during busy periods is 50 times worse and much more expensive. Even during Indy there are plenty of vacancies in the cheap public lots I have mentioned above. The benifits of councils plan far exceed the cost of a few carparks, this whole debate is just ridiculous I am really annoyed with these people, there are serious moral oblications with the land and all these selfish idiots care about are their precious car spaces.

SORRY!

SORRY that we don't want to have to be driving all around the place for half an hour looking for a park.

SORRY if we don't have the money to spend $400million on a lightrail system that serves less than a 15% of the Gold Coast population and not even 15% of the Gold Coast area(Not including north of Coomera).

SORRY if we can't rip up 2 lanes of every second road to put light-rail in. Like I said. It services a small porton of the population.

Sorry

For everyone else, the plan would include a new railway station @ Parkwood. Which they need now. Light-Rail should burn in hell! To build a decent system would cost billions.

SORRY!

SORRY that we don't want to have to be driving all around the place for half an hour looking for a park.

SORRY if we don't have the money to spend $400million on a lightrail system that serves less than a 15% of the Gold Coast population and not even 15% of the Gold Coast area(Not including north of Coomera).

SORRY if we can't rip up 2 lanes of every second road to put light-rail in. Like I said. It services a small porton of the population.

Sorry

For everyone else, the plan would include a new railway station @ Parkwood. Which they need now. Light-Rail should burn in hell! To build a decent system would cost billions.

Shit mate you need to realise they cant just build the whole system at once. It needs to start somewhere, and initially it will service the most highly populated and most touristy areas and connect them all up with the University and rail line. Then after that it will be extended to other parts of the coast where they think it'll be needed. Of course not everyone will be happy at first, SO SORRY TOADMAN THATS THE REALITY OF LIVING IN A CITY WHERE THE LOCALS WON'T ALLOW RATES TO GO UP SO THE COUNCIL HAS AT LEAST A DECENT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO WORK WITH, AND FIX ALL THE PROBLEMS THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT!

"SORRY that we don't want to have to be driving all around the place for half an hour looking for a park."

Yeah well SO YOU SHOULD BE SORRY, GO LIVE IN BLOODY TOOWOOMBA WHERE YOU WON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM, NOT IN AUSTRALIA'S FASTEST GROWING BLOODY CITY AND TOURIST BLOODY CAPITAL, YA DICKHEADS!

And in further responce (hopefully final) to your thoughts that surfers does not have enough carparks, i'll say this one, simple, powerful point for the last and final time. Maybe you will listen if I type it in bold caps lock with large size font...

THERE. ARE. HUNDREDS. OF. CARSPACES. UNDER. THE. TRANSITCENTRE. THAT. ARE. MOSTLY. ALL. EMPTY. ALL. THE. TIME!!!!!!!



:) :) :) :) but :bash: and :sleepy:

Yeah well SO YOU SHOULD BE SORRY, GO LIVE IN BLOODY TOOWOOMBA WHERE YOU WON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM, NOT IN AUSTRALIA'S FASTEST GROWING BLOODY CITY AND TOURIST BLOODY CAPITAL, YA DICKHEADS!

Some people would call having surplus car parks 'planning for the future.'

Shit mate you need to realise they cant just build the whole system at once. It needs to start somewhere, and initially it will service the most highly populated and most touristy areas and connect them all up with the University and rail line. Then after that it will be extended to other parts of the coast where they think it'll be needed. Of course not everyone will be happy at first, SO SORRY TOADMAN THATS THE REALITY OF LIVING IN A CITY WHERE THE LOCALS WON'T ALLOW RATES TO GO UP SO THE COUNCIL HAS AT LEAST A DECENT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO WORK WITH, AND FIX ALL THE PROBLEMS THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT!

Firstly, This is the entire first line. $400 million worth. That's have the annual turnover of the GCCC. That would all be built at the same time. This is about 25Km long. It's about 30-35Km further south to the border. There's another $500million. Then you would have to build north from Southport to Runaway Bay and HarbourTown. There's another 20Km. $350million. Connection from Pacific Fair to Nerang via Carrara: $200million. Connection to Robina: $200million. This is at todays prices. TOTAL: $1.65billion. When you spread that over 15 years, that's still more than $100million per year. You'd want to spend one out of every eight dollars in the council's coffers, so that we could have a Light-rail system in 15 years, that wouldn't cover the entire Gold Coast urban area(Keeping in mind that Coomera is expected to get 100,000 people in the next 20 years), stripping a population, well in excess of 700,000 people, of vital road space on the city's main arterial roads. Smart Move. I wish you were mayor of the Gold Coast. :jk:

And Ok, I accept that Surfers does have enough car parks. But will it in 2010? When there's another 15,000 people living In Surfers Paradise? When there'll be 25,000 more retail jobs in Surfers Paradise?

Some people would call having surplus car parks 'planning for the future.'



Firstly, This is the entire first line. $400 million worth. That's have the annual turnover of the GCCC. That would all be built at the same time. This is about 25Km long. It's about 30-35Km further south to the border. There's another $500million. Then you would have to build north from Southport to Runaway Bay and HarbourTown. There's another 20Km. $350million. Connection from Pacific Fair to Nerang via Carrara: $200million. Connection to Robina: $200million. This is at todays prices. TOTAL: $1.65billion. When you spread that over 15 years, that's still more than $100million per year. You'd want to spend one out of every eight dollars in the council's coffers, so that we could have a Light-rail system in 15 years, that wouldn't cover the entire Gold Coast urban area(Keeping in mind that Coomera is expected to get 100,000 people in the next 20 years), stripping a population, well in excess of 700,000 people, of vital road space on the city's main arterial roads. Smart Move. I wish you were mayor of the Gold Coast. :jk:

And Ok, I accept that Surfers does have enough car parks. But will it in 2010? When there's another 15,000 people living In Surfers Paradise? When there'll be 25,000 more retail jobs in Surfers Paradise?

Never work in finance, because you guess alot. How the hell do you know what it will cost to extend the line. You don't, so don't go into uncharted territory. What annoys me most is that you are acting like a full expert on this like you know everything about everything there is to know.

Will there be enough carspaces in 2010? Will it matter? There will definately be more cars on the road hence more traffic. There will probably be too much traffic, and people will need some other way of getting into surfers anyway. But how? I mean, if theres more traffic volumes , how will your precious buses save us? They use the road to... Of course if people are encouraged not to drive their cars and travel by some other means (light rail will do a much better job at this than buses, do I need to prove this to you too?), therefore there will be less traffic volumes, unfortunately (for you) this squashes your theory that it will strip the city of vital road space, seeing that it is actually creating MORE road space.

In addition, do you think that having plenty of cheap carparks in surfers in 2010 is going to encourage less car usage? I don't think so, it would just make traffic even worse! You may think that having surplus carparks is planning for the future, but I don't, more like, planning for a catastrophic future,.

Unfortunately our dickhead mayor is being very self opinionised on the light rail issue, he doesn't like it, the poor sod. He would prefer those little capsule things that were literally laughed out of council a few months back. Now the state government is holding back on the proposal because the mayor is against it. So we'll at least have to wait until this guy is voted out (will probably be the next election), or if he changes his mind.

P.S. TOADMAN What the hell are you doing to the GC forum? YOU ARE FILLING IT UP WITH ALL THIS ONE LINE REPLIES! Please stop, I came online today and you have posted in almost every thread on the first page. Are you spamming? :bash:

They were approximations based on the cost and distance of this line. And I personally don't like catching buses. But I do think that they are essential, and they need to be more reliable and have better coverage. I am in favour of a ferry system. It could be set up for a fraction of the cost of light rail, and it would cover more of the Gold Coast.

He's a question for you, if you were a day-tripper from Brisbane, would you park-and-ride @ Parkwood, or would you drive the rest of the way? I very much doubt that that many people would park and ride. Therefore, they'd be stuck in traffic on the now 2 lane Sundale Bridge. Don't you love that.... When the city's major road(Gold Coast Highway) from the north and one of the major east-west roads(Nerang-Soutport Road) join together to cram into 1 lane. And what would they do on Macintosh Island? They couldn't build on the median strip. Unless you want services to cease during Indy. They couldn't build on the park side of the road. There'd be protests from half the city. 'THEY'VE DONE IT AGAIN' would be the headline on the front page of the Gold Coast Bulletin. They couldn't put the tracks on the western side of the road, that's private property. And you can't by-pass Macintosh Island. The Esplanade is 2 lanes. And Narrowneck isn't wide enough to put the equivalent of another 2 laned road in.



P.S. I was bored. Decided to see what reaction I would get.

They were approximations based on the cost and distance of this line. And I personally don't like catching buses. But I do think that they are essential, and they need to be more reliable and have better coverage. I am in favour of a ferry system. It could be set up for a fraction of the cost of light rail, and it would cover more of the Gold Coast.

He's a question for you, if you were a day-tripper from Brisbane, would you park-and-ride @ Parkwood, or would you drive the rest of the way? I very much doubt that that many people would park and ride. Therefore, they'd be stuck in traffic on the now 2 lane Sundale Bridge. Don't you love that.... When the city's major road(Gold Coast Highway) from the north and one of the major east-west roads(Nerang-Soutport Road) join together to cram into 1 lane. And what would they do on Macintosh Island? They couldn't build on the median strip. Unless you want services to cease during Indy. They couldn't build on the park side of the road. There'd be protests from half the city. 'THEY'VE DONE IT AGAIN' would be the headline on the front page of the Gold Coast Bulletin. They couldn't put the tracks on the western side of the road, that's private property. And you can't by-pass Macintosh Island. The Esplanade is 2 lanes. And Narrowneck isn't wide enough to put the equivalent of another 2 laned road in.



P.S. I was bored. Decided to see what reaction I would get.

If I was a day tripper from Brisbane, No I wouldn't drive to parkwood and park and ride, what a ridiculous scenario. The whole point of the parkwood station is so it links to the train line. I think there would be a lot of day trippers from Brisbane who would much prefer to use public transport the whole way, than to the long and tiring drive down and back.

You don't seem to have a very broad enough understanding of the issue judging by your posts. Most conservative people have this personality draw back when it comes to issues containing any degree of complexity...

P.S. The reaction you get from cramming up the forums with useless posts is that people will think you are a spammer. Spamming is LOUSY!

People can already use Public Transport all the way out to the coast. They can even do it on one single ticket.

It was my understanding that in the event this comes to fruition, the light rail line will utilise a newly constructed bridge, parallel to the existing bridge. Frankly, even without rail I think a new bridge is probably warranted, sooner rather than later. Even in your perfect universe, probably even moreso if there is to be no overhaul of public transit, a second bridge or expanded bridge will be necessary for the future.

Yes. A second bridge is needed. And it should happen. But it won't happen for ages. Why? Greenies who don't realise cars release more emissions when they're stuck in traffic. The procrastinating State Government. One such example:Nerang-Broadbeach Road. It was first allocated funding the year I moved to the Gold Coast, 1999. It was announce a year before that. Not only is very little actually constructed, but the money hasn't been completely set aside. 6 years after they first started funding the project. Other examples, Ross Street Bridge, Frank Street, Cruise Ship Terminal, Dredging of the Broadwater, Seaway, lower Coomera River and Currumbin Creek. These projects should have been COMPLETED at least 5 years ago. When there was around 85,000 less people living on the Gold Coast. Ross Street Bridge is now U/C. They're still trying to be typical humanists with Frank Street. The Cruise Ship Terminal is having feasibility studies done., Dredging the Broadwater and Currumbin Creek is underway, but the Seaway and Coomera River aren't being done.

If you want things done to a capacity that would have been adequate 15 years ago, get a Labor government to do it. If you want it done properly, get the Liberals.

heres a quick 304m/1000ft bldg envelope for Transit site. Ive stuck it in my surfers diagram. nice spot for a landmark

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/transitfullpano.jpg

sweet as;)

u think Transit Centre will be that tall?

Wow!! Gold Coast is gonna look awesome!! :) I like the density around Sould & Circle on Caville. Hope the this tower goes ahead at the height shown in the drawing.

awesome diagram.

thanx. the 304m height envelope is what the transit site can be built to. This means bldg can probably be shaped into a bldg similar to Q1 with a spire or arch feature.
304 is approx 100storeys, so 80 is approx 250m high.

one more question, will it really be that dense??

^ yes. as seen from that angle the Circle on Cavill are behind Dolphin towers with Soul in front. all line up togther.The area between Q1 and Soul is going to be the "CBD" if you will. this is where they want the 'super towers" located.

I think the year is wrong.

It should have 2008/09

^ when i drew the diagram in 2002, 2005 was correct. lol.
but as you can imagine ive been updating every few months. Ive actually changed to heading to 2006, but this diagram is an old one for which i altered. i will change heading to 2007+ asap.

closer

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v158/culwulla/MVC-042F.jpg

I hope they build somethinig square like in your diagram - that sort of has a Chicago look about it.

304m will be nice.

jt

holishit! if they all get built, GC will have one of the finest skylines in Aus~~~~~~~~:D

^like it's not already

:)

i wish 50 caville av was 3 times as high... its one noice commercial building.

Yes the first time I drove past it I was quite suprised to see a commercial building in Gold Coast, and it sure is a nice one indeed.

That must be one of the sexiest envelopes i have seen lately hahaha.

I wouldn't care if they built one huge block of reflective glass aka Trump world Tower - all gold. It would make nice use of the envelope :)

BTW Soul looks fantastic, they should pop it in at the Transit centre site at an enlarged 400m height. that would look even more stunning.

i wish 50 caville av was 3 times as high... its one noice commercial building.
which one ?

I hope they build somethinig square like in your diagram - that sort of has a Chicago look about it. 304m will be nice. jt
you want a straight up square ?

you want a straight up square ?

Something minimalist would be nice there.

jt

I also think the GC could do with a glass box. It actually has none does it?

we dont have much glass....:(

(altho we are getting some :))

I also think the GC could do with a glass box. It actually has none does it?

There are a few in bundall but they're not very big. Also southport has a handfull of reflective glass office buildings.

Avalon has a lot of glass.

have been looking at a plan of the transit centre and found that the bottom three floors (out of 5) are not used . they have been built below the flood level (built 1993)
also ceiling height does not comply with building codes (minimumn height 2.4m)
so far there has been 8 options and only 1 preferred by the council ( 2 maybe) to build on this site yes ---up to---80 levels (tower height to be limited by council decision in early 2005-- quote by council) 2 parks on either side of this building as well . the council want this done by private development so no cost to ratepayers.
this transit & carpark are an eyesore in surfers lets get rid of it now plus its been built badly. from the start

i hope they live up the name of the development 'Transit Centre' and actually incorporate some sort of transport solution to surfers (as well as adding a lovely 80 storey building) hopefully this development could be a part of the whole transport plan for the gold coast.

^If there was a traffic solution to surfers it would have little to do with this building. That would be done out of expansions in bus services (state government incentives on surfside), a possible light rail network in the future or some other un thought of plan, and traffic management. Thats pretty much as far as they can go. The current transit centre is mainly used for intercity or state bus services.

this is great both sydney and gc set for new huge ones up to 300m!!

^
Which project is the Sydney one? And what about the height limit?

the sydney one is the Patrick site with a 330m Height limit look in the nsw forums

^
Which project is the Sydney one? And what about the height limit?

click>
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=3276705#post3276705

State Gov have recently acquired a 22 hectare site in centre of Sydney's CBD which is void of council regualtions , including height limit! In reality the site can accomadate 12x 45storey Australia squares! The height limit is set by CASA at 330m.
Should be an intersting next few years??

In the GC bulletin a couple of days ago, it said that the bottem three floors of the underground car-park will be closed during summer and storms. This is because the councils insurance policy won't cover cars that are stuck down there during floods. If that's not a good reason why the above-ground car-park shouldn't be demolished, I don't know what is. At the moment, the top three floors(two above, one below) are consistantly in use. We will be left with just two floors of parks. That is not enough!

In the GC bulletin a couple of days ago, it said that the bottem three floors of the underground car-park will be closed during summer and storms. This is because the councils insurance policy won't cover cars that are stuck down there during floods. If that's not a good reason why the above-ground car-park shouldn't be demolished, I don't know what is. At the moment, the top three floors(two above, one below) are consistantly in use. We will be left with just two floors of parks. That is not enough!

Remember that developers on the southern corner of the site will be required to provide public carspaces, replacing those in what is currently the sad wastage of land that is bruce bishop carpark.

Cul's scoop from the Q1 thread.

And not forgetting the 100storey/304m Tower planned for the Transit site.! oops you didnt hear that from me.lol
lets just say a large Sydney based apartment builder is interested in the transit site.wink!wink!

WOW!!!

^ lol. yeah well only early days but it does look like the Transit site will host a 304m/1000ft apartment tower which will be approx 100sstoreys. The 304m height doesnt include spires or antennas.So not sure if CASA will allow a stick or mast higher but they did for Q1. So if a 50m spire is designed into the top and given approval , then you have a tower taller the Eureka! amazing hey!
Surfers will be the "dubai" of Australia! with many supertalls rising above the beaches!

if its 304m to roof it will already BE taller than Eureka.

If its approx 100storeys then it will have most floors in Australia. Imagine that - a 100 floor scraper in Australia!!

Eureka 91
Q1 78
World Tower 75
Vision 72
Soul 72
Circle on Cavill 70
http://www.skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?9627304

yeah especially in such a small city like the coast!~

certainly unique.
Theres alot of beach holiday cities full of HEAPS of scrapers..
None of them build that high


The GC is building very high.

if its 304m to roof it will already BE taller than Eureka.
yeah but these days you have to include all spires/antennas/masts ect to become positively no 1!

F#^&*ing tall nevertheless - Australia in general is going off with talls eh! So - Cul any indication of time frames or when we can expect some more information.

100 story building would be great! It will look perhaps slightly unusual but with all the other monsters there it will be great hopefully.

jt

Quote:

Originally Posted by CULWULLA

"lets just say a large Sydney based apartment builder is interested in the transit site. wink!wink!"

100 Levels of Meritonia Woo-hoo! :no:

i would guess commencement of tower would be 2008 with completion 2011?

Should go up about the same time as the 400m high tower on the Spencer Street power station site in Melbourne :-)

And the 850m high Central Place project in Brisbane. :P

Anyone got any pics of CP1?

Its all sounds exciting but don't meriton build cheap quality buildings? I know there are a few horrible ones in mainbeach, although I am impressed with their project in southport with shores. What is Harry's reputation in Sydney?

nah, Meriton now build only quality buildings. just look at WORLD TOWER! Also SHORES @ southport. new towers at broadbeach. They have Bob Nation as there head architect now, so its best designs in Australia!

Personally I think Meriton's designs are still cheap and ugly.

I'd be very surprised to see a building with a full 60 metres more of occupied floors than Q1 on the Gold Coast.

Q1 always seemed a stretch to me...its really a 245m residential tower with ornaments (fin and spire) which had to go to market as tallest residential even though its apartments are not.

Is there really a market for 100 floors of premium residential after Q1 and Soul?

Both those designs are very slender and I'd imagine this one would follow suit even more so to beat Q1, if that is indeed the intention.

I'd say the market will determine how tall this thing goes and how (floors or spire).

Lets just enjoy Q1 and Eureka shall we instead of idle speculation.

^ idle speculation which came from someone reliable (cul)

We'll see.
Im both for, AND against it.
More of the tallest buildings in QLD (SEQ too, basically same city :P :P :P)
but then Brisbane falls further back on the Tallest in QLD list.

its got plus's and minus's. Great that our state can manage two major skyscraper cities and another 2-3 on top of that with medium sized ones (Cairns, Toowoomba, Townsville.. only Toowoomba and Tville have potential to grow though, since cairns has a limit) not to mention the sunshine coasts medium rises.

I'd be very surprised to see a building with a full 60 metres more of occupied floors than Q1 on the Gold Coast.

Q1 always seemed a stretch to me...its really a 245m residential tower with ornaments (fin and spire) which had to go to market as tallest residential even though its apartments are not.

Is there really a market for 100 floors of premium residential after Q1 and Soul?

Both those designs are very slender and I'd imagine this one would follow suit even more so to beat Q1, if that is indeed the intention.

I'd say the market will determine how tall this thing goes and how (floors or spire).

Lets just enjoy Q1 and Eureka shall we instead of idle speculation.
I understand Q1 is basically a 245m bldg with a wrap around glass membrane and spire BUT it is 80storeys and has 74 floors of ACTUAL units which is the same as Eureka! this is the main thing!
Also Q1 is basically sold out! Eureka still has 100 units for sale. SOUL is already 25% sold and Circle on cavill is selling well too. Thats the thing with the Gold Coast, property ALWAYS sells!!
Most apartment towers are slim! this is a requirment by planning law (to allow sun access into each apartment).
The transit site will definalety go to its full 100storey height which is 304m.
The council realize its a rare large site which can host a large project.

Repeat:

I'd say the market will determine how tall this thing goes and how (floors or spire).

:)

Still seems you have a scoop Cul, Spill the beans! :)

I understand Q1 is basically a 245m bldg with a wrap around glass membrane and spire BUT it is 80storeys and has 74 floors of ACTUAL units which is the same as Eureka! this is the main thing!
Also Q1 is basically sold out! Eureka still has 100 units for sale. SOUL is already 25% sold and Circle on cavill is selling well too. Thats the thing with the Gold Coast, property ALWAYS sells!!
Most apartment towers are slim! this is a requirment by planning law (to allow sun access into each apartment).
The transit site will definalety go to its full 100storey height which is 304m.
The council realize its a rare large site which can host a large project.

Its not just southern buyers who are investing in the Gold Coast - its owner occupiers who are really driving the market now. Since the M1 was completed Surfers Paradise is now a very attractive option for people working in Brisbane. Brisbane CBD is only an hour drive away which is closer than many of Sydney and Melbourne's outer suburbs. International buyers are also making waves in GC - especially those from the middle east.

jt

Thats the thing with the Gold Coast, property ALWAYS sells!!

It will not last forever, in a few months when a large number of apartment buildings (including Q1) are finished at the same time there will be an oversupply, especially in the rental market and you will see a big drop in off the plan apartment sales.

Nothing overly dramatic but exactly the same as what happened in the Melbourne market 18 months ago after a sustained 5 year boom in apartment sales.

Gold Coast apartment prices are falling faster than in Melbourne and Inner Melbourne has a vacancy rate exactly the same as the Gold Coast, so why will there be an endless boom on the Gold Coast?

Spetember Quarter 2004:

Apartment Vacancy Rate:
Inner Melbourne: 4.2%
Gold Coast 4.2%

Aaprtment prices:
Gold Coast: -1.9%
Melbourne: -0.7%

It will not last forever, in a few months when a large number of apartment buildings (including Q1) are finished at the same time there will be an oversupply, especially in the rental market and you will see a big drop in off the plan apartment sales.

Nothing overly dramatic but exactly the same as what happened in the Melbourne market 18 months ago after a sustained 5 year boom in apartment sales.

Gold Coast apartment prices are falling faster than in Melbourne and Inner Melbourne has a vacancy rate exactly the same as the Gold Coast, so why will there be an endless boom on the Gold Coast?

Spetember Quarter 2004:

Apartment Vacancy Rate:
Inner Melbourne: 4.2%
Gold Coast 4.2%

Aaprtment prices:
Gold Coast: -1.9%
Melbourne: -0.7%

Don't think there will be much of an oversupply in GC. The population is growing too rapidly and there is limited suburban growth occuring - the council is putting the breaks on new subdivisions in GC which is pushing up prices.

Also the way Surfers is developing at ground level with shops, restaurants, clubs - basically its becoming very urban and a very desirable place to be - and to do business from.

jt

I don't think there will be a huge oversupply or crash or anything that dramatic, because most developers are starting to pull back a bit, but to think that the current rate of construction is sutainable is wishful thinking that would cause a crash if left unchecked.

The Gold Coast is growing fast and there will be lots more aprtment towers to come, but even the Gold Coast has it's limits.

The CITY OF Melbourne had a population growth rate of 7.9% (2002-2003), twice the rate of the Gold Coast, yet somehow the Gold Coast has unlimited demand to meet any level of supply and inner Melbourne doesn't?

the GC isnt the same as Syd, Melb, Bris, Perth or Adelaide.

It doesnt work the same. Its a completly different thing, in a different category.
If youve been there you would know.

When u think about it the number of ppl moving to SEQ would need space. Id prefer a lost of apartment buildings to houses.

I don't think there will be a huge oversupply or crash or anything that dramatic, because most developers are starting to pull back a bit, but to think that the current rate of construction is sutainable is wishful thinking that would cause a crash if left unchecked.

The Gold Coast is growing fast and there will be lots more aprtment towers to come, but even the Gold Coast has it's limits.

The CITY OF Melbourne had a population growth rate of 7.9% (2002-2003), twice the rate of the Gold Coast, yet somehow the Gold Coast has unlimited demand to meet any level of supply and inner Melbourne doesn't?

Wouldn't most of Melbournes boom be from people moving from the suburbs into the city? That would be completely different. Are those growth figures for the "CITY" of Melbourne alone or the entire urban area?


The GC boom is in its peak atm, but I think things will start to settle down till about 2008/9. The GC has never suffered from oversupply, the city is growing so rapidly such that the property market will remain steady. I posted an article not long ago but not many people replied to it. Studies show that the current projects UC (inc. Q1, ConC, avalon, etc) will ease pressure off surfers for less than 12 months. If nothing is built after this wave of projects their will be huge demand.

The majority of people who move into a city like Sydney move into the western suburbs, I would guess the same is the case in Melbourne(ie. outer suburbs).
The Gold Coast is not like that, that's why they can sustain such a high rate of building.

Imagine if the majority of migrants to Sydney/Melbourne move into or near the CBD - they'd be massive with apartment towers. So even though the total migration to the Gold Coast may be less than for Sydney or Melbourne, it's still a large number moving into a smallish area.

the Transit site building will go to full 100storey/304m height envelope. GC never suffers from oversupply.its growing so rapidly atm.
the current pop is 500,000. in 7 years it will be 115,000.

^ you mean 115,000 more? Also does it look likely it will be approved?, its such a big tower for where its going. I mean this is goldie for gosh sake, i thought 80 storeys would be enough, and that anything taller would be build somewhere in hong kong or new york.

This G/C thing is going real wierd. If this transit building happens - the G/C will surely rival any city in the country for sheer skyline appeal - even Sydney.

the Transit site building will go to full 100storey/304m height envelope. GC never suffers from oversupply.its growing so rapidly atm.
the current pop is 500,000. in 7 years it will be 115,000.

Wow, I didn't think it would shrink that much!! :P

#Proposed-100st/304m -Transit Centre (Gold Coast)

Where are the renders / plans to back up this thread title?

The CITY OF Melbourne had a population growth rate of 7.9% (2002-2003), twice the rate of the Gold Coast, yet somehow the Gold Coast has unlimited demand to meet any level of supply and inner Melbourne doesn't?

That is one tiny area in Melbourne v a giant area on the GC....you're comparing two differnt things and so it means nothing. Why not compare it to something at least vaugly similar - Surfers Paradise at 6.1%.

True, it's hard to make a direct comparison, I was just trying to show that inner city Melbourne is growing very fast as well but nobody is saying that every apartment tower ever proposed in the area will get built no matter what :-)

Even Sunland are taking a break on the Gold Coast and will be concentrating on Dubai for the next few years.

#Proposed-100st/304m -Transit Centre (Gold Coast)

Where are the renders / plans to back up this thread title?
obviously no renders or plans yet. but envelope has been agreed apon and now doubt who ever developes it will take full advantage of masterplan.

This is great. Brisbane's skyline is getting some big, new monsters and if this gets built, the Gold Coast will be evermore wonderful for a skyscraper nut like myself. Just got to watch for neck-cramps from looking up all the time.

"ooooh, it's so taaaall!"

Obviously the Gold Coast is going to slow down a little just like every other city on the East Coast is starting to slow. When it all comes down to it, who would have thought that the current cycle on the east coast would have seen Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and the Gold Coast all get new tallest buildings and all of those would be residential.

It would be stupid to assume that the gold coast is going to keep up its current level of development given that Penninsula was the tallest for so many years, but at the same time, I doubt it will slow quite as much as the rest of the country including Brisbane. What does concern me for the Gold Coast, if not all of SEQ is the ability of the govt to keep infrastructure levels at a suitable level. IMO this might be the thing that grinds this city to a halt and makes it a little less desirable place to live.

Ok, I was at the council chambers today, and had a close look at the proposals. It has changed my view from a 'HELL NO!!!' to a 'maybe.' I'm still not comfortable with the number of car parks that we would be losing, but after looking at those options, I have decided to not support it, but not against it either.

So long as we get a great building, I'll support it.

100stories and 304 must be a great building ;)

But they better not cost cut :cough:ChevronRenaissance:cough:

The Gold Coast City Council has NOT yet decided what the height limits on the site will be. In November last year council resolved that: the matter of height controls within this precinct be referred to the Strategic Growth Management Committee for consideration prior to sale of the site.

The Strategic Growth Management Committee will consider the height controls on 14 March 2005. Council will CONTROL (GCCC emphasis) building height on the site in response to public concerns.

This was reported in the Gold COast Mail on 12/02/2005:

A Transit Centre document prepared by the council’s economic development director, Greg Young, visualises a development which could include two accommodation towers (heights to be limited), a coach set-down and waiting areas, the demolition of the carpark and parkland and a new urban park at ground level.

something a bit off topic, but still talking about what grollo and orfeo where saying half way up the page. Would you guys say that brisbane is booming now? or is it going to boom, or has it just finished its boom, ect. Just needed the no this, I don't want this thread to go to off topic, and i don't wanna start a new thread.

The ground floor of the tower must be AHD 3.36m (to avoid flooding) So the tallest building they could possibly build (except for spires) would be 301.14m high.

We should definately go for an exception from CASA. Let's get it up to 380-400m.:) That'll kick you Melbournite Eureka ASS!!!:P

I propose we bring back the Brisbane Central Project while were at building a 380-400m tower. lol

380-400? u wish :D

Yes, yes I do

acually so do i :)

Great minds think alike

stupid minds also think alike.

--;;

The ground floor of the tower must be AHD 3.36m (to avoid flooding) So the tallest building they could possibly build (except for spires) would be 301.14m high.
The exact height control is 304.8m. im not sure if this is RL or above grd. but ill find out.

It is to AHD, that why Q1 could only go to 298m without permission from CASA. So the tallest building they could build on the site would be 301.44m

yeah i thought AHD. im just finding out atm the grd RL ot Transit site. i think its 4m. so looks like it will be 301m approx. not a bad height.lol

Thats still 3 metres taller to the roof than Eureka! ;) lol

We should definately go for an exception from CASA. Let's get it up to 380-400m.:) That'll kick you Melbournite Eureka ASS!!!:P

:rofl:

Bring it on, remember Melbourne has NO height limit ;-)

I do have this hunch that if a 300m+ building is announced in somewhere other than Melbourne, a 400m+ building will be announced within a week in Melbourne... Bastards! :tongue2:

Yes. But the Gold Coast will form an alliance of Gold Coast(Sunland, Raptis), Sunshine Coast(Juniper), Brisbane(Anyone but Devine) and Sydney(Meriton) developers(who are pissed because of the height limit), and the white shoe brigade will then march on CASA headquarters and remove our limit. Then, we will build a 500m tower shaped like a hand sticking up the finger in Melbourne's direction.

Why not stick Austcorp in your list of pissed developers :)

im not sure having a height limit = developers not wanting to erect a huge tower. There are no plans atm in Sydney for a 200m+ bldg. let alone a 235m+. Youi have to have demand for a massive apartment tower.atm most aussie cities are saturated with inner city units. Gold coast will always have an advantage beacuse its a holiday destination and weather/location is perfect!

Why not stick Austcorp in your list of pissed developers :)

It'll be the battle of the two blocs. The White Shoe Brigade Vs. Melbourne Developers(Grollo. lol). But there will be some that will be allied to the two sides, but won't formally align themselves

Why not stick Austcorp in your list of pissed developers :)

It'll be the battle of the two blocs. The White Shoe Brigade Vs. Melbourne Developers(Grollo. lol), who are allied with CASA, which is why they don't have a height limit. But there will be some that will be allied to the two sides, but won't formally align themselves. This will be the War of Air Rights, and will go down in history alongside some not so significant battles, such as the Battle of Trafalgar, the Battle of Waterloo, the Battle of Verdun, the Battle of Midway, and the Battle of Tripoli.

Well, lets sure as heck hope that what's below is on the '15 storey tower' of the 15 and 80+ plan.

Bold bid for hostel at transit centre

Gold Coast Sun, 28-09-2005, Ed: 1 - GC Sun North, Pg: 031, 343 words ,
UP to 2000 backpackers a night would stay in a 12-storey hostel above the Surfers Paradise Transit Centre under a developer's plan unveiled last week. The proposal aims to mirror the infamous `Club Vagabond' in Switzerland - built in the 1960s in Les...

Oh the horror!;)

Having said that, one imagines there are a number of developers bidding for this site, and this hopefully a proposal for the smaller (up to 15 stories) tower on the site. Cos if it's a replacement for the 100storey tower, well that would be a wickety wack.

Don't know, maybe someone has read the rest of the article, maybe it says something about other options, it was in the Bulletin as well.

the 100storey bldg envelope is still part of the site. The 12storey backpac is the north part of site.

Well that's a relief!:) Still good to see something is slowly starting to happen at last:).

What's with all these half-complete news articles I have been seeing lately? Where do they come from and where is the rest of them??

They're from Newstext (http://www.newstext.com.au/pages/main.asp). You can search any News Ltd newspaper in Australia but to get more than the first few lines you gotta pay.

So if you want to know where in Switzerland Club Vagabond was you gotta fork over some dough....or buy the Gold Coast Sun.

Cool thanks for that Oriolus :)

This building will be a monster and i can see it going higher than 304m, would be nice to see a building challenge a masted Eureka for pure square height.

Yep, it's a big site, far back from the beach.

Perfect place to go higher than Eureka to roof, and I believe that is exactly what they intend to do!;)

This building will be a monster and i can see it going higher than 304m, would be nice to see a building challenge a masted Eureka for pure square height.
the max height limit imposed for the site is RL305m/1000ft or 300m/985ft above grnd. Its probably going to be about 80storeys which equates to 250m. then an arc feature or spire will take it to 300m.

why cant they just make a solid design like Eureka?? GC has enough spires and fins

Yep, just go the full 300m to roof, why stop at 250, it's not like it's Soul and right next to the beach afterall!

I agree, developers need to grow some balls and build some solid buildings instead of lying about heights. I dont consider Q1 more than 10m-ish taller than sydneys tallest to be perfectly honest.

LAS3R said earlier in this thread that he chatted with a planner that said:

that something 'unbelievable' could very well be built on the site.
So anywhay i went on chatting about Q1 and asking how high can we go and will something possibly go taller, he laughed and said Q1 is nothing special and that the proposals allowed for 80+ storys and he made it clear that the '+' symbol does not mean under 90 storeys. But my jaw really hit the table when... ...he said some developers or somebody (he wouldn't tell me) wanted way over 80 storyes and he did use the word 'WAY' (hehehe me excited ) but they would have problems with aviation authority's.

So that means developers want to do it, I see no good reason why we couldn't go 300m to roof on the site.

I mean, Sunland were cleared to go to 300m on the Coc site if they wanted, this site is even better, so why not!

I agree, developers need to grow some balls and build some solid buildings instead of lying about heights. I dont consider Q1 more than 10m-ish taller than sydneys tallest to be perfectly honest.

I agree, personally i think the roof or highest inhabital floor should determine the tallest.

I stuck Ocean Heights (which is about 310m) from Dubai on the Transit Centre site, bear in mind from this view it would be a lot closer to the camera than Q1.

I'd like to see something like this, if you add in Coc at full height nearby and Soul, the the TT at 305m to roof, works nicely I think.

http://img335.imageshack.us/img335/5430/oceanh8cp.jpg

yeah, that would work nicely :)

If only.

Locke great job, that looks awesome! Lets hope something like that will eventually happen!

Found this pic on the net somewhere, taken from Q1. The Transit Centre site is clearly visible as the rather brown looking park area in the centre left of the image. Huge site!

http://www.cmrdesign.net/towers/ViewNorth.jpg

Perfect spot.

C+c and Soul then transit center tower will look awsome.

I like the dubai tower, would be very sexy in there ;)

I think Surfers definetly deserves a twisting tall skyscrapper on TC site. Something different to Q1 and ConC :)

Maybe something like a smaller Fordham Spire propossed for Chicago would work well.

~DJ.

Great pic fireflymairi, gives a great overview of the site. Perfect for our first 100 storey tower:).

From a few months back, but gives you an idea of tower position:
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/4871/news1ck.jpg

Oh so the whole block of land is going to be split, and the tower and the transit centre wont be connected in any way? Good idea to sell part of the block off and use the money for the transit centre.

Does anyone know what the Q100 standard is?

guessing once every 100 years flood level ?

Q100 stands for "Quantity of Floors 100", it means they have to build a minimum of 100 floors;)

Anyway, I wouldn't be that surprised if that picture is part of a sketch of one of a potential early proposals, the glassy look of it and the swoop in the design reminds me kinda of Eric Lee DBI designs (ie Soul, Q1, Circle, Dolphin, CBD etc). Course maybe they just got some great sketchers are council!

Found this on the council site, nothing new, but gives you an idea of how the layout of those chosen option 2A (one tower 80+ st., one tower 14 st.) will look.

Actually more parkland than before, and a great restaurant boulevard alongside.

And of course, with any luck a soaring 300m icon! What a fantastic outcome for all!:)

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/9040/t49aa.jpg

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/9509/t33nu.jpg

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7033/t14hc.jpg

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5579/t21fo.jpg

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7647/t59nd.jpg

fantastic. its good to know a 300m giant is on horizon.

wooo maybee AU is gonna finally get a 100 floor building :)

http://members.optusnet.com.au/chrismayhew59/gc_transit.JPG

One of the more interesting aspects of this -- if indeed a 100+ storey building does go ahead -- is that Australia's first building of this size will be outside all our capital cities. Uh, unless Melbourne doesn't pip us at the last minute :runaway:

As much as we all would like to see it happen, I don't think it will actually reach 100 stories.

I can almost imagine it - Surfers101:) 'The next level in Gold Coast residential living';)

Well I guess the good thing is, they can only build one tall tower on it (not for instance the twin 80 storey towers that were rumoured at one stage). This means, all the floors have to go in the one tower, no splitting it over two like with the Circle. If you do that, then 100 storey isn't really that much. As a bonus it fits neatly in the envelope, so you don't even have to go to CASA.

Of course all it's all speculation for now, it could all fizzle out, but I hope not.

Realistically, a 100-storey building isn't too likely. 80-ish stories is probably more realistic. Still, a city with a population of 500,000 that could have four 200m+ buildings is pretty damn impressive!

Brisbane will quickly become known as the GC's big little brother :D

I just don't see the big deal in adding an extra 20 floors.

How many 20 floors buildings go up every day on the coast and no one notices? How had is it to sell 20 floors on the Gold Coast?

Not very hard if you ask me.

Besides, the Circle, next door is 120 storeys - fast selling development on the GC. Chevron Renaissance - which had excellent sales had 130 floors!

So what is 100 really? It's less units to sell than those projects, but with the extra marketing pull of having the biggest and best tower on the coast. I guarantee it would sell, big quality projects always sell well on the coast, especially if it is an iconic building.

And even if they don't, well big deal, if you don't get enough pre-sales then just don't build it.

But I'd like to see a developer have the balls to try. If they did, I think it would be a runaway hit. No guts no glory as they say;)

Brisbane and gold coast are pretty much the same city!

I just don't see the big deal in adding an extra 20 floors.

But wouldn't you think that there would be many more 100+ storey buildings in other, far more skyscraper-packed cities around the world, if it was so easy to combine multiple buildings into one? I'm not professing to be an expert on this, but I would guess that there are many complications, structural, economic and bureaucratic, involved with the construction of such a large building.

comparinbg the Good Earth image to the aerial sketches, will the surround buildings be demolished, or have the just been built after the sketces were drawn....And looking at the footprint of Q1 over the area Transit Centre would be, Q1 is almsot twice as big....
what's going on there?
cheers

Brisbane and gold coast are pretty much the same city!
Almost - but not quite. The small gap will never be filled - the seq regional plan will see to that.
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/8763/brissprawl1ig.png (http://imageshack.us)

I took the aerial pic and superimposed the proposed plan over the top, and highlighted the Q1 block... looking at this, it doesnt appear the land they have set aside for the new tower on the transit centre block is anywhere close (it looks to be about a third) of the size of the block that Q1 is on. Don't they need a certain sized block before they go building massive towers??

http://www.cmrdesign.net/towers/aerial-transit-centre.jpg

The Tower 2 proposal for Transit site is quite slender. probably 3/4 size floor plate of Q1, thus the 300m height that can be achieved.The current land area for tower 2 would INCLUDE the south park. its all the same plot.thus the FSR required to build a tall tower.
cheers

Ah I see, thanks for that Culwulla. When you say "probably 3/4 size floor plate of Q1, thus the 300m height that can be achieved" I'm not sure how that works - does a skinnier tower make it easier to build higher because less materials and hence cost, or something?

Yer i never noticed that before jayt. I new that brisbane might eventually merg with the gold coast, but i though there was a bigger gap.

firefly - it's to do with floor space ratio, which seems like a silly concept to me - essentially it limits density but heres how it works:

Floor space ratio (FSR) is the figure obtained when the sum of the area of all floors of all the buildings on the site is divided by the total area of the site. Allowable FSR varies from zone to zone.

The current land area for tower 2 would INCLUDE the south park. its all the same plot.thus the FSR required to build a tall tower.So that's about 5000 sqm according to the map. Does anyone know the allowable FSR for the site?

Well since the whole block counts it's a pretty big piece of land in that respect.

Good thing is, the TC has got none of the shadow issues that Q1 and Soul had to contend with, since they were so much closer to the beach. So I mean, freedom to go to 305m is rare. Of course after that I guess you gotta start sweetalking CASA;)

But you know, Soul took it to the max on it's site, so did Q1, so let see that here, after all that's what the "+" in "80+" in Option 2A is all about (as opposed to Option 2, which was just 80) (mind you I suppose I could live with 80 floors plus a solid roof feature that takes it up to 300m, but it's gotta be solid, none of this Q1 see thru it stuff please;) (though that was cos it was closer to the beach).

im not sure what he max FSR is for GC. In sydney its 12;1 for office and 17;1 for resi.
There would be no shadow issues for a 300m tower on transit site.

Those FSR seem so small though. I'm sure I've heard of ratios in NYC being something like 20:1 or more.

It will be interseting to see what height limit the council decides to put on the site when they put it out to tender.

should be still 300m. or 80-100storeys.

Yep, should do, I wonder when the process gets started? Should be starting up soonish now you'd imagine.

Thanks for the explanation Oriolus!

Makes a bit more sense now. It would be very interesting to hear what the FSR is on the Gold Coast.

100 storeis would make it aleast 340m's wouldnt it. John hancock (chicago) is around that, residential and has 100 stories.

It seems the FSR (or plot ratio - it's the same thing isn't it?) for the site (ie the whole Transit Centre site) is:

Base: 4:1
Maximum (only acheivable on demonstration of design merit): 6.5:1

It's says so in the GCCC's Transit Centre Report (http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/attachment/publications/pm375_sptc_abridged_report_21.pdf) (where Locke got those pics from) on page 24. Its also says the height limit is unlimited (althought CASA has a height limit right? - was it 304m RL??)

So the entire site is 18,085sqm meaning floor area for both buildings can be between 72,340sqm and 117,552sqm. Not sure what that translates into in numbers of floors.

100 storeis would make it aleast 340m's wouldnt it. John hancock (chicago) is around that, residential and has 100 stories.John Hancock has office and residential floors. Most residential towers have floor to floor heights of 3.0m or sometimes less.

So whats the average floor height for office towers?

Depends most are 3.2 Plus.

It's says so in the GCCC's Transit Centre Report (http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/attachment/publications/pm375_sptc_abridged_report_21.pdf) (where Locke got those pics from) on page 24. Its also says the height limit is unlimited (althought CASA has a height limit right? - was it 304m RL??)


Page 1 of the same report:

No 15 - CONTROL BUILDING HEIGHT (SUBJECT TO DECISION IN 2005)

Page 4 of the same report:

CURRENT COUNCIL ORDERS INVESTIGATION INTO :

o TOWER HEIGHT CONTROLS (INTENT IS TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT)

Page 5 of the same report:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION G04.1129.026 - 15: That the matter of height controls within this precinct be referred to the Strategic Growth Management Committee for consideration prior to sale of the site.

The height limit at the moment is the 304m (RL) limit imposed by CASA so why bother going to all the effort of having a committee meeting to control building height on the site if the height limit will not be changed?

So whats the average floor height for office towers?
most resi now are 3m and office are 4m. some obviously more or less.
if there is a committee that will descide the ultimate height of the site it would still be atleast 80storeys which equates to 80x3m=240m+.thats not including slopped roof or arc feature which could add a further 30-40m, thus 275m-280m.either way it will be a big one.

Yeah couse, you gotta look at it in context, it's in an unlimited height area, the report recommends an 80+ story proposal. It'll be 'height limited' in the way the Circle was - in other words, lots of freedom to go up to the CASA height.

^ have i mentioned Meriton have expressed interest in the site.

Is this connected with Mertion looking to 'beat' Q1 on the Gold Coast. If so then bring it Harry, lets seem what you got!;)

yeah. not sure whats happening lately, but im sure harryt has something up his sleeve.

Not sure if this has been posted before, but I stumbled across it and thought it was a good read...

http://www.gccc.com.au/attachment/publications/pm375_sptc_abridged_report_21.pdf

Entitled "Surfers Paradise Transit Centre - THE FACTS" !

thanx good read. i hope harryt pulls his finger out and does something with this DA.this would be his signature tower on the GC, or australia even.

The tender process starts next year doesn't it? Lot of developers have been circling round this site for years, heard whatever is chosen it will be a landmark tower and design.

transit site really is so close to Q1 (park). should be agreat looking across at another supertall.

pic by locke
http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/7525/q0291pw.jpg

Yeah it's very close isn't it Culwulla, it connects Q1 with the rest of the talls. Perfect spot for Q2 really!:)

Here is another angle:
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/89/b15jl.jpg

Well 90 confirmed, the usual suspects having a whinge, but she'll get up!:)

This is your Q1 and Eureka beater folks!

90-floor transit centre tower
Gold Coast Bulletin 6Apr06

THE Surfers Paradise transit centre may be replaced with a tower soaring 10 storeys higher than Q1. Councillors were yesterday told a 90-storey high rise would maximise the financial return when the council-owned site was sold to developers.

However, new figures tabled yesterday and obtained by The Bulletin revealed profits would be less than the $40 million originally expected from the fire sale of the public asset.

The figures show profits would rapidly drop if public car parks which are expensive to replace were reinstated into any future redevelopment. They would fall even further if a lower height limit was imposed, with the council barely making a profit on a 30-storey tower.

The council wants to sell the unprofitable centre and revitalise the site but area councillor Susie Douglas said 90 storeys was 'out of the question' and the sale should be scrapped. Q1, built by devel-oper Soheil Abedian and his Sunland Group, has 80 storeys.

"We're going to start looking like Hong Kong," said Cr Douglas. "The only practical solution is to keep the site and the buildings and sell the airspace above the transit centre." Cr Peter Young said his colleagues were selling the best piece of land in the city when the finances did not stack up.

"What a woeful arrangement it looks like being," he said. Chief executive officer Dale Dickson, who led the briefing behind closed doors yesterday, stressed issues of height and profit were academic until tenders from developers were considered. He said profit was not paramount.

"The considerations are not purely financial. That's been one of the great myths from this decision," he said. Mr Dickson said there were other objectives that prompted the sale, including revival of the precinct and obtaining a new public park.

More than a year ago, city councillors controversially agreed to sell off the Beach Road site and rebuild the transit centre alongside twin towers and a new park.

The decision resulted in a mass protest from residents concerned about the sale of the valuable public site and the loss of parking. Councillors are expected to set out the parameters of the tender and send it to the development industry in the next few months.

Mr Dickson said it would then take at least 12 months to consider all the tenders and make an ultimate decision. Councillors agreed the height of the second tower should be about 14 storeys.

Economic and cultural committee chairwoman Cr Jan Grew said a huge tower was an option because the site was in an unrestricted height zone. "The issue is not a 90-storey building. We are talking about a sparkling new precinct to replace what is old and daggy.

"Nothing is concrete these are all just options," said Cr Grew. However, planning chairman Cr Ted Shepherd said a 90- storey tower was inappropriate for the area.

"I would fight that vigorously," he said. Cr Shepherd said he would push for 60 storeys, with 300 of the 600 car spaces retained.

Surfers Paradise Chamber of Commerce president Tom Tate was given a briefing last week and said he was not pleased with the council proposal. "Bring back Dolly," he said, referring to country music star Dolly Parton. Mr Tate said Parton's canned plans for the site, which had involved a $60 million Aussie Stampede tourist venture, were better than the city council's.

He said the council was edging towards providing less public car parking which was unacceptable for Surfers Paradise businesses.

Nice find Locke.

We have to wait 12 months for a decision?
90 storeys sounds like a ~280-300m to roof and who knows what arc features.

Wow what a shit fight this will be ;)

i would love it to be 90 storeys but i have a feeling it will drop to 60.
stupid councillors.

bump

Reposted from the other thread:

Well 90 confirmed, the usual suspects having a whinge, but she'll get up!

This is your Q1 and Eureka beater folks!

90-floor transit centre tower
Gold Coast Bulletin 6Apr06

THE Surfers Paradise transit centre may be replaced with a tower soaring 10 storeys higher than Q1. Councillors were yesterday told a 90-storey high rise would maximise the financial return when the council-owned site was sold to developers.

However, new figures tabled yesterday and obtained by The Bulletin revealed profits would be less than the $40 million originally expected from the fire sale of the public asset.

The figures show profits would rapidly drop if public car parks which are expensive to replace were reinstated into any future redevelopment. They would fall even further if a lower height limit was imposed, with the council barely making a profit on a 30-storey tower.

The council wants to sell the unprofitable centre and revitalise the site but area councillor Susie Douglas said 90 storeys was 'out of the question' and the sale should be scrapped. Q1, built by devel-oper Soheil Abedian and his Sunland Group, has 80 storeys.

"We're going to start looking like Hong Kong," said Cr Douglas. "The only practical solution is to keep the site and the buildings and sell the airspace above the transit centre." Cr Peter Young said his colleagues were selling the best piece of land in the city when the finances did not stack up.

"What a woeful arrangement it looks like being," he said. Chief executive officer Dale Dickson, who led the briefing behind closed doors yesterday, stressed issues of height and profit were academic until tenders from developers were considered. He said profit was not paramount.

"The considerations are not purely financial. That's been one of the great myths from this decision," he said. Mr Dickson said there were other objectives that prompted the sale, including revival of the precinct and obtaining a new public park.

More than a year ago, city councillors controversially agreed to sell off the Beach Road site and rebuild the transit centre alongside twin towers and a new park.

The decision resulted in a mass protest from residents concerned about the sale of the valuable public site and the loss of parking. Councillors are expected to set out the parameters of the tender and send it to the development industry in the next few months.

Mr Dickson said it would then take at least 12 months to consider all the tenders and make an ultimate decision. Councillors agreed the height of the second tower should be about 14 storeys.

Economic and cultural committee chairwoman Cr Jan Grew said a huge tower was an option because the site was in an unrestricted height zone. "The issue is not a 90-storey building. We are talking about a sparkling new precinct to replace what is old and daggy.

"Nothing is concrete these are all just options," said Cr Grew. However, planning chairman Cr Ted Shepherd said a 90- storey tower was inappropriate for the area.

"I would fight that vigorously," he said. Cr Shepherd said he would push for 60 storeys, with 300 of the 600 car spaces retained.

Surfers Paradise Chamber of Commerce president Tom Tate was given a briefing last week and said he was not pleased with the council proposal. "Bring back Dolly," he said, referring to country music star Dolly Parton. Mr Tate said Parton's canned plans for the site, which had involved a $60 million Aussie Stampede tourist venture, were better than the city council's.

He said the council was edging towards providing less public car parking which was unacceptable for Surfers Paradise businesses.

Well I guess this thread will be deleted since the older thread still exists, but nah, I wouldn't worry Culwulla, it wouldn't be the coast if a few feathers didn't fly at every council meeting, and the Bulletin for lack of anything else to do didn't try to sensationalise it, but this baby has the numbers and will get up:)

can I ask cul, what does culwulla actually mean?

Beat me to posting it Locke! It's likely we will see a radically different council after the next election in 2? years, including a new mayor. So hopefully these negative people will get booted!!!! This of course could go the other way.

I think the coast is a long way off becoming HK, realistically given the layout of the ocean and th canals, you are never going to get more than 3 or 4 towers in an east/west layout. Therefore the coast will never rival HK for density.

I want to see 300m to roof ... I'd be pissed if they coped out at 297 like Eureka! (Don't get me wrong Melbourne people, 297 is still impressive but its not magical like 300 :))