Suncorp are consolidating all of their CBD space. Grocons site at 480 Queen is one of the short listed developments.

Suncorp are consolidating all of their CBD space. Grocons site at 480 Queen is one of the short listed developments.

This would mean a big tower wouldn't it?

They are after very big floorplates, but yes, it could be. I think they are after 55,000sqm.

I think the Southpoint site at Southbank is the most likely site. It fits their brief better than almost all the others (especially the CBD sites) and it's in a far better location than their first preference at the RNA grounds.

Trilogy is possible, but I sincerely hope not. That site needs a signature tower or nothing.

I know we are getting a little off topic, however I thought 480 Queen Street could get a massive amount of office space in a podium. If they topped it off with a hotel and some apartments, it could still be quite a large tower.

Grocon won't put anything on top. It will be a purpose-built office and no more (ATO style).

Suncorp wanted a site that was as close as possible to a "campus style" development. They rejected innumerable offers from CBD tower developments. They want a 3,000m2 floor plate. They are preferencing sites just outside the CBD. The fact that Grocon still have not bought the site, nor have they submitted any DA is a big problem too. Same deal as with Leighton's bid.

Grocon won't put anything on top. It will be a purpose-built office and no more (ATO style).

Suncorp wanted a site that was as close as possible to a "campus style" development. They rejected innumerable offers from CBD tower developments. They want a 3,000m2 floor plate. They are preferencing sites just outside the CBD. The fact that Grocon still have not bought the site, nor have they submitted any DA is a big problem too. Same deal as with Leighton's bid.

I've heard that the Grocon bid was the only one which couldn't achieve the 3,000sqm floorplates, so may be more of a tower form rather than a stumpy block.

I can't remember exactly but recall hearing that the Grocon proposal housed the 35,000sqm Suncorp requirement within an overall 50,000sqm tower.

I've heard that the Grocon bid was the only one which couldn't achieve the 3,000sqm floorplates

The only other one in the top 5 would be the dental school site.

So, are we expecting Brisbane Square to be half empty soon?

Grocon won't put anything on top. It will be a purpose-built office and no more (ATO style).

Suncorp wanted a site that was as close as possible to a "campus style" development. They rejected innumerable offers from CBD tower developments. They want a 3,000m2 floor plate. They are preferencing sites just outside the CBD. The fact that Grocon still have not bought the site, nor have they submitted any DA is a big problem too. Same deal as with Leighton's bid.

I've heard the Grocon DA for 480 Queen is imminent. I've also been fortunate enough to see the plans and hear abit about their proposal. Suncorp wouldnt be the only tenant, the building is sort of split into two buildings, ones for Suncorp ones for other tenants. It's no Signature building but if you worked for Suncorp you would be suitably impressed.

So, are we expecting Brisbane Square to be half empty soon?

Suncorp are keeping their lease in Brisbane Square, its their other 5 buildings (I think its 5) which have leases that run out over the next 4 years.

I've heard the Grocon DA for 480 Queen is imminent. I've also been fortunate enough to see the plans and hear abit about their proposal. Suncorp wouldnt be the only tenant, the building is sort of split into two buildings, ones for Suncorp ones for other tenants. It's no Signature building but if you worked for Suncorp you would be suitably impressed.

Thanks Yuma. How tall?

I've heard the Grocon DA for 480 Queen is imminent.

It is only imminent IF they get the Suncorp deal. Remember they only have an option over the site.

^^ When is Suncorp giving the green light? If it's not today, then it looks like Grocon is going ahead regardless. DA: A003148514 for 480 Queen St lodged today. No docs up yet.

Thanks Nathan:

^^ When is Suncorp giving the green light? If it's not today, then it looks like Grocon is going ahead regardless. DA: A003148514 for 480 Queen St lodged today. No docs up yet.

Obviously Suncorp have made their decision. Grocon wouldn't waste money on DA fees if they didn't get the go ahead.

i am guessing the assessment fee for a 30,000sqm+ office building is not cheap... does grocon know something everyone else doesn't??

I It's no Signature building but if you worked for Suncorp you would be suitably impressed.

Is it short? this site really needs a signature building and I will be disappointed if it gets anything less considering the scarcity of quality development sites.

Why not? Plenty of companies propose office towers and then search for someone to lease it to.

Regardless, I just hope we get something decent out of them! I don't want Grocon doing to this site what they did to Empire Square!

I have a bad feeling about this.....

^^ I know what you mean. I'm hoping we get a proposal on par with 111+222, but I'm not holding my breath...

No way. I'm expecting nothing more than 25-30 floors.

^^ In which case we'd be better off turning it into parkland until a REAL proposal for the site is thought of!

Grocon are out to make money, not records. This would be a short one... or two short ones by the sound of it.

Why not? Plenty of companies propose office towers and then search for someone to lease it to.

But in this current climate???

^^There are many reports of a tightning office space requirements in the Brisbane CBD over the next 10 years. There is also demand to move for B grade space and below into A and Premium Grade spaces.

Nononononononononononono!!!!!

:bash:

There is also demand to move for B grade space and below into A and Premium Grade spaces.

This line is confusing...are you meaning there is demand for refurbing B grade office stock into A and Premium grade?

He means there is demand for relocating from B grade buildings to A and premium.

That's what I mean. Admittedly I have just inferred this by the vacancy rates.

I just feel this one is going to be another kick in the nuts. I'm already bracing:P

Fuck grocon, no one wants you, i would rather 10 midtowns than something bad on this site

Fuck grocon, no one wants you, i would rather 10 midtowns than something bad on this site

Simple solution - start your own development company, buy the site and develop it.

If you aren't able to do that then you need to accept the realities of the property market - developers will only develop what they can sell and make a profit from.

Fuck grocon, no one wants you, i would rather 10 midtowns than something bad on this site

There is one thing that Meriton has taught us about Brisbane, very tall buildings can be built on very small sites. Look at Infinity, tiny site.

Let them develop this in the way they want. It all comes down to economics.

Exactly, as long as the design is good I'm happy. If it is small, it also gives us the opportunity to have a larger CBD in the long run.

Obviously Suncorp have made their decision. Grocon wouldn't waste money on DA fees if they didn't get the go ahead.

Apparently the EOI for Suncorp's space requirement will be reduced from the current shortlist of 5 proponents to 2 proponents towards the end of August, so it's highly unlikely a firm decision has been made yet.

A reminder that the 5 shortlisted options are: Grocon, Trilogy site; Leightons, Turbot St site; Watpac, Waterloo Junction; Lend Lease, RNA Site and; Southpoint site, Southbank (always forget that developers name).

Anthony John's Group ;)

I would have though that the RNA site would be a better fit for a more campus style building and that the state would be trying to encourage more people to work there,

On the other hand I bet Grocon has there beady eyes on the citys best block - supreme court, Though they might go all out and build 20 stories on it =)

It is only imminent IF they get the Suncorp deal. Remember they only have an option over the site.

As NathanDavid posted they have now submitted it. They do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in one basket but they also are quite confident they will get there target like they did with the ATO. It will be interesting though, because even if the ATO say yes they have to find a lot of other tenants to fill the space. I believe the non suncorp section of the building is 30 stories (it could be slightly higher, I only had a quick estimate by looking at the documents)

Just thought I would post this in this thread as well

As NathanDavid posted they have now submitted it. They do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in one basket but they also are quite confident they will get there target like they did with the ATO. It will be interesting though, because even if the ATO say yes they have to find a lot of other tenants to fill the space. I believe the non suncorp section of the building is 30 stories (it could be slightly higher, I only had a quick estimate by looking at the documents)

As NathanDavid posted they have now submitted it. They do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in one basket but they also are quite confident they will get there target like they did with the ATO. It will be interesting though, because even if the ATO say yes they have to find a lot of other tenants to fill the space. I believe the non suncorp section of the building is 30 stories (it could be slightly higher, I only had a quick estimate by looking at the documents)

So, how many stories in total??

The application says Impact Generally Inappropriate. What would make that site Generally Inappropriate? Height? Density? Use?

^^ I'm no expert, but from what I've seen, it often seems to refer to the size and scale of the proposed project. Not necessarily tall though, could just be due to overall bulk. Hard to say until we see plans (not up as of 11:30am today).

Or even something as mundane as setbacks or carpark numbers. Height wouldn't trigger an Impact Assessment.

^^ Those too. Basically, anything that isn't quite inline with Council's expectations. Don't get your hopes up yet JayT, wait until we get some renders!

call me a pessimist but i don't think there will be anything here to get our hopes up about.

As NathanDavid posted they have now submitted it. They do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in one basket but they also are quite confident they will get there target like they did with the ATO. It will be interesting though, because even if the ATO say yes they have to find a lot of other tenants to fill the space. I believe the non suncorp section of the building is 30 stories (it could be slightly higher, I only had a quick estimate by looking at the documents)

If that is in one tower, then the height would be about 55 stories. Otherwise it could be a 25st tower and a 30st tower.

We'll have to wait and see.

Docs up.

Docs up!

Edit: You just beat me KJBrissy!

Development consists of podium, mid rise and high rise tower. Mid rise 10 stories , high rise 19 levels with max RL 156.15.

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/7972/480q.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/706/480q.jpg/)

So far it's definitely not what I was hoping for (ie. Trilogy Mk2), but a bit better than I was expecting (ie. Elizabeth St ATO Office Mk2). The elevated park idea I have to say I really like!

meh

no, its bad for architectural/skyscraper aficionados. Another 150m for Brissy. If it was 180m, then that may have been passable for me. But this just sucks for this site. so unfortunate. Brisbane just has bad timing with these proposals. Different economic climate, possibly different outcomes. I hope it doesn't get built and something better comes along.

It looks like it would be an incredicle place to work though.

It looks like it would be an incredicle place to work though.

The tower building itself is fine though to me it would be suited more to the roma street precinct or bowen hills.

It looks like it would be an incredicle place to work though.


yeah but thats not much of a consolation.

The site also includes the old 470 Queen Street site.

^^ A good idea that, because a 470 Queen St development would leave 480 Queen as an 'L' shaped block that would have been quite difficult to work with.

After having a decent read through, I really like the public realm aspects of this. The elevated park especially I'd love to check out. Design wise, similarities with Santos Place stick out, but it is a good 50-100m too short really.

Interestingly, they want to built it in two stages, Midrise first, then high rise after, with the mid rise to be occupied prior to the highrise' completion. Construction is proposed to begin in February.

And an interesting little side bit of info: remember the building that sat on the 470 Queen St site that had the facade that a few of us thought was heritage, but was 'discovered' to be a replica? Apparently, that might not have been the case. The building was the original RACQ headquarters and was actually listed (and still is despite it's demolition) on the BCC Heritage Register. Here's a photo of it from 1955 - the RACQ's Golden Jubilee:

http://www.racq.com.au/__data/assets/image/0007/54763/1955_jubilee.jpg

Now, it could still be considered a replica, but it must have been a pretty early replica, and not the 80s pastiche that I was thinking of.

Development consists of podium, mid rise and high rise tower. Mid rise 10 stories , high rise 19 levels with max RL 156.15.

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/7972/480q.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/706/480q.jpg/)

Their documents are confusing me.

If I'm not mistaken, the development consists of a podium, a "mid-rise tower" on top of the podium and a "high-rise tower" on top of the mid-rise. So it's really just one tower, with different forms as you go up.

36 stories total, height as stated above RL156.15.

Looks like it has shiny glass.

I was never expecting much height here. The main thing will be the quality of the podium and the degree of street-level activation.

^^I'm not dissapointed as I wasn't expecting a massively tall tower. It looks like this could be Brisbane's largest Office tower as far as GFA is concerned. There is more than 65,000sqm, however I cannot find the exact number.

To be honest, I'll just be happy when the street frontage has been filled in. It is a hard walk to Petrie Bight sometimes, particularly in summer.

Meh, another 50m or more then I'd be inerested.

I was never expecting much height here. The main thing will be the quality of the podium and the degree of street-level activation.

From what I saw in the plans (which I'll post up tonight if no one has done it by then), the street activation is very impressive. There will be a full cross block link through the site from Queen St up to Adelaide St, designed in a way to allow a view of St John's Cathedral when passing through, as well as an 'elevated park' which is intended to be open to the public up on level 5 - the same height up as St John's.

Podium design looks pretty good IMO, particularly up on Adelaide St side.

Agree. I'm actually quite excited about that bit.

The footprint on that thing is utterly MAMMOTH. Words fail me.

I am also rather pleased to see that you can actually see St John's straight through the building.

Having now seen these plans, I think they'll bag the deal with Suncorp. Suncorp wanted something as close to the Macquarie Bank building in Sydney as possible, and the lower levels of this one, whilst not that good, don't disappoint. There is an internal campus style design, whopping floorplates, connection with the pedestrian street below.. It's very well done when compared against the Suncorp brief. I have to tip my hat to Grocon on this one in terms of strategy.

Oh, and JayT, the "impact generally inappropriate" is due to setbacks and bulk.

wow .. boring! what a waste of a prime site.

^^I'm not dissapointed as I wasn't expecting a massively tall tower. It looks like this could be Brisbane's largest Office tower as far as GFA is concerned. There is more than 65,000sqm, however I cannot find the exact number.


Infact there is 80,230 of GFA in the tower!

Cross block link and street activation is great.

Design of tower is exceedingly boring and boxy.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at52114PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at50540PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at50415PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at50350PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at50109PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at43617PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at43545PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at43423PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at43408PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at43013PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at42959PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at42925PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at42854PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at42835PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at42824PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at42608PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at42430PM.png

Infact there is 80,230 of GFA in the tower!

Good gravy!

i remember Auroras ground RL =RL10m, would this be similar? thus 146m above street?
looks ok. brisbane need big bldgs. 80,000sqm one of largest in OZ/

Thead title change?

IMO if the glass is stunning, I'm all for it. If not, go away.

Too mediocre *fingers crossed* it gets knocked back.

The Queen St frontage is great, the other side looks like a spotted fridge on its side. I think if the market could handle it another 20 stories on the tower would make the proportions perfect.

LOVE the view corridor through. Skeptical on the function of the 'park'.

Grocon are pretty much convinced they have Suncorp in the bag. As I said previously the building would be an impressive place to work.

The external renders are actually slightly different to the ones I had previously seen. Definately an improvement.

If they had made it rounded or wavey shaped it wouldnt be so bad but as per usual no out of the box creative design from the architects.

I don't like it, its making me feel claustrophobic just looking at it for some reason, I feel like there is to much going on on the lower levels and it doesn't add the skyline at all its just a brick. wonder if grocon will go ahead even if they don't get suncorp?

Here are some public realm images to go with the others.

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/391/parkupper.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/29/parkupper.jpg/)

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9971/parklower.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/853/parklower.jpg/)

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/8238/adelaidest.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/adelaidest.jpg/)

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/1346/queenst.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/queenst.jpg/)


IMO if the glass is stunning, I'm all for it. If not, go away.

The glass they've referenced in the plans includes the glass on the Myer HQ in Melbourne, the coloured sections from Santos Place, and elements from 60 Albert St.

I think most people's disappoint springs from the fact a 250m+ was previously proposed on the site. If we never had Trilogy, I think a lot of people would be fairly appreciative of this tower.

As design goes, it's very boring and uninspiring for most of it, but as others have said, the cross block link, park and street activation is pretty cool and great to see put forward from the beginning.

I also don't mind the height either, because I personally don't like lopsided skylines, and having this scale up to Aurora will work well, especially if a larger tower in the future is built on the sites bounded by Queen/Wharf/Adelaide.

I don't mind this building, i like how they've "opened up" the building so you can see St. Johns. Interesting design in all but it's not that exciting.

While in some respects I’m disappointed that it’s not as tall as Trilogy, which would have dominated that section of the skyline and filled the gap nicely between Aurora and Soleil, when you look at the detail in the design it’s got a lot going for and not a bad Plan B outcome. (Would we all have been so disappointed if Trilogy had never been proposed for the site?)

In some respects the design is superior to Trilogy. It has better street activation, the cross block link is brilliant, it’s setback on Adelaide Street and different finishes to the more corporate Queen Street facade makes it more sympathetic to the Cathedral . Also the podium gardens and the 600 bay bike park will tick the green boxes for the Council.

As far as the height is concerned at 36 stories and 146m it’s actually quite comparable to what is going up in Sydney right now. Just consider Westfield Tower - 31L / 151m , 8 Chifley Square (Goodsell Tower) - 21st/146m and, the one everyone is raving about, Space (1 Bligh St) - 30L / 139m (also built by Grocon coincidently).

Sure it doesn’t rate up there height-wise against Sydney’s ANZ Centre (163 Castlereagh) - 46L / 195m, but we have 111 Eagle which is basically the same height with 222 Margaret to rival Melbourne’s Eureka. So all in all not too shabby when you put it into the context of the rest of the eastern seaboard.

Grocon have done an outstanding job on 1 Blight Street and the Donovan Hill design is a class act so I think Grocon can, and will, do a quality job here. Shorter quality designs seem to be where the market is at and probably represent less risk for developers with one eye over their shoulder looking for GFC mark two.

Oh and I agree that they’ll snare Suncorp with their ‘campus’ level floorplates.

...

Fuck off Grocon!

Design is fine, and I like the glass, but, but... but it's fat and short to boot, which after Trilogy with its iconic latern is really disappointing.

All in all, better than the pitiful effort on the Empire Square site, if it were half as fat and twice as tall it would be something, but it's not, it's another slap in the face with a cold fish, but at least it's a nicer fish this time round.

a bit uninspiring.. i think it will look very very big with the massive podium from the footpath. i also think the high-rise tower section should be viewed as a "maybe" rather than a definite.. grocon will build the lower section only if they get suncorp.. but to build the high-rise section they need to get a whole heap of other tenants and that may or may not happen... and suncorp may or may not be accepting of having a tower built on top of them while they work. so not really a definite.

a bit uninspiring.. i think it will look very very big with the massive podium from the footpath. i also think the high-rise tower section should be viewed as a "maybe" rather than a definite.. grocon will build the lower section only if they get suncorp.. but to build the high-rise section they need to get a whole heap of other tenants and that may or may not happen... and suncorp may or may not be accepting of having a tower built on top of them while they work. so not really a definite.

This then makes me think is it worth spending that type of money on the land just for the campus? Its Mincom all over again.

I don't mind it...and good in terms of additional floorspace for Brisbane CBD: 80,230sqm GFA is big!

Including massive floorplates may be the only way to attract office tenants to the CBD these days. Residential towers = tall and slender, Commercial towers = short and stump. Otherwise they'll go for campus-style accommodation on the city fringe.

At least we still have an iconic 111+222 to look forward to.

So Donovan Hill are using the multi-coloured panel thing again as they did for the Santos building. Seems to becoming a bit of a signature style for them.

So Donovan Hill are using the multi-coloured panel thing again as they did for the Santos building. Seems to becoming a bit of a signature style for them.

It's not a DH building though is it, wish it was, havn't looked at the DA [edit - not happy, expect more from DH and BVN]. LAT27 logo are on the linked drawings.

Visionary?
Creativity?
Innovative?

Bah...

Gound level design is fantastic with the through site plaza link, void spaces etc.

To play devil's advocate here, the quality of the renders uploaded are pretty shitty and I don't think they really do justice to the sort of glass they are proposing for the tower. From what I've seen on the plans, I'm expecting a mix of Santos's coloured parts around the Adelaide St side of the podium (to frame the cathedral), with Myer HQ-style glass over the rest of it, and I don't think the renders really capture those types of glass very well.

While I'm not exactly a fan of Grocon due to their Elizabeth St project, as most people here would know, I honestly don't hate this. Yes, it's 50–150m too short, but they've really addressed the public realm well, appearing to have done a better job of it that Trilogy did. They've included a cross block link, kept the new view of the cathedral from Queen St by having a huge open section through the complex (as that's wasn't an existing view, they weren't obliged to retain it), they've included an elevated park at the same level as the back of the cathedral (one which I will certainly be checking out when it's built) and appear to be intent on using some quite good quality glass on it.

I say let them build this, it's not half bad. If we want a new big one in the area, knock down that big brown turd next door and build it there!

At least we still have an iconic 111+222 to look forward to.

Bet grocon have there beady eyes on that site to, on the other hand we know it will turn out well if grocon are constructed to build it like Bligh st sydney.

This tower will stick out like dogs balls. There are no towers either SE or NW of this.

As I stated in the 149m thread, it is taller than the Riverside Centre.

There are features of the design that do impress me such as the voids at the rear of the building. I am unimpressed with the Queen Street side - very bland in my view.

This tower will stick out like dogs balls. There are no towers either SE or NW of this.

As I stated in the 149m thread, it is taller than the Riverside Centre.

Too true. It will add some density too.

The pedestrian path from Queen to Adelaide will be great and will be used by a lot of people.

I love it!

a bit uninspiring.. i think it will look very very big with the massive podium from the footpath. i also think the high-rise tower section should be viewed as a "maybe" rather than a definite.. grocon will build the lower section only if they get suncorp.. but to build the high-rise section they need to get a whole heap of other tenants and that may or may not happen... and suncorp may or may not be accepting of having a tower built on top of them while they work. so not really a definite.

This is a very good point. Stage two might not be built. So in essence we could be left with a very short fat building on this site. Given the current climate I would think that trying to fill stage two would be very hard considering the large amount of competition out there.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at52114PM.png

The current climate is very very good for Office. There has been a massive absorbtion rate with much more predicted through the LNG industry (a 4th plant has moved much closer to fruition with another big contract signed).
The large floorplates in the remainder of the tower will be very attractive.

^^ But with 34 floors of the Regent Tower, 34 floors of 111 Mary Street, ~60% of 111 Eagle, ~20% of King George, 22 Floors of Seymour's Bowen Hills tower all hunting for tenants and all A-grade office space. You'll need an extreme amount of mining activity to fill all of these. I doubt the LNG sector boom could do it.

^^That isn't actually a massive amount of space to be honest (It with a lot of the smaller stuff would probably only be about 4-5 years worth of supply). All you need is a few other organisations that want to consolidate offices, or a few of the older offices to start a refurb and you get your space prtty quickly. With the Mining space, you also need more legal firm space, more space for banks, etc. The list goes on.

Fuck off Grocon!

Is it actually designed by Grocon?

No.

It looks like Bligh Voller Nield and Donovan Hill are the architects.

^^ Actually, speaking of offices getting refurbs, I've noticed quite a few are trying to freshen themselves up. Quite a lot of them - I counted over half a dozen that I walked past a few weeks ago - are trying to get their...NABERS rating I think it was, up with a few working on much needed freshening up their entrance/foyer/street appeal to try and keep up with the newer buildings.

No.

It looks like Bligh Voller Nield and Donovan Hill are the architects.

Then why does Tic keep saying fuck off Grocon as if the ugliness of the whole building is their fault?

^^ Not the ugliness, but the lack of height I'd say is probably what Tic is getting at. That's the reason for so much hate, the fact that Trilogy was much higher.

Really though, Brisbane has been extremely lucky to get high quality buildings like 111 Eagle, and tallies like Soliel and Infinity, but we can't win them all.

The current climate is very very good for Office. There has been a massive absorbtion rate with much more predicted through the LNG industry (a 4th plant has moved much closer to fruition with another big contract signed).
The large floorplates in the remainder of the tower will be very attractive.

You are way too optimistic. There has been little to no flow-on effect from the current state of the LNG industry to office space absorption. Any such comments are pure speculation that are thus far not backed up with any evidence. Santos *might* be one exception, but they committed to new space pre-GFC.

Further, there has not been a "massive absorption rate" - I have no idea where that came from. There has been improvement.

The remainder of the tower has 1,500m2 floorplates, on par with The Regent.

Considering the current economic climate, the commercial absorption rate in Brisbane has been very high against historical trends.

Considering the current economic climate, the commercial absorption rate in Brisbane has been very high against historical trends.

But this is in relation to new stock only - not commercial absorption across the board. The driver has been consolidations and upgrades, not new companies seeking space or existing companies seeking extra space.

There is a difference between the two. Quite a serious difference.

http://www.propertyoz.com.au/qld/Article/NewsDetail.aspx?p=16&id=4598

Where it says an 'Absorbtion of 38,108sqm in Brisbane CBD office space achieved over the six-month period to July, more than triple the 20-year average,' I would assume this would include all absorbtion, specifically as the vacancy rate fell by 2% overall.

Consolidation and upgrades would not reduce the overall vacancy rate I wouldn't have thought.

But this is in relation to new stock only - not commercial absorption across the board. The driver has been consolidations and upgrades, not new companies seeking space or existing companies seeking extra space.

There is a difference between the two. Quite a serious difference.

and when a new tower gets built the tenants just don't appear out of thin air.. almost always they move out of an existing building. yes they might take extra space for expansion but then modern office fitouts are typically more dense/efficient than older ones. so to fill 62,000sqm at 111 eagle there is going to be, say, 50,000sqm of backfill space left behind that someone else has to fill... or else vacancy will go up, rents will go down and motivation to build new towers will disappear.

so yeah, i agree with marty. the completion of 111 will push up vacancy again. suncorp got, what, 20 - 30 proposals put to them?? that shows that there are heaps of options for tenants and not everything is going to get built.

http://www.propertyoz.com.au/qld/Article/NewsDetail.aspx?p=16&id=4598

Where it says an 'Absorbtion of 38,108sqm in Brisbane CBD office space achieved over the six-month period to July, more than triple the 20-year average,' I would assume this would include all absorbtion, specifically as the vacancy rate fell by 2% overall.

Consolidation and upgrades would not reduce the overall vacancy rate I wouldn't have thought.

that's kind of like saying... "i lifted 80kg at the gym last night, which is way more than the average of what i have lifted at the gym over the last 20 years, therefore i am awesome".

it ignores the fact that 20 years ago i was in nappies and what i could lift back then isn't really relevant to what i can lift right now.

Well a big 80 000 sqm tower is just going to soak up any demand that there is, which is bad news for any other tall towers that have office components.

The other thing is, 80 000 sqm of office space could have been an office supertall. We always dream that someone will propose something massive in terms of a commercial sqm requirement, but then they do and it's fat instead of tall! I remember when the Trinity Group were think 80 000 sqm but at least they wanted to go up instead of out I suspect (and yes I know the whole big floor plates are fashionable argument).

So meh, and TBH I think they will really struggle to fill this, which will be a fitting reward for bringing their b-game to Brisbane. I can't see Grocon proposing this sort of stuff in Melbourne, it would all be 300m tower talk down there, but here, any old thing will do.

I mean the shape looks like it was inspired by an overweight American at McDonalds. It's overpowering in a way a taller building would not be, really oppressive look IMO.

And if 111+222 doesn't go ahead then what's the bet Grocon buy up the site and do the same
thing there.

So I hope council reject this tbh.

Well a big 80 000 sqm tower is just going to soak up any demand that there is, which is bad news for any other tall towers that have office components.

The other thing is, 80 000 sqm of office space could have been an office supertall. We always dream that someone will propose something massive in terms of a commercial sqm requirement, but then they do and it's fat instead of tall! I remember when the Trinity Group were think 80 000 sqm but at least they wanted to go up instead of out I suspect (and yes I know the whole big floor plates are fashionable argument).

So meh, and TBH I think they will really struggle to fill this, which will be a fitting reward for bringing their b-game to Brisbane. I can't see Grocon proposing this sort of stuff in Melbourne, it would all be 300m tower talk down there, but here, any old thing will do.





I mean the shape looks like it was inspired by an overweight American at McDonalds. It's overpowering in a way a taller building would not be, really oppressive look IMO.

And if 111+222 doesn't go ahead then what's the bet Grocon buy up the site and do the same
thing there.

So I hope council reject this tbh.


I just feel it doesn't look right, there is nothing wrong with a fat tower but it just doesn't look right and it has more to do with shape, its very 80s or 90s just a glass box. Right tower wrong location this work well with the tower as residential in bowen hills while keeping the campus for suncorp

From what I can tell, I like it.

Well a big 80 000 sqm tower

Tower?? hah might I reiterate that this probably will be a 14 level Suncorp stump. Grocon probably added the top component so that council doesn't reject it.

There is no way they would fill the 50,000sqm left over on this. Well maybe if Google decided to relocate it's HQ from Mountain View, California.

Part of me agrees with you about the BCC rejecting this. The only good thing from this is the cross block link and large voids.

Tower?? hah might I reiterate that this probably will be a 14 level Suncorp stump. Grocon probably added the top component so that council doesn't reject it.

There is no way they would fill the 50,000sqm left over on this. Well maybe if Google decided to relocate it's HQ from Mountain View, California.

Part of me agrees with you about the BCC rejecting this. The only good thing from this is the cross block link and large voids.

Well with no tower it becomes a Mincom situation and that ain't good no matter how you slice it.

But would the cost of the site be low enough that Grocon would make a decent return from just constructing the campus/podium without the tower component? Would there be enough return just from Suncorp to make the project economically viable?

Given that they are intending to construct it with Suncorp as potentially the only precommit, then I would say it is viable.

I think Soul is right and they don't really intend to add the top section unless they get a fluke tenant for it, so there is every chance this will be a Mincom type situation. I base this off some knowledge of Grocon's current business plan.

Consolidation and upgrades would not reduce the overall vacancy rate I wouldn't have thought.

A 2% fall is worthless. Given the impressive rate of uptake in new projects, my point is more or less proved. There's lots of moving about but no new companies and not a lot of growth.

Ie the economy is limping along and building an 80,000sqm office building doesn't necessarily make great sense.

I know a few people who involved with the leasing of some of the new projects and they are only trageting tenants whose leases are up and may move. They are not targeting new tenants because there simply are none to be had.

But would the cost of the site be low enough that Grocon would make a decent return from just constructing the campus/podium without the tower component? Would there be enough return just from Suncorp to make the project economically viable?

that land must be expensive surely, I really hope suncorp chooses someone else

If Grocon added say 20 or 30 levels for apartments and or a hotel then the issue of the current "Stumpy height" would be fixed! Additionally the Brisbane apartment market would still remain healthy with no threat of over supply (ok ok lets see what happens after 111+222) and Brisbane as we all well know is in desparate need for more hotel rooms!!

Is it actually designed by Grocon?

No, but they will develop the site. I think the design is blah, but my main beef is with Grocon because this is prime riverfront land that deserves so much better.

Grocon also wrecked the potential for the EmpireSquare site with a short arse stump. So they are not covering themselves in glory.

To be fair to Grocon, they are simply trying to give their staff some work in a tough economy. Their other jobs are over or ending (Oracle, Space, Soul etc). They could go into hibernation and lay everyone off, or develop unviable projects, go broke and lay everyone off later or they can clutch at the little work that is available to keep themselves afloat and pay wages until the time is right for another trophy project.

I know that is hard for most lefties to accept because they don't understand corporations, but it's the reality of the issue.

ROFL - I'm a leftie because I don't like the potential use of this site???

I've got a fair idea of how the real world works sport.

To be fair to Grocon, they are simply trying to give their staff some work in a tough economy. Their other jobs are over or ending (Oracle, Space, Soul etc). They could go into hibernation and lay everyone off, or develop unviable projects, go broke and lay everyone off later or they can clutch at the little work that is available to keep themselves afloat and pay wages until the time is right for another trophy project.

I know that is hard for most lefties to accept because they don't understand corporations, but it's the reality of the issue.

Not sure "lefties" would have no idea of economics. The numbers have to work for anything to be built.

lol guys - I was just taking a free punt and having a little joke. I am not serious.

It is not a bad design, but not for this iconic site.

No, but they will develop the site. I think the design is blah, but my main beef is with Grocon because this is prime riverfront land that deserves so much better.

Grocon also wrecked the potential for the EmpireSquare site with a short arse stump. So they are not covering themselves in glory.

Hate to bu you're fire but 'Out the back of Queen Street' is certainly not a prime site.

These guys will struggle to beat Leightons in securing Suncorp.

Any details on Leightons proposal?

These guys will struggle to beat Leightons in securing Suncorp.

Everyone always struggles to beat Leighton's at anything.

This thing is pretty ordinary. Pretty bloody ordinary.

Everyone always struggles to beat Leighton's at anything.

They are certaily big and very capable vehicle, but they have their limits like everyone does......take Viridian as an example...

....... but not for this iconic site.

?????????

^^ Agreed, it's a nice big site but it's hardly iconic. It could house an iconic building, sure, but a lot of other sites around the city could as well...

I disagree. It is an iconic site. It has river frontage that cannot be built out, it's enormous and it's effectively sandwiched between Queen and Eagle St in the Golden Triangle.

I am not sure what it would take to be classified as an iconic site if that doesn't work.

It has river frontage that cannot be built out

I understand Customs House will be there for life, but there is a 5 story brown box directly across the road with true river frontage. Surely this will be ripe for redevelopment in years to come?

^^ How many sites in Brisbane could have a river frontage facing the whole river from one end, right in the CBD Golden Triangle with access to two major streets, and most importantly, to be able to present Brisbane from different viewing points including kangraroo point, new farm, the Story Bridge, CityCat (which mostly used by tourists.), and even southbank from which Brisbane has been mostly seem on camera worldwide? I wouldnt mind the height of the tower, but they could do a lot better on the design rather than a box.

^^ Agreed, it's a nice big site but it's hardly iconic. It could house an iconic building, sure, but a lot of other sites around the city could as well...

If they got rid of the tower part as it is and added a taller slimmer hotel component which opened up to the park then you would surely have the major hotel groups begging for the space.... Wouldn't this solve heaps of problems and make the project more viable??

hotel operators barely pay enough to cover the concrete, steel and glass required to build a hotel... and pay almost zero towards land value.

.....a river frontage.....

With all due respect, you sound like a real estate agent. This site has NO river frontage. River Place, Admiralty 1 & 2 and Admiralty Quays have river frontage.

480 Queen Street has a river outlook which is totally dependent on what happens on the land on the other side of Queen Street.

Yea... Like Customs House? Nothing going to happen there.

^^ Oh you didn't hear?? Grocon bought that site too and has proposed a 9 level car park... :P

Yea... Like Customs House? Nothing going to happen there.

No. The building next to Customs house.

Yea... Like Customs House? Nothing going to happen there.

Nothing is impossible anymore. Look at the redevelopment that Treasury Casino are proposing for the heritage listed State Library building on William Street!

There was a proposal 10 years or so ago to convert that riverfront office building to apartments and add 2 more floors. It was knocked back by council at the time so I'm not sure that anything can proceed on that site now anyhow.

For some reason I have never ever even noticed 443 Queen St (next to Customs House) and I work literally down the road. This is such a weird moment... What a horrible, squat little thing it is.

I had in my head that Customs House and 175 Eagle Street were the buildings opposite this site.

Nonetheless, I still believe that this is a prime site - indeed, one of the best in Bris.

http://investorswitch.linuslin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/trilogy_night.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2n3QqDrb12M/TIVcHQQQgII/AAAAAAAAADI/2BVsBcawamM/s1600/xzibit-happy.jpg








http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at42959PM.png

http://jamiedubs.com/fuckflickr/data/xzibit-yo-dawg/web/xzibit-wtf.jpg

What I love about the new one is that my eyes have to search the image for the actual building.

I disagree. It is an iconic site. It has river frontage that cannot be built out, it's enormous and it's effectively sandwiched between Queen and Eagle St in the Golden Triangle.

I am not sure what it would take to be classified as an iconic site if that doesn't work.

Ask anyone who works in the property industry and they'll tell you its the ass end of the city - its a B grade site.

If it were an 'iconic' site =every developer in town would have been crawling all over it when APH's scheme went to crap......this wasn't even close to the case.

When friend worked at Alcan there he said the building could take another 7 storys. I think its empty now isn't now Rio has moved on. The roof top is great for River Fire, would be an awesome roof top bar/restaurant.

if you look at the sites in front of it you can be reasonably sure that this site will always have a good river aspect..

1. admiralty carpark. never going to be built over unless the 400 odd residents of admiralty suddenly and simultaneously decide they don't like owning cars.
2. old oracle building. never going to built up unless BCC lose their minds.
3. customs house. if this gets built up then we should probably begin learning the language and customs of our new alien overlords.

it might not be the best site in the cbd (i think eagle st pier takes that title), but it is very far from being the worst site. i would give it 7/10 iconics.

A rooftop bar is proposed for that area as part of the redevelopment of the Europcar site just around the corner. Not as good a position as the one next to Customs House, but it wouldn't be bad spot when it's built.

Ask anyone who works in the property industry and they'll tell you its the ass end of the city - its a B grade site.

If it were an 'iconic' site =every developer in town would have been crawling all over it when APH's scheme went to crap......this wasn't even close to the case.

That's my opinion of the site as well. It borders on that no-mans-land area where the CBD, Valley and Spring Hill meets. An area which seems to have quite an identity crisis, and needs to develop a fair bit before it can really be part of the CBD proper.

http://investorswitch.linuslin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/trilogy_night.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2n3QqDrb12M/TIVcHQQQgII/AAAAAAAAADI/2BVsBcawamM/s1600/xzibit-happy.jpg








http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-15at42959PM.png

http://jamiedubs.com/fuckflickr/data/xzibit-yo-dawg/web/xzibit-wtf.jpg

What I love about the new one is that my eyes have to search the image for the actual building.

Trilogy was da bomb!!!:cheers:

Looking at the renders and height, we should be charitable and give it to Adelaide ;)

Looking at the renders and height, we should be charitable and give it to Adelaide ;)

^^ far to tall :P

...dw Adelaide...one day...in the meantime you can have the butt ugly oaks hotel @ north quay,god I hate that building.

Fuck off Grocon!

http://i.imgur.com/Y1JSv.jpg

:P

^^ Hahaha. Good one.

^^ Wish someone would come along and kill off that ugly Trustee's House and the other aging small fry buildings nearby in real life!

Hah - I only just got Locke's post. Clever.

^^ Yeah, I only got it after my last post! Very imaginative!

Anybody thought about sending it to the architects involved? lol

Looking at the renders and height, we should be charitable and give it to Adelaide ;)

fuck oath

Looking at the renders and height, we should be charitable and give it to Adelaide ;)

Adelaide would be over the moon. They wouldn't be bithcing about this as it would be their tallest.

Current tallest in Adelaide is Westpac House at 132m which was built back in 1988.

CP1 was our tallest then at 174m. Now you can hardly find it on the skyline. I think we should officially pass over the 'big country town'tag to Adelaide.

I disagree. It is an iconic site. It has river frontage that cannot be built out, it's enormous and it's effectively sandwiched between Queen and Eagle St in the Golden Triangle.

I am not sure what it would take to be classified as an iconic site if that doesn't work.

Were not going to see such a prime development in that part of town for years. The council should be allowed to refuse D/A's if the design for the site is not suitable.

It is a building that will be seen from the river and much of the metro area.

I accept the fact Grocon want to build a tower with big floorplates, but they can do far better.

Don't know if anyone knew but "Grocon", in French, sounds exaclty like "Gros con" (you don't prononce the s). Gros = Big, Con = Ass, or Dick, or Idiot, or Loser

Just thought i would put it out there.

Don't know if anyone knew but "Grocon", in French, sounds exaclty like "Gros con" (you don't prononce the s). Gros = Big, Con = Ass, or Dick, or Idiot, or Loser

Just thought i would put it out there.

Grocon also sounds like Grokon...which spelt backwards is nokorg..
Korg is a character in the Marvel Comics universe and is first seen in The Incredible Hulk #93 during the Planet Hulk storyline

Like all Kronans, Korg possesses a body made of a durable, silicon-based substance that grants him protection against nearly all forms of physical harm and gives him a rock-like appearance. In oxygen-rich atmospheres, Korg also possesses vast superhuman strength almost comparable to Hercules. His mineral state also grants him an extremely prolonged lifespan.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/87/WRBND_002.jpg/250px-WRBND_002.jpg

Just thought i would put it out there

i will be soooo pissed if this gets approved..

It is too much of a box shape for my liking, needs to have some sort of wavy type design IMO. Also too short, if it was a different design and 30 to 40 metres higher, then maybe ok. I hope it gets canned also!

Fingers crossed Suncorp chooses either Lend Lease's RNA or Southpoint as the new HQ. I actually think the RNA redevelopment would benefit greatly if Suncorp was based there.

Fingers crossed Suncorp chooses either Lend Lease's RNA or Southpoint as the new HQ. I actually think the RNA redevelopment would benefit greatly if Suncorp was based there.

Me to, and I'm sure a special arrangement/discount can be arranged for bringing this many workers to the area.

The RNA were the overwhelming early favourite. I think Suncorp went off it a little though because relocating the workforce that far out of the city became an issue.

The RNA were the overwhelming early favourite. I think Suncorp went off it a little though because relocating the workforce that far out of the city became an issue.

what getting off at Bowen hills instead of central? there workforce is obviously full of the people we keep seeing on the news asking for park and rides and more roads.

.... 480 Queen Street has a river outlook which is totally dependent on what happens on the land on the other side of Queen Street.
^^
for how many years to come?

what getting off at Bowen hills instead of central? there workforce is obviously full of the people we keep seeing on the news asking for park and rides and more roads.

You'd have to get off at Fortitude Valley Station, Bowen Hills station is AGES away from the RNA, and almost definitely too far to walk IMO (and as someone who has a 20 odd minute walk from the bus stop to my work every morning and afternoon if I think it's too far to walk, most commuters would probably agree). Also, what's the regular bus service out to the RNA like?

^^for how many years to come?

Indefinitely, as that area across Queen St is the Customs House building and associated precinct, probably the most strictly controlled heritage precinct in Brisbane. The brown building next to Customs House is also included in that precinct I believe, so any efforts to redevelop that site I imagine would be an agonisingly long, difficult, expensive endeavour with plenty of input from BCC and DERM/State Govt as a whole!

With an exit onto Alfred St then Fortitude Valley station is only one block from St Pauls Tce and the RNA site....much closer even than many CBD parts to Central.
There is a vacant block on the corner of Constance St and Alfred St which would make a great portal to the station and service the whole St Pauls Tce/ RNA area.

There is a vacant block on the corner of Constance St and Alfred St which would make a great portal to the station and service the whole St Pauls Tce/ RNA area.

Pretty close to the Clem7 under there I'd think.

There doesn't really need to be a second portal as such, as you can access the station via the Valley Metro Carpark which is right next to that vacant block. I'd suggest giving the carpark a facelift (maybe some paint and some plastic/aluminium panelling to cover and jazz the facade up, and upgrade the pedestrian access through the carpark to make it a more of a primary entrance.

Jazzing up the entrance off Wickham St too would be good, as that big residential development on the corner of Wickham and Warner St should be going up soon I would think...

I was thinking more of a northern portal being part of whatever is developed there.
@ Fyver, wasn't thinking about needing to dig, just develop the lot.

You'd have to get off at Fortitude Valley Station, Bowen Hills station is AGES away from the RNA, and almost definitely too far to walk IMO (and as someone who has a 20 odd minute walk from the bus stop to my work every morning and afternoon if I think it's too far to walk, most commuters would probably agree). Also, what's the regular bus service out to the RNA like?


It's not that far. As the RNA is a big site, it just depends on what section of the RNA you need to get to determines whether the Valley or Bowen Hills is closer. Have a look on google maps - you would be surprised. But if your talking about the entrance on St Pauls Terrace then FV Station is about half the distance compared to BW. But if you are talking about O'Connell Tce, BW is about half the distance compared to FV.

If you talking about the centre of RNA they are both about the same.

A fried of mine works for Suncorp and told me about a general email all staff recently received from the CEO. They are now supposedly down to three sites, Grocon's 480 Queen St, Leightons UQ Dental School and the Southbank Project.

Supposedly it also says that there prefferred site is the Dental School but due to the current nature of the site (I.E. Government owning it and still in operation) it isnt an easy decision to choose.

If Grocon's proposal wins, I will have lost all faith in Suncorp. Let's just hope to god that BCC doesn't approve it.

Why? If it has the best internal space, why shouldn't they go for it?

The sad thing is that BCC can't just dismiss a building because it's really ugly - and i doubt Suncorp will either...i just wish the thing was 100 metres taller, and without the park on top...

Essentially, I just wish Trilogy was back...

BCC can, however IMO, this building isn't particularly ugly. We just know what the site can handle and we are pissed off that we are not getting something anywhere near as tall.

I'm not pissed cause its not tall enough, i think it just looks plain boring. I'd be happier for something shorter and more architecturally inspiring rather then a giant glass box.

I actually think it does look quite architecturally inspiring from a human/street level.

To each's own I guess. Would be nifty to see the results of a poll.

I actually think it does look quite architecturally inspiring from a human/street level.

^^ I'll agree with this. In terms of street level design and performance, I much prefer this over Trilogy. It's looks to have one of the best street level layouts of any Brisbane development in my opinion. It manages to retain the spectacular view of St John's from Queen St, and provides a new raised park level that can be accessed by the public, and new park areas in the city are nothing to be sneezed at.

480 has made it through to be one of the last two projects standing for Suncorp's new HQ!

From Soul in the News & Gossip thread:

Lend Lease and Leighton got knocked out. I'm hoping AJG get it. There is a lot of activity going on in the CBD.

From the AFR (http://www.afr.com/)
http://brisbanedevelopment.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/photo-2.jpg

http://brisbanedevelopment.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/photo.jpg

Demand activity:
Suncorp - 30,000sqm
Bank of Queensland - 15,000sqm
Xtrata - 1+ Floor of One One One Eagle.
Hancock Coal - 5,000sqm
Arrow Energy - 12,000sqm

http://brisbanedevelopment.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/photo-6.jpg

Looks like this could be approved. just waiting for docs to go up.

Having a look at where the DA (A003148514) for this stands, I came across a rather interesting public submission that was lodged against the development.

While public submissions are usually from NIMBYs or people who are just dirty about losing their view and have no idea about development, this one was from Dr Robert Riddle – as in Director of Riddle Architecture, who is also an authority on local heritage architecture. He would like to see a full vista or St John's Cathedral retained on the site, and refers to the slides of several presentations he's given relating either fully or at least in part to the site and retaining the view of the cathedral, and linking it to Customs House. Part of his proposal also included a modern "Festival Hall" performance space built into an underground bunker.

While the submission only includes the slides Riddle used and is obviously missing the actual presentation he gave, it's still interesting to see an alternative proposal for the site, which is completely different to the existing one, coming from someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

If anyone is interested in reading Riddle's submission, it can be found under the Development Application page, and is the submission second from the bottom

What's the point, they're building this dull box aren't they? Whilst from one POV it's good that tall buildings get approved easily in Brisbane, on the other hand junk also gets approved easily.

...and this is certainly junk! :ohno:

It actually does make a lot of sense what he is proposing...

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-11-08at93433AM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-11-08at93553AM.png

^^ Thought you might appreciate this Soul!

I fully agree with this idea. Ever since the site was cleared, it became so apparent how great a view of St John's there is from the river, and it would seem inappropriate now to just cover it up again with a big commercial box.

Especially one like this - where the design of the building (at least from the river) isn't what it could have been - ie - Trilogy.

...and this is certainly junk! :ohno:

More or less, it's certainly sub-par IMO.

todays afr
Grocon’s Brisbane tower all set
Australia’s largest private construction group, Grocon, will gain approval today for its 62,000 square metre office tower overlooking the Brisbane River.

Wow. I was actually thinking that BCC may have got them to break up the base a little.

I wonder if Suncorp were waiting for a development approval.

Southpoint also has approval yeah? Seems like Suncorp are taking there time deciding...

Well, there is no point in deciding on a project that hasn't been approved yet.

Wow. I was actually thinking that BCC may have got them to break up the base a little.

I think the cavernous cross block link through the site probably breaks it up enough at street level for BCC's liking. I will say that do like the public spaces in this project such as the cross block link and the elevated park. It's far too short, pretty fat and not overly attractive, but the way it addresses the public realm is one redeeming feature IMO.

Approved by Council this morning.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/life/homesproperty/new-skyscraper-for-abandoned-cbd-site-on-queen-street/story-e6frequ6-1226202430914

New skyscraper for abandoned (LOL) CBD site on Queen Street

by: Robyn Ironside
From: The Courier-Mail
November 22, 2011 11:47AM

Artist impression of the development at 480 Queen Street, Brisbane. Source: The Courier-Mail

THERE will soon be another shape on Brisbane's skyline with the council today approving a new 37-storey commercial tower with the city's first large-scale high-rise park.

The Neighbourhood Planning Committee voted in favour of the $590 million Grocon application for 480 Queen Street - the site of the failed Trilogy tower project.

It is expected to receive final approval at Tuesday afternoon's full council meeting.

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said the project should generate up to 500 jobs for local residents.

``One of my key priorities as Lord Mayor is getting Brisbane back in business after the floods and global financial crisis and major projects like this are exactly what we need to achieve that," he said.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
The world's strangest skyscrapers

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

Cr Quirk said he was pleased with the innovation shown in Grocon's design with the fifth-floor park to have panoramic views of the city.

Others features of the building include 265 car parking bays over three levels, 600 bicycle parking spaces and an aim for the building to receive a six-star green rating.

Last week the council approved a new 90-storey residential tower and hotel at the old Vision site in Mary Street and Cr Quirk said both projects represented the ``resilience of Brisbane's market in seeing out the tough times''.

``I think a lot of the market recovery has to do with Council's continued focus on selling Brisbane as a new world city no matter how the market is playing, which has in turn attracted big investment in the local economy," he said.

Cue stupid reader comments..

It's ok, not Trilogy but better than the piece of crap over on Elizabeth.

http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2011/11/22/2789357/new_suncorp_building_riverv-200x0.jpg


Link to BT article
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/property/tower-rises-from-trilogys-ashes-20111122-1nsbv.html

Tower rises from Trilogy's ashes
Tony Moore
November 22, 2011 - 1:41PM



New office tower for CBD

A video flyover shows the location and layout of a 37 storey CBD commercial tower which has been approved by Brisbane City Council.



A 37-storey commercial office tower will be built on the site of the failed Trilogy Tower project on Queen Street, after getting the green light today.

The 70-storey Trilogy project, planned for 480 Queen Street between Wharf and Adelaide streets, fell victim to the slowdown in Brisbane's property market.

In April, the site at was bought by Melbourne-based development company Grocon.

The site of the failed Trilogy development, where Grocon plans to build a new 37-storey office tower. Photo: Tony Moore

The new building is tipped to become Suncorp's new headquarters.

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk - who today unveiled new underground boring machines to be used on the Legacy Way tunnel project - said the decision was evidence Brisbane was beginning to grow.

It is the second major CBD project approved in recent weeks.

A fortnight ago a 90-storey residential tower and hotel, with a 34-storey commercial tower were approved for the former Vision tower site on Mary Street.

Today Cr Quirk said Grocon's $590 million proposal on the Queen Street site would generate up to 500 jobs.

“One of my key priorities as Lord Mayor is getting Brisbane back in business after the floods and global financial crisis and major projects like this are exactly what we need to achieve that,” he said.
Grocon's proposed new building, with Suncorp livery.

Grocon's proposed new building, with Suncorp livery. Photo: Supplied

“The old Trilogy and Vision sites have long been ugly reminders of just how tough we were doing it a few years ago and these new projects represent the resilience of Brisbane's market in seeing out the tough times."

The building included potentially Brisbane's first large-scale elevated park, midway up the tower, plus 265 car spaces and 600 bicycle spaces.

Last week council released an economic survey of Brisbane's economic prospects.

The Brisbane's Window of Opportunity study identified the need for the city to be marketed into the South East Asia.

Cr Quirk said that was a reason council elected to stay with the “Brisbane - Australia's New World City” brand.

“I think a lot of the market recovery has to do with council's continued focus on selling Brisbane as a new world city, no matter how the market is playing, which has in turn attracted big investment in the local economy,” he said.

I reckon it looks alright, should be a decent glass facade

I think the cavernous cross block link through the site probably breaks it up enough at street level for BCC's liking. I will say that do like the public spaces in this project such as the cross block link and the elevated park. It's far too short, pretty fat and not overly attractive, but the way it addresses the public realm is one redeeming feature IMO.

I agree with that. Fairly boring design and way to short. If it had been about 170 metres it would look better IMO, even if it is fat. Don't need any more short stumpy buildings in that area.

It's ok, not Trilogy but better than the piece of crap over on Elizabeth.

This is the important thing! Look at what Grocon gave us on Elizabeth St. Compared to that, I think this one doesn't look all that bad at all. Hopefully it will breath some life into the part of Queen St, god knows it could use it!

Now to remove that horrid brown thing on the left!

Now to remove that horrid brown thing on the left!

+1!!! I hate that building with a passion! I can cope with T&G, I can stomach the Parliamentary annex and Lennons Hotel, but Trustee House should be torn down as soon as possible! It is revolting!

I'm still not sold on this one. Whilst it is an improvement on the existing site, I hate the plain, boring design. In addition to that, whilst I think the elevated park idea is admirable, I'm not sure I agree with the idea. Is it going to be real open space, or will it be privately owned and managed (and therefore, controlled). And whilst it does break up the facade a bit at ground level, it's all then built over and there's still this massive wall of blandness.

From what I've seen (admittedly, I haven't gone through the whole DA), the council should have forced them to break it up, split it into two towers, something.

Oh well, I suppose I just have to hope Suncorp choose South Bank and this one falls over.

Supposedly Suncorp will make their decision by the end of the month. I heard it was originally supposed to be made by the end of last week but they pushed it out a bit longer. I wonder if gaining approval from council had anything to do with it.

I'm still not sold on this one. Whilst it is an improvement on the existing site, I hate the plain, boring design. In addition to that, whilst I think the elevated park idea is admirable, I'm not sure I agree with the idea. Is it going to be real open space, or will it be privately owned and managed (and therefore, controlled). And whilst it does break up the facade a bit at ground level, it's all then built over and there's still this massive wall of blandness.

The elevated parkland was described in the proposal as "public parkland" so I would assume that is their intention, but as it is within the building complex there will probably be some limitations such as operating hours (possibly tied to the hours of the cafe or bar that operates on that level too). That said, the cross block link will be provide 24 hour access, so who knows.

Very disappointed that the council didn't recommend a better design for the site. It's a prominent site and really needs something better. Lost opportunity. :(

Very disappointed that the council didn't recommend a better design for the site. It's a prominent site and really needs something better. Lost opportunity. :(

Totally agree, and agree with Nath but its better than a hole in the ground. The only real unique skyscrapers tend to be in Melbourne.

^^ It shouldn't be like that. Clearly we are lagging behind and the BCC needs to take a new direction on the issue of architecture.

Totally agree, and agree with Nath but its better than a hole in the ground. The only real unique skyscrapers tend to be in Melbourne.

Ironic really, seeing as Grocon hails from Melbourne and also because the building that 470/480 Queen St most reminds me of is found in Docklands:

http://melbournebuildings.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Myer-Headquarters-800-Collins-Street-Docklands.jpg

Grocon themselves referenced the glass on the Myer Building when talking about the silver glass portions in the Development Application, which could make for a very interesting final product. The coloured glass referenced was that on the Santos Building, also a potentially very interesting outcome!

^^ It shouldn't be like that. Clearly we are lagging behind and the BCC needs to take a new direction on the issue of architecture.

Soul I WISH BCC would do that yes.

Yea Nath been to the Docklands Myer building its not too bad inside but its Groconish (if that's a word)

Suncorp has announced that they are going to the Southbank site, so not sure where it leaves this project...

^^ Where'd you hear that? any article available? Fantastic news! This is what I was hoping for! :)

^^ Couldn't find mention of it on Google either. Where did you hear this MajikShoe?

No article yet, but all staff have been notified today (i happen to be one of them) :-)

Ahh ok! Great news as it means South Point will go ahead, but I wonder where that leaves Grocon and this project then! A lot of people are probably hoping "the rubbish bin" I'm sure! :lol:

Ahh ok! Great news as it means South Point will go ahead, but I wonder where that leaves Grocon and this project then! A lot of people are probably hoping "the rubbish bin" I'm sure! :lol:

Grocon probably will just shove another 15 story there

^^
why do you say that?

^^ He's referring to what they did to 55 Elizabeth St.

ok well at least there is some certainty to make decisions now. I wonder what will happen, whether they will proceed with the current proposal, amend it with some other configuration or sell it.

I hope they either throw up a tallie (or at least a taller-ie) of some other configuration, or sell it to someone else - in the hope of something more grand.

^^ He's referring to what they did to 55 Elizabeth St.

i know, the point is with even a modicum of thought that idea makes no sense.

the other building which had a specific client in mind, the ATO which the building size was tailored to. besides Suncorp, there was no one Gorcon was aiming for (even if there are other companies looking for space). to do what he's suggested would require another building to be designed, have a DA submitted and approved and all for what may end up being no pre-commitments.

^^ :lol: He's not seriously suggesting it, just passive-aggressively pointing to Grocon's MO in Brisbane so far – buying up the sites of failed 'Brisbane's tallest' projects and putting short n stumpies in their place.

^^ :lol: He's not seriously suggesting it, just passive-aggressively pointing to Grocon's MO in Brisbane so far – buying up the sites of failed 'Brisbane's tallest' projects and putting short n stumpies in their place.

This is called commercial reality. The grand schemes fail because they are not meeting the needs of the market.

Hopefully this project will go nowhere. I wish there would be a 170 to 180 metre tower built there, but it obviously depends on the demand for office space, pent up demand.

ok well at least there is some certainty to make decisions now. I wonder what will happen, whether they will proceed with the current proposal, amend it with some other configuration or sell it.

I hope they either throw up a tallie (or at least a taller-ie) of some other configuration, or sell it to someone else - in the hope of something more grand.

If it is amended and 30 metres higher then I hope it goes ahead. An elegant 170 to 180 metre tower would look great in that location.

besides Suncorp, there was no one Gorcon was aiming for (even if there are other companies looking for space).

Incorrect, Suncorp weren't ever going to be the only tenant in the building, Grocon had other tenants lined up (So I've heard).

Grocon arent stupid, they aren't going to just throw away all the money they have spent on design and DA fee's for nothing. I would suggest any tenant looking for space in the next year will have Grocon knocking on their door.

I think you would be surprised by how devastated Grocon are - they are in quite a pile of trouble over this. The expense has been mind-blowing.

The fact is that there are no tenants to fill an 80,000sqm office building in the current climate. There are also so many other office buildings in the wings relative to current demand that their monolith simply isn't going to lease.

And who else is looking for 4,000sqm floorplates? What other company the size of Suncorp is in Brisbane looking for such a thing?

I have no doubt this is a big set back for them. What I was trying to get across is they arent just going to dump and run now that they lost out on Suncorp.

Im sure this will set them back, especially since they were supposed to start construction in February. Finding new tenants for such a big building will be hard but I have heard they had some others lined up. No one to be an anchor tenant but enough for them to build such a large building when all they really needed to do was build what Suncorp wanted (maybe thats why they lost out in the end?).

I would think they will redesign at least? The bottom campus section is not lettable.

And I would like to know who they have lined up... Plenty of developers are knocking on doors right now and there ain't a queue forming for any of them.

Incorrect, Suncorp weren't ever going to be the only tenant in the building, Grocon had other tenants lined up (So I've heard).

Grocon arent stupid, they aren't going to just throw away all the money they have spent on design and DA fee's for nothing. I would suggest any tenant looking for space in the next year will have Grocon knocking on their door.

Wouldn't be surprised if they stick around for a while to wait for BHP's brief.....they'd have to be a strong chance at that one. Other than that I think they'll struggle, considering they need finance and an end owner.

I think the reason this lost is firstly the staged build, I really don't think that suncorp would be happy to deal with another 18+ months of noise etc while the tower is built. Not to mention that suncorp might have actually wanted something with a bit of flair for there HQ. and as wired as it sounds the cross block link might have been a turn off in "your" building.

^^ Agree and justified. Constructing the 2nd component ontop of them would have definitely been a turn off.

I also think the design of the tower had something to do with it. Everyone I have shown this tower to thinks its pretty mediocre, its quite possible Suncorp execs thought the same?

yep, Sunland have gone the cheaper option
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7171/6420561585_11dde567fa_b.jpg

I hope the Suncorp news means that this building is off.

Let 111/222 get the office work that this site would have taken, and the Trilogy site can wait for the next residential boom.

^^ Agree. I'd rather this site lay dormant then waste a great opportunity here.

I'd love to see a variation of the proposal in Robert Riddle's submission against the proposal considered now. For anyone who hasn't seen it:


Dr Riddle would like to see a full vista or St John's Cathedral retained on the site, and refers to the slides of several presentations he's given relating either fully or at least in part to the site and retaining the view of the cathedral, and linking it to Customs House. Part of his proposal also included a modern "Festival Hall" performance space built into an underground bunker, and includes commercial buildings flanking the main vista.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-11-08at93433AM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-11-08at93553AM.png

I think the reason this lost is firstly the staged build, I really don't think that suncorp would be happy to deal with another 18+ months of noise etc while the tower is built. Not to mention that suncorp might have actually wanted something with a bit of flair for there HQ. and as wired as it sounds the cross block link might have been a turn off in "your" building.

Grocon weren't ever going to build it in stages, they were going to build it all in one go. With the Suncorp pre-commitment and some of the other companies they had lined up they had enough to start construction.

Wouldn't be surprised if they stick around for a while to wait for BHP's brief.....they'd have to be a strong chance at that one. Other than that I think they'll struggle, considering they need finance and an end owner.

If they got Suncorp they already had finance and an end owner. As per what Grocon did with the ATO, these days they are packaging them up from the start and getting rid of them as construction starts. It allows them to have greater turnover of projects.

I am definitely not a fan of that style of development. Very short-term minded.

I am definitely not a fan of that style of development. Very short-term minded.

what do you propose?

I am definitely not a fan of that style of development. Very short-term minded.

I don't understand your concern really.

It shouldn't have any bearing of the quality of the product, but rather the ability to finance it.

Bundling up a project and shelving it off quickly for a profit before construction? The churning out of projects that quickly seems to show limited scope to see a project through to it's completion. Not saying its bad, its probably a very smart move financially for Grocon, just not the ideal situation IMO. Seems to be wholly driven by profit more so then profit + making a project to build reputation ie AJG's Emporium.

Bundling up a project and shelving it off quickly for a profit before construction? The churning out of projects that quickly seems to show limited scope to see a project through to it's completion. Not saying its bad, its probably a very smart move financially for Grocon, just not the ideal situation IMO. Seems to be wholly driven by profit more so then profit + making a project to build reputation ie AJG's Emporium.

I fully agree with you Soul. Grocon are in it for a quick buck...and if you're a businessman, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that strategy and I would say a lot of other developers in their position would do something similar. However, from an urban planning, and non-profit driven perspective, this is not the outcome which achieves the best result for Brisbane as a city. If the site wasn't in such a prominent position, which one of Australia's greatest pieces of architecture sitting behind it, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with this development.

Bundling up a project and shelving it off quickly for a profit before construction? The churning out of projects that quickly seems to show limited scope to see a project through to it's completion. Not saying its bad, its probably a very smart move financially for Grocon, just not the ideal situation IMO. Seems to be wholly driven by profit more so then profit + making a project to build reputation ie AJG's Emporium.

i don't get it. are you proposing that builders should be prohibited from developing things, or that developers should be prohibited from selling things??