http://************/enehw

#14

This puts it as Proposed. All the others are obviously the 'possibilities', but this tower is along side Emerald as proopsed (when emerald was still proposed of course)

why havnt we heard of it more?

Because it's merely a speculation - austcorp have fabricated a proposal on every major development site with that rendering to deliver a misleading sense of balance.

It is a major site of speculation, given the size and proximity to the river (and granted, this is about the only opportunist site in the government district) but until office supply runs low or the land is surrendered to private developers it will remain vacant.

The only other place i've ever seen another tower render for that site was in the northbank proposals.

The speculation sites are all under "notional future potential'

this is, according to them, a legitimate proposal.

Hey, I hope you're right.

Maybe they got it off the northbank renders?

Again, this was another 'future government proposal', of similar proportion and same position?

Would a government building require council approval?

If so, a D/A may be lodged for the site.

i have no clue how the govt would do a building.
they wouldnt reject it.

Brisbane square was easily approved wasnt it? cuz the council was using it?

Yes, but i'd be very interested to see if a government building would be subject to the same process that a private developer would.

Brisbane square was different, more of an 'internal' assessment, but the government supercedes the council in that respect.

Either way, if you really want to know if there is a LODGED proposal, you only need go to level one of the Brisbane administration centre, and look at the history of that particular site.

If there's nothing lodged, no proposal exists.

Hey, I hope you're right.

Maybe they got it off the northbank renders?

Again, this was another 'future government proposal', of similar proportion and same position?

Would a government building require council approval?

If so, a D/A may be lodged for the site.
This building would fit into Northbank Option 4, which was a highrise over 20 stories.

We will have to wait and see if the Northbank proposal ever gets released....

their thing is being released at the end of november, they replied to ym email and told me 6 weeks (which ends up being end ov Nov)

I have always thought an imposing tower on this site would make a nice entry statement into Brisbane.

First - build a 200m tower for the state government and add apartments on top similar to the PHAnnex.

Second - move all functions of the annex into the new building and connect with a tunnel under Alice Street.

Third - Demolish the Parlaiment House Annex!!!!

Fourth - Re-Build the back of Parlaiment House as it was supposed to be so its grand french renaissance architecture can be appreciated from the river and Southbank.

jt

Actually the Brisbane Square proposal was not accepted in it's original state. The first plan was to include units at the top of the tower. This was rejected by the council as they claimed the area was too noisy for residents. It was only the next proposal that did not include the units that was accepted by the council.

State Government. How many buildings do they need. They've got Education House, 111 George street, The parliment House high-rise, and the new one 33 Charlotte and practically every commercial building in that area. I think they have enough let alone another 40-50 story building like 111 George.

Mineral House was scheduled to be a temp building, and only have a life span of 20 years - yet it still stands.

Does anyone know the address where this building is meant to be going (to check if a DA has been lodged)

my guess is like 5-25 William St. also possibly listed as Garden Point Road, or Alice St, or even Margeret St