An article in Thursday’s ‘The Independent’ about the Petrie Bight area being rejected for state heritage listing. To quote:

Historic inner-city Petrie Bight precinct may soon be the densest area in Brisbane following the rejection to state heritage listing, according to Deputy Mayor and local councillor David Hinchliffe. Hinchliffe said that there were at least 6 major residential and commercial developments that were on the drawing board for the area and the city council was now powerless to reject them. One high-rise development had already been approved for the Radio 4BC site in Macrossan Street because it had not involved heritage issues
“In the next while the council will be asked to asses six high-rise projects” Cr Hinchliffe said. Etc, etc.

So I did a little research to try and determine what these projects could be….and I have. Well partly.

Intercap Tower – Student Accommodation
Located at 499 & 501 Adelaide Street
Height – 112m to roof (RL)
Floors – 37
Comment: I take it ss.com was a preliminary guess? It is alright

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y5sntk&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y5sntl&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y5sntm&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Seymor Tower
Located at 545 Queen street
Height - 167.5m to roof (RL)
Floors – 46
Comment: a tad taller that I was expecting.

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y5sntx&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y5snti&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y5sntj&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Red Cross
Located a 480 Queen Street
Height – 186m (RL) to roof, 191m (RL) to plant
Floors – 55
Comment: no I’m not f%cking around with you. You have to admit that with such height it will complement Aurora….
That was all I could find…..no 475 Adelaide….it was really the one I was hoping to find.

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y5sntn&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y5snto&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y5sntr&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

If these were all to go ahead and I don’t really expect them to, they would really change the skyline, with incredible density of humans in a small region. Heaps of apartments – could the market really take it? Remember to add Skyline and 475 Adelaide street to this, plus supposedly 2 other mystery projects.

12 hours later and not a single reply - I would have thought a 55 level building would attract more interest. It is bigger than CP1!

Wow where did you find these? I like the second and third one.

Maybe everyone has a hangover Orfeo and is in bed. But seriously where did you find these? Were these at the council? I actually worry about that part of town getting to much height and density. Its going to look lop sided. Piity more developments cant happen in the centre and around the Roma street transit area.

Yep, they're are just DAs and available for perusal durring working hours. I wrote the numbers down...somewhere. I'll see if I can find them.

With just under 40 views people were looking...just not saying anything.

The first is a little iffy because it is uni accomodation, but the other two are quite nice.

Just a bit of an update, I've worked out the actual height of the buidings by looking at the RL ground heights:

Intercap: 113m - 16m = 97m
545 Queen street: 174m - 18m = 156m (note: I made a mistake above)
Red Cross: a little bit more complicated because it is on a very slanting site, the two ground RLs are 9.5m and 15.5m, and if I remember correctly you average them (Cuwulla?) making 12.5m. 194m - 12.5m = 181.5m.

So, the red cross building truely is taller than CP1.

This is huge news. Nice work Orfeo - 3 scoops in one thread! Were there any colour renders with the DA's?

Forums always seem a little quieter on the weekends. But you'd think a building taller than CP1 would attract a bit more attention.

I had a look at the Red Cross site DA on the BCC website - there are some elevations at http://www.ourbrisbane.com/government/transactions/search/stuff/psf//d/h/j/hcer/p902064_0001.pdf
I'm on dial up so I can't wait to go through it all or the other DA's - wait till I'm on superfast Uni computers.

Does anyone check the Courier Mail for DA's - they are announced in public notices - I thought you Brissy people would be all over any that came in, particularly Red Cross site - I know I check the Townsville Bulletin daily for such things.

do you have a render of these buildings along side riverplace for height comparisson?

^
Not really. The only one had any decent renders is the student tower, and this is probably the best of them but it doesn't help much with height comparisons.

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y57512&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Oriolus, I didn't know that the CM contained DA's but i'll look from now on. We knew that 5 were entered when Newman brought up his city plan, and the the Red Cross tower was one of them. Looking at the dates they're all been entered in september/october. I wouldn't expect to many more this year (but then I expected that the red cross building would be barely above 100m, and look at it...4th tallest)

I thought I would add a map for all the proposals in the area, just to give us some idea of the positioning.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v206/Ausilencer/kpmap_nov04.gif

Updated Map.

wow. lol.

I wonder when they will be satisfied that that side of the city is full.
On the bright side, its off balance for now but they have nowhere else to go but across.

Say wed built all over the place from the start, maybe it wouldnt be so dense

a 187m tower is perfect. I was saying that we need more between 175 & 200

a) that read cross building, doesn't look too good.

b) there is another proposal for two buildings on the one block of land, above site 2 and left of site 1. Where the lane is. The buildings are on either side of the lane.

12 hours later and not a single reply - I would have thought a 55 level building would attract more interest. It is bigger than CP1!LOL - well this is Brisbane after all. If it were Melbourne, Adelaide or Perth there would be heaps of excitement and probably two pages of posts after 12 hours.

They look quite good - will densify the area no doubt. I hope they change the perspective from the north as I hate those ugly admiralty towers.


Nice to see the BCC is not charging $10 for da's any more.

jt

I agree JayT! A few more towers at P Bight will break the wall of croncrete up a bit. I thought the building with Nokia Care at the base was being redeveloped aswell. And what is Sarina Russo doing with her building? It's been "coming soon" for 3 years now!

i think the red cross one could look awesome or really shit.

If theres a nice amount of glass and they do a good job of painting it (ie Felix style) it will b good

That Seymor Tower Located at 545 Queen street (Height - 167.5m to roof RL) looks great! They would have to demolish that small octagonal office building but it would be a fantastic improvement.

Hope they all get built!
jt

Another one not already mentioned is this one: http://www.ourbrisbane.com/government/transactions/search/stuff/psf//a/p/x/xjbp/p903600_0001.pdf

RL 201m!!!!!! And no, I shit thee not!

this is nuts. lol.

Jeez, great find. That is a very thin tower, it looks like it has been taking diuretics....Interesting though, with a steel spire that goes atleast 10m higher. Actual tower height is arround 181.5m.

And still a few more proposed....I wonder where their plans are?

I have a feeling that the map posted above is not quite right. I had thought that 'The Domaine' was 475 Adelaide St but you have it on Queen St in between Customs house and Admirality. That would put it on the corner of Adelaide and Macrossan wouldnt it?

I had also thought that Skyline (4BC) was on the other side of Macrossan St but I could be wrong on that one. If Im correct though it would mean that Skyline, Domaine and Intercap all back on to eachother which means even more density?

Please let me know if Im wrong!!

your right about skyline , at least.

Its across the road and on the lower side of that other street.

The height of 181.5m for 549 Queen St is to floor of plant room - it also has a spire so I estimate from the renders height to spire will be 196.5m. Wow!

Here's the map from the 549 Queen DA showing the other developments

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v376/Oriolus/Admiralty.jpg

This Admiralty area is abslutely going off - if all these get built the area could look very impressive.

I have a feeling that the map posted above is not quite right. I had thought that 'The Domaine' was 475 Adelaide St but you have it on Queen St in between Customs house and Admirality. That would put it on the corner of Adelaide and Macrossan wouldnt it?

I had also thought that Skyline (4BC) was on the other side of Macrossan St but I could be wrong on that one. If Im correct though it would mean that Skyline, Domaine and Intercap all back on to eachother which means even more density?

Please let me know if Im wrong!!

You won't find 475 Adelaide St on the Council website as its already Approved!!

jt

Great map. I had a little one drawn up myself but it was pretty low quality.

A 15m spire would put the spire at taller than Auroras roof (RL of course)...

If I remember correctly the council meets today: these have all been entered in early September and Hinchy did say that the coucil would be 'assessing' the towers soon (and that there really wasn't anything that they could do to stop them) Maybe today?

I'm not sure how these will go getting approved, If you look at the map, some of these new buildings have about half the bulk of the admiralty towers yet almost twice the height.

549 Queen reminds me of Emerald due to its thinness, particularly the elevations of its side. I bet it will have the same problems with council too, given that it is closer to the Valley (and therefore further from the CBD) than Emerald was.

The red cross proposal looks ... ordinary. I guess the B&W elevation does it no justice but it looks pretty bland. For a building of that magnitude it should be nicer on the eye than just another wall of balconies.

549 Queen reminds me of Emerald due to its thinness, particularly the elevations of its side. I bet it will have the same problems with council too, given that it is closer to the Valley (and therefore further from the CBD) than Emerald was.

The red cross proposal looks ... ordinary. I guess the B&W elevation does it no justice but it looks pretty bland. For a building of that magnitude it should be nicer on the eye than just another wall of balconies.

I think that you tend to forget that these are residential buildings and that residents want balconies. A residential building in Brisbane without balconies would be very difficult to sell. The only exception is extremely tall buildings which in many cases do not have balconies on the upper levels.

if they do it well balconies can look good. Ie Felix, Aurora

orfeo- ive just come across these towers while browsing the BCC website. I posted a thread but obviously i delete.
I mentioned on your 2nd post "how come no one is excited about a 55storey".?
well this is first time ive come across thread. the "TITLE" didnt do anything for me.lol
ill change it to what i had- 3 x 50storey towers for Brisbane!!!
anyway.
Ive found another resi tower but not very tall.
40 Elizabeth st
height-60m
storeys-20
located between Treasury hotel & Myers. nice slopped roof.
The 545 Queen st & 480 Queen st arent that spectacular, probably because designed by nettleton tribe. But 549 Queen is excellent!!!!!

The heights ive come up with by measuring plans are>
480 Queen st- RL194m-10m = 184m (Orfeo, its main adress is under Queen st so height is taken from there)
545 Queen st-RL174m-18m = 156m
549 Queen st- (fin RL-206m, spire-RL216m, - 20m = 186m or 196m to spire.
agree?
also remember when counting floors ALL of them are counted, including plant and ground levels which arent numbered.
480 Queen st= 57 levels
545 Queen st-48 levels
549 Queen st-60 levels

Ill try and draw up a scale diagram showing impact of each tower amongst current crop. should really show the changes set for next 5 or so years.
cheers guys

Updated my cr@ppy map. Thanks for the input - yeah I put the domaine on Queen street instead of Adelaide street - stoopid me. Anyway, if there are any more suggestions please let me know.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v206/Ausilencer/kpmap_nov04.gif

heres a render of 196m -549 Queen st. Its RL to spire is 216m which is only 1metre lower then Auroras fin.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid145/pe130da2479aaaec78454c64f00577397/f666aa91.jpg

Yep, crap title....my fault. I thought of starting a new thread...but by then a few people had posted. Next time....

I was unsure about how you were to work out the height, but you can't complain when you pick up an extra few meters. I got one of the heights right :)

Anyway, thanks.

no worries. orfeo. you done well!
ive tried to add all of these to ss.com but its down atm.
cheers

Updated my cr@ppy map. Thanks for the input - yeah I put the domaine on Queen street instead of Adelaide street - stoopid me. Anyway, if there are any more suggestions please let me know.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v206/Ausilencer/kpmap_nov04.gif

Yeah, that looks a lot better.

5 and 7 are from the same developer I think

Interesting news...I'm still having trouble matching up the developments (renders and heights) to the positioning on the maps.

Also, any chance of good colour renderings? None of the buildings look very attractive at all, and we dont need any more ugly admiralty style buildings all bunched up in the same area. And given the LARGE scale of some of these developments, it looks like things could be getting a lot worse. The tallest of the bunch looks ok, but will this be covered up by the uglier buildings?

lol I know i sound negative, but the last thing brisbane needs is more mediocre developments sprouting up everywhere. Look at how nice the residential buildings in dubai look. :bash:

they all look quite good to me, apart from Intercap.

nice sharp shapes, and hopefully some nice glass balcs

MO1lim, I really think you're just being unnecessarily pessimistic: I mean you say that they're "admiralty style buildings"....have a closer look at the renders. Can you really say that they are that similar? None of these proposed buildings are of that style, neither in excessive use of concrete nor in the single directionality that has caused both the wall of balconies and the wall of air-conditioning units that really is the essence of the Admiralty towers to date. I can’t say I see much of a similarity.

The tallest of the bunch should be around 30m higher than 545 Queen street , but I don’t have any height info on the “unknown tower”.

I can't find any colour renders but there probably are some around the place. Nettleton tribe aren't advertising that they designed them (yet) and the architects of the Intercap don't have an online presence that I can find.

From what I can tell, most seem to have glass balconies (except for intercap....it has glass and concrete)

this is huge

heres a render of 196m -549 Queen st. Its RL to spire is 216m which is only 1metre lower then Auroras fin.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid145/pe130da2479aaaec78454c64f00577397/f666aa91.jpg

looks like the gregorian/georgian rendor (the one that was cancelled opposite the new magistrates courts

http://tinypic.com/ftgeehttp://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid145/pe130da2479aaaec78454c64f00577397/f666aa91.jpg

Ive just gone back and had a look at the renders on the first page of this thread and I have to say that Im starting to have the same concerns as M01lim. I quite like 549 Queen St as it is a little different to all the others and is only really similar to Vision in shape but not in materials so this I am happy with.

The red cross building is rather disappointing IMO. To me it just looks like a balcony wrapped box with no defining shape or dimension. For example, to compare it to Aurora, if you take two pieces of A4 lined paper and draw a pic of Aurora on one piece, and leave the other piece blank then that is the comparison that I am imagining. Whatever gets built on the red cross site needs to have a little more flair given that it will most likely never be built out and will be one of the most visible buildings in the most famous view of Brisbane.

545 Queen St is also a bit disappointing, to me it just looks like a rehash of Skyline, which I love, but do we need another one so close. Emerald was far more interesting, even if it was shorter it would have been more interesting and we are still talking about the city gateway from the airport so I am starting to think a little more imagination would be nice. Something more like Pivotal Point is what I had hoped for this site.

Dont get me wrong, it is very exciting to have all of these buildings on the drawing board, but Petrie Bight is a very narrow area so all of these buildings are going to stand out (other than Intercap which will be well hidden) so I am concerned about the designs.

Anyone know the address of Emerald - would be interesting to do a search on that site to see if the developers have lodged any new plans.

jt

from what i heard jayt. Emerald devlopements wont be lodging anytime soon.

Gmac- yes most are ordinary designs to say least ,BUT they do have lots of height!!!!

Skyline and 545 Queen (as well as the red cross building) are designed by the same people, so I suppose it isn't surprising that they look quite similar. At least they wont clash.

I would prefer more glass and a bit more style, but with the height.... I can't complain too much.

they looks ot be mostly glass balconies, and those look good. Im happy with these ,im sick of the circlular style apartment buildings we got, this are nice sharp shaped buildings.

Ive just gone back and had a look at the renders on the first page of this thread and I have to say that Im starting to have the same concerns as M01lim. I quite like 549 Queen St as it is a little different to all the others and is only really similar to Vision in shape but not in materials so this I am happy with.

The red cross building is rather disappointing IMO. To me it just looks like a balcony wrapped box with no defining shape or dimension. For example, to compare it to Aurora, if you take two pieces of A4 lined paper and draw a pic of Aurora on one piece, and leave the other piece blank then that is the comparison that I am imagining. Whatever gets built on the red cross site needs to have a little more flair given that it will most likely never be built out and will be one of the most visible buildings in the most famous view of Brisbane.

545 Queen St is also a bit disappointing, to me it just looks like a rehash of Skyline, which I love, but do we need another one so close. Emerald was far more interesting, even if it was shorter it would have been more interesting and we are still talking about the city gateway from the airport so I am starting to think a little more imagination would be nice. Something more like Pivotal Point is what I had hoped for this site.

Dont get me wrong, it is very exciting to have all of these buildings on the drawing board, but Petrie Bight is a very narrow area so all of these buildings are going to stand out (other than Intercap which will be well hidden) so I am concerned about the designs.

Well, I was going to type up a big "Great, but I'm a little concerned" post - but I think GMAC sums it up quite well - so to save myself some time - I agree with GMAC :-) (Thanks)

Bloody hell - I used to work in that end of Adelaide Street!

Petrie Bight had potential to be a Brizzy mini-soho and was an area in the CBD that actually had character! Now, the cool warehouse office I used to work in will become a podium for a very average student filing cabinet...that area was OK being fringed by highrise, but this will totally ruin it. Ecco and Circa will move out and be replaced by 7-11's - is'nt it wonderful to have a city so homogenous - fucking gutless council:(

Fountain, how is it bad?

So many more people moving into the city will give it alot more life....
Maybe not in that same spot, but it will move elsewhere with the extra demand of the ... hundreds/thousands of new residents

people want diversity and excitement that comes from a cbd, just more highrise won't automatically give it more "life"

Bris cbd is so small and ringed by low density resi suburbs, Brisbane needs to hang onto a few zones that are not just gentrified into mindless rampant development -there is no masterplan for the way the cbd is heading and it shows...a rush of DA's like this is just developers trying to get on that last gold train, they will sell to lowest denominator, cheap investors - what is so great about that?

Brisbane is just starting to feeling too fake, squeaky clean and clinical in the cbd, cities need their grunge factor!

The Valley?

looks like the gregorian/georgian rendor (the one that was cancelled opposite the new magistrates courts
Exactly what I was thinking!


Wow, you stay away for a week and look what pops up!
Amazing thread. Almost makes the axeing of Emerald seem, well, you know....the other side of the road makes all the difference it seems....

Love the look of 549 Queen. I was really pissed when the Admiralty Precinct went up. It's too late now. At least this current crop will attract the eye a little more than the great wall of beige.

Masterplans. Hmmm.. Usually takes a lot of townplanners and it always takes a lot of townplanners to create a really good disaster.

This plan of the neighbourhood actually reminds me very much of some areas of Vancouver, with individual residential towers rising in the centre of their blocks. It is good for increasing the population and density of the area, but unless the podiums are well designed and tenanted it will become a very dormitory section of Brisbane CBD and present a barrier between the surrounding neighbourhoods, as Fountainhead has mentioned.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v376/Oriolus/Admiralty.jpg

One thing I realised yesterday arvo was how close a lot of these, especially 545 Queen St, is to the now defunct Emerald Tower. I remember one of the arguments against the 230m Emerald was the lack of height in the surrounding buildings. Now there is a proposal for a 180m building across the road. Go figure. Those are height of buildings, not RL heights. RL heights would be 250m v 200m or something like that.

I can see Fountainhead's point on this but I am hoping that there is a certain amount of retail space allowed for on the ground floor and second floor of the podiums for restaurants and some funky little shops. We may see a 7/11 go in somewhere in the area but Im not too worried given that Woolworths is just around the corner. It would have been nice if they could have kept the old facade as part of the podium for The Domaine.

All of the towers have retail

Intercap - 8 tenancys, of which one is marked as 'retauraunt/retail.'
545 Queen - retail, restaurant and supermarket.
480 Queen - 3 retail (one on Queen, 2 on Adelaide)
549 Queen - 1 Commercial floor.

I noticed that too Orfeo, will make that part of town very inviting for the people who live there, as well as others.

BTW, for anyone who doesnt know -->

This is where emeralds site is.
http://tinypic.com/jzek2

GMAC, I believe the current building will become part of the podium for Domaine. At least that is what the 'Independant' reported.

To respond to Fountainheads comments, you are right that this is developers looking for a profit, but the majority of sellers in todays market are owner-occupiers: investors are too scared to buy up. This was shown when the unit sales came out which showed that some 70% of buyers planned to live in the unit that they were buying.

As for it becoming a mini-soho (really a micro-soho), I don't think it would have become one. There are how many warehouses? 4 or 5. And Ecco isn't going anywhere. It is next door to the 'mystery development' but it will still remain. As will that strange set of shops (that are open randomly throughout the year) and the bar on the corner of Macrosan and Adelaide streets. However, I don't think Circa will remain.

The low density suburbs you talk about either don't exist anymore or are going in that direction. Kangaroo Point, South Brisbane, West End (the non-heritage listed bits), Milton, Spring Hill and the Valley all are getting pretty dense, and I would no longer class are 'low density'. And particularly the northern areas are not 'gentrified'. As Blend metioned, the Valley is not exactly a normal haunt of the blue-rinse set. Or even a few younger people scared of the 'unusual'.

These are definately not my favourite developments, but they aren't hiddeous nor are they the 'student dormatories' that you have classed them as (except for Intercap...but students do have to live somewhere).

Several of buildings do use at least sections of the original buildings....even intercap. What has surprised me is that most of the developments contain a Porte-cochere.

Hmm, I agree with fountainhead. More resi's are only going to make the city bland and boring. I think we're planning ahead of our time, I tihnk more focus needs to be put on good retail and big commercial in the city. These sort of developments should replace "decentralizing" commercial firms in suburbs like Milton and Kangaroo Point. And yeah, the city is sort of teetering on the edge of being great or really crap. . .I personally think the solution is becoming more cultural and instead of putting entertainment venues outsie the city, put it IN the city. Plus More Big Name shops (Virgin Megastore, Nike store etc.) would definately add to the character.

I hope that Made sense, I'm just stringing ideas together :P

my point is that brisbane needs variety in its urban experience....just saying the city is losing an area that had character, that's all (duh - it is a VERY mini soho, but at least is was a semi-arty district)

high rise is contained to the city, and that has been the point of BCC's town plan....by low density - i really meant to say low rise, kangaroo point is limited to 15ish stories maximum and the bcc never really had a plan that allowed for a massive influx of high rise into what is a very small cbd

the valley is great, and has critical mass - but this little pocket DID have a lot more potential than a bunch of very ordinary towers will ever give it

Orfeo, to be perfectly cynical is response to your market analysis - i would go so far as to say the majority of these towers will never get off the ground with their current owners - a rush of DA's like this is probably just to increase site values, probably before a revision to the city plan, in order to on sell sites with planning approval for far greater value than it would have normally been... when most of these sites do get developed, they will be in a completely different market to today

They were talking about limiting the area to 80m I think. But every block may have approval for a big building on it by the time they can enforce it. How long does such an approval remain valid? How much can they change the plan without being forced to resubmit a new application that could be limited to 80m?

i would have thought that more residential buildings in the cbd would mean more people living in the cbd that would need to work in the cbd... hence making more demand for comercial towers... my thoughts only. call me crazy.

I dont know how many apartments there are all together.. Probably like 1000+

Thats at least 1000 new ppl living in the CBD, which would mean demand for 1000 jobs and entertainment and shopping sufficiant for 1000 people.

that is infallible logic.

except that all the good spots to build commercial towers are now occupied by residential towers. So they build some new commercial towers in Bowen Hills and commute from the city.

there are plenty of sites left in the city. 30-40, actually. didnt u read that thread a few weeks/months ago?

Just intercap, skyline,445 and 449 Queen street have about 900 apartments. Include Domaine and the mystery tower and there would easily be over 1200 apartments proposed.

then add in Aurora, just since its so close...

You will have 2000-5000 new residents

dont forget to add the gold coast population, then petrie bight will have more population than melbourne in 10 years

and when tweed is brought into QLD it can be counted as well.

1000 new people moving to the city will not create demand for 1000 new jobs in the city. Most of these people will already have jobs, but entertainment and shopping is a valid point.

As for the population factor, even including the whole south-east region, you'd be hard-pressed to out number Melburians even in 10 years, don't forget that Melbourne is a growing city as well, just at a slower rate then SEQ.

we were taking the piss ausilencer

44 more towers to go...... ;)

Brisbane CBD development sites
By News Desk
Nov 5, 2004
Email this article


Forty four development sites with a combined area of 11.5 hectares have been identified in Brisbane’s CBD, debunking market perception that few development opportunities remain, according to a leading industry analyst.

National independent property valuers and advisors LandMark White has just released a report identifying the 44 sites and five key development precincts, namely the Golden Triangle, CBD core, CBD frame, the QUT and Government precinct and the North Quay and Roma Street precinct.

According to LandMark White’s national research director, Jennelle Wilson, 10 of the sites representing 2.63ha are currently being developed with a further 11 sites in receipt of Council approval and awaiting commencement.

"With the 10 sites currently under development and a further 11 with development proposals in motion, the number of CBD sites is reducing quickly, but there are still opportunities" she said.

"However roughly as many sites again appear to be available as medium term sites with older improvements or less than highest or best value use."

With only five sites identified in the Golden Triangle totalling 1.74ha, the financial hub bound by Edward and Queen Streets and the Brisbane River, the area presents the least development opportunities and over time pressures will extend the fiscal heart of Brisbane further into the city, said Ms Wilson.

"The Government and QUT precinct was considered to present the highest number of opportunities with 14 development sites representing 3.2ha, and so far this area remains dominated by residential projects," she said.

"The CBD frame offers 11 sites totalling 2.15ha and the North Quay and Roma Street precincts offers eight sites totalling 2.39ha, with the Brisbane core CBD identified as having only six sites available totalling 2.04ha."

Ms Wilson said in identifying the development sites LandMark White considered those currently under construction, cleared and awaiting construction and sites with future development potential.

"For an improved site to be classified as having future development potential it had to be over 750 sq metres and the current improvements are not considered to constitute the highest and best use," she said.

"Existing buildings in general had to be less than 10 levels high and over 20 years old with no or limited heritage restrictions.

"Since the last development boom cycle we had become used to counting development sites as those which are cleared or operating as open air car parks."

LandMark White reports that as these sites become fully absorbed the cycle of demolition and replacement would return as evidenced by the development of Queen Street Central, the commercial redevelopment site at the bottom of the Queen Street Mall.

"Increasingly longer term players in the market are taking positions on future development sites, however rather than clearing the site, are now holding on to improvements and taking an income until construction is about to happen, said Ms Wilson.

we were taking the piss ausilencer

Oops, that's a little embarrassing, I thought you were at first, and then read on and convinced myself that you weren't in the last couple of posts... oh well!!

lol understandable

I was wondering when we might start seeing some colour renders of these...
You know - so we can get some idea of what they will look like when/if built,
Im very excited about these proposals, Its about time the council and government realise that the future expansion of the CBD does not lie around South Bank - Petrie Bight and New Farm / the Valley is what we should be focusing on.

youre one of the developers arnt you ozzy nick!!!! a lamb dressed in wolfs clotheing!!!!

lol. Random ozzy nick just appearing.

lol - Nah I'm no developer, but can you argue with my point ?

i always hava laugh at the newbies that come on and make one or two posts then dissapear... their first post is usually 'when will seq population pass melbournes' or 'buildings are tall..arnt they'

think what you will Danubis -

im sounding like a horrible grub arnt i. my appologies ozzy nick.. but once you get past 10 posts, blend and I are only too happy to take you through the initiation process... it involves a P&O cruise and a couple of oversized smacking paddles... are you excited!!!

lol - cant wait

ok people back on topic...

Just a quick recap hey... heres a pretty crappy drawing I made up.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/danubiis/petriebight.jpg

Well done. Not crappy at all and good to see them all together in one drawing.

Nice job Danubis

Until that diagram I didn't really appreciate the size of these towers.

If some or all of these go ahead it will certainly change the character of that part of the CBD.

In addition it would create an amazing view from Kangaroo point and the storey bridge. There will be a layering effect from the lower admiralty towers in the front and these new higher towers, (both from height and ground elevation) at the rear: very Hong Kong.

Hi and thanks to all contributers to this great thread. Yes, Danubis, it's my first post and I wish I really had NEWS to contribute. I've just bought across the road from the Emerald Tower site and I would happily put up with building noise and traffic problems to see Emerald rise. I've been chasing-up quite a few stakeholders and the message coming back is loud and clear. Don't write off Emerald Tower yet!

Do you mean the developers are going to appeal or are they going to put in a DA for a modified shorter tower?

The 'word' is theyre somehow appealing on grounds that it wont be out of place with all these other towers going up

Danubis-great little diagram. only 1 mistake. Intercap tower is only 97m not 130m.

ive updated ss.com now its back.
heres the impressive list of planned towers for brissy

APPROVED
1. Skyline Apartments 160 m 48 2006
2. The Domaine 145 m 40 2006
3. M on Mary 140 m 46 2006
PROPOSED
1. Vision 246 m 72 2007
2. 549 Queen Street 196 m 60
3. 480 Queen Street 184 m 57
4. 545 Queen Street 156 m 48
5. Charlotte Towers 138 m 44 2006
6. Evolution 111 m 37 2006
7. 499-501 Adelaide Street 97 m 37
8. 40 Elizabeth Street 60 m 20
9. The Pinnacle 14 50m
10. 299 Adelaide Street 12 40m 2005
11. Millennium Towers 12 40m

Re Emerald Tower - we will just have to wait and see. My post was simply to alert people to the fact that Emerald is not necessarily consigned to Fantasy Land. It's not up to me to canvas possible nextsteps. I think over 2 years ago it was BrizzyChris who asked if a single person could block this development. This was prophetic. The issue now is how many individuals are able to block a development. As those who have been following this saga now for more than 2 years will know, Emerald Developments is a fighter. Go ED!

There's been mention ot the Hub Apartments across the street from Woolworths. While not quite in PB, this web site shows some great views of the area that help to visualise other local developments:

www.thehubapartments.com

494-502 Adelaide St - the "Mystery Tower" has roof height of.
.
.
.
.
RL 149.51

sorry, don't know anymore other than it is very skinny just like 549 Queen St.
Um, 12.5m wide.

12.5 metres wide. Freaking hell. My lounge room is 10 metres wide

^ Lol. Just consider it as a really tall lounge room then!

It just means 1 row of apartments per floor then, doesnt it?

Hi Blend, Cul says that 549 Queens is 17m wide and plans show 2 unit/floor. Until we know more, 12.5 need not have only one. But what a buzz to say that you own a whole floor. Cheers.

So the mystery tower will be about 130m-135m.

494-502 Adelaide St - the "Mystery Tower" has roof height of.
.
.
.
.
RL 149.51

sorry, don't know anymore other than it is very skinny just like 549 Queen St.
Um, 12.5m wide.
rum, was there anythign above the roof? LMR ect. so its approx 16mRL op 545 Queen st, thus 150m-16m = 134m?
couldnt find plans on bcc website.has it approval?

APPROVED
1. Skyline Apartments 160 m 48 2006
2. The Domaine 145 m 40 2006
3. M on Mary 140 m 46 2006
4.494-502 Adelaide st 134m 40 2006
PROPOSED
1. Vision 246 m 72 2007
2. 549 Queen Street 196 m 60
3. 480 Queen Street 184 m 57
4. 545 Queen Street 156 m 48
5. Charlotte Towers 138 m 44 2006
6. Evolution 111 m 37 2006
7. 499-501 Adelaide Street 97 m 37
8. 40 Elizabeth Street 60 m 20
9. The Pinnacle 14 50m
10. 299 Adelaide Street 12 40m 2005
11. Millennium Towers 12 40m

This area will look rather ridiculous with all these pencil thin apartment towers will it not? :bash:

rum, was there anythign above the roof? LMR ect. so its approx 16mRL op 545 Queen st, thus 150m-16m = 134m?
couldnt find plans on bcc website.has it approval?

APPROVED
1. Skyline Apartments 160 m 48 2006
2. The Domaine 145 m 40 2006
3. M on Mary 140 m 46 2006
4.494-502 Adelaide st 134m 40 2006
PROPOSED
1. Vision 246 m 72 2007
2. 549 Queen Street 196 m 60
3. 480 Queen Street 184 m 57
4. 545 Queen Street 156 m 48
5. Charlotte Towers 138 m 44 2006
6. Evolution 111 m 37 2006
7. 499-501 Adelaide Street 97 m 37
8. 40 Elizabeth Street 60 m 20
9. The Pinnacle 14 50m
10. 299 Adelaide Street 12 40m 2005
11. Millennium Towers 12 40m

It is just the DA.
Yes, there is stuff above that level, so add another 3 or 4m. The RL I quoted was the roof height of the top floor.
the lower floors have two apartments per floor with the upper half having 1 unit per floor.

thanks rum. so 138m.for now. cheers

APPROVED
1. Skyline Apartments 160 m 48 2006
2. The Domaine 145 m 40 2006
3. M on Mary 140 m 46 2006

PROPOSED
1. Vision 246 m 72 2007
2. 549 Queen Street 196 m 60
3. 480 Queen Street 184 m 57
4. 545 Queen Street 156 m 48
5. Charlotte Towers 138 m 44 2006
6.494-502 Adelaide st 134m 40 2006
7. Evolution 111 m 37 2006
8. 499-501 Adelaide Street 97 m 37
9. 40 Elizabeth Street 60 m 20
10. The Pinnacle 14 50m
11. 299 Adelaide Street 12 40m 2005
12. Millennium Towers 12 40m

thanks rum. so 138m.for now. cheers

APPROVED
1. Skyline Apartments 160 m 48 2006
2. The Domaine 145 m 40 2006
3. M on Mary 140 m 46 2006

PROPOSED
1. Vision 246 m 72 2007
2. 549 Queen Street 196 m 60
3. 480 Queen Street 184 m 57
4. 545 Queen Street 156 m 48
5. Charlotte Towers 138 m 44 2006
6.494-502 Adelaide st 134m 40 2006
7. Evolution 111 m 37 2006
8. 499-501 Adelaide Street 97 m 37
9. 40 Elizabeth Street 60 m 20
10. The Pinnacle 14 50m
11. 299 Adelaide Street 12 40m 2005
12. Millennium Towers 12 40m

Charlotte Towers and Evolution are approved.

I should find a more up to date list for you - I have on my computer at home as there are many missing from your list.

jt

there shouldnt be any missing. these are whats on ss.com.

I think Skyscrapers.com may be out of date or something because I have been keeping a close eye on things and have my own database which I update regularly. I shal bring in a list of stuff in the CBD for you to look at and make sure its all correct. I have not included the inner fringe because that would be too much.

From memory my last count there were about 13 towers under construction in Brisbane CBD which accounted for about 21 cranes.

jt

Wasnt skyline apartments supposed to begin construction this month? Any news?

I think Skyscrapers.com may be out of date or something because I have been keeping a close eye on things and have my own database which I update regularly. I shal bring in a list of stuff in the CBD for you to look at and make sure its all correct. I have not included the inner fringe because that would be too much.

From memory my last count there were about 13 towers under construction in Brisbane CBD which accounted for about 21 cranes.

jt
its now 12 on ss.com due to Riverpark Central finishing.

i wonder with such dense population in such a small area that they will have to consider putting a primary school in one of the towers? im sure its not unheard off in citys like nyc and hong kong?

i wonder with such dense population in such a small area that they will have to consider putting a primary school in one of the towers? im sure its not unheard off in citys like nyc and hong kong?

I'm not sure how it works with Primary schools, but there are already issues with child care centers (they have to be on the ground level with an outside play area). I guess they could only have a school in a tower if they had some outside space nearby that they could use.

thats a good point - anyone know were the nearest primary school is to the city - Gregory Terrace is all high school isnt it? there is a few over near North Quay / Victoria Barracks i think

theres child care facilities going in the city plaza tower.

Will this contend for densest postal address in australia?

royal brisbane hospital has its own post code. just thought i'ld add that little peice of information :bowtie:

The nearest primary school would be Spring Hill Primary, but there is heaps of private high schools in the area with St James at the bottom of Boundary St and All Hallows right next door.

heres a quick scale diagram showing petrie bight precinct.
these new towers seem to be a dif scale to Admiralty wharf towers.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/500/126petriebightskyline.jpg

It certainly is going to make a fantastic difference to the area, I just wish it was going to look as spread out as it does in Cul's diagram, if you squash it all up a little bit though you get a good idea of how dense this little pocket is going to be.

This area is very concentrated with apartment buildings. As it is it already looks foul with all that apricot/wishy washy paint, and balconies and more balconies, what will it look like in years to come.
Hopefully the area in decades to come won't look like a rundown ghetto.

If you gotta build all these apartments, spread them out a bit.

If anyone is feeling artistic I took these pics of Petrie Bight as it is at the moment, so those of you with Photoshop flair might like to add in a couple of buildings. Theres a challenge for you!!!!

Sorry if they are a bit dark.
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid146/p838a2f54ffbba1bd172cc81e29634594/f63e80c8.jpg
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid146/p8b218528dfdc00b1c8fe12866e9c1515/f63e80d0.jpg

This area is very concentrated with apartment buildings. As it is it already looks foul with all that apricot/wishy washy paint, and balconies and more balconies, what will it look like in years to come.
Hopefully the area in decades to come won't look like a rundown ghetto.

If you gotta build all these apartments, spread them out a bit.

Considering the prime riverfront location, I think the only ghetto you have to be worried about is the production of an upmarket, luxury, dormitory area of the Brisbane CBD. Thank goodness for the proposed student accommodation apartments! ;)

Think Manhattan Upper East Side, think Hong Kong Mid-Levels...my big concern is the potential lack of street-life around the base of these towers as the wealthy stay holed-up in their security apartments and rarely venture out to greet the peasants...think the section of Sydney's Pyrmont around Jackson's Landing/Pyrmont Point. :| :)

thats why they have balcony's. the can see the street from their unit, what more do you want finn! jeeees.

^^No silly, the balconies are there for drying your washing and for extra storage space when all the junk doesn't fit in your apartment. :)

Actually, having been a guest at a few 'upmarket' apartments in Brisbane, the Balconies are used for entertaining. What else do you do when it's 24 degrees and clear outside? Sit inside an airconditioned glass box? :bash:

Sure most people think glass curtains do more for the skyline, but they aren't the ones living there.

60 storeys for petrie Bight. I don't think that's reasonable. Maybe 40 or so but 60 sheesh.

lol gertzy. You didnt read it all did u.

There are like 6 towers ranging from
Intercap - Like 98m
The Domaine - 145m
Skyline - 160m
480 Queen st - 184m

A 181m (196m spire)

Plus another 1 or 2 that i cant remember.

ehhh.......whoops didn't see that at all, okay then so all the buildings are between 30-60 story, then that is reasonable I guess.

^ Late reply but meh

Your a weird man lol. You were shocked when u thought it was 1 60 story.. but in reality it is:


1x 37 Stories (Intercap [96m])
1x 40 Stories (The Domaine [145m])
2x 48 Stories (Skyline [160m] & 545 Queen St [156m] )
1x 57 Stories (480 Queen St [186m])
1x 60 Stories (549 Queen St [186m-{Roof} and 196m-{Spire})


If that isnt more shocking than 1 60 story tower then your weird.


(this post aka 'Bump")

i wonder if any of these will actually commence 2005. looking forward to them

obviously The Domaine and Skyline will..

It all depends on when they get approved (and if)

Is it likely cul?

Intercap has given a new application to BCC re their student accommodation tower 501 Adelaide St - its now taller:D
http://www.ourbrisbane.com/government/transactions/search/stuff/psf//u/x/v/kduf/p885482_0002.pdf

jt

I see it's RL as 114.25m. Are you getting excited over 2 metres?

And by my calculations...114m-18m = 96m AHD

Is this correct? If so, that has got to be the shortest 37 level tower in the world.

I have the ground floor at 16.650m and roof at 114.250m, so 97.6m (which would be rounded up to 98m)

I agree it has 37 levels but thats taken dfrom rear at RL7.2m. If you take height from main entrance its 114.2-16.6 = 97.6 BUt it would have to be 34 floors high not 37. So what do you guys think?
37 levels/107m - taken from rear
OR
34 levels/98m-taken from main entrance

I think Brisbane is only city currently taking floor to floor heights to its minimum of 2.8m. really cramming in the floors.

^^ Im guessing because it is Student accomodation theyre doing as much as they can

37 floors/107m sounds better to me. :)

I don't like the way height is measured from the main entrance - I know that's the CTBUH rules, is that what Emporis does as well? Consider this building - the difference is bigger in relative terms because it's a low rise but never the less the main entrances are on side (2nd storey) and back(3rd storey) but it really deserves to be 7 storeys because the front is 7.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v376/Oriolus/StantonRise.jpg

So I say 37s/107m

I see it's RL as 114.25m. Are you getting excited over 2 metres?

I was told by a friend in council that 20 stories were added.
I guess I jumped the gun.
jt

thought id put this in here as well

current situation (i mght of left out some background bldgs)
http://img220.echo.cx/img220/5412/petriebightskylineexisting5wy.jpg

updated diagram. i added more bldgs to left (CP1.Pano sky ect)
http://img95.echo.cx/img95/4971/petriebightskylineproposed7gl.jpg

I've heard that some of the developers are getting cold feet on developing straight away. Some of them just wanted to get the application in first (because of the proposed DA changes) and then have it approved and then sit on it for a while.

Bump - thanks notra:)

Here's the 7 towers of Petrie Bight, with a map. It doesn't show 480 Queen (Red Cross site) but has the other 6. Let me know of any mistakes.

549 Queen (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=149555) 60s/196m (Prop)

480 Queen (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=157461) 57s/184m (Prop)

Domaine (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=146392) 52s/177m (Approved)

Skyline (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=107541) 48s/160m (UC)

545 Queen (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=172823) 48s/156m (Prop)

502 Adelaide (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=238583) 40s/138 (Prop)

Intercap Tower (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=180755) 37s/107m (Prop)

http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/5940/petriebight0oi.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Thanks for that... Shows me whats going and where quite well.

Gees Petrie Bight is gunna be so dense if those other 5 towers get approved, and all are quite respectable heights too...

Lets get it happening...!!!

wow - this area is going to improve immeasurably - when does domain begin construction? I cant see its thread for some reason - was it approved only recently?

Holy crap how come i have not seen this before. Queenslands boom is amazing.

i think its a good idea lumping all tall resi together. kinda like building a precinct. In Sydney's CBD now, councillors are trying to deter apartment towers amongst the corporate areas. they would rather have zones where apartments towers are situated.

missing 549 queen st's clone, the smaller version of.

Not that that map has it, but yeah.

Which one is that Malt? Your not thinking of (484-)502 Adelaide are you. The map is from its DA. 502 Adelaide & 549 Queen are both by Cox Rayner & both ridiculously skinny. In the words of Grollo, a pair of chopsticks lol.

Well things have really stagnated here havn't they - most of these DA's have been with council for over a year.

549 Queen - not yet approved (lodged 23-Sep-2004)

480 Queen - not yet approved (lodged 06-Sep-2004)

545 Queen - not yet approved (lodged 06-Sep-2004)
However there's another DA lodged 30-Sep-2005. When I open it it says the file is damaged and could not be reparied, but it seems to be some modifications to the existing building. Anyway the main page for the new DA is here (http://www.ourbrisbane.com/public/DAServlet/930354)

502 Adelaide - not yet approved (lodged 23-Sep-2004)
Supposedly scrapped anyway with DA for a 50 storey hotel on the way

501 Adelaide (Intercap)- not yet approved (lodged 03-Feb-2004)

475 Adelaide (Domaine) - approved
A new DA that's supposedly coming for a much shorter tower not yet in

Skyline - UNDER CONSTRUCTION!!

545 Queen - not yet approved (lodged 06-Sep-2004)
However there's another DA lodged 30-Sep-2005. When I open it it says the file is damaged and could not be reparied, but it seems to be some modifications to the existing building.

The new application is for extensions to the existing shops/offices and will only be 11 levels high with a maximum height of 56.235 AHD, very dissapointing ;-(

^jesus. talk about turnaround. wtf?
so RL on that site is 18mAHD, thus 56m-18m = 38m tall. atleast it makes Emporis.lol

lol. Im not really dissapointed.

THough about domaine i am.!

Really memorable names, these towers have. When I hear a title I have no idea what building they're talking about!

lol. Im not really dissapointed.

THough about domaine i am.!

Me too, Domaine looked such a great design and would've been fitting in the area...goddam!! >: (

We still don't know for sure if the old Domaine design and height has been canned.

Well I don't miss 545 Queen Street at all, it went past Robert Mugabe to establish a whole new level of bad.

On the other hand, damn, never seen Domaine before but that thing is hot! (well compared the usual Brisbane resi shoebox) I hope it goes ahead.

Intercap Student Accomodation has been approved.

484 Queen Street has been resubmitted.

It has gone from this -

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/07/383334.jpg

To this -

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8106/549ad4pj.jpg

A slight increse in height to roof from 138 to 143m (=157.710-14.550) plus the spire, which I'm guestimating at 15m, which would make it 158m to structural tip. They seem to have fullfilled all the BCCs original issues, though they'll have to quantify the spire at some point, and have gotten approval from Airport planning and regulation.

Should be good if these go ahead. i know some of them are already.

With domain, skyline and 545 queen st it should be good because it will fill in the gaps when you look at the skyline from the storey bridge. So it will be more consistant.

On emporis it says that 545 is a never built?? Is it actually still in the proposed stage?

Is is just me, or does it seem pretty dull and a bit boring? But i spose it is for petrie bight and we wouldn't want to change the theme of the area.....

On emporis it says that 545 is a never built?? Is it actually still in the proposed stage?

A much smaller DA has been submitted, so the original plan has been cancelled.

thanks orfeo. ill amend stats on emporis

heres a great photo showing bite.
how are tese DAs going? is Skyline tower the only mover?
http://www.abovephotography.com.au/stockphotos/large/QBR4000b-0501-00005.jpg

Cul - a lot is proposed or planned. The Hub, almost finished, isn't shown to the north-east of Pacific International. I'm as confused as anyone about the current status of many proposals, especially following recent Seymour sales. Domaine behind Skyline seems still uncertain, if it's not gone. Emerald would be to the north/east of Wilhara on Ann. Then there's the Red Cross site to the west of the brown building. Both blocks to the river side of Pacific International still have development plans - the Boundary St site seems a goer although the proposed demolition of the octagonal building on Queen hasn't been mentioned recently to my knowledge. The Intercap student accommodation building is still on, isn't it?

Domaine is still a go-er, at least I read about it in the paper a few weeks ago as being a go-er to start this year.

Intercap and some of those others are approved and presumably going to be marketed soon? Don't really care about them since they are pretty short and ordinary.

The big ones of course are Redcross which is off with Cottee Parker atm, and Emerald which we all know the story.

Is Domaine still going to be 177m?

yes. 177m to tiny spire and 163m to roof with 52 storeys.
i love it. very manhattanish

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/3678/domaine0cq.jpg

Very Nice indeed, it also offers an attactive visual contrast to those admiralty tower monstrosities.

That does look good, and anything that takes your eyes off the uglies in that area has to be a plus

This end of Adelaide St is going to be totally unrecognisable in a few years. One thing though, assuming Intercap and Domaine are definitely going ahead, if they start building both of these within the next 6 - 12 months, isnt that going to play havoc with the Adelaide St entrance to the city? Its one thing to have 1 tower going up, but to have 3 (including Skyline) going up on the one small block backing on to eachother, and all by seperate companies, seems like alot of pressure for an already busy pocket of town.

I think the view in Cul's image is way off the mark - it doesn't show Skyline. If you check out finn's post back on p.3, you can see the position of these 2 blgs. Also I remember an announcement post Cul's Domaine render to say that Domaine had been substantially reduced in height.

^ wot u mean ,off the mark? The Skyline site is directly behind the Admiralty Quays tower (tower with spire or 3rd tallest)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v376/Oriolus/Admiralty.jpg

Cul - I was suggesting that most of the views between these 2 admiralty buildings will show Skyline and that Skyline would block many of Domaine's river views. Domaine will not have the river views that would be expected from the Domaine shot.

When did Domaine go back to being 177m? Last I heard it was reduced in height dramatically.

^
that had never been confirmed. If they were they probably would have resubmitted at a lower height by now.

I thought this thing was killed!

I hope not, I love this tower.

Do we have any updates on this one, what is the confirmed height? Is it still a goer? When will construction start?

all promotor advertising has been withdrawn.

Bummer!

O well...this leaves more demand for Vision, Empire, Emerald and skyline.... it looked ugly anyway...too green and flat

it looked ugly anyway...too green and flat

I would have thought that it would blend in with emerald because of its colour. It is also a very tall building for the area which also complements emerald.

I noticed seems like Intercap has started construction and whatever is going on across the road from that as well.

As for Domaine, Culwulla mentioned it was switching to office or mixed used potentially, though maybe it's still going ahead as resi since it's on the maquare site, the current one was decent but only 150 or so to roof right, so not really huge.

lots of potential sites
when is next to start?

http://www.abovephotography.com.au/stockphotos/large/QBR4000b-0501-00005.jpg

That's going to look insane in 15 years.

^^ Lets hope it extends across that park to the other side of Wickham/Turbot St's, lots of car parks there!

^^That is limited to about 6 storeys there...never going to happen.

Yeah I didn't think it was zoned for much height. Who knows, it may change in the future! Like, 20 years down the track...

There is heaps of those character houses through there. Unless a big fire or something takes them out, I doubt anything will happen there in the next 50 or 100 years.

Meanwhile - that site next to the Orient Hotel looks rather inviting for a 70+ storey tower........

:lol:

Lets not forget one of those carparks is now The HUB, and the bigger one on the right is under development. The block the hub is on could handle another couple of similar sized developments.

we can add meritons 70storey to this thread. so where exactly is the 5 amalalgamated sites on cnr Adelaide & Boundary sts?

This is Boundary Street, and Adelaide St intercepts it where the white van is turning.
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/9982/p2010010be3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

^^ Adelaide Street along there is really interesting, nice old shopfronts. I hope they retain it, though I'm doubtful.

Loved reading the first page or 2 on this thread with some of the worries:

Is it going to make the city lopsided?

Can the market handle it?

:lol: My how times change!!!

It's very interesting, isn't it! :)