There are so many really tall buildings that are being rumoured in SEQ I thought I'd start a thread about them. They are:

480 Queen St - around 300m,
Elizabeth St- 250m.
BAC 200-360m.
GCTC - around 300m,
'Elite' - tall,
Q2 - supertall
3 other towers on the Gold Coast between 250 and 300m GC

Add this to the proposed Empire Square and approved Vision at 235 and 283m respectively in Brisbane

and

Approved Soul @ 240m on the Gold Coast

Some awesome times ahead for SEQ.
:runaway:
:runaway:
:runaway:

Exciting, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm just glad the best tower design (Vision) is actually approved and starting soon.

Yep, good times for SEQ. Brisbane is flourishing since the new Council came in. It's a beehive of activity.

Obviously rumours are rumours for a reason but on the whole it's a good mix of office mixed-use and resi stuff, and it's staggered over a the next few years between two cities so I think we should see everything get up.

We could do with some more office office still though.

This by Locke
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/2962/bris2010a1ny.jpg

What is BAC 200? I must have missed that one, 360m!

Brisbane is without doubt the second best skyline in Australia (what is the best - ha ha!!!). And it's best building, Riparian, may even be the best in Australia.

As for those new ones - certainly impressive in terms of height - lets hope they get thru.

OMG. All hail brisbane. Perth resi market is arse kicking at the moment so it's good news, perth is following mebourne and brisbane's leads and perth is really starting to fell better.

Good luck and may the boom times last. Just long enough.

its funny, how not that long ago the talles in brissie was 170m? and now anything less then 200m is see as insignificant

We're talking billions of dollars to build all these buildings listed above so I dont expect all of them to get up off the ground - a city the size of Brisbane just cant support this sort of infrastructure within the next 2 - 3 years. Maybe I'll be eating my words, but i do think the elected council definitely has our future at heart. The skyline is merely a bonus, if the economy of Brisbane can soar past it and keep us living comfortably.

Yes it is buildings of dollars and I don't expect ALL of the buildings to go a head, but the thing is that Brisbanes Office Market is at record lows (and the lowest in the country) and the hotel market is also at record lows, hence most of these buildings having an office and a hotel percent in them.

If they all got built I don't think there would be an excessive flood in supply IMO.

Some damn nice towers in Locke's pic but the skyline looks absolutely retarted can't they bunch them together or something? it looks pretty bad...

It's all a question of angle, the Kangaroo point angle is the only angle of the city from which things look spread out, from all the others you get the cluster effect which some people on here seem to love, but which I find boring.

But even the Kangaroo Point angle will fill in time. Personally I like it when the talls have some breathing space, I don't want them all hiding behind each other so that you can't see them all and the skyline looks smaller than it is. That's what they do at the moment from the north side with all the buildings being the same height and it looks totally SHIT, especially as they aren't even tall nor glassy.

Good looking buildings should stand out. Besides, we can always fill in the gaps with more tallies, you can't expect the skyline to look like manhattan from day one, you gotta start somewhere!

^^ I totally agree with you locke. I think supertalls should be slightly removed from other big scrapers - they just lose impact otherrwise. Take eureka for example. Imagine if it was tucked in in the middle of the city - still nice enough, but out on its own it soars!! Afterall, we all love skyscrapers here for the height, why not try to maximise its effects? Vision will be awesome - NOt only is it freakin massive as it is, but there's nothin tall around it for blocks!!! I'm so moist.....

So what have we got there Locke? One of the Guangzhou Twin Towers, one of Madrid's Arena Towers (Cristal) and is that Suyong Bay Tower next to Aurora?

I'd be quite happy if the upscaled Vision remained Brisbane's tallest indefinately - I think the skyline would benefit much more from a whole bunch of 200m towers than a few 300m towers. It needs to fill out a bit more first, although having to maintain a "crater" around Queen Street Mall might make it hard to create a really balanced skyline.

As the the Gold Coast - bring it on! It doesn't have to worry about creating a nice cluster effect, just a strip of skyscrapers along the beach.

Yep, that's the one's Oriolus, anything glassy and classy and tall will do, there is a bad case of concretisis and combined with advanced stumpiness on the north side of town. I hate, hate, hate it.

I find 200m disappointing nowdays, 230-40m is sorta the standard tallie proposal height in SEQ these days, I don't think this height really excites people that much anymore. Vision has moderate excitement cos it's up in the 260-80spire range. But to really get people excited you have to go beat Q1 and Eureka, you know, go into some new territory which I predict you will see proposed before the end of the year:)

Cos like these things take forever to build, so we better get cracking now!:)

Well i'd like to see some office towers in the gold coast instead of all these residential buildings.

Its definitely exciting times ahead for SEQ. Not just tall super towers planned but other infrastructure, roads, underground rail, freeways, new bridges, additions to the airport, new commercial hubs and Transit Orientated Developments.

Its all very exciting to be part of it - we are part of it:D

im actually excited because i moved out of Brisbane last year(the army) but i still call Brisbane home and once im finished with the army i will most definetly return to Brisbane. It will be great to come home after a couple of years and see the change.

Why do people like Riparian??? i like the top but its too concrete! and i can't wait for Vision to replace it as the tallest! and the 3rd tallest in Australia.

^
it's a high quality building, reminicent to riverside but unique in its segmented form. I wouldn't describe it as "too concrete" as most of the building is covered in reconstituted granite panels.

From the Brisbane News Part 3 thread:


On a more positive note, I have very reputable news that a prominent developer has plans for an 80+ storey mixed commercial/residential building in the CBD.

My source would not allow me to say who the developer is or where the proposed building is to go but WATCH THIS SPACE!!!!!

^ wow, sydney has an 8 storey proposed in the CBD, but i cant disclose anymore info then that. dont watch this space..

lol, are u drunk Cul!?!

good one Cul :-)

lol, are u drunk Cul!?!
nah, just peed at every other city getting talls, while sydney gets a 13storied 50m tower with setbacks for sun access plan and FSR of 12;1 keeping with heritage landscape and minimum number of car spaces because nimbys have cracked a poo. :runaway:

Well latest rumour mill rumblings is the 90 storey Transit Centre tower on the GC

Pic from today's GC Bulletin front page(artists impression of the size of the potential tower only, that is 2IFC obviously):
90-floor transit centre tower
Gold Coast Bulletin 6Apr06
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e238/BR377/transit.jpg

Tower thread:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=140602&page=13&pp=20

GCCC wont allow that set back but i love the hight. Sould be yum.

Locke again:
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/1955/2012a5fr.jpg

awesome pictures great work

Well latest rumour mill rumblings is the 90 storey Transit Centre tower on the GC

Pic from today's GC Bulletin front page(artists impression of the size of the potential tower only, that is 2IFC obviously):
90-floor transit centre tower
Gold Coast Bulletin 6Apr06
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e238/BR377/transit.jpg

Tower thread:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=140602&page=13&pp=20

Love it how they have Q1 still under construction!

Thought I would let people know about another tallie on the Gold Coast, the Raptis ANA tower, exact height in unknown but it's likely to be Soul size, possibly approaching Q1 size:

70 level mixed-use tower for ANA hotel site

This tower will be mixed use!!! 30 levels of office and 40 of residential!! on a 3 level podium!

Here is what I found on Cundalls (ESD dudes) website:

Towers Above! Cundall Strikes Gold...

Cundall's Brisbane office has won the ESD commission for new high rise mixed-use tower

Cundall's Brisbane office that opened in October 2005, has successfully secured the Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD) commission for the new ANA Tower in the very heart of Australia's Gold Coast. The client, Raptis Group has built many landmark developments including a number of luxury apartment skyscrapers, and also operate the Chevron Island retail district.

The ANA Tower is another significant development for Raptis, rising to 70 levels above ground. The AUS$130 million mixed-use development will include a podium of 3 levels of retail, with approximately 30 levels of commercial office space and 40 levels of luxury apartments. At that height the wind is such that opening windows requires special window design.

Now by my calculations!

30 levels of office = around 120m
40 levels of luxury apartments = around 120m
=240m

+ 3 level podium = say 15m
=255m tower!
+any arch features! = maybe up to Q1 height even!!!

In any case, def more than the 210m figure we were guessitimating before for this tower.

Tower thread:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=7964494#post7964494

Do you really think $130 million is enough for a 250m building considering VISION is costing almost a billion???

Well considering Raptis' 30 story Artique cost about that, and this is a 70 level Mixed-Use tower with a major office component, I'd say it's safe to say that that's a misprint. Either that or Raptis are gonna clean up on this thing!;)

That is an awesome photoshop job of Brisbane :) love it.
I am not a fan of brissy i like the sun, sand & surf which is why i live on the gold coast and used to live on sunshine coast hehe but its really going to look good in a few years if any of those are built.

Go SEQ :D

This by Locke
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/2962/bris2010a1ny.jpg

Great pick by Locke. Only thing that kills it is the title: 'Brisvegas'. Maybe those who keep referring to it as 'Brisvegas' should just stick to calling it 'Brisbane'. 'Brisvegas' is an insult to Brisbane. Brisbane should be seen as Brisbane, in its own right, with its own identity, as opposed to a Las Vegish style city.

I disagree, for starters most people wouldnt have a clue where BRISVEGAS comes from, and all they have to do is look at a pic of Brisbane to know that it has no connection with Las Vegas at all, other than the fact that the brightest lit building is the casino. I think the fact that it is the only city in Oz to have a nickname, only increases Brisbanes identity as a more relaxed city. I also think that it would be unaustralian to take it as an insult, like me taking Poofter as an insult, or my italian friend taking Wog as an insult or Kylie taking "The Singing Budgie" as an insult, it can only make Brisbane stronger!!!!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brisvegas

I thought this was interesting..

Brisvegas as a nickname is insulting. I hate the term to death.

It's just a bit of fun, and has become affectionate nowdays. Do any other cities in Australia have nicknames? Can't think of any off the top of my head, maybe 'the GC' for the Gold Coast, take on the OC I guess.

The Sydney Morning Herald calls Melbourne 'bleak city', very creative. :ohno:

melb/vic= mexico?

sydney= emerald city
perth/wa= sand groppers

The below picture is awesome ! Finally, Brisbane will get some decent towers unstead of the crap talls that are there at the moment ! ( Riparian etc ) :puke:

Lozza

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/2962/bris2010a1ny.jpg

Not a city, but some of me mates call new south wales "mexico", cos its "south of the border". pretty shithouse, but oh wel....

Brisbane is without doubt the second best skyline in Australia (what is the best - ha ha!!!). And it's best building, Riparian, may even be the best in Australia.

As for those new ones - certainly impressive in terms of height - lets hope they get thru.


Riparian ? Shit ! What F**N Drugs are you on mate ! lol !

Lozza

NSW and Vic are all Mexicans to us, though perhaps we could calls Vics Guatemalans

The city nicknames in Australia that I have heard are Steak and Kidney, Silver City, Sin City, Sydgay and Emerald City for Sydney. Also the Gong is pretty common for Woolongong.

I don't mind BrisVegas, I don't take it as an insult.

Re Brisvegas:

I don't have a problem with any city having a nickname. But why use part of a name of an existing city? That's my point. You could easily be forgiven for thinking that Brisbane wants to be like Las vegas or models itself on Las vegas or is a las vegas wannabe. It would be like saying MelbYork or SydKong.

The way I see it, Brisbane is a great city in its own right...it doesnt need the name of some dessert tourist town to promote itself.

haha syd melb rivalry is great :)

Re Brisvegas:

I don't have a problem with any city having a nickname. But why use part of a name of an existing city? That's my point. You could easily be forgiven for thinking that Brisbane wants to be like Las vegas or models itself on Las vegas or is a las vegas wannabe. It would be like saying MelbYork or SydKong.

The way I see it, Brisbane is a great city in its own right...it doesnt need the name of some dessert tourist town to promote itself.

I think its how it all rolls off the tounge: "Brisvegas" has always rolled off the tounge nicely, just like "Brissy". "Melbyork" and "Sydkong" sounds like sh*t......

I never realised Brisvegas was actually an insult....

"Shitney" is my favorite for Sydney.

I always thought the term 'Brisvegas' was an attack of the apparent tackyness of SEQ by the southerners.

melbore is my favourite for melbourne
haha

Rotorua is affectionately? called Roto Vegas by Kiwi's due to one street full of neon motel Vacancy/No Vacancy lights.

Re Brisvegas:

I don't have a problem with any city having a nickname. But why use part of a name of an existing city? That's my point. You could easily be forgiven for thinking that Brisbane wants to be like Las vegas or models itself on Las vegas or is a las vegas wannabe. It would be like saying MelbYork or SydKong.

The way I see it, Brisbane is a great city in its own right...it doesnt need the name of some dessert tourist town to promote itself.

im sure its been pointed out before, but ill say it again, brisvegas was a term coined in reference to the illegal underground casino's in the valley in the 80's - used with negative conotation pointing loosly to corrupt government and police service at the time aswell.

I was under the impression it originated in WWII first used by US Soldiers stationed here?

lets face facts: supertalls are out of the question at the moment, the economy just isn't stable enough... we will have to wait a while before anyone decides to build a supertall in brisbane..... (300m+)

Well shrewd, you might just be surprised;)

Just call us Brissy or the politically correct name, Large Urban settlement experiencing extreme population growth which will lead to a conurbation by teaming up with the Gold Coast. :horse:

Gold Coast is known as 'The Goldie' "I'm heading down The Goldie for the weekend"
And the Sunshine Coast is known as 'The Sunny Coast', "going fishing up the Sunny coast tomorrow"

When I first moved up from Melbourne about 20 years ago (I'm a mexican), I used to laugh at Brisbanes attitudes. "We're a big city too you know" Like they had something to prove.
For example, The news used to show a 'smog meter' and every night the reader would say "the smog level is low today". I never saw it move off low, they eventualy droped the idea I think.

Brissy has finaly got happy with who it is but unfortunatly their about 20 years behind with everything they need, by that I don't mean the people are dumb a**'s, I mean they need 3 lane freeways now through the city and they are still only planing 2 lane ones to be finished in 15 years.
Melbourne was the smartest city for that reason, I grew up next to a huge padock full of prickles and crude BMX tracks and in the Melways it had a line through it saying 'Future Freeway'. I never thought I'd see the day it was a freeway but now it's 'The Western Ring Road'. Take a look in a new Melbourne street directory and I bet there's areas put aside for the future.
South East Queensland still can't get a concept of how big it will become and still are not putting land aside for future roads and railway lines.
Everytime they have to build something they have to resume housing and kick people out. They should be buying land now for the freeways they'll need in 2040 but they are too busy playing catch up.

Just call us Brissy or the politically correct name, Large Urban settlement experiencing extreme population growth which will lead to a conurbation by teaming up with the Gold Coast. :horse:

Don't say that!!!! I hope that GC and Brisbane stay very much seperate! Why would you want one city when you can have two unique cities?

Makes no difference.

Not really a choice though, they will (And basically arleady are) one..

Just because theyre one Urban 'Conglomeration" (Spelling?) doesnt mean that the 2 cant still be unique

It's rather obvious that the Gold Coast and Brisbane are heading towards being Australia's 2nd megalopolis after Greater Sydney which includes: Wollongong, Sydney, the Central Coast and Newcastle. Each of these regions has somewhat of an identity. I don'r see Brisbane and the Gold Coast or Sunshine Coast having to compromise their identities.

I guess you could almost say Melbourne and The Mornington and Bellerine peninsula's would be a Megalopolis too if thats the case with Sydney.

I guess you could almost say Melbourne and The Mornington and Bellerine peninsula's would be a Megalopolis too if thats the case with Sydney.

I mean no harm when i say that the GC is actually a city! with half a mil and fast growing, where as mornington and Bellerine are edge citys of melbourne. Also hydrofan, haven't you heard the saying from the main roads ad... "I better road system is just around the corner" lol... with such projects ad the NSBT, Airportlink, Gateway duplication, Hail st bridge, Western fw extension, Pacific hy widening... one of my friends is an engineer and tells me that most on them are being implicated right now.

Also Brissy and the GC will ALWAYS retain their identity! There is absolutely no difference with now and being a conurbation... all you would see is allot more houses, entertainment etc along the M1 & between the cites... In a way it is extremely good for both cites because we would become very much stronger...

The only thing from stopping Sydney of being a concentrated conurbation, is because of the national parks in between the urban settlements.

Good news everybody, well it's not really a rumour, but the proposed Empire Square in Brisbane has been boosted to 248m in height, up from 235m!

SoulvisionQ1.... I take your point.
All of those things will be great for Brissy, but they should have been on the plans 10 years ago.
I agree the 2 citys will keep their seperate 'feels'.
I think even Ipswich has a diferent feel to the rest of Brissy.

In 20-30 years Geelong will be part of Melbourne also.

I never realised Brisvegas was actually an insult....

"Shitney" is my favorite for Sydney.

I never heard of it... but it is very catchy for Sydney !


cute one..!

There are so many really tall buildings that are being rumoured in SEQ I thought I'd start a thread about them. They are:

480 Queen St - around 300m,
Elizabeth St- 250m.
BAC 200-360m.
GCTC - around 300m,
'Elite' - tall,
Q2 - supertall
3 other towers on the Gold Coast between 250 and 300m GC

Add this to the proposed Empire Square and approved Vision at 235 and 283m respectively in Brisbane

and

Approved Soul @ 240m on the Gold Coast

Some awesome times ahead for SEQ.
:runaway:
:runaway:
:runaway:


Sorry to Quote.. but I must have missed all of those plans in Brisbane...

I know about VISION - that should be great for Brisbane..
I think it is long over due...
Perth will be taken over by Brissie soon !

Any photos of those tall buildings ?


Regards

Perth will be taken over by Brissie soon !


Perth has had 2 good buildings since the early 90's, Brisbane's closest was CP1, but in every other way Brisbane has always already been ahead of Perth.

Just did a count on Skyscraper diagrams, and of buildings 100m+ built or UC, Brisbane has 36 and Perth has 10.

And Aurora/Riparian are already a match for the Perth 2 in height.

Perth has had 2 good buildings since the early 90's, Brisbane's closest was CP1, but in every other way Brisbane has always already been ahead of Perth.

Just did a count on Skyscraper diagrams, and of buildings 100m+ built or UC, Brisbane has 36 and Perth has 10.

And Aurora/Riparian are already a match for the Perth 2 in height.
Right on, I was gonna say the same thing.

Perth has had 2 good buildings since the early 90's, Brisbane's closest was CP1, but in every other way Brisbane has always already been ahead of Perth.

Just did a count on Skyscraper diagrams, and of buildings 100m+ built or UC, Brisbane has 36 and Perth has 10.

And Aurora/Riparian are already a match for the Perth 2 in height.

Dumb to compare perth today to brisbane today, yes we build larger buildings in the 80's and 90's but we built less. Brisbane build apartments were as perth built very little, perth can be compared to brisbane in the past dispite being taller at the moment.

We in perth no the boom does not last for ever and that alot of these (brisbane) talls could fall through. Also

We have heaps of resi towers going up, smaller in size than brisbane but not far behind in volume. We have another 5x100+ m towers two of them resi, we have heaps of resi 60-90m and raine square office tower and wait till we see the follow on of our urban renewl and city population growth, it will be spectacular and change perth forever. Perth is really setting up well, the PCC shows no regard for there own height limits and the government is bucking public opinion and getting away with it in the polls.

Perth is going through a change as big as brisbane just different, i must say i would love a nice 250m mixed use tower (emu site). :)

said that very nicely citystyle. have to agree with what you said

Sorry I started these heated arguments re Perth v Brissie

From my humble opinion, as is now.. Perth skyline looks more stunning and distinctive.. with Central Park and Bankwest
Whilst Brisbane looks - rather forgetable....

however, with VISION tower u/c - it will change the order

I dont know the exact details of numbers of buildings.. just from the photos - Perth looks good .. that is all...!
sorry guys...

Good on Brisbane - the most optimistic state in the country ... is that your slogan these days ?

optimistic? well they have been for a very long time
now its "how long until we are the second biggest state?....not long

optimistic? well they have been for a very long time
now its "how long until we are the second biggest state?....not long

LOL....typical snide remark.

Why aim for number 1 when you can be number 2....

QLD the SRMAT STATE...oops it was too hot so I wagged school cant spell now.

oh dear - take it as you want (insecurity)

if you have lived in brisbane - you would realise that 90% of the people actually believe in this and see it as an achievement
its no longer the backwater of australia
and nsw has an extra 3 million people compared to 1 million for victoria

I remember old Jim Soorely - he was always going on about that - suggesting that brisbane CBD would be the second most important CBD by 2020

it is not a snide comment but i understand how someone with a little insecurity would feel that way

anyway it would be truely amazing to see QLD take over NSW before my life time!!!!!

QLD the SRMAT STATE...oops it was too hot so I wagged school cant spell now.

And to think QLD had a very small biotech just 15 years ago - it sure is becoming a little more smart :P

http://www.biospectrumindia.com/content/BioSpecial/103081201.asp - this shows brisbane as the second most important after sydney -




http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/9710/globalbiotech8px.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The Global Biotechnology Clusters map. Countries coloured in brown rank highly in the Growth Competitiveness Index 2004–2005, World Economic Forum. Black circles represent selected biotechnology and life-sciences clusters. Fig adapted from image supplied by William Hoffman, MBBNet, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

It wasnt insecurity that prompted me to respond. With all due respect QLD being the second biggest state has no influence on my life in Melbourne which will always remain the 2nd biggest city in Australia.

What prompted me to respond was the fact that you are constantly trying to prove that Melbourne is NOTHING...or that what we stated was incorrect, or that we are insular etc etc...dont you see that. All you do on this forum is tell Victorians that we are not worthy.

On top of that although the map may show Melbourne is seems as though it is not even mentioned on the list on the website that you cited...leading me to believe that if they cannot even get their own website to correspond accurately I would have to question their research abilities and the overall reiability of such a site. They list Sydney, Brisbane, and even Perth and Adelaide yet Melbourne gets no mention. In contrast the map mentions Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney yet no mention of Perth or Adelaide...not very accurate.

well the first relates to incorporated companies (aggregate number) - hence the total number of incorporated businesses who classify their main source of business as biotechnology

the second diagram relates to anything to do with bio/life science

therefore i take it that most biotech in melbourne occurs in melbourne universities (obvious, since melbourne has some leading universities)

http://www.cotteeparker.net.au//images/zoom/Empire%20Square/3004_cam01_a.jpg http://www.cotteeparker.net.au//images/zoom/Empire%20Square/3004_cam02_a.jpg
http://www.cotteeparker.net.au//images/zoom/Empire%20Square/3004_cam03_a.jpg
http://www.cotteeparker.net.au//images/zoom/Empire%20Square/3004_elev_west_grn_b.jpg http://www.cotteeparker.net.au//images/zoom/Empire%20Square/empire_sq.jpg
248m

Queensland will get bigger than Victoria, but I think Brisbane has a way to go to reach Melbourne, and as everyone on here knows I love Brisbane to bits. But walking about Melbourne taking the photos I got from my GP weekend I was in awe of Melbourne's CBD. It wasn't so much the big talls, but just the huge number of classic older buildings between 5-10 stories that are about. (see my pics for examples)

Brisbane has some good old buildings, but Melbourne has streets of them, and we will never catch them up on that (New York?) look. It's impossible too, as it all happened 50-100 years ago. We may get more talls over time, but never match that part of Melbourne, they just don't build them like that anymore.

wow - i love this building - so simple so slim so sexy

wish sydney was getting things like this :( its boring watching the skyline at the moment here

it makes me think after changing the height of empire they must be pretty confident that it will be approved!

wow - i love this building - so simple so slim so sexy

wish sydney was getting things like this :( its boring watching the skyline at the moment here

it makes me think after changing the height of empire they must be pretty confident that it will be approved!


I concur with you then... !

I like empire square, looks alot like rounder WT.

Cul said that in its thread in QLD forums OMG wow :)

Dumb to compare perth today to brisbane today, yes we build larger buildings in the 80's and 90's but we built less. Brisbane build apartments were as perth built very little, perth can be compared to brisbane in the past dispite being taller at the moment.

We in perth no the boom does not last for ever and that alot of these (brisbane) talls could fall through. Also


You must have been very tired when you wrote this if the language is to go by.

I think it is incredibly stupid to say that you can't compare two things - just because it isn't fair doesn't mean it can't/shouldn't be done, and in the case of Brisbane and Perth - which after all are the closest cities in size to each other - it makes more sense than most others. That you think there was a period that they could be compared, but suddenly can't is bizzare.

Sorry I started these heated arguments re Perth v Brissie

From my humble opinion, as is now.. Perth skyline looks more stunning and distinctive.. with Central Park and Bankwest
Whilst Brisbane looks - rather forgetable....

however, with VISION tower u/c - it will change the order

I dont know the exact details of numbers of buildings.. just from the photos - Perth looks good .. that is all...!
sorry guys...

You clearly didn't mean to cause offence, and you're perfectly able to have your own opinion on which is better. Perth may have a more photogenic and taller skyline , but Brisbane's is significantly larger and denser - it all depends on your priorities.

Queensland will get bigger than Victoria,


i thought it already was :) unless you mean population.... i don't know why you would think that QLD's population would get bigger than VIC's in the forseeable future though....

^
It depends what you consider the forseeable future - the ABS has been predicting it post 2040's for quite a few years now.

Qld are 4 million, Vic 5, and Qld is growing faster by quite a way. Plus a lot of Vics seem to move here so they almost count as a double score (+1,-1).

It doesn't really matter that much, it's not a race, I said it in respect to Brisbane still being a long way behind Melbourne in city size (Qld has a very large non-capital population).

^^The figures are not quite as lopsided as you might think. And its not the Vics you need to make room for its your NSW neighbours. :)

http://144.53.252.30/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0e5fa1cc95cd093c4a2568110007852b/6949409dc8b8fb92ca256bc60001b3d1!OpenDocument

stupid vics, this is started off as a SEQ super tall thread, yet some of you just couldnt help yourselves

optimistic? well they have been for a very long time
now its "how long until we are the second biggest state?....not long

zach24,

Your comments prove that you are without a doubt the biggest 'dickhead' on this forum!!!

stupid vics, this is started off as a SEQ super tall thread, yet some of you just couldnt help yourselves

The rudeness of this forum is rather unbelieveable
If you are disagree- you can use much more acceptable and intellectual words..
If you had a go with me, I have made some apology above.
And i am not lowering my standard to reply to your post.

With Richo, I have seen some of Zach posts - i think you are right.

Is there any moderator in this forum ?

take it easy guys. my deletion button is ready.
happy easter.

stupid vics, this is started off as a SEQ super tall thread, yet some of you just couldnt help yourselves


silly person, if you read the thread it was someone from brisbane who first made the comparison to victoria...

Well it is a thread about QLD

Yeah, how about no one hijacks the thread and turns it into something else. It's about rumoured talls for SEQ. Carry on............ lol

Emerald Tower is back.

Yep, to help get this thread back on topic, the latest rumoured tall of the week in SEQ is an oldie of sorts, none other than Emerald tower... yep back from the dead after winning a Supreme court case last week that allows it's approval. Height is 230m, 73 storeys, designed by Crone Partners of Sydney, looks set to go ahead now:

http://www.cronepartners.com/projects/queen1.jpg

wow, the SEQ threads are white hot atm. seems like this is where all the supertall action will be over next decade.

Indeedy Culwulla, future is so bright we need sunnies:P Here is the Emerald Group site, with new Emerald tower page!

http://www.emeraldgroup.net
Some cool new renders of this awesome tower:

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/2882/em20do.jpg

http://www.emeraldgroup.net/brisbane/images/photo6_lrg.jpg

http://www.emeraldgroup.net/brisbane/images/photo2_lrg.jpg

http://www.emeraldgroup.net/brisbane/images/photo4_lrg.jpg

http://www.emeraldgroup.net/brisbane/images/photo1_lrg.jpg

http://www.emeraldgroup.net/brisbane/images/photo5_lrg.jpg

http://www.emeraldgroup.net/brisbane/images/photo3_lrg.jpg

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/7047/em14hu.jpg

Them be some quality renders, super detailed. The facade looks as real as you could possibly get in this one.

http://www.emeraldgroup.net/brisbane/images/photo2_lrg.jpg

Taken yesterday,
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y246/AussieBhoy/UC/P4170019.jpg

Fill this gap!
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y246/AussieBhoy/BrisApr/P4170023.jpg

sydney & melbourne have had 200m and over for years now its time for brisbane and the gold coast to have a go ---who cares where there built its all in australia and most are good designs . glad to see emerald may take off again

Emerald will certainly challenge Empire Sq! but not Vision. I just saw a story on Emerald on ten news and they say that construction will commence "AS SOON AS POSSIBLE"
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/bcl2_10.gif

Awesome news!! Emerald is one of the nicest all resi designs i've seen. Bring it on.

There you go Cul, Aurora might not reign as Brisbanes tallest all resi for that long after all!! :)

wow!!!!!!!!!!! i still prefer empire though - location of empire is superior to that of emerald

lets all hope that the red cross site is twice the height of emerald!!

wow!!!!!!!!!!! i still prefer empire though - location of empire is superior to that of emerald

lets all hope that the red cross site is twice the height of emerald!!

Yeah i agree! ES's location is way better, but Emeralds design is superior IMO to ES... ALSO the story on the news also said that Emerald will be an "office and residential tower"... so looks like Aurora will rule on for the tallest resi!

There are so many going on in QLD

good on you guys...

im getting impressed by the high RLS. -actual viewed height from river.
even Emerald is nearly 250m above sea level. to give you an idea, Rialto in melb and MLC in Sydney are approx 250m above sea level.

BRISBANE RLS'
over 150m above brisbane river.
Vision-263m/spire-287m PROP
Empire sq-258m PROP
Emerald tower-248m PROP
Aurora-217m
Riparian-204m/spire-254m
Central plaza-180m
Waterfront place-165m
brisbane sq-165m
Skyline tower-165m UC
111 george st-155m (spire)
MLC-155m (antenna)

Damn the render for emerald looks stunning! So lets hope it does get build as "soon as possible"

Awesome news!! Emerald is one of the nicest all resi designs i've seen. Bring it on.

There you go Cul, Aurora might not reign as Brisbanes tallest all resi for that long after all!! :)

Personally, I think it's downright disjointed and disgusting, a good brother for Riparian.

Thank goodness for some sanity in Brisbane with the much more appealing Vision.

^^
Each to their own...........

Yeah i agree! ES's location is way better, but Emeralds design is superior IMO to ES... ALSO the story on the news also said that Emerald will be an "office and residential tower"... so looks like Aurora will rule on for the tallest resi!


They must have made a mistake because cricular floorplates that small would not be used for office space, maybe there will be a couple office levels in the podium or some SOHO style apartments but it would still be condiered a residential tower.

^^ I agree, to me it doesn't seem viable in the long term to put any office in this skinny building.

Hotel probable would be a better option if they wanted mixed use, but I think it would be better to stay 100% residential

Ummm, where the hell did the Ikea thread go??? why delete it? it was urban news!

how many towers does brisbane have U/C over 100m

Ummm, where the hell did the Ikea thread go??? why delete it? it was urban news!

The Ikea thread wasn't deleted it was moved to the Skybar.

how many towers does brisbane have U/C over 100m
approx 5. with 2 completing soon. and more to start
>
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=344118

The Ikea thread wasn't deleted it was moved to the Skybar.
right, ok.

Pic I made with Vision, Emerald and Empire Square. Notionals not shown yet:
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/910/view10pj.jpg

And with a 320-330 tower I made, perhaps the 80+ MU gerbilus scooped. Some of the other notionals are missing from this pic.
http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/3/view25ht.jpg

great pics, great buuldings, but its really becoming 'sticks in the sky'....
the skyline looks totally altered, and i believe needs to densify first.

is that 300m thing for real?... poor brisbanians, just when they thought aurora and riparian looked dominating enuf.... thats like 4 times that, or just plain dominating.

I like the stick out look, that's the whole point.

I'm not a fan of the line of thinking 'here's a tall building now let's block it with some 150m junk'. Where is it written that density is king, as if San Paulo is something to aspire to, it's not, height and design make a great skyline.

It's not like they built the pyramids and went 'quick we need some smaller ones, they stick out like the dog's balls' or the Eiffel tower or Burj Dubai. Even today the Empire State sticks out in NYC.

Nope, I'm gonna like being up to sit on Kangaroo Point and see all of these babies stick out. I don't want bloomin 140 Devine concrete boxes 'balancing things out'. No way.

But having said that, there are more 150m skycrapers to balance them out and no doubt more will come online, but I can't be bothered drawing them in.

I'm not the biggest fan of "sticking out" either, but HK does it best, where they have heaps of density, but at the same time it's great buildings (central place, bank of china, 2ifc etc.). really stand out.

To me that second picture is screaming to be filled with 200 metre fillers and not 150 metre fillers.
We've already aparently got the densest CBD in Australia, why more fillers???

^^Yr true there KJBrissy!

Well latest rumour is Vision has jumped up in height again... New height 265m to roof, 290m to spire!:)

...and it has been attacked by a giant gorilla!;)

http://img316.imageshack.us/img316/6549/119jw.jpg

cant it just go to 300 to beat eureka

great pics, great buuldings, but its really becoming 'sticks in the sky'....
the skyline looks totally altered, and i believe needs to densify first.

is that 300m thing for real?... poor brisbanians, just when they thought aurora and riparian looked dominating enuf.... thats like 4 times that, or just plain dominating.

just because adelaide has not talls. :) hahaha

gogo new height for vision again!!!

265m/290m is great.
Keep pushing it up Austcorp we <3 you

great pics, great buuldings, but its really becoming 'sticks in the sky'....
the skyline looks totally altered, and i believe needs to densify first.

is that 300m thing for real?... poor brisbanians, just when they thought aurora and riparian looked dominating enuf.... thats like 4 times that, or just plain dominating.

I'd rather have "dominating" buildings then short ass buildings like somebody.................................adelaide :runaway:

cant it just go to 300 to beat eureka

I think 298m would be funnier!!!

Hmmm yes the 'sticks in the sky' is not doing Brisbane any favours I think. I do however love the buildings (Riparian excepted), especially that new addition by Locke. Just I want more, am I greedy?

I really agree with what some say though, I'd like to see some density rather than have it look like Manila or Bangkok. There is alot to be said for consolidated skylines and zoning.

I wouldn't worry about density, the tallies are popping out at such a rate we are going to be tall AND dense soon:) And surely that is better than short and dense:P

The cbd is very small, new developments need to push up, if you look at the 2020 plan you'll see it's very dense just much taller, so what you are seeing here are the first tallies, but give it 20 years and Brisbane will have an ultra high central clustered core of towers. I think it'll be the tallest cluster in Australia to be honest once done, and a major skyscraper player on the Australian scene:)

^^ Yeah Locke! the City Core area is fairly small, hence it is inevitable that we will be seeing a Higher, Denser looking CBD and i look forward to it!

We have density... Alot of it. Just low.

This is exactly what we need.

Don't people that complain about a building sticking out realise that to get density, you have to first build a building, and then add others?

Well latest rumour is Vision has jumped up in height again... New height 265m to roof, 290m to spire!:)

...and it has been attacked by a giant gorilla!;)

http://img316.imageshack.us/img316/6549/119jw.jpgI keep having a fantasy about putting the gorilla on the weird little Eifel Tower in Park Road Milton! :)

ANA has been released:

Raptis's ANA Hotel is here!!!

What a stunner by Buchan Group, designers of Vision. 65 storeys mixed use.

Here is the link to council site: http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/minutes/gcccminutes/October%202005%20to%20present/404%20City%20Planning%2023MAY2006-agenda.pdf

Yeah Baby!
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/9484/bas21yr.jpg

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/3829/bas10mi.jpg

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/2116/base2qs.jpg

549 Queen resubmitted:

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/906/nin7ll.jpg

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/3732/54923pj.jpg

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/1186/54931ke.jpg

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/7070/54945rp.jpg

Good Times...Good Times :cheers:

ANA looks awesome, lets hope council approves it

they should. Jim Raptis has been responsible for many highrise since the 1970's and gave Surfers a skyline,literally. Raptis group have produced quality developments namely Chevron towers,Southport central ect.

The ANA Tower featured on 10 news tonight, complete with an artists (dodgy) impression of what the skyline will look like - complete with the Transit Centre 90+ tower.

Channel 9 news last night in Brisbane said something about a 70 story tower had been knocked back in the CBD by council because it didn't suit the heritage of the area and would cause traffic problems.
I didn't catch it's name though.
Can anyone help?

Yeah, that's Emerald which got knocked back AGAIN despite complying with the code for the most ridiculous of reasons.

Suffice to say it's back off to court and I expect this one to get up at the end of the day.

Emerald's tower too tall an order
15 June 2006

Sydney developer Emerald Group is considering legal action after the Queensland government rejected the company's second attempt to win approval for a $300 million 77-level apartment tower in the heart of Brisbane.

Queensland Planning Minister Desley Boyle refused the development application for the Queen Street site yesterday, saying it would have a "negative impact on Brisbane's CBD, significantly changing the character of that part of Brisbane".

"The proposed building's height means it would not blend with the established urban character of that part of the city, significantly impacting on the area's heritage significance, views to landmark buildings and important city streetscapes," Ms Boyle said in a statement.

"A 77-storey residential building would exacerbate existing site access problems. This particular site could not safely cope with the additional traffic generated by the scale of the development."

Ms Boyle also said the development application did not comply with heritage, traffic and planning requirements for the area.

But Emerald Group chairman Eddy Faress said he was disappointed that "once again we became aware of the decision through a media announcement and do not have any details on the reasoning behind the decision.

"We are confident of the merit of our development application and the benefits of Emerald Tower and are pursuing our legal options," he said.

Mr Faress said he would "absolutely" return to court over the matter but warned it would cost taxpayers a lot of money to defend the action.

The Emerald Group purchased the 550 Queen Street site several years ago for $5.5 million and has since spent an estimated $4.5 million in holding costs on it.

"It's costing us a lot of money, obviously the court action will cost taxpayers a lot of money also."

Mr Faress said the proposed tower was one of the best designed buildings in the country and it's height was not an issue.

"We have designed a building that complies with the planning code," Mr Faress said.

"I believe we will be back in court."

Mr Faress claims he is surprised by the Queensland government's decision given the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had asked Ms Boyle to assess the development application against Brisbane's City Plan 2000.

"It is a surprise, we are fully complying with the code," he said.

KEY POINTS

*The developer is seeking the right to build a 77-storey apartment tower.

*The government says the building will overwhelm the neighbourhood.

*Emerald may sue the government.

So has there ever been IMBY protests before???

^^ I don't think so! Because there are very few Nimbys in the CBD area.

That is an absolute crock of shit, Desley Boyle is an idiot.

^^ I don't think so! Because there are very few Nimbys in the CBD area.

Notice I wrote IMBY!!!

the concerns brought up by the planning minister are somewhat reasonable though.

Increased traffic a concern? Surely theres worse places with worse traffic problems....

I cnat belive this Emeraldd cant get a break.

"The proposed building's height means it would not blend with the established urban character of that part of the city, significantly impacting on the area's heritage significance, views to landmark buildings and important city streetscapes," Ms Boyle said in a statement.

"A 77-storey residential building would exacerbate existing site access problems. This particular site could not safely cope with the additional traffic generated by the scale of the development."


- Urban Character - Aurora is just down the Road, not to mention Petrie Bight!
- Impacting on the Heritage Significance - The Pub on the corner has a FREAKING BILLBOARD on top, and St John's Cathedral already looks as if it surrounded by Highrises.
- Views to Landmark Buildings - You can't even see any heritage buildings properly from each side of the site already.
- Views to Important city streetscapes - What important city streetscapes???
- exacerbate existing site access problems - If there are site access problems on a vacant plot of land, it looks like NOTHING can be built there and the land is worthless!!! Also, the site is surrounded by 3 roads. What better access can you get than that????


I'm just curious of the exact codes that Ms Boyle used to block this, because at the moment it looks like they are using the same reason to block it as before, yet just trying to find some codes to put to it. What a farce!!!

:rant: :gaah:

With reference to that potential 250m tallie on Elizabeth Street, I've noticed that there are a few empty shops and closing down sales between the Mitre Ten and the old building on the Corner of Elizabeth and Albert. This looks promising!!

Recent news:
It's here folks, no pics or exact height yet, but 80 levels of mixed use!

That's good for another Vision or hopefully better!!!!!!

Yay!

Property -Briefs Black ink on Red Cross
AFR, July 6, 2006

Brisbane's APH Properties yesterday settled the $32 million purchase of 480 Queen Street and is preparing to develop an 80-level luxury hotel, residential and commercial project. APH and financial partner Anthony Morton Group bought the property known as the Red Cross Building from The Seymour Group and Watpac. The proposed tower will include 250 apartments and 20,000 square metres of office space. APH said it was also finalising its $75 million Drift project at Casuarina Beach on the Tweed Coast and had bought a major parcel on the Gold Coast's north shore for a $90 million waterfront development. Lisa Allen

great news about the 80 story tower, lets hope the tower does get developed

The thread for the tower is here:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=370602&page=1&pp=25

remember guys, it says 80 level not 80 storeys. it will probably end up 72-75st above grd.
or 220-250m.still nothing to be sneezed at. I wish sydney was getting something that size.we might get a height limit (235m+) tower within next 10 years i reckon.
Lately brissy seems to be getting one every few months.

Yeah could be, but bear in mind it's partly office, and with a thin tower I'm guessing 20 floors of office here, 5 star hotel described as a 'resort in the city', and luxury apartments up top like to be pretty big. JayT's rumour said 300m, aph have talked of delivering something 'very special' to the site (considering they did Aurora next door, which they originally wanted to be way taller, very special would surely mean considerably higher on this one than 220m).

Of course alternatively we could snatch failure from the jaws of success here and end up with 220m, but I hope not, 220 is nice, but it's not really a supertall, it's just a good size standard tall, we gotta get up towards 300 to create an iconic building.

It'll be good when the DA gets submitted, then we can see he plans and find things out exactly.

Yeah could be, but bear in mind it's partly office, and with a thin tower I'm guessing 20 floors of office here, 5 star hotel described as a 'resort in the city', and luxury apartments up top like to be pretty big. JayT's rumour said 300m, aph have talked of delivering something 'very special' to the site (considering they did Aurora next door, which they originally wanted to be way taller, very special would surely mean considerably higher on this one than 220m).

Of course alternatively we could snatch failure from the jaws of success here and end up with 220m, but I hope not, 220 is nice, but it's not really a supertall, it's just a good size standard tall, we gotta get up towards 300 to create an iconic building.
i concur, but that begs the question, how many iconic towers does a city need? wont Vision be enough or the bldg for Brisbane? having a taller one will make Vision look silly. same goes for a skyscraper higher then Sydney tower or Eureka or Q1 for that matter. look outa place.

Admittedly New York is bigger but they did it with the chrysler building and empire state building with the trade centre towers which were very plane jane.

i concur, but that begs the question, how many iconic towers does a city need? wont Vision be enough or the bldg for Brisbane? having a taller one will make Vision look silly. same goes for a skyscraper higher then Sydney tower or Eureka or Q1 for that matter. look outa place.

As many as it can get! I'm sure they said the same thing when Chrysler building went up but nobody minded the Empire State.

In any case, look at a photo of Brisbane from the air, it's 90 percent 70's boxes, so out of 200 odd buildings, maybe 20 are good designs, so we need as many 'iconic' buildings as we can get. Besides, how can you have too many well designed buildings, that would be like stopping to make them intentionally ugly or something. I prefer to think that the new designs in the future will be so good they will make a stunner like Vision look ugly!

^^Got it in one!!!

I think there just making a nice design with vision and where making it out to be iconic if you know what i mean.

There's nothing wrong with building other 250m+ structures that have nice designs is there?...

Latest rumour, Raptis is looking to go supertall on the Dolphin site in central surfers.

Some background:
-Site in the dead set heart of Surfers Unlimited Height Zone.
-Raptis is the other GC heavyweight apart from Sunland, just got 65 storey ANA approved, which he called a 'small building'.
-Dolphin Centre currently approved for a 175m 50 storey and 130m 30 storey twin tower complex.
-So you can bet the new proposal will be TALL

QUIETLY spoken developer Jim Raptis is about to make a big statement on the...
19 July 2006, The Gold Coast Bulletin


QUIETLY spoken developer Jim Raptis is about to make a big statement on the Holiday Inn site at Surfers Paradise.

The proposed 65-storey tower to go atop the existing Piazza on Boulevard, has already been okayed by council and will no doubt stamp a presence in Surfers akin to Raptis's Chevron Renaissance development.

But CC hears his next project, redeveloping the Dolphin Arcade in a joint venture with Villa World, will create an equally big noise for the reborn suburb.

CC expects to hear the finer details of the proposal before the end of the year.

_______________

When Raptis said 65 storey was a small tower maybe he was already thinking of Dolphin?

i knew it.! on ya jim. forget the twin dolphins and go for a 75storey+ supertall. should be 250m+??
hope its like a tall dolphin tower.

I suppose we could at a few more to this thread? 480 Queen st height?

Well... Big news!

Latest news is a 90 storey tower has been proposed at the new GC Cruise terminal site on the GC.

Basically the new tallest building in Australia.

It's one of the leading bids for the development of the site, they didn't say which developer but we think it's likely Sunland going off who bid for the job.

So fingers cross they win. Knowing Sunland it will be pretty damn good.

All the details in the GC forums of course.

Actual article here... Pretty exciting times! :happy:

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/0521309300.jpg
Super-tower plan
By Paul Weston
August 13, 2006 12:00am
Article from: The Sunday Mail (Qld)

A 90-STOREY super-tower is among secret development options sought by private consortiums in exchange for building the Gold Coast shipping terminal.

A development industry source confirmed plans existed for a tower similar to the Q1 building at Surfers Paradise.

"It's right up the end of Southport Spit, on a site 500m back from the shipping terminal, and it's impressive," the source said.

"The developer will argue it's only a small footprint on the site.

"Another developer is putting forward a low-rise snake-like residential and hotel development."

Several development consultants contacted by The Sunday Mail said the State Government would have to allow developers a trade-off because the terminal could not pay for itself.

Gold Coast Nationals MP Alex Douglas confirmed he was aware of some secret development proposals, including the super-tower.

"I think people will hold up their hands in horror when they see them," said Dr Douglas, the state member for Gaven.

"They will be shattered."

Because almost all the beachfront land was heavily developed in Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach, the Southport Spit was the only "greenfield" site left, he said.

"The value of the land there, conservatively, would be $2 billion to $3 billion," Dr Douglas said.

"To give a company $2 billion is ridiculous. You can't get a hospital built and they want to give that away."

Last year the Government announced the proposed cruise ship terminal and marina would become a "significant project", enabling the development to escape tough Gold Coast City Council height restrictions.

When nine potential developers lodged expressions of interest in February, Deputy Premier Anna Bligh welcomed their participation in the "broader redevelopment of the Spit marine precinct".

Save Our Spit leader Steve Gration, who is planning a protest meeting next Sunday, believes the project is now a tall-tower race.

He said only two or three of the companies focused on the marine component of the project.

For the Queensland government to approve a 90 storey tower on a public park at the end of the Spit when one of the stated core components of a project is the preservation of public open space and the natural wilderness experience of The Spit would be a courageous decision that even Sir Joh would have been proud of.

Surely this is pish?

^^ it is. From today's bulletin

Stick to the facts

THE claim that a skyscraper tower would be built on The Spit is a prime example of the campaign of misinformation being waged over the proposed cruise-ship terminal development.

It is one thing for our decision makers to listen to arguments for and against the devel-opment and try to come up with a compromise that suits as many users of this area as possible but it is an entirely different matter to engage in debates of pure fantasy created to deliberately mislead or scare the public.

Those who resort to this tactic will very quickly lose credibility and become irrelevant to meaningful discussions on the proposal.

i would rather this in surfers

Good news, guys on the Qld forum that watched channel 10 news tonight are reporting that Empire Square (240m) has been approved!
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/5527/em72ni.jpg

Good news, guys on the Qld forum that watched channel 10 news tonight are reporting that Empire Square (240m) has been approved!
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/5527/em72ni.jpg

Thats fantastic!!! :applause:

Is there anywhere we can get official confirmation? You never know if Ch 10 might have made an error.

They interviewed someone involved in the development, so it kinda made it seem legit to me, i dunno?

Good news, guys on the Qld forum that watched channel 10 news tonight are reporting that Empire Square (240m) has been approved!
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/5527/em72ni.jpg

240m is not supertall.

It's not supertall on a world stage, on a world stage that is just an normal tall. On a world stage our 180m 'talls' are shorties.

But we are talking in an Australian context, where anything that clears say 200m is pretty rare (only in SEQ atm) and anything that is up around 250m is a major event, don't forget till recently only Rialto was that height.

So in that context, 240m is a very tall building by Oz standards.

But I agree, I wish they were taller as well! But on the other hand it sure beats 140m!:P

They interviewed someone involved in the development, so it kinda made it seem legit to me, i dunno?

That was David Hinchcliffe. The deputy mayor who they interviewed, he was boasting a lot about the tower which is good :)

It's not supertall on a world stage, on a world stage that is just an normal tall. On a world stage our 180m 'talls' are shorties.

But we are talking in an Australian context, where anything that clears say 200m is pretty rare (only in SEQ atm) and anything that is up around 250m is a major event, don't forget till recently only Rialto was that height.

So in that context, 240m is a very tall building by Oz standards.

But I agree, I wish they were taller as well! But on the other hand it sure beats 140m!:P

I don't care what standards are you talking about. The definition of supertall is 300m+ building. The title of this topic is SEQ Supertall Rumour Mill, so Empire Square doesn't belong here.
To be honest, 240m building barely gets my attention, particularly in SEQ. I'm just waiting for something taller than Q1 to show up here.

^^ just wait a few more days... 480 queen is coming soon

..

I don't care what standards are you talking about. The definition of supertall is 300m+ building. The title of this topic is SEQ Supertall Rumour Mill, so Empire Square doesn't belong here.
To be honest, 240m building barely gets my attention, particularly in SEQ. I'm just waiting for something taller than Q1 to show up here.

Where is it written that a supertall is defined as 300m+?

That's just a standard some ppl use on the world forum.

In my books a real supertall would be more like 400m, 300 isn't that impressive, it's more like a tall tall, or a baby supertall.

The burj is 808m by latest counts, if 300m is supertall then it must go straight past megatall and be a ludicous tall.

^^ just wait a few more days... 480 queen is coming soon

You've been saying few days for few months. I'm losing my patience.

patience is a virtue! ;)

I don't care what standards are you talking about. The definition of supertall is 300m+ building. The title of this topic is SEQ Supertall Rumour Mill, so Empire Square doesn't belong here.
To be honest, 240m building barely gets my attention, particularly in SEQ. I'm just waiting for something taller than Q1 to show up here.
well i think 200m should be called supertall in Australia. give us a break .its no dubai here. 200m+ skyscrapers dont come along very often.
we have had a handful in last few years. lets keep things in perspective. i laso hate comparing to os aka dubai,China US etc. australia is a young small pop country. lets just get happy with what we get.
in sydney atm im excited with 150m+!
good nite. :cheers:

200m+ skyscrapers dont come along very often.

Including UC and approved, Australia has more than 29 skyscrapers between 200m and 299m, which is quite a lot. And 200m skyscrapers aren't something that really excites us, but they are still good though.

So, even though we have only 2 300m+ skyscrapers and one damn close (ehm, vision, ehm), 300m should definitely be Australian supertall. And 300m+ IS actually something that doesn't happen every day and excites us everytime we hear the news about new 300's.

And the whole topic is in a spirit of waiting for a new skyscraper to break magic 300m benchmark. And Gold Coast is a rare place in Australia where we could potentially even see 400m+ in the near future.

How unnesessarily pedantic.

I didn't realise there were so many forum police out there.

"Halt! 240m isn't high enough by my standards to be counted as a supertall!"

Pfff.

Do we really have to resort to having rules as to where people can post on topics like this?

Including UC and approved, Australia has more than 29 skyscrapers between 200m and 299m, which is quite a lot. And 200m skyscrapers aren't something that really excites us, but they are still good though.

So, even though we have only 2 300m+ skyscrapers and one damn close (ehm, vision, ehm), 300m should definitely be Australian supertall. And 300m+ IS actually something that doesn't happen every day and excites us everytime we hear the news about new 300's.

And the whole topic is in a spirit of waiting for a new skyscraper to break magic 300m benchmark. And Gold Coast is a rare place in Australia where we could potentially even see 400m+ in the near future.

You'll be waiting a long time for something taller that Q1... Just be happy with all the great projects pouring in to SEQ.

^^480 Queen's rumored height is 300m so the spire could be 322m say! so that would be Australia's next supertall. Hopefully :)

Boeing747 was also the one who said Empire Square was ugly and didn't belong in Brisbane.

You'll be waiting a long time for something taller that Q1... Just be happy with all the great projects pouring in to SEQ.

Gold Coast already has some projects for buildings potentially taller than Q1.

Boeing747 was also the one who said Empire Square was ugly and didn't belong in Brisbane.

I still don't like it much. I just had to put up with it.

480 Queen's rumored height is 300m so the spire could be 322m say! so that would be Australia's next supertall. Hopefully

See^^^ plenty of potential 300m supertalls coming to QLD.

How unnesessarily pedantic. I didn't realise there were so many forum police out there. "Halt! 240m isn't high enough by my standards to be counted as a supertall!" Pfff. Do we really have to resort to having rules as to where people can post on topics like this?

Supertall is a word that will soon appear in dictionary. And on SSC there's already an unofficial rule, that 300m is a standard for supertall.

Supertall will be in the dictionary?! What are your sources on that??

An unofficial rule says that 300m is a standard for supertall? Well, you might as well then take 1/2 of the threads off of SKYSCRAPERcity then - as the definition of a "skyscraper" means "a tall building" - yet we put projects on here that are as small as what, 20m? 30m? If supertall must be at least 300m, then a skyscraper (which is tall) would have to be at least 100-150m in order to be relative.

Better start deleting threads for projects below that mark and put them on a new site "www.tinybuildings.com"

Gold Coast already has some projects for buildings potentially taller than Q1.



I still don't like it much. I just had to put up with it.



See^^^ plenty of potential 300m supertalls coming to QLD.



Supertall is a word that will soon appear in dictionary. And on SSC there's already an unofficial rule, that 300m is a standard for supertall.

stop being an anal pathetic asshole for no reason. Go argue with your mother over the exact meanings of words child.

i mentioned in my diagram thread, Australia has only 23 skyscrapers uc over 90m and soon to be 17.
as for over 150m, its only-
brisbane-1
GC-1
melb-0 (Verve is now topped)
perth-0
Sydney-3 (soon to be 1)
total-3 as of next month.
number of bldgs uc over 200m= 1 (Conc currently nearing completion)
So pretty soon Australia will have NONE uc over 200m and just 3 uc over 150m.
i would call 150m+ a supertall atm.

bldgs that may start in 2006 that are taller then 150m-
Soul/GC-240m
Vision/Bris-250m+
=2

Gold Coast already has some projects for buildings potentially taller than Q1.



I still don't like it much. I just had to put up with it.



See^^^ plenty of potential 300m supertalls coming to QLD.



Supertall is a word that will soon appear in dictionary. And on SSC there's already an unofficial rule, that 300m is a standard for supertall.

your quickly becoming the new SSC lil bitch. dude..shut the fuck up!

Gold Coast already has some projects for buildings potentially taller than Q1.



I still don't like it much. I just had to put up with it.



See^^ plenty of potential 300m supertalls coming to QLD.



Supertall is a word that will soon appear in dictionary. And on SSC there's already an unofficial rule, that 300m is a standard for supertall.
moooo
are you educated?

your quickly becoming the new SSC lil bitch. dude..shut the fuck up!
he'd better stfu or he'll end up like shuzstar...

good ridance mate

Are you referring to me?!

stop being an anal pathetic asshole for no reason. Go argue with your mother over the exact meanings of words child.

^^ No. Don't worry, your safe ;)

In my head this is my definition of different heights- (IN "MY" HEAD)
ps this is for Melbourne not Dubai and not Geelong if you get what I mean
pps this is for skyscrapers and if is good architecture a small building still makes me happy :)


0-25m= Hole in the ground
25-50m= Groundscraper
50-100m= Getting bigger still small
100-150m=That's better, good skyscraper
150-200m= Now I'm excited!
200-250m= Fantastic! Don't get these everyday
250-300m= ONE OF THE TALLEST IN OZ!!!! YAY!!! JUMPING FOR JOY
300-350m= It's all of my birthdays at once!!!!! plus whats written for the previous section
ABOVE THAT MELBOURNE HASN'T EXPERIENCED :( until E2 :)

I think this thread should just be closed - if people want to know whats happening in Queensland just hit the QLD page. I go to the NSW, VIC, WA and SA pages to see whats happening there.. simple

Nah this is a good thread for tallie news that doesn't warrant a thread of it's own, especially since lots of ppl never visit the state forums, and afterall, isn't this what the national forum is for?

This thread is fine. I don't know if the thread title was recently edited but I think it must have been, but anyway it no longer concerns just SEQ or Brisbane or whatever tallies. Anyone could post rumours for any tallies here.

i changed it. although SEQ seems to be anly area getting 200m+ projects, better allow all states to contribute.I have good authority sydney could be getting a 200m scraper on Goodsell site facing Chifley square. pre DA is coming in soon.

Where is it written that a supertall is defined as 300m+?

That's just a standard some ppl use on the world forum.

In my books a real supertall would be more like 400m, 300 isn't that impressive, it's more like a tall tall, or a baby supertall.

The burj is 808m by latest counts, if 300m is supertall then it must go straight past megatall and be a ludicous tall.
I think the 300m height comes from the fact that 300m is almost 1000ft which seems more like a proper milestone figure.

well i think 200m should be called supertall in Australia. give us a break .its no dubai here. 200m+ skyscrapers dont come along very often.
we have had a handful in last few years. lets keep things in perspective. i laso hate comparing to os aka dubai,China US etc. australia is a young small pop country. lets just get happy with what we get.
in sydney atm im excited with 150m+!
good nite. :cheers:
Agree, it depends on context. Here in Ireland a 100m tower would be a supertall (none exist yet btw) and I've heard nimbys sometimes referring to any building above 3 floors as "highrise" :D

as if hijack our thread cul.

hijack?
better off with a national thread. that way everyone gets involved. did anyone want me to make create a breakaway thread for Queensland threads?

hijack?
better off with a national thread. that way everyone gets involved. did anyone want me to make create a breakaway thread for Queensland threads?
National? Bah! QLD is the only place in this country with any action! :)

^true, very true.
not being nasty but Grollos next project looks like an 11storey bldg in Docklands.
but i suppose its something. sydney isnt even getting that.

please let me know if you want me to add SEQ on thread title guys!

Don't worry about Melbourne Cul, the new owners of the Spencer Street Power Station site are preparing plans for a "supertall" as we speak and demolition has already started on site.

Don't worry about Melbourne Cul, the new owners of the Spencer Street Power Station site are preparing plans for a "supertall" as we speak and demolition has already started on site.


i've been wondering what's been going on with that site for ages now... has anyone got any juicy rumours???

Yeah i agree with Cull, lets keep this thread national. While lots of stuff is happening in SEQ, i hope everything picks up again in the other centres so we can look at "super tallies" everywhere!

Don't worry about Melbourne Cul, the new owners of the Spencer Street Power Station site are preparing plans for a "supertall" as we speak and demolition has already started on site.
do you really think it will be a single "supertall"? i have a feeling it will be two or even 3 tower complex. maybe up to 200m. The site will take another year to clear.
The russians are pretty ruthless if they plan a bldg higher then big E. grollo wont be happy.lol

Then Grollo will want to beat them and build a taller building and then they will build another then you know...

Even if it is taller than the Big E, grollo will probably have the contract to build it anyway so I don't think they'd be too dissappointed.

Personally I'm not sure that it will be supertall in the sense that it will be over 300m. Also I wouldn't be surprised to see a pair of talls on the site. However there a couple of things that suggest something big is due. For one thing they paid several million dollars for the land, plus more to then clean it up. I'm not sure on the exact figures off the top of my head but they could be $10 million behind the eight ball before they have even started to contemplate what to put on the site. They will want something that is going to get a decent return on that.

Further more the site which is huge, is also practically free of height restrictions. There is not many sites of the same nature left in town.

Lastly, rumours were circulating that the Russian's were in consultation with the architectural firm Fender Katsliadis who of course designed Eureka and are known high-rise specialists.

All of this is in a thread about the power station site in the Victorian forum for anyone that hasnt checked that out yet. But anyway, time will tell what eventuates.

Wow! I need to check out that thread. I haven't looked for a while. Didn't know it was that promising!!! Good news :)

i missed the fight :(

Even if it is taller than the Big E, grollo will probably have the contract to build it anyway so I don't think they'd be too dissappointed.

Personally I'm not sure that it will be supertall in the sense that it will be over 300m. Also I wouldn't be surprised to see a pair of talls on the site. However there a couple of things that suggest something big is due. For one thing they paid several million dollars for the land, plus more to then clean it up. I'm not sure on the exact figures off the top of my head but they could be $10 million behind the eight ball before they have even started to contemplate what to put on the site. They will want something that is going to get a decent return on that.

Further more the site which is huge, is also practically free of height restrictions. There is not many sites of the same nature left in town.

Lastly, rumours were circulating that the Russian's were in consultation with the architectural firm Fender Katsliadis who of course designed Eureka and are known high-rise specialists.

All of this is in a thread about the power station site in the Victorian forum for anyone that hasnt checked that out yet. But anyway, time will tell what eventuates.

:yes: My thoughts exactly. They payed something like $10m for the site and the clean up and demo costs will probably be somewhere between $10-20m. Expect something big.

looks like the much anticpated 480 Queen st has been lodged with Brisbane city council.gerbilus got the scoop/. looks like the 80 level mixed -use bldg will be 70 storys above street and 240m.Brisbanes 3rd tower to reach Rl250m.

Here's a diagram...
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/futuresky.jpg

Exciting of course, but kind of disappointing a bit this was not the big 300m we all had hoped for....always next time I guess...

480 Queen DA is up:
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/2508/4652gm4.jpg
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/9805/482yk0.jpg
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9863/480queenskylinerm9.jpg
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3539/sidevidjpgpt1.jpg

GREEN is the new black! i love this design.
World Tower,Q1,Empire Square,Soul? (bit aqua),480 Queen. anymore?

^^Emerald Tower (Still going through the appeals process)

^of course. i knew there were more.
heres site plan. for those intrested, the floor plate measures 42m wide x 35m deep.
(comparison-Q1 51m x38m,Vision 51mx 30m, Aurora 44mx26m).

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3259/480queensiteip6.jpg

I'm not big on all of the green towers going up. But besides the colours they are pretty damn awesome.

I like the green towers. Makes the Brisbane skyline more unique.

GREEN is the new black! i love this design.
World Tower,Q1,Empire Square,Soul? (bit aqua),480 Queen. anymore?

549 Queen Street. 502 Adelaide also looks green to me. The look is sooooo much better than creamish yellow!

Go Emerald.

I like it! Very reminiscent of other towers going up in Brisbane at the moment, but I guess it kinda ties them all together. Not a bad thing, I think!!

Brisbane is the Emerald City :)

^^

Sydney was called the emerald city. Brisbane is a sea of green though.

Ohhh Mama! It looks awesome!
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9863/480queenskylinerm9.jpg

how could 230m Emerald Tower now look at of place with 207m Aurora, 248m 480 Queen st and 196m 549 Adelaide st??

^^exactly!!

id still say no to emerald on that site

id still say no to emerald on that site

We will see if Queensland's new planning minister (Andrew Fraser) agrees with you. I hope that he says Yes.

cute... but still no informations about 300m+ supertalls.

We will see if Queensland's new planning minister (Andrew Fraser) agrees with you. I hope that he says Yes.


Not going to happen....sorry

Are you still tied up with definitions?

*yawn*

If this thread bothers you, don't read it.

cute... but still no informations about 300m+ supertalls.

Lots of great proposals for Brisbane. My fave has to be Vision. Love the spire and the curve and EVERYTHING about it!!! Here's a link to the powerstation site thread if you want info. Sounds like they're trying to get Vic police to be its tenants.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=10011255#post10011255
Note a new thread will soon be made.

And a link to the Prima tower thread. No news on that for ages but you can read it up if you want.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=290421&page=1

That's all the "supertalls" for Melbourne atm. :( atm.....
I guess we did just get the tallest residential building in the world*

*TO THE DAMN ROOF.... cheaters!!! :bash:

I guess most people wouldn't go so far to say they are "supertall" but also in Melbourne two other approved projects that are waiting for the final go ahead are 368 Lt Collins and 559-587 Collins, both are to be 200m+. I would assume 368 will go first as it's apartments and word is construction will begin as soon as sales have reached their target. 559-587 is pure office but seems to be a little stagnant at the moment.

^368 lt collins may start 2008 at earliest could be even later.this is what construction firm have told me. they are only concerned with stage 1atm which is podium.
559 colins is actually a 150m tower with 20m fin totals 170m. a spire takes it to 200m. this spire may not even go on as its could deleted from design, costs ending. But as you said the project isnt moving am, could be redesigned totally or shelved.not really a 200m supertall anyhow.
but time will tell for both projects.

Yeah I didn't really think of 559 as being 200m but apparently it is 'officially' when measured to structural tip. But anyways, I hope when ever that project gets going again they go back to the drawing board and come up with something a bit flashier. I'm not a fan of the current proposal. But I hope it isn't shelved, that site has been vacant too long and changed ownership too many times.

As for 368 Id love to know how their sales are going. I don't think the tower is even on sale yet until the podium has been sorted out. But when it does eventually go ahead I think it will be a talking point due to the strange design it has. I haven't seen a proper 3D render but in the pics people have posted on here it does look a bit out there.

150 Queen Street (aka the Prudential site), Melbourne is another site to watch out for in the next few years, 200m+.

Have any designs been put forward for that? Any renders?

I've only seen renders of the latest design at work but a DA hasn't been submitted yet and it may get redesigned again, however if the current 565 Collins proposal goes ahead there's a fair chance 150 Queen will. It may go up anytime within the next 5-10 years. So who knows. The current design for the site is superior to any other office building that has gone up in Melbourne in the last 10 years IMO.

I don't suppose you are able to get a copy of any renders to post here? I figure they are probably still confidential though. Sounds promising if you think its a fantastic design :) If you can't get a render any chance of a brief description? I'm glad it will be an office though, I generally find office towers most pleasing aesthetically. Incidently who is the architect and/or developer? Or is that confidential too? lol any big well respected names?

Sorry for all the questions, this proposal doesn't get talked about much on here though. And it sounds exciting. Big tower in a great part of town where it will have a big impact.

Not supertall by the looks, but still worth a mention:

This one is entirely office!! Exciting stuff!! (The article had bits about Roma Street Twins so I've cut that out. That's why it doesn't make much sense in parts)

GPT's $800m Brisbane towers plan

Fiona Cameron
November 16, 2006
GPT will lodge a development application within a month for the 50,000sqm Riverside Centre Stage 2, with plans for a 40-storey-plus glass tower designed by architects Cox Rayner.

The head of office property for the GPT Group, Tony Cope, said yesterday both projects would only proceed with about 40 per cent precommitment, but GPT was in advanced negotiations with a number of large tenants.

In Brisbane's "golden triangle", Riverside 2 will become the city's biggest and most prestigious office development of its era.

After a national design competition contested by seven firms, GPT awarded the contract to Cox Rayner.

"Their design is outstanding," Mr Cope said. "Their response to the brief was head-and-shoulders above the others."

GPT had sought designs that were in contrasting style to the adjoining granite Riverside Centre and Riparian Plaza.

"Those are classic Seidler buildings, the most fantastic buildings, but to try to emulate something in between them of the same style would just not work, so it's going to be different," Mr Cope said.

Mr Cope said Riverside 2 would have "very, very high sustainability targets".

The announcement follows the completion last year of Bloomberg's Harry Seidler-designed 50-storey Riparian Plaza next door, but prior to that there had not been a new big office tower in Brisbane's premium precinct for more than a decade.

Prime Brisbane office rents are soon set to top more than $700sqm, after double-digit growth in the past year on the back of a record low vacancy rates.

Riverside 2 will require the demolition of the Indigo building at 77 Eagle Street.

A report from agency Colliers International this month described the Brisbane CBD office leasing market as in "crisis".

Total vacancy in prime buildings is at 1.4 per cent, says Colliers, and in secondary stock 2.8 per cent.

GPT is Australia's third-largest trust, with a market value of $9.8 billion.

Source. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20764178-25658,00.html)

^^why does Brisbane get it all. Perth has just as much demand, but no one is building anything big.