after restarting thread its time for new one.
first part >
http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=55319&page=20&pp=25
some recent clips and pix.


Vow to build hated tower
Annabelle McDonald
April 19, 2006

IT may be a "monstrosity" in the eyes of Brisbane's Lord Mayor, but developers of the contentious Emerald Tower project have vowed to start construction on the inner-city high-rise as soon as possible.

Sydney consortium Emerald Developments yesterday defended the aesthetics of their 77-storey Brisbane tower, proposed for an inner-city site the size of two housing blocks, saying it was a not only a "great looking" piece of architecture, but also legal.

The Supreme Court last week found the state Government had acted illegally in using "call-in" powers to block the project in October 2004.

Planning Minister Desley Boyle had found the tower would leave too great a mark on the city's CBD and skyline.

Having demanded the Government intervene two years ago, Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell ****** yesterday called on Ms Boyle to again block the project - this time legally.

"I continue to oppose the original project known as Emerald Tower, the 77-storey tower, the pencil, on a very small block of land," Mr ****** said.

"I have asked the minister to look at calling the project in again and reviewing the situation under the actual city plan codes."

But developer Eddy Faress said the only criticism of the project had come from the Lord Mayor and the tower would still be built.

"Everybody else sees great merit in the project ... it far exceeds the design of many other buildings being approved in Australia," Mr Faress said.

Ms Boyle had originally assessed the tower as a project of state interest, a process that Chief Justice Paul de Jersey found unlawful, and the council never made an assessment under its city plan codes.

Mr ****** expressed a view at the time that the council could not stop the tower. Mr Faress yesterday insisted it complied with the codes that existed at the time.

A spokesman for Ms Boyle confirmed the minister would assess the project under the codes.

While unable to say whether that assessment would use the previous codes, or the since-updated city plan, Ms Boyle's spokesman indicated the process would be more thorough and extensive than would have occurred under the council.

"We're going to look at it with fresh eyes," he said.

The Government is also likely to amend legislation to clarify the call-in powers, which have been used for a range of major projects.

While Ms Boyle's spokesman refused to say whether the minister still opposed the project, Mr ****** repeated his opposition to the tower.

"I know you walk into very difficult territory when you make judgments on architecture, but I think that I am on safe ground on this particular project," Mr ****** said.

"Many commentators have said the same thing as me."

Mr Faress said the developers would work with the government "to ensure the best development outcomes for the community".

The developers recently purchased a laneway next to the site, at the corner of Queen and Ann Streets, which had fuelled the controversy in 2004, given it was to act as a driveway for the residents of the Emerald Tower's 354 apartments.

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

..

Emerald have been sounding really serious about this. They want to build it.

Loving the tower renders.

Another pic from the 'crone partners architecture' website.
http://www.cronepartners.com/queen.html

http://www.cronepartners.com/projects/queen2.jpg

And a bit of a spiel from their site too...

550 Queen Street, Brisbane Australia

The Emerald Tower urban renewal project presents a unique opportunity through innovative planning and architecture to establish a new community adding a new dimension to Brisbane.

The site, as Brisbane gateway from the East interconnects the city’s grid, forming a composition with flowing aspects to the Brisbane River.

This landmark 85 storey tower creates an interplay of curved and rectilinear forms. This reflects its location on the intersection of city grid and free form street patterns, following the flow of the Brisbane River.

Quoted above it has now become a "landmark 85 storey tower". At this rate of jumping from 73 to 75 to 77 and now 85, it will be about 200 levels on completion! lol!!

i think alot of floors are undeground? 10 levels.?i still think its approx 75 above grd.
in this pic, i count 70 levels for the tower, with 5 storey podium thus=75?
what does everyone else think?

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

colours and trim remind me alot of World tower. incidentally its same height.
but this is our tallest. Emerald will just be another tall in bris.lol

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/7607/wttoop5ln.jpg

Yeah it's probably counting car parks, I would say it's 75-77 above ground and then 8-10 stories of carparking=85 storeys.

Though, who knows, maybe it has grown a few storeys above ground, can't rule that out either.

Yeah it's probably counting car parks, I would say it's 75-77 above ground and then 8-10 stories of carparking=85 storeys.

Though, who knows, maybe it has grown a few storeys above ground, can't rule that out either.


It would be the car parks they are counting.

It would not be a change in the design. Any change would need another application and I dont think Emerald would dare that.

On another matter I was quite negative about this situation primariliy because it undermined Qld's planning framework.

Now, just as I predicted several devlopers who's developments were refused by the minister after a call in have already indicated they are putting a court challenge. These are all awful development that should not go ahead under any circumstances, FAR FAR worse than the problems with Emerald.

Great News - another big tall for Brisbane. Hey, our skyline will kick ass pretty soon if all these talls get built.

Great!

wow, great news for Brisbane ;)
very slim n sleek :)

It would be the car parks they are counting.

It would not be a change in the design. Any change would need another application and I dont think Emerald would dare that.

On another matter I was quite negative about this situation primariliy because it undermined Qld's planning framework.

Now, just as I predicted several devlopers who's developments were refused by the minister after a call in have already indicated they are putting a court challenge. These are all awful development that should not go ahead under any circumstances, FAR FAR worse than the problems with Emerald.

What Developments, and where.. And why are they bad?

worse than the problems with Emerald.

What problems exactly?

Maybe Devine has a backlog of turds they wish to get up and going??? :)

^^ lol, good one!

What problems exactly?


Mainly some innapropriate residential subdivisions.

In what suburb

In what suburb


(a) Montville links development based on conflicts with Maroochy Shire Plan and the State Planning Policy on Good Quality Agricultural Land;
(b) Attunga Heights development at Noosa due to possible impacts on a wildlife corridor;
(c) Buchan’s Point development (between Cairns and Port Douglas) due to impacts on visual amenities;

Its the devlopers of Buchan's point that is considering the judical review.

These are only the most recent 3 call ins

I cant be arsed listing the rest

Ahh, sorry what i was meant to say was what are the problems with Emerald? just out of curiosity?

The real question is, what happens now?

According to the article, Boyle now has to reassess Emerald, and will look at it 'with fresh eyes' to see whether it complies with the town plan. Now as Emerald complies with the plan then theoritically that means she has to approve it? But is it that simple?

I think the basic answer is nobody really knows, we are in totall new territory now.

I think possibly the minister has to approve it.

In summary the Judgment was that the Minister cannot approve/or refuse the development without due regard for the planning scheme. The scheme was not a part of the final decision notice by the minister.

Basically if Emerald complied with the relevant codes of the BCC planning scheme thefore they must approved it.

If you ask me I think the Judge has misinterpeted the Act ( I have read his full judgment), buts thats another story....

im going to stop now this is too much like work for me :)

Its clear that If they needed to go to the minister to deny it, as there was no other legal way, and the minister is required to abide by the same code that the council did, then the whole situation is just pointless.

Emerald will make a fantastic addition to my view of the city - very nice:)

That thing is so going to sway heaps during storms and wind.

I think the curved facade would limit the amount of sway.

Looking good then!:)

I doubt Emerald or any other tall in Aus moves much in the wind.

Still, it will be very exciting, we will be watching at least 3 talls rise at the same time in Brisbane, that's unprecendented! It's good to have quality stuff constantly going up, gives the place a positive vibe.

From today's CM, Emerald are confident it will go ahead:)

Appeal for clear rules
The Courier-Mail, Apr 21 2006

DEVELOPMENT groups are demanding a clearer definition of "state interest" following a Supreme Court decision which overruled the State Government's controversial move to block a Brisbane highrise.

Planning Minister Desley Boyle was found to have acted outside her powers in knocking back Emerald Tower, a 77-storey building proposed for Queen St, in October 2004.

The developer, Emerald Group, is now confident that the project will go ahead despite the fact it still has to be reassessed by Ms Boyle.

Earlier this week, Premier Peter Beattie said he did not believe the judgment would have an impact on other cases but did not rule out changing the laws if necessary to give the government more power to block developments deemed not to be in the state's interest.

Urban Development Industry Association executive director and barrister Brian Stewart said he hoped current planning schemes would not be amended as a result of the Supreme Court decision.

"If the Government is going to amend IPA as a result of this decision, the industry would be gravely concerned if they wanted to follow an approach that allowed the State Government to arbitrarily overrule planning schemes on the notion of an alleged "state interest" that is simply not defined," Mr Stewart said.

Property Council of Australia executive director Robert Walker said he was pleased with the decision as the PCA questioned Ms Boyle's reasons for blocking the development at the time. He believed the decision would prompt the Government to review IPA and its definition of "state interest".

and thus it starts just as I predicted......

I personally can't see why so many politicians have a thing against this building...I love it!!!

If our mayor happens to be roaming around this forum (highly unlikely) I have some words for you.
Let it go Cambell... Let it go...

I will be very interested to see what the definition of 'State Interest' is, cos I am still completely bemused as to how this building ever effected the states interest. I would have thought that there were plenty of other more important things for the state to be interested in.

I am still completely bemused as to how this building ever effected the states interest. I would have thought that there were plenty of other more important things for the state to be interested in.

It doesn't, Desley Boyle is simply insane. Remember her ideas for closing the borders and all that other bullshit? Who knows what was going through her head (a gust of wind most likely) when she exercised the 'call -in' powers.

Do u think the height of emerald will be extended, or will it remain the same height?

Lol, I think that might be pushing their luck a bit far:P (though I'd prefer a 280m Emerald;)). Still before construction starts maybe Culwulla can call and get a final height, in 3-4 years something might have moved about a bit (but i'd say it's probably stay 230m).

Would anyone know when emerald are going to submit the DA into BCC. My assumption would be ASAP seeing they just want to get this thing off the ground.

Maybee the facts on Emporis need to be changed also in line with recent events!

It has been through DA, council objected to it, they appealed in court and won.

Fromwhat I heard though, the need to resubmit the DA and it is to ony be assessed against the codes

Lol, I think that might be pushing their luck a bit far:P (though I'd prefer a 280m Emerald;)). Still before construction starts maybe Culwulla can call and get a final height, in 3-4 years something might have moved about a bit (but i'd say it's probably stay 230m).
ive been meaning to call the architects. give me a week or so.
cheers

I have nothing against Emerald Towers, does anyone know the case name in the supreme court and at first instance? I am interested to read the Judgement and see what legal principle the judges were trying to convey. Shouldn't Emporis have shown Emerald Towers as being on hold or proposed? Because to show the status as never built when it can still be built is not accurate. That's just my view though.

I have nothing against Emerald Towers, does anyone know the case name in the supreme court and at first instance? I am interested to read the Judgement and see what legal principle the judges were trying to convey. Shouldn't Emporis have shown Emerald Towers as being on hold or proposed? Because to show the status as never built when it can still be built is not accurate. That's just my view though.

is this what you are looking for? here (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QSC/2006/73.rtf)

Thanks DeejayT. I managed to find a quick article about E. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Tower

It's good that there are precedents set by the High Court, this might affect the state government's attempts to protect state interest.

If the DA for the landscaping is here: http://www.ourbrisbane.com/public/DAServlet/929656?pagenumber=2
will the DA for Emarld also be here??

Has Emerald lodged a DA again? Or is this a while away yet?

Does anyone know the timeframe for approval...can't be too long now surely??

^^
go to this IDAS flow chart site. Answer the questions and it will give u a flow chart of the application process and how long the maximum period will take.

http://www.ipa.qld.gov.au/idas/idasFlowCharts.asp

Channell 9 news just said emerald tower got knocked back again!!!

Yeah, I just heard that too, saying it didn't fit in with the heritage of the area (haha, like Willahra does???) and that traffic would be a big problem.

Flippin heck, this is really shitting me off:

Boyle refuses Emerald Towers DA for the second time
Wednesday 14 June 2006

Planning Minister Desley Boyle has again refused the development application for the controversial 77-storey Emerald Tower proposed for Brisbane's CBD.

Emerald Tower was proposed to be 231 metres high from ground-level Queen Street and built on a 1,529-square-metre block adjoining the heritage-listed Orient Hotel, near the junction of Queen and Ann Streets.

The DA was refused in October 2004, however, the decision was overturned by the Supreme Court because the state government had considered state interests, rather than only considering the requirements of Brisbane's City Plan 2000 in making the decision.

This time the government has assessed the application strictly against Brisbane's City Plan 2000.

"Reassessment of the Emerald Tower development has shown that if it were to go ahead it would have a negative impact on Brisbane's CBD, significantly changing the character of that part of Brisbane," Boyle says.

"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.

"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.

"In completing our assessment of the development proposal we have undertaken a thorough review of the application and sought the input of external specialist consultants.

"Based on this review, it is my opinion that the development does not meet the requirements of Brisbane's City Plan 2000."

Specifically, the Minister says the DA does not comply with heritage, traffic and planning requirements for the area.

"Therefore, I have refused the application for the tower," she says.

Back

:cry: I saw it too :cry: :badnews:

"The proposed building's height means it would not blend with the established urban character of that part of the city

AND VISION DOES???? OF COURSE NOT! O MY GOD!! WHAT A B#*$H!

There may be half a case for rejection based on the small block and how much traffic it would generate for the area, however all the other rubbish about it "not fitting in" is crap. Shame, Boyle, shame!

She was meant to assess it under the old code right?

Emerald complied with this code from all accounts. This was in fact the crux of the problem for those opposed to the development wasn't it?

This new knockback just seems to repeat the old reasons. It seems vague and I can't figure how they reached the conclusion they did.

I'm just struck by the utter unfairness of it all.

I imagine this will end up back in court. Hope Emerald don't let the bastards get them down!

Go Emerald! If I were the developers I would sue the shit out of the government!

Just some tidbits about Emerald people might not have known, a fine building:

________________________________
But Mr McLean said Emerald believed it had a product that would separate it from the crowd.

"No other tower project in Queensland is like this one and we believe people will respond to its location, design and special features," he said.

"We are taking the New York example and moving it here."

According to architect Greg Crone, of Crone Nation Architects, the $190 million "smart tower" will offer a mix of apartments, home offices and office suites, "each fitted with state-of-the-art technology, European appliances and top-quality finishes".

"The sky gardens on the upper floors will be created behind a double-skin, glass-curtain wall of non-reflective glass."

Emerald Tower will include five sky-rise penthouse suites, 24 sky-rise suites, 75 high-rise suites, 120 mid-rise suites and 120 low-rise suites.

There will also be undercover parking for 295 cars. Three concealed car parks will be constructed above ground and seven below ground.

Fortitude Valley architect Christian Skou, of Architects Skou + Urbanowicz, has been working on Emerald Towers in association with Crone Nation. He said other features would include retail outlets and cafes, a community and child-care centre, and a boulevard-style entry along Queen Street.

___________________________


Mr McLean said the development was not dependent on pre-sales and would go ahead as soon as the building approvals were through.

Among the special features listed on the plans are sky gardens on balconies above level 50 with double-skin glass curtains providing protection from the elements.

The tower will also have a green element with efficient water recycling and waste management and heat recovery and solar collection included in the design. There will also be 295 car parks and a boulevard along Queen Street.

On the ground level will be a foyer with public art, a retail and commercial space, gallery, coffee shop and a community and child care centre.

_________________________________________

BRISBANE'S tallest building also will be the city's most energy-efficient.

Emerald Tower project manager Chris McLean, of Sydney-based Emer-ald Developments, said the building would generate enough power to subsidise residents' electricity costs.

The residential tower will be covered in solar panels and instead of aircon-ditioners, air will be blown over chill pipes to keep the building cool.

Sustainable energy features are expected to make up $5 million of the development's $190 million price tag.

Mr McLean said he did not set out to make Emerald Tower the tallest in Brisbane, although architect Crone Nation is responsible for designing the tallest buildings in Sydney and Melbourne.

Emerald Tower will have mainly two and three-bedroom units, with some linked to offices for interstate travellers.

Go Emerald! If I were the developers I would sue the shit out of the government!

Unlikely.

The State would have covered all bases with this decision.

Alas, emerald is dead a buried.

As least we have vision, possibly empire and others to come :)

sounds like the site is a problem. emerald people should just find another site in cbd and relodge same da.problem solved. they have the $$$ so shouldnt be a problem.

ahhh NO! I didn't know that!! Now i am angry! :bash:

Thats bullshit, this tower is a ripper, and I was looking forward to seeing it get underway with construction pics and updates, Brisbane planning really sucks, you got a fantastic tower, which DOES look good, and then reject it on the merits it will not fit in with the surrounding buildings, thats bullshit. How many times can they go back to get approval, or do thy have to significantly change the image of the building to get approval??? Surely there would be somwhere else in Brisbane to put it? hell, we will have it down here in Melbourne, will get approved instantly!

I know the feeling of rejection when it comes to scrapers, like Grollos tower in Melbourne, was shattering when that was rejected.

Unlikely.

The State would have covered all bases with this decision.

Alas, emerald is dead a buried.

As least we have vision, possibly empire and others to come :)

Well I'm sure they would have factored for this at Emerald, it's hardly a surprising response. I wouldn't say it's over necessarily. Don't forget we've said that many times before with Emerald.

But anyway tell us of the others, that 80 M/U, what we talking here gerbilus 250? 300?. Is that the Eagle Street Pier? New tallest maybe?

Well I'm sure they would have factored for this at Emerald, it's hardly a surprising response. I wouldn't say it's over necessarily. Don't forget we've said that many times before with Emerald.

But anyway tell us of the others, that 80 M/U, what we talking here gerbilus 250? 300?. Is that the Eagle Street Pier? New tallest maybe?


Well a few months ago a heard a rumour of stockland considering an 80 story mixed use tower at eagle street pier.

However that rumour has been overtaken by the 2 tower rumour.

Well a few months ago a heard a rumour of stockland considering an 80 story mixed use tower at eagle street pier.

However that rumour has been overtaken by the 2 tower rumour.

If an 80 storey mixed-use has gotten chopped in two I will flip out like a ninja I swear. Let's hope it sees the light of day!

If an iconic building isn't build at the peir, i will loose all respect for whatever companies are behind it.
As for Emerald, shame about the news - can't say i was too optimistic about it getting built anyways.

where does boyle live.....i am sharpening my knife

Back to court!!!

Just as I said, ridiculous decision and it's going back to court!

Hope Emerald stick it up them. I can't believe tax payer money is being wasted again resisting a quality tower that would create jobs in Brisbane and rejuvenate a rundown site. Is this how we treat investment in Brisbane?

Anyway, go Emerald!

Emerald's tower too tall an order
15 June

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.

The thing that annoys me so much about this is that the state government is going on with the SEQ Regional Plan about how they want to increase population densities, create more and bigger TOD's, fit 330 people into the area every week.

As I said in another thread...Has there ever been an IMBY protest????

What's the Government's problem with this building in particular? If it complies with codes, is in the CBD and is even environmentally friendly then what's wrong? Yes there is heritage in the area, but look at Aurora (one block away!!!!) - it clearly doesn't fit in with the heritage facade it is built on. I think they are picking on this buildling for some reason. This place is WAY too conservative at times, it's time to move on and move with the times.

If the building was so unacceptable originally under the Brisbane plan for the reasons stated yesterday, why did the government use the call-in powers to reject it in the first place?

Guys, the Building did not stack up, on a planning level the decision to refuse was CORRECT!!!!.

I agree witth Culs assessment that they should just find a new site, I like the building just not on that block.

^^Why???

Correct? The court cases suggest otherwise.

Finding a new site, that's not going to happen so no point considering that.

You complain gerbilus because the carpark was too small etc etc? These MAY in the future prove to be hiccups in the design, that MAYBE some residents MIGHT care about, and who is to say they will.

But these are not sufficient grounds to can the whole project, not by a long shot.

The positives of the project outweigh it by far. It's a great looking tower, it's got more ESD in it than even ANA down the cost, it'll employ people, it'll rid the city of shitty eyesore of a site, etc etc etc.

So to really focus on a few things is to miss the big picture. Any major project every proposed could get torn apart if you look for errors.

Compare Emerald to buidlings like Festival, Rivercity, Intercap or even any of the other Admiralty towers, it is head and shoulders a better design designed by a top Australian firm. How can anyone says they should be allowed and this should not. Why isn't the outrage focused on thes mundane cheap commie blocks? Oh no, nobody says a thing about that, they can be scaling off the crapometre in every category but cos they are not as tall or on a slightly bigger sight everything is A-OK. It's absurd.

OK
This rabbit warren is OK! Not a 'monstrosity'!
http://www.shadodotnet.net/linked/ssc/IMG_9599_1024.jpg

NOT OK
This $300 mill smart, 5mill+ on ESD building by Crone is NOT OK: Apparently this is a monstrosity!
http://www.emeraldgroup.net/brisbane/images/photo6_lrg.jpg

But gerbilus!!! Think of the benefits this is going to have to the runned down boring gap between the city and the valley! Read what Locke posted on the previous page... ohhh what the hell here they are.

Thanks to Locke.

But Mr McLean said Emerald believed it had a product that would separate it from the crowd.

"No other tower project in Queensland is like this one and we believe people will respond to its location, design and special features," he said.

"We are taking the New York example and moving it here."

According to architect Greg Crone, of Crone Nation Architects, the $190 million "smart tower" will offer a mix of apartments, home offices and office suites, "each fitted with state-of-the-art technology, European appliances and top-quality finishes".

"The sky gardens on the upper floors will be created behind a double-skin, glass-curtain wall of non-reflective glass."

Emerald Tower will include five sky-rise penthouse suites, 24 sky-rise suites, 75 high-rise suites, 120 mid-rise suites and 120 low-rise suites.

There will also be undercover parking for 295 cars. Three concealed car parks will be constructed above ground and seven below ground.

Fortitude Valley architect Christian Skou, of Architects Skou + Urbanowicz, has been working on Emerald Towers in association with Crone Nation. He said other features would include retail outlets and cafes, a community and child-care centre, and a boulevard-style entry along Queen Street.

___________________________


Mr McLean said the development was not dependent on pre-sales and would go ahead as soon as the building approvals were through.

Among the special features listed on the plans are sky gardens on balconies above level 50 with double-skin glass curtains providing protection from the elements.

The tower will also have a green element with efficient water recycling and waste management and heat recovery and solar collection included in the design. There will also be 295 car parks and a boulevard along Queen Street.

On the ground level will be a foyer with public art, a retail and commercial space, gallery, coffee shop and a community and child care centre.

_________________________________________

BRISBANE'S tallest building also will be the city's most energy-efficient.

Emerald Tower project manager Chris McLean, of Sydney-based Emer-ald Developments, said the building would generate enough power to subsidise residents' electricity costs.

The residential tower will be covered in solar panels and instead of aircon-ditioners, air will be blown over chill pipes to keep the building cool.

Sustainable energy features are expected to make up $5 million of the development's $190 million price tag.

Mr McLean said he did not set out to make Emerald Tower the tallest in Brisbane, although architect Crone Nation is responsible for designing the tallest buildings in Sydney and Melbourne.

Emerald Tower will have mainly two and three-bedroom units, with some linked to offices for interstate travellers.

This building is going to make our skyline grand, and how can someone possibly knock this down and allow shit devine towers!!!

The issues with regard vehicle access and manoeuvring on this site are massive and are grounds for refusal alone.

I know the people who assesed the application and have discussed it with them at length. It was the right decision.

By the way locke, the court case only dealt with the issue of ministerial call in process. In NO WAY WHATSOEVER did it deal with the suitability of the building.

Thats the last I am going to say on this issue

Massive? Few pages back you said they were only of interest to some residents potentially. Even further back you were for this tower gerbilus.

Bottom line, you can find holes in anything, sure this tower is a tight fit but it's got a lot of positives that outweight the negatives. There are far worse architectural crimes being committed around town, why does Emearld cop all the rap? Especially as on balance for many of us here it's amongst the best of the lot despite it's alleged faults.

Very Disappointing!!! If this is the decision that has been made this is the decision that has been made, but I dont quite get it, the only objection that comes close to being reasonable is the issue of vehicle access, but even then, how the hell did any of the new towers in Petrie Bight get approved, surely vehicle access in this area is far worse. As far as ruining streetscapes, views to significant buildings and changing the heritage of the area, they must be kidding. From what I can see there is no heritage theme anywhere in the area, the only significant building in the area is the cathedral, which cannot be viewed from any angle other than from the front, and what streetscape are they trying to save, there doesnt seem to be one. It all seems a bit absurd to me.

Ok I bite....

The original advice about the serious problems about the access and parking on the site came from assessments by traffic engineers who then advise the planners.

All I can say is that these guys know what they are talking about, that is what they do!!!!!!!

Didn't Emerald recently buy the laneway that the cars would use to help resolve the traffic issues?

I got no doubt the experts know what they are doing gerbilus, I just don't like the incessant focus on the negatives of the development whilst overlooking all the positives of it, which on balance for me weigh in the building's favour.

In my book the building has sufficient merit to warrant some flexibility.

Anyway, guess we'll see how it plays out.

My biggest problem with this whole case is the possibility of other developers being scared away from proposing big, modern buildings as a result of the decision. Regardless of the reasons given from the "inside" (i.e. the BCC) as to why this building is being knocked back, from the "outside" I think it looks/feels as though personal dislike has at least contributed to the blocking of this tower.

^
understandable, but with Vision and Empire likely to be approved and the changes to the cityplan to allow taller buildings the ever before I'm not sure too many developers will be put off.

As far as ruining streetscapes, views to significant buildings and changing the heritage of the area, they must be kidding. From what I can see there is no heritage theme anywhere in the area, the only significant building in the area is the cathedral, which cannot be viewed from any angle other than from the front, and what streetscape are they trying to save, there doesnt seem to be one. It all seems a bit absurd to me.

The heritage aspect is the Oriental hotel. I'm not sure how it damages the "significance" of that building however.....

I have sent an email to Desley expressing my disappointment, I will be interested to see if I get a response.

Obviously the planners are just doing theyre job but it doesnt make the result any less frustrating.

I dont understand how we can call ourselves THE SMART STATE and not approve a building that incorporates more ESD principles than any other building in Brisbane, introduces another childcare facility, improves the aesthetics of a main entrance to the city that currently looks terrible, increases the patronage of local businesses, encourages more people to live in the city therefore reducing the number of cars on the road during peak hours, brings life to an area of the city that is currently fairly dead, improves security along the main pedestrian link to the Valley, and gives the Brisbane Skyline one of the best looking buildings in the country.

I wonder if they would be allowed to put it on 545 Queen St?

As I have said many many times over the years on this forum I do not have a problem with this building in principle. I actually think it would be a fantastic addition to the skyline.

However for a variety of reasons this is not the right site, If you ask me a perfect place for it would be in that area behind the admiralty towers.

The only reason I am negative is that in my professional opinion (and of every engineer and planner who assessed it) The negatives outweigh the positives, its as simple as that. As someone who as assessed applications for many years, I can assure there have been many times where I have seen applications where a superficial review is very positive, however once one delves deeper, a very different picture emerges. This is a perfect example.

The applicant intends to appeal to the supreme court, who knows they might even win. ( I dont have much faith in the court system in QLD when it comes to planning decisions)

but i doubt it.

My advice is to watch vision rise and think nice thoughts for empire.

Skyscrapercity is like the marines, we never leave a tower behind!:) This one will end up with Judge Judy in time.

Anyway, some more on the ESD of Emerald: Water efficient as welli like ANA on the coast:

Emerald Tower project director Chris McLean said construction could begin as soon as building approvals were granted and that he was confident the project would advance to the next stage.

He said the design of the 231m tower would allow for the collection of rainwater from the building's surface for re-use in the tower's sanitary and air conditioning systems.

Mr McLean said exterior shading would be designed to reduce pressure on the tower's airconditioning and reverse-cycle units would use the waste heat from the lift wells to help heat the building's 344 units.

does ms boyle know about recent developments such as 200m Riparian and 207m Aurora? or 260m Vision which will dominate the city. also 235m Empire tower! things have changed slightly since 3 or 4 years ago when Emerald was first proposed. This will now be just another highrise. no big deal.
out of character with location? well has she seen wahts planned for nearly petrie bight? many towers from 150m-200m!
struth

hasnt there just been a 200m residential application submitted just just down the road?? 549 Queen??? What is another 30 odd metres?? Brisbane is the neighborhood!!! Ridiculous

I think Deslie Boyle is just being pure stubborn. She won't back down on her original decision because of course - she would never make the wrong choice.

Thats a damn shape, although i had a strange feeling that it would not be approved for a second time. Maybe in the future they should choose a different person to reassess an application.

I have a lot of faith in our justice system, the judges are extremely intelligent and analytical. I guess we just have to wait and see what happens, but in the meantime we have more than enough to keep us happy in the great South-East Queensland.

My lucky wish genie tells me this will pull through. Gotta have the faith :)

So, Ok, lets say this goes to court...ok then, wouldn't it have to go through the whole approval stages or can 1 judge decide if Emerald will rise???

This building is power and water efficient! with tuns of other aspects that Brisbane has never seen before! Screw the traffic!! Who F%&$&ING CARES! If Emerald is not built, there will most likely be a stumpy looking devine tower that has none of the environmental features that Emerald has.

And this tower can not and will not be built in a different place! that is just ridiculous! The Emerald property group invested in that piece of land to built a tower and if this isn't built they will most likely abandon Brisbane! or create something smaller without those features

omg...that looks so nice.

I don't like the tower personally, but even moreso I don't like the way the developer seems to be being mucked around. If traffic/access issues are the problem, then say so, and fair enough. But the rejection seems to focus on heritage/being in character with surrounding development issues. That seems a bit weird to me considering some of the other buildings around that area. Are there well defined laws on what these issues are? Or is it a subjective case of the developer going to the expense of lodging an application and hoping that a planner doesn't decide the old run down building next door is a 'character' building and the view of it needs to be preserved? And if the other 20 or so story buildings nearby are in character, how can a 70 story building not be in character? Is it spoiling the view of the stars from the church nearby or something??

Or maybe the real reason is the traffic issues, and the media release just focuses on the heritage/character issues in a cynical attempt to please the NIMBYs??

I love it how they want to preserve the character, yet they will allow a whopping great big billboard to be put on top of the hotel they are trying to preserve the character off?!?!!

Access problems... I disagree.

I could understand if there was not a lane behind the building. Which is accessible from Adelaide and Ann streets..... As well as possible direct access from Queen St....

and traffic into it wouldnt be that bad since it is in the city.. Driving would not take place for most trips that normal people embark on in a vehicle.. ie Shopping, work....

Thats what I thought too Malt, you wouldnt jump in the car to go to Woolies, cos its just across the road, and you wouldnt even jump in the car to go to work cos if you worked in the CBD or the Valley it would be easier to walk.

Also, doesn't Willahra already use the laneway for access?

Access problems... I disagree.

I could understand if there was not a lane behind the building. Which is accessible from Adelaide and Ann streets..... As well as possible direct access from Queen St....

and traffic into it wouldnt be that bad since it is in the city.. Driving would not take place for most trips that normal people embark on in a vehicle.. ie Shopping, work....

I didnt realise you were a traffic engineer Malt.... :poke:

Love the passion

Go Emerald!

Battle over tower lingers
16 June 2006 The Courier-Mail

THE developer behind a proposal for a controversial residential high-rise will keep up the fight after the $300 million project was refused for a second time by Planning Minister Desley Boyle yesterday.

Emerald Tower, a 77-storey building proposed by the Emerald Group for the corner of Brisbane's Ann and Queen streets, sparked a Supreme Court hearing after the first knock back by the Minister in October 2004.

In April, Chief Justice Paul de Jersey embarrassed the State Government by overturning the refusal, ruling the Minister did not have the authority to refuse the application on grounds of "state interest".

However, yesterday Ms Boyle again refused the application against the requirements of Brisbane's City Plan 2000.

"Reassessment of the Emerald Tower development has shown that if it were to go ahead it would have a negative impact on Brisbane's CBD, significantly changing the character of that part of Brisbane," Ms Boyle said.

"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.

"Specifically, the development application does not comply with heritage, traffic and planning requirements for this area."

Emerald Group executive chairman Eddy Faress said he was exploring his legal options and had no reservations about taking the matter to court again.

"I won't be giving up," Mr Faress said.

"I believe in justice and the application should have been approved.

"I think it's highly likely it will go to court."

Mr Faress said he was "surprised and disappointed" to hear of the Minister's decision.

He said Emerald Group had complied with the requirements for a code assessable application.

"We are disappointed that it appears the Minister has not followed the basis of the ruling set out by Chief Justice de Jersey," he said.

"We are confident of the merit of our development application and the benefits of Emerald Tower."

Urban Development Industry Association executive director Brian Stewart said the decision was a "surprising turn of events", but a one-off that would not greatly affect the industry.

"The Minister's advisers have clearly found a novel approach that wasn't appreciated by the (Brisbane City) council," he said. "The developer would want to have a look at the reasons given by the Minister."

As I have said many many times over the years on this forum I do not have a problem with this building in principle. I actually think it would be a fantastic addition to the skyline.

However for a variety of reasons this is not the right site, If you ask me a perfect place for it would be in that area behind the admiralty towers.

The only reason I am negative is that in my professional opinion (and of every engineer and planner who assessed it) The negatives outweigh the positives, its as simple as that. As someone who as assessed applications for many years, I can assure there have been many times where I have seen applications where a superficial review is very positive, however once one delves deeper, a very different picture emerges. This is a perfect example.

The applicant intends to appeal to the supreme court, who knows they might even win. ( I dont have much faith in the court system in QLD when it comes to planning decisions)

but i doubt it.

My advice is to watch vision rise and think nice thoughts for empire.

What are the actual codes that Emerald contrdicts? The court said it had to align itself with the codes, and if it did that it should be passed. That is more what I was asking when I asked why before.

Atleast there not falling without a fight. Hopefully the courts will review the decisions and make a proper decision.

Fuck I hate politics. And an old fish wife like Desley Boyle has no business interfering with the independence of the court review process. She is like so many politicians in Australia - a vacuous gormless lightweight trying to make a name for herself by using lowest common denominator populist politics. Lets hope the court sorts this shit out (again) quickly. Rant over. :sleepy:

Go Emerald! The majority of us are behind you! keep fighting!

"The Minister's advisers have clearly found a novel approach that wasn't appreciated by the (Brisbane City) council," he said. "The developer would want to have a look at the reasons given by the Minister."

How very diplomatic.

It could take another six months like last time to get another court decision, but I like Chief Justice Paul De Jersey. I hope this goes to the High Court as a test case, then it would be binding in all states and territories!!

How very diplomatic.

Well it is interesting isn't it, they used the call in powers because it complied with the code, won a series of court cases that said it complied with the code and it was a last resort by the BCC to stop it under a dubious 'state interest' arguement because it comlied with the code.

The Minster called it in under this state interest argument, which the court found she was not supposed to consider that, and told her she had to assess it like the BCC had under the code (just as BCC had done and being unable to stop it).

So now she's applied the code, what do you know, somehow now all the sudden now she has found a way which the BCC missed! Why didn't the BCC just do this years ago then? Why the call in?

I want to send an e-mail to that Desley Boyle cow. Anyone have her e-mail address? :shocked:

I want to send an e-mail to that Desley Boyle cow. Anyone have her e-mail address? :shocked:

i hate her too. kick her in the vag i say.

Just google Desley Boyle and her department website will come up, then just click contact us.

Just google Desley Boyle and her department website will come up, then just click contact us.

bastard!!! you've blocked me on msn!!!

It stuns me that Emarald is denied because its a "monstrosity", yet the definition of the word went up right next door without a peep, and the monster has a name - Willahra.

The minister wont back down, because doing so would be to admit she is wrong. Fair enough if there are solid grounds for it being denied but "not fitting in with the character of the area" is a copout. The character of the area dissapeared when Pacific International and Willahra went up years ago.

has this been rejected? that's very dissappointing.

but look on the bright side, if it has been, you'll still have vision, possibly empire square and even more!

but i know how you feel, its like someone telling adelaide that spire has been cancelled (touch wood)

thanks GMAC. I'm with Danubis. Kick her in the vag. :puke:

We need a liberal state government.

^
The political party has nothing to do with the decsision - the Liberal mayor doesn't want the building either.

Sorry, I meant the state government needs to be more liberal, in the open minded sense.

Love the passion

Guys

I find some of the comments towards Desley Boyle rather immature and offensive.

As I have tried to say many times there are real and valid reasons why this development is being opposed by both the state and local governments.

Unfortunately some of the remarks on this thread sound like the tantrums of a spiteful child that did not get its way.

You dont have to agree with the government's position but I was hoping for a little more mature debate and discussion.

Gerbilus, I don't see how you can justify this type of treatment of the developer, it's very unfair what they've been put through the last five years, at considerable cost to them I might add. They are following the law at the end of the day.

Regardless of if the building was a total monstrosity, and it is not, they deserve to win on principle alone.

If it complies (and it does), then that is it, end of story. Draft better legislation but don't blame the developer for following the law and then make them bear the cost of this ineptitude in drafting it, nor subject them to this kind of treatment.

Emerald should be allowed, the legislation, if they subsequently so wish, can be amended afterwards to remove this 'loophole' if that's what you wish to call it, and that would be a fair outcome.

The developers have not been treated badly at all. They were told from day one the building would not be supported, even before they prepared and submitted the DA so they knew well and truly what they were getting into.

If my memory serves me right it took around a year from submission of DA to refusal by the state. For a development that large that is not bad at all, most major developments take longer. Also most of the last 5 years has been the court process, nothing to do with the state and Council.

Both the Council and the State also followed the law, the Supreme Court of appeal only provided an alternative interpretation of the IPA call in process which did not change the outcome.

If one extrapolates your comment Locke, you almost seem to suggest that refusing a development is treating a developer badly. Are you therfore saying we should approve every development a developer submits - and quickly?

As I keep repeating again and again and again, many planners and engineers have reviewed the proposal and all have indicated major concerns.

However it seems some members of this forum have reviewed the application in detail against all the relevant codes, planning policies and engineering standards and clearly are experts who know better.

Just because you desperately want something to happen does not necessarily mean it should.

Not treated badly? If you read back through the archived threads here, it's all explained there in detail so I won't go through it, but I don't know how anyone could consider this a acceptable outcome.

But anyway, why do they need to supported?

It just needs to comply with the law.

It does.

Hence it should be approved. There needs to be certainty in the law. If it meets the stated criteria then you have no grounds to refuse it based on your own subjective opinion. Your opinion that the carpark is too small or this or that is totally irrelevant if it meets the code criteria. If you think the criteria are too soft, fine, change the law, but don't punish somehow who has complied with it, that is unfair.

If the developer is fully code compliant as they say then they have done nothing wrong. Indeed here logic tells us they must be or we wouldn't have this whole line of litigation.

Just because you desperately want to stop something from happening does not necessarily mean you can nor should;)

We need access to the "reasons for decision" to make informed and educated criticism of the decision. The reasons must be sufficiently detailed by law and the developers are the only party who will have those reasons.

Love the passion

[QUOTE=gerbilus]The developers have not been treated badly at all. They were told from day one the building would not be supported....

I can't go along with these 2 outrageous assertions. I'm an IMBY (NB, not a NIMBY) who bought across the road from this project in 2004 when there was a fair chance that Emerald would go ahead. I assure you that I have been following the various stages in the attempts to block this development and consequent counter actions (e.g. the lane purchase to increase car access) with more than a passing interest. The city Masterplan for a low-rise zone around the Cathedral has received considerable local support, but the point remains that endorsing this to maintain the (dubious) heritage of the area postdates all DAs. Blocking the development by appealing to conditions introduced retrostectively is just wrong, regressive and sends a woeful message about growing Qld as the smart state.

The denial of this development demands much greater examination than trotting out spurious justifications advanced, it seems, by gerbilus, Minister Boyle and her advisers that appeal to some high moral ground.

Sorry locke but you are not making sense

Just because an applicant says they comply with a code does not mean it actually does comply with a code.

Everyone involved have complied with the law
It is a simple as that.

But what I dont understand is that you keep saying Locke that it does comply, upon what grounds do you base you position?

It seems to me you have merely taken the developers side because you want it to happen.

Listen, if the court finally approves the development I will not lose any sleep.

All I have been trying to say that there are valid reasons why the devlopment has been refused, nothing more nothing less.

From my point of view tha main issues are the parking and acess, I am not particulary concerned with the heritage stuff. Oh by the way Notra my statement that the applicant was pre-warned is not spurious - they had a pre lodgement with council months before the DA and were told that it would not be supported - that is fact.

Gerbilus, if it didn't comply why would they go to the minister?

Why not the BCC just refuse it?

Why the court cases?

It complies with the code. If you read the earlier articles the BCC, ****** etc ADMIT it complies with the code and they CAN'T stop it UNLESS the minister intervenes. Emerald say this and just simple flat out logic would tell you there would be no court case if it didn't comply.

And btw everyone involved has NOT complied with the law, the minister did not in her first grounds for refusal.

So that's the issue, it complies, but they dont' want to allow it anyway.

That is bang out of order if you ask me.

If doesn't comply, fair play, it's toast, but from all accounts I've read it does, which is why your attitude of 'they should just quit' is so unfair. They shouldn't just take it, they should fight for justice here!

I'm not taking the developers side just cos I want it to happen, it's the principle of the matter.

All I have been trying to say that there are valid reasons why the devlopment has been refused, nothing more nothing less.

grebilus said earlier that we needed a mature debate. Hear, hear!

My problem is that i have always regarded a valid reason as one that logically follows form some regulation or set of regulations (or, in this case, some planning code). Obviously I have missed all the valid reasons advanced by Minister Boyle as well as by gerbilus. I must be a little dense.

grebilus said earlier that we needed a mature debate. Hear, hear!

My problem is that i have always regarded a valid reason as one that logically follows form some regulation or set of regulations (or, in this case, some planning code). Obviously I have missed all the valid reasons advanced by Minister Boyle as well as by gerbilus. I must be a little dense.


Notra you are not dense (sarcasm/irony nonwithstanding) but not in possession of all the facts.

Ok I am bored with this debate :)

No come on gerbilus, I wanna hear why they had to go to the minister to stop a development that DIDN'T comply?:P

I dont know

Maybe this will help gerbilus, out of various articles:


Almost a year ago, Soorley's successor, Tim Quinn, admitted that the Emerald Tower proposal was well on its way to being approved after council planning officers acknowledged it complied with the CBD building code.

_______________________________________
One of the reasons behind the TLPI is a proposal by a Sydney-based developer to build the 77-level Emerald Tower on a 1281sq m site in Queen St.

Under the City Plan, Emerald Tower complies with the building code, despite criticism that it is inappropriate for the site. The council was recently forced to have the State Government call the project in for assessment under state legislation that presents the only legal opportunity to reject the project due to its impact. Hence the argument for a TLPI.

_______________________________________

The spokeswoman said the minister was seeking advice from the department, but no decision had been made.

This month, The Courier-Mail reported that Lord Mayor Campbell ****** had called on the Government to intervene in a last-ditch attempt to stop the high-rise, which complies with council town planning guidelines.

The $190 million development is earmarked for a 1200sq m site at 550 Queen St. If built, it would be the city's tallest building.

____________________________________

ydney consortium Emerald Developments planned to build the 77-storey development on a 1200sq m site near the corner of Queen and Ann streets in the CBD, but Brisbane City Council asked the Government to intervene, despite plans meeting Integrated Planning Act requirements.

________________________

Cr Quinn said he would prefer Emerald Tower to be shorter than the 250m proposed, but acknowledged council had no provisions in place to enforce a height restriction in the inner city.

______________

The proposed 250m residential tower is earmarked for a vacant 1200sq m site at 550 Queen St -- about the size of two house blocks.

Under state planning laws, the council cannot enforce the new restrictions for 12 months, and existing applicants such as Emerald Towers have two years to exercise development rights.

This is going to be a long battle, and a long time before any sort of development happens on the site. I fear that emerald will not be built.

The media statements that the devlopment complied are not completely true.

For example in terms of plot ratio, emrrald required a massive relaxation.

It does not comply with significant parts of the parking and access codes either.

The planners and engineers who assessed the development felt the problems were sufficient to warrant its refusal.

I know a lot of these people and i support them.

Not completely True? How so? I mean it does say 'planning officers admitted', and Tim Quinn suggests likewise.

Your story doesn't make sense gerbilus, on one hand you say despite all the reports it doesn't comply, on the other hand you can't explain why they would use the call in if they didn't comply.

Guess we'll see what happens, in any case 6 month wait at this stage at least I'd say.

The media statements that the devlopment complied are not completely true.

For example in terms of plot ratio, emrrald required a massive relaxation.

It does not comply with significant parts of the parking and access codes either.

The planners and engineers who assessed the development felt the problems were sufficient to warrant its refusal.

I know a lot of these people and i support them.


Interesting debate gerbilus. I am trying to understand where your bias :soapbox: is coming from? I gather you obviously work for either BCC or the state govt?

I thought this site was a forum for people PRO development..... :bash:

Locke ok this is the situation:

Your apraisal of whether the devlopment complies with the scheme comes from snippets from the media.

My knowledge of the devlopment comes from the actual people who have worked on the application both in the Council and the State government and I have seen some of the planning reports.

Therefore I have been briefed in detail on the issues surrounding the devlopment and I understand and agree with why the this particualr devlopment has been refused. My position is objective, not biased.

Simple as that.

For fuck sake I really wish the damn thing did comply, I like tall buildings in brisbane. Why do you think I contribute to his forum?

However there are times a proposal does not stack up enough, that does not make me anti devlopment.

Um Emerald?

Ah yes Emerald, well it looks like the city is being adapted to suit cars, rather than traffic adapting to suit the city, which it does. With the bus way development cutting off some major roads in the city I noticed, as I walk past every morning and evening, that when the roads were cut off, it took two days for the traffic to adapt. Plot ratios? If it fits,I think good on it.

Locke ok this is the situation:

Your apraisal of whether the devlopment complies with the scheme comes from snippets from the media.

My knowledge of the devlopment comes from the actual people who have worked on the application both in the Council and the State government and I have seen some of the planning reports.

Therefore I have been briefed in detail on the issues surrounding the devlopment and I understand and agree with why the this particualr devlopment has been refused. My position is objective, not biased.
You probably shouldn't have to defend yourself in this way, gerbilus, but perhaps if you could produce some stats or reports proving this it might get people off your back.

I think objective is good, I also think a 300m+ tower could go on this site if it addressed the traffic problems because the surrounding buildings are tall enough as well. Once skyline and a few others on petrie bight go up, who knows what will happen.

Na too much work.

The bottom line is that in a few months the courts might approve it anyway, irrespective of the planning advice given to them.

I just wanted to make it clear that there were actual relevant planning grounds for the refusal as opposed to some ficticious victimisation of the devloper, as often suggested on this forum.

I have said my piece......

I just wanted to make it clear that there were actual relevant planning grounds for the refusal as opposed to some ficticious victimisation of the devloper, as often suggested on this forum.

I have said my piece......

Congratulations on having said your piece. again and again (without one scrap of supporting evidence !!!!) Again you appeal to your superior insights gained from speaking to those who you assert have the knowledge to pontificate that this development does not meet planning requirements. Of course you are bored by responding to other's comments because plebians like us are sadly not as well as informed as you.

When you state the relevant grounds for you assertions, then perhaps you may have something more to contribute. Meanwhile, thank god you've nothing to add and won't say anything that's more sensible than parrotting the minister's decision that'sjust moral santimonious blather. There's no doubt that you agree that big sister knows what's best for Brisbane.

I just think that something fishy is going on with Emerald and the government...maybe they didn't bribe them as much as they wanted??? :runaway:

I just think that something fishy is going on with Emerald and the government...maybe they didn't bribe them as much as they wanted??? :runaway:

don't ask gerbilus - he either knows too much or he knows nothing. Not that that would stop him from stating with 100% confidence that the developer knew from the start that the project was doomed !!!!

don't ask gerbilus - he either knows too much or he knows nothing. Not that that would stop him from stating with 100% confidence that the developer knew from the start that the project was doomed !!!!


I know with 100% confidence what they were told at the prelodgement meeting - thats enough

Keep in mind that if Gerbilus is employed by the BCC or State Government, a confidentiality agreement would have been signed by Gerbilus, so nothing can be disclosed. I think he is trying to tell us everything he can without breaching privacy and confidentiality.

Keep in mind that if Gerbilus is employed by the BCC or State Government, a confidentiality agreement would have been signed by Gerbilus, so nothing can be disclosed. I think he is trying to tell us everything he can without breaching privacy and confidentiality.

:angel:

I still don't care! I want Brisbane to have more TALLER buildings!! :|

I think people should give gerbilus a bit of slack, after all he and the others involved with the project are just doing there job. Iam sure it doesnt bother any of the planners of the enginneers wether emerald gets built, but even if it does they still have to comply with the law and legislations.

[QUOTE=cp1]I think people should give gerbilus a bit of slack

wot bullshit - he deserves none at all. He's a todie. Just read his recent posts. Can't you see that his stupid claim that the developer knew that the this proposal never had any chance of success is a total crock. If you believe this, sadly you also show your true colours.

The project looks like one of those ones that gets picked on when the polies get involved, and would otherwise have passed through the Byzantine bureaucrazy.

[QUOTE=cp1]I think people should give gerbilus a bit of slack

wot bullshit - he deserves none at all. He's a todie. Just read his recent posts. Can't you see that his stupid claim that the developer knew that the this proposal never had any chance of success is a total crock. If you believe this, sadly you also show your true colours.


Wow Notra you are right - I am a Toadie.

Yes my intention is purely to ingratiate myself with Minister Boyle by anonymously defending the government position on a particular issue on a web forum using a signature based on an unorthodox sexual act.

Yep this will definitely advance my career – I expect to be Director General by next week.

LOVE THE PASSION

madness

Thanks Gerbilus for trying to maintain some realism and intelligence in this thread. In 5 years on this forum I have never seen a thread become this childish. As BrizzyChris says quite aptly, no doubt Gerbilus knows more, but his professionalism and personal ethics are prompting him to reveal only what he can. No doubt he is bursting to reveal more, but is holding himself back. Good on you! There are more of us on this forum who also have inside news on various projects, and are bursting to reveal a lot more. Just because someone who is working on the inside chooses not to spill all the beans doesnt make them an idiot as some here are insinuating. Grow up...

I have some news about an Austcorp project but... cant say anything :sleepy:

[QUOTE=notra If you believe this, sadly you also show your true colours.[/QUOTE]

True colours, wat do u base this statement on? How about you respect the comments of other users and give them the respect they deserve.

I have some news about an Austcorp project but... cant say anything :sleepy:

How about a good or bad hint?

^ Good for Austcorp...which in return is good for Vision ;) but nothing to do with vision.

Maybe if you wrote it with really little letters...

...

Ok screw it! SW1 has been sold for 95 million dollars to a world bank, making Austcorp 10 million dollars profit. You didn't hear it from me... ;) ;)

Emerald Group have a new web site! :)

Includes a news release saying they are likely fighting the decision, and the tone, new site and expanded Emerald tower section to the site certainly indicates they expect Emerald to still go ahead.

http://www.emeraldgroup.net

There is a new section on Emerald tower (under construction) with virtual tours to be added, meet the design team sections etc. A few small new renders in there but bigger ones to come probably when finished I guess.
http://www.emeraldgroup.net/projects/emerald_tower/index.html

http://www.emeraldgroup.net/projects/emerald_tower/images/140x140_06.jpg http://www.emeraldgroup.net/projects/emerald_tower/images/140x140_12.jpg http://www.emeraldgroup.net/projects/emerald_tower/images/140x140_04.jpg
http://www.emeraldgroup.net/projects/emerald_tower/images/140x140_01.jpg http://www.emeraldgroup.net/projects/emerald_tower/images/140x140_07.jpg http://www.emeraldgroup.net/projects/emerald_tower/images/140x140_02.jpg http://www.emeraldgroup.net/projects/emerald_tower/images/140x140_09.jpg http://www.emeraldgroup.net/projects/emerald_tower/images/140x140_03.jpg

http://www.emeraldgroup.net/projects/emerald_tower/images/header.jpg

Emerald, the little Aussie battler!:) (Don't even start gerbilus!:P)

A good sign for sure.

Auora is stil the wrong way arround in those new renders...

Impressive, good news to hear they are not fumbiling without a fight.

I like a company with balls. Good for them.

This is good news. I'm glad they're still fighting the decision.

Fantastic news!! :happy:

Good to see they are pursuing legal options, can't wait to hear what De Jersey CJ has to say about this.

Lol @ "company with balls".

One of the architects working on this project told me the developers have no intention of giving up on this one.

I hope like hell there is no precedent set in the High Court. I don't want this sort of thing spreading to other places. Despite the setback for another tallie, some forum members made absolute disgraces out of themselves on here. If and when it does return to court, I presume it will be an open hearing that the public would be allowed to sit in on so you could all sit in the public gallery and listen to the council's reasonings with your own ears. I probably would if i had the time and the means to get there.

I couldn't be bothered going to canberra, I'll wait to hear about it on the news or on this forum.

Best news I have heard all day :) Maybe us forum members (who support this building) should e-mail the developers a message of support saying many people in brisbane do want Emerald to go ahead or something like that? Any thoughts?

^^ Good idea!

LOL! Hero messages.

Emerald will likely take this to the Supreme court and the challenge will be based on process, most likely on the interpetation of what constitues a "state interest".


They may even win as the definition of "State Interest" in the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA) is somewhat vague.

At the moment the Minister is reviewing the act to remove any ambiguities from the definition of "State Interest" in IPA

The site seems to have been cleared / cleaned up this morning

The High Court sits in Brisbane from time to time, so you may not have to travel to Canberra

It won't go to the High Court yet will it? This case is different to first one is it not? They won the first case. I would assume that it's back to the Supreme court again.

When and where does the High Court sit in Brisbane? I've never heard of it sitting outside of Canberra before.

If and when it does return to court, I presume it will be an open hearing that the public would be allowed to sit in on so you could all sit in the public gallery and listen to the council's reasonings with your own ears.

Any case lodged will be against the state government, not the local council who have not been involved with the most recent rejection.

It won't go to the High Court yet will it? This case is different to first one is it not? They won the first case. I would assume that it's back to the Supreme court again.

Yep, it should go to the Supreme Court.

When and where does the High Court sit in Brisbane? I've never heard of it sitting outside of Canberra before.

The High Court sits in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth each for a week every year and Hobart every few years, using the facilities of the Supreme Court in the respective cities. Brisbane's normal time has been in June since since the 1920's.

What orfeo said is correct

Ah I see. Thanks :)

Any idea when this will get into the courts again??

Probably another 6 months, don't expect a speedy resolution on this one.

That's about what I expected. It isn't too slow though, especially when it takes BCC normally about a year to approve or debunk a DA!

Yeah, the BCC is pretty good. Qld courts are another story ;)

The city masterplan released today shows the site shaded as a "special context area" and says that "subservient development around the cathedral still remains appropriate".

Yes but when doing applications, developers are able to use superseeded plans up to 2 years old instead of the new ones. This should not have any effect on this development whatsoever, they will be focusing on the previously stated issues.

Yes but when doing applications, developers are able to use superseeded plans up to 2 years old instead of the new ones. This should not have any effect on this development whatsoever, they will be focusing on the previously stated issues.

This is true but assuming the State's refusal of Emerald sticks, then this would be a significant precedent which would overide any transitional provisons (ie the ability to use older provisions for 2 years after the gazettal of new provisions).

What is the substance of the precedent you refer to specifically?

What is the substance of the precedent you refer to specifically?

The draft new city centre plan stengthens some the provisions which were used to refuse Emerald, especially with respect to any impacts on the cathedral.

Assuming the Emerald refusal sticks in the end, the grounds for the refusal (especially the heritage grounds) would be considered for any subsequant DA on the site or on any site near the cathedral.

I just mentioned this because KJBrissy was indicating (quite correctly) that when new town planning provisions are introduced, there are 2 years where an applicant can apply under the old (transitional) provisions.

However where there are court decisions these can have a lot of weight and can effect subsequent decisions.

Poor Emerald, I fear the worst :(

FUCKING GRIT ****S! BUILD A SUPER TOWER!

dont hold back camsta! say what you feel!lol

Don't worry...One will be coming.

Has this really been approved? I really hope so.

^^ no. read the last posts. The state successfully blocked it again. ofcourse the legal cycle will follow

http://www.emeraldgroup.net

http://www.emeraldgroup.net/projects/emerald_tower/index.html
Hrmm, the first link is down, but the 2nd, still fine. :dunno:

There's still hope :okay:

Lots of Laffs
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
http://www.emeraldgroup.net/images/projects/projects_home_lhs.jpg

For those who do not know the Emerald Story...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Tower%2C_Brisbane

From http://www.deacons.com.au/NewsUpdates/Newsroom/EPQLDArticles.cfm?objid=5600

Emerald Towers – a Ministerial Call-in Saga

04 Aug 06

1. Introduction
1.1 On 27 August 2002, Emerald Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd applied for a development permit for a material change of use for “centre activities (multi unit dwelling, shop, restaurant)” and sought preliminary approval to carry out work on land adjoining a “heritage place”.
1.2 The site is in Ann Street, Brisbane and is immediately adjacent to the heritage-listed Orient Hotel. It is also in the vicinity of the St John’s Cathedral precinct. The proposal was for a 77 storey single high-rise residential tower together with retail and other facilities.
1.3 The application was code-assessable under the provisions of City Plan. It was controversial because of its height (particularly sited on such a small lot) and its potential to affect the nearby heritage-listed Orient Hotel and Cathedral sites.
1.4 On 20 July 2004, the Minister for Local Government and Planning called in the application. She was exercising her power under s.3.6.5 of IPA which allows a call-in if the development involves a “State interest”.
1.5 That term is defined as meaning:

“(a) an interest that, in the Minister’s opinion, affects an economic or environmental interest of the State or a region; or

(b) an interest in ensuring there is an efficient, effective and accountable planning and development assessment system.”

1.6 Under s.3.6.7(1)(a) of IPA, the Minister became the “assessment manager” in lieu of Brisbane City Council. She was obliged to apply the IDAS process to the application from the point at which the application was called in [s.3.6.7(1)].
1.7 Her decision on the application was to be taken as the original assessment manager’s decision – but there were no rights of appeal to the Planning and Environment Court [s.3.6.7(1)(e)].
1.8 It should be mentioned in passing that judicial review of the decision is excluded by IPA (s.5.9.5) and the Planing and Environment Court also has no declaratory powers in respect of these matters [s.4.1.21(1)(a)].
1.9 On 6 October 2004, the Minister refused the application. Her reasons for refusal were set out as follows:

“1. The development would prejudice the Master Planning exercise commenced by the Brisbane City Council as the proposed development exposes the following deficiencies of the current City Plan which form much of the basis for the Master Plan and the CBD Local Plan review:

(a) the minimum lot size and/or height for high rise development;

(b) the development of high rise buildings on the periphery of the CBD; and

(c) the development of the CBD in the context of heritage buildings and precincts.

2. Approval of this development before Brisbane City Council has had the opportunity to undertake the necessary planning for the City of Brisbane could result in an inappropriate building of significant height, bulk and character which would dominate and change forever the skyline of the greater Brisbane area and the very character of the capital city of the State of Queensland.”

1.10 In March 2006, Emerald Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that the Minister had improperly refused the application by failing to apply the provisions of s.3.5.13 of IPA - namely the constraints which apply when an application requires code assessment.
1.11 In essence, the applicant was saying that the Minister had applied a much broader test than she was able to under IPA in assessing the application. She had not referred to applicable codes or other planning instruments in her determination. The Chief Justice agreed with the applicant. He rejected the submission that there was a broader “State interest” test at the assessment point (not just the calling in point). He found that the Minister had determined the application by reference to statutorily irrelevant considerations (Emerald Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd. v Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women - SC no 2030 of 2006).
1.12 In effect, he was telling the Minister that if she wished to reassess the proposal, she would need to do so in accordance with s.3.5.13 of IPA.
1.13 The Minister elected to reconsider the application and on 14 June 2006 refused the application once again.
1.14 In her media release, the Minister advised that she had assessed the application strictly against City Plan. She has issued a detailed decision notice. It is not clear at the date of writing whether the developer intends to contest this latest decision.

PS: The writer discloses an interest as a member of the St John’s Cathedral National Trust Completion Fund Board.

I couldn't find where anyone posted this from http://www.emeraldgroup.net/docs/140606.pdf
So here it is. Nothing new.

14 June 2006
EMERALD GROUP TO PURSUE FURTHER LEGAL OPTIONS FOR EMERALD TOWER
National developer, the Emerald Group is considering its legal options following today’s announcement by
Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women, Desley Boyle rejecting the development
application for its Emerald Tower project in Brisbane’s CBD.
“We are surprised and disappointed with the Minister’s announcement for a number of reasons,” Executive
Chairman of the Emerald Group, Eddy Faress said.
“We are disappointed that it appears the Minister has not followed the basis of the ruling set out by Chief Justice
de Jersey in his earlier Supreme Court decision.
“We are also 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 our development application and the benefits of Emerald Tower and are pursuing
our legal options.”
Mr Faress said the decision created uncertainty for developers investing in Queensland but that he remained
determined to build Emerald Tower.
“With an end value of $300 million, Emerald Tower will bring a new dimension to Brisbane’s CBD and generate
considerable economic benefits within the local economy. It is an exciting and dynamic project that will reflect
the growing sophistication of Brisbane’s CBD,” he said.
Once completed, Emerald Tower, located at 550 Queen Street, will comprise 77 levels with a mix of residential,
commercial and retail spaces. An adjacent laneway was recently purchased by the Emerald Group and will be
added to the development parcel.
The Emerald Group is owned by Eddy Faress and has a long-term commitment to Queensland. Apart from
Emerald Tower, the group has a number of sites in Redcliffe and in Fernvale.
ENDS
For further information please contact:
Eddy Faress: 0400 32 7576
Kathy Mac Dermott: 0448 844 508

Just FYI, this website http://www.udiaqld.com.au/dm/articles/800_file4.pdf talks a little bit about the TLPI, and uses emerald tower as an example when talking about affecting heritage listed places and the impact.

Is there any way to check if this has gone back to court? Or time frames?

It's annoying, this would have been starting construction in 2 months.

What are the odds, the one building that didn't need all this boring waiting around for pre-sales is the one building that ends up in a pickle like this.

I do wish Emerald would buy another piece of land in Brisbane or on the GC and propose another tower, they think BIG and I like that, I even read Emerald was going to be a lot taller originally.

If this goes ahead...which it will, we have 480 queen, Emerald, Skyline and a few other relatively tall towers around this area! I think the application of 480 will persuade the government to accept Emerald due to the closeness of the two towers.

I have been trying to find something on the internet, but no luck. Maybe we should just call Eddy Faress or Kathy Mac Dermott.

Last contact I had with the developer (just after the first rejection by the minister) they said they werent going away.. so..

something a little bird told me-
Developers of Emerald tower have lodged a court appeal and there is a timetable for hearing the application and testimony before the court with a final decision expected in late May.

Let's hope the court lets it through....AGAIN!!!!

I really hope it doesn't get through. When completed the spires of St. John's Cathedral will be twice the current height of the Cathedral's west end - a far more exciting thing to see when entering the city than just another tower. It would be a great shame to have the view blocked.

By the way, the temporary wall inside the cathedral is due to come down this month meaning the interior will finally be complete after 100 years of construction.

^^The best view of the Cathedral is from the front. Always has been and always will be. I have had people not believe me when I say that you can see the Cathedral from North of the Orient Hotel, and have to go out there and show them!!

Late May for this one then. Let's wait and see how it unfolds with the new Minister for Planning.

I really hope it doesn't get through. When completed the spires of St. John's Cathedral will be twice the current height of the Cathedral's west end - a far more exciting thing to see when entering the city than just another tower. It would be a great shame to have the view blocked.

By the way, the temporary wall inside the cathedral is due to come down this month meaning the interior will finally be complete after 100 years of construction.
Can't remember being able to see any cathedrals entering NYC, and that doesn't seem to be a problem.

St John's will still be very noticeable, and like someone said, its best aspect is from the front.

I absolutely agree that the best view is looking directly at the west facade but I think the point is that the view will be lost from the Ann St approach which the city centre masterplan obviously considers to be an important gateway to the city. I think the completed Cathedral will be a far more exciting sight for a first time visitor to Brisbane than yet another tower. Besides, in a few years Petrie Bight will be impressive enough on its own.

This is all very similar to what happened with the western shard in Federation Square. The result was a shabby compromise bust at least you can still see the St. Paul's Cathedral from the Princess Bridge.

It must be one of the few buildings in the world that is heritage listed before it has finished being built! :lol:

^^ Lol...

What I dont get is what makes this church more important that any other church in the city, all of which are surrounded by towers, regardless of height.

I absolutely agree that the best view is looking directly at the west facade but I think the point is that the view will be lost from the Ann St approach which the city centre masterplan obviously considers to be an important gateway to the city. I think the completed Cathedral will be a far more exciting sight for a first time visitor to Brisbane than yet another tower. Besides, in a few years Petrie Bight will be impressive enough on its own.

This is all very similar to what happened with the western shard in Federation Square. The result was a shabby compromise bust at least you can still see the St. Paul's Cathedral from the Princess Bridge.
They're still going to see the church as they continue along Ann St, i don't see the big deal.

Welcome to the forums by the way!

What I dont get is what makes this church more important that any other church in the city, all of which are surrounded by towers, regardless of height.

Perhaps it's because the others had their views built in a while ago when people were less concerned about the aesthetics of the built environment but with St. John's they have the opportunity to preserve a great view of what will be an amazing view.

There is a great view of Albert St. Uniting as you travel along Roma St. and there is also a good view of The Cathedral of St. Stephen from the Story Bridge.

If you've ever travelled along Brunswick Street in Fitzroy you'll know how amazing a building like this in a prominent position can be.

Some photo's of the Cathedral from Ann Street taken from the car today:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/IMGP0262.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/IMGP0263.jpg

Don't forget that by 2009 there'll be three spires which will double the cathedrals final height so it will have a far greater presence than it does currently. I seem to remember that there is a picture in the CBD masterplan which shows a render of what the cathedral will look like when complete. I also have a side elevation picture but I don't know how to post pictures.

i have made a model of he st johns cathedral. the twin spires reach 50m and centre tower 42m.Its a great cathedral. ill have to dig up drawings. it doesnt come towards Emerald . it just gets longer.
heres some pix>
june06'

http://static.flickr.com/72/176251083_d54b22e63e_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/70/223987659_b75fd0dc47.jpg?v=1156457846

@ hmmm, Use www.photobucket.com

You cant even see the church. Its not that important anyway.

^^You can, I've still got a few more to upload.

And here they are:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/IMGP0264.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/IMGP0265.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/IMGP0266.jpg

I think when you look from this angle, it is hard to see which bit is the Cathedral and which bit isn't. My argument for Emerald to be built! The best looking parts of the Cathedral will still be visible as it looks like Emerald tower would just be blocking the roof of the Cathedral. Emerald will be built between the pub on the corner and that yellow wall behind it.

P.S. Don't you just love Brisbane Traffic lol

the west front of the cathedral where the twin 50m towers/spires are to be built will be seen easily from this view

http://stjohnscathedral.com.au/completion/images/pic_cathedral_large.gif

The Orient blocks all but a bit of the roof in the middle. Emerald will not block the front section only the middle roof that you can see above the Orient. This has to be the most absurd reason for not approving a building. That part of the city isn't a focal point or pedestrian area anyway. Its a non issue.

So essentially the emerald site will probably only ever be approved to have a building no higher than The Orient because anything higher than that will block the view of the cathedral. The may as well sell the land to the owners of the Orient so they can put a beer garden out the back!!!!

The Orient blocks all but a bit of the roof in the middle. Emerald will not block the front section only the middle roof that you can see above the Orient. This has to be the most absurd reason for not approving a building. That part of the city isn't a focal point or pedestrian area anyway. Its a non issue.

How is the main entry to the city from the airport and therefore the main visitor entry to the city not a focal point? To those of us who value our spiritual, historical, cultural and architectural heritage, and believe that cities should be more than bland apartment towers this is not an absurd reason.

The cathedral has hosted events that are milestones in the lives of many people. It is also the last gothic cathedral to be completed in the world. There'll be plenty of opportunities for mile-hile commie boxes on other less significant sites.

@ GMAC: But that's the funny thing. I'm pretty sure BCC would allow a 10 storey building there. It's funny to think that a building up to 250m AHD is code assessable yet they didn't approve it because it blocked views to the Heritage areas :lol:

@hmmm: It is not a focal point to the city as it is, and the only way to make it so is to demolish the Orient Hotel and all the other buildings between it. I would be immediately against a proposal for this to go up in Cathedral Place/Square (I can't remember) as that would truely be blocking a site line toward an amazing building. BTW just because a unit tower is above 10 storeys it does not make it a commie block, in fact I love the look of Heritage buildings with large glass towers behind them. It gives great definition to the old/new and I think it can actually look better.

How is the main entry to the city from the airport and therefore the main visitor entry to the city not a focal point? To those of us who value our spiritual, historical, cultural and architectural heritage, and believe that cities should be more than bland apartment towers this is not an absurd reason.

.

Sorry I must be confused are you talking about The Orient or The Cathedral....both have historical, cultural, spiritual and architectural heritage....

Seriously if the church was in an important or prominant position like the cathedral in Newcastle you may have an argument but in this case the view of the church is blocked by the Orient. Unless you are arguing that the Orient gets knocked down and a park or plaza gets built up to the edge of the church then you don't really have an argument at all.

Sorry I must be confused are you talking about The Orient or The Cathedral....both have historical, cultural, spiritual and architectural heritage....

Seriously if the church was in an important or prominant position like the cathedral in Newcastle you may have an argument but in this case the view of the church is blocked by the Orient. Unless you are arguing that the Orient gets knocked down and a park or plaza gets built up to the edge of the church then you don't really have an argument at all.

As I've pointed out a few times now: When the cathedral is complete the spires at the west end will be 50 metres tall which is twice the cathedrals current height. The spire at the crossing, which is further towards the east, will be nearly as tall. The orient currently hides only part of it but in four years time a lot more will be visible.

The Cathedral is actually on very high ground, probably the highest in the city, so it is in an important and prominent location.:soapbox: :soapbox:

On a side note... the Dean's Residence in the grounds of the Cathedral was Queensland's first government house (i think) and the document declaring Queensland a seperate state was read from the verandah of this building.

OK, so clearly if Emerald never gets approved, what is going to happen to the site. It must be worth quite a bit, but given the site restrictions no developer would go near it with a barge pole cos they wouldnt be able to develop for a profit. Does this mean that the site is going to continue to sit there being the current eyesore it is, taking away from both the cathedral and The Orient for the next 50 years, I hardly think that is a suitable conclusion. Perhaps the Council or the State Govt should buy the land and put a park in, or better still, build some sort of TOD underneath with a foot bridge across Queen St to link up with the Petre Bight residential precinct.

SHIT.......now I sound like I have completely given up on Emerald.....when did that happen?????? Im not ready to give up yet!!!!!!!!

As I've pointed out a few times now: When the cathedral is complete the spires at the west end will be 50 metres tall which is twice the cathedrals current height. The spire at the crossing, which is further towards the east, will be nearly as tall. The orient currently hides only part of it but in four years time a lot more will be visible.

The Cathedral is actually on very high ground, probably the highest in the city, so it is in an important and prominent location.:soapbox: :soapbox:

On a side note... the Dean's Residence in the grounds of the Cathedral was Queensland's first government house (i think) and the document declaring Queensland a seperate state was read from the verandah of this building.


Where did you hear that the spires are going to be built as well? If you have pics, i would love to see them

Being honest the billboard stands out more from that picture than the cathedral anyways so whats the point in trying to protect this view, even if they build some lame 10 storey building there its still going to block it anyways!

On a side note... the Dean's Residence in the grounds of the Cathedral was Queensland's first government house (i think) and the document declaring Queensland a seperate state was read from the verandah of this building.


I am not too strong on Brisbane history but I thought Brisbane's oldest residence Newstead House was the first Government House. I could and probably am wrong though....

I am not too strong on Brisbane history but I thought Brisbane's oldest residence Newstead House was the first Government House. I could and probably am wrong though....

Sorry, you're right. The deanery was used as the residence of the first governor of queensland but was never actually "government house".

Where did you hear that the spires are going to be built as well? If you have pics, i would love to see them

It has always been therir intention to finish the entire thing to the original plan. The current construction work resumed in 1989 and has, until now, been focused on the completion of the west end including the final 2 bays of the nave and the west facade. This is due to be completed in the next month and then work will begin on the twin spires before they move on to the tower at the crossing. I think they expect to be finished around 2008. There's heaps of info on the website.

the west front of the cathedral where the twin 50m towers/spires are to be built will be seen easily from this view

http://stjohnscathedral.com.au/completion/images/pic_cathedral_large.gif

heres constriction info from st johns website>
http://stjohnscathedral.com.au/completion/construction/latest_news.html

As I've pointed out a few times now: When the cathedral is complete the spires at the west end will be 50 metres tall which is twice the cathedrals current height. The spire at the crossing, which is further towards the east, will be nearly as tall. The orient currently hides only part of it but in four years time a lot more will be visible.

The Cathedral is actually on very high ground, probably the highest in the city, so it is in an important and prominent location.:soapbox: :soapbox:

On a side note... the Dean's Residence in the grounds of the Cathedral was Queensland's first government house (i think) and the document declaring Queensland a seperate state was read from the verandah of this building.

But the Western side of the Cathedral (the tallest side) is going to be entirely visible whether Emerald Tower goes ahead or not!

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/IMGP0266.jpg

That truck is going to block more than what Emerald would. lol ;)

Could someone who knows what they're doing put in Emerald and the finished Cathedral to see the final result? I'm hopeless!! lol

I just don't get this stupid "sight line" argument. There is already so much stuff blocking the view now anyway, and as has been mentioned, Emerald wouldn't even block the cathedral towers at all, so whats the big deal??

City Hall has many more buildings blocking it's view, yet it is far far more historically important than this cathedral.

One suspects this was always a political decision. Judicial Review does not review the merits of an administrative decision - merely its legality. So hopefully a Minister will produce a different perspective.

The argument against Emerald is expressed well in the cbd masterplan. While the view may not seem all that significant to some people at the moment, the removal of the sign from the orient hotel and the completion of the spires will make it something worth seeing.

"Emphasise the contained view of St Johns Cathedral as
part of the entry sequence.
Remove signage from Orient Hotel roof.
Construct low scale buildings adjacent to the Orient Hotel
as foreground to the cathedral view.
...buildings containing public purpose
uses, sited and scaled to promote St Johns Cathedral as
the major building of the group and reinforce views to
the Cathedral.
Integrate St Johns Cathedral public domain into a network
of significant Brisbane spaces."

This is what you get when you mix religion with government, LOL

I just don't get this stupid "sight line" argument. There is already so much stuff blocking the view now anyway, and as has been mentioned, Emerald wouldn't even block the cathedral towers at all, so whats the big deal??

City Hall has many more buildings blocking it's view, yet it is far far more historically important than this cathedral.

Well it's probably too late to save the sight line of City Hall, so they're looking for something else to protect. Though, I hadn't even heard of this cathedral before all of this commotion, so I doubt what significance it really has on our culture here. And even if Emerald is built, there'll be some sightline for the cathedral, and it will look even better, as KJBrissy pointed out, old building/new building. Even though both would technically be 'new'. I say bring it on (Emerald).:cheers:

If Cathedral Square was removed and say, turned into a nice green park, wouldn't that emphasise St Johns more than the banning of a tower? I didn't even know there was a Cathedral hidden behind that dismal excuse for a "public space".

If Cathedral Square was removed and say, turned into a nice green park, wouldn't that emphasise St Johns more than the banning of a tower? I didn't even know there was a Cathedral hidden behind that dismal excuse for a "public space".

Yeah cathedral square hasn't aged well has it...

City Hall has the fabulous King George Square to make up for Its lack of view and all the Cathedral has is the 80's style roof of an underground carpark...

..

someone was asking about the st johns cathedral opposite 480 Queen.
here is a model i did for a display.
its in centre of pic with green spires and centre larger green tower. to its left is perth st marys and right is st pats melb.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid41/p320f03ea581a52e0baf71e7c143d4634/fcf4481e.jpg

something a little bird told me-
Developers of Emerald tower have lodged a court appeal and there is a timetable for hearing the application and testimony before the court with a final decision expected in late May.


Does anyone know how to follow court precedings?