I hope someone hasnt already started a thread about this which I couldnt find, but I heard that there were plans for a redevelopment (possibly a tower) of the riverside centre (the building next to waterfront place).
Is this true and if so does anyone know any details of this proposal? Or was dreaming or something when I heard this, or nobody has heard of such plans? ?

There was some talk a month or so back about some sort of development of the Eagle Street pier area. That is the lowrise building on the river, in between Waterfront and Riparian, it contains City Rowers nightclub, a McDonalds and a lot of shops. There used to be another dodgy nightclub there as well, can't remember the name, it closed down after someone shot dead a bouncer.

The Riverside Centre is the 142m Office Tower slightly further down the river towards the Story Bridge.

Riverside Centre is actually the building thats like the twin for Riparian.

Although i think what ur reffering to is this:
http://www.vf750fd.com/architecture/workedon/plaza1.jpg

its owned by the same people that own waterfront place, as i recall.

ive not heard anything about a redevelopment, but i have thought that is a prime site for a while now

AussieBhoy, that night club was called 'Grand Orbit' - It was good in its prime, but all it took was that murder and the club quickly went down hill!!
I do remember them talking about building a tower on the site after the sale which happend about 3-4 months ago.

Thanks for the name of the place NCC1701D, perfect picture to show it as well Blend.

It is a good site, I wonder how tall they would plan on going there?

It would be odd if AMP and Comalco were blocked from the river.

There used to be another dodgy nightclub there as well, can't remember the name, it closed down after someone shot dead a bouncer.


The club was called Grand Orbit, it was actually a really good club and was one of my regular haunts in the mid nineties. It had incredible decor, imagine the Press Club (the club in the valley next to the the empire hotel) with that type of decor (but even better) but also 3 times bigger.

It was such a contrast to the garbage clubs thar littered the CBD at the time (and still do) eg City Rowers.

Eagle Street Pier is now owned by Stockland. (Stockland + Westpac now own Waterfront place) Stockland on its website has mooted the site for high rise residential, however this would be several years off. For more info check out Stockland Media Release (http://www.stockland.com.au/news/2004/13feb04waterfront.pdf)

i hope they dont get rid of the stuff on ground level. Like they need a cafe/shopping/entertainment on the first few levels, and keep public access the same.

I hope by then that the need for office space outweighs the need for Apartments, I can just see another wall of balconies ruining the best close up view of brisbane CBD. Oh well, lets worry about that later!!

I really like the design of that whole area, They need to retain some public places like that. I hope they don't destroy it. Although i would like to see the end of city rowers. I remember going to city rowers a few times when i was younger. Geez there was some yobos in that place! Even the bouncers were complete idiots. They always were looking for fights, Three bouncers kicked the shit out of my mate one time so badly cause he spilled his drink and didnt want to leave. They smashed his cheek bone and broke his jaw, and kicked him on the ground breaking 4 of his ribs. Its no wonder one of them got shot. Some of those bouncers deserve more than just a bullet.

I have had some very good times at Rowers, I can see why more dedicated club people hate it though, it is a pretty basic meat market type place.

Your mate should have got the police or a legal firm involved.

Yes about the police there aussie boy, andy77aus, I'd imagine they would have had a good case against the bouncers if charges were pressed - of course I don't know all the details...

hehe, people still beleive in justice... how sweet

Thanks guys yea thats the buildning I meant, not riverside centre lol!

When Waterfront Place was purchased with Eagle Street Pier, Stockland said that develop wouldn't be considered for another 10 years.

Hopefully it will be commercial tower/s not residential, and also I hope the base incorporates the same style of eateries already present.

I heard somewhere the leases or options on the leases mean that it can't be redeveloped for at least another 5-10 years.

doesnt stop them from planning it. Even if they startedmplanning now, chances are it would be more that 5 years before they started development

Shado your right, places like Il Centro and The Coffee Club (first store) would be locked in to long term leases.

My understanding is that nobody has a lease that has more than 3 years to go at Eagle St Pier. That probably gives a timeline to consider for the commencement of any development. It might be interesting to see if some of the more established restaurants jump to Riparians restaurant precinct.

TLPI shouldnt have an effect on this if they put a shopping/cafe/resturant/entertainment precint at the bottom of the tower/towers that may or may not go here...


should it?

well i have actually heard that city rowers is getting replaced with another club. I dont know too much about it at the moment cause there basically still getting the funding but what ive heard it will be getting replaced with a new massive and awsome club basically.

I myself have never actually being there but really dont have any intention of going.

The latest news on this site seems to indicate plans for two towers and mixed use. Better be tall, I don't want that nice public space replaced by twin 200's (or worse), this is perhaps the prime tallie site in town, deserves a Vision beater with lots of open public space as well!

From PRD:

• Metacap Developments ‘Empire Square’
incorporating 120 apartments, 26 levels of
commercial office and 16 levels of hotel.

• Emerald Group’s ‘Emerald Towers’ consisting of
344 apartments

• APH’s ‘Red Cross Blood Bank’, which is mooted to
be a mixed-use development incorporating retail,
office, residential and hotel, rumoured to be on a
similar scale to Riparian Plaza.

• Stockland’s ‘Eagle Street Pier’ which is mooted
to have two towers potentially incorporating
residential, office, retail and hotel components.

And a recent article.

Eagle St Pier revamp plans on schedule
7 April 2006 The Courier-Mail

STOCKLAND'S plans to redevelop the Eagle Street Pier are continuing to progress well but it will be some time before work starts on the site.

Managing director Matthew Quinn, who was in Brisbane this week to help launch the group's Saville South Bank hotel and attend board meetings, said Stockland wanted to ensure the job was done properly.

"We are going through the planning process for the Eagle Street Pier," he said. "It is a long process. You only get one chance to develop this site, so you have to get it right."

Stockland was working closely with the Brisbane City Council on the issue.

"Obviously because it is one of the most high profile sites in Brisbane," he said. Stockland was keen to remain a major player in the Brisbane market and if there were more office opportunities, it would look at buying.

On the residential side, it has just acquired a parcel of land at Bellbird Park which it plans to incorporate into its Augustine Heights development.

Mark Creevey, of Ray White Special Projects, negotiated the sale of the 82.4ha parcel of land at Brittains Rd, Bellbird Park.

It is surrounded by a hive of development activity including the Orion shopping centre under construction, Springfield Lakes, Education City and Brookwater Golf Course.

The sale price remains under wraps but an 11.79ha parcel of land on Cedar Rd, opposite Stockland's acquisition, sold for $5.17 million earlier this year.Mr Creevey said the marketing campaign drew interest from national and local parties and private and public companies, attracting 114 inquiries and nine offers to purchase.

The land was previously owned by private investors who had used it as a rural property for 35 years.

The Springfield area is one of Australia's fastest growing master-planned communities.

The State Government's South-East Queensland Infrastructure Plan promises a $300 million passenger rail line to Springfield by 2011, $440 million for the duplication of the Centenary Highway from the Ipswich Motorway to Springfield by 2015 and $315 million to create 13 new schools in the western corridor by 2026.


And a bit about Stocklands mood atm, who knows if they are so desperate to buy up office space it would imply a tallie on the Eagle Street Site is in the works:

Planets align for place in the sun
AFR 19 January 2006

Three days ago, property giant Stockland shelled out $45 million to snare another Brisbane CBD office building to bolster its exposure to the burgeoning market by 2 per cent.

The deal, struck on a 7.6 per cent yield, highlights the growing appetite of the country's biggest institutions for office assets as this sector in Brisbane enjoys its time in the sun.

The fundamentals are compelling: a direct vacancy rate of about 3.6 per cent, rising employment and a lack of new major office projects.

For Stockland's chief executive, commercial and industrial division, Steve Mann, these factors will propel the market for the next two to three years. "It is very strong on the demand side in terms of current vacancy and white-collar growth and very tight on the supply side, with high levels of precommitment and very few sites."

He is also heartened by the spread of tenant growth across a wide range of sectors, including mining and financial services.

"All of that cocktail is brilliant for rental and capital growth," Mr Mann said. "There is two to three years of really solid rental growth in Brisbane."

The $8.5 billion Stockland is scouring for acquisitions and is understood to be the frontrunner in negotiations (shrouded in secrecy) to acquire Brisbane's Comalco Place tower for more than $175 million from the private Leyshon group.

Other institutions are similarly bullish. Just before Christmas, GE Commercial Finance Real Estate completed its $67.05 million acquisition of 201 Charlotte Street from Grosvenor. The price reflected a yield close to 6.6 per cent.

At the same time, the $1.4 billion ING Office Fund released its latest revaluations, which showed an overall 50 per cent increase in its Brisbane portfolio since the last round in June 2003.

This included a $49.9 million increase in IOF's Australian Government Centre at 140 Creek Street to a value of $144 million.

Valuer Herron Todd White experienced the space-squeeze first hand when its commercial division started looking for new premises midway through last year.

HTW commercial director Colin Davison said during the investigations that one area of B+ grade space rose from $350 to $395 per square metre in a single week.

"It's just so hard to find anything," he said.

The lack of space in the premium and A-grade sector had spilled into the B-grade category, he said.

Eventually HTW opted to relocate to 240 sq m at 167 Eagle Street.

Mr Davison forecast rental growth across the market this year of 17 per cent.

Colliers International's Queensland director of commercial sales, Ken Lucht, is more bullish about the top-end rental growth, predicting rises of 20 to 30 per cent for premium and A-grade sectors. "The ratio of occupancy cost to turnover in Brisbane is still pretty low, running at around 4.5 to 5 per cent," he said.

Mr Lucht said the competition for investment assets had pressured yields down by 0.25 to 0.5 per cent in the second half of last year.

He is predicting a landmark period in Brisbane's commercial history this year, largely underpinned by the mining sector.

KEY POINTS

· Positive factors include a direct vacancy rate of about 3.6 per cent, rising employment and a lack of new major office projects.

· Stockland is scouring the market for acquisitions.

I think Eagle st Pier will end up being something really special for Brisbane, whatever goes in there. As stockland is working closely with the BCC, it will be good for Brisbane.

I think they should build a 250m version of that Bryant Place building from NYC there! Or an equivalent shard of glass. :)

Yeah I think 250m would be about the peak you could go without it looking really odd on the riverfront there.

Well that PRD article spoke of these towers in the context of other major heavies going up around Brisband such as ES/Emerald/480 Queen etc etc so no doubt these are major towers I would imagine, as indeed they should be given their prime location, they can not afford to muck them up.

The thing is, there are two of them, what I would HATE would be 2x200m towers, because along with Riparian at 200m it would create a wall ala Admiratly towers. Hence why one supertower would be better here, especially by the river it would be an icon if done right. I would like to see 350m to roof there, glass shard. 250m is not good enough for such a site, we've been there and done that.

But seems like they are two, twins one would imagine, wouldn't two glass twin 300's look nice, right by the river like that.:)

The thing is, there are two of them, what I would HATE would be 2x200m towers, because along with Riparian at 200m it would create a wall ala Admiratly towers.

Yeah that would be dud, cos that would shut Felix out from any substantial cross river exposure. :(

i think it would be better to have 2 x 200 there, so that taller buildings can be built behind them in a stepped mannor. having all our talls on the river front will look a bit silly.

Well who is to say you can't build taller buildings behind a 300m tower;)

you can, but there arnt that many spaces directly behind eagle street peir to do it.

Here is what I'd do!:) Get some 2IFC style action happening by the water.

Scaled at about 350m to roof here on the taller one.

With one tower:
http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/396/sk35es.jpg

With a smaller twin:
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/8233/sk21oc.jpg

It's funny, I kinda like the fact that you can see the Storey Bridge from any part of Charlotte street. Oh well! Let's just see a 250-300 metre Waterfront Place. I thought that building initially deserved to be taller, so why not just build a bigger twin!!

i doubt it will reach 300m. but u never know

In dunno... I'm usually a supporter of locke's constant backikng of 300+'s. But I think that in those pics above it just looks out of place. It doens't complement the other riverside buildings at all.... The second pic with the second tower looks alot better - the smaller building acts as a link I suppose to the taller one. But the one by itself just looks odd. I think this time I'm gunna have to side with danubis on this one with the "stepped up" idea. I think it'd be a shame to lose comalco (and the gold one too, that I can't remember the name of).

I'd like to see a really innovative and fresh design here, not necassarily a tallie.

2c

I think it looks great

Well that PRD article spoke of these towers in the context of other major heavies going up around Brisband such as ES/Emerald/480 Queen etc etc so no doubt these are major towers I would imagine, as indeed they should be given their prime location, they can not afford to muck them up.

The thing is, there are two of them, what I would HATE would be 2x200m towers, because along with Riparian at 200m it would create a wall ala Admiratly towers. Hence why one supertower would be better here, especially by the river it would be an icon if done right. I would like to see 350m to roof there, glass shard. 250m is not good enough for such a site, we've been there and done that.

But seems like they are two, twins one would imagine, wouldn't two glass twin 300's look nice, right by the river like that.:)

I concur fully.

Queensland Rugby Union Club has had its plans to develop a two-storey function centre, restaurant and bar, outdoor cafe and plaza at 145-171 Eagle St approved.

are u sure that this development isnt the eagle monster u claim of

No that's something different, this is the long mooted Waterfront Place 2 site (as seen in the Vision DA renders as a mooted future tallie) that we are talking about.

Stockland bought it a while bank and the plan has always been to build a tower on it as it's the last big tower site on that side of the river. At first it was mooted as 1 office tower, now it seems to be 2 mixed-use towers. Would be great to have an idea of how exactly the towers will look and how tall they will be, but all will be revealed in time no doubt.

Some info from 2004:

The sale also included the adjoining Eagle Street Pier complex which
was purchased outright by Stockland. Largely considered as one of
the last riverfront development sites within the Brisbane CBD the
property has a low-rise retail complex, moorings and ferry terminal
and parking for 275 vehicles. The retail GLAR is 6,809m2 with the
complex located on 4,306m2 of land plus river lease. Under the
previous owner the leases within the complex were expiring no later
than mid-2007 to provide for the potential future development on the
site. Suitable for either commercial or residential development the
plans of the new owner are not yet known

The site, 2 towers here, well they are not going to be fat boys like Waterfront that's for sure!

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/1299/site1rh.jpg

This development is in front of Emirates House, along the river.

They have been pretty much told they have to include everything that the current 2 story complex offers correct? (Retail/Cafes etc)

Presumably theyll offer the same and then some more... Utilise the river!

..

Find the old thread about it and merge

sounds like great news though.. specifically:
"We have to get it right," he said. "The legacy of that development will go on for 50 to 100 years."

^^ and...

Stockland's national general manager of the apartments development division, Hugh Martin, said the plan was likely to include a combination of commercial, retail, residential and hotel space.

"We are focused on delivering a world-class development," she said.

This will be good! :happy: although I'm concerned about this 'two tower' idea... they wouldn't be as high as just one tower.

They do have to get this right, it's the most prominent site in Brisbane to be honest. It needs to be a kickass design and it needs to be really TALL. One tower only, but I think that's what they will go with.:)

Stockland seem to be pretty active across the board at the mo. They are do-ers so good chance this'll get out of the ground.

What a perfect recipe; 300 mill, M/U, Stockland & a "high-profile" site. Expect a substantial development.

^^ But 300mil is nothing! Vision is 1.2 BILLION! The price tag is far lower than I would have thought for a tower on that site.

Watch the price tag go up.

BTW Didn't know Vision was the new benchmark.

q1 was 300million

Don't go off prices, they fluctuate like crazy depending on the setup of the building and the prices they charge, or altenatively they could mean construction cost.

Now for an embarrassing question, where exactly is this site? Is it the one in front of the Emirates building?

The building itself is, yes. But I thought the $300 million mentioned was just the price for the land.
Now for the embarrassing question, where exactly is this site? Is it the one in front of the Emirates building?

Eagle Street Pier aka Riverside centre complex... where the restaurants are. The land isn't 300 mill! HA! that would be one expensive piece of land! The building Costs 300 mil to build...

"Stockland bought the Eagle Street Pier site in its own right in February 2004 for $16 million"

Eagle St Pier... Beside waterfront place

Well they did buy the whole complex for some 300 mill (the land and current complex).

But I mean Aurora cost 120 mill, so even 300 can get you a lot, but I think it'll be more like 600 mill.

..

Exciting stuff!! Can't wait. :)

There seems to be some posts missing from this thread from yesterday

There seems to be some posts missing from this thread from yesterday
yes there are some missing!

Omg!!!!! Where are all the renders and precious information! >(

There seems to be some posts missing from this thread from yesterday

yeah exactly what Iwas thinking

someone said yesterday that the rumour around town was that it was 2 x 50 level buildings

but that post has now been removed

why?

..

I like your optimism, Locke. I hope the building(s) does end up looking like that in your render.

But I feel sorry for our poor AMP gold tower. It's gonna be blocked by the new tower.:dunno:

They could almost fit two of those towers on to the site. Because ESP stretches from Waterfront Place to Riparian, does it not?

But I feel sorry for our poor AMP gold tower. It's gonna be blocked by the new tower.:dunno:

We need a new gold tower then. 200m+ somewhere in gold... :D

It seems like we lost a couple of posts from yesterday.

Just to refresh our memory here's the aerial photo of site (hope watermarks don't bother you, hehe :| ).

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/4097/eaglestpierxb7.jpg

Nice design, Locke. Nice choice of colour. This building certanly has to be a landmark of the Bank of China or IFC2 type.

looking at the site and location, i feel it should be one tower taller then Riparian.maybe another 250m job.would make the river front look very manhattanish.

Yep, lost posts.

As I said in my post, I actually wouldn't mind see a building no more than 200m on this site. I think skyline's look better when they "step up" to taller buildings behind. However, this building does need to have a fantastic design considering its prominent location, and a glass facade would be ideal so as to reflect the river etc.

A 300+ tower is the only option for me... sorry :D

..

^^ :O :O :O!!!!!!!! I think that I couldn't handle that! I would have a heart attack from happiness!! Ohh please someone has to develop that!

^^ much as that would be nice, I could never see something like that get approved here. It's great news that the eagle st pier is being developed. We will have vision & ES U/C and 480 Queen St just about approved when the DA for this one gets submitted.

my guess is 2x50 storey towers.. huge height dosnt make town planning sense for a site on the very edge of the cbd, it only makes sense for the core

that, and the shape of the site leaves plenty of room for two towers, mixed use resi/commercial in the same building dosnt work that well from a resi point of view, and it's a lot quicker to build 2x50 storey towers than 1x80..

i reckon they'll be awesome towers, but they wont be very very tall

my guess is 2x50 storey towers.. huge height dosnt make town planning sense for a site on the very edge of the cbd, it only makes sense for the core

Brisbanes tallest current buildings are on the edge... RP, Aurora, CP1.

That 650m tower in Locke's photoshop (its that tower proposed in chicago isnt it?) doesn't look out of place to me. With all those other fairly susbtantial towers, it just makes the 650m look like a landmark tower.

I actually think the 650m building in locke's photoshop job looks to tall. It really is too much and would stickout like a pin. A 300 - 400m building would suit the site much better. We need more 300 + buildings in order to set a benchmark in height.

To be honest I'd make it even taller, I'd make it the tallest building in the world.

Oh well, that's what I would have done anyway.

To be honest I'd make it even taller, I'd make it the tallest building in the world.

Oh well, that's what I would have done anyway.

Even if it was to become the tallest building in the world, i still think we would evenutally loose the title before it is even topped out. The degree of competition, speed of approval, speed of work etc set by other countries like UAE would overpower us.

Screw height limits! I would like to see a 2km tower there!!!

Double post.

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/5691/tallsae8.jpg
Could anyone here actually see themselves living or working on the top floor of that? I think I'd spend half my time :puke:

Chicago's still very lucky though...I honestly thought that was a fantasy tower.

Anyway, I reckon something this (Grand Hyatt Beijing) but much taller would work well on the site, with the giant curve facing the river and all:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/Beijinggrandhyatt.jpg

my guess is 2x50 storey towers.. huge height dosnt make town planning sense for a site on the very edge of the cbd, it only makes sense for the core

that, and the shape of the site leaves plenty of room for two towers, mixed use resi/commercial in the same building dosnt work that well from a resi point of view, and it's a lot quicker to build 2x50 storey towers than 1x80..

i reckon they'll be awesome towers, but they wont be very very tall

What is wrong with you people? 50m tower CANNOT POSSIBLY be awesome. 50m tower would be wider than it's height. That would be just pathetic.

And nobody is even discussing about a pathetic 50m lowrise pile of concrete. We're talking more about either two 200m+ towers or one tower well over 300m.

^^ Im pretty sure he means 50 storys... not even Nimbys want 50m lol.

300m would look good though height is not everything. You have to build to what the city needs and don't just decide to build a 400m+ tower because it's dominating and makes the city look "cool".

This tower has to be Iconic, but reasonable.

They mean 50 storey towers Boeing747, but that's not much better IMO. I would be impressed with a 50 storey tower in Southport on the Gold Coast, actually I wouldn't be, 50 is just boring across the board. And we are talking the centre of the capital of Queensland, the centre of the golden triangle, and the best we can manage is 50 storeys, perish the thought!

Even 2x200m isn't impressive at all, not for this site. Does anyone stand below Riparian and go 'wow', nope. Even a really good looking 200m tower like the Circle is too short to really get attention on the coast, so 200 would really struggle in Brisbane.

I think someone said a lower tower could be built quicker and cheaper, but why is this a good thing - Quicker? This is a legacy for hte next 50-100 years, I don't care if it takes 5 years to build we will be stuck with this thing for AGES. And on the subject of 'cheaper?' - what's good in that? That just means lower quality. Lower design standards. Two towers means that one can say be all residential and thus be littered in balconies. Now if we have one tower then the residential seciton will be covered in glass like on Vision - a much better outcome and much more attractive. Two towers just means they can be lazy. Two towers will disconnect the city from the river by blocking it off, it'll be like up the street at Emirates hourse and riverside, you need some space!

And huge height on the river makes perfect sense. The shadows go in the river. The CBD from the air looks like a volcanic caldera. All the tallies are on the outside and it's likely to stay that way cos of the mall and lack of good sites, so to say the tallies should be elsewhere is to say they will be no where.

Besides there is a reason towers like the Burj Dubai have artificial lakes built in front of them... because it enhances the look of the tower! Reflects the whole thing. Why hide the taller towers behind some shorter crap, Does Q1 benefit from being hid behind Penisula infront of it? Course not! Position is everything, this has position, so use it to it's potential.

This is beside the point that this is heart, the dead set heart of the golden triangle! In my eyes it IS the centre of the CBD. If a landmark tower goes anywhere this is where it should go.

1 tower - 100 storeys here thanks, not 1xsodding festival towers and 1xsodding riverside centre!

^^ I 100% agree with you on everything... This IS the most precious piece of land in the whole of Queensland and I don't want a screw up! I don't care how long it takes or how much it costs. I think Stockland realises the importance of this and they are going to come up with a beaut design.

I doubt Stockland would agree 100% with that. Some people on here might not care how long it takes or how much it costs but I'm sure Stockland and it's investors do. Afterall they are a publicly traded company whose main aim in life is make money.

Devine are a company, so are Austcorp or Sunland. They all gotta make money, but you can choose what you do and legacy you will leave on the cityscape. Being a company and building something special are not mutally exclusive.

Haha, now I really hope it is only 1 x 200m building. Just to piss you guys off. Anything too tall on this site is ridiculous and would block everything behind it.

There's nothing to block, except maybe AMP and Comalco but like that's getting blocked if the tower is even 100m tall.

Anyway, we'd hate to have a tall tower by the water, who would do that?!
http://www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com/2005/renders/burjdubai1.jpg

http://i1.tinypic.com/ofrrjo.jpg

http://stickyesman.free.fr/photosworld/Hong%20Kong%20128.JPG

I think someone said a lower tower could be built quicker and cheaper, but why is this a good thing - Quicker? This is a legacy for hte next 50-100 years, I don't care if it takes 5 years to build we will be stuck with this thing for AGES. And on the subject of 'cheaper?' - what's good in that? That just means lower quality. Lower design standards. Two towers means that one can say be all residential and thus be littered in balconies. Now if we have one tower then the residential seciton will be covered in glass like on Vision - a much better outcome and much more attractive. Two towers just means they can be lazy. Two towers will disconnect the city from the river by blocking it off, it'll be like up the street at Emirates hourse and riverside, you need some space!

with a one-eyed attitude like that you will always remain a skyscraper enthusiast and never have the oppurtunity to be involved in their creation!! i agree that this is a really important site, but it's not one that they can afford to go to town on.. super height isnt always the best outcome, and it's certainly not the best outcome on this site.

"it's not one that they can afford to go to town on"

Why do you say this?? Do you think Austcorp went to 'town' with Vision? I think they did! so why would this development differ from Vision???

I'm against mediocrity in all forms.

That's why I'm cool with even a sub 200m if it's something REALLY amazing, like Swiss Re pr Turning Torso or something, I believe in quality over height.

But I also believe quality and height together can really WOW people, and Brisbane needs some WOW.

And I tell you something, going on past experience, low office towers in Brisbane suck (ie boring boxes) and low residentials also suck (ie Devine etc).

By contrast, our real tallies like Vision are much more attractive! Is that a concidence, that are tallest towers are usually our finest? I don't think so.

If this is low to mid rise maybe it'll buck the trend, but I doubt it.

with a one-eyed attitude like that you will always remain a skyscraper enthusiast and never have the oppurtunity to be involved in their creation!!.

...and with attitude like that you will only get opportunity to design public toilets.

I'm against mediocrity in all forms.
And I tell you something, going on past experience, low office towers in Brisbane suck (ie boring boxes) and low residentials also suck (ie Devine etc).
By contrast, our real tallies like Vision are much more attractive! Is that a concidence, that are tallest towers are usually our finest? I don't think so.

Could be just a Brisbane thing? There are lower sized buildings in Melbourne, both resi and office are absolute stunners so why is Brisbane so different? Besides you can't always compare a 1970s building with a 2000's building about how good they look.

^^ The rage, Boweing747, does not make any sense!

Could be just a Brisbane thing? There are lower sized buildings in Melbourne, both resi and office are absolute stunners so why is Brisbane so different? Besides you can't always compare a 1970s building with a 2000's building about how good they look.

It's no better with the 2000's ones. I mean what have we got? Festival, Rivercity, Admiralty, a few boxy glass towers proposed recently? It ranges form 'inoffensive but dull' right through to 'fugly'.

Our low rise and mid rise is boring and dull, from the Art Gallery right through to Wiggles HQ. So when someone extols the virtues of that stuff to me and why we need that over Vision forgive me for being a touch skeptical, cos I ain't exactly seeing any Sydney Opera's houses around Brisbane.

id be happy with 200-250 on this site. maybe one tower at 170 and another at 230. something taller than existing but not overly tall.

a 300m tower would be perfect on charlotte st at that carpark site.

I wreckon another couple of well designed building like CP1 and CP2 would do very well on this site. One short fat one, and one tallie. As long as they are architecturally significant, mixed use, and aesthetically pleasing.

Could be just a Brisbane thing? There are lower sized buildings in Melbourne, both resi and office are absolute stunners so why is Brisbane so different? Besides you can't always compare a 1970s building with a 2000's building about how good they look.

I've seen many ugly lower sized towers in melbourne, so it's not just a Brisbane thing.

We should not put up with mediocre 200m towers on only few remaining appropriate sites in Brisbane.
People don't just simply build tallest possible towers just because they have to. Size does matter. There are few better landmarks than as supertall buildings. Few things that make better tourist attractions. Few things that can symbolise economic power of a country or state better than a supertall giant skyscraper. And few things that would make us prouder to live in such city. We should all aim to build and get the tallest possible building on that site an anything below 300m would be mediocre... and very sad because we can easily build taller than 300m on that site.
If we are going to keep letting opportunities for supertalls slip away like that we are unlikely to get a decent number of supertalls during our lifetime. If DA for 300m comes in October next year, we can expect construction to start late in 2008 and it would be completed sometime in 2012. It takes a lot of time to get those things completed so we should start very soon.

I believe that architects and developers of this building agree with this.

"We have to get it right," he said. "The legacy of that development will go on for 50 to 100 years."

Than doesn't sound like 200m+ at all.

This building should put Brisbane on the world's map. Brisbane is still relatively unknown internationally and even though Brisbane has a beautiful skyline we don't have any really spectacular skyscraper currently. Luckily Vision is going to change this, and 480 Queen Street will also be a nice addition, but we still need more.

You guys are kidding if you seriously think building a Supertall is going to put Brisbane on the 'Worlds Map'. You guys must have a serious case of 'small winkie syndrome'. You should all go and buy a Porsche. In 10-15+ year time there will be a few hundred buildings over 300+ metres all over the World. Nobody will care about another one in this range. Yeah it might be nice but quality and design is far more important. We don't need another Aurora! Something like a Bilbao Guggenheim would probably have a far greater impact. You guy's need to stop deluding yourself that Brisbane can suddenly turn itself into New York or Hong Kong overnight. Realistically it will be a long time before it is economically viable to building something over 350 metres in Brisbane.

Nobody said we need another Aurora. Aurora is crap. And also nobody expects it to become another Hong Kong or New York.

But even if design is extraordinary it will still be crap if it's just 200m. But combination of 300m+ and hot design can be something like Bank of China tower. It's not much taller than 300m but it has great design.

BTW, if Brisbane wins bid for 2020 olympic games Brisbane will probably enjoy more world's attention.

There are very few cities which have been put 'on the map' by a skyscraper. The average person on the street could probably only connect New York with any specific known skyscraper.

The vast vast majority of cities that are 'put on the map' acheive this by means other than building a skyscraper. We can t assume that Brisbane can be an exception to this trend. build what is appropriate i say.

Personally I think it is fairly innevitable that any building on this site is going to be over 200, if it was under it would be insignificant on that site, if it was at 200 it would create to much of a box having same roof height as Riparian. I will be happy with anything over 200m but prefer minimum of 250 on this site given the sites visual importance.

As others have said the most important thing about this building will be the design, in particular the cladding I think. Personally I think the Council should demand an international competition for a building on this site.

As for the affordability of the site, I cant see this being an issue at all. The high end of the residential, office and Hotel market would kill to have a position like this in Brisbane. The biggest problem this development is going to have is how to make a flood free carpark look exceptional. I am really hoping that the council takes the opportunity to ask for some sort of TOD inclusion such as provision for future underground infrastructure. I also wouldn't mind them being able to get the rights to the airspace over the road, just for something different.

Truthfully, if a 300m building is going to be built I'd prefer it to be a bit further away from the river. It isn't that the building would block anything significant, but it would shrink some (otherwise) nice buildings and destroy the nice little pack we currently have going.

For me the perfect building would be very glassy, vaguely angular and without a spire (there's a whopping one next door), between 220-250m. The building must replace the lost retail and restaurant aspects of the current development, and preferable add to them. And I'll throw in GMAC's idea of a TOD just for good measure.

such as provision for future underground infrastructure.
Eagle Street is a stop for the proposed underground...

the proposed underground is proposed to stop under riparian in the big forecourt it has fronting eagle st

It's gotta be said...

This tower has to take the focus off Riparian.

For that reason it's important that the tower be significantly taller than Riparian.

Riparian looks sorta ugly front on, of course hardcore Seidler fans will disagree, but they are a minority.

To the average joe on the street Riparian is no Vision, and I hear that a lot, it's not considered a pretty building.

The problem with Riparian is that the top is bunker like from front on. It's taken a lot of the 'pretty' out of the waterfront by blocking CP1 and by not being particularly attractive itself.

Eagle Street Pier has the opportunity to win back the waterfront. To do that you need to convincingly overpower Riparian. That means a nice glass facade and some serious height.

^^ I agree, you have to admit... poor old Riparian isn't the best looking in town from its front but side-on its ok... like from here.
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/82855732_27541e0cb0_o.jpg

the proposed underground is proposed to stop under riparian in the big forecourt it has fronting eagle st
How do you know this? I'm jealous...if it goes ahead I hope the stations are subtle, like this (maybe not as scary).

http://static.flickr.com/66/181327899_0ad9c1c13f.jpg

Anyway, I really believe this tower has to be a destination in itself, complete with plaza and direct access to the water, so as to not take away from the "people of Brisbane".

I think instead of that you would see a whole bank of escalators and a lift and so forth. It is the CBD after all. Even more likely in my opinion is that the station would be integrated into whatever complex is built on top so there won't really be too much in the way of a stand alone entrance.

But it does raise interesting questions about how to construct the building and an underground station so close to the river. If the tower is built first as is most likely then what sort of provisions would they provide for a station, and also who picks up the bill for it? I assume it will be far more difficult to escavate an underground station that I assume is below the water table once a large tower is already there.

Boulder, Barcelona, occasionally San Fran' and that place down near the South Pole, Melbourne and so forth are the prestigious city. More to do with liveability and life at street level than the high risers. Creating the sense of vibrant urban space rather than ribbon development sprawl or dog eat dog over crowded-ness. Urban landmarks are also important as part of the city identity.

I hope it ends up like Canary Wharf tube station in London
http://toddadams.net/images/bw/canary_wharf.jpg

http://www.eurekaphotos.com/images/large/LondonTubeStationWide.jpg

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/c/c6/300px-Canary_wharf_tube_station_750px.jpg

http://www.tradehouse.no/CITY/Tube/sg-canary_wharf_tube_station.jpg

I think Riparian's worst feature, and what causes some people to think it's ugly are those curvy verandahs

it's still possible to build a structure below the water table, there are quite a few examples of it in the city (eg. carpark under 175 eagle st) - you just have to pile it and make it water tight and that's very expensive.

they were discussing the eagle st station at the launch of the draft city centre masterplan over a year ago.. they are proposing to close eagle st in front of riparian and divert traffic around the fig tree. sounds silly, but they had a really good way of making this work.. thing is, they have absolutely zero funding for it and it's an absolutely massive job to build an underground railway.. i really dont think this is going to commence in the next 30 years.

Global warming, Oil depletion etc, I don't see a future in trying to run 800m cars on planet earth. If the car oriented planning gets dumped due to a lack of oil to run them we would have a sudden splurge of rail building, but above ground is about 1/10th of below ground costs. Prefer an on road light rail system.

agreed - above ground is my preferred option as well.

Whys everyone going on like its gonna be like the whole freakin london underground or something... its gonna be nothing like it its just a section of tunnel for an otherwise above ground ordinary suburban rail network!

^^Agree.

@Redress, underground is definately my preferred option. I would assume most people here aggree that rail is essential infrastructure, yet above ground rail is a very divisive piece of infrastructure in the same way a freeway is, as well as being noisy with many vibrations etc. Don't get me wrong I would rather above ground rail then no rail at all, but most of all I'd rather underground rail. This means also it isn't as much of an issue when we try and build over the top of it either!!

Why not think a little bigger!!! My thoughts when I mentioned that this building could contain provision for future infrastructure were more in line with the idea that the developer would then be paying for that infrastructure rather than BCC or the state govt. Ideally, if the state govt would confirm a path for the underground rail line, then it could save money on the stations by running the line under future development sites and insisting that the developers include the infrastructure in the development, not only saving money but also saving public space and curbside space. I would like to see this site include a main entrance to a future underground station plus an at grade stop for light rail.

^^Exactly...If they have 10 storey's of carpark, it wouldn't be that hard to dig down a little further and put in a subway station. (I know that that is deep but it's just an example.) Even if QT paid for the extra cost, it would be cheaper than starting fresh. It would also be an incentive for the developer to have a subway station underneath the building, even though I think the station would be better positioned near Riparian.

Is that topic about a skyscraper or underground rail?

^^ The topic is about Eagle Street Pier. Boeing747, how about reading the thread title rather than causing nonsensical commotion over minor issues. Or, even taking a back seat and saying nothing rather than something stupid.

There's my two cents. Back to the topic of Eagle Street Pier (including skyscrapers, underground rails, public transport, retail, and any other issue pertaining to the re-development of this site). :)

I was also thinking that dont developers out in the suburbs use infrastructure improvements as leveredge for buildings that might push the boundaries a little?

^^Sometimes

^^ The topic is about Eagle Street Pier. Boeing747, how about reading the thread title rather than causing nonsensical commotion over minor issues. Or, even taking a back seat and saying nothing rather than something stupid.

There's my two cents. Back to the topic of Eagle Street Pier (including skyscrapers, underground rails, public transport, retail, and any other issue pertaining to the re-development of this site). :)

I was being sarcastic.

Its going to be interesting to see how this development actually turns out. Being on such a prime piece of real estate iam sure the council will have a say in design, function etc. I very much doubt a 50 story concrete box will be approved or even built.

I was being sarcastic.
But that's all you ever are. How 'bout going and and taking some pics for the forum? Something to contribute eh?

Gee, more people aren't so crazy about Riparian than I initially thought.

For the facts given so far, if built as a single tower, I can't see this going above 50-60 floors but that is pretty good considering.

But that's all you ever are. How 'bout going and and taking some pics for the forum? Something to contribute eh?

Gee, more people aren't so crazy about Riparian than I initially thought.

For the facts given so far, if built as a single tower, I can't see this going above 50-60 floors but that is pretty good considering.

Yuo knob

Oh, the other great contributor, right on cue (btw what's a "yuo"?).

I've been keeping a vigil on the Stockland site, even to see if any news.

...

This tower has to be 300m or taller to fill the gap that will be created between Vision and 480 Queen street.

BTW, what was the site for Brisbane 450m Brisbane Central?

^^ It was to be where the old Canberra Hotel used to stand, on the corner of Ann and Edward Streets, across the street from the backpackers Peoples Palace. The Mincom building ended up at the site.

Canberra Hotel
http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/pictoria/a/1/1/im/a11150.jpg

^^ Why was The Canberra knocked down? To make way for the 450m building? Or another reason? It looks very grand! Shame!

Yeah it was a shame, it went to make way for the much heralded World's Tallest building. Mincom is OK, but the Canberra, done up, would look pretty good today.

Mincom is easily demolished thought :) So the site isnt lost

it would look cool if the middle section was built in with some glass structure.

Damn... and we were so close to having world's tallest building... for at least a couple of years.

Hope we see 400m+ buildings very soon.

from page 72 of today's Courier Mail:

"Speaking of the Eagle Street Pier area, aka the Bermuda Triangle, we hear whispers that the demolition of the precinct is less than two years away.
Word is that an architect's plan for two 70-storey tall towers is being wheeled around tenants at the Pier by Stocklands, the owners."

Twins eh. After spending time in KL last weekend, something along the lines of the Petronas towers would do me just fine.

omg! I love that! two 70 STORY TWINS!!

Thanks victorpenfold for that one ;)

How high are the petronas?

88 stories and 452m each.

But remember a 70-storey tower in Brisbane barely pushes 250m.

twin 200-300m towers suit me just fine.
As long as they look awesome.

^^Agreed. So it doesn't even come close to resembling a resort, 5 star, urban architecture is needed.

^^ Yes Time-less skyscraper architecture without even a hint of painted concrete would be ideal. Something to make Melbourne jelous without looking out of place.

Twin Towers sound good to me. Lots of glass would be good to go with Waterfront Place and the river.

^^ It was to be where the old Canberra Hotel used to stand, on the corner of Ann and Edward Streets, across the street from the backpackers Peoples Palace. The Mincom building ended up at the site.

Canberra Hotel
http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/pictoria/a/1/1/im/a11150.jpg

uuunnngghh, mincom, what a waste of space. looking at that photo, the canberra hotel would have been an interesting building to put a tower on top of.. say if you sat the lower edge of the new tower directly on top of the old building, and had supporting columns running down through the vacant space between the 8 story parts of the hotel - would have been an interesting look

it would have been pretty expensive to do something like that though, you obviously would have pretty much had to gut it while maintaining the facade in place - expensive considering it was not a small building

Meh, sounds like 200m jobs to me. 70 storeys is Aurora height pretty much, maybe we'll get up towards ES height but really, been there done that, next!

Why don't they stick one tower on top of the tower, 70+70=140 storeys. Do what Sunland did with Q1, or Grollo with Eureka.

Oh well no guts no glory it seems.

Today:

http://racingsnail.com.au/forum/eaglest_nov01.jpg

^^ Or even a 30/90 split or something like that would be good.... Maybe cp 4 & 5 eh? ; )

If this is 2x70 storeys do you think there is any chance that they will go straight office in one and keep the residential to the other?

Kind of hoping that they do that instead of 70 mixed use in each which would probably max out at what has become the rather pedestrian Brisbane height of circa 230-40m.

70 levels of office on the other hand would still be a decent size tower.

Can't help but think that if this was, as was at first rumoured, one 80+floor tower then it must have been a full blown genuine supertall.

This is a good chance of Brisbane to nab an icon on the waterfront, two empire squares or 480's here won't do it though, unless they are designed by Libeskind or someone, and are out there designs, but in conservative Brissy that does not seem likely.

This is a good chance of Brisbane to nab an icon on the waterfront, two empire squares or 480's here won't do it though, unless they are designed by Libeskind or someone, and are out there designs, but in conservative Brissy that does not seem likely.

Agreed Locke, of all the real estate in Brisbane THIS is the most recognised, photographed, central and accessible spot. It needs something special, but I hate to say it will likely go to two towers that don't quite reach that goal. None the less only time will tell...

^^ One office, and one residential would depend on which use would bring the best value to the top levels. If it is mixed use, you'll end up with lower levels office, top levels residential. Certainly they'd want as many high level penthouses to market as possible.

Either way, I think that if it's anything less attractive than Waterfront Place, it's a waste of a good spot. Anything that balances the contrast between Waterfront and Riparian would be great. Something in a Vision style would look pretty amazing there.

How about one 140 storey tower? How good would that be?

How about one 140 storey tower? How good would that be?
LOL...we all wish.....

Well why not I say, 140 would actually be something interesting for a change.

It's like you got two 70 storey towers, that is in itself a totally unremarkable layout given the likely 200 odd metre height of each. I mean we'll have Vision, ES, 480 etc etc take a number and join the queue. You're just another face in the crowd. Another set of twins, well we've seen that on the coast a few times now and you know the Circle is a GRADE A project but it ain't nothing out of the ordinary, not enough to get people to take pictures of it.

So why not move a few floors from one across to the other? I mean is it really that hard? Is it like flying to the moon hard?

If you have 140 storeys to play with then 70+70 is the worst possible split. It is the bare minimum outcome.

I mean heck, 140-0, 110-30, 100-40, 90-50, 80-60... at least try and do something outside the ordinary.

And whilst we are at it, twist the tower, or glass shard it or do something daring. DARING! That's the key, be DARING! Cos when I read 70+70 it's not hard to see that 140 is daring, and 70+70 is the polar opposite in this scenario.

I mean you can almost see how it will play out, 70+70, some visiony q1 inspired type of sail design perhaps, all very nice and no doubt a nice project but all woefully short of anything of international significance, and Brisbane should be trying to do that at this stage, cos we got nothing. Nothing I tell you.

wtf

^ lol.

He did go on a rant

Let Locke have his rant :)

most of us know what he is saying will probobly eventate into reality and have some 200m peice of crap that looks ok.:ohno:

I think stockland really needs to think this development through by creating something that dosent exist in brisbane in the present and so far the future but again they have to look out of the square.

Locke, developers aren't playing with monopoly money. This is serious shit and they don't want to risk a net loss on a project. Common sense, simple common sense (in the words of The Streets).

Lol, yes i'm ranting but I just want them to build something to WOW me. Brisbane needs that, an icon of some sort. 70 level twins, baring some miraculous design, will just get lost amongst the other 70 or 80 level buildings going up around that area.

Of course it has to make business sense but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

Anything but twisting towers, they've been done to death just like Gehry buildings.

As opposed to non-twisting towers not being done to death?

Yep. :D It's just another fad.

There are like what 2 or 3 twisting towers built around the world and some consider it overkill to build one. It's like we are the Paris Hilton of skyscraper builders downunder, we're too cool to build one since obviously that fad is so five minutes ago.

So instead we throw up a concrete box and/or boring large floor plate glass box.

Yet why don't people complain about the overkill of these crappy boxes? Cos we've been stuck in that fad for 50 years here and guess what, that fad sux!

http://www.abovephotography.com.au/stockphotos/brisbane/images/QBR4000b-0501-00189.jpg

On a side note, maybe this thread should be changed to read:

#Proposed: Eagle Street Pier Twin Towers - 2 x 70st/mixed use

In light of the article that was in the courier-mail.

Lol, yes i'm ranting but I just want them to build something to WOW me. Brisbane needs that, an icon of some sort. 70 level twins, baring some miraculous design, will just get lost amongst the other 70 or 80 level buildings going up around that area.

Of course it has to make business sense but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.


FINALLY...someone talking sense. I fully agree with what you are saying...:)

Im normally one to be happy and content with anything over 200m such as Vision, ES and 480 Queen, but in this case I think anything lower than 250m is an insult to the site, its not like there's another site in Brisbane more prominent than this one, it really does need to be a signature tower for Brisbane. I also think that it should only be one tower, for no other reason than there is significant density behind featuring the contrasting gold and blue glass of AMP and Comalco, allowing this view of the city to have more depth rather than two buildings forming a wall.....not that Stockland are probably worried about that.

^^ yeah i agree. i would like to see buildings of varying height or just one tower. twin towers would block everything behind it and reduce the diversity of the skyline.

These towers will once again be what the developers can afford. If they can afford a twist, they'll build a twist, if they can afford a hole through the top, they'll do that too. If they can just afford walls, floors and a roof to get bums on seats, well i'm afraid thats what we'll end up with.

I mean why arent we all building award winning designs for our houses?? We crap on what our developers should be doing, so why arent we using our own words of advice and building 4 storey houses with lifts and worlds tallest spiral stair cases??? Ummm.. BECAUSE WE HAVE NO MONEY!!! its no different for developers

Just one question for people. Would people like to see a "World Quality Design or the Worlds tallest this or that" to get Brisbane on the tourism map, or to be taken more serious in the world's "grown up city" list?? I doubt a building will make Brisbane more popular with tourists, but i can understand if you see this as a stepping stone for making Brisbane more mature and taken seriously and perhaps attracting more business (ie. more money, more infrastructure).

:)

I don't think it's a question of money, Stockland is a pretty major corporation at the end of the day, and there are plenty of billion dollar projects around SEQ that would cover a major tower, if the money was so utilised.

Now there is no guarantee you can make an icon. Some would say if you can't 'plan' one, but I don't buy that theory personally, as there have been plenty of planned ones in history. Certainly even if you fail at least you got a quality attraction out of the trying.

The point is, we might as well try something because atm people associate Brisbane with 'nice place' but nothing much to get the camera out for. There is really nothing to lose and the only way you do lose is by failing to try.

I mean I've yet to see a city regret building a world class tourist attraction (even those big show off towers in Asia, so what if they built them to show off - it worked!) ppl grow to love them and I have no doubt the same thing would happen in Brisbane.

I'm afraid I agree with drifter, it is always about money.

^^ Maybe the council should chip in some money to make this a true attraction. Campbell DOES want world-class architecture, after all. Though, I wonder what he considers world-class architecture, a building with a tunnel underneath it?

Yes, I know I'm dreaming...

I don't think it's a question of money, Stockland is a pretty major corporation at the end of the day, and there are plenty of billion dollar projects around SEQ that would cover a major tower, if the money was so utilised.

Now there is no guarantee you can make an icon. Some would say if you can't 'plan' one, but I don't buy that theory personally, as there have been plenty of planned ones in history. Certainly even if you fail at least you got a quality attraction out of the trying.

The point is, we might as well try something because atm people associate Brisbane with 'nice place' but nothing much to get the camera out for. There is really nothing to lose and the only way you do lose is by failing to try.

I mean I've yet to see a city regret building a world class tourist attraction (even those big show off towers in Asia, so what if they built them to show off - it worked!) ppl grow to love them and I have no doubt the same thing would happen in Brisbane.


Absolutely agree.... :applause:

I personally don't think 2 x 70 stories would be that bad. Realistically how high can buildings go in a city like Brisbane? Sure maybe 100 or 120 stories but that is way way WAY down the track.

Believe you me 2 x 70 st buildings would be iconic and I am sure they will stand out. Saying that I would also love something world class and unique and has that 'wow' factor.

Good old Campbell ****** (i think he looks like a turtle but anyway) is a structural engineer. He knows the importance of iconic buildings and has said in the past that he wants original ideas with stand out architecture. I am sure that Stockland would also understand the importance of the site. They will balance that with their own business judgement.

Think positive people!

^^ Hey they starred out the last name of our Mayor. Well everyone knows who I am talking about anywhoo.

I personally don't think 2 x 70 stories would be that bad. Realistically how high can buildings go in a city like Brisbane? Sure maybe 100 or 120 stories but that is way way WAY down the track.


Why? If there is enough demand for 200 storeys of office/resi in a city, why do we have to wait way way WAY down the track to have a 100 or 120 storey building. There are many cities in the world where when their tallest (meaning very tall) was so much taller than everything else. (I'm thinking Taipei 101, Q1, Chrysler Building, Burj Dubai etc. etc.) Why can't we have this in Brisbane also.

OK, so it's final... the last remaining good site in Brisbane wasted for another 200m...

^^ One office, and one residential would depend on which use would bring the best value to the top levels. If it is mixed use, you'll end up with lower levels office, top levels residential. Certainly they'd want as many high level penthouses to market as possible.



I saw a report recently that said that developers were struggling to sell units worth more than 1 million. Personally I think what would be better is one tower where the bottom section is units (above the retail) and then the mix of commercial and hotel. This would give a more realistic chance on better returns I would have thought.

how is it final?

Its all speculative weve not even had news since the thread started.

u weirdo

On the money line, you'd have to think that a 140 storey building (the first building in Australia to hit 100 storeys and the potential to be the second tallest building in the world after the might burj would have to be some pretty big selling points I would have to think. That definately would give Brisbane a lot more credibility as a large city I would think!!!

Minimum height would be about 520m (@ 4m per floor and no spire)!!!! That would bring attention to itself!!!

how is it final?

Its all speculative weve not even had news since the thread started.

u weirdo

Then why did someone change the topic name to #Proposed. It hasn't been proposed yet. Noone even said it's gonna be 2x70st... You're all weirdos.

Change topic title back to what it was before.

..

..

lol Locke, what is that mystery tower on the far right? 480 Queen?

i think he said it was vision. ^^

Howcome Riverside Centre 2 (Indigo House) is as tall as Riparian Plaza?

Well 40 floors of office on Riverside 2, maybe an above ground car park and a bit of finnage? But you are right, maybe more like 170-180m on that one.

I too like others have said i prefer a more open design of one tower or even if possible two skinny towers, basically to avoid walling off the face of Brisbane. This is one instance where height is definitely needed, simply to avoid a boring capped off look, not simply because we're all getting ahead of ourselves and expecting more. Basically less is more and more is more in this instance.

tallie for sure. as it has been said, twins would consume too much visual real estate along such a prominant part of the skyline. probably the most prominant section of the skyline if you ask me

I agree Locke- your last one with the single tower is the pick. It would be such a shame to lose the vision of gold AMP. It is a real piece of Brisbane history and the first "real scraper" of Brisbane. Additionally the walled look will close off too many views and I believe unbalance the skyline.

i think he said it was vision. ^^
shit, i meant far right.

Oh yeah, that's just 480 Queen, by the time I got around to the last pic I thought I'd better add them in.

Indigo is going to be demolished for GPT's Riverside 2 - Cox Rayner are designing it

^^ Thanks a.rowe - there is also a thread dedicated entirely to Riverside II - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=410528

I just hope we get an Australian tallest out of this. Entirely possible as well. If they had 70 U/G storeys of Office, that could quite easily be 350m.

A comment on the differing heights, if they whacked all the office into one and had the second as hotel/resi and kept a 70/70 split, they would come to quite different heights, probable like 200/350!

I wonder if they are waiting for the introduction of the new CBD plan, especially seeing they said that the DA would be in at the end of last year early this year!. This could be an indicater that it will be above 250m!

Maybe this was one of the sites Hincliffe had in mind when he was talking about the future multiple tallies. We could see a wave of 250m+ towers being proposed after the new plan comes in!

You would think that they would just plan for taller buildings anyway as it would seem there is bipartisan support to get rid of the height limits and its gonna happen within a few months. Should be a free for all! :)

But legally they have to jump through many more hoops costing them a lot more money, whereas if they wait until the new plan comes out there will be no Public Consultation, no submissions from the public will be listened to etc.

So much easier to wait.

Yea but surely given the master plan will change in a few months they would be designing higher towers now wouldn't they? I couldn't imagine developers saying "don't design anything till the city plan is changed". It's 100% certain the city plan is changing so someone must be working on a supertall plan somewhere.

^^ Yeah but they wouldn't submit it until the new city plan is in action.

why have **** (C-I-T-Y), ********* (S-U-P-E-R-T-A-L-L) and *** (N-E-W) been replaced with *****???

Edit: and ******** (B-U-I-L-D-I-N-G), ****** (S-T-R-E-E-T), ***** (T-O-W-E-R), ********* (C-H-A-R-L-O-T-T-E), *******(S-K-Y-L-I-N-E) and ********** (D-E-M-O-L-I-S-H-E-D)

^^ Because it's A-P-R-I-L F-O-O-L-S Day?

hahaha, those **********. Geeeeees.

(M-O-D-E-R-A-T-O-R-S)

H-A-R H-A-R

MASSIVE NEWSFLASH!! TOWERS REVEALED!
FROM SKYLIFE (http://www.skyscraperlife.com/showthread.php?t=3606&page=3)
hey fellas,

sorry to burst your bubble and spoil the fun, but you won't be finding anything close to 100+ storey towers on the eagle st pier site.

the design below has been presented at Stockland's investors meeting in april and is most likely to go for DA by mid-end '07. The second tower (stage 2) is dependant on market demand. if market demand isn't there, you could expect something similar to central park 2.

It would be unfeasible to go to the heights you all expect - one of the main reasons other big buildings have failed in brisvegas!

construction to start jan-09 (2nd half of financial yr)

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m173/soulvisionQ2/eaglestpierredevelopment.jpg

Link doesn't work. Can you please repost.

done.

as i mentioned in other threads. they look about 250m not 300m. would have been better off with a 300m and 200m. not 2x 250m. but still awesome project. i wouldnt mind it in sydney.
brisbane is boooooooming

^^ What he said, booming! :drool:

Frack Me.

That end of town is going to be one great big wall of glass.

It's nice to see these towers and Riverside II more like Waterfront Place than Riparian.

Thanks SoulVision.

Anything over 200m is a plus in my books. At one stage we were happy with it but now people seem to be getting greedy. 250m is awesome!

With all the recent talls coming up in the last month or 2 then I think its time for a future skyline pic update anyone?

done.

Thanks.

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m173/soulvisionQ2/Eagle.jpg

Wow, they look awesome, good scoop!

awesome!

oh my god.... WOW!

Awesome news!!! Great for Brisbane!!! Go you good thing!!!

My god... those puppies are stunners! :cheers:

Beautiful shit!!!

I agree with Cul, and more noticeable difference in the 2 heights would have been cool.

Also, unless someone can correct, this is the first major twin tower project in Brisbane ever.

I think I count about 69 stories (so it's prob 70, and I counted wrong) in them as well.

Farken awesome... So, which of these towers is stage one and which is stage two. It seems to have quite a small amount of commercial development in each when you think about there height (compare to riverside 2). Not that there is anything wrong with that. 30,000m2??

Anyway, yeah, I agree that a difference in height would be good, but I think it could be better if that is achieved not with these two, but rather, these two 250m, and the other 3-4 250m proposals being higher and smaller.

Honestly though, what are the chances that all of these projects go through?? I think 1 or 2 of them will fall over...

Why the green though???? I do like the angles. Kind of like Eureka! Nice.

Yeah, I thought it was very Eurekaish...and could be a similar height also!!

Stage 1:

40,000sqm Office - about 150m
250 apartments - about 100m
5400sqm retail - about 30m

To me it could end up at just over 250m but not 300m. But you can never tell with guessing. A 70 storey tower @ 280m would equal 4m per floor which is feasable.

I am also surprised that the hotel/serviced appartments are in Stage 2 and not Stage 1. The demand in Brisbane is for Office (Lowest vacancy in Australia I think) and Short Term Accommodation (Lowest vacancy in the world)!

my estimate height
looks like about a podium equal to 4 office floors, say 15m
i count 30 office floors= 120m
then about 35 resi floors= 105m
so far 240m. then the large fin section on top, which looks equal to about 30m.
so ive upped my estimate to approx 270m+.

^^Which is a similar height to Vision!!!! A big thing for Brissie!!!!

you have got to be joking. I am quitting my job and becoming a builder. enasni!

Remember, there is also the possiblity that 480 Queen could get bumped up to 275m as well.

shut up brizzy chris, or my head will explode

Remember, there is also the possiblity that 480 Queen could get bumped up to 275m as well.


It won't be long before we find out the new height of 480 Queen. We may be surprised either way with this one! I doubt it but I'm hoping for 300m to roof just to ensure SEQ gets both height records!!

woahh nice..wish Melbourne got something like that on the powerstation site.

this is pretty wild

HOLY F%$# Omg... Brisbane...

^^Been away for a little have we? ;)

It just never stops! The angles was what i was hoping for, edgy clean and fully glazed.

Yay - hope this one gets approved and gets moving quicker than vision

this should be brisbane's world trade centre (re: beatties pushing for one)

Holy Cr@p! I don't look at the site for a couple of weeks and suddenly this happens!

They look extremely well done. Will be a great addition to the skyline IMO.

Firstly, which tower is Stage 1 & which is Stage 2?...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/Muse11/eaglestpierredevelopment1.jpg


Secondly, what street is this looking down towards the towers?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/Muse11/eaglestpierredevelopment2.jpg

^ I think it is looking down creek st. I'm not sure which one is stage 1 though...

Secondly, what street is this looking down towards the towers?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/Muse11/eaglestpierredevelopment2.jpg

That is Creek Street, where the trees have mysterious powers to make buildings disappear

At muse's request.

Given the current renders not that easy to do it accurately.. but heres something to look at

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/7015/riversideeaglestsh8.jpg

LOL @ Aussie_Bhoy! >> I knew something was wrong with that picture and it was bugging me - now I feel kind of stupid for not figuring it out! Damn those magic trees...

Great work Malt!

Given the new towers are a bit set-back from Riparian which its spire reaches 250m, from that perspective that's pretty damn good Malt. Great job mate :okay:

Cheers.

BTW I'm still wondering which tower is Stage 1 and which is Stage 2, as per my post #235.

I think it's impossible to tell until we see the DA. But if I could hazard a guess, I would think the tower closest to Waterfront Place is stage 1.

Why is brisbane getting all the good towers. Wish Perth had them.

Wow! When I'll come to Brisbane again, I won't recognise it. So much has changed since 2004 and so much more will in the next weeks, months and years. That small little town with Riparian and Aurora on the way up will be a big city then. Bring on the nice tall towers! :) These two are fantastic!

Great work Malt.

Excellent project, worthy of the location.

Firstly, which tower is Stage 1 & which is Stage 2?...

Stage One is the tower that is being built first and Stage Two is the tower that will follow!

Does that help?:nuts:

Going by the descriptions it sounds like the tower closest to Riparian is stage 1 as stage 1 has more office space but less apartments and this coincides with where the office and resi components are split from one another. Btw the towers look supoib! I wonder if the green bits in the fins are skygardens?

Awesome work again, Malt! Thanks!!

Secondly, what street is this looking down towards the towers?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/Muse11/eaglestpierredevelopment2.jpg

I would've said it is on creek street looking down Eagle Street.

I would've said it is on creek street looking down Eagle Street.

This looks like Eagle Street - just to the left of the pic looks like either the foyer of Riverside centre or Riparian Plaza...

It IS creek street. correct. From pretty much the fig island.