Just noticed this while searching for the updated 480 Queen St DA. Seems to be a proposal for a 32 storey tower right next door.

http://www.ourbrisbane.com/psf/servlet/Search/bcc/file/search?applicationForm.type=PSF&applicationForm.fileType=pa&applicationForm.appNum=902756

Must be at least close to 100m judging by heights of surrounding buildings.

In fact, it could well be a hotel or something like that, because the applicant is Astor Hotel Motel Ltd.

^
It says apartment building on the DA, so it could be serviced apartments

90.2m RL

Kind of small. Certainly not enough detail there to get approved, so I suppose I'll wait for better renders before I pass judgment.

Yeah its nothing special. Looks like the 90.2m doesn't include the LMR either.

Good for density...
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/460Q.jpg
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i16/soulvisionQ1/460Queen.jpg

cute little number. ive worked out its 93m to top of slopped LMR.
nice 300footer to add density in petrie bight.

That's only a small site there. It'll be good to get that facade fixed (I assume it's heitage listed and they'd need to keep the facade.)

Could do with some more glass this one.

Yeah its pretty ugly, in fact its a mess....

This one has a few reminissions of Skyline. Here is the building I was talking about:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/Queen%20Street/IMGP0159.jpg
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/Queen%20Street/IMGP0160.jpg

Another proposal yet again. A good little filler but I'll wait for other comments and renders before deciding if I like it.

Nothing too offensive, verging on the nice side!

I like it, and too be completly honest, you'll barely notice it between 480 Queen, Aurora and that ugle brown 444 Queen eyesore!

I think the design is fine just it needs more glass on the side cos it's too much like a concrete wall, but then 480 Queen will block that off anyway.

^^That's probably why they have designed it that way. It will also allow all of the views to be over the river to the East.

not a bad little filler hey. I like how owners can choose their own interior layout.

29 apartments,

Mostly one apartment per floor with a couple of 2 level penthouses!!

And with the design your own layout, this could be one swish building!!!

If it turns out to look good I think this will be perfect for the site. All we need now is for 444 Queen to get a refurb and that stretch of Queen Street will look amazing!!

I think it's ok - particularly for the size of the site. It's like Skyline and Evolution are siblings, and this is their even younger sister, or something. :nuts:

^^:lol:

Woah KJ, you are on a spamming mission at the moment!

So correct me if im wrong but this one sits on the site directly infront of 480 Queen St??

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

Yep, between 480 Queen and Trustee house. Pretty tall building for the land size!!

Could be a little while before we see movement on this proposal due to this letter (http://www.ourbrisbane.com/government/transactions/search/stuff/psf/bcc//d/m/z/kpkj/mc902756_0001.pdf)

Updated DA (http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/masterview/modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=A001635659) is up. Council still doesn't seem too impressed.

drawings (http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/masterview/modules/documentmaster/viewdocumentftp.aspx?key=pDGvyFzSN3ZyyiXl1PLYDB04OO6%2b6vqBUDe7jt6Ngj%2fiu4gtJnt%2bl2yyn5c9%2fMLE)

i like it.

I only wish that someone would buy this lot and the Trustee house building and just develop over both sites. The Trustee house would have to be in the ugliest 5 buildings in Brisbane list.

New DA (http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/masterview/modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=A001864154) lodged...no details up yet.

Details are up. Much bigger than the previous proposal!!

It is called Silverpoint Towers.

Use: 3 levels of Office and the rest is Residential.

Height: RL154m

Storeys: 45

The application is also Code Assessable.

WTF is going on there's only one tower!!! stupid Devine naming system.

Regardless, i always liked this filler.

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/3215/470queen1ea9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3143/470queen2yd1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

WTF is going on there's only one tower!!! stupid Devine naming system.

Regardless, i always liked this filler.

Take note that it is a new tower...and taller at 143m.

whats with da application? how did you guys see elevations? all i see is a silly map.

If anyone has noted on the DA, the building they are knocking down should be of heritage value. Does anybody know if this is indeed heritage-listed? There are photos on the DA of this building, and what looks like rotting wood. I hope to god they don't get away with knocking it down.

^^I'm assuming (I haven't read the report in its entirety) that it would be structurally unsound. But then again, there seems to be no mention of demoliting a heritage place and therefore no application is needed for demolition.

whats with da application? how did you guys see elevations? all i see is a silly map.

If you follow my link on post 27, go to the bottom of the page and then select I agree. You then have to follow the same link again to get to the page, scroll to close to the bottom of that page where it has planning report and engineering report. The info will be in there.

Take note that it is a new tower...and taller at 143m.

Yeah I did notice that, i also realised how much impact this will now have on its neighbor 480 Queen.

This is taking a while to send out the info request.

That annoys me greatly!!

hows this one going? should i add to 2008 diagrams?

doubt it - I just can't see them knocking down the heritage building on site

scratch that last comment - I just checked and it was approved on friday! :ohno:

There you go!

Another one to add to the list. It is adjacent to 480 Quuen and will be constructed at the same time (unless the project gets scrapped)

Looking quite interesting, was not impressed with the first version.

doubt it - I just can't see them knocking down the heritage building on site

I don't think that building was Heritage Listed. It would have been Impact assessable and would have required Public Notification if that were the case.

I'm sure it was a code assessable development.

bugger. i knew this one had to be added to diagram. ill have to squeeze it in.
ta

I haven't seen any advertising for it yet so I don't think it will start immediately. I could probably wait until next diagram (or even a couple after that) to give you a bit of time.

Sorry, this Developer is not serious. He is not planning with proceeding. There is no documentation happening and I doubt any real builder has been spoken to (that I have heard of).

I look forward to eating my words.... only time on the forum will tell.

I hope they don't follow through man. This one is a shocker.

This one seems to be back down to 31 stories now. 101.3m as well.

I wonder why? I actually would have preferred this land to be ammalgamated with Trilogy and increase Trilogy's height by a good 100m ;)

There is now an application on the site for demolition and for a park if nothing happens within 3 months after demolition. Sounds like something is happening!

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4043/470queenparknb3.jpg
http://pdonline.brisbane.qld.gov.au/MasterView/modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=A001989907

Looks like it will be a long wait then. Wouldn't it be great if he sold out to the 480 Queen St mob and that tower went even higher and fatter in diameter!

Demolition has been approved!

or maybe they're looking at buying up and demolishing that butt-ugly building next door, in the longer term.

Doubt it. That would be a development site on its own. They would make enough off this site without needing the neighbour. (Think Evolution with the old courts building.)

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4043/470queenparknb3.jpg
http://pdonline.brisbane.qld.gov.au/MasterView/modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=A001989907

That looks like a Pocket Park - they are very popular in New York.

j :-)

A bit of an update:

The city high-rise that may never get off the ground
Shannon Molloy | February 12, 2008 - 5:41AM (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/the-city-highrise-that-may-never-get-off-the-ground/2008/02/11/1202578688504.html)

The owner of a small piece of CBD land in front of a proposed 70-storey tower on Queen Street is threatening to block out 30 levels of premium river views with his own high-rise building.

Philip Churven owns a 668m2 block of land that sits in front of the Trilogy Tower project, and last year received development approval for a 31-storey mixed use building named Silverpoint Towers.

If built, Silverpoint Towers would obstruct almost half the height of Trilogy and obscure views of the river, leading one industry expert to speculate the building was never intended to be built.

Instead, development approval may have been obtained simply to add value to the site before it was sold on to another party.

Mr Churven is understood to have approached Trilogy's developer, APH, two weeks ago with an offer to sell the site at 470 Queen Street.

Brisbane City Council has approved plans for Silverpoint Towers and late last year granted approval to demolish the site's existing building.

But APH denied it was interested in the site and said a deal with Mr Churven was not on its radar.

He bought the site in 1987 for $2.5 million and could be banking on making a tidy profit, but an APH spokesman rejected speculation the developer was keenly interested in protecting its view.

He said the first 30 storeys of Trilogy would be occupied by commercial space and there had so far been no shortage of interested tenants.

Commercial vacancy rates in Brisbane's CBD are currently at an historic low of less than one per cent.

However, commercial space with an obstructed river view would probably result in lower rental and sale prices, according to one expert.

Like residential property, commercial space with a river view generally came at a premium, according to Mark Evans, director of metropolitan sales and investments at commercial property specialist DTZ.

Leased commercial space with a river view could attract up to 20 per cent more rent than space with an obstructed view, he said.

"You spend a lot of time in your office, so the (view) is one part people might consider," Mr Evans said.

"When it comes down to choosing between two or three different options, the outlook is definitely factored in.

"Generally you would achieve a higher rent, and from that a higher sale price - provided the other criteria are also there, parking access and all the other usual things."

Mr Churven said he was confident there would be a "changing of the guard" later this year at 470 Queen Street.

While the direction of any possible deal was "confidential", Mr Churven said it was unlikely Silverpoint Towers would be built.

Instead, an interim park space would likely be installed following the building's demolition, which could begin in coming months.

Looks like demo is about to start. maybe they will bring it down with the Trilogy demolityion to save money:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/25052008005.jpg

we should be keeping that facade!!

we should be keeping that facade!!

I totally agree with you.

J

are they seriously demoliting that whole facade?

does anyone know how old the building is?

^^The building probably won't be built (however there is a height in the title block ;))

They are easily able to demolish the facade because it wasn't heritage listed (in the same way that the Regent theatre isn't heritage listed after the staircase.

It's not heritage listed because it's not real - it's a replica facade.

^^That settles that issue then.
This tower seems awkward.
I think this building will never go ahead.
I thought this had office Floors?

Pics of Demo:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/15062008004.jpg

Is that facade going to stay? I didn't see any pics of that angle at ground level.

The facade is going.

Ok. I might be confused but on SSL the quote the building as 144m and 45 floors. Which hieght is it?

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/21062008019.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/21062008013.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/21062008014.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/21062008015.jpg

Aww what a beautiful facade that was. It's really sad to see buildings like that being knocked down especially in Brisbane. You guys don't have a lot left. And this tower looks very dodgy aswell. :ohno:

Aww what a beautiful facade that was. It's really sad to see buildings like that being knocked down ...

As nice as it was, it was a reproduction facade. It wasn't heritage at all.

As nice as it was, it was a reproduction facade. It wasn't heritage at all.

Ahh right. It still would've made a classy entrance to the new building though. Oh well, I guess it would have been a waste of time for the developers.

Is there any further news on this one - is it going ahead?

Proposal to lodge under a superceeded planning scheme has been approved. They have until next Monday to lodge the application.

DA is up. The tower is now proposed at 151m.

has the design been improved?

From the DA:

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/40/silverpoint.jpg (http://img33.imageshack.us/i/silverpoint.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Just for comparisons sake here's the old one:


http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/3215/470queen1ea9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3143/470queen2yd1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The quality of the images are better at the very least. It's nothing special though...

It is very difficult to tell though being black and white. If the quality of the glass is high then this could be a good tower for example.

Application number: A003028723
When a new DA is online, I find it helpful its number is also posted.

i like how thin it is. Makes it look taller than what it actually is.

if it's actually built it will at least fill that gap in a little bit between the admiralty precinct and the rest of the CBD.

I find this proposal quite bizzare. No bank is going to lend money to this project unless the presales are extremely high.

On presales, 48 full floor apartments which would have to start from at least 2 million would be extremely difficult to offload in the current market, especially given the Macrossan just finished and may have some stock left over. The market is just not there for high end apartments.

So from this very limited bit of information, i'm thinking this isn't at all a serious proposal unless they flogg off most of the apartments to cashed up overseas investors (which could be possible).

^^I agree, except would it not be cheaper and easier just to extend the preious development approval?

The sales stalemate at Macrossan tells its own story in this regard. They could just be misguided ;)

maybe they are just getting more stuff approved on the site so they can get a bigger valuation and borrow more money against it?

I would imagine the cost of any new approval would surpass the cost of land value increase from the previous approval or for a minor change from the previous approval.

how much does a DA cost?? $150k??

if they are getting 15 more apartments that'd probably add more value than $150k

Not to the site value. It would be neglibible.

Have they got 15 more apartments?

you seriously think that a full-floor CBD apartment is worth less than $10k in site value?

please sir, sell me a site!

If constructed, yes.

If only as an approval and as an extra to an existing approval (which this is), probably not.

The thing that provides the biggest value uplift is the approval. The size and type of tower (unless it is above the height limit etc.) probably wont change the value a huge amount.

i don't think what you are saying is entirely correct

i am quite sure that professional valuers consider the content of the approval as well as the mere fact that an approval exists.

if what you said was true then the vision site would be worth the same as the apple site.

It just doesn't seem worth the money, time and effort for a small increase in their credit worthiness. It's enough of a stretch to put it on the "highly unlikely" list of reasons for lodging the DA.

^^Agree.

i don't think what you are saying is entirely correct

i am quite sure that professional valuers consider the content of the approval as well as the mere fact that an approval exists.

if what you said was true then the vision site would be worth the same as the apple site.

Incorrect. The Vision site is significantly larger in land area, has less issues with access and already had all site works completed. The apple site, even if it had a 75 storey building approved, wouldn't receive the same price.

Pics of Demo:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/15062008004.jpg

I can not believe they knocked down this facade???

Appalling. Truly appalling call.

Why?

^^ That's what I thought until it came out that it was a replica, it wasn't a genuine heritage facade.

I was also shocked to know that was a replica... very well made replica.

Well if it's a replica it's not as bad i guess, though I wouldn't diminish it's value just due to the fact that it is a replica, lots of places in europe go to a lot of trouble to produce replicas of old buildings, mainly becasue it looks better than your modern stuff, certainly there is no exception in this case.

Did someone mention Europe again? Geez, now all I have to say is "Sweden" and the cliche is complete.

I can not believe they knocked down this facade???

Appalling. Truly appalling call.

I agree where are the nimbys when you need them!

I agree where are the nimbys when you need them!

Still celebrating that the Milton Tennis Centre is becoming a park........

Still celebrating that the Milton Tennis Centre is becoming a park........

:lol:

I agree where are the nimbys when you need them!

See post 97.

Still celebrating that the Milton Tennis Centre is becoming a park........

Just as well, last I saw it looked more like a lake. Now I understand why those proposed towers were so high :)

Can't find the DA for this anymore....does anyone know if it's scrapped?