Even though on Kangaroo Point joining the mass of resi blocks there, they are architecturally interesting (& tall & wide) enough to maybe have a thread. Aussie Bhoy alerted to the fact.

Website with (more) renders, vids, info etc: Garden Towers (http://www.gardentowers.com.au)

Location:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow thanks John.

KP is really starting to pump now and some quality developments too. I really like this one.

J

:okay:

There is a whole group of QuickTime-run renders in the section "Community Info" --> Neighbourhood Views, along with lots
of cool pics of The Point.

Eg:

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


..and a supposed view from level 15:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/Muse11/Lvl15ViewfromGardenTowers.jpg

Classy, stylish towers. (take note Catherine, something you should like ;)) They're obviously catering to the upper market with these, and why wouldn't they there aren't many big plots left in KP especially with views like that!!.

Love it.

Nice find Muse. Was wondering what was going there when I drove past there last week. Will definately add to the area. One thing KP is lacking is good street level activity and it could use more retail and cafes at street level. At the moment all of the activity focusses on Story Bridge Hotel and one or two adhoc restaurants that are attached to hotels etc. The are still many sites around KP that are covered with old houses and a ripe for large development.

Very impressive! The councils gonna love this!! ;)

very noice!

Love the green credentials...that's the best bit!

I miss the area - I use to live in the apartments in the first pic..the bottom right hand corner on the marina. St Helena Apartments.

Great suburb in Brisbane.

I think this one looks pretty good too.

Wow I love this! And it's going for a 6-star Green Star rating as well! I just had a quick chat with the developer - he said he's been getting heaps of interest for the apartments, and that we should see a DA by the end of the year. BTW there was a DA (A001632198 - redundant now) on the site for this:
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z212/s359999/bcaccom.jpg

Classy, stylish towers. (take note Catherine, something you should like ;)) They're obviously catering to the upper market with these, and why wouldn't they there aren't many big plots left in KP especially with views like that!!.

Love it.

You might just be right! I think it's quite a nice development, although the angled beige shards up the side of the building are a little odd. Nevertheless, one of the nicer proposals for Kangaroo Point in recent years.

who is the developer?

^^ Real Property Consultants - I know, never heard of 'em.

http://www.rpcqld.com.au

All,

I am keen to find out how this devleopment is going to bypass the council regulations of buildings being only 10 storeys high in this area! Ever wondered why all the new developments near Shafton (next street over) are only 10 floors high at the most. Also there are also additional height restrictons being so close to the Storey Bridge, as in just over the footpath. That is why the block has been vacant for sooooo long. I thinkt the developer does not really have any idea of what he is in for.........my guess is that (like all the previous owners) the block will be resold again. I notice the MASSIVE 'For Sale' sign is still on the top of the old buildings.

Considering its on the Shafston side of the bridge, I think its impact on the Story Bridge is insignificant. Secondly, there is a 22 storey annex of the Shafston College just up the road. And since KP has been a highrise district for some time, I don't think a 20 storey tower will have too much trouble getting through.

The adjactent Dockside Towers are 24 stories so I don't understand how there would be an issue with these going above 10. There are a few other towers in the area that are also above 10.

that is because they were all build before the new zoning restrictions - dockside has been around for 18 years, before the 10 story limit was in place.

All,

I am keen to find out how this devleopment is going to bypass the council regulations of buildings being only 10 storeys high in this area! Ever wondered why all the new developments near Shafton (next street over) are only 10 floors high at the most. Also there are also additional height restrictons being so close to the Storey Bridge, as in just over the footpath. That is why the block has been vacant for sooooo long. I thinkt the developer does not really have any idea of what he is in for.........my guess is that (like all the previous owners) the block will be resold again. I notice the MASSIVE 'For Sale' sign is still on the top of the old buildings.

See this thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=522817)

that is because they were all build before the new zoning restrictions - dockside has been around for 18 years, before the 10 story limit was in place.

iirc, the height limits dont apply in kangaroo point.. its a performance critera, not a strict limit.

given that the council is talking about 20+ storeys for wooloongabba, i dare say that 20st here is going to a walk in the park.

The new Shaftson Annexure (proposed) is 22 storeys in height.

What does "iirc" mean?

^
if i remember correctly.

it's true that this is one the 'will not exceed 11 levels' sites, which means in theory it should be rejected. (shafston is not...there used to be a good map of the height restirctions in KP floating about on here, perhaps someone knows where)

the developer can always argue their case...the bcc has approved developments outside the code before.

DA is up. (http://pdonline.brisbane.qld.gov.au/MasterView/modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=A001973864) Looks like 102 units with a supermarket, shops and offices on the lower levels. Now 18 and 21 storeys.

Ground is at RL12 for Deakin & Ferry St and RL6 for Prospect St. Roof (not spires, which look to be about 9m more) is RL64 and RL72.4 for each building.

Gonna be real interesting to see if this one gets up - the (proposed) green star credentials can only help.

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z212/s359999/dockside9.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z212/s359999/dockside8.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z212/s359999/dockside7.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z212/s359999/dockside6.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z212/s359999/dockside5.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z212/s359999/dockside4.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z212/s359999/dockside3.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z212/s359999/dockside2.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z212/s359999/dockside1.jpg

nice, they should look pretty good when built

Looks good, I go jogging around KP and it really is becoming a wonderfull suburb. Bring on that KP - City bridge.

Gees wish there was a supermarket in the complex when I lived in KP.

There is Tuppy's... doesn't that count as a supermarket !!! LOL

Looks good

Hi Ladies and Gents
Nice to see others are taking an interest in my development.

Garden Towers to me is more than just a development.

The real challenge is to create Australia first true sustainable green building from the ground up.

More so, half the sustainable ideas I will be implementing are not mentioned on my web site.

For example.....

For years now in Germany they use clay based natural paint, in what they call “feel good Buildings:. The manufactures of these paints are based in Queensland. We will remove any clay from the site and reuse to create our own Clay sustainable Paint.

Another innovation is Straw Walls, for 30 years Australia has been exporting Straw walls to all over the world. It’s 10 times stronger than Plasterboard, acoustically better than plasterboard and has natural fire resistant properties; all internal walls for GT are Straw Wall.

I’ve just come back from Japan and China where I inspected factories for Solar Glass and wind powerd cylindrical windmills, GT will utilise Solar Glass and Solar Panels and windmills throughout.

Also while in China, the University of Arizona who had heard about some of my ideas asked if they could do a paper on the sustainability aspects of the project.

There is no doubt that I have pushed the limit on height and GFA, but the costs of doing a development like this is much higher than a normal building, and the extra height and GFA helps in making it viable.

And there is no doubt that some people may not be happy to see a building like this in their area and others just want to see me crash and burn.

having said all that, If council refuse or limit me, I probably will put it back on the market and sell it to normal carbon polluting developers.

Happy to answer any questions
Louis

I would just like to say well done! You have created something truly unique to Brisbane and I thank you so much for your forward thinking and interest in the environment.

I can only hope that all developments can learn from Garden Towers and implement green, sustainable features into them.

This development is somewhat ahead of its time... and thats the way it should be. Good on you. :okay:

^Seconded

I hope its successful, and you go on to create many more in brisbane


Please explain solar glass?

Solar Glass -

Wafer thin Solar sheets sandwiched between two pieces of normal glass, creating a Double Glazed glass sheet.

This one product does 4 jobs
1. Creates Electricity
2. Acoustic barrier (double Glazed)
3. Stops the heat (like tinting)
4 stops the Sun (like tinting)

Currently manufactured by MSK Corporation in Japan a subsidiary of Suntech Power in China headed by Dr Shi an Australian trained genius that we Ausies let get away ...again.

http://www.msk.ne.jp/en/index.shtml

Two main types 1. Photovol Glass and 2. Light Thru Type, and more to come in 2009.

The 1st (Photovol) is 1% or 5% or 10% see thru...I have chosen the 10% see thru Photovol for all western facing glass.

The second is Light Thru for al facades, garden roofing etc.

Very pleasing to the eye.

It is being used on the Birds Nest building in China for the Olympics

Solar is the way of the future; when you think of the amount of Sunlight that covers the earth every day, if we construct as much of the surface of our buildings with aesthetically pleasing building products that just happen to be solar, it won’t take long to drastically reduce our carbon output across the earth.

An example is, whilst in Japan, last week, I saw a suburban shopping centre that instead of putting up those vinyl fabric shades in the car parks, they put up Solar sheeting designed to look like normal roofing.....brilliant.

At the factory, they estimated for me on GT a saving of $300 a day, when I heard that, I immediately thought to myself, hey it’s not worth it, but when you think of 300 X 7 days x 52 weeks x 25 years, and how the cost of electricity will increase.... it’s the best we have for now and if someone doesn’t start, no one will.

Louis

The over hangs and shades should be good for avoiding glare and heat build-up as well, rather than having lots of glass exposed to direct sunlight. All looks very interesting. Hope it gets through ok.

I just hope the council has a little vision with your project Louis. I think this could be a real precedent for many future developments through Brisbane and SEQ and hopefully other developers will follow in your footsteps.

Louis, I am neither a architect or engineer, just a keen enthusiast of Brisbane's development so excuse my ignorance, but is the clay-based paints used anywhere in Australia at the moment or are they too expensive for other developers? Or is it the case we develop these ideas and ship them off overseas?

Louis, what prices will we be looking at for the units? Will they be median, slightly above average or will they have luxurious pricing?

Also, do you have a height to the top of the spire/architectural feature from the official ground level?

Thanks

as rubberduck mentioned -heigths of towers
main ground level = RL12m
tower1-roof RL72m or 60m, +spire-70m
tower2-roof RL64m or 52m, +spire- 62m

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z212/s359999/dockside2.jpg

I hope the green elements of the buildings will outway any height issues and this one gets up. These towers will complement the area nicely and the city views from the units would be fantastic. Having previously lived in that area it really does need a supermarket in the area as getting in and out by car can be a hassle if you need groceries in a hurry.

good 2 see you on the forums louis
the PV glass is pretty crazy! what sort of payback period do you expect from it?

it'll be very tricky getting the project marketed correctly - with commercial projects you can show the building owner that their outgoings will go down, so their net income goes up, so it pays off.. with a residential buyer (who isn't used to this sort of stuff) it'll be much harder!!! i'll be keen to see how you go!

info request is up, with no real curly issues. Doesn't like like approval will be a major issue, though I think it maybe November/December before we see it, at a guess!

Excellent news!

Submission put in on 06/04/2008 SUPPORTING the development!

Good news, I like these towers.

Seems like a few people are objecting.......this one aint gonna go up.

^^^ lol @ anonymous profile to announce that. can't be too careful.

^^^ lol @ anonymous profile to announce that. can't be too careful.

Sorry didnt mean to act covertly. I just live in the area and as soon as the project was announced people were up in arms about it. The local realestate agent had a sign up advertising his action group to all the locals against the developer and now there are 6 or 7 forms up on the pdonline.brisbane.qld.gov.au
website objecting. Application number: A001973864.

I just thought with the amount of objections and groups against this it wouldn't go ahead. Cheers

^
Submissions alone wont get it rejected - there have been many other developments with more negative submissions (this one has 7 against, 1 for) that have been approved.

It is unlikely to help when some of the submissions contain untruths: one states that the proposed retail is 6,000sq m, when it is actually 2,400sqm. It goes on to mention that the kangaroo point plan has a limit of 750sqm of retail (which already exists), which I can't find anywhere and is contradicted in another of the submissions that states although the General Requirements section of the local plan mentions that non-residential uses including retail can be considered, this should not be allowed as it is in a purely residential area.

Communications from the city council to the developer indicate that many of the other issues raised in the submissions, such as height and traffic, are being considered. That the BCC has simply asked for more information and a few changes, rather than out-rightly rejecting the proposal or demanding a reduction in size/height, suggests that these problems are not particularly significant.

^
Submissions alone wont get it rejected - there have been many other developments with more negative submissions (this one has 7 against, 1 for) that have been approved.

It is unlikely to help when some of the submissions contain untruths: one states that the proposed retail is 6,000sq m, when it is actually 2,400sqm. It goes on to mention that the kangaroo point plan has a limit of 750sqm of retail (which already exists), which I can't find anywhere and is contradicted in another of the submissions that states although the General Requirements section of the local plan mentions that non-residential uses including retail can be considered, this should not be allowed as it is in a purely residential area.

Communications from the city council to the developer indicate that many of the other issues raised in the submissions, such as height and traffic, are being considered. That the BCC has simply asked for more information and a few changes, rather than out-rightly rejecting the proposal or demanding a reduction in size/height, suggests that these problems are not particularly significant.

Ahh... Thanks for the info orfeo. I have no experience in this whatsoever which obviously shows in my first post ;). Do you think the objections have much merit? You obviously have some sort of experience in this field what do you think of the project?

^^Overall not much merit. This ill not be the tallest building in the precinct and will be just down the road from the Woolloongabba 20st precinct. The supermarket makes sense as it will help to reduce some of the traffic loads of people on the peninsular leaving to go shopping, however it will increase a little from people coming in. Overall I don't think there will be a massive change.

With the integrated planning act, you do not need to follow exactly to the codes as long as you can show that the performance criteria is met and the DEO's of the town plan and each code. Some things can still be approved if the performance criteria is not met as long as it fits with the town plans greater vision.

I personally think that this will get approved and I also personally think that if it is approved that there is no chance that an appeal would get it rejected.

Hope this helps a little.

Ahh... Thanks for the info orfeo. I have no experience in this whatsoever which obviously shows in my first post ;). Do you think the objections have much merit? You obviously have some sort of experience in this field what do you think of the project?

I concurr with KBrissy, the submissions to date have little chance to interupt the approvals process.

The three main issues raised are the height, traffic and retail aspect.

Height: there is no doubt that the development is in excess of the documented site limit, however as Kbrissy stated, there is opportunity within the local plan to argue that these should be reconsidered. Since Docklands is next door, the developers hold that the height of this development is not unprecedented and thus allowable, even preferable when considering the wider city plan. Throughout their applications/communications with the council, the developers have included comparisons between their proposal and what a generic 10-level building would be like in an attempt to show that the negative aspects of having taller buildings on the site are limited. For example the shadowing; yes a taller building will create larger shadows, but since the areas are mostly roads and a car-park this isn't a disastrous outcome.

However, the central complaint in several of the submissions isn't really to do with the height per say but the loss of their views. From an approvals perspective, this isn't an entirely valid complaint. Submissions against the project would have been lodged were it 10-levels anyway.

Traffic: those against the development have personal opinion to base their belief that traffic will soar, while the developers have paid traffic consultants to say that it will only slightly increase. Despite personal experience of the area, it is unlikely the BCC will will give preference to the views of local residents.

Retail: the city councils communications with the developer indicate that they're not against having a supermarket as long as the local area (not highway traffic) are the intended customers. I'm not sure whether this is proven, but the submissions do a poor job arguing against it since several contradict each other as to what the problem exactly is. One says that no one would ever walk to do their major shopping, yet another says that they do already (all the way to Petrie Bight, and thus no supermarket is necessary), while yet another say that the retail will be great for the area. Then there are the (incorrect) claims about the retail breaching the planning laws. Although anonymised, one of the submissions is worded to suggest it was written by someone that owns a store in the area. Interestingly, the developers claim that if people don't have to walk very far or drive to go shopping, more will shop locally and there could be less traffic. :nuts: It's just to messy to be convincing.

A rumour I heard, repeated in one of the most recent submissions, is that the city council will include a library in this project. I can't see it being knocked back if that is true.

I personally dont' have a problem with this project, but then i don't live at Kangaroo Point.

Nice. You guys put the info into a much clearer perspective. I find it hard to believe how young you guys are to from the info/knowledge you give. Cheers

good explanation guys. would be good to see this one approved/built.. but somehow i doubt it'll get built in this property cycle.

A greener way to build
Shannon Molloy | September 9, 2008 - 5:30PM (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/life-and-style/luxury-fit-for-a-compost-king/2008/09/09/1220857537540.html)

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2008/09/09/470_garden,0.jpg


When it comes to luxury inner-city apartments, compost units and grey-water systems are not normally considered a standard feature.

However the developers of a large-scale project at Kangaroo Point have recognised an increased demand for sustainable living.

In designing the Garden Towers precinct, Real Property Developments included a range of green features in each residential unit.

The 3200 square metre site on Ferry Street could soon be home to two towers, 21 storeys and 18 storeys in height, comprising 120 apartments.

Each residence will come equipped with a number of green-friendly devices, including a garbage compactor that can crush eight bags of rubbish into the size of a small package.

A compost unit on the balcony will turn household waste into an eco-friendly soil product that can be reused in gardens.

Water from each shower will be recycled and used to water green spaces, including plants contained in the roof-top garden.

The development will generate its electricity requirements on-site and be fitted with photovoltaic solar panels to power balcony and security lights.

A polymer optic system will capture the sun's rays for indoor lighting, eliminating the need for artificial lighting during the day.

The local neighbourhood could also benefit from the inclusion of a major supermarket and newsagency on the ground floor, as well as restaurants and cafes.

The proposed development is currently before Brisbane City Council's planning committee.

Real Property Developments has been in discussion with a residents' group in recent months after several concerned locals lodged objections with Council about the potential loss of views if the project proceeds.

Take a look at the objections now. 18 more have been sent through on the 19th/7th alone. Looks like its a local action group.

I still like the look of this one.

Take a look at the objections now. 18 more have been sent through on the 19th/7th alone. Looks like its a local action group.

Does the public consultation process allow for people to say they support the development? I love the sustainability of this development and would love to help it along.

^^Yes. They have one submission supporting the development already. Actually the submission process essentially lets you say what you want (However they will only take notice if it is in line with town planning policies!)

I would also like to put my support behind this project.

^^There is a link on the pd-online page. I think it's up the top.

Regarding submissions, is it 'town planning policies' if the submission points out DEO's of the overall Planning Scheme, ie sustainability (if it is even there....)?

Alternatively, do any of you have any suggestions regarding this one? Maybe even a template that everyone here can use... The more positive submissions, the greater its chance in negating the unfavourable submissions.

One of the major pro's is it will get rid of the whole ace driving block.

You drive into Dockside and see all the up market apartments etc, then you see this isor with 4 or 5 run down old homes. Heh i have actually been told people use to squat in them before this developer bought them.

Here's a view couple of views

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=ferry+st+brisbanne+dockside&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=36.677578,86.132813&ie=UTF8&ll=-27.469297,153.03659&spn=0.004455,0.010514&z=17&layer=c&cbll=-27.471532,153.036107&panoid=bYzIDJlxOzVli-TWHgLfLA&cbp=2,121.19780460558496,,0,-7.230088234402987




http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=ferry+st+brisbanne+dockside&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=36.677578,86.132813&ie=UTF8&ll=-27.469773,153.036536&spn=0.004455,0.010514&z=17&layer=c&cbll=-27.472013,153.036051&panoid=r7fQCXnz9KfnI1w4sh5fLw&cbp=2,46.59287604064985,,0,2.5539823531194052

Regarding submissions, is it 'town planning policies' if the submission points out DEO's of the overall Planning Scheme, ie sustainability (if it is even there....)?

Alternatively, do any of you have any suggestions regarding this one? Maybe even a template that everyone here can use... The more positive submissions, the greater its chance in negating the unfavourable submissions.


DEO's are essential to be met for Impact Assessable developments and therefore sustainability is a great one!

Despite residents concerns nearby, I hope this can be approved so it can kick start other developers to compete with greener developments elsewhere.


I doubt this has roof gardens? The roof garden concepts have a way to go though in Brisbane I think. I know palm trees grow on the tops of some mid/highrises in Kangaroo Point and near Mater Hill, this isn't exactly what I mean. It would be nice to see some roof gardens elsewhere in the future.

The offical submission period concluded on the 12th of September, so there may not be much of a point to voicing support – the BCC might accept them but they may not help. Unsurprisingly the developer had the window for submissions open for the minimum period necessary under the act, though is pretty unusual.

There is a certain whiff of desperation within some, actually probably most, of the submissions. There seem to be a few common patterns, mainly to mention that the development breaches the local area plan but not to actually state which criteria it fails. An example is the comments on vista preservation, several submissions use this as a generality that the “views” of existing residents are not to be impacted, however the plan refers to specific views such as the river or bridge (P5), only in certain areas and in certain planes of view. Neither of which are applicable for this site, no matter how tall it was to be built. There is also the assumption that the KP peninsula plan is essentially fixed – a local example of how this is not the case is 267 Main Street, Kangaroo Point: a 12 level building (in a 10 level zone) which includes non-residential features (in the “residential zone). It’s approved and I believe U/C.

I take it there has been some serious meetings of locals/action committees telling people what to write, since many regurgitate the same material. Again, it comes down to whom to trust: the local that says their building will be in shadow (for all eternity usually) if the development procedes at the proposed height, or the company paid to do the maths? The local worried about the noise pollution or the submitted acoustics report? Etc. I’ve never seen town planners choosing ignore the professionals, so this doesn’t seem the correct path to go down if you wanted to get something knocked back.

One of the submissions in particular makes me think of the smarmy way young adolscents argue in high school debates. Though long at 12 pages, and seemingly including a CD/DVD video of the traffic, it contains few interesting/valid points and is filled with loaded language, rhetorical questions (“Do the developers really think they can get away with that?”) and a ridiculous number of exclaimation points. It even includes the current “it’d be like putting lip stick on a pig” retort, though my favourite has to be “Well, I’m sorry, Mr Viney, but this is a residential suburb, and is NOT part of the inner city” (ah, do you even live in KP?) The guy also seems to misunderstand the requests of the council: “demonstrate X” can mean “explain why you havn’t done X?”, not just you have to change it. This is especially the case in these preliminary communications, when some things simply are not applicable or a point is not clear.

A new point of contention is the economic justification for the supermarket. While I agree a new survey should be done now that the Coles at GC1 has opened, this does not invalidate the admittedly small study in its entireity. The criticisms of the size and representation is quite unrealistic. Despite the survey indicating that many residents do choose to shop based on what is closest, most of the submissions choose to ignore or discount this information.

Several submissions have been structured by professional planners or lawyers employed by residents, investors and owners. Not such a bad idea, but for most of them I doubt they got value for money, since few original points are added to the pile and at least 2 of them poorly written in comparison to the personal submissions. One even gives a half-hearted attempt to claim that developers breached the Act, by not advertising the development for long enough, but the signs have been up for weeks and a quick perusal of the documents online indicates otherwise.

Thanks Orfeo. Well explained and I agree entirely.

The residents also have chosen to argue that the development fails to meet the acceptable solutions when the applicant has said that they comply with the performance criteria over the acceptable solutions.

Itshould be fine as long as politics doesn't get involved methinks.

Well i really hope they don't build this, they look sooo ugly, and it will take out my story bridge view.... :ohno: :ohno:

Well how hard is it if they can knock off 2 levels if they have to, to make it comply with the 10 story limit....
I guess if they argue 12, it would open up a path for others to copy....

There is also the assumption that the KP peninsula plan is essentially fixed – a local example of how this is not the case is 267 Main Street, Kangaroo Point: a 12 level building (in a 10 level zone) which includes non-residential features (in the “residential zone). It’s approved and I believe U/C.

^^

Well how hard is it if they can knock off 2 levels if they have to, to make it comply with the 10 story limit....
I guess if they argue 12, it would open up a path for others to copy....

I imagine that's why they are going for 12 levels. There is already a precedent with the 267 Main St development. The path has already been set and this is the first copy. :)

^^But it includes a 21st and an 18st tower. You'd need to knock off a few levels.

@ WitchKing. Look rarely comes into it with regard to planning. Also residents have no rights to views. I've just had a swathe of trees knocked down across the road for an ugly building to be constructed, however I also know that it is the developers right to improve their land in accordance with the town planning scheme, which I believe Gareden Towers are.

Well i really hope they don't build this, they look sooo ugly, and it will take out my story bridge view.... :ohno: :ohno:

Maybe you can buy an apartment in Garden Towers when it is approved :cheers:

Well i really hope they don't build this, they look sooo ugly, and it will take out my story bridge view.... :ohno: :ohno:

They look so ugly? Compared to what? The rotting houses already there?:lol:

^^

I'd rather see those "rotten houses" like you call them, then a big pair of ugly buildings... There are so many beautiful towers going up everywhere and it looks like they haven't even tried to make them look good. Sure they might be "green", but a really ugly green :)

So yeah, i'd rather see those houses there a while longer then a pair of uglys for the next 50 years.

So yeah, i'd rather see those houses there a while longer then a pair of uglys for the next 50 years.


^^^

the new urban menace.. a NATOMA

Not
A
Tower
Obscuring
My
Aspect

I think this project is quite good looking. And when you bought your place you did not buy the view. By trying to say you do you deprive someone else from having it.

Sweetchariot, don't get me wrong, i love towers, I can't wait to see all those beautiful ones go up in the city. I just don't like the way those one look, with their big "chimneys" on their side...

Brizzy-mike, your right i didn't buy the view, its more like an investment, and i'm probably being unresonable, its not gonna damage my view all that much, i just won't be able to see the bridge.

Anyway, i still think they are not preety at all... and still hope it won't get done.

Good afternoon to you all

:cheers:

^
You are aware the design has changed and those "large chimneys" are no longer as prominent, right?

Do you have any other criticisms of the aesthetics?

no, i am not aware of that orfeo, are the pictures on the 1st page not the right ones?

Other criticisms of the aesthetics? The brown on the side could be a lot more joyfull, give us some colour !!! also they look a lot "fatter" in the middle than at the bottom if you look at them from a side angle, like if they drank too much beer, they look kind of comical actually, like if they were boucing up.

Apart from that, not much really. The main part for me are those chimneys.

^
No, they're mostly not, though one of the renders towards the bottom of the page is of the newer proposal. Compare -

old:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/Muse11/GardenTowersRenderB.jpg

new, if blurry:
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/1445/ferry2xi7.jpg

The brown you commented on are actually wood panels, and while it's up to you whether you find it joyful or not, natural wood normally is brown. The buildings do not look fatter in the middle now, if ever they once did.

Perhaps it might be a good idea to be fully aware of the design before whining about how ugly it is.

Really can't see much on that new render, they look smaller as well.

"Perhaps it might be a good idea to be fully aware of the design before whining about how ugly it is"

Whining?, isn't this the place where you can give your opinion? if people don't want to hear bad things about their design, then don't even start a thread.
There are many renders on the first page, if they are not the right ones, then change them, obviously one would assume they are the final design.

Here's an idea

http://www.cafepizzeriaduchateau.com/stuff/GardenTowers.jpg

something a bit more 2008 :lol:

That will get them excited.

Regarding obscuring views of the city. If they are not the 'city', what is? Those chimney things looked stupid.

Here's an idea

http://www.cafepizzeriaduchateau.com/stuff/GardenTowers.jpg

something a bit more 2008 :lol:

Did you whip that up yourself or find it somewhere on the net. Looks like a good chop.

On another note i heard on the grapevine that there will be a new kp plan coming out with 20st buildings as the guideline. Big plus for the developer.

Good. 10st is too low for the area.

hhhhhhhhhhh. i found the pic on the net, just photoshoped it in.

Really can't see much on that new render, they look smaller as well.

Take a closer look - not only has the "chimney" shrunk, it is now black. They're also taller.

Whining?, isn't this the place where you can give your opinion? if people don't want to hear bad things about their design, then don't even start a thread.
There are many renders on the first page, if they are not the right ones, then change them, obviously one would assume they are the final design.

Of course you can give you're opinion, but what's the point if your complaints are about an old design? There is also a difference IMO between an opinion and a whine, and just to look at your last few posts puts this clearly:

...they look sooo ugly...
...a big pair of ugly buildings...
...a really ugly green ...
...a pair of uglys....

This ad nauseum repitition falls squarely into the whine category.

I hate buildings that other people love, and vice versa. For some buildings it can be easy to explain why you like it, while others not so, but i don't think a person should necessarily have to justify their position. But by going "it's ugly, so it shouldnt' be built" is taking things a bit far.

Perhaps because you're new to posting here you're unaware of this point, but most up to date information (which includes the most recent renders) is always going to be in the lastest posts - this is convention throughout the forum. As for why the renders on the first page havn't been changed, you would need to ask the (several) orginal authors that included pictures to update them, which would be difficult in many cases since posters may not visit often and it would require them to spend the time/effort to do the updating, rather than the people that come across new renders. Furthermore, since these threads are being kept as an archive, there is no reason to do so.

Within the most recent posts are renders of the newer design, you just didn't notice the difference.

Well i'll make sure i use synonyms of ugly next time. :)

^^ Haha sorry but I have to post this... a concept I did a year back.

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m173/soulvisionQ2/311772331_c19d2feb3d_bcopy.png

Good Tower taste you have. ;)

wow Soulvision

Well i'll make sure i use synonyms of ugly next time. :)

LOL

With the lambert st dev approved (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=579658) for 20 stories i'd dare say the this has a better chance of going forward.

With the lambert st dev approved (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=579658) for 20 stories i'd dare say the this has a better chance of going forward.

A large crane went up yesterday over the road - not sure which building that is?

J

Hopefully these will now be pushed through. The applications against this and the Lambert developments were all rubbish from locals who didn't want the views from their own high rises disturbed. Totally selfish and baseless contributions.

A large crane went up yesterday over the road - not sure which building that is?

J

I thought it was city council work:dunno:

Its for that apartment building being built on top of the old Ryans's Motel site.

Its for that apartment building being built on top of the old Ryans's Motel site.

Yar. one apartment per floor.3mil plus i think per level.:nuts:

^ Do we have a thread for it?

Edit: I'm pretty sure the answer to my question is no, which is surprising because it's quite an interesting building which should not have escaped our collective attention:

http://www.jacksonteece.com/?p=161&n=Scott_Street

I like it.

I like it.

Me too!!!! What a cracker of a project. Why no thread?

^ Do we have a thread for it?

Edit: I'm pretty sure the answer to my question is no, which is surprising because it's quite an interesting building which should not have escaped our collective attention:

http://www.jacksonteece.com/?p=161&n=Scott_Street

I like it.

You'll find the proposal-approval-demolition history within the 15-levels or less thread. It's really too small to get it's own thread, but we have been keeping track of it. here's problaby the earliest render of the project from 2006 -

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2509/nins2cb4.jpg

as you can see, quite a few changes were made along the road to approval.

^ Ta mate.

Well another one bites the dust. Checkout the website heh... They seem quite cherry about it ;)

gardentowers.com.au

lol, that's amusing

unsurprising, but upbeat.

Haha - that's the most 'matter of fact' cancellation message I've seen lol.

Wow, a real shame to loose this one too!!!

Well at least they got a sense of humour I guess!

http://gardentowers.com.au/cancelled.jpg

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I'm so glad this is Cancelled !!! :) :)

There are for sale signs attached all around the land, if anyone is interested.

If there was only one project to make it in Brisbane, I was hoping it would be this.

Dang.

I'm so glad this is Cancelled !!! :) :)

There are for sale signs attached all around the land, if anyone is interested.

im guessing it would be cheap heh......

I'm so glad this is Cancelled !!! :) :)

There are for sale signs attached all around the land, if anyone is interested.

Err... Why?

This project was one of the most visionary and environmentally sustainable developments Brisbane has seen... not to mention a good example of a New Urban walkable community.

^^ I'd say he/she lived behind it and would have lost their views.

That's pretty much it.

Yep, i would have seen it from my balcony, it wouldn't block my view, but it would have been there.

I don't mind something going up there, just not something ugly :)

It is pretty clear that this block of land will be built on eventually. WitchKing when you purchased your apartment, I hope you factored in the loss of views into the price.

It is pretty clear that this block of land will be built on eventually. WitchKing when you purchased your apartment, I hope you factored in the loss of views into the price.

what kind of comment is this??

^
typical for Zach

WitchKing, i know you disliked this building with a passion but i doubt whatever gets built there will be as well designed or as beneficial for the community when it comes to ammentities.

I lived in Stradbroke Tower for a number of years. It was pretty obvious that this - and the corner of Cairns and Deakin Street - were the final pieces to be developed.

Unfortunately, what what was built on the corner of Cairns and Deakin Street could be mistaken for public housing.

what kind of comment is this??

I could ask the same thing about the comments below?

show me one stock which isnt undervalued at the moment

^ This was your best comment regarding Brisconnections!

you would realise that it is definetly not being traded by day traders.


^ And this one

I really liked this project..Such vision should be rewarded.I am sure it would do well.

Out of the Bridge sight line too.I was shocked to see the Sale sign up.

Did a search to find out more information and found this site.Brilliant! I wish I knew about it years ago.

(Also with the inclusion of small grocery store in Garden Towers was a good idea.Prefer it to be here..
Than the proposed IGA down Main street,near Wharf street.Hopefully that never happens.)

Also with the inclusion of small grocery store in Garden Towers was a good idea.Prefer it to be here..
Than the proposed IGA down Main street,near Wharf street.Hopefully that never happens.

agreed. Garden towers would have been great.

i could not have given a flying fuck if this is cancelled

^
what an elegant and thoughtful contribution.

Yay, Pimpmaster keeps his views. We all need something to keep us occupied!

I hope 2x100m towers goes up in its place.

i could not have given a flying fuck if this is cancelled

Heh did the developer steal your handbag?

Heh did the developer steal your handbag?

this project didnt really float my boat, you know what im saying?

this project didnt really float my boat, you know what im saying?

Yes.

o well im glad you understand

STOP BUMPING THIS THREAD ALREADY

This project seems to be active again. Council committee were examining the application today. Apparently there have been "significant" changes, though it all looks the same to me (height, design etc).

Or are they just pushing through a DA so they can sell the site with an approval?

Edit: Just did a bit more digging. It would seem the latest plans were submitted in December 2009 - a month ago. Not sure yet, but possibly some of the more ambitious green credentials have been dropped.

STOP BUMPING THIS THREAD ALREADY

^ aww, come on - it's news. Thanks Marty.

Pardon my lack of humour, but I'm pretty sure useful/relevant information does not constitute a mere bump.

The developer posted the following on page 2:
having said all that, If council refuse or limit me, I probably will put it back on the market and sell it to normal carbon polluting developers.

Maybe he is just selling it afterall. I guess an approved DA for 20st makes it more attractive.

RPC don't actually own the property. They only have a purchase contract over it which is subject to DA. They have been stringing out the current owners for years now because the contract is weighted to heavily towards the purchaser.

RPC are actually very unorganised. I doubt they will ever get this one started.

Edit: Just did a bit more digging. It would seem the latest plans were submitted in December 2009 - a month ago. Not sure yet, but possibly some of the more ambitious green credentials have been dropped.

Are the new plans online? Cant seem to find them.

Heh maybe i am reading it wrong but it looks like coucil have approved it.

So many objections to.

http://pdonline.brisbane.qld.gov.au/MasterView/modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=A001973864

When I posted it was just approved by committee.

Looks like official approval for the new plans were granted yesterday.

Most of the objections were superfluous. Just a bunch of residents banding together to have a "they'll block our views!" whinge-fest. The plan was easily within the required parameters for everything, including height, bulk, setbacks, shadows and measures taken to preserve existing views.

It's also relevant that almost 100% of local residents leave the suburb for grocery shopping, and this proposal has a large supermarket at the base.

The approved plan was for 20st and 19st (as opposed to the 20/18 mentioned in the thread title).

Excellent!

When I posted it was just approved by committee.

Looks like official approval for the new plans were granted yesterday.

Most of the objections were superfluous. Just a bunch of residents banding together to have a "they'll block our views!" whinge-fest. The plan was easily within the required parameters for everything, including height, bulk, setbacks, shadows and measures taken to preserve existing views.

It's also relevant that almost 100% of local residents leave the suburb for grocery shopping, and this proposal has a large supermarket at the base.

The approved plan was for 20st and 19st (as opposed to the 20/18 mentioned in the thread title).

Whats your opinion on the letter from Helen Abraham and her objections? its somewhere in that long list of objections.

Helen Abrahams has little credibilty on planning issues IMO. (Even though she has a planning post grad)