new one up for 127 charlotte st (between albert and edward) - no renders as yet though.

ground plus 3 level podium, 2 basement levels and 23 levels above podium. 87 units plus a bit of shop and office space

84.5m above ground, 88.65m AHD

BCC A001947397 (http://pdonline.brisbane.qld.gov.au/MasterView/modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=A001947397)

Ummm....errr....
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z212/s359999/127charlotte.jpg

It's called 'Hogan Place' in the plans. Sounds like Hogan, starts with 'B'....
:ohno:

Effing disgusting! Please let it not receive approval. How the hell does this shit still get designed???

Is that on the site of what is presently the Union Jack bar? (and used to be PJ O'Brians, Adrenaline, Transformers, etc, etc)

^^Yep

Welcome to 1995!

thats one ugly ass building!

where are the NIMBYS when you need them?

Possibly not a good render. The elevations were a bit uninspiring.

Looks Cheap. Very Cheap. Maybe BHC should get involved.

I think it looks early Devine-ish - anyone else agree?

yeah it has a 'devine aura' about it.

Good pictures. :)

Horrid! Nimby's please protest this...

There is a support/approval button at the application (top), for those that aren't familier with the BCC site.

Horrid! Nimby's please protest this...

Don't worry - its so small nobody will see it. Remember there are towers going up all around it - including Vision. It will just fill a gap thats about it.

j

Yikes, whats this design all about? Last I checked it was 2007, not 1993!
This is really bad.

Yech... looks like an East Perth finbar job.

How embarrassing for Brisbane... put this in the Archives already! lol :P

They could have done a much better design, is cost a problem?

This one looks as if it will get through easily by noting the info request.

If there is one positive thing I can say about this tower, is that you need plain towers in the city to make your good ones look really good!

According to Prime Site "Hogan House" is now Approved.

Render looked far better in the paper.

It looks slightly better but how does this get through yet the Meriton tower has impediments thrown up against it?

because this tower is 300ft high and wont be seen on skyline, as opposed to 800ft meriton tower which will be a blight on skyline if not done properly. it needs to be attractive to the eye if its gonna be 800ft high.

Wouldn't this back on to that Matisse building?

^^ Usually buildings do not move - i suppose if the foundations are inadequate it could back on to another building. In my professional opinion i believe that is highly unlikely.

Maybe buildlings of the future will just pick up their foundations and move somewhere else if the view gets boring, there's an idea.

Let me rephrase, won't this building and the Matisse be back to back.

No, Matisse backs on to the Studygroup building, the one with the arcade that has Dreamy Donuts in it. 2 doors to the right I think.

Yes it does. This one backs onto the Heritage buildings opposite Vision.

sites been sold, the new developer has submitted to redesign the floors focusing on smaller units, increasing the number from 91 to 159 without any change in height.

seems glassier than the render on the previous page, but wouldn't win any awards.

DA A002828788 if you're interested.

Thanks Orfeo.

Materials:

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/711/ujsmaterials.th.jpg (http://img687.imageshack.us/i/ujsmaterials.jpg/)

sites been sold, the new developer has submitted to redesign the floors focusing on smaller units, increasing the number from 91 to 159 without any change in height.

seems glassier than the render on the previous page, but wouldn't win any awards.

DA A002828788 if you're interested.

why do you always know this sort of information... shouldn't you be studying something?

sites been sold, the new developer has submitted to redesign the floors focusing on smaller units, increasing the number from 91 to 159 without any change in height.

seems glassier than the render on the previous page, but wouldn't win any awards.

DA A002828788 if you're interested.

Thanks man,
Some info & renders from the DA.

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/applicationdetails.jpg

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/sectionaandb.jpg

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/elevations1.jpg

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/elevations2.jpg

Ground Level
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/100pchoganhousegroundfloorplan.jpg

Podium Level
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/podiumlevel.jpg

Level 1
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/level1.jpg

Levels 2 to 22
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/levels2to22.jpg

Level 23
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/level23.jpg

All images & the entire application can be found here: Source (http://pdonline.brisbane.qld.gov.au/masterview/modules/documentmaster/viewdocumentftp.aspx?key=pDGvyFzSN3ZUN8JLqjO1OqQghQCDtWpqWgPaYDth6VnFouVfeF6r/Rv6IRjOBOYz)

Have to say that I'll miss Union Jacks...it's one of my more regular haunts, but the building is looking less offensive that that original newspaper render.

I hope this doesnt get built, its not that great a building. Plus I too like to go to Union Jacks.

This is not going down well at college :P

This is not going down well at college :P

LOL! I can imagine it wouldn't be! People started a "Save the Regent" campaign, maybe we should start a "Save Union Jacks" campaign! :-P

See, if they could rebuild union jacks once complete or some form of pub, that would be awesome... but by the looks of it, it's just going to be another retail shop front for lease.

I hope the developers could get creative and somehow design something unique back into the ground level design. I love CBD highrises but Brisbane deserves better at ground level.

why do you always know this sort of information... shouldn't you be studying something?

probably. but i think i study to much as it is. competance is over-rated anyway.


This is not going down well at college :P

it's a travesty.

I too have been a fan of Union Jacks (always hot barmaids I notice). That site (and the upstairs bit) has been a bar for a long time, in quite a few different guises. Transformers, Hogies, Adrenalin, PJ O'Briens and now the Union Jack.

there is no way that you can squeeze a pub into the ground floor of this development.. there is simply not room. to make the tower work they need to fit a vehicle entrance, a pedestrian entrance, a fire exit, fire services, building services.. etc etc. once all that is done there is barely room left for the retail!!

it might be possible to have something at a basement level or above the ground.. but on small sites like this you need to be realistic.

^^Check out the ground floor plan on the previous page. No, a pub probably wouldn't fit in there, but you could have a decent sized bar in there.

Heven't read the whole thread, is this the old Hogies / Adrenalin Bar site?

Yes

^^Check out the ground floor plan on the previous page. No, a pub probably wouldn't fit in there, but you could have a decent sized bar in there.

I am updating the previous page to see if I can reload them to slightly larger size. I have it as 150% now, up from originally 75%. I am now using my 22" screen.

Unless you want a narrow pub it probably won't work...

It's hard to read how many sqm is written there but I managed to have brought the scale on the plan to match my ruler. So by going by the 5500mm scale it looks like the width of the building is looks like it's only about 18 meters wide by about 46 meters long... However when you minus the car ramp the space at ground level the retail space is then only:
6.5 meters at the front wall/door; 7.76m at the most widest part and just a bit over 4m in the corner near the toilet... :lol: With the length of retail only being a maximum of about 23 meters in length....

Ground Floor
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/100pchoganhousegroundfloorplan.jpg

Edit: that didn't work, photobucket only resizes it to view within the webpage but not as a post. Anyway my previous post has been updated with labels & all the coloured renders are now up for all the levels.

i think it says 158m.. and yeah, that'd be a damn tiny bar.

UJ's is having a closing down party tonight :(

This site has been sold of.

Another never built?

it was sold to a bunch of asian's who plan on building it
they got a new da for 50,000 tiny apartments

Surely a third developer wouldn't continue with the same plans, after the last one already tried to minimise apartment size.

Does this mean they closed Union Jacks for nothing!!!!

Many night's out I've had at this location over the years, Transformers, Hogies, the Adrenaline, PJ O'Brians and lastly UJ's.

^^ That's what I was thinking! UJ's was always a good, alternative option to the usual CBD bars which were filled with the overflow of the "Valley crowd" on a Friday and Sat night! We lost that, and at the moment for naught it would appear!

A slight ammendment to the existing approval is now on pd-online.

Are the amendments anything significant? (ie significant enough to bother searching pd-online for?)

just a little reorganisation. Above ground carparks now with a gym and retail sleeving the front.

The outside looks very similar.

Above ground car parks? Is there the space for that?

The same as if they were underground.

I'm confused with the question.

Oh, were you meaning parking up in the podium or something as opposed to the basement? I for some reason thought you meant parking on the street...I'm at work and it's killing my brain apparently.

That's correct...in podium. Although it is screened by uses so it won't be visible from the street.

Looking at the plans last night, looks to have been changed so due to one of the heritage sites on either side sitting on foundations that aren't of the best quality, so reducing the basement excavation to a single level will help reduce the risk of damage. A smart move by the sounds of it.

It appears that demolition may have started on this one.

Well, it does pay to not waste time, all the tenants have long since left!

And the newer tower is to be called the Midtown.

OOOOHHHHHH.....we have a midtown district, how New York.

It's got a website:

http://www.themidtown.com.au/

Walked past the site today, and sure enough the scaffolding is all up, ready to start pulling Hogan House down...

http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/7697/1003997.jpg (http://img811.imageshack.us/i/1003997.jpg/)

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/9725/1003995.jpg (http://img600.imageshack.us/i/1003995.jpg/)

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

I also noticed that this one now has an additional 360 square metre basement retail component, thanks to moving the carparking up into the podium. Maybe Union Jack's might live again?

On a separate note, I wish the owners of Charlotte House would clean the top levels of the building and not stop at the ground level!

Updated thread title. Here's a render from the website. Kinda reminds me of the nearby River City, except worse. I don't like the name either, probably because up here the name Midtown is associated with a slightly dodgy hotel/motel, and getting your tyres aligned :)

http://i56.tinypic.com/2ed5y5s.jpg

Yuck that is disgusting! What a horrible building for poor Charlotte Street. Thank God this is in the middle of the CBD and not on the periphery where it would be much more noticeable.

^^ That's why it's the way it is - it's filler...an easy, quick, safe way to make some money from a mid-CBD block (I will not say 'Midtown').

The only plus side is the hope it might help block out that hideous Queensland Health building which is 2 doors over! That tower almost makes me physically ill! The more I don't have to see it when I'm nearby, the better my stomach will feel!

thats disgraceful

It's like we are back to 1998 with the quality of the post GFC stuff (sunland excluded). Its like literally going back to square one, we will spend the foreseeable future bending spoons to try and raise the tone a bit, maybe even, after much hassle get a new Visionesque tower approved... only to watch this cycle happen again and again.

Least Harry will give us some semi decent talls to break the dreary nature of it all.

It's like we are back to 1998 with the quality of the post GFC stuff (sunland excluded). Its like literally going back to square one, we will spend the foreseeable future bending spoons to try and raise the tone a bit, maybe even, after much hassle get a new Visionesque tower approved... only to watch this cycle happen again and again.

Least Harry will give us some semi decent talls to break the dreary nature of it all.

exactly, developers have gone back to the safety first bare bones options..

^^ That said, we can't blaim the developers entirely. I'm sure their sources of funding would be much more inclined to play things on the safe side now post GFC as well. This might actually handicap some developers (especially the smaller ones) who may have intended to build something a bit more exciting...

I don't think you can blame this on post-GFC cautiousness, cause the DA was lodged in November 2007, and it would have been designed in the months before that, which was before the financial crisis started to affect Australia wasn't it? And if you look at the render Rubber Duck posted on the first page, the original design is pretty much the same as what we have now, except they added an extra blue blade and changed the podium facade.

Well in that case, maybe the owner's had a lifelong dream to build their own River City?

^^ Isn't that what every developer aspires to? :nuts:

Oh dear that is horrible. Ugly little sawtooth balconies on skyscrapers should be banned.

And the demolition continues...

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/816/1004230t.jpg (http://img59.imageshack.us/i/1004230t.jpg/)

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/5165/1004223.jpg (http://img833.imageshack.us/i/1004223.jpg/)

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/9171/1004228j.jpg (http://img121.imageshack.us/i/1004228j.jpg/)

Very interseting view of the building behind this tower in the last shot.

I'm no historical expert (so appreciate the views of anyone who is) but the stonework on the building looks very similar to the colonial era pattern at the Commisariat Store - one of Brisbane's few remaining convict buildings.

See http://www.flickr.com/photos/23268776@N03/4959399668/ for a comparison.

The front of the building facing Mary Street (Murphy Schmidt Solicitors) has a rendered facade that looks like a style from around the 1900's.

Is it possible that this could have been a convict built structure?

^^ I'm no expert either, but as far as I know, the Commissariat Store is the only remaining convict-built building in Brisbane, but you're right in that the two buildings are similar. It would be something very interesting to look into. I'll do a bit of digging, and see what I can find...

Quick check of the Queensland Heritage Register says the building behind is 130 Mary Street, originally known as Mooneys Building, designed by FDG Stanley and built in 1883. Information about the building on QHR (http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/chims/placeDetail.html;jsessionid=0a10032330d808afc114b0454ca8a6efd945e12e95f2.e34NaN8SbNyKci0MaheOaheMbNmPe6fznA5Pp7ftolbGmkTy?siteId=14905). In this photo you can see the same beautiful stonework is visible on the side of the building.

http://i51.tinypic.com/2s8lnc5.jpg
image source - Deicke Richards (http://www.deickerichards.com.au/assets/Projects/Architecture/ARCHCB130-Mary-St.pdf)

^^ Thanks for sharing Oriolus! i've walked past it and the equally nice building next door (just visible on the right) and they have both been kept in top condition! Nice to know a little bit of the history about our less well known old buildings.

Thanks Oriolus and Nathandavid. So does this mean it is protected?

I wonder whether the original stonework exists under the rendered facade?

It would make a great historic contrast to whatever gets built in the Vision hole across the road!

Thanks Oriolus and Nathandavid. So does this mean it is protected?

I wonder whether the original stonework exists under the rendered facade?

It would make a great historic contrast to whatever gets built in the Vision hole across the road!

If it's listed on the Qld Heritage Register, it is indeed protected, and the building is largely original. In fact you can see the original, unrendered stonework (Brisbane Tuff) down the side of the building in Oriolus' photo, and around the back in my photo on the previous page. Contrary to popular belief, not all of our remaining buildings are just facades! :-P

Wow, such an incredibly ugly building. Buildings like this (skinny, short, cookie cutter, rendered with shitty paint job) should be banned in Brisbane.. way too many already.

I once worked at 130 Mary, word at the time only the facade was heritage listed, as the owners at the time had plans to build up. The same stonework extends into the basement where there's also a bomb shelter, and the timber columns and beams were all hand cut (apparently all done by women convicts). Used to be great when Scary st nite club was next door, open the front door at work to some yob pissing on it (or spewing), or someone dry humping against the door and they fall on you as you open the front door. It is also haunted, there is a little girl we'd see regularly, and an old bloke who would keep asking to turn the lights off.

Unfortunately the old stables building next door was torn down for the apartment building, which famously we almost lost 130 to due to subsidance (earthworks hit a gas pipe or water pipe from memory), 130 shifted slightly, we were evacuated for a couple days.

Current tenants, and you can see some internal shots:

http://www.murphyschmidt.com.au/people.html

Architects:

http://www.deickerichards.com.au/assets/Projects/Architecture/ARCHCB130-Mary-St.pdf

^^ Thanks for those links Fyver! The architect's one was very interesting, seeing how such a modern workspace has been included and mad to work perfectly with the exterior.

It's also sad to hear about almost losing it due to subsidence, as there seems to be a few buildings around the place in a similar boat, with rather severe damage becoming apparent (there's a couple on George St near the new courthouse with worryingly apparent cracking on the facade).

And there's cases like the heritage listed but soon to be demolished 190 Albert St, where the building and facade were so damaged from subsidence related to the Myer Centre and Queen St Bus Station construction (and also poor quality workmanship when it was originally built) that it's not possible for any of it to be safely retained as is. The architects have come up with quite an ingenious way to preserve/rebuild and include certain elements from the original building that provide an interpretive illustration of the building inside and out, but it's not quite the same as having a large portion of the actual building kept.

It appears that they are excavating now.

Today

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/8219/p4100036.jpg

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/2590/p4100037.jpg

Seems we both were out and about with cameras today. Here's my contribution:

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/97/1004553y.jpg (http://img171.imageshack.us/i/1004553y.jpg/)

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/9507/1004554w.jpg (http://img706.imageshack.us/i/1004554w.jpg/)

And the mess that's left...

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/6827/1004555b.jpg (http://img130.imageshack.us/i/1004555b.jpg/)

This one has now been approved.

^^This is good, considering the piling machines were on site when I went past on Saturday. I really hope this one looks better in reality than the renders...I'm not expecting it to, but it would be nice...

a shame. Ugly bloody thing

^^ You're not wrong!

I have refrained from commenting on this one hoping on a slim chance that it will just die a quiet death and I will never have to actually lay eyes on it in its physical form. But it seems this is inevitably going to get built. It is one ugly building. I hope they tear it down in 15 years time to build something nice. no wait 10 years time. Is 5 being too unrealistic?

Maybe the inside is spectacular. After all "ugly" is only skin deep.

I'm hoping that the basement retail space will end up being a replacement for Union Jack's Bar, that way you see how ugly it is on the way in, get trashed and forget to notice how ugly it is on the way out!

Apparently the developer of this one is a Chinese
mining magnate who didn't like any of Brisbane's hotels so he's decided to build his own. Not sure how true that is, just from the grape vine.

^^ I don't know about mining magnate, but yes, they are definitely Chinese. I wandered past the site a few weeks ago on the same day they were having what I assume was a sod-turning ceremony or something similar. They had banners up and photographers and I think there was even a Chinese flag flying as well. All the bells and whistles.

Funnily, due to the site being below street level, everything had to take place on the footpath!

Apparently the developer of this one is a Chinese
mining magnate who didn't like any of Brisbane's hotels so he's decided to build his own. Not sure how true that is, just from the grape vine.

if that is true then his idea of a good hotel is pretty warped!

^^ yeah, it looks like Rivercity's unwanted love child.

http://i56.tinypic.com/2ed5y5s.jpg

The tower itself doesn't offend me too greatly (we have worse in the city) but the podium design almost makes me physically ill!!!

Fuck that really is hideous, who approved this shite.

An interesting story about this development was on the Courier Mail site this morning. Apparently it is being built without any presales, using the developer's own equity to fund it. Also, the site was bought for $9,999,999 - a lucky number for the Chinese. There's also a very cool looking development on the coast that's talked about.

Chinese developers go ahead with unit projects in southeast Queensland

by Michelle Hele From: The Courier-Mail June 23, 2011 12:00AM

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/06/22/1226080/139318-yanjian-australia-project.jpg http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/06/22/1226080/135680-jewel-project.jpg

CHINESE developers are forging ahead with two mammoth residential projects in southeast Queensland that will see hundreds more apartments in Brisbane and the Gold Coast.

Chinese-owned development and construction firm Yanjian Australia has started work on a $72 million, 142-apartment building in Charlotte St in the Brisbane CBD, which it will fund entirely with its own equity.

It will be the first new apartment project in the heart of the Brisbane CBD for nearly four years and will be built without any pre-sales in place.

Normally, developers seek a high level of off-the-plan sales of apartments to secure finance for such projects.

Yanjian's Brisbane-based managing director Marcus Ng said the building, to be known as Midtown, would offer apartments ranging in price from $220,000 to $720,000.

The development site was once occupied by the Adrenalin Sports Bar and was secured by Yanjian for $9,999,999 last year (the number nine is considered lucky in China).

He said the old building had already been demolished and work was starting on the foundations. Mr Ng expects construction will be finished by the end of 2012.

He said they were encouraged to proceed after seeing good apartment sales in projects he did not think were as strong as theirs.

On the Gold Coast, the Australian arm of Chinese development group Ridong (RDG) has lodged development plans to build a $900 million three-tower residential project.

RDG has lodged a development application for a three-tower luxury resort hotel, residential and retail project on a 1.13ha beachfront site, midway between Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach on the corner of Wharf and Old Burleigh roads.

It hopes to receive approval later this year for the project, to be known as Jewel, and plans to market it internationally next year with construction to start late this year.

The project will include three towers of 45, 41 and 35 storeys.

There will be a total of 621 suites and apartments and 939 bedrooms spread across the three towers.

RDG chief Steven Haggart said the project's design was a collaboration between the Gold Coast's DBI Design and Miami Florida's Oppenheim Architecture companies.

$220,000 for a CBD apartment is really cheap. I'm happy to see that this project at least is somewhat affordable. I wouldn't call this a 'mammoth' project, that is grossly over-exaggerated.

^^ Agreed, the Gold Coast project is worthy of the term, but not Midtown. Cheap is good, just wish the building's design wasn't so cheap and nasty looking!

Love the gold coast triple towers.

why do people keep investing in an already saturated Gold Coast market.

Surely the investment return cannot be that high?

it's not as saturated as it's made out to be. sure, it's not what it used to be, but look at Oracle, now nearly sold out. Soul, nearly sold out. Hilton, nearly sold out....

it's not as saturated as it's made out to be. sure, it's not what it used to be, but look at Oracle, now nearly sold out. Soul, nearly sold out. Hilton, nearly sold out....

Exactly it seems on the Gold coast there is a large market for LUXURY apartments, the ones that arent selling are obviously rubbish not becuase the market is over saturated.

^^but what Dime is getting at is that Soul, Oracle and Hilton are the main players selling apartments on the Coast at the moment, and always seem to be the ones mentioned when the old over-saturated line is pulled out for a story.

Oracle especially was the poster child for the over-saturated stories, with administrators being put in place soon after completion due to a lot of people not being able to settle their contracts due to valuations not meeting the pre GFC contract prices. Many considered it a complete basket case. But it's now been revealed that it's well over 80% sold.

Other than those three, there's really not that many developments that have been completed that are struggling to sell...only a couple at Southport I think (feel free to correct me on this).

Yeah, and the only one in Southport said to be 'struggling' is Southport Central, which also happens to be one of the most lit up buildings at night... I don't quite get it. I know the 3rd tower seems to have a lot of apartments with lights out. That's what you get though for designing a tower with such shit floor plans.

^^ I walked through Southport Central for the first time a few weeks ago and noticed that the finish at ground level is kinda shoddy...a few sizeable cracks and gaps in the rendering, a couple of leaks that were staining the walls, painted areas where the colour looked to be a slightly different tint...I know corners would have been cut as they wanted to finish it in a hurry, but it looks terrible.

It used to look good, but no one has been in there, so I guess they figure there's little point maintaining them? I would much prefer there be businesses all in that sort of Arcade then up Short Street. I hate having to walk past the disgusting Australia Fair Bus stop :(

Moving the this thread back on topic, the crane was going up this weekend. I got to watch a bit of it - it's probably the only interesting part to this development!

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/4954/1006621.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/820/1006621.jpg/)

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/3193/1006622.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/836/1006622.jpg/)

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/5892/1006623z.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/8/1006623z.jpg/)

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1801/1006624n.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/16/1006624n.jpg/)

http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/9599/1006625.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/807/1006625.jpg/)

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/1199/1006690.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/28/1006690.jpg/)

^^ yeah, it looks like Rivercity's unwanted love child.

http://i56.tinypic.com/2ed5y5s.jpg

Just discovered this thread!

Wow what a hideous mole. What is that facade supposed to represent? :nuts:

^^ I have no effing clue! It's terrible! And worse still is that it's about to start rising - there's a corebox there now!

I'm clinging to the slim hope that maybe the builders will screw up the facade in a way that makes it look better!

i'm still not sure how shit like this gets past council

^^ Not only that but the Chinese company doing it is paying for it with their own cash, so potential lack of pre-sales wouldn't kill it either! *groan!*

^^ Not only that but the Chinese company doing it is paying for it with their own cash, so potential lack of pre-sales wouldn't kill it either! *groan!*

Would it have even cost much to have a slightly nicer design?

^^You wouldn't think so... Maybe this is what passes for good design for Chinese resi buildings???

It will sell. The prices are stupidly low, which is all that seems to matter in the current market.

The man behind this project is looking to do a lot more in QLD, I am sorry to say.

On the positive. If they do undertake more projects at these prices, Brisbane will be better off because there will be more affordable housing options NOT in urban sprawl like Northlakes, Springfield etc. At the moment people have no option but to buy in these isolated areas.

^^ Reducing the sprawl is the one positive, but it would be nice to have buildings that aren't an eyesore. Especially this one, sitting between two heritage-listed buildings.

The man behind this project is looking to do a lot more in QLD, I am sorry to say.

Maybe the he'll engage an architect who will give him a better designed building. Fingers crossed!

I don't see what the problem is - the design just looks very basic/stock-standard to me - not a landmark or even very nice by any stretch of the imagination - but it looks fine, just like a typical, ordinary apartment block. Kind of like the high-rise equivalent of a subdivision project home.

More average in-fill accommodation options are necessary to maintain socio-economic diversity in the inner-city.

It looks very similar to Mantra which is just nearby.

What's wrong with the design? I know it's nothing special and it's pretty basic but at least it's not bright pink and lime green.

The podium is not only revolting, but will also look completely out of place between those heritage listed buildings on either side. White with a random strip of grey down the middle, and big glass windows with a random red cross on it???

The podium is not only revolting, but will also look completely out of place between those heritage listed buildings on either side. White with a random strip of grey down the middle, and big glass windows with a random red cross on it???

TBH I don't care about the tower, yes its Fugly but its not to viewable the podium however needs to go back to the drawing board, BCC made soleil do it why not them?

Photos of the site from yesterday for no other reason than I walked past it...

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/5333/1006968e.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/94/1006968e.jpg/)

http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/5560/1006967w.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/847/1006967w.jpg/)

The site says its architect-designed, but doesn't give a name/company, anyone know who/what 'designed' (copied) this...erm...Devine lookalike?

i hate it when developers use 'architecturally design' in their marketing. every bloody house/unit whatever is designed by an architect. id be worried if it wasnt

I've done houses and I'm classified as a Draftsman, I also note allot of people refer to themselves as a photographer just because they own a decent camera.

Drafstmen are at least decent human beings. Architects are arrogant scumbags.

I've done houses and I'm classified as a Draftsman, I also note allot of people refer to themselves as a photographer just because they own a decent camera.

Of course, though I was more referring to highrise like this one.

So no one knows?

There are ways to get it designed without an architect, but seeing as they put it on the website I figure legally there must be a registered architect who designed it. Just like someone can't legally call themselves an architect without being registered.

it's not being hidden, you are just being lazy and not reading the thread. see here.

Thanks man,
Some info & renders from the DA.

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/applicationdetails.jpg

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/sectionaandb.jpg

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/elevations1.jpg

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/elevations2.jpg

Ground Level
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/100pchoganhousegroundfloorplan.jpg

Podium Level
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/podiumlevel.jpg

Level 1
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/level1.jpg

Levels 2 to 22
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/levels2to22.jpg

Level 23
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/level23.jpg

All images & the entire application can be found here: Source (http://pdonline.brisbane.qld.gov.au/masterview/modules/documentmaster/viewdocumentftp.aspx?key=pDGvyFzSN3ZUN8JLqjO1OqQghQCDtWpqWgPaYDth6VnFouVfeF6r/Rv6IRjOBOYz)

Just because..

http://www.ccnarchitects.com.au/Home.aspx

CCN are generally good architects, being involved with some major jobs in Brisbane (Waterfront Place & Naldham House's refurb come to mind)...but how they let this one slip out is beyond me.

Not to mention Scott St apartments in the residential sector, which is an absolute stunner.

speaking of CCN, what is this conceptual design for mary street on their website?

http://www.ccnarchitects.com.au/Projects/Commercial/MarySt.aspx

^^ How awesome is that!?!?

db post....

speaking of CCN, what is this conceptual design for mary street on their website?

http://www.ccnarchitects.com.au/Projects/Commercial/MarySt.aspx

Could it be the Devine site? (The one they still own). They were at one stage looking to JV with a developer more renowned for erm... quality. Not sure what the status is now, however. The only design we saw was the lipstick.

Edit: Scrap that. I mixed up my Mary and Margaret Streets.

Wow awesome!!! Dam I wish this was more then just a concept. Wonder what site it is!?

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/mary_8.jpg http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/mary_7.jpg http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/mary_9.jpg

Oh now thats what I wanna see!!

Drafstmen are at least decent human beings. Architects are arrogant scumbags.

Gee... thanks...

My guess is the corner of Mary and Market Streets.

Wow awesome!!! Dam I wish this was more then just a concept. Wonder what site it is!?

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/mary_8.jpg http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/mary_7.jpg http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/mary_9.jpg

I like the ripple theme appearing in brisbane, riperions balconies, 111, the short stubby building on albert st.

My guess is the corner of Mary and Market Streets.

possibly cnr mary and albert? I remember talk of that building on this forum a year or so back and how it was ripe for demolition.

Yea, possibly.

possibly cnr mary and albert? I remember talk of that building on this forum a year or so back and how it was ripe for demolition.

^^ Which are you referring to? The CEY Buildings (the 1950s era warehouse on the Edward side of Albert St) or the horrid 1970s white brick waste of space opposite (George St side of Albert St)?

I've heard of both being redeveloped with the CEY buildings going for the CRR station (as much as I want to see CRR, I don't want to see the building lost - it gives that bit of Albert St some much needed character) and the 70s POS being redeveloped for a tower, although that was years ago!

^^ I think he means that horrid 1970's short building which houses Jackpot Noodles. Devine owns that site.

^^ I think he means that horrid 1970's short building which houses Jackpot Noodles. Devine owns that site.

they sold it 2-3yrs ago

To who?

That would be the old Post Office site next to "Vision" would it not, would look good on the cnr of Mary and Edward (Flight Centre). No point treating the facade like that if it will get buried and not seen from outside the CBD.

^^103 Mary St? CCN did do a design for that site, but it wasn't this one. Actually, CCN's design for the 103 Mary St site was extremely similar (ie carbon copy) to their earlier design for this site. Compare the design below...

103 Mary Street - looks about 25 stories but is inserted between Vision and River City so it will make bugger all impact.

Check it out here:
http://www.ourbrisbane.com/government/transactions/search/stuff/psf//q/j/q/sfeb/p889924_0002.pdf

and here
http://www.ourbrisbane.com/government/transactions/search/stuff/psf//u/t/y/jtqb/p889924_0004.pdf

Nothing to get excited about - just more 'bog'.
http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/2442/103mary2vc.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

With these older plans...

Thanks man,
Some info & renders from the DA.

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/applicationdetails.jpg

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/sectionaandb.jpg

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/elevations1.jpg

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/IFB83/SSC/elevations2.jpg

All images & the entire application can be found here: Source (http://pdonline.brisbane.qld.gov.au/masterview/modules/documentmaster/viewdocumentftp.aspx?key=pDGvyFzSN3ZUN8JLqjO1OqQghQCDtWpqWgPaYDth6VnFouVfeF6r/Rv6IRjOBOYz)

Still can't see the name in the documents but I see CCN's logo (you call it lazy, i call it being 'busy' :tongue3:).
Huge surprise to me, I was expecting some no-name working from their home office in the outter suburbs, but CCN? I work in Waterfront and its really great, and that was designed and built over 20 years ago...

Thanks for the info champions =)

It's called designing to the budget you get given.

^^103 Mary St? CCN did do a design for that site, but it wasn't this one.

A003039531

Currently a 30 story resi, with roof top bar, interesting.

Found the docs. I wonder if this will be a public bar or just for the residents/hotel? It does say "recreation level" which makes me believe it might not even be a normal operational bar but rather one which you can hire out.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-09at73103PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-09at73149PM.png

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/Screenshot2011-08-09at73251PM.png

Thanks for the renders Soul. I resurrected the old thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=245400) for 103 Mary and copied them there as well.

Wait, I'm totally confused...is this and 103 Mary St the same building/project?

No. Midtown is on Charlotte Street.

Midtown is so boring, we got off topic. The old 103 Mary designs were by the same architect, that's all.

Just a couple of images I snapped over the weekend:

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5933/dscn0626qq.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/12/dscn0626qq.jpg/)

Nice view to the back of the heritage listed building behind. The window arrangement on it is a little unusual.

http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/599/dscn0625t.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/849/dscn0625t.jpg/)

From behind, floor height is now equal to the podium next door.

http://i424.photobucket.com/albums/pp329/djmajahbn/IMG_1991.jpg

I work in Waterfront and its really great...


Excluding the minor issue of windows plummeting to the footpath below.

:lol:

Photo update from yesterday, for anyone who gives a toss about this one...


http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/2145/dscn4108e.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/851/dscn4108e.jpg/)

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/1458/dscn4139w.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/52/dscn4139w.jpg/)

They're certainly not dragging their heels on this one...don't know if that's good or bad to be honest...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7047/6902024835_10646e697a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76513211@N07/6902024835/)
2012-02-18 13.43.40 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76513211@N07/6902024835/) by Nathan Murray (http://www.flickr.com/people/76513211@N07/), on Flickr

Those twin monolithic turds next door need to go....could see a nice big 250m tower on that site.

^^ Oh how I wish they would go! They are two of the worst eyesores in town! I'd love to see something big on that site, but still retaining the heritage facade on Charlotte St, just painted in less garish colours!

Yeah, the facade is nice, but the base in an empty wasteland...kinda scary actually.

Today
http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/3518/p2220037.jpg

I noticed today that this one is beginning to poke its head above its neighbours to a large degree.