Located on Turbot Street and Ann Street between Mincom and the School of Arts heritage building.

Application number: A002212998

Who is the developer? Good to see that not all developers are getting cold feet.

Sorry it's actually 151m above ground level (Ann Street)

The developer are called Daisho!

Not sure if this is the development but, The Development Approval for the proposed new tower is currently being prepared by a team of consultants headed by renowned architects Bligh Voller Nield. The new tower will be located next to the Mincom Building on the existing Podium garden area. It will be designed not to minimise any shadow on nearby King George Square. 29 Levels.

Link » http://daisho-aus.com/content/mincom.htm

^^That's the one.

It Starts at RL 24.40 (Turbot Street Entrance, seemingly the main entrance) the Ann Street side is lower however all the lift shaft entrance's line up with the Turbot Street side. It then only goes 30 stories up from Turbot Street, with the 30th level being the plant mezzanine at RL147.55. Now there are no measurements to go any higher then that on the plan I am using, however there is a line which marks 5m. Using that as a guide and some on screen measuring I get another 21.05m to the tip of the structure on top of the 147.55. So that means 168.60 RL - 24.40 RL equals a total building to tip of structure of 144.2 or 144m. I of course will be open to any corrections but that is the way I am seeing it.

Some of the key pictures:
Heights.
http://www.mynetimages.com/68c2a4a7.jpg

Ann Street Side View:
http://www.mynetimages.com/b6805ced.jpg

Turbot Street Side View:
http://www.mynetimages.com/cf445287.jpg

And in among the crowd:
http://www.mynetimages.com/dbea636a.jpg

Other points, yes the silver is the colour, I at first though it was just a colouring to show the building bulk but it is the intended facade'. Project name is 174 Ann Street. Mmm that might just throw out my theory on Turbot Street being the main entrance.

Oh wow! I like!! Pity it's not taller though...

That whole School of Arts side is windowless - I really hope this building doesn't turn out to be ugly on that side.

This is nice, got a Libeskind vibe to it.

Shame it's so short.

151m isn't exactly short. It's Brisbane Square height and it is up the hill.

Very cool tower.

151m isn't exactly short. It's Brisbane Square height and it is up the hill.

Yeah but I'm not exactly breaking my neck to look at Brisbane Square.

It's mildly above average by Brisbane standards, short, however by global standards.

Like you said though it will stick out a little bit, but mainly cos everything else is even shorter.

It's def the best of the 150m office jobs around town. If it gets up that is.

I like it. I think it's a smart looking tower and will be a good addition to the area.

However, I think JVogt makes an excellent point about the school of arts side - if it is indeed a windowless concrete wall, it will be ashame. I don't understand the mindset of that if the school of arts is heritage listed (which I would think it is), the building would never get built out on that side.

Same thing with 160 Ann St - it was built with two plain concrete walls on each side - yet both sides have heritage listed buildings and would never be built out.

Wow. A new proposal. Definitly a surprise.

Weren't these pics first posted like a year ago or something? It's not that new.

Still, quite nice. Anything that thinks outside the square is to be encouraged in Brisbane.

It Starts at RL 24.40 (Turbot Street Entrance, seemingly the main entrance) the Ann Street side is lower however all the lift shaft entrance's line up with the Turbot Street side. It then only goes 30 stories up from Turbot Street, with the 30th level being the plant mezzanine at RL147.55. Now there are no measurements to go any higher then that on the plan I am using, however there is a line which marks 5m. Using that as a guide and some on screen measuring I get another 21.05m to the tip of the structure on top of the 147.55. So that means 168.60 RL - 24.40 RL equals a total building to tip of structure of 144.2 or 144m. I of course will be open to any corrections but that is the way I am seeing it.

If you look at the floor plans you'll see that Ann Street is the major entrance, with the lift lobby conveniently labeled as RL18.1m. It will essentially shar an entrance with Mincom, with people for this building turning left towards the lifts and those for Mincom heading up the escalators to access the current Mincom foyer.

These architects really love their Loggia, but I'd say count only the complete floors above the Lobby/ground, which would give 30.

That whole School of Arts side is windowless - I really hope this building doesn't turn out to be ugly on that side.

The floor diagrams give this impression, but the cladding images show that there is glass in columns where the lift wells are and in the office areas above the lifts. The areas without glass will not be bare concrete but panels the same as those used in the between floor areas.

Looks quite interesting, rather geometric.

I love how they have made the base slimmer and make it thicker at the top to get more office space from the site =)

This is site has previously been referred to as "Mincom 2". There has been talk about it for years.

They bought this site in Jul-01. I always thought that they would flick it to someone else to develop.

They state a completion target of 2012 for this massive 50,000m2 building. My view is that this project is not financially viable and is simply end up being a value adding exercise.

I of course will be open to any corrections but that is the way I am seeing it.

Excellent Effort BeastJim. Turns out that the section does not go through the highest part of the facade. I measured the other elevation can found the tip to come to RL 168.21.

With the Foyer at RL 18.10 that makes the building 150.11 metres high.



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/3075645369_87a7ce63b2_o.jpg

Are they building above the railway tunnels? Has provision already been made for a large tower with regards to foundations ect?

If so it could get up quickly.

J

^^Brisbane Central went into Basement here didn't it, so my guess would be yes, however I have nothing to back this up.

The design is interesting, and i will only be able to decide whether i like it after it is built when we can see how well it melds with the rest of the city.

With the Foyer at RL 18.10 that makes the building 150.11 metres high.


Cheers MyFavco

i like this one. Its different, but modern and stylish. It will be a nice addition. If only they had added some more floors to make it stand out more in the skyline. I hope it goes ahead and gets built.

getting a bit of a collection of these barely 150m buildings

And a good thing IMO - especially when you have a few 250m+ sticking out the top!

wow, love it.

Gives a good indication of the height, 167 Turbot Street (the neighbouring tower) is 103m tall (Thanks to SoulVision on SSL (http://www.skyscraperlife.com/queensland-main-forum/14212-proposed-daisho-tower-mincom-s-2-34f-150-office.html))


http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/8.jpg

Can't help but think they were inspired by Daniel Libeskind's 192m Zloty 44 in Warsaw, which is not a bad thing:

Daisho
http://www.mynetimages.com/dbea636a.jpg

z44:
http://www.w-a.pl/2005/orco_libeskind_01.jpg

http://images4.fotosik.pl/16/ouqhgkbr64sbvoy0.jpg

^^That looks a little like a curvy version of Devine's King George Central.

Nice design! Brings a little bit of interest to the incredibly wasteful site that is Mincom.

Japanese to build new Brisbane 'icon'
Shannon Molloy | December 3, 2008 (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/japanese-to-build-new-brisbane-icon/2008/12/03/1228257103033.html)

A Japanese consortium with no development experience in Australia has unveiled a plan to build a $250 million commercial tower on Turbot Street, touting it as the city's next "iconic" landmark building.

Daisho Company this week lodged an application with Brisbane City Council for its debut project - a soaring glass skyscraper on a site between Mincom Central and the historic School of Arts.

Property manager Steve Dott said the 29-storey building had been in the making for three years and was intended to become a special addition to Brisbane's skyline.

Renowned architects Bligh Voller Nield were given a simple brief: be creative and avoid casting a shadow on King George Square.

The result is a complex structure of sharp edges, including a slanted roof and a white and grey glass facade.

"This will definitely be an iconic building that is far from just another tall box, like a lot of recent towers we have seen in Brisbane," Mr Dott said.

Daisho Tower's pointed roof served to reduce significant shading of King George Square, he said.

When complete, Mr Dott believes the high-rise will be in the same league as the city's most celebrated buildings - including Riparian Plaza, Waterfront Place and Central Plaza.

The development will also open a path between Ann Street and Turbot Street via a tall pedestrian plaza.

"At present, pedestrians have a long escalator trip to a fairly sparse plaza level (but) we will create an active thoroughfare," he said.

An elevated pedestrian bridge will also link the tower with Mincom Central, requiring the partial demolition of an existing plaza building on the site.

The the number of on-site car parks will be reduced to encourage workers to use public transport.

"We are across the road from Central railway station and the new King George Square busway terminal, so we are well positioned to avoid placing a significant traffic pressure on the city," Mr Dott said.

Despite the current economic crisis and uncertainty in the property market, Daisho is confident of a more prosperous climate by the time the project is complete, he said.

The company recently acquired the Park Hyatt Hotel in Sydney and has owned the Mincom site for several years, in addition to a variety of property assets across Asia.

Pending council approval, construction is tipped to commence in mid-2010.

lol, every developers says they are doing an 'icon', but at 29 storeys methinks not.

When the Japanese are investing and building, that's usually a sign things have gone tits up, cos they are clueless when it comes to QLD property if history is anything to go by.

Still, no doubt will be a nice building they are right it will be better than the other boxes.

Mid 2010 construction *start*! though, we're still in 2008! Course that's if they meet the start date, and they never do do they.

That's only a year and a half away.

Devine's King George Central Tower was proposed last year and will start early next year.

Devine was in the press today stating theu will start KGS in Sep-09 when they reach 50% pre-lease.

double post

Architects comment on the facade:

FAÇADE
A visually strong building form demands reinforcement of the shape as much as possible
to ensure that the glazing pattern will not over-complicate the sculptural form of the tower.
Hence the façade has been considered as a skin stretched over the building – in much
the way that a sheath will follow the shape of the object that it is embracing.
The walls are clad in a simple curtain wall system based on four elements of composition
to enable a standard internal ceiling and partition geometry with a transom at 2.7m above
the fl oor. The colour of the tower refl ects the geographical location of the building – a city
in strong sunshine, of light, of transparency and most of all of optimism. The colour palette
of glass, silver, white and pale grey illuminates the tower in the strong Queensland light
projecting an image of the future, of technology and of a place of cutting edge business.
These are all images of a place very different from any other building in Brisbane – a
market which is now projecting itself as the most dynamic business centre in Australia.






The application also proposes to reduce the existing 318 carparking spaces to 241 carparking spaces. Not bad for 85,110sqm of Office Space (1 space for every 353sqm of Office!!!)

Architects comment on the facade:

FAÇADE
...The colour palette
of glass, silver, white and pale grey illuminates the tower in the strong Queensland light
projecting an image of the future, of technology and of a place of cutting edge business.


Oh puke!

JayT Wrote: Are they building above the railway tunnels? Has provision already been made for a large tower with regards to foundations ect?
If so it could get up quickly
KJBrissy Wrote: Brisbane Central went into Basement here didn't it, so my guess would be yes, however I have nothing to back this up

Yes, the rail line runs directly under the building. Infact you can feel the trains vibration going threw the building.

FKP originally designed this site for either a 30 storey building or similar size and shape to Mincom when first built.

In the Prime site section of todays Courier Mail there's an article about this tower as being a Queenslander style high rise?? It mentions there will be a "veranda" underneath the building.

Daisho spokesman Stephan Gott has said that if approved, construction would commence in mid to late 2010 and take around 30 months.

EPA have reccommended that BCC refuse the application due to the size and bulk impacting on the School of Arts building.

You're joking right. What's the impact, the sheer size of the building? To be consistent they ought to have complained about the new one on Turbett Street. Apart from size, what's the validity of their arguement. If I saw the plans correctly, isn't the foyer area of this tower set quite high, not unlike Brisbane Square, to offset the arts building?

Plus there's supposed to be a Queensland style verandah to compliment the Arts building. Can't please some people.

No no no...this must be built....one my favourites proposed at the moment.

From EPA:

The Brisbane School of Arts Building is a rare surviving example of an inner-city masonry building of the 1860’s and has high aesthetic merit. The proposed development will have an unacceptable visual impact on Brisbane School of Arts, thereby diminishing its cultural heritage significance.

The proposed tower is of a height, form and bulk that will dominate and overwhelm the School of Arts building and hence impact on the appreciation of the building as a whole. The proposed new building will detract the streetscape setting and will block views to and from the north-eastern elevation of the School of Arts Building. The scale, design and setback of the existing Mincom building has taken these factors into account and hence acknowledges the significance of the building.

OUCH! but alas they may have a very valid point.
I'm sure some good engineering and redesigning and it could be sorted!

From EPA:

The Brisbane School of Arts Building is a rare surviving example of an inner-city masonry building of the 1860’s and has high aesthetic merit. The proposed development will have an unacceptable visual impact on Brisbane School of Arts, thereby diminishing its cultural heritage significance.

The proposed tower is of a height, form and bulk that will dominate and overwhelm the School of Arts building and hence impact on the appreciation of the building as a whole. The proposed new building will detract the streetscape setting and will block views to and from the north-eastern elevation of the School of Arts Building. The scale, design and setback of the existing Mincom building has taken these factors into account and hence acknowledges the significance of the building.

And the old SGIO building next door is hardly noticeable:ohno:

Can't they so some kind of interesting or special facade treatment to make that part of the building appear less dominating. Mirror glass would make that part of the building dissapear for instance. Its been used in many cities to reflect older buildings.
J

I agree with the EPA. The increasing width of the tower towards the top makes it look like it is really pressing down on School of Arts, and the wing that extends alongside it to Ann St means Daisho Tower is really enveloping it. To me it seems like Daisho Tower is saying "I am your master. Bow down before me" And I never liked the facade either, even in the colour render

http://daisho-aus.com/images/large/174Annst-colour.jpg

I don't see what is so special about the school of arts building, it's nothing special or hugely historically important. I know it has some old design feature, but buildings 100 times more significant have made way in Brisbane. If it's that great, maybe rebuild it somewhere else.

It looks silly in that street anyway.

I can see the point regarding the EPA concerns...however, the building is in the middle of the CBD, currently has towers all around it and has no other buildings nearby to create a "precinct". I am all for preserving the building but feel it will not "lose" any more character with this proposal. A good way to look at this is to stand on the footpath across the road and have a look at the building and imagine the new one in place. In some ways it could be argued that the building would be more prominent with tall neighbours surrounding it as it will stand out more in the streetscape.

I agree with the last two postings. It is already submerged and everytime I walk past (regularly) I think "well, nobody would know that's there" so it is too late. There's nothing to be gained by canning this new building.

My concerns are not so much about the effect on the School of Arts itself. but the nature of the building which has resulted from a conscious effort to work around it. Looks like they've really tried to maximise floorspace to compensate. Any proposal which didn't invade the 'personal space" of surrounding buildings would be fine :)

That pic posted above reaffirms my confusion and the true agenda of the EPA. What they're after, if I understand corectly, is another building similiar to Mincom, right? If so, then there is absolutely no difference in the 'impact' as they put it to the heritage building, as height doesn't come into it. Mincom in terms of sheer bulk at street level can be seen as overwhelming the Arts building. Yet the Daisho tower will sit on land where you can't view and appreciate this building in the first place.

So if they're assertiing that building an office tower on available land in the CBD will be at the detriment of the Arts building who's street impact and access is on Ann street, not Turbott, then their arguement truely is rubbish.

Here is some food for thought...................

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3652/3326590069_a1a142f2af_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3186/3327427250_5fede79ae6_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3653/3327427380_fdccfe0ea8_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3633/3327427414_9931534040_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3306/3327427478_20c8bc77a0_o.jpg

They have deliberately opened up the view to the school of arts... Whether that actually makes the building less dominating, I'm not sure, but there is certainly an indication that they took the existing building into account in the design.

The render from high up gives the impression of dominance, which is not found in those presenting a ground level view. This isn't my fav proposal, but i'd still be annoyed if it was knocked back.

That carpark entrance is unattractive. Pity they can't use Turbot St for that exclusively.

thats a pretty intense contrast between old and new... i think it will look interesting

That carpark entrance is unattractive. Pity they can't use Turbot St for that exclusively.

I agree, that needs a redesign, however I think because of the level differences between Turbot and Ann Streets, that could be extreemly difficult, but the better option.

That carpark entrance is unattractive. Pity they can't use Turbot St for that exclusively.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

The carpark will create a deep divide between the Mincom Plaza and the the School of Arts stepped entry. Currently it is a pleasant, level and open forecourt which gives seamless access to SOA.

By placing the vehicle entry next to the SOA, they have created a balustrade which encloses that end of the mincom forecourt, and seperates it from SOA. Worse still, the footpath adjacent to SOA will now become a heavily traffic driveway, further diminishing the appeal of that section of Ann Street (right out side of SOA).

I would say that, if it gets rejected, it will be due to the carparking arrangement rather than visual impact.

Dont they already have carpark entrances off Turbot St? I know thats for Mincom but surely they could use the same entrances.

Dont they already have carpark entrances off Turbot St? I know thats for Mincom but surely they could use the same entrances.

I was under the impression that if you look through to the carpark for mincom you can see a large sliding door which leads into the rail tunnels? There wouldn't really be space for a carpark would there?

Dont they already have carpark entrances off Turbot St? I know thats for Mincom but surely they could use the same entrances.

Uhmm..... You are right. I take back most of what I said.

I was under the impression that if you look through to the carpark for mincom you can see a large sliding door which leads into the rail tunnels? There wouldn't really be space for a carpark would there?

You should look at their basement plan - it is wild! there are a dozen car bays between the two rail lines and the only way to get to them is via a car lift. The ramps go under the existing then over the tunnels and the under again.

Crazy shit.

Remember what happened to the Japanese who bought up 60% of Cairns in the last boom ? Same thing here.

A new design has been submitted to aleviate the EPA's concerns.

Only the lower floors have been changed to allow better visibity of the School of Arts building.

Awesome, good news. Thanks KJ.

I thought this one had been abandoned....

From the website:

174 Ann St. New tower development, due for completion in 2013.

Is the new design much different? Any taller? haha

The only changes are at the bottom levels along Ann Street. Essentially identical with better visibility to the School of Arts building.

Sweet.
After Christmas start?

You should look at their basement plan - it is wild! there are a dozen car bays between the two rail lines and the only way to get to them is via a car lift. The ramps go under the existing then over the tunnels and the under again.

Crazy shit.


Why is this allowed? What happens if we need to expand the rail?

Good question...

Why is this allowed? What happens if we need to expand the rail?

You wouldn't be able to fit a rail line between there anyway. The platform locations at Central lock that in.

Any expansion would be further underground and are nominated in the cross river study.

Sweet.
After Christmas start?

Definitely not.

Pre-leasing commitments of about 75% would be required. No marketing has commenced and I doubt there is sufficient tenant demand anyway.

They may not even recieve approval by Xmas if they are unlucky.

I of the strong opinion that this will never get built (even in this coming cycle).

If they are going for 2013 then probably at least a 2011 start?

I love the design of this tower and the other new-ish one (?) next door on Turbot St. The angular, sheer faces are reminiscent of Central Plaza, only designed along the lines of the current contemporary style in terms of materials, asymmetry etc.

From Brisbane Development *link in my sig :)*

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/PreviewScreenSnapz005-3.jpg
http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/PreviewScreenSnapz008-2.jpg
http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/PreviewScreenSnapz007-3.jpg

This proposal went before council committee today. They've made minor changes to mitigate impacts on the "adjoining heritage building" and added water features and green walls to the landscaping.

- 58,947 sq m office space
- Retail, restaurants and gym at the ground floor
- 2 basement levels
- Pedestrian access from Ann & Turbot streets

The tower is 30st @ 168m AHD.

PDF with a few tiny pics > http://www.thewebconsole.com/process/link.php?lId=852725&cId=1037459

i personally love this building. If only it had another 50m. I love angles. a la bank of china in HK

the design is great, not a too bad height either......

This proposal went before council committee today. They've made minor changes to mitigate impacts on the "adjoining heritage building" and added water features and green walls to the landscaping.

- 58,947 sq m office space
- Retail, restaurants and gym at the ground floor
- 2 basement levels
- Pedestrian access from Ann & Turbot streets

The tower is 30st @ 168m AHD.

PDF with a few tiny pics > http://www.thewebconsole.com/process/link.php?lId=852725&cId=1037459

I assume it was also approved by full council. (It looks to be implied by your post.)

Is the 168m AHD equivalent to the 150m from street level?

I think I got 152m from Ann Street level. Can someone confirm?

Another one for the "On Hold" in-basket???

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/bent-building-delayed-by-flagging-market-20100707-zzvd.html

Not surprising given One-One-One has still failed to sign up any tenants.

because Brisboring is a shithole! fawk Brisbane!

Not surprising given One-One-One has still failed to sign up any tenants.

the AFR said last week that they have macquarie bank and allens arthur robinson.. also someone else?? about 25% of the space.

the AFR said last week that they have macquarie bank and allens arthur robinson.. also someone else?? about 25% of the space.

Interesting. Do you have a copy?

the AFR said last week that they have macquarie bank and allens arthur robinson.. also someone else?? about 25% of the space.
If Allan Arthur move from Riverside I'll get to use 111 eagle all the time. A lot of planning meetings take place in their offices.

top= RL168m, foyer =RL18m, thus 150m above ann st.
or 141m above turbot st.

It's a nice buidling, but I doubt it will ever get built.

Interesting. Do you have a copy?

i do, but i don't have a scanner

Daisho haven't given up on this site just yet apparently! Completely different tower though. DA A003245853!

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/638/daishomincom2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/832/daishomincom2.jpg/)

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/5940/daishomincom1.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/856/daishomincom1.jpg/)

LOVE IT!!

Now thats what i'm talking about.

Should be called "The Brisbane River building" VERY, VERY good design!

And it looks taller also. Nice!

LOVE IT, What a great design

Awesome! Looks great!

preferred the old tower. this one looks a bit more generic. The old one had some distinction.

for some reason i had the old proposed broadway tower in mind, that and the old proposal for this site looked quite similar. Loved the old one but this new one looks great as well

edit: height appears to have stayed the same, despite the deceptive renders. At 168m RL though it would seem huge in that pocket of the city

WOW, MUCH BETTER!

But I just don't see how this has addressed the concerns regarding the neighbouring school of arts. Weren't there concerns about the impact regarding overshadowing etc and that was the reason behind the previous proposals angled/peaked design? But now they have proposed a box of the same height. Doesn't add up. Or have i missed something?

Nice design, previous one was nice as well though.

Having an outline of Brisbane river on the side like that is a very cool touch!

Something so simple, but really improves the building.

But I just don't see how this has addressed the concerns regarding the neighbouring school of arts. Weren't there concerns about the impact regarding overshadowing etc and that was the reason behind the previous proposals angled/peaked design? But now they have proposed a box of the same height. Doesn't add up. Or have i missed something?

The previous design was approved. This has even better sight lines.

The previous design was approved. This has even better sight lines.

and if I'm right parking has been moved to turbot st

Daisho haven't given up on this site just yet apparently! Completely different tower though. DA A003245853!

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/638/daishomincom2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/832/daishomincom2.jpg/)

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/5940/daishomincom1.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/856/daishomincom1.jpg/)

Wow! Loving the Brisbane river idea.

I like :)

Love the old tower so much more. Besides the BR on the side it is pretty generic IMO.

Can't see it dating as well.

Very interesting, I can't quite decide if I think the Brisbane River on the side of the building is a good idea or not. I quite like the form of the tower, and with good quality glass it should look amazing, but the river drawn on the side could turn a 'serious' building a bit tacky.

A few more illustrations for the thread:

http://i39.tinypic.com/2nqfwhl.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/2rqy8u8.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/ops31k.jpg

It does look a little like a giant snail as crawled up it, but it's still pretty cool, not that 99% of ppl will have any idea what it is.

The design of the floorplate is an absolute, utter shocker. Nothing regular or efficient about it at all.

Can anyone read the heights on the elevation?

It says 150 something. The floor below is at RL 150 and the top has a round number like a 6 or an 8.

I am assuming it is the same height as the original tower.

^^ Roof level is shown as RL. 163.8, and I think it may be a touch bigger than the original, but not noticeably so.

But I just don't see how this has addressed the concerns regarding the neighbouring school of arts. Weren't there concerns about the impact regarding overshadowing etc and that was the reason behind the previous proposals angled/peaked design? But now they have proposed a box of the same height. Doesn't add up. Or have i missed something?

I think the over shadowing issue was to do with King George Square.

Can anyone read the heights on the elevation?Main roof and the top of the LMR are both labelled as RL163.8m on the elevations, even though the LMR sticks up an extra 3.9m (so should actually be RL167.7m). Heights aren't actually given for ground level on either side, but a quick scale gives Ann Street = RL15.56m and Turbot Street = RL23.74m. Therefore my conclusion would be that the official height should be 167.7-15.56 = 152.14m or 152 metres.

But I just don't see how this has addressed the concerns regarding the neighbouring school of arts. Weren't there concerns about the impact regarding overshadowing etc and that was the reason behind the previous proposals angled/peaked design? But now they have proposed a box of the same height. Doesn't add up. Or have i missed something?

I think that a large part of the problem was more the overall mass of the building 'smothering' the School of Arts, not dissimilar to the issue Southpoint had with Collins Place House, where the building was originally planned to span over the top of the house before being split in two to give the house more breathing space.

By comparison, this new tower appears much less bulky that the original, and seems to give a wider berth to School of Arts, while the front of the building looks like it's set back further from Ann St, and the parking is now around the back in Turbot St.

I really like the Brisbane River facade concept, always big on symbolism, can't get much more symbolic of Brisbane than our river, but I agree with Locke that most unaware people would be like WTF?

Really did not mind the old design, but I am happy with both TBH, if the glass is right on the new design could turn out to be quite the gem.

The design of the floorplate is an absolute, utter shocker. Nothing regular or efficient about it at all.

Why so? I'm not attacking you I am genuinely interested in what makes a good or efficient floor plate :)

Basically I think he means flexibility and use of space (he may correct me).

If you take a building like The Regent, it has one of the best floorplates in terms of flexibility and optimal use of space. It is large, it's a rectangle, the core is in the middle (which is a light penetration thing). A firm with perimeter offices, for example, can get more perimeter offices on a floorplate of that type, with more consistent sizing than any alternative. Any other office design is also going to be better because there are no "nooks and crannies" or weird angles/corners that make design inherently difficult or inconsistent, or result in void space.

This tower has very narrow floorplates which are irregularly shaped and it has a perimeter core. It is far more tricky to design offices in there, it is much less efficient, it is totally unsuitable for certain kinds of tenants.

Cheers Marty for your answers today I've learnt a fair bit!

While it is an awkwardly shaped floor plan, it's on an awkwardly shaped block of land as well. Could it have really been done all that much better with the site limitations? I can see what they went for the perimeter core, keeping the lifts and toilet facilities all packed in the corner is probably the best way to do it for this shaped floor plan.

And that corner is an extrusion of the rectangle shape as well so the services on the Western corner away from the flow of the building I would have thought would have been a good move.

I am not derrogating from their efforts to improve the situation, as they undoubtedly have... The fact is it's not a very efficient floorplate. I agree with BrissyMan.

Having said that, not many of Brisbane's buildings are especially wonderful in that department. Even a building like Waterfront Place doesn't score full marks.

Agree. It is kind of odd they didn't go for a rectangle.

^^ It's a better outcome for us though! :banana:

Basically I think he means flexibility and use of space (he may correct me).

If you take a building like The Regent, it has one of the best floorplates in terms of flexibility and optimal use of space. It is large, it's a rectangle, the core is in the middle (which is a light penetration thing). A firm with perimeter offices, for example, can get more perimeter offices on a floorplate of that type, with more consistent sizing than any alternative. Any other office design is also going to be better because there are no "nooks and crannies" or weird angles/corners that make design inherently difficult or inconsistent, or result in void space.

This tower has very narrow floorplates which are irregularly shaped and it has a perimeter core. It is far more tricky to design offices in there, it is much less efficient, it is totally unsuitable for certain kinds of tenants.

Correct and well summarised.

The other thing to consider from a tenant perspective is a less efficient floor layout = more difficult to conduct a fitout design = less occupancy per floor = high fitout cost p.m2 and per staff member.

Ultimately floor plate efficiency will be just as important to a tenant as location, when they are weighing up their tenancy options.

I honestly do not mean to be rude, but the core position and floor layout reminds me of a males 'family jewels'....

the core position and floor layout reminds me of a males 'family jewels'....

I'm confused. How so?

^^ I get what he means...looks like a limp dick in profile. :lol:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/3210/daishomincom3.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/daishomincom3.jpg/)

Wonder if they will be targeting the Bank of Queensland to take up the anchor tenancy in this one.

My understanding is that BoQ are not moving anymore?

I love it!




http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/638/daishomincom2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/832/daishomincom2.jpg/)

how well will this tower show up on the skyline? The land around central station is the highest in the CBD isn't it?? So from some parts of Brisbane it should look as tall as 111 Eagle or CP1?

Will this even get off the ground? there seems to be a glut of office space escpially over the next few years with 111, KGS, Regent and suncorp vacating space.

Don't start this...

Everyone reading the numbers and the reports will tell you it's going to be ravished up overnight. Everyone working in the field will tell you it'll be impossible to lease.

It depends whether they get lucky with a tenant in the current climate. Much better buildings are struggling though.

I'm taking a wait and see approach. While I'd love to see this spot filled, and this looks to be a pretty good building (visually) to fill it with, I'm not seeing it as a sure thing by any means until I see construction workers on site!

Don't start this...

Everyone reading the numbers and the reports will tell you it's going to be ravished up overnight. Everyone working in the field will tell you it'll be impossible to lease.

It depends whether they get lucky with a tenant in the current climate. Much better buildings are struggling though.

I get that but unless the economy turns 2014 seems like a pretty interesting year.

In love with this building. Take it there's no news about this project.

This was approved today.

Great news! :banana:

Now, are they going to be able to build the thing?

Excellent.

Believe it when I see the crane going up.