New DA lodged for Emerald site:

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/masterview/modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=A001900913

No documents up yet.

interesting

lol...council must think Emerald is like a turd that won't flush.

Looks like a 30 level commercial building 26,252sqm!

All docs still aren't up yet.

RL 154.9m. Oh well...

^^Where does it say that?

Anything's better than what they had proposed. I mean, don't get all excited about a tower just because it's 230m high. Compare it to what's being planned now in Brisbane. Vision, Eagle St twins, Riverside 2. This thing was mediocre and cheap.

In the planning report:

"Following discussions with Queensland Transport with regards to the site being triggered by the airport operational airspace mapping, clearance has
been sought for the proposed building which includes a height of RL 154.9m"

'Cos the plane won't run into Aurora or (eventually) 470 Queen St before this :lol:

I thought the initial Emerald design was up there with the best of what has been proposed recently. It was amazing!

edit: cheers RubberDuck, I had a quick look and couldn't find it anywhere.

RL155m - grd RL21m= 134m above grd.

Bah!! :( They could've pushed for a few more metres.....Oh well, the one that got away..........

This is retarded....I thought one of the biggest objections to Emerald is that it would block the view of the church.....won't this do exactly the same thing??

From what I heard the biggest objection was the layout of the access with parking and servicing.

The NIMBY's were the ones concerned about the views.

Bummer that it has been scaled down :bash:. It had alot of potential.

I'm dissapointed about losing Emerald but not about the height of the new tower. It is actually on the edge of the CBD with a 8 storey limit accross the road. A bit weird for a 250m right on the edge of the CBD.

The site is located at the eastern gateway to the CBD, and a landmark tower would of gone well there :)

We'll just have to see what this design is like!!

The site is located at the eastern gateway to the CBD, and a landmark tower would of gone well there :)

Cities aren't just towers. What is wrong with having a landmark cathedral at the eastern gateway?

Because it isn't at the Eastern Gateway.

maybe if it was actually ON the corner, FACING the road that is the 'gateway', and on top of that was a far grander structure

I'm a bit annoyed they haven't got all the documents up yet. Hopefully it will be given to me at work soon!

Plans are up...WOW how very different and very interesting!!

http://pdonline.brisbane.qld.gov.au/MasterView/modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=A001900913

It sure is different...

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/336/58177653zy8.jpg
http://img469.imageshack.us/img469/1379/58784849jh0.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x309/Old_West/3.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x309/Old_West/2-1.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x309/Old_West/1-1.jpg

Love how they are a bit out of date with 480 Queen ;)

Looks 80s ;)

Hahaha, actually this on really does look 80's! But I like it, quite unique.

Cool. Looks like a late 70's plan for Sydney that Culwulla has pulled out of his archives :-)

A nice chunky glass office tower is just what this precinct needs.

its hideous! bring back emerald!

why is it when links are put up there never to the DA?
ive typed in every fuckin thing i can think of and it keeps saying nothing found. what do i have to type in to get DA up???
btw, love the retro design. perfect

You have to click the link,
agree with the disclaimer, and then
click the link again.

It's annoying but apparently it's the law.

That is what I wanted to see for the site. Great design. Will be great to drive into the city and be greeted with a fine tower.

yes i got that part. but its when you have to type in adress ect.
after you get property details. then what? ive pressed every tab.

It should be all the links at the bottom of the page under documents etc. A bit confusing, but once you got it it's fine.

Looks 80s ;)


I was gonna say late 70's

j

Thunderbirds are go!

what links? there nothing at bottom of page? ive opened many plans before on brisbane site but this seems to have dead end?

^^ If all else fails just go to 'Application enquiry' and paste in the Da number:
A001900913

I just tried it and it came up fine.

Maybe you could just go to the PD online section (when you first click on the link on the previous page), chose the DA section (second on the list), type in Queen Street in the street name and the Brisbane in the suburb, then click on search.

Click on the last result (the address should match), and that should take you to the same spot as the link. If that doesn't work I have no idea!




Or what Rubber Duck said....that is easier!

This reminds of that tower at the southern end of Sydney cbd that tapers near the bottom. Can't remember its name or street though. It is pretty hard to judge it overall based on the black and white renderings but if it is finished of well it should provide an interesting focal point as you drive up Anne St. Better than another residential aswell.

^civic tower.
thanks rubber ducky. it worked.
looks like grd level is RL19- RL155m = 136m.

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=civictower-sydney-australia214

^^Civic Tower is quite similar, although the major differance would be the facade!

Thanks Cul that is the one I was thinking of. I guess they do look a bit different though.

cheers.
looks like first office floor will be 29m or 100ft above grd. cool.
also., it would be tallest building in Adelaide. ;-)

cheers.
looks like first office floor will be 29m or 100ft above grd. cool.
also., it would be tallest building in Adelaide. ;-)

:nuts:

I like Adelaide...

I think I need to see a colour render of this one - not a big fan of what I've seen in B&W, but I'll wait until seeing the colour before I make a call.

it really is exceptionally terrible

crazy tower

http://image.bayimg.com/kagnpaabl.jpg

It will be interesting to see if this gets up. St Johns Cathedral is planning to object stating that nothing higher than the Orient Hotel should be built here. David Hinchcliffe says the proposal will be controversial stating "this will be a very thorny application" and "A major impact will be the view of St Johns Cathedral...".

That is easily the ugliest building I've seen in years.

Check out new additions to DA A001900913, including a different colour render.

The Catherdal wont have a very strong basis for the objection as it is a Code Assessable application. None the less, considerable political influence will be exerted on the DA Assessment Team. They better be careful though, if their assessment is too heavily influenced without basis in the planning codes then they might find themselves in court again.

I like this tower.
Brisbane needs more of these.

People say it looks 80s? We missed out on these styles... so... i want them.

That is easily the ugliest building I've seen in years.
What about the one next door?
j

Out of all the mediocre and just plain ugly buildings in Brisbane (of which there are many), this easily trumps them all in my view. I'm actually quite insulted that this level of crap is still being proposed in 2007, who's designing this stuff?

Couldn't they have just designed a skinnier tower, only taller?
..Oh wait they already did that :bash:

rofl.
You take a negative view on everything, and whenever u make positive comments its generally on something I dislike.
So if u dont like it thats a good thing IMO

rofl.
You take a negative view on everything, and whenever u make positive comments its generally on something I dislike.
So if u dont like it thats a good thing IMO

If you're happy for Brisbane to keep churning out the same crap, that's your prerogative. Some of us, however, will always hope for something more than mediocre.

If you were across any international skyscraper developments, perhaps you'd realise how truly underwhelming the majority of Brisbane's proposals are.

I want some bold, square, office towers.
To make the city look like it means business.

If you want continual fancy outlandish designs so we look like shanghai, good for you, Id prefer to have a nice mix like NYC or Hong Kong.

i agree with malt. brissy needs alot more of 100-150m towers before it gets 200-300m towers.these type of skyscrapers will give the skyline a variety of shapes and sizes,styles etc.
just build the friggen thing.

This thing is fucking horrible. It belongs in Detroit or LA, not here. It looks like they started with a normal standing rectangle, and hacked away at the facade where they had to apease both the church, and the council. The only thing they have gotten right is the glass. Are they really that desperate to build a tower here..

One thing though, this isn't a reflection of the proposals Brisbane has experienced. This does in no way compare with Riverside Centre 2, Vision, Empire Square, 275 George St etc. In that regard, I completely disagree with that notion thrown up. Every building can't be the holy grail, but buildings like Broadway and the new one on Albert St at the square are perfect for density.

When I saw that render from the city News, I saw that it is obvious the architect was told that the church has to be seen, hence the wierd bit at the bottom.

Regarding the whole Code Assessable thing, remember, Emerald was code assessable!

I agree with Malt too, I think this tower is great. This will be a great addition to the skyline.

This is starting to shape up as a contraversial building ala Brisbane Square!

This may not be such a bad thing whether you like it or not.

This is much worse for the church than emerald!

Or is this part of the plan?

this building looks like a stump hacked by an axe. REJECT REJECT REJECT! its fucking hideous! bring back emerald. fuck the cathedral.

O...who's designing this stuff?

http://www.ccnarchitects.biz/our_projects.asp?CID=2

I'm still making my mind up about this proposal before i comment, all i know is Emerald was a much better proposal both for developer and for "views and vistas"

I'm very rarely in favour of "continual fancy outlandish designs", the majority of buildings I've expressed in favour of in this forum generally feature clean lines and refined forms. The most "outlandish" building I've expressed support for is Vision, and that's hardly fancy for the sake of being fancy.

This kind of design however just cements Brisbane as a backwards town, with buildings that resemble the bygone era of powersuits and patent leather pumps (aka heels). There are a few recent buildings that buck this trend, but on the whole, Brisbane seems fairly happy to churn out the same old stuff that could have easily been designed 10-20 years ago.

It's disappointing that for a city with so much potential and such a fantastic climate, we're still seeing stuff that resembles 1980's Miami being thrown into the mix. And to say that Brisbane missed out on 1980's buildings...are you kidding me? Walk through the city and actually look around, there's plenty of them but they blend right in because they're so damn mediocre. Now we're just seeing taller versions of said mediocrity, and they're much more likely to stand out for all the wrong reasons.

HOLY HELL! have you seen the render on the DA with the brown glass!? bloody aweful! It's looks like London a la 1970... the blue is acutally relatively ... well.. nice in comparison.....

renders off the DA on BCC planning online

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/54/unplancm1.jpg
http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/6826/unannkx2.png
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/5557/unrenderjm8.jpg
http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/4514/untitledzo4.jpg

^^ Don't worry about the 80's - this one's straight from the 70's! Bring on the lime green trim and shagpile carpet..

That "brownish" colour might just be the reflection, the other render definately looks blue.

A very controversial building on here already.

^^ Don't worry about the 80's - this one's straight from the 70's! Bring on the lime green trim and shagpile carpet..

Form follows function!

A very controversial building on here already.All this new spate of retro-looking mid-risers seem to be. This is now the third Brisbane newbie that is getting the "retro treatment" from us forumers.

I like it (and the reason is yes, I like 70s glassies).

All this new spate of retro-looking mid-risers seem to be. This is now the third Brisbane newbie that is getting the "retro treatment" from us forumers.

I like it (and the reason is yes, I like 70s glassies).


I totally agree - love those big 'slabs'. Some of my favorite buildings are 70's glassies - such as AMP in Sydney, old BHP house in Melbourne (140 William?) ect ect.

J

Form follows function!

^^ Form follows developers wanting way too much gross floor area on sites that are way too small.

I have nothing against buildings from the 70's or the 80's if that's when they were actually built (all buildings are inherently a product of their time, even if they try not to be), but proposals like this in 2007 are just pathetic. Surely we've come further than this?

I totally agree - love those big 'slabs'. Some of my favorite buildings are 70's glassies - such as AMP in Sydney, old BHP house in Melbourne (140 William?) ect ect.

JDon't forget AMP & Comalco in Brisbane. Even though the latter was finished in 1983, both were designed in the 1970s.

...and for those that aren't crazy about the multi-coloured Willahra Apartments, 550 Queen will obscure it from certain angles.

looks like crap!

^^ Form follows developers wanting way too much gross floor area on sites that are way too small.

I have nothing against buildings from the 70's or the 80's if that's when they were actually built (all buildings are inherently a product of their time, even if they try not to be), but proposals like this in 2007 are just pathetic. Surely we've come further than this?
You only think its pathetic because it doesn't suit your taste. Stop whining about how much you hate it. We get it. Deal with it.

Well, it's time for me to add my view now that I've seen a colour render, and as a few people have stated - this is a controversial building already, and that goes part of the way to making it good in my opinion...

However that's not going to cut it for me, I think the design is completely out of place in that location and agree with other forumers that it's something that is more deserving of a 'Never Built' status with an expected completion date of 1978.

If this is a better solution than Emerald then I would hate to think what a worse option would have been. I think it's time the developers gave up on this site, sold it and moved on. Maybe another developer will then come along with something better...

This isn't another developer??? I thought it was.

This isn't another developer??? I thought it was.

Actually you might be right - can anyone confirm?

IMO Emerald is a nicer tower. Thats not to say I totally dislike this building, I quite like the concept, although I think this design could do with a bit of tweaking.

Emerald was definately a better tower, but I still like this one.

It seems some of you guys get City News on Thursday.

Where from?

We knew about this before City News reported it.

I realise you knew about it before City news from the dates of your postings but I thought someone mentioned City News on the 6th which was why I asked that question.

I've only ever picked it up on Fridays.

Doesn't matter anyway



city News

Yeah you can pick it up on Thursdays

I've been thinking about this development and that DA's don't need to give a reason to reject applications.

On the flip side if an appeal goes to court, the court will judge it by the city plan alone. Add to this council not wanting to put off developers, so therefore a reason is always provided.

I agree with Hinchcliffe, a thorny application process.

You only think its pathetic because it doesn't suit your taste. Stop whining about how much you hate it. We get it. Deal with it.

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that only certain people with certain opinions are allowed to multiple post on these forums. My bad.

^^I'm with you on this one Catherine ;)

It still pains me greatly that Emerald never eventuated.

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that only certain people with certain opinions are allowed to multiple post on these forums. My bad.
Don't put words in my mouth (post). You're allowed to have whatever opinion you want, but I can't see the point in constantly criticising it again and again. They isn't going to change the DA process or the design of the building and frankly, you've made your point, so why do we need to hear it 5 times??

The Emerald Group has sold the site subject to a new DA, brokered through Ray White Commerical.

The Buyer is Watpac Developments in JV with POD Developments. Babcock & Brown are financing it for Watpac.

PERSPECTIVE??: It appears that the coloured perspective (dwg 0005A) hasn't been uploaded to the BCC DA site. Every other drawing has been. Very Frustrating! Does anyone have a link to it??????

Oh yeah, it is a bit ugly, but from a distance it is not too offensive.

Don't put words in my mouth (post). You're allowed to have whatever opinion you want, but I can't see the point in constantly criticising it again and again. They isn't going to change the DA process or the design of the building and frankly, you've made your point, so why do we need to hear it 5 times??

I've been asked nicely to avoid making essay posts, so I try to keep my posts as short as possible, but if people ask me a question or challenge a point/opinion I make/share, I tend to reply if I feel I have something extra to add to the debate - I'm fairly sure that's what a forum is all about, and I'm quite sure nobody wants me to return to my essay rants.

Anyhoo, if you're so sick of my "whining", maybe just don't read my comments :P

Then we can all be happy and just talk about buildings. Yay!

You only think its pathetic because it doesn't suit your taste. Stop whining about how much you hate it. We get it. Deal with it.

come on mate, be reasonable.. catherine is making intelligent comments, and whether you agree with her or not you've got to acknowledge that she is contributing to the discussion.. so just let her be, eh?

come on mate, be reasonable.. catherine is making intelligent comments, and whether you agree with her or not you've got to acknowledge that she is contributing to the discussion.. so just let her be, eh?

Sorry BrizzyChris - but I have to say ditto to that...

Catherine - please don't return to your essay posts unless you have to, I value your input and I just don't have time to read those things hehe!! (but it's up to you in the end)

Sorry BrizzyChris - but I have to say ditto to that...

Catherine - please don't return to your essay posts unless you have to, I value your input and I just don't have time to read those things hehe!! (but it's up to you in the end)
You agree with her opinion, so of course you want to hear it.

What I'm saying is I don't feel the need for all of us to listen to repetitive distaste and likewise admiration (as was the case with Northbank), once someone's original comments have been posted. What good is it going to do constantly reminding us of what you think, it just annoys people.

^^ Haven't you already said something along those general lines? I think you might like to take heed of your last sentence, we heard your repetitive expressions of distaste the first time, and according to you, the right to respond and add further points to the debate is "annoying".

Anyway, away from the ego's and back to the building. Would anyone have any tools at hand to properly and accurately gauge how likely this thing is to being appoved? For such a highly prominant postion a thte gateway of the cbd, the last thing I want to see bearing down on me is this upturned turd. What's wrong with a low height glass featured commercial building? Some thing unusual but contemporary. As it stands, the overgrown bare block is better than this.

This has been knocked back by council.

I'm quite glad actually!

Totally forgot about this one. What was the reason for knocking it back?

All they have said was that it wasn't to do with breaking the OLS height.

renders off the DA on BCC planning online


http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/4514/untitledzo4.jpg

i quite like it for some strange reason.

The pro-cathedral forum won!

Damn! I really liked this weird one!!

Totally forgot about this one. What was the reason for knocking it back?

Probably had something to do with the fact it's frigging ugly!

I loved it. Its such a 'slab'.

J

I liked it too. Something very "Pittsburgh 80's" about it.

I liked it too. Something very "Pittsburgh 80's" about it.

Some things are better left in the past - the 'style' of this building especially. Fortunately, it seems even council agrees that what happened in the 80's, stays in the 80's.

I like architectural variance.

strange building. didn't hate it, but would prefer many of the proposed/approved buildings over it.

it sure makes the area look better. it was too highrise balcony city. it needs this conservative brown glass building.
how far away from council approval?

^^It's been knocked back by council.

I like architectural variance.

I wouldn't mistake this proposal for architecture ;)

I wouldn't mistake your opinions for anything approaching objective!

I wouldn't mistake this proposal for architecture ;)

I love reading your posts:)

J

Opinions don't have to be objective...

I suggest you don't take Catherine on unless you have a black-belt in contemporary architectural theory. The building definitely looks like an 80's throwback. Just a quick gap filler withouth merit.

Get off the grass ... black belt in contemporary architectural theory? Are you for real? Even if there was such a cheesy title, do you think they would really bother posting on this here humble blog site? I mean get serious - this is far from a peer reviewed C1 journal!

But anyway - yeah fair enough about the building if you don't like it, but then... 'everything old is new again' - right. Or perhaps the 80's will never be new again.

Get off the grass ... black belt in contemporary architectural theory? Are you for real? Even if there was such a cheesy title, do you think they would really bother posting on this here humble blog site? I mean get serious - this is far from a peer reviewed C1 journal!

But anyway - yeah fair enough about the building if you don't like it, but then... 'everything old is new again' - right. Or perhaps the 80's will never be new again.

^^ Are you telling me you've not heard of the 'black belt in contemporary architecural theory'?? You need to get out more, dude... Don't bother posting again until you've got one.

But anyway - yeah fair enough about the building if you don't like it, but then... 'everything old is new again' - right. Or perhaps the 80's will never be new again.

Haven't you seen the fluro yellow and orange ragged shirts & fluro coloured tights the young folk are getting around in? The 80's are back but look ridiculous, which could be a metaphor for this building.

The cathedral is stunning. it is no St marys in sydney, but stunning non the less.

^^ ok, so ur new. just a lesson in edicate, dont bring up an ancient thread unless there is actually news to report

:ohno:
http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/4514/untitledzo4.jpg

Ugh.

Uninspiring, boring, brown, ugly. :ohno:

How horrible can you get :bash:

^ SEQ92 - maybe the "Asians" developed this building as a conspiracy against you?


Anyway, I don't mind this building.

Nope not the asians.

If that building is built, it will be a crime to humanity... and you see it from the river too! EWWWW...

I quite like it. I think it has quite a good post-modern look about it.

Yeah its awesome. That part of the city is vomit at the moment. Looks like a third-grade Miami or Gold Coast without the beach (hence, shit).

When you look at neighbours, it's fab. The podium looks good.
Personally, I cannot stand the uninspiring cookie cutters that are found there.

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/4514/untitledzo4.jpg

I would recommend that it's turned 180 degrees.

I like the small ground-level open space at the bottom which is going to link Queen Street and Ann Street. The more public space the better, I say.

Why are you guys talking about a building that is as dead as a dodo?

^^It's been knocked back by council.

They seem to have altered the DA documents, however there has been no action since last year. Is Notra correct? Is this building dead?

They seem to have altered the DA documents, however there has been no action since last year. Is Notra correct? Is this building dead?

I thought it was.

Anyone know what is happening on site?

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h11/KJBrissy/IMG_2232.jpg?t=1271383381

^^
Who do we have to thank for that mess? State government or BCC? And to think we could have had a beautiful skyscraper there with active street frontages.

Shame!!!

God that is one UGLY building.

Public space at ground level sounds good though.

It'll be interesting to find out what's going on on site.

dear god, repressed all memories of this one. we should all be happy this one isn't going ahead.

Emerald...:cry:

Just saw some new plans for this site (can't post yet) by Consolidated Property. They bought the site about a month ago and they've drawn up plans already. It has gardens / deck around level 4 then a void for a bout 10m and offices above. Looks very different and opinion is split in the office.

^^ Sounds interesting... What do you reckon Birkish? Good, bad or indifferent in your opinion?

It looks like there's a podium, a big void (equivalent to about 4 - 5 floors) and then offices above it. Looks a bit odd, but Brisbane needs stuff with different shapes to mix it up a bit. Not a fan a present but sure I'll warm to it. It's not very tall (maybe 20 floors including the void).

^^ Sounds very interesting, albeit rather short (especially for this site). It'll be good to see the back of this scar of a site though. Any idea when we can expect to see it on PDOnline, or is it too early to tell?

Thanks for the heads up btw!

No idea about time-lines, but it appears as though they are moving quickly so I wouldn't be surprised if it was up in a month or so. As for construction dates, that's anyone guess.

Wasn't this was the site of an illegal Heritage demolition that occurred in the 90s?

It looks like there were some old buildings there and some derelict ones too, but I don't know about that, I wasn't in Brissy back then and can't be arsed looking it up.

Illegal demolition is always the story I've heard about that site as well, but I've never been able to turn up anything to prove it. I do know that the original premises of the undertaker Alexander Gow was at 550 Queen Street, but i don't know if that was the building that was destroyed, or even if that building was still around.

Am I right that heritage impacts were part of the reason that Emerald was killed in the first place?

The buildings that I remember on this site were some of the most notorious illegal strip joints and a "hidden" casino during the Joh years. I was a teenager and even I knew the casino was there, but the state's top police, government and the vice squad didn't.

Illegal demolition is always the story I've heard about that site as well, but I've never been able to turn up anything to prove it. I do know that the original premises of the undertaker Alexander Gow was at 550 Queen Street, but i don't know if that was the building that was destroyed, or even if that building was still around.

Am I right that heritage impacts were part of the reason that Emerald was killed in the first place?

Jim Sorely made it his mission to stop Emerald getting off the ground back in the day!! His claims about the tower blocking views of the Cathedral were one if the reasons the project was scrapped! In hindsight the tower would have been a great addition to the area!

Am I right that heritage impacts were part of the reason that Emerald was killed in the first place?[/QUOTE]

Gosh Nath, you are right in saying this was part of the reason leading to the Desley Boyle decision to scrap Emerald. There were several court cases centred around the plot size and vehicle access. Outcomes were generally favourably to Emerald and right of access to the adjacent lane was granted. I was told that massive cathedral-supporter influence was successful in the end in the kill-off. There was a local NIMBY protest (that I declined to join) which probably played no part in the final decision.

Jim Sorely made it his mission to stop Emerald getting off the ground back in the day!! His claims about the tower blocking views of the Cathedral were one if the reasons the project was scrapped! In hindsight the tower would have been a great addition to the area!

Ok, I can see what old Jim meant by blocking views of the Cathedral. One of my favourite photos I've taken I don't think would have looked quite as good if something had been built on the emerald site:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7183/6974276971_c74e668301_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76513211@N07/6974276971/)
DSCN4671 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76513211@N07/6974276971/) by Nathan Murray (http://www.flickr.com/people/76513211@N07/), on Flickr

That said, the argument with that is both whether this view is considered an important one, and how much of the view could possibly be retained. What Birkish is describing with the 4–5 floor podium and then a 4-5 story void sounds like it could be a very good way to retain a large portion of this view, similar to how Grocon's 470/480 Queen Street has the big open section in the middle to retain a large part of the vista of the Cathedral from Queen Street.

^^yeah but build something. I know finance is a problem, but I have an issue with just tearing down something and leaving it (yes, yes I know that happens). Look at that site of the old Town Cinema in Brunswick street that burnt down in the 70's! Up for sale at last.

The lift core for the building was butting up against the apartments to the left of the site. You'd loose the back of the church, but still get the front spires.

^^ That would work actually because I took that photo standing on the island in the middle of Ann Street. But from the footpath on the right, you might still get a bit of glimpse of the back part from that angle.

I think 480 Queen has much more tangible impact on Cathedral views than this site TBH. Basically anything taller than Orient will block as well.. so whats the issue with a monster?

^^ While I agree with that, the big difference is that the view of the Cathedral through the 480 Queen Street site was never a traditional vista, it was only created when the previous buildings on the site were demolished. There was no heritage requirement for Grocon to maintain that view, they are just doing this of their own accord.

This "city gateway" view, however, is a long existing one and might be considered a protected vista because of it. While there will be part of the view blocked, there are ways that at least some of the view could be retained, and it sounds like the new proposal might be able to accommodate this. The previous proposal I'm pretty sure would have blocked the complete view of the cathedral in my photo.

No idea about time-lines, but it appears as though they are moving quickly so I wouldn't be surprised if it was up in a month or so. As for construction dates, that's anyone guess.

Any updates on this Birkish?

I haven't heard anything new, but I haven't really been keeping my eye on it though. I've hardly been in the office since then.

Hi All - been lurking on this thread a while as I overlook this site and always wondered what was happening with.

Looking at it now, the "For Sale/Sold" sign is gone, and the gate is unlocked. Last week I saw some 'suits' on site taking pictures etc from the top of the 451 Ann St, so it does look like something is going on...

The cathedral is ugly and that site should have a decent sized building.

The cathedral is ugly and that site should have a decent sized building.


what?

The cathedral is ugly and that site should have a decent sized building.

I don't think very many people would agree with you about St John's Cathedral being ugly. While I do want to see that site redeveloped, I would like to see something which is sympathetic to the surrounding heritage and is able to partially retain that view if possible.

what?

Hopefully he thinks the pub in the foreground is called "The Cathedral" :lol:

I don't think very many people would agree with you about St John's Cathedral being ugly. While I do want to see that site redeveloped, I would like to see something which is sympathetic to the surrounding heritage and is able to partially retain that view if possible.


build to the sky for 550, the cathedral is pretty meh.

Found this:

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%22447-461%20ann%22%20cathedral%20brisbane&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brisbane.qld.gov.au%2F2010%2520Library%2F2009%2520PDF%2520and%2520Docs%2F2.%2520Planning%2520and%2520Building%2FCityCentre.doc&ei=xF0oUNWjK-iw6AGWmoCgCg&usg=AFQjCNEk-4f6o_VqbdIX862eNu9WFkAWaA


P71 Development:
• protects views to St John’s Cathedral from Gotha (along Ann), Queen and Boundary Streets
• enhances short range public views to the cathedral, in particular to the rose window
• preserves the visual character of Clark Lane
• is complementary in design to the Orient Hotel A71 Development of the site adjoined by the Orient Hotel, Ann Street and Clark Lane (447-461 Ann Street) achieves the following:
• a view to St John’s Cathedral from as far away as Gotha Street along Ann Street is preserved
• podium levels are built to the frontage with Clark Lane
• no building exceeds the eaves height of the Orient Hotel

See this thread for the new proposal for this site:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1579806