TALL OFFICE towers- UC and planned - Page 7 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > OZScrapers > Urban Spaces > Skyscrapers & General Urban Issues


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 20th, 2019, 04:51 AM   #121
Decatur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 2,217
Likes (Received): 3296

Quote:
Originally Posted by CULWULLA View Post
US group salesforce will anchor 25,000sqm in CQT
com bank has also committed 20,000sqm
also parts of the Colonial First State Global Asset Management business will take up space in the 70,000sqm tower.
Thanks mate, I went looking for that in Lend Lease's ASX reports but no dice.
Decatur no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old June 20th, 2019, 06:02 AM   #122
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 70,747
Likes (Received): 20809

120collins looking up to CQT
__________________
Church Hill tower- 1797, Macquarie Tower-1818, St James Church -1822, Garden Palace- 1879, Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2021, twin towers- 2024, supertall 2025 https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2019, 10:31 AM   #123
db2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,493
Likes (Received): 4358

Quote:
Originally Posted by db2 View Post
Don't think I did not notice this tidbit.

500 Bourke Street would be a good site for such a tower

I wonder if ISPT could do a Quay Quarter style development as noted in this excellent B1M video:



Gut and reuse the existing tower, and then extend from that.

P.S. Quay Quarter will be fantastic.
__________________

Grampians, CULWULLA, tower_dan liked this post
db2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old July 11th, 2019, 05:44 AM   #124
db2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,493
Likes (Received): 4358

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decatur View Post
Big news in the AFR tonight with this development going hard. Demolition commenced and a large co-worker tenant possible.

Also some bigger news. Latest vacancy figures for the Melbourne CBD are 3.5%. BIS Shrapnel think Melbourne is going to have an unprecedented four years going forward where vacancy rates remain under 6% with that peak likely in 20/21 as the current lot of towers complete. In this scenario, there is massive scope for:

1. 435 Bourke Street
2. 555 Collins St twin towers
3. 25 Power Street to be major office tower
4. Massive redevelopment of 500 Bourke Street and some surrounding properties
5. Green Spine increasing its already large office component to occupy most of the development
6. Another very large office tower on Bourke Street
7. 1 Queensbridge St to become a landmark office site
8. The redevelopment of 750 Collins Street
9. Jam Factory development of 50,000m2 NLA
10. 60 Collins Street
11. Redevelopment of 587 Collins and surrounding properties
12. MQ Tower
Some noteworthy items posted by Decatur in the 627 Chapel Street thread.

As always it will be survival of the fittest when it comes to new commercial office space in Melbourne town.

My take, I would cluster like this.

Certainty: Melbourne Quarter Tower (Lend Lease), 435 Bourke (CBUS), 555 Collins/55 King (Charter Hall) and 383 LaTrobe (Mirvac)

Mooted: 500 Bourke (ISPT) and 60 Collins (Dexus)

Possibilities: Green Spine (a portion as office), 595 Collins (Hong Kong Jeweller) which I assume Decatur listed above as 587 Collins (but that has already been built as a modern office tower / 126m).

I have extreme doubts about 35 Power Street / 38 Freshwater Place, rumours are swirling about it being repurposed as office. But this site is cursed since the owner has failed multiple times to sell the site. I doubt they have the capability to develop a landmark office tower in the middle of Southbank. But, they could prove me wrong, I hope they do, or whoever they sell to. Note, it could also shrink from 280m, maybe by quite a bit.

1 Queensbridge, I am sticking with that being a landmark hotel + residential tower in version 2 form. The site is too prime to remain empty for the long-term. I envisage a supertall, but much less chunky than the previous version.

Of all those 435 Bourke and 500 Bourke are the most interesting to myself. 435 Bourke should be around 250m and 500 Bourke could even be taller if ISPT has the will.
db2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 10:07 AM   #125
db2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,493
Likes (Received): 4358

Good news: Melbourne's first 200m plus office tower, last was about 3 decades ago.

Bad news: massive height chop for 435 Bourke Street.

A victim of heritage and plot ratio.

Old scheme: 253m / 270m RL

New scheme: 210m / 226m RL

Looks very ugly now:

db2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 12:11 PM   #126
primal beauty
Aesthetics
 
primal beauty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,107
Likes (Received): 529

Quote:
Originally Posted by db2 View Post
Good news: Melbourne's first 200m plus office tower, last was about 3 decades ago.

Bad news: massive height chop for 435 Bourke Street.

A victim of heritage and plot ratio.

Old scheme: 253m / 270m RL

New scheme: 210m / 226m RL

Looks very ugly now:

You are exaggerating now db2 with your 'ugly' remarks...to me it still looks high quality, and with that top finish, similar to your favourite Queens Place development...
primal beauty no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 12:19 PM   #127
db2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,493
Likes (Received): 4358

Quote:
Originally Posted by primal beauty View Post
You are exaggerating now db2 with your 'ugly' remarks...to me it still looks high quality, and with that top finish, similar to your favourite Queens Place development...
The roof box looks terrible (to my eyes).
The design looks off-balanced (ugly to my eyes).

The original version would have been one of, if not, the best looking office tower in the country.
db2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 12:24 PM   #128
primal beauty
Aesthetics
 
primal beauty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,107
Likes (Received): 529

Agree that other design was much nicer and unique, but we have to contend with this new design and hope that the quality is a top notch!
primal beauty no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 09:15 PM   #129
tower_dan
Registered User
 
tower_dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 3,403
Likes (Received): 1602

Firstly, why those plant box "things" couldn't still be hidden behind a sloping roof I'll never know...


Quote:
Originally Posted by db2 View Post
I wonder if ISPT could do a Quay Quarter style development as noted in this excellent B1M video:

Gut and reuse the existing tower, and then extend from that.

P.S. Quay Quarter will be fantastic.
Secondly, thank you db2! (clutches pearls and holds back a tear, makes it worth it), this video was a nightmare and very nearly didn't happen (#diplomacy).

I love QQT and it is an incredible project rusisng and expanding such a large existing tower.

Having seen Cnd's shots in the 200m thread this is going to look EXACTLY like the renders.

Dare I say it, this is my favourite project in Sydney right now, nothing beats that facade, so unique and so Sydney!
__________________
Melbourne: 45 'scrapers and counting
tower_dan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2019, 10:39 PM   #130
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 70,747
Likes (Received): 20809

Quote:
Originally Posted by db2 View Post
Good news: Melbourne's first 200m plus office tower, last was about 3 decades ago.

Bad news: massive height chop for 435 Bourke Street.

A victim of heritage and plot ratio.

Old scheme: 253m / 270m RL

New scheme: 210m / 226m RL

Looks very ugly now:

those heights don’t make sense


btw just because a tower is now shorter doesn’t make it ugly
you guys need to jump of your high horse and don’t worry about fkn height all the time
designs are more important or you’ll end up with a shit skyline like
it’s a 200m office tower??? you guys should be ecstatic

Last edited by CULWULLA; October 11th, 2019 at 12:25 AM.
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 12:25 AM   #131
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 70,747
Likes (Received): 20809

about bloody time we get to see plans
ive sent these to CTBUH and let them decide where height will be taken from
48 floors?
RL225.8m-RL18.9m (natural ground surface)=206.9m? -my guess
RL225.8m-RL19.5m (ground floor foyer)= 206.3m?
RL225.8m-RL16.5m (lower ground) =209.3m?
RL225.8m-RL15.8m (rear st access) =210m?- entry to main foyer is by stairs which cant be included as point of measurement.
















grd heights
__________________
Church Hill tower- 1797, Macquarie Tower-1818, St James Church -1822, Garden Palace- 1879, Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2021, twin towers- 2024, supertall 2025 https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 12:37 AM   #132
db2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,493
Likes (Received): 4358

Quote:
Originally Posted by tower_dan View Post
Dare I say it, this is my favourite project in Sydney right now, nothing beats that facade, so unique and so Sydney!
I have it equal with Crown now. Very good design.
db2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 02:53 AM   #133
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 70,747
Likes (Received): 20809

managed to draw up 3D from plans
i have it at 209m
comes in at no15 in Aus


__________________
Church Hill tower- 1797, Macquarie Tower-1818, St James Church -1822, Garden Palace- 1879, Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2021, twin towers- 2024, supertall 2025 https://www.buildsydney.com/forum

db2, Meldon liked this post
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 03:01 AM   #134
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 70,747
Likes (Received): 20809

placed in google earth




__________________
Church Hill tower- 1797, Macquarie Tower-1818, St James Church -1822, Garden Palace- 1879, Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2021, twin towers- 2024, supertall 2025 https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 03:21 AM   #135
Grollo
Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: melbourne
Posts: 7,443
Likes (Received): 1946

Quote:
Originally Posted by CULWULLA View Post
RL225.8m-RL15.8m (rear st access) =210m?- entry to main foyer is by stairs which cant be included as point of measurement.
Wrong. The McKillop Street entrance permits access to the primary uses in the building via the elevators. How do the stairs prevent access to the elevator lobby???
__________________
https://www.southbankbybeulah.com/
Grollo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 03:49 AM   #136
db2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,493
Likes (Received): 4358

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grollo View Post
Wrong. The McKillop Street entrance permits access to the primary uses in the building via the elevators. How do the stairs prevent access to the elevator lobby???
There is nothing in the rules precluding stairs.

All of us have read the rules multiple times, the only thing that matters is that the entrance be:

- a pedestrian entrance (as compared to a service entrance)

- that leads to the primary use of the building via elevators (retails and carpark entrances are excluded)

Folks like us get to choose the lowest pedestrian entrance (aka the Trump Tower Chicago rule).

Stairs and escalators in the lobby are not mentioned in their rules, hence are irrelevant (as discussed for By the Gardens).
db2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 04:05 AM   #137
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 70,747
Likes (Received): 20809

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grollo View Post
Wrong. The McKillop Street entrance permits access to the primary uses in the building via the elevators. How do the stairs prevent access to the elevator lobby???
my rule would be main foyer. thats where its should be measured from.
it used to be years ago by the World almanac. then it changed and got muddled

side/ rear /small entries shouldnt be included
garbage.
__________________
Church Hill tower- 1797, Macquarie Tower-1818, St James Church -1822, Garden Palace- 1879, Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2021, twin towers- 2024, supertall 2025 https://www.buildsydney.com/forum

Last edited by CULWULLA; October 11th, 2019 at 04:16 AM.
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 04:17 AM   #138
Barwon Boy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,274
Likes (Received): 851

Quote:
Originally Posted by CULWULLA View Post
so you have to go up a lift or stairs/escalators to get to main foyer? that sounds like insigificant entry indeed.
my rule would be main foyer. thats where its should be measured from.no use of stairs or lift to get to main lobby of tower
it used to be years ago by the World almanac. then it changed and got muddled

side/ rear /small entries shouldnt be included
garbage.
So you admit now...that it was YOUR rule???
If you had any bit of credibility left...it's gone now.
Barwon Boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 04:18 AM   #139
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 70,747
Likes (Received): 20809

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barwon Boy View Post
So you admit now...that it was YOUR rule???
If you had any bit of credibility left...it's gone now.
my rule if i had my way. admit what?
what the fuk you talking about??
__________________
Church Hill tower- 1797, Macquarie Tower-1818, St James Church -1822, Garden Palace- 1879, Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2021, twin towers- 2024, supertall 2025 https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 04:19 AM   #140
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 70,747
Likes (Received): 20809

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grollo View Post
Wrong. The McKillop Street entrance permits access to the primary uses in the building via the elevators. How do the stairs prevent access to the elevator lobby???
not even shown on elevations , doesnt sound primary entry to me?
its called 435 Bourke st not 435 mckillop
__________________
Church Hill tower- 1797, Macquarie Tower-1818, St James Church -1822, Garden Palace- 1879, Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2021, twin towers- 2024, supertall 2025 https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us