SkyscraperCity banner

2801 - 2820 of 2871 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
...so if nobody goes to inner city parkland like the Botanic Gardens or Roma Street Parklands, we should just pave over them and force the people living in the inner city suburbs to travel to the outskirts if they want to sit on the grass in the sun, or let the kids kick a ball around?

A big compromise to apartment living is obviously the lack of a backyard, which makes the provision of both recreation space within developments (rooftop pool & BBQ area, etc) and nearby public park space extremely important.

That section of Woolloongabba does have a lack of parkland, especially for the number of residents we can expect living in 10 years time. Combining a section of parkland into a mixed use development in the very hard of the area makes perfect sense. It can also help double as the enlarged entry plaza to The Gabba that is being proposed.
That's what I said put the parkland where everybody will go not on the outskirts where nobody will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,323 Posts
^^ But the Gabba Station won't be on the outskirts for the community the parkland would be serving. It would be part of the focal point for that growing high density neighbourhood - opposite the local Coles and diagonally opposite the Logan Road dining precinct.

I think the thing that would make a park at the Gabba less likely is that the government will want maximum return for the land meaning more buildings by developers.
Depends on who is elected - Labor has an election commitment on the table to retain 50% of the Gabba site as parkland.

 

·
...........
Joined
·
23,969 Posts
I may have had a different opinion in the past, however I'm personally a fan of big density and a good proportion of the site as parkland. No-one looks to Anzac Square and Post Office Square and complains we should have parkland so close to Central Station ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
see what did i told you guys about the parklands hahah so 50% for gabba probs look like this? funny how labor is now following the sam footsteps as the greens
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Personally, I'm 100% down with any form of public parkland, especially in such anecessary spot. Half the total site would be perfect as it would still allow high rise development to proceed if not encourage the developers to go higher. This is the perfect chance to make a truly beautiful space between the new station and stadium. I believe strongly they should still bridge the site and stadium with a pedestrian walkway as to get as many people away from crossing that intersection during events. I see the greens have neglected that item in their proprosal. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,937 Posts
see what did i told you guys about the parklands hahah so 50% for gabba probs look like this? funny how labor is now following the sam footsteps as the greens
Hahaha. No high rises there. Would there really be enough room for a full size soccer field and athletic track without room for anything else that's depicted there.
I'm gathering that that is what the greens want to see there? That depiction doesn't even show the crossing over Main St.
 

·
...........
Joined
·
23,969 Posts
see what did i told you guys about the parklands hahah so 50% for gabba probs look like this? funny how labor is now following the sam footsteps as the greens
Hopefully it doesn't look like that at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,937 Posts
Personally, I'm 100% down with any form of public parkland, especially in such anecessary spot. Half the total site would be perfect as it would still allow high rise development to proceed if not encourage the developers to go higher. This is the perfect chance to make a truly beautiful space between the new station and stadium. I believe strongly they should still bridge the site and stadium with a pedestrian walkway as to get as many people away from crossing that intersection during events. I see the greens have neglected that item in their proprosal. :rolleyes:
I noticed last night that our two responses were at the same time and pretty much meaning the same. I couldn't be bothered deleting mine so left it in. Hope you didn't think I was trying to steal you thunder. :ROFLMAO:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,454 Posts
see what did i told you guys about the parklands hahah so 50% for gabba probs look like this? funny how labor is now following the sam footsteps as the greens
A vast increase in pedestrian numbers with it seems no increase in pedestrian access to the site will end in tears.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,323 Posts
Hahaha. No high rises there. Would there really be enough room for a full size soccer field and athletic track without room for anything else that's depicted there.
I'm gathering that that is what the greens want to see there? That depiction doesn't even show the crossing over Main St.
Hopefully it doesn't look like that at all.
That is one of two visions prepared by the Greens for the site. That one is the "Blue Green Vision" which is 100% community uses for the site. Their other one is a Mixed Use Vision which incorporates a single office tower, two high density apartment buildings and three "residential walkup" lowrise apartments, all to be non-profit, government-owned housing of course.



I'm not expecting Labor's plans to look anything like this, for obvious reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
I noticed last night that our two responses were at the same time and pretty much meaning the same. I couldn't be bothered deleting mine so left it in. Hope you didn't think I was trying to steal you thunder. :ROFLMAO:
No thunder stolen here Gerry haha. I'm glad we share the same perspective! I just hope this site doesn't become wasted potential.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
331 Posts
I like the ideas in either of the two examples, I'm all for the greenspace. Something still feels off about it, it still feels very disjointed. I'm just trying to figure out what demographic they're aiming for here
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,983 Posts
So by that thinking, you would suggest that Roma Street Parklands, a massive area directly adjacent to the city's largest PT node, would have been better off completely developed into housing rather than the much beloved parklands that it is today?

Woolloongabba Station is located right in the middle of major residential development precinct - in time that block will be largely encircled by high density residential developments. I don't see the need to then cram as many apartments as humanly possible directly on top of the site as well. There is a noted shortage of park space in the neighbourhood, and the Government already owns a block of land that can be partially used for that purpose, so why force them to fully develop it and then go and buy expensive property off the market to use for the purpose of parkspace? With the amount of surrounding developments, making a portion of the site parkland really shouldn't affect the catchment too much.
I hope you’re not expecting another ‘Roma st Parklands’ at the Gabba, the inclusion of green space within a development Isn’t the same as the development of a park like Roma St.

Roma St and Woolangabba are apples and oranges, what I’m proposing at the Gabba is instead of leaving 50% of the space as green space, that they develop a larger portion and use the revenue received to develop parkland in the surrounding suburb.

Look at somewhere like Flagstone or Springfield, would you really surround the station with parkland and then put the density further away, increasing the walk up distance? Or place the density over the station and intermingle the parkland within the surrounding area?

The land on top of the station is of greater value then some of the surround land, it shouldn’t come at a financial loss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
The land on top of the station is of greater value then some of the surround land, it shouldn’t come at a financial loss
To be specific, you oppose an opportunity loss, not an actual loss. Unrealised profits are not actual losses. Hyde Park is worth millions, just knock over the war memorial, put up a parking lot...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,983 Posts
To be specific, you oppose an opportunity loss, not an actual loss. Unrealised profits are not actual losses. Hyde Park is worth millions, just knock over the war memorial, put up a parking lot...
To be specific I oppose the actual cost of increasing the average walk up distance at a major public transport station, opportunity cost of using the land directly above for green space is a byproduct or the same issue.

there are no unrealised profits in what I have suggested compared to what exists under the 50% green space commitment.

Hyde Park? War Memorials... now you’re just attempting to pander.. what’s next, nurses, children?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,323 Posts
I hope you’re not expecting another ‘Roma st Parklands’ at the Gabba, the inclusion of green space within a development Isn’t the same as the development of a park like Roma St.

Roma St and Woolangabba are apples and oranges, what I’m proposing at the Gabba is instead of leaving 50% of the space as green space, that they develop a larger portion and use the revenue received to develop parkland in the surrounding suburb.

Look at somewhere like Flagstone or Springfield, would you really surround the station with parkland and then put the density further away, increasing the walk up distance? Or place the density over the station and intermingle the parkland within the surrounding area?

The land on top of the station is of greater value then some of the surround land, it shouldn’t come at a financial loss.
Firstly no, I'm not expecting a Roma Street Parklands for the Gabba. The Parklands is a larger parkland that aims to attract people from a wider area (like the Botanic Gardens (Mt Coot-tha) and South Bank Parklands do, and future Victoria Park will). I'm advocating for a smaller area of outdoor recreation space for the use of nearby residents. A kids playground and/or a landscaped nature play area similar to The Commons at West Village, some areas to lay in the sun and maybe have a picnic, maybe add in a half court soccer pitch to kick a ball around and a cafe, in a site that can be integrated with the public realm areas of the adjacent developed area.

Secondly, you can't compare the high density of Woolloongabba to the sprawling low density of Flagstone or Springfield to Woolloongabba, as that is apple and oranges. We're talking about the population density still being exceptionally close to the station - literally across the road, or maybe a couple of blocks away from the station at most - still walking distance or a short bus ride up Logan or Ipswich Roads on any number of fairly frequent buses. We're not talking about the kilometres of driving that you inevitably get with the low density suburbia and limited PT. If your Woolloongabba apartment is too far from the Woolloongabba Station, say south of Deshon Street (South City Sq) for example, you're closer to Buranda Station anyway.

As for Springfield & Flagstone, Springfield Central has a 24ha park in close proximity to the station with the Robelle Domain & Oasis Lagoon, and Flagstone has it's $12 million regional recreation park across the road from the proposed station location, so there must be merit in locating such park space centrally even out there. The majority of the other surrounding land looks to be used as, or earmarked for, commercial, education or health uses - I guess people don't move to Springfield or Flagstone to then live in apartments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,454 Posts
I think the parks in Springfield and Flagstone are on watercourses either flood or overland flow. And I suspect PEET know no one will buy land next to the train line which is expected to be 4 tracks wide w/ coal and possible double stacked freight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,323 Posts
^^ Yes, parts of the Robelle Domain does include Mountain Creek and it's immediate surrounds, but it also incorporates a large amount of space that looks to sit well above creek/flood level. As for Flagstone, you give PEET far too much credit given the proposed amount of residential (light grey in the map) that backs up right against the rail corridor.

639370
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,983 Posts
Firstly no, I'm not expecting a Roma Street Parklands for the Gabba. The Parklands is a larger parkland that aims to attract people from a wider area (like the Botanic Gardens (Mt Coot-tha) and South Bank Parklands do, and future Victoria Park will). I'm advocating for a smaller area of outdoor recreation space for the use of nearby residents. A kids playground and/or a landscaped nature play area similar to The Commons at West Village, some areas to lay in the sun and maybe have a picnic, maybe add in a half court soccer pitch to kick a ball around and a cafe, in a site that can be integrated with the public realm areas of the adjacent developed area.

Secondly, you can't compare the high density of Woolloongabba to the sprawling low density of Flagstone or Springfield to Woolloongabba, as that is apple and oranges. We're talking about the population density still being exceptionally close to the station - literally across the road, or maybe a couple of blocks away from the station at most - still walking distance or a short bus ride up Logan or Ipswich Roads on any number of fairly frequent buses. We're not talking about the kilometres of driving that you inevitably get with the low density suburbia and limited PT. If your Woolloongabba apartment is too far from the Woolloongabba Station, say south of Deshon Street (South City Sq) for example, you're closer to Buranda Station anyway.

As for Springfield & Flagstone, Springfield Central has a 24ha park in close proximity to the station with the Robelle Domain & Oasis Lagoon, and Flagstone has it's $12 million regional recreation park across the road from the proposed station location, so there must be merit in locating such park space centrally even out there. The majority of the other surrounding land looks to be used as, or earmarked for, commercial, education or health uses - I guess people don't move to Springfield or Flagstone to then live in apartments.
There is plenty of low density at woolangabba with all the heritage and character housing through, that’s why it’s critical that key development locations like those sitting on top of a train station are made available for high density development. And development locations in the middle ring slightly further out from the high density can be used as parkland to soften the step down between high density and low density character housing. It’s about the bigger picture, and not just being fixated on this one site alone. Shit, it would actually allow a larger population in the area if done this way as well

Springfield has parkland close to the station, what it doesn’t have is parkland on top of the station and immediately surrounding, increasing walk up distances for everyone’s. let’s be clear, I’m not entirely against parkland been ‘close’ to the station, just not 50% of the stations development site.
 
2801 - 2820 of 2871 Posts
Top