SkyscraperCity banner

261 - 275 of 275 Posts

·
Registered
Tall building enthusiast
Joined
·
647 Posts
It was a little conspicuous how they already lopped ~50m off of it. I copped a mouthful in response to my Instagram post about the height change, but since then it seemed like it was full steam ahead?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,330 Posts
I agree, with QF Flyer, the proponents are some pretty big names, I can't see them going through with demolition and relodging a DA only to put it on ice at this stage.

The gantry would have been removed by the demolition contractor because demo works are at ground level or below now, and it is no longer needed. They were still working on site as of earlier this week.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,330 Posts
^^ The developers are pushing for them NOT to be forced to turn it into a dog park, having submitted a change of DA application last month asking for the short term landscaping requirement to be removed.

Proposed Change
"This minor change application relates to Conditions 7 and 63. Both of these conditions require the site to be landscaped within 3-4 months of demolition of the existing buildings being completed. Demolition of the existing buildings is currently occurring and the applicant intends to commence construction of the approved development as soon as possible. However, timing for construction commencement is dependent on future office tenant negotiations. Additional time is required to allow these negotiations to be concluded. There is unlikely to be any significant benefit in landscaping the site for a short period prior to construction commencing.

Based on the above, the applicant requests that the requirement to landscape the site be extended to 24 months after demolition is completed. The specific changes requested to Conditions 7 and 63 are provided in Appendix A.

The proposed changes should be supported for the following reasons:

▪ During the proposed 24 month period after demolition, the applicant intends to construct 2.1m high construction hoarding along both site frontages. This will ensure that the vacant site is not visible or unsightly when viewed from the Queen Street or Giffin Lane frontages.

▪ This hoarding will be treated with public artwork designed and installed by local Brisbane artists Authority Creative. This artwork will utilise local themes from Brisbane and surrounds. An example of the proposed artwork design is provided in Figure 1 below and Appendix B. This will ensure that an attractive streetscape with a high level of visual amenity will be provided along both frontages until the new building is constructed. It should also be noted that the artwork will be in colour and the below illustration is for information purposes only.

▪ Given the short period of time between demolition being completed and construction commencing, it is likely that any landscaping provided on site would be minimal and would not have time to grow to maturity (i.e. the landscaping would be installed and then almost immediately removed). This is not a positive outcome.

As demonstrated above, the proposed changes and the provision of public artwork along both site frontages until construction commences will deliver a better streetscape amenity outcome when compared to the requirements of the existing conditions of approval."


----------------------------------------------

Personally, I'm not sure if I support the application to defer the landscaping requirement. In this particular case, the high level hoarding with public artwork may be an alright alternative, and I could probably live with it if it is a <24 month solution, but overall I am sick of seeing vacant sites like The Regent and 30 Albert Street being fenced up and left to overgrow with weeds. I don't want to see this allowed, only for it to set a precedent further down the track to create another vacant eyesore.
 
261 - 275 of 275 Posts
Top