For the record, theres no commitment to just build a similar shopping centre with lots of parking, So far what has been talked about is to build a mixed-use thing.
3 Likes
Obviously we shouldnât let developers build anywhere, but thatâs a strawman argument. It was previously a shopping centre, it is zoned as a shopping centre, and the land is 100m from Kalinga Park. Thereâs no shortage of green space in the area. What the people in the area desire is another shopping centre so they can avoid Chermside. Thatâs been made abundantly clear.
In fact, Iâd go as far as saying it would be in the public interest to have as much mixed use housing there as possible (assuming the proper risk mitigation is done) due to its location next to Toombul Station.
At the end of the day, I am going to reserve judgement until the development proposal is made to council. Until then, you canât judge whether it will sufficiently mitigate the flood risk or not.
Your logic doesnât make sense here⌠it costs more to build a flood resilient development with known risks, so therefore we shouldnât let developers spend more because it will increase insurance premiums? If more money is spent on flood risk mitigation, then the insurance will be lower because inherently the risk has been reduced.
It isnât a straw man argument because the facts have changed. I donât know if you appreciate how much climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of major floods. Areas that havenât flooded since European settlement are now flooding. And itâs only going to get worse in coming decades.
We have one park so thereâs no need for another? If thatâs what youâre saying, I donât agree. As population grows, we need more infrastructure and that includes the amount of accessible parkland.
We have dozens of railway stations we can build higher density around, and even plenty of other land around Toombul station that isnât a major flood risk, but this specific place needs to be Jam-packed with housing despite the vulnerability to floods? On this we can agree to disagree.
I was speaking in general rather than for this specific site. Sure, putting in immense amounts of flood mitigation controls on this site wonât raise insurance premiums, but the resulting extra costs will make the housing and businesses less affordable. Do we really need yet another playground for the well-off? And some types of flood mitigation end up increasing the risk of floods to nearby properties, because the waters are simply pushed to the sides.
I believe itâs better for society and a better use of resources if we leave places with huge flood risks to be open spaces instead of developing on them. And I donât believe itâs a good thing when private enterprise are permitted to go against the principles of good environmental planning simply because they can throw money at the issue.
I live in the area, and I can assure you Kalinga Park is huge, and it adjoins the equally large Shaw Park Sports complex. Additional housing in the area would do far more good than a little extra parkland.
I am acutely aware that climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of flooding events. Itâs also true that previously it was a huge asphalt parking lot with very little ground permeation. If modern sustainable building techniques are employed, the risk of major flooding on the site can be mitigated.
Morayfield is an example of a shopping centre build on flood prone land. Itâs elevated above flooding level using stilts, with the at risk land being used for carparking. Now, is this the best kind of sustainable flood resilient infrastructure? No. It was built decades ago, but it does show that itâs entirely possible. With our more advanced understanding of land permeability and flood simulations, I am confident that any development could be made sustainable and resilient.
Of course this will come with a cost, which is why I will not pass judgement until the development plan is released. Iâm approaching it with an open mind.
3 Likes
If the locals demand more parkland at Toombul then they have better chances of getting it it included rather than rely on the new owners to have bullshit âprovisionsâ for parkland in their design.
Logical âŚif only Brisbane City Council shared that design philosophy when it comes to DA approval time.
Paradoxical - Brisbane has a lot of low/medium density buildings in known flood areas but that has never stopped property development from building there. One would say that it was intentional.
As for Toombul, the image above says it all. You either floodproof it or you donât build on it at all - it is simple.
if you spend time and money on flood mitigation then the risk is lowered so is the insurance premiums. Why do they act like engineering doesnât exist when we talk about construction. Saying flood mitigation is not cheap is saying that flood clean up and repairs is cheaper than having flood mitigation and no little/no repairs and clean up. How is flood mitigation not profitable?
If you want to develop Toombul the price you have to pay is flood mitigation. As a new build they will naturally charge higher prices for business and residences because they can, not because they should.
What was wrong with Mirvacâs proposal that they couldnât finish what they started?
FlOoD mItIgAtIoN iS tOo ExPeNsIvE - InSuRaNcE pReMiUmS tOo HiGh!
1 Like
They will likely build a couple of mid rise apartment buildings and a park along with a supermarket and a cafe. Kmart is better off at Skygate stage 3. It can then run 24/7 improving customer delivery options and logistics.
The mid rise apartments could have 3 initial podium levels dedicated to parking and retail then residential above that with generators and pumps on floor three.
Maybe we could keep it civil and related to the actual points being raised instead of this juvenile nonsense.
I did come up with a concept of a stadium on the Old Toombul Site prior to the decision to build it at Victoria Park.
Looking back though, I donât think a stadium there would be feasible and itâs probably not the best spot for one.
1 Like
That wasnât Mirvacâs proposal. That was a visualisation put together by an architecture studio independently (probably to drum up publicity). It was in no way connected with what Mirvac had been working on, which probably hadnât gotten to the detailed visualisation stage.
The articles about the sale of the Toombul site indicate that Mirvac had developed a masterplan for a mixed use development of the site, which had received in-principle support from BCC but nothing beyond that. It had not been submitted as a development application, so this was all behind-the-scenes discussions.
Irvine Group have said that they intend to make use of Mirvacâs masterplan, while accelerating the development of the retail component. This plays to Irvineâs strengths - they are a much, much smaller developer than Mirvac, and even if Mirvacâs plans were fully developed, they would likely have struggled to fully replicate them. If Mirvac couldnât make the figures work for their plan, Irvine wouldnât have been able to either.
Mirvac were last month warning about downturns in the construction sector due to foreign investment, shortages of staff due to a lot of infrastructure projects and construction costs (they did state they were cooling). They just donât appear to have the same risk appetite and this project has too many Politicians invested in it (all trying to appeal to locals wants for Toombul V2 - it ainât happening) and I doubt they love this either. I think people are going to be upset when Irvineâs plans are released and itâs a very boutique mixed use option on a much smaller footprint. I think a small boutique mixed-use site is perfect, I would look at attracting Harris Farm to move from that awful Clayfield site.
3 Likes
In addition to the points above Mirvac has made a big push towards build to rent projects. I think thereâs probably a business strategy component to selling this. Theyâre nothing like Sekisui house or others with expertise and competence in long term place making developments.
Easier to do flood resilient development if youâre a sole occupant and large enough to self-insure. Generally thatâs probably going to be the use-case to make it work. Mixed-use sites the flood resilience will be a large up-front cost a lot of developers may not wish to make and recoup in residential and rental costs. Will be interesting to see what Irvine can do, most of their work is big-box industrial on freehold and a lot of just refurb history.
1 Like
Be good if Toombul be a TOD while move half of former toombul tenants to Skygate
Times are changing fast for retail these days
1 Like