Henroth Group, the developer of a new West End residential project located at 281-297 Montague Rd, is calling for residents to have their say on the project.
The subject Montague Road site currently has an approved development scheme which comprises of five shorter twelve and six storey wall-to-wall buildings with no dedicated public park provision at ground level.
Henroth has proposed a new development proposal which instead plans to build taller and open up space for a new 4,000sqm park as well as public realm to be built at ground.
According to the development application, the proposed ground level site cover is being reduced from 55% to a total site area of 22%.
Senior Henroth Group Development Manager Adam Fahim believes that the new alternative plan represents a far better outcome for residents.
“In total, the new scheme is providing 7,300sqm of publicly accessible space as well as greater public access”.
“The project would also allow community connections travelling through the site to the Brisbane River as well as creating sight lines from Montague Road through to Davies Park”, – Adam Fahim said.
The development application which would supersede the current proposal is being considered by the Brisbane City Council.
Mr Fahim said the new development scheme would also accommodate an expansion of the second football field to a full-size field and the future widening of Montague Rd.
The project’s proposed plans also involves the activation of an underutilised corner of Davies Park which would assist to reduce safety concerns by providing an active retail/café edge overlooking the public space.
“The new scheme essentially allows us to open up the public realm below and create not only a park extension but a public 4,000sqm common space for all local residents to enjoy, the alternative approved scheme does not provide this and could still be built.”
“The 26 storey buildings would also provide rooftop garden recreation spaces for residents as well as four storeys of vegetation covering the podium levels facing Montague Road,” -Adam Fahim said.
Henroth has established a website which helps residents to compare the two schemes.
To make a submission on the project’s future, you can do so on the Brisbane City Council’s Developmenti website here.
Tell us what you think about this development below in the comment box. The development application for this project, available to view on Brisbane City Council’s Planning & Development Online is A005608649.
I am really disappointed by the assumption “Taller is better” inherent in this article. I am a local resident, and there is no 25 storey building within a 1km circle of this site.
This building proposal is a significant variance of the local height, and the belief that a set aside of public access land somehow “equalises” for the height is simply wrong. The current footprint of Davies park is large enough, combined with the riverside which is officially listed as Brisbane green space.
I would prefer we had the denser, lower rise development originally planned for the site. It conforms to the existing streetscape, and would be in fitting with the urban density goals.
I disagree with George. A low rise scheme which has no public space on the ground floor would be a bad outcome.
I don’t understand why people are afraid of building a little taller so that we can get some good amenities at street level? I would prefer housing people in the sky than bulldozing natural bushland to build suburban sprawl on the fringes of Brisbane.
Definitely supportive of this new scheme.
this new higher plan is an excellent idea if it genuinely provides extra ground walking and playing space and we do not see later the new foot ball field becomes another area for building more high rise when council rules change again, how can we trust that this new extra space is permanent?
I disagree with keeping the same height as current surrounding buildings: The expansion in higher buildings stretching out from the CBD/ South Bank and into the old commercial zones of the West End will only increase with time.
The only reason this will be knocked back is if council wants to “taper down” building heights as they approach the river edge (e.g. to ensure buildings set back a few blocks maintain river views.)
High density living in the West End is inevitable (and necessary) if Brisbane is going to reach Sydney’s current population levels by 2035 or earlier.
There’s good potential here for future public transport options -increased density along Montague Rd is ripe for future City-Cat stops.
I do not agree with @Greg that it is inevitable that West End must become high density living to increase population growth.
With a downwards trend on commuting to the city and an ever-increasing amount of telecommuting, it would seem far more valuable to maintain the unique nature of West End, rather than add more population for the sake of it.
These buildings will no doubt be unsuitable for families with the standard shoebox style apartments, which are increasingly unneeded, especially in the BSHS catchment area (another under pressure resource in the area).
For those of us lucky enough to live here, we find that public transport is still overcrowded during busy periods, even with the reduction in commuting currently being experienced. (Try getting a seat on a 199 or 60 between 0730-0930 inbound to the city, and that is without a pram or mobility restricted resident!). I have seen no evidence from BCC that they will improve this situation, with no ferry terminal plan in site on the Riverside Drive of West End… not to mention the new green bridges being built that will certainly bring a lot more people through West End upon their completion.
Can we talk about getting the extra green space, and the “low” rise buildings with some sustainable energy instead of some greenspace on top of some tall towers shadowing the existing park lands?
Brisbane has one of the largest Greater suburban areas on Earth, and so constantly growing outwards, using space and demolishing buildings to justify low-density living will eventually catch up to Brisbane, especially considering it is not even close to reaching the population of Sydney and Melbourne. In order to combat Urban expansion, we must populate our CBD’s and our innercity suburbs, not with buildings such as the approved development, but with taller, more sustainable and visually appealing buildings as the proposed taller one above.
Suburbs such as Spring Hill and Kangaroo Point, due to their close proximity to the CBD, should not be limited in height by nostalgia critics and activists, but we should be allowing for flexibility in our construction codes, whilst maintaining Brisbane’s old character in many of the heritage Queenslanders. Of course, as we grow bigger, the buildings are only going to grow higher, and so it would be silly to limit them to the CBD, and we should be focusing on areas, such as Toowong and Hamilton, where we should be experimenting with our capabilities and our architectural majesty, just as we were going to with the Zaha Hadid development in Toowong, which got canned despite being the most interesting building to get proposed in West Brisbane even in the years that followed.
Therefore, I encourage all developments to consider the ‘highest’ and most land resourceful options when planning. Brisbane can simply not keep expanding North, South or East, and expanding West would only create the destruction of even more nature. Yes, the second proposal is the best, most resourceful and in my opinion, best looking option.
I completely agree with those who support the concept of the development. A smaller footprint and increased height and therefore increase recreational space is very logical. I am confused why anyone who genuinely cares about the environment would not support increased inner suburban density and less urban sprawl, land clearing destruction of wildlife
the extra public park space is on the road side, with thoroughfare, so is not an effective park space at all – it’s a deception – the public park extra space should be on the other side and be all park, not interrupted by the thoroughfare which is for commercial access to the shops around the base. this is obvious, we know this. why do we allow developers to skew the representations of this, as we know they are primarily focussed on the profit, with community benefits being by chance/secondary.
The question is whether providing 4000m2 of parkland is an appropriate tradeoff for more than doubling of building height. The new proposal has an additional 30+ apartments and additional carparking more than the current DA. In my view adding green space to achieve a “full size” soccer field is not a high priority. I think the architectural outcome in the new proposal is superior to the current DA but height in West End – and on this prominent site – should be limited to 15 storeys in my view.
Surely these aren’t the only 2 options available on this site. Why is our choice only 12 storeys vs 26 storeys? West End is distinctly less dense than South Brisbane and 8-12 storeys (depending on site area) should be the upper height limit. Once a much higher precedent is approved the floodgates will open to destroy the unique character we enjoy.
I agree with Geoff a solution not higher than 15 storeys should be investigated.