Archive for the ‘Rumours’ Category

City Pacific’s ‘White Knight’ Expected to be Revealed Today

Wednesday, March 12th, 2008

After several days of negotiations with three parties, it is anticipated that City Pacific will announce the sale of some of their assets later today.  The sale is expected to include the 11,000 square metre Surfers Paradise beachfront site that the company amalgamated last year with local developer Craig Perry’s Insight group.

At this stage, the identity of the bidders has not been confirmed, although it is speculated that Sunland and Mirvac – City Pacific’s joint venture partner on the $1bn Gainsborough Greens development are among them.   Details of the deal should become available by the end of the day.

Share

King Tide to Go Into Council Shortly

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008

It is believed that City Pacific Ltd will soon lodge plans with Council for the development on the King Tide site on Broadbeach Boulevard.

Given that Council recently rejected APG’s plans for a 27 storey building at the northern end of the block (knocking it down to 20 storeys), it will be interesting to see exactly what City Pacific ask for and – more importantly – receive.  The ‘Talisman’ building, next door to the King Tide site, is 25 storeys high, although the current town plan limits developments to 20.

Given the position of the building, and current market trends, it is likely that the new development will be a high-end residential-only building (much like the nearby ‘Waterline’ building), although at this stage, all we have to go on are rumours.

Share

Albert Avenue Commonwealth Bank Site Update

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008

After rumours flying about the future of the Matthews Property Group (MPG) site in central Broadbeach, things seem to have settled down.  The background story, to the best of my knowledge, goes as follows:

  1. Matthews Property Group purchased the NAB and CBA sites on Albert Ave in Broadbeach around July 2006.
  2. At this time, it was believed that they could overcome the fact that the NAB had a lease on their half of the site until 2010
  3. It was subsequently decided that the NAB would not relinquish their lease, and as such that portion of the contract was rescinded
  4. MPG activated an option they had over the (then-) Raptis-owned Niecon Plaza in Broadbeach
  5. MPG modified their plans, using some of the air rights gained from the addition of Niecon Plaza to the site to build a larger building on the Commonwealth Bank site

It is expected that plans will come out of Council around the middle of 2008 – which should coincide with the completion of MPG’s Ocean Pacific project in southern Broadbeach.

Details of the building on the CBA site are still unconfirmed (and will likely remain that way until Council have made their final ruling).  It is not known if MPG will take full advantage of the 35-storey height limit in that part of central Broadbeach.  There have also been unconfirmed rumours that the building will include a residential section and serviced apartment section.

Further details (and rumours) will be added as they come to light.

Share

Amalgamated Property Group to Challenge Council Ruling?

Friday, December 14th, 2007

It is by no means confirmed, but there are a number of people who believe that APG may challenge the ruling on their Broadbeach Boulevard development site (discussed here).  Perhaps the most notable being City Planning Chairman Ted Shepherd – the only member who did not vote to reject APGs original 27-level submission.

The chief argument goes as follows:

  1. APG have not exceeded the plot ratio (that is, the number of bedrooms allowed on the site), only the height restriction of 20 storeys.
  2. The existing ‘Talisman’ building, on the southern corner of the same block (Cnr Broadbeach Boulevard & Queensland Avenue) is 27 storeys and therefore the precedent has been set for height in the area.
  3. Therefore, provided that they continue to adhere to the plot ratio, APG should be allowed 27 storeys on their site.

This presents an interesting situation for a number of reasons, one of the chief ones being that a legal challenge to the ruling represents a challenge to the existing town plan, and as such, set a precedent for future action. While any legal action would be costly (for both sides) and probably drawn out over some time, APG certainly has the size and depth of pocket to mount such a challenge if they feel that they stand a reasonable chance of winning.

This is only a rumour at this stage, but it will be interesting to see what course of action APG decide to take.

Share