Wayne Purcell for Better Planning Gold Coast

Following revelations that Council has pencilled more than $𝟑𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬 into the next four budgets, attention now turns to what might soon have a For Sale sign out the front.

According to the latest Bulletin article*, several “𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐚𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬” are being eyed off to help fund the Gold Coast Arena.

The Mayor argues selling land to fund community infrastructure - a hall, a library, an Arena - is beneficial. Generally, I agree. But only if the land is 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐬.

This is where it looks pretty shaky.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 “𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐬”

Mal Burke Car Park and Athol Paterson Car Park are currently car parks. Council charges $8.70/day - hardly a money‑spinner, so I can understand the argument that they’re not profitable.

But profitability is not the point.

Both sites have long‑held strategic purposes -

𝟏. 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬

In the current 𝐋𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧 (𝐋𝐆𝐈𝐏), both sites are identified as future 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬 to be delivered by 2036. This makes sense. As Southport grows into its role as the city’s CBD, high‑density needs matching public space. The Broadwater Parklands alone isn't enough.

Cities around the world rely on smaller civic squares to keep density liveable. Even Brisbane CBD (smaller than the Southport PDA) has four, plus the Botanic Gardens and Roma Street Parklands.

𝟐. 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞

Athol Paterson has also been earmarked for years as the logical home for a future Council administration building when the move from Bundall finally happens.

These are not leftover scraps of land. They are strategic CBD assets.

𝐁𝐮𝐭, 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞?

Curiously, there's an LGIP amendment currently underway^ that 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬 from future planning. This is despite the amendment also showing even 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐭𝐡 for Southport-North than previously projected.

Removing the parks from the LGIP makes the land far easier to be considered "surplus".

𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 -

● Is Council genuinely selling only “surplus” land?

● Are we sacrificing long‑term city‑building just to plug a financial hole?

● What future benefits - civic parks, public buildings, CBD flexibility - are being traded away in the process?

Over the last 6mths or so, there's been a number of headlines / rumours around Council "investigations" into potentially selling some of its land holdings. The latest involves a "secret" list of 100 properties*.

The Mayor responded by stating he has "no intention to sell them".

But, what does the budget tell us?

If you dig deep into Council's Annual Plan^, you will find a line item - 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭 / (𝐋𝐨𝐬𝐬) 𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐬 (p38).

This can include many things. It's not just land sales. Ordinarily, this sits around $5-10M/yr.

But, for the next 𝟒 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐭'𝐬 $𝟑𝟑𝟑𝐌!

What is Council proposing to sell in order to make about $𝟑𝟎𝟎𝐌 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥?

And, if the Mayor has no intention to sell, why do these numbers remain in the "most heavily scrutinised budget"?

There’s been a lot of noise recently about air taxis on the Gold Coast, especially the headline‑grabber -

“𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐞 𝐀𝐢𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐔𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐁𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤”

It sounds fantastic (for those affording Uber Blacks), but the reality is far less straightforward.

Getting an air taxi into Brisbane Airport means crossing the busiest controlled airspace in Qld. Slotting slow‑climbing eVTOL aircraft into parallel runway operations is, in my view, highly unlikely. The more realistic scenario is landing outside the airport precinct and finishing the journey by road.

As for the “$900 total” price tag, I don’t think that’s where it will land once real operating costs are factored in.

But none of this means air taxis don’t have potential.

In fact, you may have seen Cr Glenn Tozer raise the idea of 𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐒𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐤.

It's not a bad one!

Springbrook is exactly the kind of route where air taxis can work - short distance, no controlled airspace, high tourism value, over difficult to construct terrain. When you compare the two options, the differences are striking.

𝐀𝐢𝐫 𝐓𝐚𝐱𝐢 (𝐞𝐕𝐓𝐎𝐋)

● Very low environmental impact — no towers, no clearing, no national park footprint
● Can take off from Surfers, Broadbeach or Southport
● Small capital cost (around $𝟏𝟎-$𝟐𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 for vertiports)
● Low political and environmental risk
● Ticket price around $𝟏𝟓𝟎-$𝟑𝟎𝟎 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧
● Door‑to‑door time around 𝟐𝟎-𝟑𝟎𝐦𝐢𝐧

𝐂𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐲

● High environmental impact - towers, clearing, permanent structures
● Base station would be far inland (Mudgeeraba), requiring ground transport first
● Large capital cost ($𝟒𝟎𝟎-$𝟔𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧+)
● High political and approval risk
● Ticket price around $𝟏𝟎𝟎-𝟏𝟓𝟎 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧, but with an added $𝟏𝟎-$𝟓𝟎 to get to the base
● Door‑to‑door time 𝟒𝟓-𝟕𝟓𝐦𝐢𝐧

Air taxis deliver most of the tourism benefit of a cableway at a fraction of the cost, with almost none of the environmental or political risk.

Of course, air taxis aren't actually operating in the world at the moment so there's still a long way to go. But, a cableway's a long way off as well (it's not getting built before the 2032 Olympics).

If Council is serious about “de‑risking” options for hinterland access and bringing air taxis to the GC, then this is an idea worth serious consideration.

It also potentially enables access to, not just Springbrook, but Binna Burra and O'Reilly's as well

There’s been a lot of conjecture about whether the Miami Arts Depot (MAD) is really a creative industries precinct, or more a major residential development wrapped in creative‑industry branding.

There’s also been some back‑and‑forth about how tall the buildings would need to be.

Now that the EOI documents have been released, we can get a clearer picture.

Based on the information contained in the EOI documents released by Council to tender participants, the 4‑hectare site is proposed to accommodate:

● 6,000 m² of “MADSCAPE” creative industries space
● 3,500 m² of retail
● A public plaza (size not specified)
● 𝟖𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎𝐦𝟐 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥, accommodating approx 780 dwellings

That’s over 13 times more residential than creative‑industry space.

𝐒𝐨 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝟖𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐦² 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤?

The EOI diagrams show a 3,250 m² ground‑floor footprint for the mixed‑use buildings (retail at ground level, residential above).

In real‑world built form, residential towers typically sit at 70–85% of the podium footprint once you account for setbacks, articulation and tower separation.
Using those standard planning assumptions, the residential floorplates would be in the range of 2,300–2,600 m².

When you divide 80,000 m² of residential GFA across those floorplates, you end up with buildings in the order of 𝟐𝟖–𝟑𝟒 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐲𝐬, plus podium levels.

Yet the diagrams released publicly show buildings of around 12 storeys. So either:

● the diagrams are purely illustrative,
● or the yield assumptions in the EOI don’t match the built form shown,
● or something in the numbers needs clarification.

And for those interested in the 𝐁𝐮𝐫𝐥𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐁𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐆𝐲𝐦𝐧𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬:

The EOI confirms that both facilities are proposed to be demolished as part of the redevelopment.

New artists impressions have dropped on what a 𝐌𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐢 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐭 (MAD) could look like.

There one pretty important question, though, that hasn't been answered along the way - 𝐖𝐡𝐲?

MAD (on the site of the Council depot) is supposed to become a mixed-use creative industries precinct that strengthens the Gold Coast’s cultural and economic landscape while delivering new residential, retail, and commercial spaces.

It sounds very familiar, though!

Back in 2015, Council launched their new Masterplan for the Gold Coast Cultural Precinct (now known as HOTA). It was to become a -

● "Cultural Centre of Gravity": clustering arts, culture and creative industries
● An economic driver: complemented by entertainment, retail and hospitality to attract investment

It was even embedded into the City Plan -

● "The Gold Coast Cultural Precinct is the focal point of the city’s cultural and creative activities"
● "Bundall and Gold Coast Cultural Precinct ... fosters creativity and innovation in art, design, lifestyle and performance industries"

Council also has quite a few office buildings across the road that could be repurposed for creative industries employment.

After all, the City Plan also says Council was to establish Southport as the Gold Coast's CBD and there's been long-term plans for Council to move there.

There's also plenty of privately-owned land and buildings in the Bundall area that could provide important studio space.

This is what does my head in - government and the community spending countless hours putting together masterplans, schemes, agreements etc only for it to be ignored.

Can anyone explain why we're going with MAD (and the subsequent flow-on effects with depot relocations) all of a sudden when we already have BAD?

The Mayor is calling on the State to build a wildlife overpass over the GC Hwy at Burleigh.

OK, but the data shows there are many other places on the Gold Coast where koala vehicle strikes happen more often.

According to Council’s own 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲‑𝗩𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗠𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 (𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟮), the Gold Coast Highway at Burleigh is 𝟭𝟰𝘁𝗵 on the hotspot list.

There are 𝟳 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝘀 and 𝟲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝘀 with higher koala strike numbers.

If we’re serious about reducing koala deaths, the logical starting point is the 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗲𝘀𝘁‑𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, not the mid‑ranked ones.

Does this mean the Mayor will commit to fully fund the $𝟭𝟯𝗠 𝗠𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 in this year’s budget, and advocating for measures on the higher‑ranking State‑controlled roads, including 𝗕𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗮𝗵, one of the city’s most significant hotspots?

After all, this program was paid for out of the 𝗞𝗼𝗮𝗹𝗮 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗟𝗲𝘃𝘆. It should lead to on‑the‑ground action, not sit on a shelf.

Koalas need evidence‑based action, not politics.