It will be quite tall. Just look how tall it is, by compairing it to that render with the other buildings. (Ie: Rialto)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/drunkill/My%20pictures/9th%20of%20Sept%202004/P1020237.jpg

when i contacted mcc for heights the planner didnt even mention a spire? lol
ill call back next week to confirm if its still in design. if it is ill get height.
i like the shape of this one.spire looks 220m? maybe higher. if it is, it sure will jump up the tallest list because of spire inclusion
hehe

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Please, lets not start this debate Cul (spires adding height to buildings).

We Victorians (at least most of us) do not regard 'flag poles' as adding additional height to the over all building height. It's a flag pole - period.

If you can stand on it, stand in it and or live in it then count it. If not, then see it as a cosmetic addition for birdlife.

P.S I forgot to mention in my earlier post that it's a nice design (IMO). I think Melbourne needs something 'triangular' or 'non boxy' to roof (Eureka aside) to give a different feel.

Spires and flagpoles are the easy option and are becoming a bit boring.

:tiasd: Damn spiers. But a nice big aussie flag at the top cannot go wront, but if it is for looks and not a flagpole, screw it.

I would like a square buildingm with rounded edges, you know? Like that hotel that tayser planned to stay at for the syd weekend.

a round one, yeah as long as it was rather tallish, does not need to be anywhere great, but like you know 20+ levels or elese it would be rather shortish and look bad.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Please, lets not start this debate Cul (spires adding height to buildings).

We Victorians (at least most of us) do not regard 'flag poles' as adding additional height to the over all building height. It's a flag pole - period.

If you can stand on it, stand in it and or live in it then count it. If not, then see it as a cosmetic addition for birdlife.
? not starting a debate.lol. just acquiring height stats for you guys and ss.com ect. i think also it would look better without spire. I dont think its a flagpole? cant see flag? not many skyscrapers have flagpoles anymore . just spires or antenna structures.
cheers

? not starting a debate.lol. just acquiring height stats for you guys and ss.com ect. i think also it would look better without spire. I dont think its a flagpole? cant see flag? not many skyscrapers have flagpoles anymore . just spires or antenna structures.
cheers

I think his point cul is that although you observe the CTBUH 'ruling' on building height - we Victorians do not recognise or acknowledge their 'method' for determing offical height.

Never have, never will - not a E vs Q1 thing as you know it goes back to Rialto vs. 120C/101C etc.

So 170m it officially is for us.. nothing more nothing less.

I think his point cul is that although you observe the CTBUH 'ruling' on building height - we Victorians do not recognise or acknowledge their 'method' for determing offical height.

Never have, never will - not a E vs Q1 thing as you know it goes back to Rialto vs. 120C/101C etc.

So 170m it officially is for us.. nothing more nothing less.
us? i thought victoria was part of Australia? lol
anyway im not observing "spire rule" ect, i was just going to find out spire height for you guys.and let you know officially. just helping out.
cheers

fkjldnfdsafsdalfmkldsmfksdfmldsamflksanflsa STFU with the counting spire shit.

Anyway. I really like the spire.
I like them in general. I think they look good.

fkjldnfdsafsdalfmkldsmfksdfmldsamflksanflsa STFU with the counting spire shit.


LOL - you've all been told!

fkjldnfdsafsdalfmkldsmfksdfmldsamflksanflsa STFU with the counting spire shit.

Anyway. I really like the spire.
I like them in general. I think they look good.
lol, more spires the better!! higher higher!!

Gday Guys,

I am sure we all agree that spires are nice and add a good touching finish to our buildings in Melbourne, but us Victorians prefer to not count it in the official heights ! To the roof and structual top is all we really care about !

Cheers

Lozza :bowtie:

i bet Victorians would count spires if Eureka was 322m to spire and Q1 was 297m to roof!!
believe me you would!
:sly: :cucumber:

i bet Victorians would count spires if Eureka was 322m to spire and Q1 was 297m to roof!!
believe me you would!
:sly: :cucumber:
I sure would. Those who support and are against the spire ruling would just swap places. :yes:

i know i wouldnt. Even if deep down i wanted to support it i wouldnt lol.

If Vision has a spire going to 260m, it isnt taller than Rialto.

im happy for the spire to b included tho.. so i can say Bris has a taller building to Roof AND spire than perth :P

i bet Victorians would count spires if Eureka was 322m to spire and Q1 was 297m to roof!!
believe me you would!
:sly: :cucumber:

This may be true, but show me a Melbourne forumer that doesn't consider Rialto to be their tallest building.

Omg You Know Our Evil Plot.

This may be true, but show me a Melbourne forumer that doesn't consider Rialto to be their tallest building.

Exactly - otherwise cul why wouldn't we be claiming for the past 10 years that we have 264m as our tallest building?

since the 1996 ruling by CTBUH, 120 collins has been tallest in oz, "officially" but Rialto has title of tallest to roof. remember guys, there many catorgories now!
Australian stats-
Rialto currently has 2 of the 5.
#tallest to roof
(Eureka will hold title with 297m from 2005)

#tallest office tower
Rialto

120 collins st
#tallest to structural
(to be surpassed by Eureka & eventually Q1 for title next year)

World Tower
#most number of floors (83, or 73 above)
(Eureka will have this title with 92 or 91 above from 2005)

#tallest residential
Eureka is now taller then WT but "officially" Eureka has to be completed to be considered new title of holder, which will happen next year.

so Rialto will still hold title of tallest office tower to roof for many years to come!
thats 1 from 7.
------
tallest catorgories in 2005
tallest skyscraper to roof-Eureka-297.1m (also worlds tallest res)
tallest skyscraper to structure-Q1-322.5m (also worlds talelst res)
tallest office tower to roof-Rialto-251m
talelst office tower to structure-120 collins st-264m
most number of floors-92/91 above -Eureka
highest observation-282m-Eureka
fastest lifts- Q1 & Eureka-9mpersec

if there was a 400m stick on top of a suburban home would that be tallest in aus?

That wouldn't be structural. IIRC, there's a rule which states that a spire must not make up more than a certain portion of a structure's height in order for it to be counted.

if there was a 400m stick on top of a suburban home would that be tallest in aus?
i think everyone has lost the plot?lol
as AG says, it has to be structural and major part of design! simple

That wouldn't be structural. IIRC, there's a rule which states that a spire must not make up more than a certain portion of a structure's height in order for it to be counted.
and what that ?
as talked about before 126 P must be pushing it