THREAD #11 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=207918)
[threadid = 207918]

Q1 = a care factor 0.01

try and stay on topic please.

kthnxbai! >_<

fark!! how many threads/posts has there been on eureka now tayser!!?
im gonna go and see the girl on monday hopefully, going to be nice sunny day sunday and monday ;-)

this is the result of night photography with no tripod .....shockin i know, and this was the best out of the lot :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/barsby/DSCN1874.jpg

Q1 = a care factor 0.01

LOL! :rofl:

fark!! how many threads/posts has there been on eureka now tayser!!?

Phi1ip's patented thread index thingy again rears it's head (given this is thread number 12, it seems worth doing):

Begun August 26th, 2003, 10:30 PM, 553 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=56486)
Begun December 9th, 2003, 07:32 PM, 773 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=76543)
Begun June 7th, 2004, 10:51 PM, 503 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=109888)
Begun August 3rd, 2004, 09:55 AM, 501 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=123136)
Begun September 23rd, 2004, 07:53 PM, 519 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=136928)
Begun November 10th, 2004, 06:39 PM, 502 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=150079)
Begun December 24th, 2004, 07:16 PM, 504 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=162337)
Begun January 17th, 2005, 08:30 PM, 504 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=170142)
Begun February 21st, 2005, 07:52 AM, 530 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=182677)
Begun March 23rd, 2005, 03:23 AM, 503 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=194363)
Begun May 1st, 2005, 10:00 AM, 503 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=207918)
Begun June 10, 2005, 5:54 PM, 4 posts counting this one: this thread right 'ere wot you're reading


Add 'em up and then add another 2,000 which were deleted off the system back in 2003!

so about 8000 posts!! :D
kk, i made a new com. mast and colour because the other one just sucked. here it is!
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/sC_apache/EurekaRenderNewColour.bmp
better or worse?

looks pritty good from here.

great diagram modena. 2 things
1.the lower section of the mast flares out slighty. see diagrams posted by dan.
2.your podium is still too low. the top of white boxy thing is 33m, you have it at 28.
the roof of carpark is 26m,you have 23m.
the colours are good.
cheers

LOL! :rofl:



Phi1ip's patented thread index thingy again rears it's head (given this is thread number 12, it seems worth doing):

Begun August 26th, 2003, 10:30 PM, 553 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=56486)
Begun December 9th, 2003, 07:32 PM, 773 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=76543)
Begun June 7th, 2004, 10:51 PM, 503 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=109888)
Begun August 3rd, 2004, 09:55 AM, 501 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=123136)
Begun September 23rd, 2004, 07:53 PM, 519 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=136928)
Begun November 10th, 2004, 06:39 PM, 502 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=150079)
Begun December 24th, 2004, 07:16 PM, 504 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=162337)
Begun January 17th, 2005, 08:30 PM, 504 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=170142)
Begun February 21st, 2005, 07:52 AM, 530 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=182677)
Begun March 23rd, 2005, 03:23 AM, 503 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=194363)
Begun May 1st, 2005, 10:00 AM, 503 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=207918)
Begun June 10, 2005, 5:54 PM, 4 posts counting this one: this thread right 'ere wot you're reading


Add 'em up and then add another 2,000 which were deleted off the system back in 2003!

fark!! thats a shitload of posts!! obviously the most popular thread the old eureka!

hey CULWULLA 2 posts of your 10,000 post!! thats some dedication mate! must be a reocrd on this forum, that many posts! congrats ;-)
most your posts are in the victoria forum, maybe you have a secret wish to move to melbourne one day! (when docklands are finish 2030!!)

^ yeah melbourne seems to be building alot of tallies. I want some.I really like Melbournes history.I hopefully will get down there this year or next.
10,000 posts? yeah i gotta get a life.lol

^hahahaha!!

you've been here since september 2002, so i guess its no suprise of so many posts!

great diagram modena. 2 things
1.the lower section of the mast flares out slighty. see diagrams posted by dan.
2.your podium is still too low. the top of white boxy thing is 33m, you have it at 28.
the roof of carpark is 26m,you have 23m.
the colours are good.
cheers
lol. i tried to fix up the base of the mast. looked crap, thought noone would notice. of course, you did again! :D about the podium, if i make it much higher, i'll have to change all the floors or something, cause, atm, the roof is at "297"[hehe], with a perfect amount of floors. [haven't counted, but i mean the white lines every 3 floors.] what to do?! i guess i'll just have to make it perfect. :cheers:

lol. i tried to fix up the base of the mast. looked crap, thought noone would notice. of course, you did again! :D about the podium, if i make it much higher, i'll have to change all the floors or something, cause, atm, the roof is at 397, with a perfect amount of floors. [haven't counted, but i mean the white lines every 3 floors.] what to do?! i guess i'll just have to make it perfect. :cheers:

Wow! Not far off Sears Tower then eh. ;)

Obviously the top ain't going to be yellow - so here's some bitmap gold I made earlier. You may want to play with it!

http://www.users.bigpond.com/stclair2/vpfill.bmp

Cheers,

Adam

Wow! Not far off Sears Tower then eh. ;)
:D i've been estimating those pictures again!! oh noes!
thanks adam, looks a bit green, but i'll see what i can do. cheers

CAnt wait to see E fully lit at night. Especially the gold crown.

on ya dan!
looks awesome
http://www.melbournephotos.net/webcam/mostrecent.php

^hahahaha!!

you've been here since september 2002, so i guess its no suprise of so many posts!
yeah most guys started here in Sept2002, after the old one closed.Ive probably got 5000posts deleted from total when monthly clean ups happen ect.
also skybar, new/sports ect dont register posts.lol
its all g00d. :cheers:

Hi Im a nubie.I think Eureka is going to be truly awesome when finished esp the gold bit.

yeah, will the gold crown by lit by yellowish neon lights? or will the trust the sun to light it up for them?

Towering above everything else when FWP is out of shot...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/mugley/eur1106_1.jpg

And another go at the Banana Alley angle:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/mugley/eur1106_2.jpg

A little query here. Where will Eureka be at the time of q1's exterior completion.

A little query here. Where will Eureka be at the time of q1's exterior completion.

Just south of the Yarra, near the casino.

Has the spire actually been approved?

Has the spire actually been approved?
spire? its actually more like a communications mast. its going through development application process atm. could be a couple more months until its approved.

spire? its actually more like a communications mast. its going through development application process atm. could be a couple more months until its approved.
What's the difference between a spire and a 'communications mast'?

^lol. poor cull has explained this 'mast' thing 100s of times.
from what i know, a spire does nothing and a communications mast is like a giant antenna :)

What's the difference between a spire and a 'communications mast'?

Beats the shit outta me! I think that one is there for looks whilst one is there for a purpose. I have doubts about taking a climb up among those microwave dishes and mobile phone relay stations. In particular as when I was in the defence force we used to get quite sensitive about letting soldiers sleep near some of the more powerful antennas because of microwave tempest.

when everyone has moved in and are all chucking parties :D
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/sC_apache/EurekaNight.bmp
[i know the podium is still stuffed]

spire? its actually more like a communications mast. its going through development application process atm. could be a couple more months until its approved.

Ah, i see, so its more form over function - so will everything be internal (looking by the design), like mobile phone transmitters, TV, radio, etc. I can't really say i'd like the idea of them putting dishes all over it like they did with 120 Collins.

Eureka Tower reaches the clouds (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15582814%255E2862,00.html)
Herald Sun (www.heraldsun.com.au)
By Andrea Moss
12 June 2005

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,5016508,00.jpg

THIS is the view from the highest workplace in Melbourne: 300m above ground at Eureka Tower (far right).

The pictures, from well above the clouds, were taken by the skyscraper's crane driver on top of the tower.

They views of city's other tall towers battling to pierce the clouds (above) are usually seen only from a plane.

Eureka Tower dominates the skyline: the 92-level, 300m core of the building is finished, concrete floors have reached level 73, walls and windows have been installed to level 65 and almost 175 residents are living in their finished apartments up to level 34.

Gold glass will be added to the top seven storeys in October.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union state secretary Martin Kingham said the sheer heights at which high-rise crane operators worked meant they could not even see the loads they were lifting.

At a building as tall as Eureka Tower, that meant communicating with crane crews many floors below by two-way radio, instead of the whistled codes used at other building sites.

"It is a high-stress job and the safety is in how they do their work," Mr Kingham said. "A plastic hard hat is not going to save you if a ton of wet concrete hits you."

The highly skilled, high-responsibility job meant crane drivers are paid top rates under the federal award.

The award also provided for height allowances for all construction workers -- hourly rates increased with their working altitude.

Ah, i see, so its more form over function - so will everything be internal (looking by the design), like mobile phone transmitters, TV, radio, etc. I can't really say i'd like the idea of them putting dishes all over it like they did with 120 Collins.

I would prefer for it to be done that way with everything internal or otherwise the whole structure would indeed look like it was placed there as an after thought.

BTW. 360 Modena ... I like your idea of the blue lighting (colouring) on the extention. I admit that I wouldn't be heartbroken if they don't approve it because the building is going to look quite fine on it's own the way that it was originally designed. I have to admit that I am not sure if rikster2k and others are being a bit cheeky by constantly asking if the extention has been approved yet?

Perhaps we should start another thread specifically dedicated to the extention and it's approval. Otherwise the vexing question: "Has it been approved yet" is becoming the Skyscraper City forum equivalent of "ARE WE THERE YET?"

Eureka Tower reaches the clouds (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15582814%255E2862,00.html)
Herald Sun (www.heraldsun.com.au)
By Andrea Moss
12 June 2005

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,5016508,00.jpg

THIS is the view from the highest workplace in Melbourne: 300m above ground at Eureka Tower (far right).

The pictures, from well above the clouds, were taken by the skyscraper's crane driver on top of the tower.

They views of city's other tall towers battling to pierce the clouds (above) are usually seen only from a plane.
are clouds really that low? is it just melbourne or what? i've seen pictures of taipei 101 and clouds are around 400m. not 250m :uh:

It's called fog 360.

My apologies to Cul :)

Just south of the Yarra, near the casino.

Quite hillarious im sure, i meant construction wise. :bash:

It's called fog Cul. I'm sure you get it in Sydney too.
Cul didnt *say* anything

It's called fog Cul. I'm sure you get it in Sydney too.

I have to admit that I spent many a day in Sydney when I was in the Army standing on North Head looking back at the Sydneyskyline seeing the city enveloped in the Sydney equivalent of that Melbourne cloud cover. Only in Sydney it was a really dirty brown colour. I mean darker and sootier looking than the 'Yarra brown'. It was most evident on sunny mornings and late on sunny afternoons.

Apologies to Cul :) I feel a tad silly.

it wont just be a communications mast. It is being built so chunky so it can also serve as a second observation deck.

some photos of Eureka yesterday, taken from Fed Sq:

http://bonsaisite.com/towers/eureka.jpg

http://bonsaisite.com/towers/eureka2.jpg

Ah, i see, so its more form over function - so will everything be internal (looking by the design), like mobile phone transmitters, TV, radio, etc. I can't really say i'd like the idea of them putting dishes all over it like they did with 120 Collins.
yes, as dr dan mentioned, its not just a communications mast but it is a 55m tall observation tower. For an extra cost to observation level (similar to sydney towers skywalk), you will be able to walk up a steel mesh structure vertically then across upper section (330m) and down other side.The managment originally wanted a ride gimmick but ended up with a skywalk like Syd towers. Its just another way of making money while its being used as a com mast. good idea i reckon.

It's called fog 360.

My apologies to Cul :)
note the subject is called, "Eureka Tower reaches the clouds"
anyway, i've made the podium higher. a bit too high but i'll try to fix it later. here it is with FWP and Prima. [and the top isn't yellow any more ;)]
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/sC_apache/Southbank.png

Eureka Tower reaches the clouds (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15582814%255E2862,00.html)
Herald Sun (www.heraldsun.com.au)
By Andrea Moss
12 June 2005

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,5016508,00.jpg

THIS is the view from the highest workplace in Melbourne: 300m above ground at Eureka Tower (far right).

The pictures, from well above the clouds, were taken by the skyscraper's crane driver on top of the tower.
it is good to see my photos in the papers

They views of city's other tall towers battling to pierce the clouds (above) are usually seen only from a plane.

Eureka Tower dominates the skyline: the 92-level, 300m core of the building is finished, concrete floors have reached level 73, walls and windows have been installed to level 65 and almost 175 residents are living in their finished apartments up to level 34.

Gold glass will be added to the top seven storeys in October.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union state secretary Martin Kingham said the sheer heights at which high-rise crane operators worked meant they could not even see the loads they were lifting.

At a building as tall as Eureka Tower, that meant communicating with crane crews many floors below by two-way radio, instead of the whistled codes used at other building sites.

"It is a high-stress job and the safety is in how they do their work," Mr Kingham said. "A plastic hard hat is not going to save you if a ton of wet concrete hits you."

The highly skilled, high-responsibility job meant crane drivers are paid top rates under the federal award.

The award also provided for height allowances for all construction workers -- hourly rates increased with their working altitude.

it is good to see my photos in the papers

awesome, that's the first time i've see na good diagram of Prima..that would be a very nice addition to our skyline:)

so you are the crane driver sako?

it is good to see my photos in the papers

Did you get paid for it? :)

Did you get paid for it? :)
no im not the crane driver and no i did not get paid for them

I don't know if I'm more disturbed about HUN journos lurking on here or that they actually stole your image.

... or did you give it to the HUN?

100 posts - yay!

Couple of shots from this arvo...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/mugley/eur1206_1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/mugley/eur1206_2.jpg

I'm hoping against hope at this point that spire gets knocked back for reasons unknown. I think it destroys the formal integrity of the tower, and caves in to the 'my dick is bigger than yours' argument with Q1. A shame.

Blue

^ it WONT be getting knocked back.sorry.
MUGLEY- wow, what can i say?

freakier things have happened with Victorian planning policy.

I too am crossing fingers that it gets the arse.

Stunning pics Mugley.

great pictures, damn i wish i was in Melbourne to take some

http://img299.echo.cx/img299/8232/australiantrip246511qh.th.jpg (http://img299.echo.cx/my.php?image=australiantrip246511qh.jpg)

Here is a picutre I took back in August 2004.

I can't for the life of me understand why any so called SKYSCRAPER fan would hope that the mast doesn't get approval. It will no more destroy the appearance of the Eureka than the masts on top of the Sears Tower destroy its appearance. Plus, who wouldn't want to be able to get a view from 330m.

297m doesn't cut it on the world stage anymore. Shit, Aukland's got a taller tower. I know it's not a proper building, but still. Even relatively low-rise London is getting a 310m building.

But, 350m puts the Eureka Tower up there with the big fellas.

:|

I can't for the life of me understand why any so called SKYSCRAPER fan would hope that the mast doesn't get approval. It will no more destroy the appearance of the Eureka than the masts on top of the Sears Tower destroy its appearance. Plus, who wouldn't want to be able to get a view from 330m.

297m doesn't cut it on the world stage anymore. Shit, Aukland's got a taller tower. I know it's not a proper building, but still. Even relatively low-rise London is getting a 310m building.

But, 350m puts the Eureka Tower up there with the big fellas.
i think you miss point of Eureka. At 297m, it will be WORLDS TALLEST APARTMENT TOWER!! Its a totally dif sructure to an office tower, so shouldnt really compare to them. How talls Londons tallest apartment tower? thats what you should compare it to.
Aucklands tower has a roof height of 220m.
but i agree 350m is pretty impressive.mast or no mast, Eureka will be an impressive block of flats.

I hope the mast gets approved. :)

I can't for the life of me understand why any so called SKYSCRAPER fan would hope that the mast doesn't get approval. It will no more destroy the appearance of the Eureka than the masts on top of the Sears Tower destroy its appearance. Plus, who wouldn't want to be able to get a view from 330m.

297m doesn't cut it on the world stage anymore. Shit, Aukland's got a taller tower. I know it's not a proper building, but still. Even relatively low-rise London is getting a 310m building.

But, 350m puts the Eureka Tower up there with the big fellas.
The difference is, most of us are architecture enthusiasts, not just skyscraper fans. Aesthetics come before height.

Have any pics of the spire been released yet? I gather it wasn't part of the original concept. Usually that's a bit of a worry.

And btw, great site.

^^ Yes, there have been renders presented, check the archived threads.

Phi1ip's patented thread index thingy again rears it's head (given this is thread number 12, it seems worth doing):

Begun August 26th, 2003, 10:30 PM, 553 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=56486)
Begun December 9th, 2003, 07:32 PM, 773 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=76543)
Begun June 7th, 2004, 10:51 PM, 503 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=109888)
Begun August 3rd, 2004, 09:55 AM, 501 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=123136)
Begun September 23rd, 2004, 07:53 PM, 519 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=136928)
Begun November 10th, 2004, 06:39 PM, 502 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=150079)
Begun December 24th, 2004, 07:16 PM, 504 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=162337)
Begun January 17th, 2005, 08:30 PM, 504 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=170142)
Begun February 21st, 2005, 07:52 AM, 530 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=182677)
Begun March 23rd, 2005, 03:23 AM, 503 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=194363)
Begun May 1st, 2005, 10:00 AM, 503 posts (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=207918)

Stu

I'm not disputing the value of aesthetics. What I'm getting at is that this site is supposed to be dedicated to skyscrapers (skyscrapercity.com) and when it comes to skyscrapers, height does matter.

The fact is that Adelaide (where I'm from) has no skyscrapers (if loose definition of skyscraper is 500ft plus) and consequently would get few votes if its skyline were compared to Perth, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne or the GC at this site, despite the fact that Adelaide has some lovely low-rise stuff. This is as it should be. Again, this site is about SKYSCRAPERS.

If the public can climb to the top of the mast it will become a well known must-do Melbourne attraction for tourists. I was in Melbourne earlier this year. It's a great city and I think the E is going to become its defining landmark - ESPECIALLY IF IT GETS THE MAST.

IMO the big E will not be ruined by the mast. It will further enhance its slightly Sears Tower like appearance (from a distance). I think the building is looking great and will only be enhanced by the mast. The mast will take it from looking tall, to looking awesome.

Even relatively low-rise London is getting a 310m building.



link please.....?

I'm not disputing the value of aesthetics. What I'm getting at is that this site is supposed to be dedicated to skyscrapers (skyscrapercity.com) and when it comes to skyscrapers, height does matter.

The fact is that Adelaide (where I'm from) has no skyscrapers (if loose definition of skyscraper is 500ft plus) and consequently would get few votes if its skyline were compared to Perth, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne or the GC at this site, despite the fact that Adelaide has some lovely low-rise stuff. This is as it should be. Again, this site is about SKYSCRAPERS.

If the public can climb to the top of the mast it will become a well known must-do Melbourne attraction for tourists. I was in Melbourne earlier this year. It's a great city and I think the E is going to become its defining landmark - ESPECIALLY IF IT GETS THE MAST.

IMO the big E will not be ruined by the mast. It will further enhance its slightly Sears Tower like appearance (from a distance). I think the building is looking great and will only be enhanced by the mast. The mast will take it from looking tall, to looking awesome.
a skyscraper can be 12storeys. Its all about CONTEXT!
If you put a 12storey in a small town it is equivalent to putting a 100storey in Dubai. Its all relative!
skyscrapers are about passion. We have guys from Toowoomba on the forum who get excited about a new 8storey! An 8storey is a big bldg for there town.
A skyscraper doesnt have to reach the stratosphere.
yes 300m+ is beautiful!,but a 30m bldg is also beautiful!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/cleardayout/twins_spireless.jpg

To tower or not to tower, that is the question.

Looks horrid doesn't it! 'Cos we're used to the masts. It'll be the same with E.

Hey Cul, a 30m building can be beautiful. But it's not tall. It's not a skycraper. Nothing wrong with appreciating good looking buildings of any height. But lets not kid ourselves, a skyscraper should have some height. A 12-storey building might stand out in an area devoid of other tall structures, but will never look tall, even in isolation, to someone who has seen a 91 storey building.

Thanks for the pic Curtain. They look terrible without their spires.

http://silvermb.thehoddlegrid.net/eka200506.jpg

Barsby, the building planned for London is called London Bridge Tower. It will be 310m and 66 floors OG. It has been approved. Sorry, I don't have a link. I read about it at Emporis and this site (UK forum) 3 months ago.

great pic silvermb, really does give a good indication of where Eureka and FWP are up to in terms of floor levels. Got anymore worth posting? and yeh curtain 101c and 120c do look like shit without the spires, however i dont think these buildings can be compared to Eureka in any way. No way would Eureka look incomplete as 101 and 120 do without the spires, as they were part of the original design of those 2 towers, i think E will look good regardless of whether it has a mast or not.

Barsby, the building planned for London is called London Bridge Tower. It will be 310m and 66 floors OG. It has been approved. Sorry, I don't have a link. I read about it at Emporis and this site (UK forum) 3 months ago.

nice one just looked it up on emporis, so much for London keeping a limit on heights of buildings to preserve the historical value of the city! a 310m glass giant will do the opposite, i think they should have stuck with buildings around the same height as Swiss RE

Hey Cul, a 30m building can be beautiful. But it's not tall. It's not a skycraper. Nothing wrong with appreciating good looking buildings of any height. But lets not kid ourselves, a skyscraper should have some height. A 12-storey building might stand out in an area devoid of other tall structures, but will never look tall, even in isolation, to someone who has seen a 91 storey building.

Thanks for the pic Curtain. They look terrible without their spires.
A 12storey building is a skyscraper! this is the height of what they start from as definition. One of the worlds first skyscrapers was the 12storey APA Bldg in melb completed 1889.

>>
http://statelibrary.vic.gov.au/sjones/0/0/0/im/sj000297.jpg


Also remember when you say 91storey bldg ,its resi levels NOT office levels. a 91storey resi tower could be 91x3m=273m, compared to office 91x4m=364m.thats nearly 100m dif.

photoshopping 101 and 120 Collins does nothing for a Eureka spire arugment as the original scheme that got appropved had no spire and for at least 2 and a half years no-one would think of it with a spire, whereas on the flipside, both 120 and 101C have always had spires in their respective schemes (even see another proposal for 101C in Never Built thread).

What I'm getting at is that this site is supposed to be dedicated to skyscrapers (skyscrapercity.com) and when it comes to skyscrapers, height does matter.

poor argument. And you're wrong. It might help if you undertake the simple task of viewing the mainpage of OzScrapers where you'll see there are many more themes present other than just 'skyscrapers'. Also see the last line at the bottom of each page.

photoshopping 101 and 120 Collins does nothing for a Eureka spire arugment as the original scheme that got appropved had no spire and for at least 2 and a half years no-one would think of it with a spire, whereas on the flipside, both 120 and 101C have always had spires in their respective schemes (even see another proposal for 101C in Never Built thread).


isnt that basically what i said? ;)

we all seem to have too much spare time. is the i.q level dropping in this thead or what?!

Mast = Good
No Mast = Good
Height = Good
Asthetics = Good

cul, i totally disagree with you on this one. the north american "12 storey" definition is embarrassing. yes, we could use any height as an arbitrary cut-off for the term "skyscraper", but that's just semantics. There is a big difference between what a reasonable person would normally associate with the term "skyscraper" and the more common "high rise". i personally wouldn't regard a 90 metre/12 storey building as a "skyscraper" in any city, but 120m is more borderline. the point is - there are buildings are clearly "skyscrapers" and those that clearly are NOT "skyscrapers". 90m/12 storeys is just not what i understand to be a "skyscraper" in the english language in 2005 - regardless of how it's officially defined for statistical terms by people who claim to be authorities. yes, APA might have been a skyscraper in 1889, but it is now 2005 not 1889.

no reasonable person would look at adelaide's skyline and say: "wow, so many skyscrapers".

some poorly taken pics from me from yesterday (sunday):

eureka and rialto popping there heads over telstra dome, as you will see them from docklands

http://www.snortperformance.com/docklands/cbd_from_docklands_1.jpg


from near dock 5

http://www.snortperformance.com/docklands/dock_5_under_construction_1.jpg

from docklands towards southbank

http://www.snortperformance.com/docklands/rialto_eureka_from_docklands_1.jpg

and did i say they were poor!! the hardest to do was choosing were to shoot from...very hard!!

photoshopping 101 and 120 Collins does nothing for a Eureka spire arugment as the original scheme that got approved had no spire and for at least 2 and a half years no-one would think of it with a spire, whereas on the flipside, both 120 and 101C have always had spires in their respective schemes (even see another proposal for 101C in Never Built thread).

The idea that a communication tower's relevancy is dependent on it "being in the original design" doesn't hold much water with me.

Consider for a moment that 120 was built without a mast - who would say "Hey! that needs a great big industrial communications tower on top to finish it off otherwise it just looks terrible".

120 Collins gets away perfectly well without a communication's tower - and that's the main reason for the photo - it translates very well to Eureka tower. The set backs finish the building off quite nicely. It's as much an add-on as Eureka's.

101 Collins is more interesting because it more successfully incorporates a communications mast into its design. I've always thought 120's mast was a "reaction" to 101 - that is added only because 101 had one - and nothing more.

Who said adding a communication tower is ok as long as you don't dare add one after the building is complete (or even designed) otherwise you might upset someone. Dont worry about upsetting those who didn't want them on the skyline in the first place.

The photo does plenty for the argument - for and against - and its a good analogy.

disagree blabby, a skyscraper is a skyscraper! be it 12storeys or 120storeys.
i love em all.
great pix lightning

there's still a facade error on the eastern side of the tower. obviously, it happend some time ago being about an 8th of the way to the top. it is still possible to fix it yeah? but when do you think they'll do it? its probably been there since early 2004!

there's still a facade error on the eastern side of the tower. obviously, it happend some time ago being about an 8th of the way to the top. it is still possible to fix it yeah? but when do you think they'll do it? its probably been there since early 2004!

To repeat what has been said god knows how many times before:

Facade errors are fixed after the rest of the facade is complete or very near complete. It is one of the last external works to be done. Take 2SBB as an example, myriad of facade errors with the silver tinted windows, not fixed until tower facade was topped out.

Stu

Cul, a 12-storey apartment building might only be 36m high. In the year 2005 I doubt whether anyone would regard that as a skyscraper, regardless what the 'official' definition of a skyscraper is.

I know it's very subjective, but I think that a building needs to be at least 120-130m tall before it starts to look like what I would describe as a skyscraper. By the way, I thought that I'd read at some point at this site that 500ft was the loose definition of a skyscraper - if so, where did this definition come from?

^well in 2005 a 12storey is still classifed as a "skyscraper". Now if you want to talk "tall buildings" well no ist not that tall. I think a bldg starts to get high at 300ft or 90m. but 500ft/150m is getting up there. its a personal thing.
CTBUH defined a skyscraper as 500ft+.
sometimes its a bit silly saying a exact height. what happens if a city has 300 skyscrapers 148m high? so that means that city has NO skyscrapers? i dont think so.

Thanks Cul, I knew I'd read the 500ft definition somewhere.

Anyway, change of subject back to Eureka. It looks bloody tall in that 3rd pic by Lightning Bolt. Has anyone taken any recent Eureka pics from the Shrine? Due to the perspective it absolutely dominates the skyline from there.

Looks like there are 4 separate threads going on here:

1. Facade errors

2. Skyscrapercity forums - limited to skyscrapers only?

3. What is a "skyscraper"?

Cul, the answer to your question is: if a city has 500 buildings that are 90 metres tall, i would still not consider any of them to be "skyscrapers". i look at adelaide, i see some higher density buildings, if you want to call them "high rises", ok. but do i see any "skyscrapers"? not really. is the manchester unity building in melbourne a "skyscraper"? not to me. but that's just me because i associate "skyscrapers" with height.

4. Whether comms tower is part of the building?

Curtain, disagree with you on this - 120C would look neutered without its spire. it's already lost one nut (i mean radar dish). IMHO, 120C or 101C wouldn't look complete without their comms towers. but i'm beginning to change my views on this - i can now see arguments for and against inclusion in structural height if either eureka or rialto got a comms tower. it's much more borderline because the comms tower isn't "essential" to making it look "finished". if casselden place suddenly got a spire, should a comms tower be included in the official height? all i know is that eureka is taller than Q1 on all measures!!! the reason why eureka would have a higher structural height that Q1 is not because of the comms tower - but because Q1's spire is "detachable" and stuck on the side, and so should be excluded from its structural height. to me, Q1 is also a borderline case. i can now see why petronas had more merit to include its spires than Q1.

^ blab, 90ft? thats only 27m. i also wouldnt say its a skyscraper. I would say atleast 150ft/46m.but i mentioned 148m. so not sure what your saying?

Drop the Skyscraper arguement this is the Eureka thread!

when the mast goes ahead will it be grey?
and will it be lite from the bottom?

dont know if it will be grey, or it will be lit, but one would think it would be lit up at night, just so aircraft dont come too close, if nothing else.

^ blab, 90ft? thats only 27m. i also wouldnt say its a skyscraper. I would say atleast 150ft/46m.but i mentioned 148m. so not sure what your saying?
sorry, i meant 90 m. i've edited the post.

The spire will be grey. Its made out of galvanised steel. I can't see them painting it.

Oh ok would look good lit up blue and green

The spire will be grey. Its made out of galvanised steel. I can't see them painting it.
http://www.tvdance.com/chrisfarley/images/2a.gif
yeah, thats what i was told. simple as possible was the word.so it wouldnt distract tower form..sort of like SHB construction colour

once they get the height approval can they change the design of the comm mast/obs. tower and not need approval? i.e. how much of the submitted design can they change? obviously they've changed the design of eureka since approval (judging by original renders) so why can't they do this with the new tower/mast?

^ im pretty sure every time they alter the mast design it will be scrutinized again by development authority.just adding more time to get approval.

looking good.http://www.tvdance.com/chrisfarley/images/2a.gif

http://img241.echo.cx/img241/799/2005061610468cd.jpg

my update pics - 2 days old

http://pic10.picturetrail.com/VOL343/2004633/3879099/100802721.jpg
http://pic10.picturetrail.com/VOL343/2004633/3879099/100802737.jpg
http://pic10.picturetrail.com/VOL343/2004633/3879099/100802752.jpg

My favourite pic
http://pic10.picturetrail.com/VOL343/2004633/3879099/100802765.jpg

http://pic10.picturetrail.com/VOL343/2004633/3879099/100802780.jpg

Nice pics :) I was in Melbourne over the long weekend, and this one is definitely powering up! Quick question though... at which level does the crown start?

Ether its just after the aussie flag or on that white line? I remmember this was asked a while ago but i can't remmember exactly...

It should be just after the Oz flag I think... the white line is like 274m RL and IIRC the gold crown starts at around 260m?

^That's right ..starts at Level 82 @ 261m - the level right after the Aussie flag - and covers 10 levels plus a parapet section at the summit.

Basically the crown section is where there are no numbers on the core for floors (except 88)

howcome some parts are missing glass, will it stay like that ?

howcome some parts are missing glass, will it stay like that ?

Where? If you mean up the top, of course not they haven't caught up to floorplates yet is all.....

If you mean the Dark Grey sections that run up each of the Eastern and Western section, these are balconies and will stay without glass! Remember this is a residential tower not an office tower so balconies are pretty much a given.

Stu

yer i meant the eastern and western sides.

First of all, what an incredible effort you all do on this site. I am one of the many people who come on here to have a look around. I moved up to Brisbane 3 years ago for work reasons and miss Melbourne heaps. You take the city for granted when you live there and remember how fantastic it is when you are far away, so it’s great to come on here and see all the pics and updates.

2 questions, Is it just my imagination, or is Eureka taking an incredibly long time to build? Its a huge project yet they have only one crane, are they delaying the project while they await approval of the observation tower? I prefer Eureka over Q1 but Q1 has gone up a lot faster, and if I remember correctly Q1 started later too.

Second question, Eureka has gone way ahead with its core while other buildings such as Aurora in Brisbane and FWP in Southbank seem to build the core in line with the plates. Is this an engineering decision or just a different building style??

Again, thanks people’s great site.

They only had to pour 240m of concrete from Q1, they had to pour 297m for Eureka. Also it's a much more complicated building design using more advanced teqniques and materials.

ozabyss- Eureka has had 2 cranes. 1 was removed recently. Eureka is a larger bldg then Q1, thus the reason its taking longer.There not delaying project for communications mast. Its just a 55m steel tower which can be bolted on at a later date.Eureka is prgressing well and should be completed by Xmas.
Q1's LMR (last concrete) reaches 245m.the fin will reach 275m. the 110 tonne/97m long spire is being put up in segments and will be full 322.5m height within 2 weeks!!!
Q1 and Eureka will be WORLDS TALLEST RESIDENTIAL TOWERS until 2008/9 when Dubais giants will be compelted.

^297m of concrete core :D
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/sC_apache/EurekasCore.bmp

its an engineering thing

all of melbs current office towers u/c have a core well above the floorplate. deano loves going on about how crete strengthens 28 days after pour. also need a separate crane, pump line and access lift.

these aren't required for towers such as Aurora/Freshwater that access/pour from the relatively close floorplate

Floor rise on the Western side today, so the Australian flag is starting to vanish!

Floorplates are now 254.5 metres tall.
Next level is the last level before the crown starts.
All things going well the floorplates should top out late October / early November.
Next week Eureka loses its tallest title to Q1 for 5 months.

Next week Eureka loses its tallest title to Q1 for 5 months.What's going to happen in 5 months?

The Herald Sun (so you can take that for what it's worth) :) reported recently that the cladding for the crown would start in October. What more can I add to that????? :runaway:

ozabyss - see this thread (about cores) for some crazy pics of cores - some of them are full height before floor plate begins
http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=221028

What's going to happen in 5 months?
The mast going on? Is it approved yet, is it, is it :D

What's going to happen in 5 months?

It would seem that the floorplates on Q1 will be higher than those on Eureka, I would imagine. Not that I particularly care either way. I am just looking forward to finally seeing Eureka top out - in gold.

^floorplates on Eureka are about 250m now. that's taller than Q1's will ever be if i remember properly!

It would seem that the floorplates on Q1 will be higher than those on Eureka.

Yeah. There's a proposal to build a bird's nest on the tip of the Q1 spire that will qualify it as the highest livable floor in the southern hemisphere. :)

^ hey believe it or not. i was chatting to Q1's spire engineer today (see Q1 thread) and the internal ladder which rises up full height of 97.5m spire actually has a hatch at 1.5m from spire tip. the hatch opens out to form a platform , so 'you guessed it" stand on it to change beacon light!!! hey so you can sit on Q1's spire! lol all you need is a pillow and wulla!

hey cul - so in your opinion which is taller? Q1 or Eureka?

^ OH NOOOOO!

What's going to happen in 5 months?

Well in 5 months Eureka will be structurally complete and the proposed telecommunications tower would begin construction - they have to build the Level 93 access infrastructure - glass encased access stair etc - highest scalable point is 351m and highest available to public ~330-335 metres.

^ hey believe it or not. i was chatting to Q1's spire engineer today (see Q1 thread) and the internal ladder which rises up full height of 97.5m spire actually has a hatch at 1.5m from spire tip. the hatch opens out to form a platform , so 'you guessed it" stand on it to change beacon light!!! hey so you can sit on Q1's spire! lol all you need is a pillow and wulla!

...I'd hate to roll over if I was sleeping up there... :\

I'm surprised no one today screamed FLOOR RISE!!!!

FLOOR RISE:P

So what's it on now? 81 floors westside and 80 east?

Source: The Australian

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15641978%255E25658,00.html

Big trouble in the housing kingdom when there's no air apparent
Guy Allenby

June 18, 2005

ONE of the big innovations at Eureka, the 300m high, 88-storey apartment block now being built at Melbourne's Southbank, is that they've spared no expense making sure its residents can get some fresh air.

As one of its architects, Nonda Katsalidis, explains: "The temptation is to just seal off the building, but then people don't have a fresh breeze on their faces, or know what is happening outside, and I don't think that's good."

But creating windows that can open at 80 storeys above terra firma is an enormously involved and expensive business, mainly because the weather up there can often be far more extreme than at ground level.

Operable windows are nothing less than radical in something so tall.

"In bad weather people have to ensure their windows are closed and there are systems in place to make sure that that happens," says Katsalidis.

Apartments in the Eureka tower have windows that automatically shut when the wind starts blowing.

At another new luxury residential development - the 40-storey Air, being built on the Gold Coast - letting fresh air inside is also an important selling point.

Skyscrapers the world over are traditionally shut tight, but at Air "everything opens up", the development's architect Ian Moore says.

In the morning, the windows let a light breeze into the main tower; in the afternoon the weather gets blowy and they can be closed.

Behind is a "satellite tower", which is sheltered from the sea breeze all day, with views of the Gold Coast hinterland.

Access to fresh air is now a prestige issue (not that both these cutting-edge residential towers don't have air conditioning as well - against Moore's recommendation at Air, incidentally).

But more than that, as architect Lindsay Clare pointed out in last Saturday's Weekend Australian Magazine (Future Shack, June 11-12), global warming mixed with Australia's groaning power grids could mean we might soon be looking for houses that simply don't need air conditioning.

Clare writes: "What happens when you start getting hotter summers, and relentless heat and the strain on the power grid from air conditioners makes the power go off? What happens when we can't afford to have four million air conditioners going when it is 35C?

"When you've got a place that doesn't work without it, then the houses that do work without it become valuable. It'll get people thinking that, yes, you can live in these conditions if houses have good airflow and (are built from) good materials and have good landscapes."

That shift is already happening.

Just as leading a healthy lifestyle is now a luxury, with obesity a sign of being relatively underprivileged , so too is owning a healthy, architect-designed home.

Even if they are grounded on some apparently simple concepts like admitting the winter rays and screening out the summer sun, maximising views, having a good indoor/outdoor connection, providing efficient and elegant shelter - and staying comfortable without the need for aircon. Now that's a des res.

Three angles from this afternoon...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/mugley/eur1806_1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/mugley/eur1806_2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/mugley/eur1806_3.jpg

noice, unyoo-joo-w'l. noice.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/barsby/DSCN2021.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/barsby/DSCN2027.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/barsby/DSCN1958.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/barsby/DSCN1927.jpg

cool - I like the 'windows automatically closing when the weather gets bad' feature

Nice.

http://web.aanet.com.au/sirbugalugs/IMG_4654.JPG

WOW! That's one hot miny skyline and an awsome picture. It's starting to become North Sydney, with less of a business feel :P

WOW! That's one hot miny skyline and an awsome picture. It's starting to become North Sydney, with less of a business feel :P

lol. i think you're being very kind to North Sydney. This area now has 4 500ft+ towers and once Prima(223m) and the third FWP tower(162m) are built there'll be 6 in a very small area.

North Sydney wishes it had that.

i went up to the lookout tower at 'The point' at albert park lake today and the skyline is looking huuuuge. u can now see Vic point standing out and the FWP buildings and Eureka are really dominating. simply the best view of Melbourne's increasingly massive skyline... looks great.

Cheers

Dean - Melbourne

I'm surprised no one today screamed FLOOR RISE!!!!

Heheh, read up a few posts ;) At 80 on both sides now - but the cladding hasn't moved for a while, which is unusual.

http://web.aanet.com.au/sirbugalugs/IMG_4767_1.jpg

http://web.aanet.com.au/sirbugalugs/IMG_4781_1.jpg

nice one bugalugs.

god damn I love winter :D

lol. i think you're being very kind to North Sydney. This area now has 4 500ft+ towers and once Prima(223m) and the third FWP tower(162m) are built there'll be 6 in a very small area.

North Sydney wishes it had that.

i went up to the lookout tower at 'The point' at albert park lake today and the skyline is looking huuuuge. u can now see Vic point standing out and the FWP buildings and Eureka are really dominating. simply the best view of Melbourne's increasingly massive skyline... looks great.

Cheers

Dean - Melbourne

Oh how true! hehehehe. But you know what I mean. Second skyline, close, but not connected to the CBD.

Thanks Tays.

Me too. :)

Here is a diagram I just finished of both Eureka and Q1. I think I goofed on the top of Q1 though, I think it is too wide. It's hard to work out the details of the top when it hasn't been completed yet.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~paulkoh/aussiegiants.jpg

And here they are compared with some of Australia's tallest (Rialto isn't there because I never found a good photo of the base and thus the diagram is uncompleted)

http://members.iinet.net.au/~paulkoh/aussiebuildingsnew.jpg

sweet as, great diagrams

Fantastic All round guys, photo's and diagrams all brilliant!!!

WOW! That's one hot miny skyline and an awsome picture. It's starting to become North Sydney, with less of a business feel :P
Southbank will have alot more 150m+ bldgs but i dont think it will ever be as dense as North Sydney. North Sydney has over 100 skyscrapers compared to Southbanks 25. Plus north Sydney is lucky to have a 60-80m elevation which gives all the bldgs a higher presence above Sydney harbour. poor old Southbank is only 2-3m abve the Yarra.

i still think "poor old southbank" handles itself pretty well Cul :)

^ yes, i think so. but im just talking about its low elevation. any lower and it would be underwater.lol

yeh and u cheaters in sydney are elevated way above ground level!!! So when a building sticks out in Melbourne, ie : Eureka, u know that it really is one tall beast!

great diagrams damien!! you probably went a step too far with Eurekas facade though. and remember the spire isn't solid. it'll look a bit like 120 collins. all the others are perfect and you should replace some of the SSP diagrams too! :cheers:

actually Sydney & melbourne have fairly equal "RLS" meaning height of land above sea level. Sydney's CBD basically ranges from 3m to 45m, but most of CBD sits at average = 25m. melbournes ranges from 2m-40m. the CBD slopes from 35m (east end) to 10m-west end. av= 20m.
north sydney getting higher at 60-80m, st leonards-90m & Chatswood-105m.

Hey Sirbugalugs great pic but have you had a fiddle with the facade?

You to Mugly !

Chatswood-105m. :eek2: so many hills and mountains in the northern Sydney suburbs. Pacific Highway is crazy!!

Hey Sirbugalugs great pic but have you had a fiddle with the facade?

Little tweak on the first pic. A bit of contrast on the others to accentuate the silhouette.

Here is a diagram I just finished of both Eureka and Q1. I think I goofed on the top of Q1 though, I think it is too wide. It's hard to work out the details of the top when it hasn't been completed yet.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~paulkoh/aussiegiants.jpg

And here they are compared with some of Australia's tallest (Rialto isn't there because I never found a good photo of the base and thus the diagram is uncompleted)

http://members.iinet.net.au/~paulkoh/aussiebuildingsnew.jpg

Is this an official architectural mast for Eureka now? Looks freakin' ugly...

^the mast will look more like 120 Collins' mast

heres the thread dan posted on the masts design>>
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=184289

its a simplistic mast. reminds me of a vertical bridge. it measures 5mx11m, and 55m tall. Its not ugly but does look outa place atop a gold crown.
http://www.melbournephotos.net/misc/EurekaSpire/Render2.jpg

Any chance Eureka can be finished without any mast?

Only people in Sydney and Qld seem to hate the mast - go figure!

Only people in Sydney and Qld seem to hate the mast - go figure!

What are you talking about? Heaps of victorians hate the mast. Tayser for example....

we should do a poll

Until I get to see the exact and final working drawings/renders...I'll just wait to decide.
(or is the above posted pic just that?!)

i like the mast \ me = nsw

Hey Sirbugalugs great pic but have you had a fiddle with the facade?

You to Mugly !
Yeah, I didn't like the glazing so I climbed up there and made sure the glass was what I wanted, then got down again and took the shots. :)

There's nothing more in those pics than the usual minor contrast and satuation tweaks - and they're only there as the camera mode to do the same thing has been disabled. If I was seriously going to mess with the pics, I'd have photochopped out all the grunge in the sky in pic 3.

My god, I am really liking Eureka as it reaches the top. I'm even beginning to think that the radio mast will even look good when finished. I must admit, I didn't like Eureka during the early stages of construction. Now I'm thinking its a masterpiece. I think it will be to melbourne what ESB is to New York city, as a symbol for the city's greatness, but in melbournes case, charm. If that makes sense...

Btw, check out the mast thread. (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=226188)

A bit old but worth a post (from realestate.com.au):
http://www.realestate.com.au/objects/props/6471/401626471ml1119219480.jpg

Another goodun from the webcam :)
http://www.melbournephotos.net/webcam/bkup/2005-06-20_1700.jpg

Top one!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/Muse11/pcer1.gif

*posts in international construction forum*

...

today's little paper

http://silvermb.thehoddlegrid.net/ekaart.jpg

fuck ya silvermb i just spent 30 mins takin fotos of this and uploading it!

posting it anyway! :p

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/barsby/DSCN2051.jpg

30 minutes hey, though you could have managed a clear shot in that time

haha well i was rushing to get it on here lol to beat people like u! :)

wasnt quite 30 mins bit of an exageration i like how they spelt it Eureke just under where it says 'Eureka, Down she goes!'

what about saying its 292m. can papers EVER get heights right?

yeh i know, i think its just the Herald Sun Cul, they dont seem to get carried away with details :)

Oh Herald Sun is great on details - they even reported once that Bolte Bridge would be taller than Grollo Tower.

What about the mast? What about little cranes D,E,F and G?

I reckon they got 29'7' mixed up with 29'2'm and in the bolte case, '7'40 mxied with '1'40m :lol:

just out of interest, how high is the Bolte Bridge?

And about the mast it seems we r the only ones in Australia who seem to know anything about this mast, have not seen anything about it anywhere but on SSC.....surely the mast would be mentioned in some paper?!

^140m

the twin towers (pylons) are about 140m high, taller than adelaides santos building, so fairly tall for a pylon on a bridge. but the lights that shjne them up do look sen-sat-ion-all.

^^^

Why didn't they just put the 2nd crane that they are talking about to dismantle the core box crane there in the first place instead of putting one in the lift core from the beginning ? That would seem more logical to me.. Although i am sure there would be a logical explanation....

Dense !

Lozza

wow 140m didnt realise they were so tall, so is 140m Adelaide's tallest building?

^santos is 135m, so its taller as redstar said

And about the mast it seems we r the only ones in Australia who seem to know anything about this mast, have not seen anything about it anywhere but on SSC.....surely the mast would be mentioned in some paper?!

There was a short thing mentioning it in The Age back in December or January - that's where we got the first picture of it from (the only render, which was later obtained at a higher resolution).

On another note, the hiatus in cladding work has ended today, with some of level 69 now glassed in :cool:

June 22nd Lunch time.
http://www.baleviani.com/images/eureka%20full%20small.jpg
Bigger more detailed pic here. (http://www.baleviani.com/images/eureka%20full.jpg)

http://www.baleviani.com/images/eureka%20shouldars%20and%20above%20small.jpg
Bigger more detailed pic here (http://www.baleviani.com/images/eureka%20shouldars%20and%20above.jpg)

^^^

Why didn't they just put the 2nd crane that they are talking about to dismantle the core box crane there in the first place instead of putting one in the lift core from the beginning ? That would seem more logical to me.. Although i am sure there would be a logical explanation....

Dense !

Lozza

Ha logic, one of lifes little mysteries.

The 2nd crane was already there, it came down a while ago. It came down because the building steps in, so the ties would have to be massive to reach across. Plus someone once said something about the lower levels settling their tenants with a crane tie sticking in through their bedroom window????

I think it (2nd crane) will go back up on the little balcony where the hut is, or on top. if it went on the little balcony bit, the core crane could erect it, and it could then climb up itself. The recovery crane could even sit on the roof to act as a second crane until the other 380d climbs up. Then when the 2nd 380d is done, the recovery crane on the roof could dismantle the 380d with rigging pendants, dismantle the power pack and spliting the deck and then disapear down the lift when it is all done.

Easy.

The lift core is a good place to put a crane because their is only a requirement for a handful of towers, the towers certainly don't go all the way to the ground. It also is preferred over a crane sitting through the deck of the the building as this would mean 92 penetrations that will need to be filled.

Taken from Various locations around melbourne:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/drunkill/P1050044.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/drunkill/P1050052.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/drunkill/P1050072.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/drunkill/P1050086.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/drunkill/P1050098.jpg
Cheers


EDIT: well theres a diagram in the HUN today about how they will get the crane down. they will erect one more crane, and then that crane will erect a dismantle crane or somthing, then the second crane will take away the corebox crane, and the dismantle crane wil ltake awa the second crane, and the dismantle crane can be taken down in the elevater, becaus eit is rather smaller (when in sections)

However got todays HUN could scan it in i guess.

Great pics thanx!!!!

Quote:
.

april 12 thread 9 (favelle)

Imagine being the person who has to walk out to the end of the crane arm and unbolt the pieces so they can be lowered down... talk about hanging over the edge!! Wonder if they give them anything to stop them feinting... if they did I couldn't imagine anything scarier than waking up from a feint dangling 297m above the ground by rope and harness.

wow, the top 1/3 of Eureka is becoming apparent, its going to be so thin! its looking incredible.

Imagine being the person who has to walk out to the end of the crane arm and unbolt the pieces so they can be lowered down... talk about hanging over the edge!! Wonder if they give them anything to stop them feinting... if they did I couldn't imagine anything scarier than waking up from a feint dangling 297m above the ground by rope and harness.

Medicine given to stop riggers fainting jlb, available everywhere, no prescription needed, formerly made at 16 Bouverie Street Melb. :cheers:

Only other thing scarier would be looking up at your ugly mate hoping he isn't the one who brought you back to breathing with his rotten breath! :runaway:

Serious though, some people hate heights, some love it, same as spiders, snakes, men who don't drink, etc etc etc. It is all relative. :)

Can't the Herald-Sun just get it right?

They have Eureka at 292 m.

What a journalist Fiona Hudson isn't.

Cheers,

Adam

I've updated my diagram again, everything is perfect, 91 floors etc, but its not 297m!!
*pointts at cul* what's wrong with it?!
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/sC_apache/EurekaRenderNewColour2.bmp

Could it be that you raised the podium (as Cul pointed out the old one was too low) and hence the entire tower height has risen due to that?

If that is the case then you need a lower floor to roof height ratio in your diagram, but about 5% or so, I'm sure you can calculate the exact figure. :)

Hehe...you're still 50m too short...you forgot the mast!

:doh:

dud post

yes modena, what skiesthelimit said. you must reduce each floor. each floor is 3.25m, so each 3storey segment=9.75m.
the east wing also looks too tall. it should be 206m. the westwing should be 176m.
the podium is now perfect.
cheers

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/barsby/2005-06-23_1245.jpg

storm rolling thru, dandaman's webcam from 12:45pm(est) today. I love the colour of Rialto and E when dark clouds come thru!

Awesome sight, very threatening. But it shows that no matter how high we build, Mother Nature is always bigger....

and 31 minutes later, all is well again :) god i love Melbourne!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/barsby/2005-06-23_1316.jpg

I can see the light and the glory, hallelujah!

yes modena, what skiesthelimit said. you must reduce each floor. each floor is 3.25m, so each 3storey segment=9.75m.
the east wing also looks too tall. it should be 206m. the westwing should be 176m.
the podium is now perfect.
cheers

awww. now i'm going to have to make a new scale and start all over again. if i make all the floors one pixil lower, the finished product will be 275m est :bash:

i cant get over how nice the glass looks :drool:

Maybe the second crane on the roof will be to dismantle the core crane as it is in the way of the mast?

Hey Mugley, I was just looking at the alternating short stripes and the regular panel offsets had gaps all the way up which looks wrong.

See Drunkills second pic, you will see what I mean.

hey redbaron, the edit button is there for a reason.....

That's where the crane tower used to be attached to the building, I'm sure they'll fix it eventually.

Remember, a watched kettle never boils!

I think I will bite the bullet and move in there. This Docklands thing is getting tiresome. I want some Big E action. :D

You should move into FWP then you can look at the Big E all day long :-)

hey redbaron, the edit button is there for a reason.....

LOL. post bloater.

You should move into FWP then you can look at the Big E all day long :-)


I would prefer that. But its no where near ready for leasing.

I have as much love for FWP as one man can have for a building :D

This is a bloody good impression of Chicago:

http://www.realestate.com.au/objects/props/6470/102496470ml1119488413.jpg

^ great pic
just on mast.
i got reply from Grocon about mast. this is part of email>

"if the tower proceeds we will look into some form of feature lighting and most definitely an aircraft beacon".

You can get an idea of what the mast will look like lit up in this pic:
http://www.realestate.com.au/objects/props/1755/102491755ml1119344135.jpg

Western floor rise today to Level 81 @ 258 metres tall.

Amazingly what is left of the core is the scale of the crown section and also the skyline impression that it will have.
In plain terms - f#@#$ing incredible. Can you imagine all that gold glass up there? Unequivocally one of the finest skyscraper summits in the world.

World class.

Floor rise started today! The West side is now up to level 81, completely obscuring the Australian flag.

edit: Damn, Curtain beat me to it while I was on the "New Post" page ;)

got to be quick around here.lol

Did anyone else see how huge the moon was this morning between Eureka and Freshwater Place?? Pitty I didn't have a camera... but I made one to show how it looked. If someone took one this morning please post!!
http://members.iinet.net.au/~troneast/moonandeureka.JPG

Channel 7 had a little report on eureka.
view it here (http://www.melbournephotos.net/temp/eurekachannel7.avi)

p.s. someone compress the audio properly :(

Alright, the quick horizontal pan from the (near) top looks great.
At least they have better info about it then the HUN :P

/me posts this in the E thread of the world forums

So what floor does the gold crown start from?

^level 82 just above the Australian flag

So not long to go yeah? The current level is 81 (excluding cladding). So what's the current cladding level?

this might help -
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/sC_apache/EurekaUpdate.png

Cladding creep continued yesterday, with a lone panel of glass now on the 70th floor ;) Hopefully the floor rise to level 81 on both sides should occur Monday or Tuesday.

Coupla shots from today:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/mugley/eur2506_1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/mugley/eur2506_2.jpg

Couldn't resist a few more ;)

http://img177.echo.cx/img177/2050/eurekablue3yl.jpg

http://img177.echo.cx/img177/9121/eurekabridge9lp.jpg

Eurekas glass is so magic. I've never seen it with a tinge of green before.
http://www.melbournephotos.net/pics/2005-06-25%20Melbourne%20-%20Albert%20Park%20at%20Sunset/IMG_6755.jpg

http://www.melbournephotos.net/pics/2005-06-25%20Melbourne%20-%20Albert%20Park%20at%20Sunset/IMG_6756.jpg

wow, didnt think the slanted upper floorplates would look so spectacular. nice piccies

I agree. I love the way the glass looks on a bright day.

http://www.melbournephotos.net/pics/2005-06-25%20Melbourne%20-%20Albert%20Park%20at%20Sunset/IMG_6756.jpg


that is an awesome pic dan, well done.

gotta love the angles u can get from Albert Park.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/sC_apache/EurekaGreen2Complete.jpg

woah, that spire actualyl complimetns the building from this angle...nice render

I must admit the mast actually looks pretty good from that angle! :runaway:

Not sure it would be so flash from other angles though?

Brilliant 360 degrees!!!!!!!!!! Spire and All

Gee guys. It's through your dedication and passion that we keep coming back to threads like the Eureka. Thanks for the fantastic shots and renders! :rock:

Amazing shots, and render.

I must admit the mast actually looks pretty good from that angle! :runaway:

Not sure it would be so flash from other angles though?
from the sides, Eureka looks too square
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/sC_apache/EurekaSide.png

good observation :)

Well, rectangular actually.... :runaway:

Cheers,

Adam

square, rectangular - is good

Hey can someone tell me why the core does not count in the building's current height? I've wondered this for a little while now. It's still part of the building minus the floor plates. Anyway just wondered...

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/sC_apache/EurekaGreen2Complete.jpg

From this angle I think Eureka looks more elegant without the mast. Hope it doesn't get approved myself.

Hey can someone tell me why the core does not count in the building's current height? I've wondered this for a little while now. It's still part of the building minus the floor plates. Anyway just wondered...

What do you mean it doesn't count? Of course it counts!

this might help -
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/sC_apache/EurekaUpdate.png

As far as I'm concerned this diagram is excellent. Must take a long time to get this level of detail. Well done !

But of course I'm no expert :)

What do you mean it doesn't count? Of course it counts!

That's exactly what I mean. I keep on reading that Q1 is taller but the Big E's core is at 297m.

Eureka at sunset.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/cleardayout/1_Eureka.jpg

Ok dont ask me how I did this render but I did - took all bloody sunday night - dedicated to Modena because his render inspired me to do it - no mast because I doubt I could do a good job - plus it looks good without it :)

Thanx to dandaman for amazing original pic!

That is fucking awesome.
Well done and a half.

SH*T! That's one bloody good job!!

Well done with an elephant stamp!

Cheers,

Adam

dedicated to Modena because his render inspired me to do it
lol. mine took 10 mins in MS paint hehe. great job! looks fantastic! what program did ya use?

lol. mine took 10 mins in MS paint hehe. great job! looks fantastic! what program did ya use?

VCW Vicman photoeditor annoying evaluation version :)

That is the best finishing render I have ever seen Curtain.

Will be very interesting to see when Eureka is finished and a similar pic is taken how close you got to the actual thing.

Well worth wasting a Sunday night. Excellent work. :)