Today i was helping my mother clear out some junk and stumbled across the family's 1986 edition of World Book encyclopedia. As a kid back then, the Skyscraper article used to fascniate me - particularly the 2nd bottom entry on that table. The only building not in North America, and one of two not in the USA. Oh, how times have changed.

i dont know how up to date this article was at the time - ie, 1986 - but it was pretty good for me in those days. this was about all we had in those days - no SSC or emporis. Instead when i was in year 6 i walked around around in my holidays to all the big buildings asking details (height, owner, floors, architect, etc). Often i'd get to see the superindendant, only a few told me to get lost, and when i went to the former Regent Hotel, the hotel manager took me in for tea in his office and showed me all the details, took me to the roof. lol - i was 11 but very serious!! :laugh:

My other bible was "Above AUstralia" pubslished in 1986 and given to me as a request birthday present - how sad. (i remember Muse talking about this book some months back). It showed the Rialto under construction and i convinced myself by comparing photos that it was NOT taller than MLC. :laugh:

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/4526/worldbook19867ga.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

yes those were the days.MLC height was its RL height. silly billys. they probably asked seidler architects and told them truth, 250m high. but above sea level not street.
The best list before internet was World Almanac.The worlds tallest were all in America and top 5 stayed the same for many years. Suddenly instead of NYC and Chicago, other cities like Houston and Los angeles and Toronto started building some 300m bldgs.
Overseas, HK and Singapore started sprouting up 250m+ giants and Australia boasted Rialto and MLC. the scene now is incredible. who would of thought China and UAE would be king.

Any explanation as to why they list MLC at 820 feet or 250 metres? Emporis has 748 feet or 228 metres, which i assume is the correct height.

Edit: Ah thanks Cul you answered it before I got to ask it.

for years Rialto was known as 242m, then 244m. This was even quoted from builder and rialto management. I contacted them one day back in 1993 and asked them what the hell is Rialtos height! so St Martins properties (Owners) got it surveyed which revealed it at 253m RL, or 251m. but when the Ob deck opened in 94, the new brochure mentioned its 253m height.so i told them error and they said ,whats 2metres?.lol
not sure if it still says 253m.?
it was always fun and games with heights for newspaper articles up until a couple of years ago when we sorted it out and told everyone about emporis. most article these days seem to never slip up, even quote some stuff from this site. lurkers? lol

Yeah, the Guiness Book of Records had MLC taller than Rialto for years after the Rialto was completed, that always used to piss me off :-)

^lol, thats why i had to get to bottom of it. MLC was quoted as 244m for many years. everyone knew it as 244m. when i started at council in 88, i got access to height info for the city model and coudlnt believ it when i clicked on the height map and its RL was 250m. i thought gee, im sure its location is more then 8mRL? so when i clicked on its height at cnr king/castleragh it said RL22m, thus 228m above street. i then told Guiness book and other sources and they changed it to Rialto at 242m. It eventualy got up to 251m but it was irrelevant then becuase they canned the Australian supplement from back of Guninness book which pissed me off.I was compiling a nice little section in the structures segment.
Id love to produce an annual book on skyscrapers in oz.And a monthly mag on "whats happening around Australia" and detail a project in each city. lots of photos facts interviews etc.i reckon it would sell in newsagents. theres lots of crap that currently sells. This would be interesting and informative to public as well as students and architects/ builders etc.

^lol, thats why i had to get to bottom of it. MLC was quoted as 244m for many years. everyone knew it as 244m. when i started at council in 88, i got access to height info for the city model and coudlnt believ it when i clicked on the height map and its RL was 250m. i thought gee, im sure its location is more then 8mRL? so when i clicked on its height at cnr king/castleragh it said RL22m, thus 228m above street. i then told Guiness book and other sources and they changed it to Rialto at 242m. It eventualy got up to 251m but it was irrelevant then becuase they canned the Australian supplement from back of Guninness book which pissed me off.I was compiling a nice little section in the structures segment.
Id love to produce an annual book on skyscrapers in oz.And a monthly mag on "whats happening around Australia" and detail a project in each city. lots of photos facts interviews etc.i reckon it would sell in newsagents. theres lots of crap that currently sells. This would be interesting and informative to public as well as students and architects/ builders etc.


It could work! You've already got a site full of firey opinion columnists here. I reckon we could seriously put a project like that together if we tried.

Is MLC and Rialto's above ground height measurements taken from the "high sides" ( ie they both sit on the sides of hills ) or the "low sides". There could be a good 4-5 metre height difference between each side.

It would be interesting to see Australia becomes a major contender for the world tallest building, considering its scarce population.

Is MLC and Rialto's above ground height measurements taken from the "high sides" ( ie they both sit on the sides of hills ) or the "low sides". There could be a good 4-5 metre height difference between each side.
MLCs height is above mean grd level around king and castlereagh st .
Rialtos height is taken from lowest elevation on Flinders lane. If it was taken from collin st which it originally was it would be 7m lower at 244m.

MLCs height is above mean grd level around king and castlereagh st .
Rialtos height is taken from lowest elevation on Flinders lane. If it was taken from collin st which it originally was it would be 7m lower at 244m.

Good for Rialto !
Bad for MLC !

So what height would MLC be based on Rialto's measurement criteria ? Hmmmmm...........

Good for Rialto !
Bad for MLC !

So what height would MLC be based on Rialto's measurement criteria ? Hmmmmm...........

Precisely 245m ;)

if you measure MLC from martin place concourse (where alot of people see it from) its 5m lower, so 233m high.looks its best from there.
http://www.skyscraperpicture.com/sydney05.jpg

The thing that pains me most about MLc is its facade seems constantly dirty. The material used is porous and abbrasive, making dirt very hard to clean off.

I agree. It always seems dirty. I think it would look better if it was glassier, but you gotta remember not many skyscrapers back then were glassy.

And the WTC was tallest to pinnacle 20 years ago, before the Sears had an antenna extension.

i think that it is crazy how much our skyscrapers have changed over the years, i mean if MLC was in that list 20yrs ago, that is just crazy :scouserd:
:cheers:

i think its harrys hidden agenda that with time, MLC will turn sydney sandstone colour from the city grime and air and blend in with others in sydney.It wil then be mistaken for an old sandstone bldg in 100s of years and get heritage listing.lol

^^ lol. Ewww

General Property Trust and the Queensland Investment Corporation that own the building gave a press release 3 years ago saying they were going to clean the whole MLC complex over 7 years. I don't know if they have really started, but it will never be the original sparkly-warkly white it once was - the surface is just too porous.

:gossip: Imagine a "little Anton" staring @ these pics from "Above Australia" and getting an attack of the "willie-envy" over Rialto. http://www.sayhey.co.uk/invboard/html/emoticons/laughing.gif

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/510/379melbourne1985sylinea.JPG_http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/510/379melbourne1985skylinec.JPG

:gossip: Imagine a "little Anton" staring @ these pics from "Above Australia" and getting an attack of the "willie-envy" over Rialto.

THis is where i should add something about later realising that size doesn't really matter. ;)

I wish they'd just completely re-clad MLC tower with metallic panels ala Nauru in Melb. Wouldn't cost much and would save having to re-mediate & clean the current surface which seems to be quite tricky and expensive.

it was always fun and games with heights for newspaper articles up until a couple of years ago when we sorted it out and told everyone about emporis. most article these days seem to never slip up, even quote some stuff from this site. lurkers? lolYeh, like a few weeks ago when the Townsville Bulletin quoted the whole list of Townsville highrises off Emporis verbatim. Which is why I had to get you to make some changes - it was outdated, lol. We know some Townsville Bulletin jounros lurk on OzScrapers.

And a monthly mag on "whats happening around Australia" and detail a project in each city. lots of photos facts interviews etc.i reckon it would sell in newsagents. theres lots of crap that currently sells. This would be interesting and informative to public as well as students and architects/ builders etc.That would be fantastic. Whenever I'm browsing in a newsagent I'm always amazed at the incredible range of obscure magazines on even the most esoteric topics. I'm sure an skyscraper/arcitecture magazine could outsell some of them.

For a while qith q1 and eureka we would have trouble staying in the top 100

We do pretty well in the top 100 i think for our country. If you measure to structural tip then Australia has four in the top 100. Unfortunately Rialto is now at 101. We have 12 in the top 200. Thats according to Emporis anyway. If the proposed Qld buildings get above about 270m then they will be into the top 100 for sure. At least I think so, I'm not too sure how many other buildings are being constructed at the moment to that list changes quite often.

So many in Dubai in the 250-300 meter mark that will damage us

I wish they'd just completely re-clad MLC tower with metallic panels ala Nauru in Melb. Wouldn't cost much and would save having to re-mediate & clean the current surface which seems to be quite tricky and expensive.

i think if you marry this concept with a bit of channel nine, jaimie durie, a resuarant, a inclosed filmed house compound and some ice skating, you'll go great guns.

We do pretty well in the top 100 i think for our country. If you measure to structural tip then Australia has four in the top 100. Unfortunately Rialto is now at 101. We have 12 in the top 200. Thats according to Emporis anyway. If the proposed Qld buildings get above about 270m then they will be into the top 100 for sure. At least I think so, I'm not too sure how many other buildings are being constructed at the moment to that list changes quite often.
hey dubai is doing it too every title. just think Q1 and Eureka would be tallest resi for many years if it wasnt for projects in Dubai.
i think we might have to have catorgories like-tallest outside of Dubai? lol

its very different now. The tallest are from the west, while now, its exactly different.

wasnt sure where to post this. be sure to checkout todays Daily telegraph . the centre spread every Tuesday features Classmate. Today its BIG BUILDINGS.
It has a pretty good Burj Dubai and other talls. even Q1.It also features sydney tower @ 302m (never seen it that height before).They still put Eiffel @ 300m which it should be 324m.
http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/7525/0000651qb3.jpg

Today i was helping my mother clear out some junk and stumbled across the family's 1986 edition of World Book encyclopedia. As a kid back then, the Skyscraper article used to fascniate me - particularly the 2nd bottom entry on that table. The only building not in North America, and one of two not in the USA. Oh, how times have changed.

i dont know how up to date this article was at the time - ie, 1986 - but it was pretty good for me in those days. this was about all we had in those days - no SSC or emporis. Instead when i was in year 6 i walked around around in my holidays to all the big buildings asking details (height, owner, floors, architect, etc). Often i'd get to see the superindendant, only a few told me to get lost, and when i went to the former Regent Hotel, the hotel manager took me in for tea in his office and showed me all the details, took me to the roof. lol - i was 11 but very serious!! :laugh:

My other bible was "Above AUstralia" pubslished in 1986 and given to me as a request birthday present - how sad. (i remember Muse talking about this book some months back). It showed the Rialto under construction and i convinced myself by comparing photos that it was NOT taller than MLC. :laugh:

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/4526/worldbook19867ga.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Its funny to see that 20yrs ago the tallest skyscrapers were all from the USA, not one of the top 20 from asia. shows how far scrapers have changed

Id love to produce an annual book on skyscrapers in oz.And a monthly mag on "whats happening around Australia" and detail a project in each city. lots of photos facts interviews etc.i reckon it would sell in newsagents. theres lots of crap that currently sells. This would be interesting and informative to public as well as students and architects/ builders etc.

Hey, I'd contribute to that! And no doubt about the name of the publication...Ozscrapers! (Anyone got a trademark registered yet?)

You would be able to get a press pass to make it easier to get into exclusive areas and stuff