218m/715ft
Telstra Corporate Building
Melbourne, Australia

HEIGHT: 218m/715 feet
FLOORS: 47 floors
COMPLETION: 1992
ARCHITECT: Perrot Lyon Mathieson

The new national headquarters for Australia's major telecommunications carrier, this 43 level building investigates the possibilities for city building other than the podium/tower or tower/plaza types. The lower levels, incorporating a number of old buildings, uses the historic patterns of the site to generate new forms. The tower, with its staggered and broken top, alludes to a more complex urbanistic image for the tower form.

http://www.walkingmelbourne.com/images/telstracorporate.jpg

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/rotpics02/telesta02.JPG

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/rotpics02/telesta01.jpeg

i thought it was 195m :? neways i think its like a mini sears 7/10 because of the colour of the facade its like a browny black dont like it.

5/10

1992? More like 1962.

A conservative design that indeed looks outdated.

5/10

7/10

Its ok. I like the layered look, at least its not a boring box.

5

Sears's mini

6/10

Boxy, quite boring

6/10

5.5/10 i thought this was one of those mistakes of the 70's, but no.. :no:

This skyscraper looks like it's been there for over 30 years....boring..
5.0/10

5.5/10 :puke:

From afar looks like a mini version of the Sears Tower....

5/10

5/10


:ohno:

I hate saying this but it's ugly while it also looks cheap and dirty...gave it 5/10 because of its height :(

first pic--->OK
2nd pic--->extremely ugly
3rd pic---->quite cool
4th pic---->cool

5.5/10 :(

i agree with all of you, looks boring.. 5/10

8

mmm.....ehm its cool 9/10

Boring.5/10

like its slightly high-tech look, but the window shades really gotta go.

this building doesn't really look australian, so i'll give it a 7

It looks a lot better in real !! I really like this building

9/10

6.5/10

It looks a lot better in real !!

Totally agree......8.5

7/10

More pictures:
http://www.skyscraperpicture.com/melbourne39.jpg
http://www.skyscraperpicture.com/melbourne42.jpg
http://jon.thackray.org/melbourne/telstra.jpg
http://www.skyscraperphotos.com/cit/dme00/b/izme043.jpg
http://www.skyscraperphotos.com/cit/dme00/b/izme040.jpg

This building is reminiscent of the Sears Tower, but it's more imaginative. 8/10.

I'm bad, I missed one :(

kinda boring...6/10

7/10 - the slim spandrels and mullions stand out well against the dark facade.

But - the several tubes grouped together look too chunky,and the roof is flat, dull, and doesn't fit in with the rest of the building...

It's ok. 7/10.

It's fine with me. 7/10

Only looks good at night...................... 7.0

7,5/10 - Not bad.

8/10

I like the white squares/lines on the facade, but overall it's a rather dated looking building.

6/10

5/10

Not my favourite among Melbourne's big boys. Maybe after paying a $1000 phone bill, its the Telstra name that turns me off? Nah, its too boring for Melbourne.

4/10

Boxy, almost too boxy. I give it a 6/10. :(

I think people are being a bit harsh on this one, probably because of the pics on the first page. It's no work of art but it's also not an ugly building worth less than 6/10.

http://web.aanet.com.au/nmharrison/telstra.jpg

http://www.skyscraperpicture.com/melbourne39.jpg

It's too dark and boxy. Looks like smaller and worse version of Sears Tower... 7/10

Boring shape.6

Didn't really grab my attention while visiting the city 6/10

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v173/Robdann/Melbourne%202/TelstraBuilding.jpg

6/10

The shape is boring,however,some parts of the cladding are interesting

SICK. 5

5/10

i like the blocky design. It is in some ways 'daring' but not quite daring enough. not bad though 8/10

That is a shit picture of the building.

6/10 Nothing special, could be much better

7/10

tooooooo box like 5/10

7/10

Doesn't look its height. 6.5.

6.5/10.

:no: not very particular 5.5/10

6/10

6.5/10

dificult to get opinion in this pic

7/10

6/10

fair looking7.5/10

6.5/10

4.5

5/10 is enough. :)

5/10

7/10.

Nothing special. 5.5/10

4.5/10

5.5/10.

3/10 oh hell no

7/10

mwoah.. 7/10, because i like glassy towers:)

3,5/10

7/10

6/10

5/10

the facade is not my taste 7.5/10

7/10

7.

4/10 Hmm, how is this building on the 300 list?

6.5/10

6.5/10.

7/10 it's ok for me

3/10

4/10

6/10

boxes within boxes. looking pretty good. 7.5/10

7/10.

3/10

6/10

6/10

6.5/10

5,5/10 :(

7/10

7/10

7/10

4/10

too generic for my taste....

5/10.

3/10 :ohno:

horrid. 3/10

Wow. I mean. Amazing to think that this disaster was built so recently. The architect sure had been under cryo-conservation and missed 20 years of progress, I suppose. Even though, the lack of attention to some details such as the terrible appearance of the mechanical floors is appalling. Wasted.
3/10.

So close and yet so far. Lacks the class to give it any more than a 6

Not very... original...5.5/10

boxy,4

7.5

8/10

7/10

8/10

5/10

7/10

6/

6.5/10

6/10

8/10

8,5/10

7.5/10

7/10

good...

6.5/10

8/10

It's ok skyline filler. 5.5/10

6.5/10

7. Regards.

7.5/10

7/10

8.5

7/10

8/10

latest pic/s please!

8/10

voted 6/10

9/10

4/10

what are you talking about? its not bad at all! 8.5

8/10

6/10

any recent pictures?

6.5/10
Good

6/10

5/10

6/10

6/10

8/10

6/10

0/10

6.5/10

It's okay, not great.

:redx:

6/10. I bet Telstra's building in Mumbai is larger :lol: