Talk:Eureka Tower

Is Eureka Tower 88 or 91 stories?
Is Eureka Tower 88 or 91 stories? Both numbers have been referenced, and I think that the 88 may refer to only the number of residential stories, and 91 includes the uppermost machine floors and observation deck etc. Noticably, www.skyscrapers.com lists 91. Hypernovean 09:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The tower itself is 91 stories, but the highest public-access floor (the observation deck) is on level 88. I believe that above that are the lift motor rooms and other plant equipment. Salamagd 20:16, 24 Mar 2004

Tangerine Cossack, do you think that your inclusion of Sky Tower is appropriate? For one, it's not a residential tower, in fact, it's not even a skyscraper, rather a freestanding structure. Sydney Tower is also not mentioned on this page, even though the tip of its spire is taller than the roof of Eureka. Salamagd 09:42, 29 Mar 2004

the picture that someone put up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eurekatower.jpg) is going to be deleted because whoever put it there forgot to mention its COPYRIGHT STATUS!!! whoever did it please do so... Shrewd.user 07:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was 77-8-9

Eureka Tower - More information needed
I have just had a look at this article and the only real information is it's height and the number of floors. If anyone has the information and spare time, can they please expand it with information such as close proximity to the CBD, Southbank and Crown Casino, the different types of apartments and the total number of them, info about the shops, carpark, controversy (I doubt there is any though. It's a very good looking building in my opinion). Because of the lack of information in the article, I have also given it stub status. Lakeyboy 07:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Under Construction?
I'm not entirly sure, but i think construction has completed on the eureka tower, the cranes are down and it said in a newspaper (forgotten which) that construction was complete. But perhaps construction is still underway inside the building.

The tower is externally complete, but since external completion just means cranes down and all glass panels installed, there's still a lot of work to do inside on the upper floors because the glazing also functions as the building's walls :) That said, the lower floors have been inhabited for quite some time now. invincible 10:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Second Tallest Residential Building?
It says that Eureka Tower is the tallest skyscraper in the southern hemisphere, but also says it is the second tallest residential building (being beaten by Q1). To me it seems these two statements are contradictary. According to wikipedia the Q1 is 80 storeys high and Eureka Tower is 91. Eureka Tower is 297.2 metres high and Q1 is 275 metres (not inclusive of the spire). But mainly how can it be the tallest building in the southern hemisphere and and second tallest residential building to one located in the southern hemisphere at the same time?

Yes, it should say that it is the second tallest building in the southern hemisphere. --WikiCats 13:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, people keep changing these pages back and forth according to which building they want to be the tallest. The Q1 was designed to be the world's tallest residential tower. An up-swept structure was incorporated at the top and this includes the spire. This is part of the building. For Eureka Tower they chose not to include a spire. Buildings are measured to the top of the spire because it is part of the architecture. --WikiCats 14:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I have to disagree with you there, most professional architechture websites do not include flagpoles, external elevator ect. because 'it is not part of the structures main infrastructure but spires are debatable. (The 'What's the taller tower' has been debated and unclear for years might I add).

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Q1 says it is the tallest and i have been there and it says on record it is also and at the Eureka Tower it says the second one so there is no need to put it as the tallest you will just throw people off!Sparrowman980 00:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)]]


 * The article clearly explains the situation between Eureka Tower and Q1, so nobody should be thrown off by it. If you read the full sentence you have been editing, it says "Eureka Tower is the tallest residential building in the world, when measured either by the height of its roof, or by the height of its highest habitable floor." That sentence is true, and your edits have been making it untrue. This is why I am reverting your edit for the second time. If you do not understand, please reply on this talk page, but do not mark my good-faith edit as vandalism. Thank you Easel3 04:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What was the supposed big fib?
The "controversy" section makes no sense. It says that a big fib was told, but doesn't say what the fib (supposedly) was. This section should be made clearer, or removed. Rocksong 02:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a disagreement over whether spires count or not. Q1's spire reaches 322m but the top floor is only around 240m high, whereas Eureka's highest point is the 91st floor (or to be precise, a 3m parapet that extends above the roof of the 91st floor) reaching 297m above ground. Deciding on which building is taller then depends on interpretation of the rules, and whether a spire should contribute to the building height. In Australia, spire heights were never recognised until Q1 was built: the spires on 101 Collins Street and 120 Collins Street are both taller than the Rialto Towers but the Rialto was always considered the tallest building in Australia until the construction of Eureka and Q1. Maybe I should have just added that to the article. invincible 08:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Observation deck
Is the observation deck open?
 * Not yet. The website is incredibly out of date and provides no info though. invincible 10:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just read an article that says the observation deck will open on 15 May 2007. I've updated the article. Garnercx 10:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite
I'm going to start a rewrite of the article, but I'll need lots of help with finding sources because I'm writing a lot of stuff out of the top of my head or at best using info from the threads at OzScrapers (search Archives). I can get a fair bit of info down since I've been following the tower's construction but sources are quite hard to find especially considering a few of the forumers went out to do their own research. Here's the work in progress, feel free to contribute: User:Invincible/Eureka Tower. invincible 11:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The existing article mentions the different way tallest building is measured, and its rivalry with Q1 (building). Make sure you include that. Actually the Q1 article may be a reasonable template. Rocksong 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken. :) I'll take a while to get through the rewrite though since I tend to get carried away with other things (like the summer). invincible 12:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Floor count dispute
Okay, several anonymous editors have repeatedly been changing the floor count from "91 plus one underground" to 92. I've reverted these edits because the docs do state that a distinction should be made between above ground and underground floors, probably to prevent towers with large basements like World Tower from inflating their floor counts. Additionally, I've added references to the 91 floor count - Emporis unfortunately hides all but the most basic data so we only have the count for over ground floors. Does counting the floors on a plan count as original research? I counted the floors from this building section - http://www.aecbytes.com/feature/2004/Eureka-images/fig3b.html, and there are 91 floors plus the basement. Level 92 is where the satellite dish is in that image but AFAIK, that is the parapet and there is no roof. The official plans illustrate this better but I can't find them anywhere. I'm not sure whether these anonymous editors are changing the count to 92 because they are counting the top parapet floor (thus having 92 floors above ground) or because they're counting the single basement floor (92 total floors). -- invincible 09:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead image
As Sparrowman980 has requested group consent for changing the lead image from Image:DSCN12211.jpg to Image:Eureka Tower 0944a.jpg, I am putting forth this message and encourage anyone to reply and express their opinion on which image to use in the infobox. The image was changed to the full tower shot by Melburnian in This revision by Jjron on 20 August, 2008.

Please check out the images and decide which would be more suitable, as Jjron describes Melburnian's image as "better as it shows full building and is more encyclopaedic angle", and I agree with him. I suggest waiting a week from this message and seeing how many votes each picture gets to decide on a winner. Thanks, timsdad   (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I much prefer the full tower shot. The silly shot at the moment is certainly not an appropriate shot for the infobox. Mvjs  Talking  10:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got a full tower photo from a more reasonable angle which depicts the glass face of the tower (as opposed to showing a side view with all the balconies), I'll try to track it down at the end of the week. But between the two options, I much prefer the full tower shot over the one taken standing at its base. Photos of the podium would be nice for the article too. invincible (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay so i found the perfect pic of it in my records and it should fit nicely it is a nice close up. Sparrowman980 (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sparrowman980, we are all clearly waiting for the week to be up before any of us change the picture back to the one we have decided is better, and you come along and add another one of your own pictures without even waiting for a consensus. In my opinion, the image we all agree on is still better than this one. A picture isn't necessarily more suitable because YOU took it. Also, your edit is not a minor edit. I have changed the lead image to the above linked image. Anyone disagree, feel free to reply. timsdad   (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Advertising Much?
"Riding in The Edge incurs an additional cost to the entry price of Skydeck. The Edge is easily accessible by wheelchair; children seven years or under must be accompanied by a parent or guardian. Photography is prohibited in The Edge despite being permitted elsewhere on the Skydeck, but patrons can purchase a souvenir photo of themselves within The Edge." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.57.243 (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True... I've noticed this before but didn't do anything about it. I'll reword it a bit. -- timsdad  (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Observation deck's relation to Sky Tower
Currently the article states "The observation deck ... is the highest public vantage point in a building in the Southern Hemisphere at 285 m (940 ft), the Sky Tower in Auckland, New Zealand having higher views". Firstly, I found this sentence a little confusing - it would better to use a en-dash or semicolon instead of a comma at the end of the sentence.

More importantly, however, as far as I'm aware the Sky Tower's observation deck is significantly *lower* than Eureka Tower's. Quoting from Sky Tower's article, "The top observation deck labelled 'Skydeck' sits just below the main antenna at 220m and gives views of up to 82km in the distance." Going from the heights stated, the Sky Tower's obervation deck is 60 metres lower than Eurkea's. Also just looking at the Sydney Tower page, that tower's observation deck is at 250m, still higher than Sky Tower.

Unless any significant reason is given why the Sky Tower is (seemingly erroneously) mentioned here in the observation deck section of the article, I'll be removing it, seeing as it seems to have been in the article for some time now. --Terovian (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that the last two paragraphs of this section are clearly out of date. --Terovian (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears as if you're absolutely right, the Sky Tower has no relevance here as its observation deck is clearly lower than Eureka Tower's. The current wording suggests that the Sky Tower's observation deck is higher, but that it is not the highest public vantage point in the Southern Hemisphere in a building because it is officially recognised as a tower rather than a building, as it is not continously habitable. As for the last two paragraphs, they should either be entirely removed or sourced and updated. -- timsdad  (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Eureka Tower, Melbourne - Nov 2008.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Eureka Tower, Melbourne - Nov 2008.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 17, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-12-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it the tallest building in Melbourne?
It's nice that the article mention's its status as the world's 12th highest residential building, but that it doesn't mention whether it's the tallest building in Melbourne or Australia. I think the article would benefit from a sentence saying "It is the nth tallest building in Melbourne and the nth tallest building in Australia", or something to that effect. AmericanLemming (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eureka Tower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150301100048/http://eurekaskydeck.com.au/uploads/documents/English%20Skydeck%20Visitors%20Guide_Web.pdf to http://eurekaskydeck.com.au/uploads/documents/English%20Skydeck%20Visitors%20Guide_Web.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Ownership
A series of IPs has spent the last week making unsourced claims that the tower is owned by Johnstead Toua Safitoa: ; ; ; ; ;. I can find no evidence of such an owner, or even of the existence of anyone by that name who is involved in real estate. Any further such unsourced claims will be treated as vandalism. Meters (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * That person(s?) is at it again... 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 02:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)