Talk:108 St Georges Terrace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good article108 St Georges Terrace has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
February 8, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 11, 2008.
WikiProject Australia / Perth / Western Australia (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon108 St Georges Terrace is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Perth task force.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject Architecture (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

structural engineer???[edit]

why cant I add who the structural engineer is on the article?--Rotor7 (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

earlier unsigned comment[edit]

There is 50 storey to that building... I work on level 49.

15th or 7th tallest?[edit]

There is some confusion over whether BankWest Tower or Central Park is the tallest building in Perth. It appears that one of these buildings has an antenna and one has a spire, but it is difficult to find which. The measurements are as follows:

  • Central Park: Pinnacle: 249 m. Roof: 226 m
  • BankWest Tower: Pinnacle: 247 m. Roof: 214 m

If Central Park has an antenna, not a spire, its roof height would be classified as its official height, so therefore BankWest Tower would be considered taller. If BankWest Tower has the antenna, and Central Park has an architectural spire, BankWest Tower would be shorter. Even if they both had antennas, Central Park would be taller, or if they both had spires, Central Park would be taller. BankWest Tower could only be taller than Central Park if it has a spire and Central Park does not.

I once thought this last statement was true, and changed the information in both buildings' articles. These changes were soon reverted, but some of my sentences still remain and contradict the records, thus confusing readers. If this confusion is solved ASAP, we can sort out all of that. Thanks, timsdad (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded parts in Central Park (skyscraper) and BankWest Tower as if Central Park has a spire and BankWest Tower has an antenna. This matches the other information given, and should stay this way until proof about which building has a spire and which has an antenna is found. timsdad (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The top of Central Park is built in the form of a see-through latticework, and the BankWest Tower's is solid, so if one of them is going to be considered a 'spire' it would be the BankWest Tower. agrees, and ranks BankWest Tower taller than Central Park. But Central Park's roof height is a fair bit higher than BankWest's, and 99% of Perth people who actually know what Central Park is would say that it is the tallest of the two. And to complicate things, Emporis ranks them the other way around, with Central Park at number 1, seemingly including its antenna/spire, and BankWest at number 2, seemingly without its antenna/spire. So I don't think we're going to be able to find any definitive answer. - Mark 13:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said, everybody seems to rank Central Park as the higher and the two main skyscraper list sites contradict each other. Do you think we should leave all as is, or rank BankWest taller according to the above discussion about the latticework. timsdad (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Central Park is definitely the higher of the two, as per Mark's comment. My interest is that Bankwest is ranked 15th in Australia, whereas, if we go by its spire height, as per Timsdad's comments, then it could possibly be ranked 7th. This assumes that the same inconsistencies have not been applied to all the building ranked in between. Romaioi (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently working on research for a large expansion of this article, but one thing I've found already is that the "spire" on the tower right now wasn't part of the original plan for the building, and permission had to be later gained by the developers for the installation of what the newspaper described as a "communications antenna". So I'm starting to think Emporis is right on this. - Mark 08:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 108 St Georges Terrace. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)