Talk:Sydney Tower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Sydney Tower 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Height

It states that Sydney Tower is the second tallest vantage point in the southern hemisphere. Sydney Towers observation Deck is 260m and the observation deck on Melbourne's Eureka tower is 285m.


I've seen references to the name as:

  • Sydney tower
  • Centerpoint Tower
  • AMP Centerpoint Tower
  • AMP Tower

which is it? Is there an official reference somewhere? (the link on the site isn't quite working for me at the moment) Dysprosia 02:44, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

according to: http://www.sydneyskytour.com.au/sydney_tower.html, it says "Sydney Tower Centrepoint", but I've always thought of Sydney Tower being the tower and "Centrepoint" as being the shopping centre. i think leave the name of the page "Sydney Tower" and leave "Centrepoint" as synonyms. internationally, it's most well-known as Sydney Tower Clarkk 02:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I kinda realised that a little afte I posted it :) silly me. Anyway. Dysprosia 02:57, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

according to http://www.sydneyskytour.com.au/general.html, the tower is 250 metres, but the list of the world's tallest structures has it at 305 metres. i wonder which is right? Clarkk 03:01, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The observation deck is at 250m while the total tower height is 305m. I have made some changes that hopefully clear this up. -- Popsracer 23:21, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Do we really need two photos that are essentially the same? I'd remove one. Keep the upper one, because it was the first, or the lower one, because one can see the tower's gold color more clearly on that one? --Yogi de 07:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The second one is prettier, I kept it. Being first means nothing on wiki. -Randwicked 11:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free standing?

The lead says it's Australia's second tallest free standing structure. However it clearly has guy wires. So what does "free standing" mean? Stevage 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it means that it isn't against a cliff or something, sounds a bit strange though.

I sort of agree with Stevage, but how IS free-standing defined? Probably hard to pin down. Ingolfson 03:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
free standing means that it isn't suported by anything. It is used to distinguish buildings like the CN tower from oil platforms that can go hundreds of metres down to the floor of the ocean. 202.156.66.110 09:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

"Sydney Tower", 151,000 "Centrepoint Sydney", 218,000 "Centerpoint Sydney", 102,000

151,000 vs 320,000.

I've never heard any Australian call it 'Sydney Tower', just like the contempt we had for it being called friggen 'Amp Tower' when AMP bought it. It's Centerpoint / Centrepoint, and -always- will be.  :) 'nuff said. Jachin 06:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Should still be under the official name. Others names are redirected here, so no big loss.MadMaxDog 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restaurants

Can someone confirm its TWO restaurants? The renovation articles talk of one only. MadMaxDog 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The a-la-carte restaurant is now promoted as part-bar, part-restaurant , but the food still appears to be the main focus (the buffet restaurant is still there, although renovated according to the article). I think it's still safe to speak of two restaurants in that way. -Spiky Sharkie [ talk ] 11:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change to edited image?

I have edited the infobox image to remove the building and the utility pole. What do people think, should we replace the article image with it? Ingolfson 02:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

.

[edit] Section not open to the public

This article doesn't mention what's on the floor of the tower not open to the public. I doubt that the antenna (or "spire") is there for show and tell, or for TV reception. It's purpose stated here is for telecommunications and observation. Does anyone know if Australia's intelligence services have a floor there? Maybe the CIA's Sydney substation (if they have one) has office space there too? If nobody knows, is anyone willing to file a FOI request to find out exactly what's on the floor not open to the public? I can't find anything using Google that even asks the question what's on the floor not open to the public. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.101.228 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it's just housing the water tank and plant/service areas. Just because you can't find information through Google doesn't mean it's some big secret. If you don't want to research beyond typing a few keywords into a web search box, try asking in the Oz section of the skyscrapercity forums - I'm sure someone there will have an answer for you (albeit unciteable). 121.44.98.216 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You "suspect?" Why is that? Are you an architect who designs these buildings? Is it typical a whole floor not open to the public would be a water tank and/or plant/service area? Just because you can't find information through Google doesn't mean it's some big secret that there are suspected water tank and plant/service areas. If you don't want to research beyond typing a few keywords into a web search box, try asking in the Oz section of the skyscrapercity forums - I'm sure someone there will have a suspected answer for you (albeit unciteable and only suspected). ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.44.92 (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
wow my house isn't open to the public, i wonder what strange things go on in there... unspkeakable things... (looks around suspiciously) 202.156.66.110 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, file that FOI request then (if there's such a term in Australia). CIA substation? Well, that one's probably in talk's house, though! Ingolfson (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm with the others - way too exposed to be the site of something like that, and technically not required nowadays (wiretaps, satellites, anyone? Governments do not need tall towers anymore to watch their people...) Ingolfson (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The original poster sounds like he's just stirring the pot. His second post asks how typical it is for a skyscraper to have even one floor dedicated to plant (let alone multiple mechanical floors, which in fact is the case with most skyscrapers), so he clearly hasn't done elementary research before coming up with his theory. The Little Teapot (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
"...with the space above the people deck occupied by a 162 000 litre water tank that steadies the building on windy days and topped off with an antenna." - http://travel.ciao.co.uk/Sydney_AMP_Tower__Review_5542796 - Mark 00:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Now that IS interesting. What do they need 162 tonnes of water up there? Is that all ballast? I guess it could be part of their fire sprinkler system too. Anyway, just asking, not imaging some conspiracy. Though it might make a good shark tank for a James Bond villain. Lording it high over Sydney... Ingolfson (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I read in a paper by the architect that the fire authorities wanted the tank. But it's also suspended and functions as a tuned mass damper. Maybe the size was determined largely by the latter. The Little Teapot (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)