Talk:List of tallest buildings in Brisbane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Proposed Buildings in Brisbane[edit]

The following list serves as a discussion point for proposed and cancelled buildings over 80m (~20 storeys) which are not at this stage featured on the article page. The current consensus is that they shall remain excluded, and further discussion on this issue is welcome below.-MyFavco (talk)

Project Address Developer Description Comments
Empire Square 79 Elizabeth Street Metacap 240m high 65 Storey Hotel Cancelled, site being re-leased.
Meriton Tower #2 43 Herschel St Meriton 236m high 73 Storey Residential Approved, construction may commence late 2009.
Centapoint 133 Adelaide St In-Sites 192m high 45 Storey Commercial Application for DA has lapsed.
549 Queen St 549 Queen St Marvella 186m high 60 Storey Residential Cancelled, site re-leased.
King George Central 145 Ann St Devine 157m high 39 Storey Commercial Approved, construction may start 2010.
Daisho Tower 174 Ann St Daisho Group 150m high 34 Storey Commercial Proposed, awaiting approval. Unlikely to proceed.
502 Adelaide St 502 Adelaide St Malouf Family & DMHP 138m high 44 Storey Residential Cancelled, site re-leased.
Q Centre 159 Roma St GPT 136m high 33 Storey Commercial Approvedm unlikely to proceed.
Buranda Village O'Keefe St 120m high 32 Storey Proposed, awaiting approval. May proceed in stages.
French Quarter Commercial 111 Margaret St Devine 112m high 26 Storey Hotel Approved, unlikely to proceed.
Roma St Hotel 156 Roma St Infinia 103m high 30 Storey Hotel Cancelledm site on sold.
SilverPoint Towers 462-470 Queen St Astor Hotel Motel Ltd 101m high 31 Storey Residential Approved, unlikely to proceed.
Union 150 Milton Rd FKP 98m high 32 Storey Commercial New proposal awaiting approval.
Elizabeth Tower 40-46 Elizabeth St Action Group 94m high 27 Storey Commercial Proposed, awaiting approval.
111 Mary St Devine 94m high 25 Storey Commercial Cancelled, site on-sold.
1 Parkside Bvd FKP 92m high 25 Storey Residential Proposed, awaiting approval.
Hogan Place 127 Charlotte St 85m high 27 Storey Residential Approved, unlikely to proceed.
Portal Tower 3 10 Breakfast Creek Rd Watpac 80m high 16 Storey Commercial Proposed, awaiting approval.

Discussion Regarding Inclusion of Proposed Buildings[edit]

  • This is in response to one editor's insistence on adding French Quarter Tower 1. This article has had all uncompleted buildings that are not under construction/on hold (and those must have up to date and reliable sources attached) removed. This is in lieu of removing all uncompleted buildings. The current consensus is that all proposed, approved, speculative and possible buildings do not belong in this article. Their status and viability can change too quickly and these buildings can never eventuate at all. If the aforementioned editor wishes to discuss this consensus further, it would be encouraged. However, please do this prior to reverting the current consensus. MvjsTalking 12:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly believe that it would be wrong to include proposed buidlings on this page. Such projects are often delayed, cancelled or amended prior to actually getting underway. To include these projects would bring a high degree of misinformation. Also, the sheer number of proposed buildings is immense, unwieldley and in constant flux. The best indication of when a project deserves inclusion on this page is once construction commences. MyFavco (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the only article that includes not-yet-completed buildings. Most, if not all, of the best tallest buildings lists of cities and countries around the world on Wikipedia have one or more sections on under-construction, approved or proposed buildings. If you strongly feel that this article should not include them, then you should also strongly feel none of the others should. If this is the case, take it to the Wikiproject. --timsdad (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this page has only included Under Construction and Completed buildings for some time now. Are you suggesting a section for Proposed Buildings should be added? MyFavco (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was merely pointing out that some other articles have sections on different combinations of those three statuses. However, if there is enough referencing for a proposed section I can't see why the article can't have one. It's not essential, only if someone wants to bother going about listing them. --timsdad (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Changes[edit]

Please use the To-Do List above for any items you believe require attention. Discuss freely ideas for other changes which require consensus.-MyFavco (talk)

I believe there are several changes that could improve this article. Firstly, while skyscraperpage.com does have a bit of information on skyscrapers, it is not nearly as accurate or detailed as the Emporis database. I believe it would be useful to separate the list out into 'complete', 'under construction', 'approved' and 'proposed'. Furthermore, the height figures should be shifted into meters, and perhaps a use of the building should be stated (office, residential, hospital etc) There is no real use in having every building above 35m (the skyscraperpage and emporis definition of a skyscrapers) listed, so perhaps and arbitrary limit of 90m should be used. $eti 05:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Red links[edit]

All the red links need sources lest they be removed on the grounds of WP:V. I'm not sure it serves any purpose to have proposed and planned buildings listed either. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image copyright problem with Image:EMPSQ.jpg[edit]

The image Image:EMPSQ.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Concerns[edit]

As other editors have previously suggested, there are some serious WP:V concerns about this article. This article (in addition to the articles about the actual towers) have very few, if any sources. Several of the towers listed in the proposed and under construction section are now put on an indefinite hold or have been cancelled completely. [1][2][3][4] Vision Brisbane and Trilogy Tower's future is now seriously in doubt and that'd be the case with quite a few of the towers listed in the under construction/proposed/approved sections. I am being WP:BOLD and removing all towers in the aforementioned sections per WP:CRYSTAL but would support them being re-added one by one with reliable sources that specifically back up what the article is claiming. SkyScraperCity is not a reliable source - it's a forum. MvjsTalking 22:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted an extensive audit of the building data listed on this page. It was found to be generally accurate. Inaccuracies mostly emanated from known errors in the SkyScraperPage database. These errors have now been corrected and the list is very close to being 100% perfect. Unfortunately, the more accurate sources of building data are not published on the WWW and therefore can not be linked as a reference source. MyFavco (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of tallest buildings in Brisbane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

150m+ only[edit]

User:MelbourneStar recently removed from this list all building less than 150 m tall, referring to similar lists for Melbourne & Sydney, and to CTBUH. I noticed that Wikipedia generally may have a different view as we have almost 1400 buildings below 150m in Category:Skyscrapers by height. I also noticed that Emporis is flexible about the definition of a skyscraper, but 100 m is their accepted lower limit; see https://www.emporis.com/faq. As for CTBUH: their criteria for the CTBUH Skyscraper Award say: "Projects must also be considered 'tall' buildings. If a project is less than 14 stories, or less than 50 meters, it is unlikely to qualify." The text at CTBUH Height Criteria is similar and just as flexible as Emporis' criteria. I suggest the buildings removed by MelbourneStar should be restored to this list. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Bednarek: By all means, add them back to the list -- I just thought conformity with two lists that actually are decent in quality would have been appropriate; nevertheless, 150 metres is generally the threshold for skyscrapers on CTBUH (It lists "150m+ buildings" in the profile, instead of "100m+" – that's my interpretation that it therefore means skyscrapers are 150m+... but that's also the interpretation of others, like this book). If you are to add it back, clarify that they are tall buildings, not skyscrapers. "150m" ([5], [6], [7], [8]) for skyscrapers, "300m" for supertall skyscrapers, "600m" for megatall skyscrapers.
Also, for what it's worth: Wikipedia isn't so consistent on this issue – I can point to various articles which mention a 150m+ threshold for skyscrapers, and even point to some about the threshold being 150m+, like this article: List of cities with the most skyscrapers. Point being? Wikipedia is inconsistent, and probably ought not to determine whether a skyscraper is 100m+ or 150m+.
Furthermore, should one add the projects to the list – it may be appropriate that they source them too, because as it currently stands: the section is completely unsourced. —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think only listing 150m+ is what we will have to do as maintaining a huge list of buildings over 100m is almost impossible to keep up to date and accurate, especially given that the only comprehensive source only guarantees reliability above 100m. Having an ever-increasing list of 70+ buildings is not sustainable in the long run. Focussing on the buildings which actually stand out and are in a more manageable number allows for photos and inclusion of useful notes and information which I have just done in overhauling the page togay. I think in the intro though for all of the articles we can list the number of 300m+, 150m+ and 100m+ buildings. The articles for Perth, Adelaide and Gold Coast (for now) can keep buildings below 150m for now as they have such small numbers (although this will change for GC and Perth no doubt) but for Brisbane is it becoming ridiculous and unmanageable.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, hence even CTBUH contend that listing below 150 metres may be incomplete – it's a skyscraper centre, after all, I can see why that it may be the case that listing under 150m is incomplete.
A side note, @Saruman-the-white: great work expanding the lead (I'll probably take a few pointers when updating Melbourne's lead), and making the changes to the list that you've made. Really looks great! —MelbourneStar☆talk 10:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only fair as I took a bunch from the relative masterpiece that is the Melbourne article my friend--Saruman-the-white (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Brisbane&oldid=1203439488"