Talk:List of tallest buildings in Christchurch

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

Minimum height[edit]

We need to agree on a minimum height. I wrote at some point that the list includes "Christchurch high rises that stand at least 36 metres (118 ft) tall". I wouldn't have made such a strange figure up, I don't think, but I can't remember where it comes from. You have found quite a few 35 m buildings, and I don't have an issue with changing the above figure to that. Schwede66 18:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have chosen it for a particular building? What you could do is for buildings 10 levels and over as it won't be a very big list as many demolished and no new ones to be built thanks to the stupid CCC height limit of 28m 7 floors. So their wont be any new towers added unfortunately which is not good for CHC in my opinion.CHCBOY (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that we should pick a height limit instead. Ok, whilst we haven't got a height yet for the current civic offices, it wouldn't have 10 levels, but it may well be as high as other buildings in the list due to its large stud height. Schwede66 21:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've found it again: "The Emporis Standards Committee defines a high-rise building as "a multi-storey structure between 35–100 meters tall, or a building of unknown height from 12–39 floors" and a skyscraper as "a multi-storey building whose architectural height is at least 100 m or 330 ft." I suggest that we should use that. source Schwede66 01:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may also have been influenced by the large number of 35-metre buildings. In Chch, 35 metres is (was) relatively common, 36 metres far less so. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarendon[edit]

I've had a look for the number of levels of the Clarendon, and most sources (e.g. NZHPT and this page) give 17. That's also what I get when I count using photos. A more recent newspaper report talks of "17-storey" and "level 18". Do you have a source for 18? Schwede66 22:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got no source, I just counted the floors from the photo of it. CHCBOY (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some NZ buildings annoyingly use the US system - in which the Ground floor is called "Level 1". The top floor of a (NZ) 17-storey building would then be (US) "Level 18". Grutness...wha? 05:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Churches[edit]

I wonder whether we should add churches to this list. ChristChurch Cathedral, when it still had its spire, was 63 m tall. I'm guessing that this used to be the tallest church that we had.

Given that the Cathedral was for a long time the tallest building, we could also add succession boxes to the various articles, with the title "tallest building in Christchurch" linking back to this list article.

And there's of course the Sugarloaf communication tower at 121 m. Schwede66 01:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they all relevent. What about add a purpose coloum that will make it like the others and a few photos. Have a look at Hobart's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Hobart CHCBOY (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A purpose column is indeed useful. I'll add the |abbr=on parameter to the height column (or you can if you wish), so that the column width reduces. The other useful column that we could add is for coordinates. Schwede66 08:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The usual classification is that churches are buildings, and should be in the list - communications towers are structures but not buildings, and are normally listed separately. There is an existing succession box, BTW - see the bottom of Hotel Grand Chancellor, Christchurch. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest issue with churches that I see is - where do you get their height from? It's known for the Anglican Cathedral, but beyond that, what do we do? Schwede66 03:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there must be a reference work that would have that sort of information - a Chch equivalent of Charles Croot's "Churches of Dunedin" or similar? Grutness...wha? 22:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, next time I go to the library, I shall look up the following books:

  • Built in Faith: Catholic Churches of the Christchurch Diocese, Past and Present, 1840-2010
  • Early Churches in and Around Christchurch Schwede66 23:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
euh... I've been on Facebook too long. I was looking for a "like" button for your last comment! Grutness...wha? 09:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my understanding is that the talk page system is undergoing a complete overhaul and once done, it will much more resemble social networking; wouldn't be surprised if 'like' buttons were part of it. Schwede66 05:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can thank someone for their edit, which almost like a like...doesn't help with the absence of a lol emoticon though! :) DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Establishment[edit]

This building built on the corner of Victoria st and Peterborough st was only 7 levels tall, I not sure of the metres but be well under 35m about 28m it not really qualify for the list. Thoughts? CHCBOY (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've 'disestablished' it. Too short, even if it was a pretty looking building. Schwede66 20:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From this link: http://www.warrenandmahoney.com/en/portfolio/the-establishment-apartments/ it explains it was 11 levels so a reliable source for it to be re-added back to the list. So I put it back in at no. 50. Sorry for the earlier mistake. CHCBOY (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List candidates[edit]

There might be others that were at least 35 m tall. Here's a start:

  • BDO Building at 148 Victoria Street (that one might just make the required height; recently demolished).
  • Craigs Investment Partners House, corner of Armagh Street and Oxford Terrace. Somewhat shorter than the adjacent Victoria Apartments, which are 50 m tall. Schwede66 20:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the BDO I left out as I thought was only 9 levels, not sure of exact height though. Langwood House is the original name of the Craigs building which is already in the list.CHCBOY (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Architect and Builder Sections[edit]

I have started off the extra two rows for this info for each building. Some info is missing and will be hard to find as I have mis-placed my newspaper cuttings from the 80's which had it all. It will be a work in progress for some time.CHCBOY (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found my newspaper cuttings at last!! So I have gone through the article by correcting and filling in missing info where I have found the relevant info for each building. More work to follow of course.CHCBOY (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good one! You probably never thought when you cut those articles out what you'd eventually use them for. I've updated the main photo once again (Copthorne Colombo now demolished, Harmony Towers added; press CTRL F5 to clear your cache of the old photo). Nice finding another one. Can you confirm that Harmony Towers is the skinny boarded up building visible in Google Streetview to the left of Ann's Thai? That's what it looks like when I look at the cadastral map, but if so, I wonder why they use plural? There's just one ower. Or am I missing something? By the way, if you add info from newspaper cuttings, you might as well put as much info as possible in <ref></ref> tags, e.g. newspaper, date (or year), author, article title, page number. Schwede66 05:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede, Yes it is between the old coal coporation and Broadbank buildings all 3 survived the quakes. The most recent name is Hereford Suites. It has a second part extension on the back and to the east behind Broadbank as well which is not visible from the street view. Also the problem with my old newspaper cuttings is I not save the whole page and so no date unfortunately.CHCBOY (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Re the clippings, if you know the newspaper, then it's worth recording the article title and the paper's name, I reckon. Schwede66 04:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly Ready[edit]

Hi Schwede, would the List of tallest buildings in Christchurch be ready to go into mainspace? Or is it lacking refs some buildings don't have any. Be nice to have it up what do you reckon. CHCBOY (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was away over the weekend. It could do with a bit more tweaking (many of the refs are still bare URLs), but if you are keen, I'm happy to move it into mainspace now. I was wondering, though, whether you are keen on us writing a short article about Pacific Tower first, and then move them together. It's ok to say no, but let me know what you think. Schwede66 08:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was thinking the same about the Pacific Tower (great minds think alike) as its the tallest now and probably for a very long time. I will do some research on it, be good to have a photo from the front as the Gloucester st view looks nicest. CHCBOY (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination[edit]

Link to nomination.

National Mutual Centre[edit]

I've removed the National Mutual Centre, or the Link Centre as it was called for the last few years, from the list. It had 8 levels. Designed by Warren & Mahoney, by the way. Schwede66 22:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the AA Building in Hereford Street? That is the one to the left of the Occidental, isn't it? That wouldn't be anywhere near 10 stories high, or am I looking at the wrong building? Schwede66 00:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Vero Insurance building is also not 10 storeys high. I count seven, and have thus removed it from the list. Schwede66 04:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the corrections, it be good to have the exact heights for the list so it is more defined. But I think it be hard to come by others may be able to help.CHCBOY (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

State Insurance Building[edit]

What is the story with the State Insurance Building? You've added it to the list as a 1970 building, but that must have been an addition. The front part is from ca 1935; designed by Cecil Wood and registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust as a Category II building: "1931". New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero. Heritage New Zealand. Schwede66 03:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was an extension added to the back facing Hereford st built in 1970 to complement it. So I edit the entry to it. I checked with my friend today the original front part was from 1931 which is a lot shorter. I'm still not sure of this buildings fate yet?CHCBOY (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main photo[edit]

I've created a new main photo that shows building status. It's based on an aerial that shows the vast majority of the buildings of interest. I've done the artwork in PowerPoint, and it's easy to update it (i.e. swap colours around) when necessary; just leave a note. Schwede66 04:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats mate you have done a fantastic job with this article and you have put a heck of a lot of work into it, well done Schwede66. I take my hat off to you.CHCBOY (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't have done it without your help! Thanks. Schwede66 18:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oaks iStay[edit]

Does anyone have a reference for the Oaks coming down? It's in the eastern green belt, and I hear that Cera is buying up the individually-owned units. Schwede66 19:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have updated article with the bad news of its compulsory demo by CERA such a waste its lunacy we need more hotels not less of them. CHCBOY (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I did read some months ago that CERA wanted to make use of the building, but can't find it now. Can anybody remember what the story is? Schwede66 18:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the CERA website for info if not there it may be better to call them for the info. I see the Oaks hotel has now got scaffold on its eastern side, repairs? I may go over and ask the contractor what the go is.CHCBOY (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two lists[edit]

I've split the list into two - one listing the 50 tallest immediately before 22/2/11, and one as it is today. It's great to have a historical record of what was there, but it's worth having a list of what will remain - and what new structures may eventually be built to replace what was lost. Grutness...wha? 05:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking, Mr Grutness. I like that. Schwede66 05:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Police Station[edit]

With the pending implosion, we should probably start writing an article. Anybody keen to help? Schwede66 03:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Proposal[edit]

A pleasant surprise to me is the new Westpark so have added a section on this proposal from this source:[1]

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 Christchurch. 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 09:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bold edits[edit]

@Ethanjosiah: Please let us have your thoughts how this page should be changed, and we'll then no doubt find some consensus. Over to you. Schwede66 09:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the page was quite messily formatted and contains informations that doesn't really need to be there. The page should mainly focus on the buildings and their heights, and doesn't really need extra information like the builder or architect. I edited it to be more in line with the equivalent pages for Auckland and Wellington which are more to the point and easy to read. Ethanjosiah (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information contained in this article is well researched so should not be deleted just to make it the same as the Auckland and Wellington pages. In fact those two articles really need more research to improve their coverage of their buildings on their respective pages.CHCBOY (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that builder and architect belong to the table, and that was my main reason to revert your edits. I cannot see the point in deleting those details, unless there's consensus to do so. I didn't really look too hard what else you had done; would you like to elaborate? Schwede66 00:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's all good. I just thought that it seemed a bit redundant but if you disagree that's fine. I also made a bunch of other updates to outdated or incorrect information and made a table for the proposed buildings as well. Maybe I will make a few minor updates like that without removing anything? Ethanjosiah (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much better - thanks! And you've added some good details, which is always good. I agree that demolition dates might as well as precise as we know it, rather than just the year. Regarding proposed buildings, the table is better than the bulleted list, but what would be even better is to have that preceded by some prose that describes the various proposals. That way, we can cut back on the notes in the table, and as the various proposals progress, we have a logical spot where we can document the development. Schwede66 07:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings in Christchurch. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

92 Hereford Street Add.[edit]

Hi, I was looking on CCC before and after and with the 2010 models I noticed an 11 storey white High Rise with a heigh of 40.9M at 92 hereford street that is not yet added to the list (the building was demolished in late 2011) but I cannot find any information on it other then the digital models. Is this worth adding?

Abandoned/Unbuilt Section?[edit]

We could potentially add an abandoned/unbuilt building section as there are multiple unbuilt proposal such as The Pinnacle, Christchurch Sky Ball and multiple of the proposed buildings (such as verve and west kilmore ) have been cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrum (talk • contribs) 00:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral[edit]

Is there any reason why the (formerly) 63-metre ChristChurch Cathedral, Christchurch isn't listed? Grutness...wha? 06:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Christchurch&oldid=1201205397"