Talk:Santos Place

Australia: Brisbane / Queensland Low‑importance

	Australia portal Santos Place 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Brisbane task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Architecture

	Architecture portal This 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Official Height

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The original design height for the building was 149.9m (RL162.93). This was measured to the tip of the two proposed spires located at the Sky Garden. Construction has now been completed, and the Developer has elected to not install the spires. For this reason, the correct height of this building is 146.8m (RL159.80).-MyFavco (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Solar

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am removing this claim:

Solar panels collect 90% of the buildings electricity needs.^[1]

because the citation is a print magazine not available online, and there doesn't seem to be any other information to back it up. It's very unlikely that a building of that size could be 90% supplied by solar unless it were clad in solar panels (which it doesn't seem to be). Also the latest version of the building's environmental sustainability page makes no mention of solar electricity at all, and instead mentions a "1150kW gas fired generator plant to supply base electrical building load".

My guess is that the original author of that sentence (User:Shiftchange) misread or misunderstood some claim in the cited City News article, or that the City News article itself was wrong. The building web site does mention sun-sensitive shading panels which might be the source of the confusion. —Danc (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

References

^ Royes, Luke (15 April 2010), "Building for the future with a sense of style", City News, pp. 12–13 {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Add topic

[bfss-1] Royes, Luke (15 April 2010), "Building for the future with a sense of style", City News, pp. 12–13 {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

[1]