New Zealand has the tallest building in the southern hemisphere!

Some1 be friend plz

Attached: 1538365889058.jpg (833x1000, 83K)

Actually, it doesn't count as a building, it's a structure, and yes, the tallest one in the southern hemisphere, but still, not a building, that title belongs to the Q1 building in Australia. Anyways I still prefer NZ over Aus so yeah who cares

no please dont bully anyone
that is mean and New Zealand is nice

Attached: loli dont bully.jpg (572x497, 29K)

How can you rag on us for that cricket "cheating" when this is your claim to fame

Attached: shutterstock-195655559.jpg (728x425, 64K)

but it has a roof and walls though and the definition of a building is a structure with a roof and walls
thank you for liking New Zealand :)

Attached: anime girl hug 1.gif (500x522, 1.72M)

>that title belongs to the Q1 building in Australia.
Based
>Anyways I still prefer NZ over Aus so yeah who cares
Cringe

our claim to fame is lord of the rings

Attached: >~< loli.jpg (777x589, 68K)

The tallest building in the italian penisula is not in Italy

Attached: 1349029954923.jpg (745x676, 40K)

How tall is the NZ one? How tall is the new Aussie one gonna be?

Daily reminder that phar lap, pavlova and russel crowe are dinky di

Okay.
We are friends now.
Hmmm we could always try and push it over?

Attached: 1525755111920.png (455x633, 204K)

The assessment of the height of artificial structures has been controversial. Various standards have been used by different organizations which has meant that the title of world's tallest structure or building has changed depending on which standards have been accepted. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat has changed its definitions over time. Some of the controversy regarding the definitions and assessment of tall structures and buildings has included the following:

the definition of a structure, a building and a tower
whether a structure, building or tower under construction should be included in any assessment
whether a structure, building or tower has to be officially opened before it is assessed
whether structures built in and rising above water should have their below-water height included in any assessment.
whether a structure, building or tower that is guyed is assessed in the same category as self-supporting structures.
Within an accepted definition of a building further controversy has included the following factors:

whether only habitable height of the building is considered
whether communication towers with observation galleries should be considered "habitable" in this sense
whether rooftop antennas, viewing platforms or any other architecture that does not form a habitable floor should be included in the assessment
whether a floor built at a high level of a telecommunications or viewing tower should change the tower's definition to that of a "building"

oh wowe

Attached: wow loli.jpg (1125x638, 61K)

I meant that I prefer the Auckland Tower over the Q1, sorry, didn't really make it easy to understand. I'd rather live in Aus than in NZ.

328 meters
388 meters

Attached: anime girl hiding behind hair.jpg (230x230, 13K)

I will use my stand

Attached: anime girl posing.jpg (1920x1080, 423K)

Nice, now they'll never rise above us.

Attached: 1532639693556.jpg (620x456, 102K)

very cool!

Attached: crush Ebina.png (1920x1080, 2.04M)

thank you for your supportugal!

Attached: anime girl hug 6.gif (500x281, 467K)

Why are new zealand diaper trannies so cringe

SYKE, fuck New Zealand and fuck the Auckland Tower Fuck yeah Australia Fuck yeah Q1 building

Attached: 1548636652664.png (332x332, 148K)

why would you do this :(

Attached: loli cri 13.gif (480x270, 118K)

you are the bestest nation in your hemisphere, by far!!
sincerely, user from the other side of the planet

Attached: virgin got chad lotr.png (3964x1472, 339K)

New Zealand should do this:

Attached: 1475294313136.jpg (960x960, 227K)

Holy based!