Talk:Burj Dubai/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Permission granted tro use pictures from BurjDubaiSkyscraper.com

I contacted the owner of BurjDubaiSkyscraper.com and asked him for permission to use the pictures from his website. He has granted permission (yaaaaay). This is what he had to say:


From: Daniel Hoffmann
Sent: Mon 4/24/2006 1:13 PM
To: Siddiqui, Jibran
Subject: Re: Permission to use pictures

Hello Jibran Siddiqui,

Of course, feel free to use my pictures from burjdubaiskyscraper.com,
Wikipedia is a great site!
Daniel Hoffmann

> Hi. I was wondering if you can grant permission to use some of the Burj
> Dubai pictures at BurjDubaiSkyscraper.com, at the article on Burj Dubai
> at the non-commercial and free Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Dubai, after giving due credit to your
> website and providing a link to it too.
> Thank you,
> Jibran Siddiqui.
--Jibran1 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts but unfortunately I think you need to explain things better. We only allow images with a 'free' license on wikipedia and it's not clear the owner of the site has agreed to license any of his photos under a 'free' license Nil Einne 12:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Other building heights (NPOV)

While mentioning the heights of other towers in comparison, in the second or third paragraph, the Freedom Tower is listed as 1,776 feet, while all the others are listed in meters. Clearly, the person who wrote this article has been updated on the sensationalism of the Freedom Tower, and its symbolic height. Shouldn't someone list the Freedom Tower's height in meters also?

I think the Freedom Tower article should have its height told in both meters and feet. The 1,776 should be included for popularly accepted symbolism, and the meters for technical correctness and conformity to other Wikipedia articles. If possible, please sign your message next time! I like to refer to people by their sn's for respect. :)Thanks. Gunbolt 00:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


compare the image of compared building heights with the one at List of tallest buildings and structures in the world. one of these images is drastically inaccurate. look at sears vs taipei 101. Some thing 22:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? --Golbez 23:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Replica of Burj Dubai?

Guys, do you know that there is a planned $27bn development in Dubailand that'll create replicas of the world's tallest buildings and it will also include a replica of the burj dubai? I just saw it on this website, it shows pictures and everything: skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=345241&page=1&pp=20

  • I saw nothing that indicated any kind of "replica" on that site. What exactly are you talking about? Looks like another huge hotel project... J Shultz 05:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


  • It's on the burjdubaiskyscraper.com site now as well. The guy just put up some info along with some pictures of the model.
  • There is nothing about that on burjdubaiskyscraper.com ....
Yes there is. It's called "al bawadi" and it's dated may 13th. If that's not enough go to this site (and read through the whole thread, not just the 1st page: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=345241&page=1 rahmalec 23:35, 23 May 2006 (GMT)
This is a lot of speculation. It appears that the only information about this project, is a picture with a bunch of models sitting on a table. It could be that these other tall buildings are just there to set a reference to how tall the new buildings will be. I don't see anywhere on this thread that says that this project is really going to rebuild a bunch of huge buildings in a row all for hotel usage. -Quasipalm 19:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How many car bays at Burj Dubai?

How many car bays at Burj Dubai? I am struggling to find out any information other than the car bays are going to be underground. Some reports point to the fact that there are only 2 underground floors considering the depth of the foundations this seems to small to accomdate all the inhabitants or is their a deliberate ploy to have limited parking in the development? Any information on this would be much appreciated.


--- According to [this] there will be 16,000 parking spaces, but not in the tower itself. --76.11.13.218 04:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If that happens to be true?

I guess that Dubai, being an oil-rich country must have somewhat high living costs.

If it is true that they pay just 4 dollars... the contractors are really depictable persons ... Poor people...

The UAE is not particularly oil-rich, especially the Emirate of Dubai, and most of the workers are likely immigrants of dubious legality from Pakistan, where most of the UAE's grunt workers come from. I don't know that the cost is living is all that high. Doesn't make it less despicable of course; just getting the facts straight. —Cuiviénen 05:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The actual figures from last year state that the number of expatriates is led by Indians, followed by Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and then more in smaller numbers from other Asian countries. The cost of living is very high, and is a source of constant wrangling between the Ruling authorities and the public.
Not that I'm defending anyone but I would presume some sort of accomodation and probably food is provided by the employees so the high cost of living in Dubai likely doesn't have that much of an effect on the worker's end pay Nil Einne 12:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The United Arab Emerites is very rich. Their per capita GDP is a higher than that of the United States. They also have a more diversified economy than other Arab oil producing nations. In addition, the have a lot more oil per capita than other countries, such as Suadi Arabia (CIA World Factbook).

in SkyscraperPage.com burj dubai had 162 floors.

nobody knows for sure, any true figure is like to just be speculation. We've also heard figures of up to 200 floors. They've said that there will be useable space up to floor 160 so that means there must be a few mechanical ones above that to hold elevator equipment, etc.

in SkyscraperPage.org the burj dubai is 808 m (2651 ft). please change the heiht.

Opening date

This pages lists the topout at December 30 2008 and the opening February, 2009. So, according to this, they are going to add all of the finishing to the building in 2 months. This would be unheard of for a normal sized skyscraper... how can this be? -Quasipalm 15:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your incorrectly stating that they will add ALL of the finishing during that time. However that isn't how skyscrapers are built. While they are adding floors onto the top, they are advancing construction on the bottommost floors. They add in the walls, glass, plumbing, insulation, and other construction materials and needs. So it is completely possible for them to accomplish this, if they top it out when about 90% or more of the building is already finished. --KCMODevin 11:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The tower IS scheduled to be completed by December 2008, however it will not be ready for occupancy until September 2009. The towers interior designers, Giorgio Armani et al, and all the mechanical equipment to be installed, are given 6 months to complete. I think this will actually take six months to complete considering how large this building is and how perfect it has to be, taking into account the huge hype of it being the center piece of the 'most prestigious one square kilometer on earth'. Also, the Burj Dubai planners and managers have to organize staff, chefs, room maids, janitors and various other things related to the functionality of the tower, so September 2009 seems a realistic date to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruwanmal Bandara Palapathwala (talk • contribs) 23:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Current Height

The current height is noted as "well over just shy of 190 meters." Which is it, under or over 190m?

That is probably referring to it's current height during construction. As of mid October 2006, it is just over 200m. --KCMODevin 11:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

DDIA

Their web address is wrong now : "No web site is configured at this address." --193.56.241.75 06:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

once the tower is complete the height cannot be changed

"The developer, Emaar, has stated this steel section may be extended to beat any other tower to the title of tallest, however once the tower is complete the height cannot be changed."

Why is that in that sentence? Whether they change it or not, why can it not be changed? --Kalmia 23:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably because it would structurally be impossible. Your talking about something that will be over 800m tall. No helicopter or crane could easily reach the top and raise it's height. And being so tall and slender, you can only go so high without effecting the building's weight and sway too much. THey would have designed it to hold it's spire at a certain height, to go any higher would probably be risking/pushing it's structure. --KCMODevin 11:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Burj Dubai will not be over 800m tall. Sources below. --Magpie1892

_____________________

Dubai, 21 Oct 2006.

The final height of the Burj Dubai will be just over 700 metres, not 808 metres, or the frankly ridiculous 900+ metres suggested by one of the subcontractors.

A phone call to builders Emaar confirmed this target height.


Personal research is not allowed on here. Either find a credible source or leave it alone. Oh and sign your posts so we know who you are. --KCMODevin 18:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming article in UAE daily newspaper 7DAYS will confirm that Emaar confirms final height of Burj Dubai tower at just over 700m. So, sources: Emaar (the builders) 7DAYS (the article). Will alter height on main page after the article is published. --Magpie1892

- The evidence is plain as day that it has been upped from 705m to around 800. First of all check the burjdubaiskyscraper site, there's an article where Adrian Smith (the architect) himself says so. Also Check the renders, it's obvious the height of the spire has been increased.Rahmalec 17:30, 27 October 2006 (GMT)

Emaar, who are constructing the building, have confirmed that the Burj Dubai will be somewhere in the 'early 700s' in terms of metres tall. This, I would suggest, is plain as day, as you would imagine the builders to have pretty much a 100% say on how tall they are likely to make the project. When the article confirming this is published, the relevant changes will be made on the main page to correct the erroneous figures currently there. --Magpie1892

They confirmed the 700m figure 2 years ago. Since then the top section of the tower was redesigned as was mentioned in the interview with Adrian Smith. Also the 808m figure was taken from a contractor's website. The first actual renders of the new design were released around december last year. By the way here's an article where someone from emaar specifically says they've gone beyond the 705m height: http://www.cityscape.ae/PDF/CityScape_Review2.pdf . If that upcoming 7days article prints a 700m figure it should be quoted from an emaar official, otherwise the article means nothing. We've had plenty of articles, I remember a gulfnews one mentioning a height of 940m and that it'll have 200 floors.Rahmalec

As I understand it the article mentions both an official Emaar spoked person confirming final height of 700-ish metres. Additionally, the premise of the article is that a memorandum was circulated earlier this month between ALL of the subcontractors on the project which indicated that Emaar wished it to be known that the final height of the building had been revised to the original figure of just over 700 metres for a number of reasons. These two facts make the likely final height of the Burj Dubai just over 700 metres and when the piece is published I'll alter accordingly. As a rule of thumb, you're not likely to get accurate reporting on matters UAE from any of the government owned papers (i.e. all of them in the UAE bar 7DAYS) for obvious reasons. When the Burj Dubai is complete at 700-odd metres, it's almost a certainty that Emirates Today or Gulf News will report the height as 'just under 800 metres' or somesuch. You know it, I know it! --Magpie1892

So you're saying they're redesigning it again and bringing it back to the original figure? If that's true then it's pointless arguing about this, the only thing is to do is wait for official confirmation. If 7days do print such an article then emaar will definitely have to make a statement. That's not to say I'm disappointed if it does happen though since 700m is still huge. You can be sure there'll a fuss when that info comes out (if it's actually true) so somebody will edit this article quicklyRahmalec

Yeah, like I said, I will wait for the article and this is why I have not altered the 808m figure on the article page itself. There is no point in arguing, as you correctly point out, and yes, 700m is still huge. Magpie1892


New source for Height

There's a new image found recently that reveals a whole load of information about the steel structure. First of all, the height is confirmed at 808m and roof height at 643.3m. Also the height of the concrete core is 585.7m. There's a good bit of info on how it will be constructed as well in this image. I'll update the heights but won't upload the image to wikipedia since the height is still supposed to be confidential and someone may complain. The link to the image is here though: http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/896/s2in3.jpg At the moment it's NOT the 2nd tallest in Dubai because the Rose Rotana Suites has reached its full height of 333m. As well, 90 floors seems a bit optimistic. Rahmalec 18.52, 1 December 2006

Actually, it is at 90 floors, confirmed by multiple ppl in Dubai, as well as the estimate that says 1 floor every 2-3 days. It's been about 6 days since it was around 88 floors. You can also tell it's at 90 floors from daily photos being taken. It also looks like it will pass 333m by the middle of next week. --KCMODevin 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that 90 floors above ground level though? In most of the pictures 2 basement floors are visible which shouldn't be counted Rahmalec 23:45, 4 December 2006

I'll check, but I'm very sure it's 91 floors above ground level. (the height has recently risen another floor) --KCMODevin 00:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

808 meters (2651 ft) 162 floors

it the Emporis.com Website the Burj dubai is 808 meters, and 162 floors.

Where are you getting this new height data?

I am just wondering where the updates are coming from on the height. The Burjskyscraper.com site does not indicate any new height increases since reporting that construction has reached supertall proportions. If I am missing the sited source please let me know otherwise I am curious as to how the update for December 12 at 94 stories came to be. Emperor 09:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting it from various people in Dubai. I'm not entirely sure of their connections, however their numbers are found to be accurate, even if you use estimates to figure out it's height. We'eve been updating the height for several weeks now. The floor count is also accurate even if you count the floors in the updated pictures, and even if you use the estimate for 2-3 days per floor. --KCMODevin 12:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate the effort put into providing up to date coverage on the tower's height, but we must always be wary of putting our own personal research onto Wikipedia as it weakens the article as a whole. I have no doubt the folks in Dubai can clearly look up and count the number of floors as well as triangulate the height but we must source all data. Emperor 18:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't personal research... And that isn't how they are figuring it out, many have friends in the construction. --KCMODevin 20:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

These friends need to create primary sources such as labeled and dated pictures or statements from the builders that they have reached a certain floor, otherwise it will be precieved as personal research. Emperor 02:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell do you feel the need to question this information anyway? Not only can the floor number be confirmed by people on the ground, it also can be confirmed by counting the floors, as well as using the average of 2-3 floors per day. Also, most of the residential floors are about 3.6m, when they reach the commercial section that will increase to about 6m per floor. You also fail to recognize that a large portion of information on Wikipedia IS unsourced, but that in no way means that we shouldn't trust it... And a lot of the time, the sourced information/statistics are not accurate. It's better to have this currently unsourced information than to eliminate it just because it isn't sourced. --KCMODevin 03:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see that this has been a sensitive issue so I will drop it. My original purpose was to identify where I could see this updates as well and be part of this exciting race to the top. My passion is buildings and national expansion not debating little mute points. If more serious Wikipedians come along and try to delete unsourced data I will help you defend it if only to find out the day to day progress of construction. Good luck on your continued progress on this article, but as Burj Dubai gets closer to completion the expectations for the article will increase as well. Emperor 05:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like personal research to me...when asked to source the info, he refuses, and says 'I'm getting it from various people in Dubai. I'm not entirely sure of their connections' and 'many have friends in the construction', then gets entirely too defensive when asked again to source the info. I disagree with the suggestion that it is better to have this unsourced info than to eliminate it. 162.136.192.1 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats your own opinion, and besides, I've stopped updating it, other people are adding it as well, so you should use your brain and figure out that the information is coming from somewhere other than personal research. Use your brain on the issue... Also before you comment on Wikipedia rules, you need to abide by them, looking through your IP's talk page, it doesn't look like you do. (unless for some odd reason, you have someone else's IP address) --KCMODevin 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

To end the discussion I think it's useful to take the official height from the building's page www.burjdubai.com They update it every ten days more or less. Their numbers may not be up-to-day, but they are the official ones, not based in rumors. Dirkky. 01:01, 1st april 2007

Well who cares, just put up a disclaimer that the actual height isn't correct, but put up the real amount of floors and make sure people know the two don't go together. BTW, they aren't rumors, they are fact, it's just no "official" sources care enough to keep track of it every day like people I know. Also, their numbers are MONTHS old, not days/weeks! That is, unless they go Day-Month-Year instead of Month-Day-Year... We are NOT using anything older than 10 days. Current height: 122 floors (FACT) 452.48m (ESTIMATE) --KCMODevin 00:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. An up-to-date photograph is certainly a reliable source for the floor count, so there should be no problem with putting it on wikipedia. 'Reliable' is the important word here - it doesn't matter if it's official or not. --Youzoid 16:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

These people obviously don't know how to count, or some of the random IPs are just out to vandalise. We have already established that the burj dubais site showing the floors is NOT on April 1st... So why lie to our readers and tell them that the old data is up-to-date rather than old data. I'm sick of IPs changing the data without proper sources or information, and changing information to be incorrect. --KCMODevin 03:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to all of you for your work and effort to keep the article punctually up-to-date. Greetings!. Dirkky. 15:55, 3rd april 2007 (GMT)

Construction is getting exciting

As the new year approaches and the 100 floor mark will certainly be some amazing achievements.

A good picture update is in order considering it is 2007 and rumor has it we are at 100 floors. Emperor 05:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

New Website

I found a website that seems to have some information, I list it -- 219.88.55.69 06:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Poor website, bring less info than article. I am deleting it. --Jklamo 07:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Burj Dubai Floors

Someone put less floors for the Burj, before it was 115 stories and at 441 Meters now it's 110 and 389 Meters, is this true? and if it isn't some please correct it. The Burj Dubai must be over 400 Meters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StevenT1 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

If it isnt then those floors are going to be awful squishy. Ive been in Citic tower in Guangzhou, roughly the same as height as this is alleged and it has 80 stories, granted the ceilings are probably 20 ft on each floor. but Im thinking cramped, but I just cant see cramped in Dubai.--74.104.48.172 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


It has also come to my attention someone is interfering with the height information, someone put 126 floors and 470 meters high, I certainly though this was added by someone with an IP address, I consider this vandalism, and therefore the true height should be corrected. But it looks to be corrected.

StevenT1 09:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Observation Deck

There is an error in the Burj Dubai diagram shown on the page there. The observation deck will IN FACT be on the 124th floor. I know that because we are the firm designing the observation deck. Would have prefer beeing higher for the telescopes to get a better look at the surroundings, but that is how it is. Here are renderings of telescopes we are looking at. http://www.gsmproducts.ca/PAGES%20HTML/Products/FichesPRODUCTS-HTML/E-telescope.html


Cracks in the foundations?

I've read online that there are severe problems due to cracks found within the foundations, and it may not go any higher than it already is. Shouldn't this article reflect that? The Mayor 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, because it's merely rumor. --Golbez 03:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

An issue in 'Race for the top'

There is one particular section in the article (Race for the top) that mentions Al Burj as being a 'formidable threat' to Burj Dubai. It incorrectly stated Al Burj's height, which I have since fixed (the height in the article was at 700m, whereas the true height will be much taller at 1200m). However, this sort of compromises everything else in that section. Clearly, if Al Burj will be that much taller, then there will be no need for statements about comparability. Sherwelthlangley 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

regarding the comments in the "Question of Necessity" section, Urban planning and optimizing the use of a 3000 USD/per Sq. Ft. plot plays a huge role in such a development. References such as KM3 by MVRDV may give further support. feel free to contact me at mkshakra@gmail.com for any comments, inquiries, and questions about Dubai (my beloved home & City) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.150 (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2007

Rediff.com copies this article, then adds their OWN copyright to it

An article on www.rediff.com seems to copy this Wikipedia page. They failed to cite/acknowledge Wikipedia (or anyone else), and put their own copyright on the page.

The article "This will be world's tallest building" (http://inhome.rediff.com/cms/print.jsp?docpath=//money/2007/jun/07tall.htm) includes language that is verbatim copied from Burj Dubai. (Note: I deliberately nowiki'd the Rediff.com link to avoid contributing to their search engine hits). The rediff article is dated June 7, 2007, bearing the following copyright label: "(c) 2003 rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed."

Much of the copied language was written on this wikipedia article last month or earlier; a very small proportion of it was written by me (and yesterday was the first time I ever heard of Rediff.com). Rediff doesn't cite anyone: wikipedia, the sources cited in the Wikipedia article, other news sources, first hand sources, etc.

This seems like a violation of Wikipedia's GFDL (and just general dishonest plagiarism). Does anyone know anything more about this?

see also my comments and any potential replies on Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#What_if_someone_copies_FROM_Wikipedia.2C_then_adds_THEIR_copyright.3F and Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Pqr#Rediff.com, and Talk:Rediff.com
Fredwerner 15:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Height Discrepancy

The first paragraph of the Architecture and Design section ends with the following statement "The Burj Dubai is expected to rise 50% the height of the Sears or more." This does not make any sense in the context of the Burj. If something like "50% more than the height of the Sears Tower" was meant, then the sentence should be revised to reflect this.

510m Height

Where the hell are you guys getting this fake number? The citation leeds to Emaar's official site / Burjdubai.com, there is no such number there!!! The last figure is lvl 138 / 498.2m. Burj Dubai has not surpassed Taipei 101 yet, otherwise the media would be full with this information, plus you can imagine that Emaar would have a press about it.... Please remove this stupidity from wikipedia.

I totally agree, and I put back the 498.2m. These so called GPS Readings come from www.dubaimegaprojects.com, but this site has been wrong so many times it's ridiculous. That guy's heights were once off by TENS of meters when compared to Emaar/burjdubai.com's numbers. I can't even believe his 1011m final height rumor is still on this page, but as long as nothing is certain about the final height I guess it will remain up until the building is topped out. -Michiel 11:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The current height can be found here: http://www.dubaimegaprojects.com/
And it says : (July 4th 2007 - Level 139 - Height 510.39m - Now the tallest highrise building in the world!) if you scroll down the page.
German Wikipedia also says it and it was not removed because this should be an official data.
So it IS already the taller than the Taipei 101, if you watch this website.
If this is a fake... ok, then we just have to wait for the official announcement. Couldn't take so long anymore. Maybe the german Wikipedia doesnt know that this height could be a fake.

--84.167.71.77 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been confirmed [1] Nil Einne 12:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Renders

The render shown in this article is seriously outdated. Shouldn't we replace it with one of the latest ones showing the most recent design changes? Rahmalec 00:33, 16 July 2007 (GMT)

floors and height

The projected final height of the Burj Dubai is officially being kept a secret due to competition; however, figures released by a contractor on the project have suggested a height of around 808 m (2,651 ft), that is about 3 m (10 ft) over one-half of a mile.[4] Based on this height, the total number of habitable floors is expected to be around 162. However, on the project's official website, an interior graphic of an elevator panel shows floor numbers up to 195. The latest photo of the Burj Dubai's construction plan shows the roof to be 681.7 m (2,236.5 ft) which would make the 195 floors shown on the elevator a reasonable number.[5]

Can someone please correct the figures in this paragraph. Because if the height is expected to be 808m and therefore the number of habitable floors is 162, 195 floors with 681.7m does not make sense... I don't know which figure is correct, but one of them must be wrong!

It needs to be clarified but bear in mind there's a difference between the height to the roof/last floor and the total height including antennas Nil Einne 11:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The last line in the "Current Height" is confusing.

"However, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), like most standards bodies, will not recognize its world-record height until it is "topped out" or completed."

A structure is "topped out" when the structural steel framework is completed. This is when the iron workers have completed their task and is usually celebrated by tying a pine tree to the top.

Completed I assume is when the buidling is finished and ready for occupancy. These two terms then refer to two very different points in time. I don't know anything about the CTBUH so I won't attempt to alter the article. (I would like to thank the people who created and modified this article. Excellent work! I love reading Wikipedia, it is without a doubt the finest encyclopedia that has ever been existed.)

Last Line

The last line doesn't seem to make any sense and I don't know what it's supposed to say...can anyone reword it?

Just an opinion, I don't think the second sentence of the first paragraph reads well as it swaps tenses. Instead of 'Upon its completion, it is the tallest man-made structure' consider 'Upon its completion, it is expected to be the tallest man-made structure'87.112.17.76 13:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fix paragraph about height speculations

I found this edit which butchers the paragraph with the height speculations, but I can't spare the time right now to fix it. Any volunteers? --P3d0 17:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple errors in "the competition" picture

This picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:32393164_a13451dbf2.jpg contains multiple errors:

  • Taipei 101 is shown with a roof height of 509m and an antenna at more than 600m. In reality the roof is at 449m and the antenna is at 509m (according to its own wikipedia article).
  • Petronas Towers are shown with roofs at 452m and antennas at more than 500m. In reality the roofs are at around 400m (can't find any more precise number) and the antennas go up to 452m (according to their own wikipedia article).
  • The Empire State Building's antenna height is shown at slightly more than 400m when it is in fact 449m (according to its wikipedia article).

I really wonder how one can screw up such important facts, when it is obvious that whoever made that image spent quite some time working on it ? Given that this image is already considered for deletion, I think it should be deleted immediately. -- RRX

Fortunately, it was removed as a copyright violation. --Golbez 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryungyong Hotel

I just fixed a link from "Ryungyong" to "Ryugyong Hotel|Ryungyong" which previously went to a redirect to "Ryugyong Hotel". Seems the quote may have been intended to refer to the Ryugyong (1 N) project, not to a Ryungyong (2 N's) project. Can the quote be verified? Don 00:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 claims of record height premature?

  • It's my understanding that a building can't be officially considered the tallest unless it's complete (i.e. it can claim the title when the ribbon is cut). Taipei 101, for example, didn't receive the title of tallest building until it opened. Dubai's claims in July 2007 that it's the tallest seem to have jumped the gun. 61.30.11.130 08:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Burj Dubai has been the world's tallest building since 2009.*"

Where is that caption located? That needs to be fixed to the proper tense. Corvus cornix 23:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Location

Where is the Burj Dubai built exactly?awesomisticisms 04:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"American designers"

There is a paragraph in 'Purpose' that states : "The silvery glass-sheathed concrete building will restore the title of Earth's tallest structure to the Middle East — a title not held by the region since Lincoln Cathedral upset the four millennial reign of Egypt's Great Pyramid of Giza in 1311 AD - although its architecture was largely designed by an American firm." What does it matter who is designing the building.... the point being made in the statement is that the tallest building in the world is now in the Middle East, not what the nationality of the designers is. If you really want to be technical, then the tallest building in America, Sears Tower, was largely designed by Srinivasa, an Indian, and Fazlur Khan, a Bangladeshi, who worked for Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. --Jibran1 21:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The architects are already mentioned, this is an attempt at POV. --Golbez 21:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Not just that but it employs Indian construction workers and South Korean contractors and is funded by Arabs. Without any of these (and the designers) the tower couldn't be built Rahmalec 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Canary Wharf?

Why is the Canary Wharf tower shown in the height diagaram? It doesn't appear to be the next tallest building in line... seems like a random addition... TheHYPO 15:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's the only notably high building in the UK compared to other nations. British people need something to compare the height to. Poor us. ArdClose 16:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. I created the diagram and I'm british. There was a very similar diagram in the article, but it wasn't free and contained several errors. My diagram simply use the same set of buildings. Astronaut 09:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

August 10 height claim

Where is the evidence for this claim? "As of 10 August 2007, the tower's developers reported the Burj Dubai's height is 545.4 m (1,789.4 ft), with 147 completed floors, surpassing the Taipei 101 (509.2 m (1,671 ft)) as the tallest high-rise building in the world. [4]" The reference (#4) does not support the claim. Neither does the developers web page. Vreese 08:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Vreese

Height Timeline

What is the opinion on the creation of a timeline like in these edits?

I've done some light copy-edit work since then, but I'm not so sure a timeline is a better way of presenting the information compared to how it was. Astronaut 11:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Convert template

The convert template gets translated to over 12kb of code every time it is used. Therefore, where it was used to convert metres to feet, I have replaced it with the much smaller m to ft template. I believe this is a better fix than that used by MetsBot on 31 August 2007 (which I quickly reverted). It is still easy to maintain the article without having to keep an eye on the measurements in feet, and it should load slightly quicker. Astronaut 13:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Floor Count

I noticed the floor count is being kept at 170, where is the source for this. I've now changed it to 164 (I originally changed it to 162 but was a mistake) based on a detailed diagram of the spire (which I've included as a reference). It can be interpreted either as having 164 or 160 floors but I don't know if we count mezzanine floors or not. If not please change it to 160. This diagram is fairly old but emaar have stated again and again that they haven't changed the number of floors, only the spire height. There is another detailed spire diagram floating around somewhere that shows the much more recent 818m version. I'll try to dig it up as soon as skyscrapercity.com works again. Rahmalec 09:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The claim for 170 floors came from the Larry Webb quotation from "Builder Online" - see the Projected Height section. It seemed reasonable at the time, but now I think about it, it could just be a senior executive's guess/mild exaggeration. Besides, the quote wasn't well sourced so I agree that the number of floors should go back to 160 (or 162, or 164 depending on mezzanine & underground levels being included or not). I would be happy with whatever the official word from the developer is at www.burjdubai.com Astronaut 12:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The referenced diagram is quite hard to understand. It only starts at level 148 and appears to suggest just 160 floors, but I see there are several mezzanine levels. Also, it suggests a finished height of 808 m rather than the 818 m we have currently settled on.
It is an interesting diagram though :-) Looks like they're planning to jack over 100 m of steel pinnacle from within the steel structure that starts at level 156, presumably raising the top section of the pinnacle whilst constructing more within the steel structure. So long as the strength holds out, they could jack it up to whatever height they wanted.
Astronaut 15:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
As I said, this is an old diagram and things have changed. The increase from 808m to 818m is probably just in the top section of the spire though. The 818m detailed diagram I talked about came from dubaimegaprojects.com (which isn't there anymore but might be floating around skyscrapercity.com or some other site). Underground levels definitely don't count but I think mezzanine levels do.Rahmalec 00:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Current records

The Timeline and Current records sections bear the disclaimer "None of these heights/records are official until the Burj Dubai is complete. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) does not officially recognize any building until it is complete and habitable."

While this is true for records like building height, I think that it is inappropriate for some others, particularly those in the Current records section. For example, the vertical concrete pumping records would be valid engineering achievements even if construction stopped tomorrow, never to resume. Records that pertain to "buildings" like "Building with most floors" may need the disclaimer. However, might it still qualify as the "structure" with the most floors?

For that matter, is Wikipedia bound by CTUBH's definitions? For example, the Burj Dubai currently meets Wikipedia's own definition of "building" as "Any man-made structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or continuous occupancy" and as such is already the world's tallest building, even if it will not be recognized by other organizations until it is complete.

66.170.75.75 06:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made some efforts to fix this.
As for whether or not we should be bound by CTBUH's definitions, I can see your point. It is obvious (to me at least), that at 555.3 m it is taller than any other freestanding structure and therefore is also taller then the current "tallest to top of roof", for example. However, Wikipedia is pretty keen on citing sources and references. As a general principle, I don't think we could claim an official record until the body that issues/maintains those records publishes an official notice that a new record exists.
For example: imagine I said I was going to build a 1000 m skyscraper, erected a 1000 m tall lift shaft, and then abandoned it. Would my lift shaft qualify as the record holder for the world's tallest building? I can imagine the CTBUH would not be pleased if they had prematurely endorsed a new record. The rules governing what qualifies as a building, exist for a good reason.
Astronaut 17:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
At least keep the non-building specific records. This is the tallest freestanding land structure ever built by humans, which will never change unless something else is built higher. Is it correct to claim floor count? I believe they have very detailed official rules about this, like a floor must be at least 3 (2?) meters high (or is it headroom?), 2/3rds building height must be occupied (-able), non-mezzanine, anything above the highest non-mechanical floor not counted, floorplate must cover at least so and so % of area of cross-section, things like that. It's on emporis.com. Intuitively, an unfinished building still has floors doesn't it, if you can easily stand on it and it has reasonable cover? Sagittarian Milky Way 21:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.