Talk:Petronas Twin Towers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is supported by WikiProject Malaysia. This project provides a central approach to Malaysia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of bridges on Wikipedia. Please feel free to join us. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments) High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale. This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no Architecture Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, which aims to create, expand, and maintain articles that relate to skyscrapers, high-rises and towers. To participate, visit the project page for more information. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale.

Petronas Twin Towers was (or will be) featured on the Architecture Portal as Selected article during week 5 of 2007. For more information or to participate, visit WikiProject:Architecture

---

Contents 1 Completion 2 Capitals 3 [Formerly] World's tallest building 4 Skybridge Picture 5 Page Title 5.1 Requested Move 5.1.1 VOTES: Requested Move: Petronas Towers → Petronas Twin Towers 5.1.2 VOTES: Requested Move: Petronas Towers → PETRONAS Twin Towers 6 Evacuation on 12 Sep 2001 7 Leaning tower of Petronas 8 Appearances in media 9 Cost 10 Rising Star? 11 2005 to 2090 12 Vandalisms 13 Requested move 13.1 Survey 14 Tower 1(Hazama Corporation) ran into problems 15 39th and 40th floors 16 Height of upmost observation deck 17 Contractors 18 Tower Calapus

[edit] Completion

How did the architect complete the design in 1998 but the Spiderman scaled the tower in 1997? SilentOpen 04:39, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Alain Robert can't wait till the towers to be completely finishe so he climbed earlier. Izzudin 10:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably a typo, probably meant 1988.

Wow, are the towers that old?

---

Some photos [1] show contrast between the bright and dark towers. And I heard the tower constructed by Hazama gains favor but the other by Samsung does not. Is it true or just a rumor? --Nanshu 04:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To me at least the first picture in the link looks like the right tower happens to be in the right position/angle to reflect sunlight, while the left one is not... Jpatokal 08:22, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I meant night scenes [2][3][4] --Nanshu 03:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[2] and [4] are both dead links and in [3], they look the same to me. Hmm, could it be that you think the Hazama tower is better than the Samsung tower because Hazama is Japanese and Samsung is Korean? No, of course Nanshu would never think that Japan is better than Korea, so I must be wrong. --Sewing 19:27, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't have paranoid thoughts and neither do you, I hope. I just want to verify the rumor.

Also, [2] and [4] aren't dead. They kick out requests from remote sites. --Nanshu 04:00, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sewing, Nanshu is one of the most conservative Japanese I've ever seen from his articles. His so called NPOVness hides the POVed strategy of emphasizing pro-Japan materials and ommitting con-Japan ones. :)

---

Removed the following. Please cite:

In the wake of the controversy that its claim generated the rules were overhauled,

What were they overhauled to?

but many still do not accept the claim. Who? Cite or perish --Malbear 09:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

"and are entirely devoted to office space"

Removed as the petroleum club on the podium is not an office.

---

Removed this section as it should probably go to wikitravel. Additionally, the wikitravel search box seems broken so didn't do an add there. Can someone who has the patience to figure out what's wrong kindly.....

DAY	VISITING TIME
TUESDAY TO SUNDAY	9:00 am - 5.00 pm.
Visit to the Skybridge is CLOSED for Friday Prayer	from 1:00 pm - 2:30 pm.
MONDAY CLOSED for maintenance except on a Public Holiday.
School Holiday Period (Half Day Operations)	9:00 am - 12:00 noon
PUBLIC HOLIDAY OPEN || 9:00 am - 5.00 pm, with the exceptions of :
Eid Al-Fitri (a festival at the end of 'Ramadhan' / fasting month)	Closed for 4 days
Eid Al-Adha (a festival at the end of 'Hajj' / annual pilgrimage season)	Closed for 1 day

Admission is free. Tickets are limited and issued daily on a "first-come-first-served" basis. Ticket Counter opens at 8:30am and located at : PETRONAS Twin Towers Visit Centre, Tower 2, Concourse Level, PETRONAS Twin Towers, Kuala Lumpur City Centre, 50088 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

• Cleaned up and spun Suria KLCC stuff out to its own page. Dan100 01:36, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitals

Why is it PETRONAS Twin Towers, and not Petronas Twin Towers? Are they yelling out the name?--Jerryseinfeld 15:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering that, but upon checking their coporate website I see that PETRONAS is capitilized throughout. A valid edit, I guess. Dan100 16:33, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Nah, lots of companies "insist" in bizarre capitalizations. We certainly are under no obligation to obey them, especially when they are so strange looking. I'm changing these all back to something less loud. Nohat 10:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PETRONAS is an acronym, like e.g. NATO. We don't write it as Nato, do we? It's not just a shorthand, it's a trademark, used in all official PETRONAS documents and publications. I work here, so I know how it's supposed to be spelled. As a side note, you might find that even the Malaysian media writes it as Petronas, but that's only because they're ignorant. In PETRONAS's press releases, it's always written as PETRONAS, not Petronas. You might think PETRONAS looks strange, but to me, Petronas looks strange, and PETRONAS looks proper. --Aidfarh 02:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] [Formerly] World's tallest building

The article specifies that the PETRONAS towers were once the worldest tallest building, but there was clear controversy regarding the InfoBox being that of World's Tallest Buildings. I (obviousy from that history record) would say it should be, as the spires were once highest, and it was often reffered to as the world's tallest building. -Sean Hayford O'Leary 15:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the right reason, and the same one as to why the Chrysler Building was once the World's Tallest. Architectural spires are a design issue and smoothly integrated into the building. IT's also the height at which the Empire State Building is recorded. The controversy stems from poeple wishing to change the rules to make sure they keep or acquire the record, that they should not otherwise hold. If it was good enough for all the years that the Empire State Building was Tallest, then it should be good enough now. 132.205.45.148

The picture showing building comparisons is unfair as it shows the height of the Sears Tower including the antennas. Official building height comparisons include spires (such as on the Chrysler Building) but not antennas (such as on the Sears Tower). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.109.153 (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skybridge Picture

On a recent trip to Malaysia i took a picture from the 41st floor of the skybridge. The article is looking a little messy from other images, so if someone wants to place it in, please feel free. Image:SkyBridge.JPG. Thanks, --Ali K 12:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, i managed to find the time to do it myself. --Ali K 12:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Title

Can someone please tell me what's the logic of using the title Petronas Towers instead of PETRONAS Twin Towers? PETRONAS Twin Towers is the official name of the building, and also used in the addresses of all the occupants of the buildings. --Aidfarh 02:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since the article has been moved back and forth a couple times, you should probably follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves for requesting a page move. Rhobite 02:52, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'd oppose a move. Article titles should use the most usual form of the name, and in this case that's lower-case. If even the local media are unaware of the "correct" name, then it's clearly not widely used. Mark¹ 03:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evacuation on 12 Sep 2001

The bomb hoax on 12 Sep 2001 is real enough, I remember this from a Discovery/NatGeo documentary on the prospects of tall buildings after 9/11. The towers were built so that one tower would serve as the backup for the other, and the response to the hoax showed that the buildings cannot be evacuated on time simultaneously. The revised escape plans call for using elevators if both buildings need to be evac'ed. Jpatokal 07:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaning tower of Petronas

I heard in a documentary that one of the towers (not sure which one) was built leaning about a thumb's width from being vertical. When they discovered this at about 2/3rd's the way through the building process of whichever tower, they decided to simply build the rest vertically. Can anyone confirm this and find any citations?--H.M.S Me 19:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, this is true. --Pavithran 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is discussed further down the page (Tower 1(Hazama Corporation) ran into problems) Epak (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• As long as I know, it was not the tower 1 but the tower 2 that was found leaning and was being built by Samsung. The news article written in Korean is apparently wrong. Please show some other sources that are to be convincing to everybody.--116.81.236.54 (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

maybe you believe Japanese 2 channel source. The 2ch kenkan article written in Japan is apparently wrong. it is fully fabrication. Please show some other sources that are to be convincing to everybody. not rumor. Manacpowers (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hazama Corporation is in charge of constructing Tower 1 [6][7][8]
• According to both a National Geographic documentary and a Korean newspaper, the builders of Tower 1, Hazama Corporation (Japan), ran into problems when they discovered the structure was 25 millimeters off from vertical.
  • Petronas Twin Towers, Metroseoul newspaper.[9](Korean) Hazama Corporation (Japan) has worked on 'Tower 1' and they found serious problem. The building was leaning 25mm on the ground. While Japanese fix this problem, Samsung Constructions (South Korea) is fully completed building without problem. Moreover, Japanese has failed to complete a spire until the end of scheduled time. While Japan construction team has a deep sleep, the South Korean construction team succeeded in establishing a spire.
  • Petronas Twin Towers, National Geographic Channel Broadcast.[10] (Video : 36:02~36:13) "25mm problem....Tower 1 wasn't straight."

Manacpowers (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appearances in media

I might be wrong, but I'm fairly certain these towers appear in an episode of the anime "Cowboy Bebop", in which a maniacal bomber with a teddy bear theme attempted to blow up two towers which looked highly similar to these, complete with the connecting bridge.

I suspect those were DILLIGAF Twin Towers. Jpatokal 08:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cost

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article does not seem to provide information as to how much it cost to construct the towers. Is this information not published? Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rising Star?

I read somewhere, maybe in a magazine or something, that these buildings are also known as the "Rising Star(s)." There's not a single reference of this anywhere. Am I mistaken or this reference true somewhere? Eridani 01:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that, and I worked at the Towers for half a year. Jpatokal 01:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 to 2090

last edit changed the elevator drill year from 2005 to 2090.. vandalism I guess but I'm too newbie here to even attempt fixing it (sorry!). please fix and wipe this comment. 216.239.83.250 02:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalisms

There are a lot of vandalisms happened in this article.. as much as they happened in Malaysia --Izzudin 17:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Google reports almost exactly numbres the same for the two phrases, so the one used on their website (and the current title) is preferred. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 06:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tower 1(Hazama Corporation) ran into problems

According to petronas twin towers documentary on national geographic channel[13] and Korean Newspaper.[14]

Tower 1(Hazama Corporation) ran into problems when they discovered the structure was 25 millimeters off from vertical.

NOT samsung, so, do not mistake. Heavypaper 02:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be contention (or confusion) as to which tower ran into problems. I read the metroseoul article and it looks credible enough. But I have also read other websites where it was quote as Tower 2 having had that (same) problem. For instance here. Can anyone find weigh in on the matter? Epak (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

link is dead. and that source is clear. Manacpowers (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 39th and 40th floors

The article says they are not accessible as office space. So what IS there? It should be added to the article if known. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious to know how you get from floors 41/42 to 43/44. Escalators? What about the stairs?JPBarrass (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Height of upmost observation deck

In which height, is the highest observvation deck of Petronas Twin Towers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.234.72 (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contractors

I remember that an architectural engineering professor once told us in a lecture that the two contractors (samsung and hazama) were made to compete against each other, and the contractor that built the tower first would be given the contract for the skybridge. (I also looked it up and found an article to substantiate the prof's claim: http://www.klseeker.com/Article-Malaysia-Petronas_Towers_in_Kuala_Lumpur.htm)

So, the part about the skybridge being constructed by Kukdong Engineering & Construction must be wrong. This is also helped by the official KLCC web page that asserts that it was done, in fact, by Samsung Heavy Industries. I am not sure, however, if it was Samsung Heavy Industries. There are two Samsung Engineering & Construction divisions, one under Samsung Corporation and one under Samsung Heavy Industries. I was under the impression that it was the one under Samsung Corporation that was in charge of the bridge, but I could (probably) be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epak (talk • contribs) 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm new to this editing and discussion business in wikipedia. How long do people usually wait after writing something in the discussion (as I just did) until I decide to edit the actual page? Oh, and I just learned how to sign. :) Epak (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And one more question (sorry): do I have to check this discussion page occasionally, or am I automatically informed?! Epak (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tower Calapus

hey there wats up me chillin how are you fine i hope just want to say Hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.118.80 (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)