Talk:Burj Khalifa/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Projected height: Roof or spire?

In the Projected height section it is not clear whether the height of the solid structure (i.e. that one containing the floors) or the total height including the antenna ist meant. According to the infobox the antennae would push the current (Sep. 1 announcement) height of 688 m to 818 m, i.e. it is 130 m tall. Thus, a total height of 900 m won't require 212 m of solid structure but only 82 m, and the announced surpassing of 700 m would have been possible at the end of 2007 or the beginning of 2008 where the body height surpassed 570 m. Therefore, please, make clear which height is meant in that section.--SiriusB (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the projected height is the height to the top of the spire and that the roof height is just above the ceiling of the last habitable floor. The problem is, the article is based on multiple (reliable) sources from various dates. Everything was fine when most sources had a final projected height of 818 m to the top of the spire, another source said the spire would be 200+ m, and most people could believe the roof would be at around 600 m. However, the developer has since said they have done some redesign work to make the building taller, but they haven't specified how much taller. Whether that is being done by adding more floors, or increasing the distance between floors, or simply making the spire taller; we just don't know. The developer has now announced 688 m but hasn't said whether they have reached the roof yet. Whether the roof is at 624 m or will be above 688 m we don't know and we don't know if the spire will be 200 m or more or less.

Meanwhile it is easy to find photos showing ever more steel structure being erected with various heights and levels being annotated. Unfortunately, these photos appear on fan sites and forums, with no indication of where the annotated figures came from (perhaps they are calculated based on ?? m between levels - who knows?) making them unreliable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.

Astronaut (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Number of floors

According to the Current height subsection the number of floors is 160, but in the subsection Current records that number is 164. Which is the correct number according to the latest reliable sources? Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tallest building "on Earth"

There seems to be some fuss over using the phrase "tallest man made structure on Earth" or "on the planet". I find it redundant to put that in the article when "world's tallest" precisely and concisely explains all of this. Some may want to argue that there may be other large buildings in other galaxies that we don't know about yet, but this is Wikipedia, if we get new information, we can change the article. Until then, let's use Occam's razor when describing Burj Dubai. - Team4Technologies (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree Chillysnow (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the silliest disputes I've seen here. Star Trek notwithstanding, we the only humans known to exist, not only in the solar system, but the galaxy and, to really nail this, in the universe and any parallel universes which may exist. If new information comes down the line that, indeed, other humans are out there, and they have a tower that is a meter taller, then the article can be altered accordingly as Team4 wisely counsels. It is not our place to disprove a negative. Canada Jack (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai height 818 meters? 160 floors despite growth? Earth Vandalism or Ethnocetnrism?

I have seen that the Burj Dubai is estimated to be 818 meters but I do not see a source for this. Did someone just make this number up or is there some source that proves that it will be 818 meters? In the article under architecture it states that the spire will be over 200 meters tall. If the Building is already over 688 meters as confirmed by Emaar then 200 meters more than that would put the building at atleast 888 meters at the minimum. Emaar even says that the building will now be larger than previously planned. Another concern I have is that many months ago the Burj Dubai reached 160 floors but even though the Burj Dubai has grown by about 80 meters the 160 floor count still remains despite SOM stating months ago that the building was currently 164 floors. Notice that 164 floors was months ago when the building was much smaller than 688 meters. Is SOM not a good source? Is Wikipedia trying to say that even though the building grew by 80 meters no more floors have been added? Even though new designs that will make the building taller have been confirmed by Emaar, is that not considered? And once again where does this 818 meter figure come from? I don’t see a source for it. Did someone make it up? Why do you quote 160 floors in some places in the article and contradict that with 164 floors? Another concern is why can’t I say that the Burj Dubai is the tallest man-made structure ever built on Earth? Why is that Vandalsim? Is it reasonable to think that in a Universe that contains over 70 Sextillion, 7x 10^22 (70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars there is no civilization among any planet or moon that could have built a larger structure. Is ignorance of something a means to justify that it does not exist. If we had not searched Mars, would it be okay to say that Mount Everest is the tallest mountain in the Universe even though Olympus Mons is about three times taller. Why is ignorance and the inability to search for man-made structures on extrasolar planets justification that they do not exist. Modern Science is not even capable of seeing extrasolar planets the size of Earth. Just because NASA keeps delaying all of their projects such as the SIMS, Kepler Mission, TPF, and other missions doesn’t mean that man-made structures on extra solar planets don’t exist. Just because NASA is incapable of or reluctant to search for Earth-Sized planets by constantly making excuses is not a good reason to say there are no man-made structures on extrasolar planets. All they are doing is feeding their own Ethnocentrism by closing their eyes and ignoring the possibility of man-made structures on othe r extrasolar planets and moons. There may be no proof of these man-made structures by there is also no way to disprove it because NASA has not searched for these planets yet. They just keeping making excuses. By closing their eyes to the Universe, is not justifying that there are no man-made structures on other planets and moons. We don’t even know all of the planets in the Universe or even individual stars in other galaxies We can’t even know the Universes’s size all we can see is the tiny observable portion that is about 93-180 million light years in diameter. This is because the Universe has not been around long enough for light to travel any further. There could also be many universes that we will never be able to see and all of them could have taller man-made structures. Don’t you think this article is thus being highly ethnocentric by closing its eyes to the truth? Please respond. Thank You for your cooperation.Maldek2 (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See also above.

The claims you make are purely speculative. Speculation is ok, heck, all of quantum physics is based on speculation and guessing since it's not quite measurable. But, there's a time and a place for speculation and part of the objective of Wikipedia is to be informative and reliable. This speculation gets in the way of encyclopedic information and should be reserved for philosophical discussion. - Team4Technologies (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for wasting so much of your time and our time explaing why there's a taller building on another planet. YES, we ARE being very ethnocentric to Earthlings, and no one else is complaining. "On Earth" is UNNECESSARY. Reywas92^Talk 00:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ingorance of something is a reason for us to avoid saying that it exists. Read Wikipedia:No original research. When we say that this is the tallest man-made structure, we do mean in the entire universe, that we know of. I agree with you that it is possible that another group of humans on another planet (on in a parallel universe) have built a taller building, but until we can observe and report on such a structure, we must adhere to the no original research policy, which means that we do not talk about things that cannot be proved. I hope that addresses your concern. As a final note, thanks for using the talk page to express your concerns when it became obvious that other editors do not agree with your changes. —fudoreaper (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a reference for the height, but it got lost around 1700 edits ago!! I've put the reference back. As for the increasing height but no more floors, it was mentioned in the announcement of the redesign and height increase that there would be no increase in the number of floors. In my opinion, the spire has no habitable floors so have you considered that the steel structure currently being built could be the spire - of course the interior of the spire requires some structure to bolt all the comms equipment onto and an access ladder so some (unlucky?) maintenance guy can change the bulb in the aircraft beacon. Astronaut (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Babel Tower

I was just wondering if the Babel tower was 2,500 meters or 2.5 kilometers why is it not listed as the tallest building or man-made structure ever built on Earth? It is much larger than the Burj Dubai and even many taller buildings that are proposed. Please answer my question. Thank You for your cooperation.Maldek2 (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article, there is no consensus to the actual height. But, then, Jack's Beanstalk may be higher still and has equally reliable source material. - Team4Technologies (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Maldek2, the simple answer is that there are no reliable evidence for the height of the Tower of Babel and some historians believe that the story was based on the Etemenanki which had a height of 91 meters. I see that you like fringe theories and if you want to discuss them than there are forums that would be better suited for that than Wikipedia. --GrandDrake (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Competition with other projects" contains to much speculation

I suggest that "Competition with other projects" should only contain proposed buildings that have received the necessary funding for construction. Most of the proposals in the list are speculative and the list keeps growing in terms of over the top proposals (such as the Dubai City Tower). I also suggest that even if the building does have the necessary funding that the height should only be mentioned if it has been published by a reliable source. --GrandDrake (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Buildings that are mere visions or proposals, buildings that are more than a few years from completion, buildings lacking proper references in reliable sources, and buildings ouitside of the middle east region, should not be listed here. Astronaut (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree-Delete the section. The whole "competition" section should be deleted as all of these are still in the speculative stage. Burj Dubai is not "competing" with any of these. It is being built, and they are not ... at least not yet. I don't know where to draw the line (funded? approved/licensed/permitted? groundbreaking?), but this article is not an appropriate place to list every supertall fantasy ever published. Fredwerner (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Point to note: First man-made structure to reach a height of 700 m.

This is an important point that should be included in the article. Burj Dubai is the first man-made structure to ever reach a height of 700 m. No man-made structure in history has ever reached 700 m. I've tried to include this point twice in the aticle but someone keeps reverting it. The second time it was reverted with an accusation of vandalism using "Twinkle" (I don't even know what that is). Please don't revert this. It's an important distinction to make, apart from being the tallest structure ever built. It is not just sufficient to say that it is the tallest structure built.. it could have been the tallest structure ever built if the costruction was stopped at 699 m today and the building was considered complete. But it DIDN'T stop at 699 m. It did crss 700 m and no other man-made structure in the past has done that. --68.50.111.151 (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also the first man-made structure to be called "Burj Dubai", too! My point is; it seems like a bit of redundant trivia, much like Maldek2's claims of the building being the tallest known to be built by humans but only on this planet. Should we also celebrate that it's the first man-made object to surpass 689m? 690m? 691? 691.5m? It's all very true but it's unneeded as the article already explains that it's the tallest structure built my man at 707m (so far) and that second place goes to the height of 688m. This should give any competent reader in English the context to see that Burj Dubai did in fact cross the 700m mark along with the 689th and 706th and is the only structure to do so, all of which are milestones. Anything outside of that context is clutter and therefore unneeded. - Team4Technologies (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that if the press make a deal out of this being the first 700 m structure, then we should note the milestone. But I'm not aware that anyone is making much of a deal of this milestone, so therefore we shouldn't. After all, each and every metre reached is a new "milestone," and all of them are arbritrary. Canada Jack (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Source for current height information

Seems to link to some type of money exchange site, possibly spam. There is no article or news source describing the current height of the building, and only links back to the official burjdubai.com. I think there should be a different source. Thesacrificebunt (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Emaar is the developer of the Burj Dubai and they currently list the height of the Burj Dubai at 707 meters. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

human rights?

Is it really necessary to have a human rights section in this? It's obvious that the construction workers are low paid...but this section seems to be in all dubai project pages? I think this should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.136.94 (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the construction workers are low paid by Western standards. They are attracted to the work because they're told the pay is much higher than they can get at home. Unfortunately, the reality rarely lives up to expectations.

The reason why this paragraph is necessary in this particular article, is that Burj Dubai is quite possibly the region's highest profile construction project and has attracted particular attention from the burgeoning union movement within U.A.E, leading to strike action that has spread to other nearby projects such as Dubai Mall. Such action has brought the 'plight' of the construction workers to the attention of the Western media, such as in the recent piece in The Guardian, "We need slaves to build monuments" (Oct 8). Astronaut (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to remove the parts of it that aren't directly related to the Burj Dubai and that aren't referenced. --GrandDrake (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai Pictures

For anyone wanting to expand the gallery Imre Solt provides pictures under the GNU Free Documentation License (as seen in post 223) and the most recent pictures can be found in this thread. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

More recent pictures from Imre Solt of the Burj Dubai can be seen in this thread. --GrandDrake (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubai Fountain

It was well worthwhile having a naming contest then...Far Canal (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

707m?

In the link provided for the height of 707m, I cannot see a reference to such a height, and the official website gives the height as 688m. Surely the official website would give the information to be trusted over all others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uranium grenade (talk • contribs) 03:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's right there on the Emaar Home Page. However, if you click the link it take you to the official site which has not been updated. Astronaut (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The small statement of 707m is still on the Emaar Home Page, but there was no accompanying press release. The last press release (1 Sep 2008) still says 688m and the official web site still says 688m. Pacomartin (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Emaar is the developer of the Burj Dubai I would consider their website to be a reliable source for its height. --GrandDrake (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

New infobox photo

This photo was recently placed in the infobox. Unfortunately, the photo is very tall and thin, and it's extra length messes up the page layout leaving large gaps of white space. I've reverted that change and temporairly moved the new image to the gallery. However, the image is a good clear view of a nearly complete Burj Dubai and I think it is a strong candidate to replace the computer generated image currently in the infobox, if only we can do something about the layout. Suggestions please... Astronaut (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Have made the recent image smaller and it looks like it will work with the current layout. --GrandDrake (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

SOM is the architect (design & technical) and engineer of the Burj Dubai

Moved from User talk:Astronaut
Astronaut: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM) is the architect & engineer of the Burj Dubai. This is not vandalism. Please do not undo the changes I have made to this piece of information. Thank You. SOMarketing (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)SOMarketing

I have recently reverted the removal of information about Adrian Smith's contribution to the project (twice!). Removing reliably source information without explanation is usually considered vandalism. The contribution of your former employee is specifically mentioned in Emaar's press release of 21 July 2007. Whilst you may have severed your employer-employee relationship with Adrian Smith, you cannot cover up his contribution to the Burj Dubai project in this way. If you have evidence of Adrian Smith's non-involvement, please discuss it here first. Astronaut (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that SOMarketing identifies themselves, but I am curious if the Self-Interest policies of Wikipedia would indicate that they shouldn't be making edits in the first place? Will someone please clarify that for me?Deproduction (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, one of the administrators blocked the username while I was inviting them here to present their evidence. You can read the admin's reasons here.

Whether or not they are logged in, they haven't had the courtesy to come back yet. Anyway, without verifiable evidence I will continue to revert their efforts to remove all mention of Adrian Smith. Astronaut (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Height

wow Its a lot bigger than the Sear Tower or the Empire State,We should start makin some big boys right???why doesnt the US make Supertall skyscapers?

It's not a competition. - Team4Technologies (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

US probably won't make supertall skyscrapers because they're more costly than they're worth. It won't be a competition for height so much anymore (in my opinion), but more for uniqueness, like my favorite building, the CCTV building in china.--152.15.102.192 (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2008

yea i guess ur rightPermethius (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)PermethiusPermethius (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There are also economic factors to consider. Building such tall structures is expensive. In my opinion, Dubai has a great deal of oil wealth and can employ cheap foreign labour, the chinese government is able to push through similarly grand projects for national prestiege alone, whilst the US is much more conservative with that kind of expense (investors looking for a real return on their investment) and labor costs are much higher. Astronaut (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the subprime mortgage crisis going on... Chicago Spire's been put on hold already. timsdad ^(talk) 03:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubai tower

the Dubai tower is not the tallest in the world the CN tower is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.107.38 (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hogwash! - Team4Technologies (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I notice a lot of recent edits by anon/IP editors have been reverted, but I still think that it a large burden for us to put up with. Therefore I have requested semi-protection. Astronaut (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is a lot of vandalism on this page. One of the highest rates on my watchlist, anyway. —fudoreaper (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

construction halted

the reference says nothing about the construction of the burj dubai being halted, only other projects —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redekopmark (talk • contribs) 06:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems we are confusing the "Burj Dubai" tower with the Nakheel Tower which is understandable since it was previously known as the "Al Burj" tower. Indeed work has stopped on that tower. See http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUSLE18816220090114.

The Nakheel Tower entry has not been updated to reflect this new information either, but I'll let someone else do it, I need a life. truthdowser (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That article had been updated, construction hadn't even begun yet, it is still proposed on Emporis. I added it to the first paragraph a few days ago, seeing as construction hasn't begun, having been halted for a year is no big deal really. timsdad ^(talk) 23:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Construction has been halted and this has received wide media coverage. This needs to be mentioned in the article. Someone taking this information down ought to be considered vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.28.128 (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence anywhere that construction on Burj Dubai has halted. Yes, we know that Nakheel Tower will be postponed until next year, that is a totally different building. "Wide media coverage" generally includes the internet, and seeing as there is nothing on the internet that supports your claim, adding this information would be considered vandalism. --timsdad ^(talk) 02:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

However the official website has not been updated for a long time - could we have some confirmation that the work has not been halted? Escher mauritius (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. The official website has a poor record of being kept up to date. The fact remains, there has been no announcement of a halt in construction. Astronaut (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Topped out photo?

I think we need a new photo which includes the completed spire. Astronaut (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Major update

This page needs a major update, as do all related to tallest buldings/structures since Burj Dubai is now topped out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.247.133 (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Final height

Comment moved from User talk:Astronaut#Burj Dubai

Somebody has put in the final height but the article is now inconsistant because other parts of the article refer to projected height. Not your problem but I remember you have worked on this a lot. Takarada (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider the press release from June 17, 2008 (Emaar increases height of Burj Dubai; completion in September 2009) which suggested it "will be taller than previously envisaged". Are we sure that there will be no further height increases? Astronaut (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

After the final height being kept secret for so long and it being revealed by Emaar that the final height may be more than 818 metres, I can't help but feel that hearing from Emirates Business 24/7 that it has been topped out is a little of an anti-climax. --timsdad ^(talk) 23:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment moved from Talk:List of tallest buildings in the world#Burj Dubai topped out?

What about that issue? One one side we have sources about topped out (Emirates Business 24|7, emporis.com, but also neutral sources (The National) and last but not least no statement from buliding developer Emaar. --Jklamo (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That particular The National article was written on 17 December 2008, meaning any newer sources would be preferable. I'm inclined to believe that Emporis would have it right, here. Almost every building or structure article on Wikipedia is backed up by an Emporis source, and I doubt very much that Emporis got their Burj Dubai information from the Emirates Business 24/7 article. As for a statement from Emaar, well, we all know that they haven't exactly been up to date in the past. To top it all off, Burj Dubai's SkyscraperPage entry states that it is the "tallest building in world since 2009" implying that it was topped out, and if that's not obvious enough, further down it says " It was announced on January 19, 2009 by a contractor working on the project that it topped out at 818 meters." --timsdad ^(talk) 05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there evidence that oil drilling platforms are taller than the Burj Dubai?

An edit statement was made that "Oil drilling platforms are taller" than the Burj Dubai but I think there needs to be evidence posted for that statement before it can be used as a reason to change the article. --GrandDrake (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It really is a matter of opinion... Most people, myself included, would agree that a freestanding structure such as Burj Dubai deserves the title of the tallest structure over an entirely media-supported (that is to say, by water) oil drilling platform, of which there are many. It can be compared with the numerous broadcasting towers that exceed 600 metres which obviously do not qualify as free standing, but that's besides the point. --timsdad ^(talk) 09:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake, there are actually no oil drilling platforms (base of pylons to tip of tallest crane) that come even close to the height of Burj Dubai. I think this user may be confused by the few cable-stayed platforms that use cables bolted to the sea floor rather than pylons. After this discussion about the Ursa tension leg platform, it was decided that the cables on these such platforms should not be included in its height. --timsdad ^(talk) 10:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Shouldn't the picture in the beginning be updated? There are newer pics in the gallery. 64.80.57.251 (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC) User:Daniel Christensen. Forgot to sign in.

If you look up a tad you'll see Astronaut said the same thing. I have to say I very much like the picture that's currently in the infobox, because of its angle. There are newer pictures in the gallery yet I'm not sure if we can crop the copyright out of that to use specifically in the infobox, because a copyright in the corner of the lead image won't look great. --timsdad ^(talk) 23:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone agree with having the number of pictures in the construction gallery decreased from 26 to 4?

An edit was made recently in which the number of pictures in the construction gallery was decreased from 26 to 4. Personally I would prefer having a good collection of pictures for the construction gallery. Does anyone agree with having the number of pictures in the construction gallery decreased from 26 to 4? --GrandDrake (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that 26 images is excessive and 4 closer to the ballpark of what is needed. Indeed, I am unaware of any other page which has so many construction images not specifically linked to text (like, say, the page on the International Space Station). I'd say the images should illustrate the various stages of construction mentioned within the text, otherwise the images border on trivia. Canada Jack (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that 26 images is a lot, and the number should be decreased slightly to somewhere around 15, at least until construction is completed. Images from around the same angle that show progress more clearly should be kept, as I think it's very important to show the many stages of construction. Removing all but four images is a little extreme, for the soon to be tallest building in the world, anyway. --timsdad ^(talk) 02:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if we should keep 4, 15, or somewhere in between, but the number certainly should be reduced. hmwithτ 07:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I too think 26 images is somewhat excessive, but triming it to just 4 going too far. I noticed that the article does have a link a more extensive collection of images on Commons. Perhaps if we were to thin out the gallery, keeping images that show important construction stages or particularly good images (ie. correctly exposed, of good composition and without distracting foreground clutter). Astronaut (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have decreased the number of pictures in the construction gallery to 10. --GrandDrake (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Height Increases

It looks like this article has undergone a terrific amount of editing, no doubt the reason for a bit of gibberish tucked away in "History of Height Increases":

"this change did nothe tallest building on earth is Burj Dubai, but it is said that it wont". I would have corrected it myself but I honestly couldn't work out what it's supposed to be. Ricklaman (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It was simply a bit of vandalism, or unsourced material. In either case it was reverted soon after. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Who has built the tower?

The list of contractors shows all contractors working on the Burj Dubai district, including the Dubai Mall. I suggest to limit the contractors to those who have worked really on the tower with documented evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bram gruwez (talk • contribs) 09:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What about maximum wind velocity ?

I have been looking for some information about:

• which maximum wind velocity the Burj could resist ?
• what is the maximum wind velocity encountered so far in the Gulf ?
• how this matter was dealt with anyway ? There is quite a lot of information about concrete, and weight issues, but is not resistance to wind even more severe a requirement ?

Anyone knows ? --Azurfrog (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I read somewhere (or saw on TV) that it is designed to withstand winds of at least hurricane force - far more than has ever been experienced in the area before. However, I cannot find the link I was looking for.

If you check out some of the references, they do talk about what design steps were taken to reduce the load caused by the wind and in particular reducing the wind induced sway to less than 1.2 m under even the highest wind speed anticipated. See here and here for example. Astronaut (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Base jumpers

Anything about those guys who snuck in and jumped off the Burj Dubai? One was named Herve. One guy (Herve) returned, did it again, was caught and arrested, but later fined and freed. Here's the Youtube video. I thought it was fake when I saw it at first. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This was addressed in June last year at /Archive 6#BASE jumpers already? and added to the article, but was removed in this edit by an anon in October. Maybe it should be re-added? --timsdad ^(talk) 06:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the BASE jumping article. IMHO, it would be better to put the detail in that article and perhaps a very brief mention here. Astronaut (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Where, though; there is currently no appropriate section of the article and it would not really be enough to constitute it's own section. Perhaps there are other similar details that are wanted in the article but have no appropriate section, but together all the details would be enough to merit their own section. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If these other small details are unrelated and placed in the same section, it is likely that this would be a 'Trivia' section, which is avoided per WP:TRIVIA. --timsdad ^(talk) 09:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The safety of the building

What about including a section detailing the Burj Dubai's saftey aspects? A building of this height has presented new challenges to the designers in dealing with emergencies. According the the National Geographic Channel's Big, Bigger, Biggest, the building has been built with Refuge Rooms which are located approximately every 30 floors to be used in the event of an outbreak of fire. The rooms aparently offer protection from fire and smoke for up to two hours, while emergency services attempt to extinguish the blaze. Can this information be confirmed and then added to the article with references? Information on security as well as earthquake protection can be added to this section too. --VerTego (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have reliable references about safety features of the design, why not {{WP:BOLD|be bold]] and add it yourself. Astronaut (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Supertall?

I dont believe "supertall" is a proper term that is appropriate for the following, "The Burj Dubai is a supertall skyscraper..." In my personal opionion I believe it is not mature nor malfunctional. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acourt323 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been brought up here and here. Many skyscrapers use this so if we decided to remove the term from this article, we would need to create consistency. Please reply at one of those discussions and we might be able to take this a little further. Until we have reached an agreement, this article should stay as it were. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Date the Burj Dubai Surpassed the Warsaw Radio Mast?

I have some concerns about the date the Burj Dubai became the tallest man-made structure ever built. It has been confirmed by Emaar that the Burj Dubai reached a height of 688 meters on September 1, 2008. The Warsaw Radio Mast which was the previous tallest man-made structure ever built was 646 meters tall. This is a difference of 42 Meters! This means that the Burj Dubai must have been taller than the Warsaw Radio Mast long before September 1, 2008 because it was already 42 meters taller than the Warsaw Radio Mast on September 1, 2008. For this reason, is it appropriate to list September 1, 2008 as a Milestone for the Burj Dubai since the Burj Dubai surpassed 646 meters long before September 1, 2008? I mean logically if the Burj Dubai was 42 meters taller than the Warsaw Radio Mast on September 1, 2008 then it must have surpassed the Warsaw Radio Mast long before September 1, 2008. If this is so it would be incorrect to say that the Burj Dubai surpassed the Warsaw Radio Mast on September 1, 2008. The only way this would be possible would be if the Burj Dubai was less than 646 meters on August 31, 2008 and grew over 42 meters in one day (September 1, 2008). Since it is not logical for a building to grow 42 meters in one day it is obvious that the Burj Dubai had surpassed the Warsaw Radio Mast months before September 1, 2008. Thus September 1, 2008 is not really a milestone for the Burj Dubai because it does signify the day that the Burj Dubai became the tallest man-made structure ever built. 42 meters is a large difference and I don’t see how the Burj Dubai could have been less than 646 meters a day before September 1, 2008 since it was 688 meters on September 1, 2008. It would take at least a couple of months to raise a building 42 meters. Please tell me what you think about this.Ceres987 (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if you can find any reliable sources that specify the exact date of Burj Dubai surpassing the height of the Warsaw Radio Mast, then by all means I agree with the milestone being changed to that date. As yet, all we have to go on is Emaar's infrequent press releases. --timsdad ^(talk) 05:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have an exact date for when the Burj Dubai passed 646 meters but for the moment the earliest reliable reference we have for that date is the Emaar press release. --GrandDrake (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have looked for the day that the Burj Dubai surpassed the Warsaw Radio Mast becoming the tallest man-made structure ever built. I stumbled upon a site that looks pretty reliable. I compared this site with Emaar press releases and they seem to match. The site is called www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com and it states that on May 19, 2008 the Burj Dubai surpassed the Warsaw Radio Mast at 649.7 meters. Is this source okay to use for the Milestone instead of September 1, 2008 since the Burj Dubai was already 42 meters taller than the Warsaw Radio Mast on that day?75.38.83.97 (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it has been decided that burjdubaiskyscraper.com is not a reliable source, but nevertheless we should look further into this. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Building

This building is very amazing. When I first saw it i was like the structure of it doesen't look right. Later on I found out that it was still in construction. I think that if there is any other building that is going to be bigger than this building that will be VERY amazing because from what I think because of the gravity building's bigger than this will easily collapse because the building wil not be able to hold the pressure of the gravity acting on this object. I hope that no other builfing is going to be built because when this building is built Dubai will be very famous!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.108.3 (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sure if a building taller than Burj Dubai was to be built, much planning and detail would go into it before construction even begins... Anyway, if you want to discuss how amazing Burj Dubai is, I suggest you visit a forum such as this one. Thanks, timsdad ^(talk) 07:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Would having a total of 16 photos in the construction gallery be acceptable?

At the moment there are 12 photos in the construction gallery and with the addition of the one in the Infobox and a few more for the rest of the year there could be up to 16 photos. I would like to hear opinions on whether 16 photos would be considered acceptable or whether the number of photos should be lower. If your opinion is that the number of photos should be lower I would like to hear opinions on which current photos you think should be removed. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think 16 would be acceptable, at least until construction is completed. --timsdad ^(talk) 00:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.16.15.130 (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10