Talk:Burj Khalifa/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

"Burj Dubai" or "The Burj Dubai"?

It's a small point, but I think simply "Burj Dubai," which translates as "Dubai Tower", is a more accurate usage than "The Burj Dubai." I won't change all the instances of "the Burj Dubai", but the people who regularly edit this article should consider making that change. Thanks, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Where appropriate, I have replaced "the Burj Dubai" with "Burj Dubai". Astronaut 19:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Burj Dubai is more accurate radiant guy (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Height on the 2^nd of November 2007

The heigth is now more than 590m. --Kim Lee Pak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.81.45 (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? The official site still says 585.7m Astronaut 01:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This site was last updated at the 24^th of October --Kim Lee Pak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.125.224 (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. So where did you get 590m? Is it as reliable as the official site? Astronaut 11:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If I gave you 587 dollars instead of 590 would you really care that much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.23.6 (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Give my my 3 bucks! Seriously though, Wikipedia requires reliable sources to back up any information in it's articles. If a reliable source cannot be provided, then the information should not be used. Astronaut (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

cost of burj dubai

the article says in the beginning burj dubai costs 4.1 billion, and yet later says it will cost 800 million dollars. which one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBLACKandBURN (talk • contribs) 09:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's four billion UAE Dirham, roughly a Billion. There has been some cost growth since the $800m estimate. I have no sources. --211.31.27.65 (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Al Jaber tower?

I googled for that tower and i found two different articles about that tower, one of them says that it's going to be build in Bahrain and the other one says Kuwait...So i didn't know which article is more accurate to be used as a citation! ّradiant guy (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Like you, I have found two different locations: Kuwait is mentioned in this Arab Times article and Bahrain is mentioned in this Bahrain Tribune article (though the illustration in latter article indicates Kuwait City). On balance, Kuwait seems the more likely of the two, but the project does look to me to be more to be a "vision" than a true "proposal". Overall, there is very little information on the project at all. Searches throw up the above news articles, our own Wikipedia articles (or copies of them) and that's all. I have previously tagged the paragraph as needing citation, so I'll keep an eye on the situation and unless someone comes up with more information, I'll remove it from the Burj Dubai article. Astronaut (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have added a citation but i don't know how.220.253.115.152 03:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

To add a link like in my comment above, use: "[http://www.example.org/example friendly text]" which will add a link like this: friendly text.

To add a reference on the main article, use "<ref>[http://www.example.org/ information from example.org]</ref>" which will automatically add a "^[1]" in the text of the article and automatically add "1. ^ information from example.org" to the references section at the end of the article.

However, because there is conflicting information, can we keep it to this talk page for the time being.

Thanks. Astronaut 13:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the list of tallest buildings and structures in the world the Al Jaber tower is a proposed tower, rather than a vision.220.253.40.151 (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But i agree that we shouldn't add it to the article.220.253.40.151 (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the editing history of "list of tallest buildings and structures in the world" you will see the same person added Al Jabar to that article as addd it to this article. Perhaps it should be removed from the list as well, until the problem with the sources is sorted out. Astronaut (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Riva del Garda = Vajont?

Anyone have any info on "...Riva del Garda Hydroelectric Power Plant - 532 m (1,745 ft))"? If this concrete pumping record was legit (until Burj Dubai surpassed it), it should have its own wikipedia page. This "Riva del Garda=532m" stat is listed on Burj Dubai's emporis.com page, and also on http://www.putzmeister.com/about/company_milestones/index.cfm, but neither of these link to, nor cite references with any info on Riva del Garda itsef, and I couldn't find any anywhere on line. Is this possibly associated with the Vajont Dam? Fredwerner (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The reference to the old record disappeared during a previous edit, so I've added it back in. No, I don't think they're the same dam. Vajont was constructed in the early 60's. Riva del Garda was constructed in the early 90's. If you have enough information and reliable references about Riva del Garda, then feel free to create a new article. Astronaut (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Zero mention in US press?

Anybody else noticed the lack of discussion in the US press about this project? Reminds me of when that bridge opened in France a couple years back. The biggest bridge in history, and I never saw a single thing on the TV news about here, and I don't remembmer any newspapers mentioning it, either. Pretty god damn arrogant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragemanchoo (talk • contribs) 12:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the USA for you. Astronaut (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I read about the French bridge being opened and I've read about this tower - in US media. I think the arrogance here is from people who feel they should dictate what is in the US press. Mohummy (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is more a lack of interest in such projects then just a matter of arrogance. I have seen some about the Burj Dubai in the US press now that it is breaking records. But even projects in the US don't get attention I haven't ever seen any mention of the Chicago Spire in the press and even when I visited Chicago on March 2,2008 I couldn't find any one that knew of the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambirchfield (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Same no mention in Australia

Same, only heard 1 minor thing about Burj Dubai in news paper in Austraia, most of the news here is about Sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.132.143 (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive Page(s) Needed

The Burj Dubai's talk page is too long. In order to make it less cumbersome, but still allow users to access the discussions, we need to archive the page. I did not want to do it myself for two reasons. First, I did not know how much of the page should be archived. Second, one of the discussion on the top has received three additions in the past two months. I do not want to move it if can be considered an ongoing discussion. Your ideas and suggestions would be appreciated. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to archive everything older than 2 or 3 months (including those old discussions which have attracted recent, if brief, comment). Perhaps we could move all discussions before "Burj Dubai" or "The Burj Dubai"? to the archive? And let's dump the "no news here" comments while we're at it. Astronaut (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That sound good to me. But is it possible you can create two archive pages for all of the discussions. Small, easily naviagable archives would be best, especially for such an important building. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 07:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "no news archives" 220.253.40.151 (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Zero mention in US press?" and "Same no mention in Australia" comments just above here. Like the banner at the top of this page says: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Burj Dubai article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." The fact the building is hardly mentioned in the US or Australian press is not really relevant to improving the article. Astronaut (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done Archived old discussions to two archives (used cut & paste method). Astronaut (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Burj Dubai in Skyline

I think an image that shows the Burj Dubai and its impact on the skyline would be a nice addition to the page. This image was taken in July 2007, but it still shows the magnitude of the Burj Dubai. Should it be added, or not? And if we should add it, where? I think the best place would be the Construction section. I would prefer it not go in the Gallery section because the images there seem to be reserved for Burj Dubai-only photos. Also, there is a July picture already there. Any ideas or opinions? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good image to me. Astronaut (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But where should it be located within the article? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 18:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it should go in the image gallery. First of all, the images there should only be pictures strictly showing the building. Second, there is a July picture already there. We do not need multiple pictures for each month. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 19:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought User:Patrickneil had the right idea putting it in the gallery. As for there being two "July pictures", it is not really a rule to have a picture per month - there are no pictures for June, November or December and two for August. If you're looking to place it somewhere else, how about in the timeline - though I think it would mess with the layout if too close to the infobox - or how about trying to get it to sit reliably below the infobox? Astronaut (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about the construction section. If we did leave it in the gallery, it would be too small. And it should be larger so people can see its magnitude. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest trying out. There's always the preview button to help decide the correct placing. I won't revert, but I can't speak for the other regulars here :-) Astronaut (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I used the preview and put it in the construction section. It looked too close to the gallery (too many pictures in such a small space), but the picture seemed to go along with the text. Then I put it in the purpose section. It fit very nicely there, but the text did not go with the image. When I put it further up the article, it looked too crowded with the two diagrams plus the image, but then too empty down until the gallery. Ideas or comments? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried the following edit:

==Construction==
[[Image:Burj Dubai in Skyline on 8 July 2007.jpg|thumb|right]]Burj Dubai is made from ...

and it looked OK to me. Or it's back to the gallery. Astronaut (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it is fine. I will put it into the article. We will now just have to wait and see if anyone wants to contest its position/size/caption. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed User:Patrickneil has reduced the size. I too thought 350px was a little too big for an in-text thumbnail, but thought I would wait and see if anyone else thought so as well. Astronaut (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Stranded pronoun

in the timeline there is a quote with a pronoun that has no antecedent —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taucetiman (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in grammar, so can you show what you mean and why it's wrong. Astronaut (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe this refers to the quote from Antony wood which was not displaying but is now shown correctly Pp osh (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Skidmore Owings and Merrill and Adrian Smith

The attribution of work on this project should be clear. Recent changes have suggested that one or the other is marketing. I suggest that the attribution of work should be fair and consistent.

official website The Burj Dubai website has the following (www.burjdubai.com) under Vision: ...A vision this bold requires visionaries. Creating a centerpiece for a new world capital attracted the world's most esteemed designers, developers, and builders. One of them is the tower's architect, Adrian Smith.
As a consulting design partner at Skidmore, Owings and Merrill--the global leader in creating supertall structures--Adrian Smith has had a hand in several of the world's tallest buildings. With Burj Duibai, he--and the world--will surpass them all.

This only mentions one person and one company. So, either this article should only mention those two. Or it should expand on both, the company and the architect.

--Juanvalentin (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead section problems

What is going on? For months we had a stable lead section then some unnecessary extra info was added on 27 Dec about George Efstathiou's role and the 3rd party peer review. But it wasn't sufficent to revert that change, so since 31 Dec there have been SIXTEEN further changes to that paragraphs with no real info being added or removed.

In my opinion, the paragraph should mention the architect Adrian Smith, SOM, Samsung, Besix, Arabtec, Emaar, and perhaps Nakheel, as well as the budget. If readers want any supplementary info such as Adrian Smith's relationship with SOM, they can click on the link to his page.

Astronaut (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cost contradiction

The article contains the following two contradictory statements:

The total budget for the Burj Dubai project is about $4.1 billion US and for the entire new 'Downtown Burj Dubai', $20 billion US.

and

Burj Dubai will cost US$ 800 million to build and the entire 2 km² (0.77 sq mi) development will cost around US$ 20 billion.

If two cost estimates differ by 400% we have a problem. AxelBoldt (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an old issue and it's been asked before - see here. Not much of an answer, I know; but none of the regulars here has been able to cite definite budget figures, backed by reliable sources, that will resolve this issue. Astronaut (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

120 degree rotation?

"Engineers rotated the building 120 degrees from its original layout to reduce stress from prevailing winds."

I know there is a source for this - but seeing as the building's footprint is basically a three pointed star - a 120 degree rotation would surely have no effect? PseudoEdit ^(yak) _(track) 23:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe another editor will confirm this, but I think it's something to do with the way the setbacks are at different heights. Looking at the cross-section diagrams, notice how the setbacks have reduced the length of one of the arms of the 3-pointed star. I think, rotating the building so a short arm is perpendicular to the prevailing wind will present a smaller surface area to the wind, and therefore reducing wind stresses. Astronaut (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But it's a different short arm in every setback, going around in a spiral like leaves on a plant stem. Any difference would seem minimal, maybe it still matters. I think it was supposed to first have the best view of the Persian Gulf, so it wasn't 120 degrees. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Currency conversions

In several places in the article, costs or wages are expressed in US dollars. A recent edit has highlighted a possible need for a review of this. For example: Were they originally in US dollars? Are the amounts correct? Should they be converted to UAE Dirhams/Euros/British pounds and at what exchange rate? Astronaut (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already reverted it (sorry, I did not see this until it was too late). I feel that it is a bad idea to have multiple currencies. Since they change every day, it would be very difficult to maintain to ensure that they are correct. I am not sure if the amounts are correct, but I think we should keep it in US Dollars. In Dubai, most foreign workers are paid using the dollar and nothing else. Actually, being paid in US Dollars caused some rioting in October 2007. Since the dollar's value was decreasing, many workers were unable to provide enough money for their families back home (in South Asia). As far as I know, it has not yet been changed. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Height at 12^th Feb 2008

The aviation charts for DXB now show the Burj' as an obstruction up to 2,790' above sea level (c.850m). This would include any cranes that stand clear of the top during construction. The ground in that area is unlikely to be more than 100' above sea level, so *something* is planned to be at least 2,690' (c.820m) above the pavement in the current chart cycle.Ed 1024 (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds about right. However, I believe those limits on aviation charts are pretty conservative, so I wouldn't be surprised if the limit is increased so as to give Burj Dubai a wide berth. Astronaut (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is true but the MSA (Minimum Sector Altitude for aircraft to remain clear of obstructions) to the SW of the airport has risen to 3,800'. MSA is worked out by taking the altitude of the most significant obstacle, rounding up to the nearest 100' then adding 1,000' of clearance: 2,790' rounded up to 2,800' plus 1,000' = 3,800'. The chart producers have obviously been told how big the tower will get in the next few months; time will tell how accurate this information is...Ed 1024 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Height comparison image

I removed Image:Tallest_Buildings_new.PNG and replaced it with the previous image Image:BurjDubaiHeight.png for two reasons:

1. This article is about Burj Dubai, and not about some other buildings also under construction. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to only compare the projected height of Burj Dubai to completed buildings.

2. The image Image:Tallest_Buildings_new.PNG is based on one of my earlier diagrams. Unfortunately, that diagram was suddenly removed from Commons (and therefore this article) because someone at skyscraperpage.com thought it was a copyright violation. The image I replaced it with came about as a compromise after some discussion with various admins. For more info about this, see the image talk page.

Astronaut (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion: What a waste!

I mean if you're not going to let the public have a view from the very top floor, why even bother going there? an observation deck of 440-something meters is no higher than the skypod of the CN tower... how disappointing. It's quite different to have a view at 700m in height you know.

I hope the top floor or at least one of the very top is available as a secondary observation deck like the main pod and the skypod in the CN tower... it'd probably cost a little extra though.

Same goes for the Chicago SPire. why build a supertall if you're not going to let the public have a nice view? i mean the owners could make millions off the visitors who want to take a peek at a city from 700m above ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.210.132.86 (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If only it was true that tall buildings were built for the convenience of tourists. Unfortunately, the needs of tourists usually come after things like return on investment and prestige. In the case of Burj Dubai, the top floors have a small usable floor area and attract the highest rent. Presumably, the income from a small number of visitors that could be accommodated, wouldn't cover the loss of rent. Astronaut (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)