Talk:List of tallest residential buildings

Contradictions
From the first paragraph: "... The Marina Torch also in Dubai, now stands as the third tallest residential building... Q1, in Gold Coast, Australia, is the third tallest residential building in the world." Which is it? Longwayround (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Still in the Q1 artcile, the caption says its third, but this lists it as third. -- Extra   999  (Contact me) 09:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Longwayround (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Purged buildings
To make the list more manageable (renumbering, in particular, is a huge task), I have removed buildings that are less than 250m in height. They can be found in /Archive 1

If anyone wants to finish the job of renumbering the buildings (or to find an alternative method without the explicit ranking), feel free to put them back. Longwayround (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there is no need to remove the above buildings, as it is a standard to put the buildings list to at least 200 meters of height on Wikipedia, so there should be no question of removing the above buildings and i have restored the deleted buildings. The article has been peer reviewed two times, and has been copyedited by Shirik, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, in order to achieve the status of Featured list for more information about peer review and Guild of copy editors you can read it on Wikipedia. In short most of the improvements has been done to this article before and any unneccessary editing will not be welcomed, however any new information regarding the article and updates are heartily welcome.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My reasoning was that the numbering was (and once again is) quite inaccurate. As I write we have three buildings in 16th position. One of those, Trump World Tower, is shorter than the other two. Consequently number 17, Sapphire needs moving to 18. Metapolis 101 is shorter than the other buildings in 26th place. When I see inaccuracies on Wikipedia I will always prefer to move them away from the main article until such time as they can be amended. Longwayround (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, there is a better way to amend this error in this article, you can correct the ranking and i will help you in this regard, but removing the above buildings is not any way to overcome this error indeed we should remove such errors not by deleting the while list. There will be some errors in the ranking of this article as the list is too long, and sometimes many editors add new buildings without updating the whole ranking. So i am considering to add the above portion by re-ranking the skyscrapers your help in this regard will be appreciated.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As you will have spotted, I have removed the rankings so that the list can be easily updated. Is there any very good reason to create extra work by reinstating the rankings? Longwayround (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The buildings in the table at /Archive 1 have incorrect rankings. Some (such as the three listed as 54=) are ranked equally despite being of different heights. Please feel free to restore them to the main article once the rankings have been corrected. Personally, I believe it would be more time durable to remove the ranking column entirely. Longwayround (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The buildings rank at 54= are of same height, 220 meters, except the minor round off difference that can be ignored, so why are you saying the ranking is incorrect ??? CTBUH also rank in similar way see here:. In Wikipedia most of the article of skyscrapers have similar ranking trend. To confirm the height you can visit their individual articles.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you a WP:RS that states the difference is indeed a rounding error and deserves to be ignored? I have visited the cited sources for every building that was in the list up to this edit. Before you undo any of my edits, please check the references. Longwayround (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes i have checked the references of these buildings, and have only round off difference, so we can not change their ranking just because of round off difference. Emporis's height differs from CTBUH and Skyscraperpage, and we should rely on CTBUH which is more reliable than emporis.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please show me the reliable source that shows this is a rounding error and not a shorter building. CTBUH shows the height as being lower. In what way is CTBUH more reliable than Emporis? Longwayround (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Topped out Buildings !
CTBUH defines topped out skyscrapers as "A building is considered to be "Topped Out" when it is under construction, and has reached its full height both structurally and architecturally (e.g., including its spires, parapets, etc)"

And it must be included in the list of completed buildings and CTBUH does, when Burj Khalifa was topped out in 2009, universally it was acclaimed as the new tallest building in the world, however it get the official title in 2010, when it was officially opened, so it not an hard and fast rule to omit the topped out building from the completed list of skyscrapers, as in the case of 23 marina, and Elite residence these two skyscrapers will be officially opened in 2 or three months. And both have acclaimed the title of tallest residential builigns in the world one by one. For the definitions of building status on CTBUH see here,

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "This list ranks completed and topped out buildings" Several of the buildings in the list are not completed and topped out. Should the preamble therefore state this list ranks buildings which have been completed as well as those which have been topped out?

Please do consider that all of my edits are completed in good faith. When I first read this article I was astonished to see so many contradictions and such poor grammar in just the first two paragraphs. Longwayround (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

All such edits are welcomed, i have gone through the article many times and have tried to improve it as well, and for this purpose i have put the article for peer review twice. And many experienced editors have edited this article many times, so the question of poor grammar is irrelevant. And as far as the contradiction is concerned, i didn't get you in this respect what do you actually mean by this, if you are saying about the contradiction of information/statistics about the skyscrapers ???

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Longwayround (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The question of poor grammar is entirely relevant since the grammar was poor. The contradiction in the following paragraph ought to be obvious: "23 Marina, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates is currently the tallest residential building in the world, it was topped out in June, 2011 with a height of 395 m, surpassing The Marina Torch also in Dubai, now stands as the third tallest residential building. It was topped out in April 2011 with a height of 348 m. Elite Residence which is also in Dubai topped out in August, 2011 become the second tallest residential building with the height of 381 m. Q1, in Gold Coast, Australia, is the third tallest residential building in the world."

I agree there was a typing error in the above mentioned paragraph in which Marina torch and Q1 building both are mentioned as 3rd tallest residential buildings.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Primary Source
The required primary sources are mostly not found, there are only three or four sources about the skyscrapers, that are authentic, these are, CTBUH, Emporis, Skyscraperpage, and the skyscraper's developer website. The primary source that i understood is the skyscraper's developer website that gives the direct source/information about the building, but these website sometimes lacks statistics about the skyscraper, as in case of Pentominium its website doesn't discloses its height breakup, except the floor plans there is nothing more their. And also in Burj Khalifa website, there is only floor plans, and the height mentioned their and nothing else.

Pentominium is quite a famous skyscraper than those were highlighted by you in article for primary sources, i think there would be not primary source than the three above mentioned sources, and in these sources, CTBUH is the most reliable one, i think there should be consistent on putting the the three above mentioned sources.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I do not understand what you mean by quite a famous skyscraper than those were highlighted by you.
 * Generally, WP:PRIMARY sources are to be avoided. Longwayround (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Famous skyscraper than those were highlighted by you by this statement i mean skyscrapers which were highlighted by you and lacks primary sources. These skyscrapers are not very famous so the primary source relevant to these skyscrapers is very likely to be not found.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am confused here. We are not trying to find WP:PRIMARY sources. Have you read the policy on such sources? Longwayround (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes i have read it. In nutshell it says:

''Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. ''

In context of the above Wikipedia Policy, Skyscraper's developer website may be considered as the primary source, and CTBUH, Emporis, and Skyscraperpage be the secondary source, and all the information in this article has been references int he same manner. So where lies your confusion ??

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My confusion lies in your reference to required primary sources. You seem to have been under the impression that I wanted primary sources to be found. I would prefer to see secondary or tertiary sources. Are you saying many of these skyscrapers are not notable? Longwayround (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In this case CTBUH, emporis, Skyscraperpage are secondary and tertiary sources, so what do you requires any more ??? No i am not talking about notability of the skyscrapers at all, but i am comparing the notability of pentoiminium with other smaller skyscrapers. If the availability of more primary sources is less for pentominium, being the famous one, so the availability of primary sources for smaller skyscrapers will be nearly zero.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me once again reiterate: I am not looking for primary sources. Longwayround (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion
I think it would be helpful to seek a WP:THIRD opinion before either of us make further edits to this article. Would you agree? Longwayround (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the discussion between us is not quite long enough to overcome this conflict, in my opinion we should mutually resolve this and had consensus on it, if no agreement is built then it would be helpful to seek a WP:THIRD opinion what do you think ?

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You have at Longwayround (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleting informative list of buildings below 250 meters, you should have corrected those list but instead of doing this you deleted it. This was not a tireless task to put the ranking in order.

Nabil rais2008 (talk)


 * You will note that I corrected every building above 250 metres, including updating the heights of several buildings. As I pointed out, my move of the other buildings to the Talk page (now in /Archive 1 was temporary) and anyone with the time to check every other building's reference is entirely welcome to reinstate the other buildings so long as the information is verifiable. You may not consider the task 'tireless' (I assume here that you mean 'tiresome'): so correct the information. For my part, I did find the task tiresome and had already suggested on the Talk page that someone might like to help out. After two days of the task not being done, I purged the incorrectly ranked buildings. Longwayround (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

But what about the re-ranking of buildings below 250 meters ??? Anyway i will take the task of re-ranking these buildings with the heights being verified first, then i will add them in the article.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Longwayround (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In what way does it help the article to provide explicit rankings on a sortable list? Looking at the page history, the rankings have more often been incorrect than correct. Longwayround (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Topped out buildings.
I do not understand why you are adding princess tower again and again. Princess tower is not topped out yet can you please give me any source saying this ??? We should wait until we found some sources saying this, by seeing the construction pictures it doesn't look topped out ! Have you visited the Skyscrapercity page of princess tower ??? CTBUH doesn't listed it as topped out yet.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The article already contains the relevant reference. It is . If you believe that Emporis is not a reliable source then I shall gladly remove all the Emporis references from the article. Please, ensure you check the existing references before making changes to the article. Longwayround (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that Emporis is not reliable but it is less reliable than CTBUH, you can read the detail about TBUH here:. Tou will came to know that why CTBUH is more reliable than Other sources.

Even if you delete the emporis references considering it as not a reliable reference, the article's information may not be wholly supported by only CTBUH !!! More than one reference should be there to support the information.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, either Emporis is reliable or it is not. The reference you give about CTBUH is a primary source. Have you a reliable, third party source that will tell me that the information on CTBUH is up-to-date? Longwayround (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not think so, that there would be any third party source, but for last one year i have been visiting this site, and i always update its information as the event happens, like when the construction stops on pentominium (As i saw it on skyscrapercity.om, the discussion page about this building), CTBUH updated it on the very next day.

Which source do you consider as reliable ???? Except for these sources there is not any source available and a number of articles on Wikipedia are dependent heavily on these sources. If these are not reliable then please remove these references as you consider them not reliable from other articles.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The only evidence I have that Emporis may not be reliable is your suggestion that it should not be trusted as far as Princess Tower is concerned. Longwayround (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you have once again decided to distrust Emporis. What evidence do you have that Princess Tower has not been topped out, contrary to the reference provided? Longwayround (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Its CTBUH, Skyscraperpage, Skyscrapercity, Princess tower's developer website:. The dome of the tower is still not complete.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Where on the page you have mentioned does it tell me it has not been topped out this month? Please provide clear sources. Longwayround (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are trying to find the source that clearly shows your said statement then sorry there is no such source. The status of the tower on these sources is still under construction, which means tower is not topped out yet.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have provided the link. I am asking you to show me evidence that the information referenced is untrue. I've referred this now for a WP:THIRD opinion. Longwayround (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm here to provide the third opinion requested. I'll approach this neutrally and weigh up the arguments & relevant policy in order to deliver my recommendation - hopefully, we can resolve this issue. Let me start by letting you know that my knowledge of buildings is limited, so I apologise for that. It seems to me that the problem here is the reliability of sources. There is currently one source supporting the claim that Princess Tower is topped out and, as far as I can tell, none opposing this view (if there are sources which oppose this, please provide the link). I see no reason to believe that Emporis is an unreliable source; indeed, it is a global provider of information. Therefore, unless any alternative sources can be provided, I suggest we go with what Emporis tells us. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings And Urban Habitat), is the first source that oppose, the link is here:, and Skyscraperpage is the second source that oppose too:.

Emporis is well reliable source, but the other mentioned sources are also reliable, CTBUH being more reliable, precise and more informative. I would like to share the status of an other high rise skyscraper Pentominium, which has been put on hold since August, 2011, however Emporis still says it is under construction while CTBUH and Skyscraperpage says its on hold, i think the sources do not timely update their content.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing a third opinion. I myself am no expert on tall buildings. I only started editing the page because I noticed it could do with some less ambiguous language. It appears to me that the key issue right now is simply one of which reference is more up-to-date. Emporis claims the building has been topped out. Other sources may not be quite so up-to-date with the progress of this building. I am also concerned that my corrections to the grammar of the opening paragraph have been reverted. Longwayround (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those responses, and for the sources provided. I think we need to determine which sources are the most reliable, and the most up-to-date. None of the sources give a last updated time, and all three seem to be equally reliable. I would be inclined to believe that, if we have no reason to doubt the reliability of Emporis, then we should go with what it tells us. This is because, if all are equally reliable, then it is more likely that Emporis has updated itself first than it is that Emporis is simply wrong. This means that Emporis is not necessarily contradicted by the other two, it may simply have been updated first. We would require sufficient reason to doubt the reliability of Emporis if we are to disregard what it says: if anyone can provide such reason, please do so. Otherwise, I suggest we accept what it says as accurate, though I would advise that any other reliable sources are regularly checked for changes, to ensure that the article remains accurate to the sources. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity, I have also moved this discussion further down the page, to where it is more appropriate. Hope that's ok. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

We should go with Emporis, being the reliable source, as you say "Emporis is not necessarily contradicted by the other two, it may simply have been updated first" so i think the discussion on topped out status of Princess Tower has been concluded.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That being the case, I've updated the opening. I have not, however, updated the rankings. Longwayround (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for coming to an agreement - it's refreshing to see people approach a problem like this maturely. I suggest we just watch those three sources for updates over the next few weeks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

CTBUH defines topped out buildings as:

A building is considered to be "Topped Out" when it is under construction, and has reached its full height both structurally and architecturally (e.g., including its spires, parapets, etc)

So we should be place the topped buildings in completed list as well as in under construction list.I have copied Princess tower, 23 Marina and Elite Residence to under construction list.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Unneccessary tagging
You have placed unnecessary tags on this article.


 * Princess Tower, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates is as of December 2011 the tallest residential building in the world

When it topped outs there will be alot of sources about this news, that this building topped out, so leave it until it topps out.


 * Reference was already in the article. Longwayround (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Which reference you are talking about ???

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This one . I referred to it here Longwayround (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Q1, in Gold Coast, Australia, is the fourth tallest residential building in the world

How does the references added with this statement fails verification ??? i mean the references clearly notifies the Q1 tower, if you are talking about the fourth tallest building, than sorry this statement can not be found on internet except Wikipedia, its very understood that after the topping out / completion of 23 marina, Elite residence, and Marina torch, Q1 is the 4th one, so the question of adding an exact source is irrelevant if you can find than please add it.


 * What assertion about Q1 is supported by the references? Longwayround (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Q1's height and other statistics about the building. Or which others you didn't found in these references ?

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case I would suggest that the references be moved. The primary source still refers to Q1 as the 'World's Tallest Residential Tower'. Longwayround (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Primary source is outdated, Please find any updated source for it.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Several taller residential skyscrapers are planned, mostly in Dubai

See here:, this list clearly states that several buildings are under construction / topped out in Dubai. The above statement should be amended as Several taller residential skyscrapers are under construction, mostly in Dubai.


 * That list shows DAMAC heights in Dubai at 420m and World One in Mumbai at 442m. Which other taller residential skyscrapers are you referring to? Longwayround (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The statement is referring to the construction of residential skyscrapers in Dubai, because there is a highrise residential construction boom in Dubai. And it is necessary to add this in this article to bring the focus of the readers that most of the residential buildings are being built in Dubai. Just as in the list of tallest buildings in the world, Hong Kong was listed as the city with most number of skyscrapers.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As I have just stated, the list you refer to shows only two taller residential skyscrapers. Once again I ask: which other taller residential skyscrapers are you referring to? Longwayround (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see the list of under construction list of residential buildings in Dubai on CTBUH. For brief preview: 1: Princess Tower 2: Damac Heights 3: Marina 101 (Construction stopped) 4: 23 Marina (Toppedout yet still under construction) 3: Ahmed Abdul Rahim Al Attar Tower 4: Infinity Tower 5: Dubai Pearl Tower Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And Pentominium, if construction resumes.


 * Which of those will be taller than the existing tallest skyscraper? Longwayround (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Pentominium will be taller, if construction resumes.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again I ask, which of those buildings will be taller than the existing tallest (residential) skyscraper? Longwayround (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The tallest one will be Pentominium, upon its completion in 2013, it is expected to reach 516 m (1,693 ft) and will become the world's tallest residential building.

This was true information but currently the fate of pentomiinum is not known, it may be further delayed. So can convert this sentance in past tense, and about the stoppage of construction i have added about it.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Previous tallest residential buildings
At List of tallest buildings in the world, buildings that were at any time the tallest in the world are shown in boldface. May I suggest that we do that here too? Longwayround (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

We can add them, but we may consider it later.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a gap in the "Timeline of tallest residential buildings" section between 1968 and 1991? Emathias (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Pentominium construction stopped due to financial crises
The reference  was added to state that financial crises were the reason for construction on Pentominium ceasing. This is not supported by the reference. Could someone please find an appropriate reference? Longwayround (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, another source is Skyscraperpage, which also states its status as on hold, should we add this too ??? Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Does that source give the reason for construction being put on hold? If so, let's add it. Otherwise, I see no particular reason to bother. Longwayround (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No the reference doesn't quote any reason of on hold status of pentominium. I searching for a reliable source.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Errors introduced by careless reversion
The height of 8 Spruce Street, which is cited in the sources at 870 ft has been changed to 265 m without any reliable source.

The link to the CTBUH list of residential buildings has been mangled to this

My request for a non-primary source for Pentominium

has been removed.

Similarly my request for a source for the downsizing of DAMAC Heights has been removed. "Other notable residential skyscraper developments include DAMAC Heights however, the height of DAMAC Heights has been downsized to 420 m from 426 m due to the financial crisis of 2007-2010."

I am trying to ensure that all my updates to the page are supported by reliable third-party sources. I would be pleased if other editors would do likewise. Longwayround (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's policies say we prefer secondary sources, the policy on primary sources states "...primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." In the case of many of these tall buildings, experience shows that sometimes very little is said about them in proper secondary sources like newspapers, magazines and other media outlets.  That often leaves us with some less than ideal sources: primary sources such as the developer's website, the marketing website, the architect's website; and secondary sources listing many projects such as: the CTBUH, Emporis.
 * I generally consider the CTBUH pretty reliable since they are the people who are the arbiters of the "worlds tallest", but they can sometimes be rather slow in updating their database. Emporis seems reliable and seems to have a professional interest in the subject, but they do allow developers to sign up and contribute to their own data.  Developers, architects and even the marketing websites do have a vested interest in promoting a project, but if a project is halted or the design changed they might be slow to (or never) update their site.  Insisting only on proper secondary sources for everything in a list like this article, might turn out to be an unachievable ideal and could lead to an incomplete list in which the less well known projects are missing.
 * For basic information like height, number of floors, status, etc, we should first try to find a media source that mentions it. Failing that, go to the CTBUH and/or Emporis.  Failing that the primary sources are all we have (I believe that would fall under using primary sources with care).  Astronaut (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's fair. Longwayround (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Mumbai
This list at CTBUH (Listing buildings 1-100 in the world || Function: any || Status: construction or proposed || Material: any || Type: any) shows that, of the 25 buildings over 300m proposed or under construction, 12 are in Mumbai. Perhaps some reference to that city should be added within the article. Longwayround (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Its an informative list, and i came to know there are a lot of residential skyscrapers under construction in Mumbai, they should be added in the list along with the reliable sources.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes
I propose to change: "Several taller residential skyscrapers are planned, mostly in Dubai. The tallest one will be Pentominium, upon its completion in 2013, it will reach 516 m and will become the world's tallest residential building. however the construction was suspended in August, 2011 due to financial crises. Other notable residential skyscraper developments include DAMAC Heights however, the height of DAMAC Heights has been downsized to 420 m from 426 m due to the financial crisis of 2007-2010."

To:


 * Two taller residential skyscrapers are under construction, DAMAC heights in Dubai at 420m and World One in Mumbai at 442m. Construction of the taller Pentominium building is on hold. If completed, it will reach 516 m and will become the world's tallest residential building.  Longwayround (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a little grammar cohesion of the above paragraph it should be as:

Two taller residential skyscrapers are being built, DAMAC heights in Dubai at 420m and World One in Mumbai at 442m. Construction of the tallest one, Pentominium has been put on hold since August, 2011. If the construction resumes, it will reach 516 m and will become the world's tallest residential building.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "the tallest one" does not actually fit there. Also, on reflection, we don't have any reliable source to tell us that construction stopped in August so we shouldn't actually include that. Also, it won't necessarily reach 516m if construction resumes. How about going with:


 * Three taller residential skyscrapers are under construction. These include DAMAC heights in Dubai at 420m and World One in Mumbai at 442m. Construction of the tallest one, Pentominium is on hold. If completed, it will reach 516 m and will become the world's tallest residential building.

I'm not entirely sure why you prefer "being built" to "under construction" but I certainly am not going to lose sleep over that! Longwayround (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Its fine, CTBUH is reliable enough to support the on hold status of Pentominium. I propose a little change in this sentence as:


 * Three taller residential skyscrapers are under construction. These include DAMAC heights in Dubai at 420m and World One in Mumbai at 442m. Construction of the tallest one, Pentominium is on hold. If completed, it will reach 516 m and will become the world's tallest residential building.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is just a matter of wording, but "the tallest one" sounds poorly phrased to me and should be rewritten. Astronaut (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, I'm going to be bold and go with 'the even taller' rather than 'the tallest one' but also remove the reference to August since neither I nor Nabil have yet managed to find a source for that date. Longwayround (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect the "since August" came about as when the change in status was first noticed on the CTBUH website. If true, then it is original research.  However, do you have a particular reason for disbelieving the "since August"?  Astronaut (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hang on, I think I might have found a reference to the source of "since August"... This forum post mentions another forum (unfortunately unavailable to me for the moment) having the news. A subsequent post then quotes: "12/August/2011 Pentominium, 12 days without workers, ON HOLD status seems confirmed now".  The poster seems to be Imre Solt, a photographer who has taken many construction photos from the region.  Of course, forums are not reliable sources because they are not fact-checked.  However, on these forums I have often seen such news citing a more reliable source.  Maybe we'll get lucky once the website becomes available again.  Astronaut (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My only reason for disbelieving it is the lack of a reliable source. As it points out just below this edit box as I type: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" or, put another way, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information."
 * This looks like the post you were looking for. If we are to include a reference to August, based on these photos, then the most we can claim is something like "Forum posts from August 2011 suggest that construction stopped around the beginning of that month." (I say "around" as, of course, 12 days could refer to 31 July.) Longwayround (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the Internet Archive's copies of various Pentominium references. Irritatingly, they don't appear to have crawled the pages since July. Longwayround (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Belcher's
"The first residential skyscrapers were The Belcher's Tower 1 and The Belcher's Tower 2 located in Hong Kong, whose heights exceed 200 m and 221 m respectively."

1. As I understand it, both these towers are the same height.

2. Surely there is a source somewhere for them being the first residential skyscrapers. Longwayround (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

--Extra999 (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

432 PARK AVENUE New York
I understand that 432 Park Avenue (now under furious construction) will be taller than most residential projects, but find no reference to it in this article?Trajanis (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Marina 101 a residential tower?
Is there a reason that Marina 101 is on this list? It's 68% residential so doesn't seem to satisfy the 85% criteria mentioned in the beginning of the article. Darin-0 (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, changes have been made accordingly, Marina 101 is not a complete residential tower, its has been renamed as "Dream Dubai Marina', after the hotel in the tower will be manage by Dream Hotels, New York. The tower will comprise of both residential units and hotel rooms. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of tallest residential buildings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202231518/http://skyscrapercenter.com/abu-dhabi/etihad-towers-t2/ to http://skyscrapercenter.com/abu-dhabi/etihad-towers-t2/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071115145810/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=56322 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=56322
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121210210241/http://skyscrapercenter.com/List/tallest-residential-100-buildings to http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/List/tallest-residential-100-buildings

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Etihad Towers in Abu Dhabi.JPG

Tallest residential building is in india, "World one tower by lodha"
Its in india but its not mentioned anywhere Sumit tadvi (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Provide a reliable source that fulfils the criteria for inclusion in the list and you can then add it to the list. Otherwise it doesn't belong in the article. Actually if you read the whole article you will see it listed in the 'Under Construction' list. Robynthehode (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Marina Torch, Dubai.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Etihad Towers.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Marine City skyline in Busan, South Korea.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Gramercy residences - from Jupiter avenue 03.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Chelsea Tower 2014.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Dubai - Downtown Dubai - Sheikh Zayed Road - HHH Tower - HHH وسط مدينة دبي - شارع الشيخ زايد - برج - panoramio.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * North-East Tower of Qasr Al Hosn.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Haeundae LCT The Sharp.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahuja tower.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Lodha Trump Tower & Lodha Marquise.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ADP .jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 23 Marina in 2020.jpg

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Burj Mohammed Bin Rashid 2.jpg (discussion)
 * Cayan Tower 20200217.jpg (discussion)
 * Damaz Residence 20200217.jpg (discussion)
 * Elite Residence in 2020.jpg (discussion)
 * Marina 101 20220815.jpg (discussion)
 * Ocean Heights 20200217.jpg (discussion)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Harbourside.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We've the Zenith Tower A and Tower B.JPG

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahuja tower.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Marina pinnacle.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Mok-dong Hyperion1.jpg

Missing Chicago Building John Hancock Center
WHen the John Hancock building (Currently named 875 North Michigan Avenue) was completed in Chicago in 1968 and at the time of its completion contained the highest residence in the world. It is roughly 1,128 feet tall so should qualify for this list. IngramP (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Burj Mohammed Bin Rashid.jpg