Talk:Burj Khalifa/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Post-Dated Picture?

Why is one of the post-construction pictures dated November 2010? JackSlice (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the Burj Khalifa sinking?

I just read on a website[1] that the Burj Khalifa has sunk by 2.4 inches since it was erected. The article doesn't mention this. Do reliable sources attest to this assertion? __meco (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Images

Please add fair use images to this article! --84.61.165.65 (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

BASE jump

A big deal has been made of the BASE jump from the completed building being a new record. Yet I seem to remember seeing a documentary (on Discovery channel?) about some guys who climbed to the top a 1000 m+ cliff on a fjiord in Greenland and then BASE jumped back to sea level; and Talk:BASE jumping#Record for "highest" BASE jump and Talk:BASE jumping#Record for highest jump also put this "record" into doubt with jumps from Troll Wall and Trango Towers being mentioned. So, is it a new record BASE jump, or just a new record BASE jump from a building? Astronaut (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well what about the illegal base jump made by the British and French guys a couple of years back! I'll be surprised if that STILL isn't mentioned since there is a SECTION on it. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That illegal jump once had its own section in the article, there's probably something about its removal in the archives of this talk page. --timsdad ^(talk) 02:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Past discussions: June/July 08, February/March 09. --timsdad ^(talk) 03:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well now that BASE jumping has a solid section I think it needs to be mentioned. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done, along with a ref to the CurrentTV's documentary. As the previous (non-official) building BASE jump world record, it indeed deserved to be mentionned. — Xavier, 23:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Terminal Velocity, is only around 120 MPH, as stated in your own Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity. Not 140 as stated in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakeboy007 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

All not allowed?

Are youtube videos being taken down, removed, or not uploaded for the same reason as these images are not allowed? Cause I seemed to notice a lacking of videos of it and especially in it. Pre and post construction. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I put the only post construction image left at the head of the article, it's better than none. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's going away too; any image of the Burj must be uploaded to Wikipedia, not to Commons. --Golbez (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying we're gonna "sneak" and upload to straight to Wikipedia so they don't get "noticed"; I always upload strait to wikipedia anyway, never to the commons. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No; I'm saying, fair use images are allowed on Wikipedia, but not on Commons. And based on what I know about Fair Use, we're allowed maybe one image. --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Article status..

I am giving this article for GA status,as it is very well written and being improved day by day,Suggestions of all the editors of this article are welcomed here.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to nominate it for Good Article status about a week ago, but decided it didn't meet a lot of the good article criteria, mainly because of the huge amount of edits to the article in recent weeks were disrupting its stability. I'm still not sure it will pass a review, and I'm not too keen to do one myself at the moment, but you can review your own article yourself and then proceed. --timsdad ^(talk) 01:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have speedy failed the article, due to image and stability concerns. I have left a few notes on the review page. J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

At this time this is definately not a likely good article status meriting article. Not uncommon for something that is a current event, but especially since it's got the UAE laws affecting it at least somewhat with the image controversy. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Choose an image and choose it wisely

All images of the Burj Khalifa tower in general have been nominated for deletion here due to Freedom of Panorama issues. Feel free to voice your opinion. To retain an image, upload it locally under the fairuse guidelines. The construction images are heading to the same path as well. --ZooFari 04:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! They got deleted very quickly, without time to appeal, discuss or much else. 2 days is simply not enough time to assess forty images for possible fair use here on the English Wikipedia. What's more, I think the particular part of UAE law might have been mis-interpreted to mean there is no freedom of panorama. Astronaut (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. They were deleted WAY too fast. Could we ask an administrator at Commons to restore the images so we can discuss them? --NerdyScienceDude :) ^{(✉ click here to talk to me)} 14:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Or could we ask the UAE government for permission to use the images on Commons? --NerdyScienceDude :) ^{(✉ click here to talk to me)} 15:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You'd better ask the copyright owner (Skidmore, Owings and Merrill). Their terms of use only deal with their own picures. — Xavier, 16:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said in the talk page of the nomination page, re-opening the discussion must be for a good objection. FoP violations can be deleted sooner. We are not going to restore all 50 files because you want them transferred to Wikipedia under fair use. Keep in mind that you could have only one fair use image of the subject and it must be low resolution. It's much easier to go out and search for an image unless there really is a mis-interpretation. --ZooFari 19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for the reopening of the discussion. — Xavier, 16:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Note also that another deletion request has been opened for the pictures on the construction of Burj Khalifa. Again, feel free to participate. — Xavier, 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The first deletion request on Commons has been reopened and the content restored for the time being. Reason for restoration is 2 days was too fast with respect to Commons policy and legitimate questions were asked at an undeletion request (contesting the closure). The end result when it is closed again will almost certainly be the majority of images getting deleted (again) - particularly those that are most useful for this article. Please spend this time to ID those you want to exploit under fair use provisions.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Name of Address downtown burj dubai ???

Is the name of address downtown burj dubai also been changed ??? is there any reliable source ?? and that of Dubai Mall, Downtown burj dubai ???

i dont think so, because if these all names have been changed so that the follwoing names would also have been changed:

• Khilafa founain.
• Khilafa international airport
• Dubai name changed to "KHILAFA"
• Khilafaland
• Khilafa Zoo

yet all the words carrying "Dubai" with them awould have been changed.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The only things that we can assume that will be renamed contain the name of the building, of which the name has been changed. This includes only:

• Burj Khilafa
• Downtown Burj Khilafa; hence...
• The Address Downtown Burj Khilafa...

...and any other place named after the building itself. --timsdad ^(talk) 14:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To begin with its not khilafa, but khalifa, and so far the only thing that changed name is the builing, not even the signs (inside de building) read burj khalifa, they read Burj Dubai. The Address at Burj Dubai is still called (and all signs still say) Burj Dubai. It looks like the name change was just a nod to (or a clever request from) Abu Dhabi's Sheikh for getting them out of a tough situation Arg2k (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Chief Architect/Design Architect/A&E Consultant

I clarified some elements in the second paragraph (as of Feb. 3, 2010). I added the Chief Architect/Managing Partner, George Efstathiou, with a reference article from the tower's inauguration day. In addition, I clarified Adrian Smith's title as design architect, which was detailed as such in the pre-existing two citations of that sentence. It seemed that the sentence about Hyder Consulting adopting SOM's design was misleading (as though SOM finished the design plans and handed them off to Hyder), so I edited it to Hyder Consulting is the A&E consultant on the project. In an effort to be transparent, I do represent SOM, so I would appreciate dialogue about the changes I have made; the intent is to be factual, not marketing. Kmsom (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

update Burj Khalifa park section

I wanted to update the burj khalifa park section which focuses on water designs by WET company but leaves out the broader land-plan that Emaar pressed for the whole area, and some interesting notes on indigenous planting strategy, world-class boulevard etc, as brought in by SWA Group. I work for them. Perhaps someone can add, or let me know how since the page is locked.

Burj Khalifa park

Burj Khalifa is surrounded by an 11 ha (1,200,000 sq ft) park [insert new text, citing article from Emirates Business, see link at bottom ...]designed by SWA Group of Sausalito, California which has created landscaped urban plans for dozens of skyscrapers including the Shanghai Grand Tower, Shanghai, and the Zero Energy Tower in Guangzhou. The Tower Park, designed to frame the skyscraper and provide parkspace and walkable approaches that integrate with the neighboring communities, echoes the core design concepts of Burj Khalifa and the symmetries of the desert flower, Hymenocallis.[67]

Given the harsh climate, which is not desert as some would presume but benefits from proximity to the coast, the Tower Park includes not only Hymenocallis but also Ficuses, Pseuderanthemum and similar flora. Palm trees identify the main circulation paths of travel and frame the edge of the landscape along the lake. Olive trees also populate the landscape to enhance pedestrian walkways and provide shade.

The landscape plan was expanded to include 3.5 km of Emaar Boulevard, which connects all major Dubai destinations including the main vehicular access to the Burj Khalifa. The wide boulevard’s double-row date palms and pedestrian-friendly commercial areas are intended to establish a world-class avenue as recognized as the Champs-Elysees, Park Avenue or the Ramblas.

[pick up the following existing text, though you may want to delete the ending mention of water features since it's a redundancy to text in the prior paragraph headed "Dubai Fountain"...] At the centre of the park and the base of Burj Khalifa is the water room, which is a series of pools and water jet fountains. In addition the railing, benches and signs incorporate images of Burj Khalifa and the Hymenocallis flower. [68] WET designers, who also developed the Dubai Fountain, developed the park's six water features.

New reference/cite ...there are others but this is 'all in one': Emirates Business, “An Interative Pattern”, 2 Feb 2010 http://www.business24-7.ae/Articles/2010/1/Pages/03012010/01042010_083bdb53b058446fb3704f6a2683d25d.aspx

Also, you may want to include an image of the land-plan with water features, with is owned by SWA Group and gives permission for wikipedia use. Located on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/buyric/4333650218/

1rheckmann (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The text currewntly in the article could do with some improvement, but I can see a couple of problems with the above proposal: The additional text is too long and could give undue emphasis to the park, a relatively minor part of a large project. It also reads like something you would find in a brochure you might hand to prospective clients.

As for the photo, in my opinion it really wouldn't really add much value to the article. It also has a watermark and Wikipedia would, as a general rule, prefer a free image to a non-free (ie. fair use but "used with permission") image. Astronaut (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I think a pronunciation is needed in the lead paragraph, since not everyone knows how "Khalifa" is pronounced. Even I don't know how "Khalifa" is properly pronounced. --NerdyScienceDude :) ^{(✉ click here to talk to me)} 19:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

    Khalifa = Ka-leaf-a  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.156.104 (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 

air conditioning

Its a minor issue but the article should probably say tons of refrigeration rather than tons of cooling per hour. A ton of refrigeration is 12000btu/hr or 288000btu/day since its time dependent it doesn't make sense to say tons per hour since tons per day is the same thing. I would edit it but the article is locked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.233.254 (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I reworded that bit because I felt saying 10,000 tonnes per hour then saying that's equivalent to 10,000 tonnes per day was confusing. Astronaut (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea i just meant it should say tons without a time frame the rest was explaining why. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.233.254 (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Heights

The article should give all three CTBUH heights [2]:

• height 828.00 meter / 2716.54 feet
• heighest floor 621.30 meter / 2038.39 feet
• height to tip 830.00 meter / 2723.10 feet

jnestorius^(talk) 21:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Partly done. I just need to clarify the usage of the infobox parameters. Astronaut (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I left antenna_spire commented out to avoid the impact of being wrong in adding 2 m to the height of the building (828 m appears in a LOT of other articles). Hopefully a reply will come soon at WT:SKY#CTBUH height criteria and the Skyscraper infobox. Astronaut (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoa where are they getting 830 from; and when something is so large how can they get down to the decimal of a foot? You know what I mean I'm sure they changed the immediate landscape enough to affect that in building something like that! You know what I mean? Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess the decimals of a foot arise from an over-accurate conversion from the measurement in metres (which appears to be accurate to about 0.1 m or around 4 inches). As for 830 m, I'm sure you can understand my reluctance to add it to the article immediately, when so many other sources, including Emaar themselves, say it is 828 m. Astronaut (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The extra 2m could be, say, a lightning conductor. Does Burj Khalifa have one? I haven't seen closeup pictures of the pinnacle. Since it wins all six categories, citing the usual value of "architectural top" makes sense. The other CTBUH categories are only for fightin' jnestorius^(talk) 01:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed the CTBUH for clarification. I might get a response early next week. Astronaut (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: I did hear back from the CTBUH only to say they are still waiting on "drawings from official sources". Hopefully, I'll get a further update. Astronaut (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa Observation Tower's sudden Temporary Shutdown

Dubai's Emaar Properties said on the 8th February 2010,just weeks after opening,the observation deck of the world's tallest tower, the Burj Khalifa, has been temporarily closed for maintenance. A Burj Khalifa spokesperson said in an emailed statement to Zawya Dow Jones that "Due to unexpected high traffic, the observation deck experience at the BurjKhalifa, At the Top, has been temporarily closed for maintenance and upgrade,"."Technical issues with the power supply are being worked on by the main and subcontractors." The spokesperson didn't say when the observation deck, which is located on the 124th floor of the building, will reopen to the public. "Guests who hold valid tickets to the experience will be offered the option to rebook or receive an immediate refund," they said. /*http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575052744245693272.html?mod=WSJ_HomeAndGarden_sections_RealEstate*/

For reference

"The observation deck of the world's tallest tower - the Burj Khalifa in Dubai - has been unexpectedly shut down, just a month after it opened."

19:56 AEST Mon Feb 8 2010 By Adam Schreck Trouble strikes world's tallest tower — ninemsn.com.au
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Update 23rd February by a disguntled visitor:

By the way, Emaar haven't bothered to inform people who booked tickets about the temporary shutdown. There are no signs for unsuspecting tourists, it all seems like 'business as usual'. On reaching the main entrance at Dubai Mall you'll be informed that there's been an issue with the elevators, and offered a refund, with no mention of rebooking and certainly no apology.

And the 'immediate refund' mentioned about will take at least 4 weeks to hit your account according to their call centre. My advice is to avoid at all costs, customer service is awful!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PDoddy86 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 23 February 2010

This is not a forum. Do you have a suggestion how the article might be improved? Astronaut (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be updated to show that the Observation Deck continues to be closed indefinitely. It did NOT reopen on February 14, 2010 as article states. I had purchased a ticket online prior to closing and had to request a refund in person on February 15, 2010. But 10 days later I've seen no refund on my Visa card. Tried emailing and came back undeliverable. Customer service is awful. They seem to believe that they can hide that the observation deck is closed and everything is running as normal.

Burj Khalifa Tower Park

Comment moved here from my Talk page. Astronaut (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Astronaut, I wanted to update the burj khalifa page in keeping with the interesting side-facts and designers already on the page, perhaps you can add, or let me know how since the page is locked and I'm not yet able to edit protected pages.

Burj Khalifa park

Burj Khalifa is surrounded by an 11 ha (1,200,000 sq ft) park [insert this new text...] designed by SWA Group of Sausalito, California which has created landscaped urban plans for other skyscrapers including the Shanghai Grand Tower, Shanghai, and the Zero Energy Tower in Guangzhou.[cite here article in Emirates Business interviewing the SWA designer, see link below. It is basically the cite for this additional text]

[pick up existing sentence...] The Tower Park echoes the core design concepts of Burj Khalifa and the symmetries of the desert flower, Hymenocallis.[67]

[new text...] Befitting the harsh climate, the Tower Park includes not only Hymenocallis but also Ficuses, Pseuderanthemum and similar flora. Palm trees identify the main circulation paths of travel and frame the edge of the landscape along the lake. Indiginous palms and extensive olive tree plantings also provide much needed shade to encourage pedestrian enjoyment of Tower Park.

The skyscraper's landscape plan was expanded to include 3.5 km of Emaar Boulevard, whose design, according to Mohamed Alabbar, Chairman, Emaar Properties, was "envisaged as one of the world's finest boulevards." [see cite below from www.emaar.com] Emaar Boulevard connects all major Dubai destinations and is the main vehicular access to the Burj Khalifa. The wide boulevard’s double-row date palms and pedestrian-friendly commercial areas are intended to establish a world-class avenue as recognizable as the Champs-Elysees, Park Avenue or the Ramblas.

[pick up the following existing text, though it may tighten up text to delete the last sentence about WET and water features since it's redundant to text in the higher-up paragraph headed "Dubai Fountain"...] At the centre of the park and the base of Burj Khalifa is the water room, which is a series of pools and water jet fountains. In addition the railing, benches and signs incorporate images of Burj Khalifa and the Hymenocallis flower. [68] WET designers, who also developed the Dubai Fountain, developed the park's six water features.

New reference/cites:

-- Emirates Business, “An Interative Pattern”, 2 Feb 2010 http://www.business24-7.ae/Articles/2010/1/Pages/03012010/01042010_083bdb53b058446fb3704f6a2683d25d.aspx

-- Emaar Properties press release, 2 Dec 2009, http://www.emaar.com/index.aspx?page=press-release-details&id=994

Thanks, 1rheckmann (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a very minor change to your previous comment above (6 Feb 2010), and my comments made then still apply. Astronaut (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is shorter. Sorry about the double-post, I"m getting my wiki-legs.

Burj Khalifa park

Burj Khalifa is surrounded by an 11 ha (1,200,000 sq ft) park [insert new text, citing article from Emirates Business, see link at bottom ...]designed by SWA Group of Sausalito, California. The Tower Park echoes the core design concepts of Burj Khalifa and the symmetries of the desert flower, Hymenocallis.[67]

Given the harsh climate, the Park includes not only Hymenocallis but also Ficuses, Pseuderanthemum and similar flora. Palms and olive trees link the tower and its environs including 3.5 km of Emaar Boulevard, Dubai's major thoroughfare intended also to become a grand retail/pedestrian boulevard akin to the Champs-Elysees or the Ramblas. At 73m wide (239 ft), it will eventually include a light-rail line amid the existing 7 lanes of road, sidewalks and double-row palms.

New reference: -- Emirates Business, “An Interative Pattern”, 2 Feb 2010 http://www.business24-7.ae/Articles/2010/1/Pages/03012010/01042010_083bdb53b058446fb3704f6a2683d25d.aspx

1rheckmann (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC).

I took the liberty of indenting your comment to more easily distinguish it from the previous comments (use colons to increase the indent).

That's much better. The best way to learn Wiki markup is by doing it. You should be able to add it yourself (or if not after a few more edits by your username).

Take a look at the rest of the article in edit mode to see how references are added using the <ref>{{cite web|...}}</ref> markup; how the {{convert}} template is used (to help Americans who don't understand metric); and how to link to other Wikipedia articles using [[...]]. Astronaut (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mistake...

World's highest swimming pool (76th floor) (previously Shanghai World Financial Center – 85th floor)

What? --Tadija (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

tower is now closed

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100208/ap_on_bi_ge/ml_dubai_tallest_building

66.209.77.146 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Only the observation deck is closed to the public. See the comments just 2 sections above and what is already written in the article here. Astronaut (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But has anybody actually moved into the building yet? If so please cite a reference. I have found no indication that the building is actually being occupied thus far. The observation deck was to my knowledge the only accessible and/or habitable portion of the building, and it has been closed as it is not yet fit for use. --RKrause (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

World's tallest building title. As I understand, it the CTBUH criteria for ranking within the list of the world's tallest buildings is that a given building must be at least partially habitable (that is, open and fit for occupancy in whole or in part). But from what these articles suggest the building, although still under construction, is not being occupied at this time, particularly following the official closure of the observation deck citing safety concerns.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. There has been no response to my query above. --RKrause (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The official opening was only a few weeks ago so presumably it was at least "partially habitable". Quite how much was actually habitable is unknown - maybe it was just the foyer and the observation deck, but I doubt that is something you would find in a reliable source. According to sources cited in the article the first residents were due to move in from Feb 2010 (it didn't say when in Feb), the hotel will open on 18 Mar 2010 and corporate suites will be occupied "from March onwards"; though most of those sources date from a few days before the opening. The Observation deck opened shortly after the official opening and was temporarily closed after about a month due to an elevator fault. Some reports on 10 Feb said it would reopen on 14 Feb (see here) but then on 14 and 15 Feb I could find no reliable report saying it had actually reopened. I haven't checked the news today. In the absense of newer reports in reliable sources, we can only say what the status was predicted to be at a particular time according to older reliable sources.

Quite where that leaves the CTBUH and the World's tallest title, I don't know. Last I heard, the CTBUH were still waiting on "drawings from official sources". Astronaut (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As of February 25, 2010, the observation deck remains closed. I was in Dubai last week and was told that it would remain closed indefinitely when I was there to request a refund for the ticket I purchased online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.126.100.80 (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

World's highest swimming pool data

As the record for Burj Khalifa (76th floor) is apparently lower than that of the previous record holder (85th floor), I assume that the height measured in units of length would make sense of this. However the article doesn't provide this data. It should. __meco (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And I think this record should be mentioned as "the highest swimming pool above the ground", because some swimming pool on a plateau or mountain would be higher than it, if measured from the sea level. ---Ano 08:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. It is obvious the meaning of "World's highest swimming pool" relates to the height above ground and not the height above sea level. The same as the meaning of world's highest mosque and world's highest observation deck are obvious. The issue of whether "highest" refers to "above ground" or "above sea level" has been discussed before (here, for example). Astronaut (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Unexpected closing in 2010

This article discusses the unexpected closing of the Burj Khalifa in 2010: Schreck, Adam. "World's tallest tower closed a month after opening." Houston Chronicle. February 8, 2010. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Old news I'm afraid. See the previous discussions on this subject here and here, and it is also mentioned in the article itself. Astronaut (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use images

Please add fair use images to this article! --84.61.146.104 (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion immediately above. Astronaut (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Image deletions

Seems the threatened mass deletion of Burj Khalifa images from Commons has actually been carried out. Despite many, many people in favour of keeping the images, the opinion of a Foundation lawyer suggesting that image copyright issues should not be actively policed "...absent some evidence of an actual claim or dispute", and my view that the letter of the law has been rigidly adhered to rather than the spirit and intention of the law, the deletionists over at commons have prevailed, deleted most of the images in question, and slammed the debate closed before anyone has a chance to make further comment on the issue. Sorry, you can parhaps tell I am pretty annoyed at this, and in particular the way most people's arguments have been ignored in favour of the views of a small number of deletionists.

Over the next few days (maybe weeks?) I'll see what images can be re-uploaded. Unfortunately, if I am unable to convince the people over at Commons, that leaves many other non-english Wikipedias out in the cold. I'll then see what can be uploaded to en.Wikipedia, possibly under a claim of fair use, and the other Wikis might have to upload their own replacements under their own rules. Astronaut (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The copyright owners should be contacted in order to request permission to use the pictures. Has anyone tried to do that? After the OTRS formalities are completed all pictures can be undeleted. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like most of the construction images were kept. We could at least place those back into the article. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

@Alpertron: It wasn't a copyright problem. The deleted images were free, and couldn't have been on Commons without being free.

Judging from the responses I have received on Commons, it is very unlikely any images of Burj Khalifa (or any other building in UAE) will be allowed to remain. UAE has a law prohibiting the commercial exploitation of images of architectural works. Some people over at Commons interpret that to mean UAE has no Freedom of Panorama, claim that means the images are therefore not free, and so all images of Burj Khalifa must be deleted. Astronaut (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

According to commons:Commons:FOP#United_Arab_Emirates, it is a copyright problem. The law is protecting the author from commercial exploitation. Thus if you find the proper permission, and this is confirmed by OTRS all Burj Khalifa images will need to be undeleted. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is, even if I upload my own photos as public domain it appears they would still not be allowed on Commons. The copyright that is being protected is that of the architect, not me as the photographer. The protection only extends to commercial exploitation, but even though Wikipedia is not a commercial venture, those deletionists over at Commons remain convinced that the images are still not free and therefore not allowed on Commons.

As this appears to be an issue of UAE law, can the architects had over permission like that? ie. Is it up to the architects to make a complaint for UAE law to act, or does law enforcement proactively act to protect the rights of the architects whether or not a complaint has been made? Astronaut (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's why we need the OTRS letters from the copyright holders, i.e., the architects, in order to undelete those pictures. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the UAE is not the only country without Fredoom of Panorama, some other countries (the only ones that comes to my mind right now are North Korea and Slovakia) neither do. However, on all those countries the provisions are only for commercial purposes, which Wikipedia is not. Besides, if we followed those rules other images that represent illegal activities or symbols should be deleted (since they are illegal in many countries). --Fixman^{Praise me} 17:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Record for vertical concrete pumping in any structure

According to the concrete article, Burj Khalifa no longer holds the record for highest vertical concrete pumping in any structure. The Burj pumped concrete to a height of 606m, whereas in August 2009, concrete was pumped to a height of 715m for the construction of the Parbati hydro-electric power project in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. The Burj probably still holds the record for buildings. Randy_Seltzer (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I've found some reliable sources, I've adjusted the wording to compensate. I also added the references which were missing from the Concrete and Concrete pump articles. Astronaut (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Broadcasting from Burj Dubai

Which radio and TV programmes are broadcasted on which frequencies from Burj Dubai? Which other radio services use it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.139.118.37 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

2016 a building taller

in 2016 Burj Khalifa will bee 2 tallest man-made structure ever built the 1 will be a 1001 m tower calld Madinat al-Hareer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.39.109 (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

We'll see if it ever gets built. The "Under construction" seems to apply mostly to the surrounding infrastructure. --Golbez (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The project is not under construction yet, its only approved. And to complete such a enormous project like this would definitely take over 10 year to built at least. There is no reference available on the building's page on Wikipedia to support the under construction status. And also there is no source available on net as well. So till 2020 we can not think of a structure/building taller than Burj Khalifa.

I agree with Golbez that under construction status only apply to the surrounding infrastructure. --Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. LOL, looks like its scheduled to be taller just like all those other Dubai and related Gulf State projects that vanished off the radar as soon as their economies imploded. Building developers are all about smoke and mirrors and you can't believe a thing until the shovels are in the ground and, frankly, when the building is virtually topped off (but even that can be too early). --Bobak (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Disparate data for elevator speed record

In the Current records section the record speed of the elevators is stated as 18 m/s (59 ft/s), however in the section Architecture and design the speed is given to be 10 m/s (33 ft/s). __meco (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Guinness Book of World's Records still gives Taipei 101's elevators as the fastest elevators in the World at 1,010 m/min (3,313 ft/min), equivalent to 16.8 m/s (55.2 ft/s). http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/Search/Details/Fastest-lift-%28elevator%29/98390.htm Also, both the Burj Khalif homepage and Otis Elevators' homepage list a lot of records the building has achieved, but neither mention fastest elevators in the world. http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/the-tower/fact-figures.aspx and http://www.otisworldwide.com/b2-newsrec.html?item=20100106. The Otis Elevator page does note that the tower houses the fastest double-decker elevator in the world at 10 meters per second (1,969 feet per minute). The reference in this wiki article should be changed to double-decker elevator. Davetang (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

contradictions re: apartment sales

This article contradicts itself, but I don't know enough about it to know which is correct. Compare

Due to the slumping demand in Dubai's property market, the rents in the Burj Khalifa plummeted 40% some ten months after its opening. Out of 900 apartments in the tower around 825 were still empty at that time

with

Floors through to 108 will have 900 private residential apartments (which, according to the developer, sold out within eight hours of being on the market).

Are the apartments completely empty? Are they sold but not empty? Are they occupied? It seems like since supposedly everything but the hotel and deck is closed that they're vacant, but what do I know. AgnosticAphid talk 07:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It does indeed sound confusing and I don't know the situation. It would be useful if we had a reliable reference for the "...according to the developer, sold out within eight hours...". But then again that whole section really needs rewriting to reflect the current circumstances rather then the anticipated situation as it was back in 2009 (before the building opened). If I get a chance, I'll have a stab at it some time soon ... too busy at the moment. Astronaut (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Suicide

'Astronaut' and others may try to delete what occured on 10 May in order to whitewash the image of the building but it in fact happened and other notable landmarks have similar postings about suicides over time (i.e. Golden Gate Bridge, Empire State Building, etc). This event belongs along with climbing and base jumping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.19.51 (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. This is nothing to do with a whitewash, but Wikipedia policy - see WP:NOTNEWS. Also, please don't cut & paste copyrighted text from other internet sites such as the Huffington Post or Associated Press (AP). Astronaut (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted on the cut & paste but can you please explain to me how this falls under WP:NOTNEWS and yet the 'BASE jumping' and 'Climbing' do not? And how is it in other articles? Seems just like pretty subjective selection from where I'm sitting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.19.51 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You yourself said "suicides over time". The Golden Gate Bridge is well-known for being a suicide magnet, and that is what gets mentioned; were there one suicide there, I doubt it would be mentioned. Same deal with the ESB's, which has had many. The two suicides that are mentioned in detail are there because of the pop culture reference (Andy Warhol), and the one that was failed due to wind. I might question whether that should be there, but it's at least interesting. As for climbing and jumping-while-surviving, that actually takes effort, unlike jumping-while-not-surviving. It is a valid concern that devoting space to a single suicide isn't worth it. On the other hand, jumping off a building, falling 39 stories, landing, dying, and still being above almost every building's height in the world is interesting, and perhaps worthy of discussion, but citing the Golden Gate Bridge and ESB situations won't work, because they aren't equivalent situations. --Golbez (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Not many climb or BASE jump from tall building, but all kinds of people commit suicide jumping from tall buildings all over the world. I don't know but there are probably hundreds of incidents a year worldwide. Apart from the landing on the 108th floor, I think this particular incident is barely newsworthy. Perhaps 173.172 would like to explain why he thinks it is important this remains in the article. Astronaut (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation, part 2

It looks like my previous comment was ignored, so here I go again. I think a pronunciation is needed in the lead paragraph, since I'm pretty sure everyone doesn't know how "Khalifa" is properly pronounced. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 00:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know IPA, but isn't it obvious... "Ka-li-fa". I also see that Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan (after whom the building is named) doesn't have a guide to pronunciation. Astronaut (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Americans tend to pronounce "i" like "aye" whereas the rest of the world know "i" like "ee", so an American may pronounce it "Kuh-lie-fuh" or "Kuh-life-uh" and people who understand Arabic dialect may say it "Kah-lee-fah". Know what I mean, Vern? - Team4Technologies (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is to include an IPA pronunciation in the article. I don't understand IPA either. Does anyone know a Wikipedian Who could help us with IPA? -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 16:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You could add 'Need-IPA' somewhere, or maybe there's a Wiki-project which looks after this sort of thing. I'll ask. Astronaut (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone suggested "One of the daughter WikiProjects of Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics ..." Astronaut (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I came here because of the 'needs IPA' template on this talk page. Yeah, there are people watching these things, though they may only be checked once every couple months. — kwami (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wind Engineering

This is not confirmed except by others in the know, but according to inside sources from RWDI (wind engineers and contractors working on the project) the tower was redesigned into a tri-shaped module to minimize Renoylds and Strouhal numbers, and that the upper levels were analyzed by RWDI to test construction feasibility with cranes lifting objects. Don't mean to minimize anyone, just want to see the wind engineers get their due. This is a major building that is subject to huge wind loads, and there is zero mention of the engineering firms that helped with the wind / airflow problems for this structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.68.208 (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The article already says "During the design process, engineers rotated the building 120 degrees from its original layout to reduce stress from prevailing winds." Does it really need to say more? Astronaut (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you rotate a building with a 120° rotationally symmetric floor plan by 120°, you'd get exactly the same wind load conditions. Unless there are minor deviations from this symmetry somewhere. This sentence should either be clarified, corrected, or deleted altogether. I'm with the original poster in this section that some more facts about wind engineering would be interesting, if available. --Nettings (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Height of Burj Dubai's 124th Floor Observation Deck

Hi, I was searching and I discovered the Height of the 124th Floor Observation deck. It is 442 Meters.

Here is my source: http://www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com/observation-deck.html

Now You Know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.168.212.225 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2010

Unfortunately, burjdubaiskyscraper.com has been discussed at length before and is not considered a reliable source. I'm sure we can find a reliable source with this same info. Astronaut (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The observation deck on the CN Tower is 4 meters higher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.69.189 (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source which says it is? Astronaut (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Shanghai World Financial Center's observation deck? --Kostpolt (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed Burj Khalifa#Observation deck which states it is the second highest in the world. The Shanghai World Financial Center's observation deck is indeed the current highest, but it could be argued that it is not relevant to this article. ... but then again... perhaps it should be mentioned. Astronaut (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence needs clarification

The lead includes the sentence "office space pricing at Burj Khalifa reached US$4,000 per sq ft." I'm not sure what that means:

• Price of construction, per square foot?
• Price to purchase an office/level?
• Rental price per year?

Normally, when I see $/sqft I think of rental costs. Another sentence in the lead suggests that the value is the cost to purchase an office, but that seems odd: normally offices in skyscrapers are leased, not bought, although perhaps this is an exception. In any case, could someone in the know re-word the sentence to make it clear what that price represents? --Noleander (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

While the source used for that sentence says "...sale of office space..." it almost certainly means the sale of a lease. Unless a company is big enough to build their own building, they usually lease office space from the property owners - usually a property management company which sells a lease for so many dollars per square foot. Such wording is common in many commercial offices in major skyscraper projects. Astronaut (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

@Astronaut: The confusing thing is that the following sentence says that some residences sold for $3,500/sqft. So how could a comparable office site lease for $4,000/sqft for one year? The lease value for one year should be far, far less than a sale price. I"m starting to think that these offices were sold, much like condominiums, and the occupants have bought their floor/office. To make it even more confusing, a later sentence says "the rents in the Burj Khalifa plummeted 40% some ten months after its opening." --Noleander (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can only go by what the source says and the one source we have says "sale". I too think it actually means the sale of a lease as is common with commercial office space. I have even "owned" apartments which are in fact leasehold (where I pay a ground rent to the owner of the building in addition to the mortgage to buy the right to live there for 999 years). Maybe those residences were also sold leasehold like my apartment. If you can find another reliable source which clarifies the situation, feel free to improve the wording in the lead and cite your source. Astronaut (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Since it appears that the $ values are sale/ownership values (not yearly or monthly rents) then I guess the current wording in the article is satisfactory. --Noleander (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

New diagram/chart

Am I the only one who finds this edit has added a confusing chart (andquite ugly) alongside the floor plans table? I mean, the colours are different between the table and the chart and the floors don't align. Astronaut (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I created the chart as it gives a truer picture of the proportions of floors dedicated to each use, e.g. it is not obvious from the table that more than half the floors are residential, while under 10% are hotel floors.

I can make the colours the same. The reason for the current difference is that the colours are hard to distinguish if they are the table version, whereas the table text is hard to read if they are the chart version.

The floors necessarily do not align as they are to scale, while the table is not. In my opinion, the pattern of colours make it relatively easy to see the correspondence of the blocks.

Would anyone else have any thoughts about this? Thanks. cmɢʟee'τaʟκ'maιʟ 17:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Though you have valid points, contributors will be more receptive if you don't start with a denigratory comment (confusing ... quite ugly). I appreciate your understanding.

Sewer system

As yet there seems to be no mention in this article of the peculiar fact that there is insufficient infrastructure in Dubai to handle the waste water from this building and the sewage must be hauled away by truck. http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=141858484 24.27.31.170 (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Eric

Image warning

The images on this page are all, or almost all, copyright violations as it is illegal in the UAE to use an image of a building for commercial purposes, except in broadcast media. They are soon going to be deleted from Commons; a fair use image would be in order for this article (although not the 40 or so that are there), so someone should upload one here and add a proper rationale. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a commercial site, so shouldn't they be in the clear? --130.245.220.51 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So what if it's illegal in the UAE it isn't illegal most other places. If I take a picture of it, I would be free to upload my own picture as the UAE law has no force elsewhere

173.165.104.27 (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Kyra

File:Burj Khalifa at Night.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Burj Khalifa at Night.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't contain the highest mosque in the world

According to the following article in The National, the highest mosque in the Burj Khalifa is an urban myth: [3] and was denied by the developer Emaar. Therefore I removed it from the article. --Nepenthes (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Rightly removed from the records section, but I do think the whole story is quite interesting and possibly worth reporting in this article. Astronaut (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The National reports (Nov 2011) the mosque on the 158th floor as being an 'urban myth'. It also expresses puzzlement at the source of the myth. The article uses both this report in Construction Week Online (Sept 2010) and this report from India's NDTV (Jan 2010) as sources for the mosque's existence. Even though the mosque record was added back in and then recently removed again, I do think the journalists at The National have actually done some investigation and fact checking from multiple other sources including the building's developer and architect. Astronaut (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Burj Khalifa Panorama.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Burj Khalifa Panorama.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Burj Khalifa Panorama.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

File:20060829 Burj Dubai.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:20060829 Burj Dubai.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:20060829 Burj Dubai.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Burj Dubai Under Construction on 10 December 2007.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Burj Dubai Under Construction on 10 December 2007.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Burj Dubai Under Construction on 10 December 2007.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thumbnail size in gallery?

I recently enlarged the gallery thumbnails to 220px, the current MOS default size for images in articles. MOS asks us not to force image sizes, but there's a flaw in the Gallery software that sets the thumbnails to 100px fixed, which is pretty tiny. Hence I (and others) usually set galleries to 220 px for small, or 180px (the old default) for larger ones, as a workaround.

All this is no big deal, but have a look here for the gallery at 220px. Looks a lot nicer, imo -- and one should never put a panorama in a gallery. See what you think -- Pete Tillman (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My reason for reverting your edit was because I saw it as overriding the thumbnail size specified in the user preferences, but then I didn't know about the error in the <gallery> tag. How about using {{gallery}} instead which doesn't exhibit the same error and avoids having to set perrow? On the other hand, I don't think the images in the gallery need to be made larger than that provided by the <gallery> tag and I think 220px looks way too big in comparison. As for the panorama, I'm not so convinced about "never ... in a gallery" but maybe it could be moved out of the gallery to somewhere else; but please not 550px wide. Astronaut (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, see what you think -- Pete Tillman (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Gallery looks good to me on 1920x1200 24" display, using Firefox 15.0.1. Do we have any photos of it nearly finished, but not quite? —fudoreaper (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we are quite restricted on what photos and how many we can use. This is due to there being no freedom of panorama (FoP) in Dubai. Images on Commons therefore cannot show the nearly completed or completed building, even if the images are released under a free license, and despite there being plenty of such images elsewhere on the internet. Therefore we have to make do with a small set of non-FoP violating early construction photos and a few photos used under fair use provisions. See some of the other discussions above for more on the topic of image use and FoP. Astronaut (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting point I had not realized. And profoundly sad. You need special government permission to take a picture of what you see as you walk around? But I won't digress into political ranting, it looks like this is the best we can do for now. —fudoreaper (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So, what is this building used for?

I came to this article because I want to know the primary purpose of this building. So much of the article is about gimmicky things like base jumping, record height, etc. But I can find little in the article about what it is for. Is offices? Apartments? Combination of both? What is headquartered here?. I can't find this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2013‎

Strange you couldn't find it. The infobox tells us it is of mixed use (that's an architect's term for "not just offices" and "not just apartments"). The last two sentences of the lead section make it clear there are apartments. The Architecture and design section talks in detail about the Armani Hotel. The observation deck has its own section in the article. The floor plans section makes it clear there are corporate suites, residential apartments and a hotel interspersed with mechanical floors, an observation deck, and a fancy restaurant. As well as all the gimicky stuff about BASE jumping, films and games, etc. that used to be called trivia. Oh, and it is the tallest building in the world and has broken several records, so maybe that is worth mentioning. Astronaut (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)