Talk:Burj Khalifa/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Burj Khalifa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Completion date

Once again, someone has changed the completion date to 30 June '09, though this time they have modified the reference so it no longer shows the photo with the billboard saying 30 Dec '08. The new reference is now to the main page at http://burjdubaiskyscraper.com which does indeed say 30 June '09. My question is: can burjdubaiskyscraper.com be considered a reliable source?

I think we should change the completion to 2009, but not include an exact date. Since burjdubaiskyscraper.com is just a third-party site, I do not think they can be trusted with knowing the official information. But, Emporis.com does have a completion date of 2009; they can be trusted. Also, I do not know how anyone can know the exact date of the completion of a building. It would be best to just stick to the year. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 07:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Astronaut (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Height in early March 2008

Several editors have changed the height of the Burj Dubai from 604.9 m to 611.3 m. I have changed it back to 604.9 metres as no official statment has yet been made by Emaar. I propose that the height not be changed unless Emaar makes an official statement or there is a change of the height on the Burj Dubai's official site: www.burjdubai.com. Since only the developer knows the exact height, we should not use any updates or information from other sources. Once the height on the official website is updated should we change the height here on Wikipedia. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. One official source is better than many conflicting unofficial sources. Astronaut (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Remaining milestones

I have my doubts whether the Petronius oil platform qualifies as a "world's tallest freestanding structure" and as a milestone for Burj Dubai to pass. Most of it's structure is below water and therefore doesn't qualify under CTBUH rules. Astronaut (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not have an opinion on the issue, just a few comments. Consensus is that it is not considered the tallest; and therefore may not warrant being included as a milestone. But, despite that, it does stand taller than the CN Tower, even if it is in water. It will not hurt if we keep it, and will not be a major deal if we take it away. Let us see if anyone else has an opinion. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 07:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

At this rate, we gotta keep all those deep level mines too since they are much 'taller' than any tower or oil platform ever built.

Venny85 (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, many argue that the Petronius is the "tallest free-standing structure", hence the usual addition of "on land" to the Burj Dubai's title (for now), and previously to the CN Tower's title. So I don't agree that consensus agrees to the contrary; consensus agrees that it is not on land, but there is much support of it being a free-standing structure in general. CTBUH has never released any information about the world's tallest structures; it only measures the height of the tallest buildings, so by its rules the CN Tower also would not count. It is therefore not very relevant in this situation. Anyway, I believe that the Petronius should be kept as a milestone. Cheers, Rai-me 13:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Would Petronius stand on it's own without buoyancy? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if it can, a lot of the difficulty of a tall structure is in the construction process. Oil rigs have a serious advantage there because they don't need tall cranes, because you can access the top with boats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.142 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Bill Baker

Some mention should be made of Bill Baker the head structural engineer at Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. "Engineer Bill Baker Is the King of Superstable 150-Story Structures". Wired Magazine. Retrieved 2008-03-11. Tomraider (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Official website misinformation

Burj Dubai's official website claims that the building is the tallest structure in the world in the 'Did You know?' section of the site. Despite this, it also states on the same page the building's official height as 604.9 metres tall- a full 23.9 metres shorter than the KVLY-TV mast. I propose that my small section noting this be re-added.

[1]- screenshot I took of the offending passage.

[2]- if you want to see for yourself, wait for the relevant 'Did You Know?' passage to appear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uranium grenade (talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Burj Dubai's creators may be using a little exaggeration to promote their building. Either that, or by "structure" they actually mean "building". In any case, Burj Dubai's height in comparison with other structures is already well documented on this page. While your claim is true, it doesn't really contribute anything to the article, and may confuse readers.
--JKeene (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I said at User talk:Uranium grenade, Emaar would have changed the height on the Burj Dubai's official site if they wanted to announce a new height. Since they have not changed the height (or even made an announcement) since 5 February, I assume they want to announce a new height when the tower is even taller. Also, I feel that when they say "tallest structure in the World," they mean free-standing structure. This would be the CN Tower, which they passed in September. One more thing: we need information (meaning the exact height) to back up "tallest stucture in the World" if they are referring to the KVLY-TV Mast. Just the fact that the Burj Dubai is the tallest does not mean anything; we need to know how tall. We should wait until they update the height. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit sceptical, they could simply wait until the height is 630 metres tall, and then update it. I see your point in that the contribution wouldn't be huge, but countless people will visit that page, and come away with misinformation, I believe it the duty of the most popular general reference work currently available on the Internet to provide the facts and to recognise a factual fault of what will be the Burj Dubai's most popular reference site. To just brush off the statement as the developers getting a little over-excited is all well and good. But the public have the right to know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uranium grenade (talk • contribs) 17:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think people will become misinformed. In the article, it clearly states "As of 5 February 2008, Burj Dubai has reached a height of 604.9 m (1,985 ft), with 159 completed floors." They will realize that no official update has been made since early February. If people really need to know the height, they can go somewhere else. Here at Wikipedia, we make sure our information is correct and has a source. If we cannot prove something, then we will not include it. This is something viewers will have to live with. Until it is certain that the height has increased past the level of the KVLY-TV Mast (which would have to be verifiable by a trustworthy source), then we will have to leave it alone. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But we can prove it, it says it right there on the page, to human view displayed. What I propose to be included does not accuse the page of any dirty deeds or anything; my passage simply said that despite the latest update, the official website proclaims Burj Dubai to be the tallest structure in the world, that is an indisputable fact, from a perfectly trustworthy source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uranium grenade (talk • contribs) 12:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, the very same "did you know" also states: "When completed, Burj Dubai will be the world's tallest building..." (emphasis added). It is quite possible the official site has an error on it. The fact is, the KVLY-TV mast is taller than the officially stated current height of Burj Dubai. Adding obviously incorrect information (even from a usually reliable source), could easily confuse readers. Let's just wait until the building has grown by another 25 m or so, then it really will be the tallest structure in the world. Astronaut (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I never saw that proclamation of present and future vertical supremacy on the website. I'll let this one go, as I have proved the webmasters of the page to be clearly insane. (Flippancy deliberate.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.165.162 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong data?

If top floor is at 624.1 m and it has 162 floors => 624.1/162= 3.8 meters for every floor. It seems to me that the height of every floor is a bit too high. Do I miss something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.20.199.109 (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider that each floor slab is possibly 0.3 m thick, plus there's all that air-con ducting and under-floor space, you could easily see 1.0 m being used, leaving just 2.8 m floor to ceiling. Still too much? Bear in mind some floors, such as the lobby, will be considerably taller.

Also, Sears Tower: 442/100 = 4.0 m per floor, Taipei 101: 449/101 = 4.4 m per floor, Petronas Towers 379/88 = 4.3 m.

Astronaut (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai Height and Completion Date

Emaar just hasn't updated the Height of the Burj Dubai yet, but any day now, The Burj Dubai will be 630.5 meters tall and it will become the tallest manmade structure of any kind currently built. Emmaar might not have updated it but burjdubaiskyscraper.com would not lie. It has never lied in the last four years and it has pictures of the Burj Dubai to prove it. The only way it would be false would be if Emaar were to update the height and that height would be smaller than what BurjDubaiskyscraper has said. Then Burjdubaiskyscaper would be wrong. Even though Burj Dubai is 4 months behind in construction, more people are working on the building now and it will still be completed by December 30, 2008. The height will be between 818-940 meters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldek (talk • contribs) 00:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Once Emaar announces a height update for the Burj Dubai, then we can change it. I am sure they want to announce to the world that the Burj Dubai is the tallest man-made structure, so all we have to do is wait for it. Until then, we need to provide any additional information about the Burj Dubai along with verifiable, trustworthy sources. I am sorry to say, but www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com is not the developer. The site does not have access to the same information that the developer has. As for the completion date, 2009 is being used because that is what is listed on Emporis.com. If you want to change the date of completion to 30 December 2008, you need to provide a reliable source for that also. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai

Liftport has announced a couple of years ago that it will build a 62,000 mile, 100,000 kilometer functioning space elevator by April 2018, which is 10 years from now.

Any day the Burj Dubai will be the tallest manmade structure on the planet yet, people still have it like number 5oth on the list. Suppose Emaar never updates the building on its site even when the Burj Dubai is 850 meters tall and opened in September 2009. Are you still going to list it as number 50th instead of number 1 by a longshot, and are you going to say that it is only 604.9 meters even when it is well over 800 meters. If people are living in the Burj Dubai in 2009, will you still say that construction has not been completed, just because Emaar has forgotten to update? Maybe they never will but that doesn't mean that their information is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldek (talk • contribs) 01:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Emaar would not want to boast to the world that they have achieved a milestone in human history. If, as you say, they never update the height, even after opening, then we may reconsider. But, by that time, the CTBUH would have probably made a statement about the height of the building and it would probably be listed in many trustworthy sources. That is why in the article is says "As of 5 February 2008, Burj Dubai has reached...." This implies that the height has changed since that day. But, it also says that there has not been any official declaration of a height increase since that. We will just have to wait and see. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The official Emaar website has been regularly updated with the latest height figures (albeit not on quite as frequent a schedule as user Maldek would like) and so the chances of it still reading 604.9 m when the residents move in are vanishingly small. In the interim, conjecture on other non official websites is just that, and has no place in an encyclopaedia. Chillysnow (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Maldek. There seems to exist a type of Wikipedia user (which happens to have considerable overlap with the type of user who spends large portions of each day on the site), who are overly critical of sources. Wikipedia is not, and was never meant to be, an archive of press releases and official announcements, but rather an encyclopedia of factual information. If, in fact, his source has been correct over the past four years, then I think we can safely deem it reliable, and if it's possible to link to their data, then I think we are justified in citing it in the article.

More specific to this debate, Emaar is not necessarily a legitimate source, either, as they have much to gain from fudging or over-estimating their own numbers, and have continually been secretive about their plans to preserve a competitive edge.

I think the best argument I can make, however, is that each of us, as well as anyone else who has been following construction, knows that 604.9 is not the current number, and there is absolutely no reason for us to knowingly protect an incorrect number simply because an official press release has not been made. If the guy has a good source, let him use it. --Galactoise (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Galactoise makes some good points, but I think this only boils down to some getting a bit over-anxious about when milestone x is reached, which is hasn't yet. If past is any indication, when the tower exceeds the height of the record-holding mast, the figure will be updated. In truth, very few people are paying much attention to this since it passed the CN Tower and it will only become of much general interest once the radio mast is exceeded. Which is probably why they've not been updating this as frequently as some here like as only a small number of people really care whether the Burj is #50 or #5 over-all. Besides, to say Emaar is "not necessarily a legitimate source" is rather weird, even if there is an incentive to be secretive about their height. Surely, those building the tower have a particularly unique claim to being a "legitimate" source! If they simply stop updating the height for whatever reason (it is hard to imagine they'd not want to bother noting it becoming the tallest structure, though) then there might be some call to insert another height noting that for presumably proprietary reasons the developer is not revealing the true current height though other sources say it is x metres, etc. This may in fact be the case once it is the tallest building and no updates are offered for months instead of the current 6 or 7 weeks. Canada Jack (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

How about getting a local Wikipedian profesional surveyor to go there with a theodolite, measure it, and publish the results so they can be added? With a surveyors' benchmark, ephemeris, watch, photo of where the tip was at a known height, possibly binoculars you could find out it's height to within a few feet, but that would be original research:(. Can't someone just count the floors? Really — we have photographs, it tells you where the top floor and roof is. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly getting sick of the lack of patience from various IP editors. I've requested semi-protection for this article. Astronaut (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

well, thats wikipedia as usual rite? lol --Venny85 19:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venny85 (talk • contribs)

and its semi-protected already?!! thats fast...--Venny85 20:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venny85 (talk • contribs)

I agree, Canada Jack, that people are getting over anxious. I just wanted to back up Maldek's argument that Emaar's site is not the only good source. As for my comment on Emaar's legitimacy, I was really just viewing it in a similar context to the other site in order to get at the point that Emaar is not the CTBUH, and i'm sure they aren't certifying every height update that they post on their website with the CTBUH. I think they're a perfectly fine source, as may be any number of other groups following construction.--Galactoise (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

April 1st

The following quote: "Current height: As of 1 April 2008, Burj Dubai has reached a height of 1,900 m (6,234 ft), with 380 completed floors.[7]" is an elegant April Fool joke, or feet to meter conversion mistake. :) - al —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.23.243 (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither. It was the action of a vandal. Astronaut (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that the height is outdated

The official Burj Dubai site has not been updated since February 5, 2008. But since then the tower has risen fron 1,985feet to 2,068 feet 7 inches, as of March 28, 2008. Construction continues. 74.225.160.248 (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The page will be updated when the official site is updated or it is updated on another reliable source. Astronaut (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that this is definitive, but so far all I can find is a blog site [3] dedicated to the Burj Dubai run, it would seem, by someone named Tom with access to material from the builders (and lots of great photos and diagrams) but who nevertheless seems to be otherwise not connected with the builders. He goes to considerable effort to post updated photos and figures. In the latest blog there, dated March 28, he states the height as being 630.5 m, making it the world's tallest structure. The blog says the burj dubai is now "officially the World's Tallest free standing Structure" [sic] (the headline says "Tallest structure" which is likely what he meant) as it has surpassed the KVLY TV mast. However, there is no indication here as what "official" designation he is referring to as there is no reference as to where he got this information, and as a web search fails to find any such claim from the builders, nor news reports noting this "official" record. Unless, of course, Tom is part of the building team and is therefore in a position to note officially its height. Unfortunately, there is no indication, other than the declaration that it is "official" that this is in fact the case. Therefore, I agree with Astronaut's position on a page update. A blog would not normally be cited as a "reliable source" even if it turns out that his information is accurate. Canada Jack (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Another source, burjdubaiskyscraper.com is often mentioned, but it has the same problems as Tom's site mentioned above - a blog, possibly by someone with some access to the building site, lots of great photos, but it states things as facts without providing a verifiable source for it's data. Astronaut (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Astronaut. Actually, I did some checking, and the source we're currently using (The official Burj Dubai website at www.burjdubai.com) neither provides a verifiable source nor states its methods either. In fact, thank you for also linking to the article on verifiability, which states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." and also "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." In short, you need to get off your high horse and CHILL OUT. The fact of the matter is that we do not have a perfect source for this article, but we do have at least one source with a reputation for accuracy, even if its fact-checking method may be dubious (although a history of accuracy tends to imply that they ARE fact-checking, even if they aren't publishing their methods). People are completely justified in asking that this page be updated to reflect reality, and the "holier than thou" attitude is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galactoise (talk • contribs) 09:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are wrong on this, Galactoise. Your premise is that the site for the Burj Dubai doesn't provide a verifiable source nor a statement of its methods. And therefore, we need not rely on it any more than other self-published websites or blogs. What you seem to fail to appreciate is that the Burj website is the only official site involved with the construction of the tower, and therefore must remain the authority on what the actual height is, imperfect though it apparently is. And your comment on the absence of any mention of "methods" is specious as they are constructing the tower so would presumably be using standard measurement techniques to be abreast of this. That is no wild presumption to make, which is what you are implying here in equating this to some self-published blog where we often have no idea as to how some third party came up with the height they are reporting.

Therefore, absent anything other than some blogs, etc., supplying a height, we have to go with the official word here, the only official word being the Burj website itself. If we start seeing reliable third-party reports citing a new height, say news reports reporting that the building is at a new height, it'd be a simple matter to note after the "official" figure that, say, the London Times are reporting that the tower was x metres tall as of May 1st, or what have you. Not really sure why some are so hot and bothered about this. There's not been a height update for two months on the site. And no reliable sources are supplying an updated figure, even though it appears the tower is the tallest in the world, period. Yet the page has the old figure. Sorry if I'm not losing any sleep on this one. If anyone is being "holier than thou" it is those who seem to think that some simple rules here are to be ignored to satisfy some compulsion from some to update something even the builders themselves can't be bothered to do at the moment. It would seem for the builders, once they passed the CN Tower, that was the big milestone and the rest are not really that important. I'd tend to agree (since the damn thing is across the street from me). After all, who here has even seen the TV mast in question? I'd wager very, very few. In short, the only people who seem to really care about this issue are those who are already obsessed with towers to begin with. Canada Jack (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I just did a google news check and NDTV.com, a major Indian news site, is reporting that today, April 7, emaar is itself saying it has exceeded the height. So, if the site doesn;t update to this figure, we can alter the height. They are saying that the tower is 629 metres, surpassing the height of the TV mast. [4] Canada Jack (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Canada Jack, the point that i'm making is that burjdubai.com is the official site for no other reason than Emaar says it is. I was using satire to point out that Astronaut wasn't making a valid argument (in that the Burj Dubai's PR and marketting group are no more backing up their claims of height than the third party source was). Maybe due to the satire I was unclear that I do believe that the architects and engineers do in fact know the height of the building and are plenty reliable, but the real point was that the third party source ALSO pretty clearly has their facts straight, and updates more frequently. The guidelines on verifiability back me up on this , saying that an accurate and reliable third-party source is better than a first-party making claims about their own product. I imagine this will continue to be an issue now that Emaar has passed its final significant milestone before completion, and therefore probably won't update the height with any regularity.--Galactoise (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, Galactoise, but you seem to be missing a crucial point - it is not up to wikipedia to determine if the ultimate primary source - in this case a website created by those behind the building in question - is more or less accurate than some third parties who choose to post information on the building. Simply put, absent some sanctioning body the only official word on the height is from those who are building this. This would be called an ultimate primary source and it is usually best to rely on those sources for verified information.

To make an analogy: I follow track and field a fair bit, and when runner x beats a world record time, the newspapers report the time and we report those reliable sources. But it is only an official world record when the sanctioning body, in this case, the IAAF, says so. We nevertheless report the new record as reliable sources report it. Sometimes, those sources are wrong, such as when Justin Galtin was wrongly credited with a new 100 m world record, only to have the IAAF step in and say no record was set.

In this case, we lacked any official corroboration, and we also lacked a reliable source for the claim that the building was indeed the tallest. Please note the difference between a "reliable" source and an "accurate" source. It is not that the various skyscraper nerds are wrong, it is that they cite no source for their claims, and they are not a reputable news organization with an established history of publishing verified claims. Indeed, the height they claimed is not what the builders claimed. Are we, to use your logic, to go with what these bloggers claim? And how are we to know, using your logic, which source to use? The answer is we go as close to the primary source as possible, and then to reliable sources if they are lacking. There is no sanctioning body per se for the various milestones or claimed heights, so we are forced to fall back on what the builder themselves claim. If there is a serious discrepancy and a reliable source says as much, then that is something to report. However, there was no such issue here, merely a case of the builders in question not bothering to update their height until a milestone was reached, and some bloggers who chose to keep closer tabs on this than the builders themselves. But even the media didn't report this until the builders reported this, which is the same approach we are using here. Canada Jack (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your argument, Canada Jack, and i'm not at all trying to dispute Emaar or their affiliate websites as reputable. My qualm is that saying Emaar or burjdubai.com is the lone good source is being overzealous. I'll present my argument as such:
-GIVEN:The third party source is in fact reliable (if you really want to dispute the reliability of the source, we can get into that, but for the time being i'll just cite their method as Proof by Rigor).
-GIVEN:Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability have burjdubaiskyscraper.com at worst on the same level as burjdubai.com. You make the argument that it's not for wikipedia to decide what is okay to use. Within the scope of wikipedia.com, it's entirely within their power, their right, and their responsibility to define the guidelines for determining reliability. It may be the case that the Guinness Book or another encyclopedia requires more rigor, maybe even in-house verification of every fact, but within the bounds of Wikipedia their guidelines are paramount.
-THEREFORE:The third party source is a legitimate verifiable source, and may be used in conjunction with the already accepted first party source.
and then:
-GIVEN:The third party source is legitimate(see above)
-GIVEN:If two legitimate sources do not synchronize their updates, it is proper to use the more current data.
-GIVEN:Neither Emaar nor any of us has the right to determine for everyone else what counts as a "significant" milestone in height or floors of a building. (Maybe the number 161 is a religious icon to some religion, and the first building to reach it is a major milestone for them, even though it doesn't break any new official records).
-THEREFORE:If somebody else updates the page citing the third party source, it's okay and doesn't need to be reverted.

Basically, i'm not asking you or Astronaut or anyone else to start following the third party. I personally am of the same mindset that I don't care terribly much one way or the other if it's updated daily. However, if someone else does update it before Emaar has done the corresponding news release, just let them be. They are justified within the Wikipedia guidelines in doing so, and they aren't hurting anything by making the page more closely reflect reality, so there's no reason to fight over it.--Galactoise (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Height now official - Emaar reports Burj Dubai tallest structure in world

Emaar is now reporting that the Burj is indeed the world's tallest tower. Here is the link, and I invite someone here to do the honours in updating the page. [5] Canada Jack (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Commercial aspects

This edit added some interesting information about the cost of office space in the building. If a reliable source can be found, I think such info should stay, but not in the lead section. Would a "commercial aspects" section be appropriate? Such a section could also be used to mention the overall budget, any cost overruns, apartment pricing, and so on.Astronaut (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading an article linked to from Digg the other day in one of the standard news outlets (although I couldn't tell you which one) containing that stuff. If I run into it again i'll add it to the external sources for you. Also, I think the "commercial" section is a good idea if you can find enough information about the topics you listed to fill it.--Galactoise (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

floor collapsed?

Apparently in Dubai it's an open secret that a floor collapsed during construction, but was obviously not made public. Anyone can verify that? And is it true that the architect apparently was only given 2 weeks to complete the design? Wonder how sound this structure is.... Gryffindor 08:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I find the latter of those claims extremely unlikely. Remember that this is a multi-billion dollar investment for a company. Even in Dubai, that's not something to take lightly.

As for the claim of a collapsed floor, I imagine that one of the sites covering the construction would have reported on it. Some of these sites upload pictures and blog on a daily basis, so if it happened, someone probably noticed it.--Galactoise (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

However, if you can find a reliable source so this open secret can be verified, I'm sure a place for it can be found in the construction section of the article. Astronaut (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't there just be a section in the article saying that it is rumoured that a floor collapsed, however, these rumours are unverified.Uranium grenade (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. --Golbez (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the "...two weeks to complete the design", that is not entirely accurate. According this source (already cited in the article):

In spring 2003, a pair of developers invited Baker and two of SOM's managing partners to dinner at a restaurant overlooking the Manhattan skyline. The developers worked for a company in Dubai called Emaar, ... Emaar gave SOM two weeks to submit a proposal for a residential building, to be known as the Burj Dubai. The Dubai Tower.

...Smith sketched a structure that stepped back as it rose, like a spiral staircase. He arranged the wings in a Y. "I knew from Bill that that shape would work well for a supertall," he says. Smith then rubbed out the sharp edges, replacing them with curved petals, like the flowers of the Arabian Desert. SOM got the job, and the buttressed core would have its day — the Burj would be the tallest building in the world.

So, it seems that Emaar accepted the rough proposal and then engaged SOM to create a full detailed design (a process that would have taken many months). Astronaut (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

TV Documentaries

Which company made Big, Bigger, Biggest? It was shown on Five here in the UK and on the National Geographic Channel in the USA (see Nat Geo schedule here) Astronaut (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I Just checked out the end of the show on YouTube. Credits say it's "Produced by Windfall Films in association with Five, National Geographic US, & National Geographic International". Astronaut (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Construction start date wrong?

The article says construction began in 2004, but according to the Discovery Channel series Megabuilders (which is playing as I write this) construction began in 2003. Can someone confirm the correct start date? 68.146.41.232 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)