Talk:Jeddah Tower

---

Next stop, FA

Some things as a guideline, right now a picture of the site, especially with construction trailers and equipment (these exist, but not freely licensed and the basement dwellers at SSC hate wikipedia) would be really helpful.

It's still getting a lot of news, but solid construction news is what's needed next to kick it's notability into high gear. If it really does go ahead with construction, importance on the three above listed wikiprojects will all jump one up, making it Top on skyscrapers, High on architecture, and Mid on Saudi Arabia. Because something tangible is more important than a proposal. What's cool and promising about the news is that the wow factor news and mirror articles that all said the same thing are dying off and now it's becoming more construction related, with several to the point ConstructionWeek articles in the last couple days. No news on August 12.

The quality is great, one thing to point out is that even though it may not look long, it is so dense with references and html that it's over 50 kB, believe it or not. Other than minor prose and perhaps more content, what's really lacking FA quality about it? Well one thing that should be done is Kingdom City given an article, having a red link is an immediate turn off to the article. Also there are different numbers given to the square milage of KC. The one I have here is the larger one, other reports say 2 square miles. Oh well it's all speculative journalism. Oh yeah, how about a DYK now? Firstly, DYK is basically just a not-quite-good-enough-for-the-in-the-news-section status as I understand it. It's too late for news anyway since that was August 2, but it might get another publicity run, perhaps if construction officially commences. DYK submitted: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_August_2; Template talk:Did you know/Kingdom Tower

Wow, on my phone or on a "regular" screen computer it looks fine, but at full HD widescreen it's a stub again and the images bump, but it looks more professional in a way. The lines are harder to read and follow because they're unnaturally long, much longer than a book, I don't think widescreen is good in that aspect, that or wikipedia needs to narrow the content area. There should be enough material to double the word content within a month, I would say, which will help a lot. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Lastly, notice how I'm still adding a lot to this article even though it became a GA after all my kicking and screaming. I may be a drama queen, but in the end, who brought home the bacon on this article? This may not continue as it were unusual circumstances in real life that led to all this editing. I do believe I now have arthritis in my wrists and am near sighted from my phone. Oh well.

Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Alt5 DYK:

• ... that Kingdom Tower is being built by Osama bin Ladin's family's business and will become the world's tallest building?
• When will it be on the front page and for how long? Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• This article that somehow made it to be today's featured article, 200 (Stargate SG-1), relates to this article in that it demonstrates that it is certainly not out of the question for this to attain FA status. Daniel Christensen (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

+ Financing information + *http://www.albawaba.com/main-headlines/alwaleed-bin-talal-companies-build-tallest-tower-world-387307 - used it

DYK August 14

Coincidentally exactly after I had just finished working on the article, the DYK went live. We'll see how many views and how much vandalism it gets; Sunday is typically the slowest day here, I think. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Article being used as a source for the papers; Chicagomag

This article: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/August-2011/The-Kingdom-Tower-Skyscraper-for-the-Next-Financial-Collapse/

Definitely did it's homework using wikipedia. They used what is essentially my 2017 finish date, which is the logical year even though 2016 is what gets published, and they mentioned the cheap labor which was an obscure find. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

More on exactly what JEC and KHC are; tower site area

There is a lot of numbers thrown about, when you here a ground area it could belong to any one of these cascading by size areas: tower, tower site, water front district, new Kingdom City area (2 sq miles), old Kingdom City area (8.9 sq miles).

Recent article, http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/08/planned-green-skyscraper-really-really-tall/, states, Talal is a chairman of KHC, which is a partner of JEC, which is made up of it's partners; KHC and businessmen Samaual Bakhsh and Abdulrahman Hassan Sharbatly and Saudi Binladin Group (SBG).

This is looking like it could merit a financing subsection under Overview. I only know SBG's percent share, I think I have heard at least one of the other's somewhere but really should have them all before I take a stab at making a section attempting to describe the financing. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

financing

Jeddah Economic Company (JEC) was formed in 2009 as a financial entity for Kingdom Tower and City. It is made up of partners Kingdom Holding Company (KHC), businessmen Samaual Bakhsh and Abdulrahman Hassan Sharbatly, and the tower's own contractor, Saudi Binladin Group (SBG).

That's about all so far. Actually it fits at the end of overview. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

great new reference

http://www.constructionweekonline.com/article-13530-city-of-the-hyper-tall/

• Make a quote box for this:

“Kingdom Tower’s height is remarkable, obviously, but the building’s iconic status will not depend solely on that aspect. Its form is brilliantly sculpted, making it quite simply the most beautiful building in the world of any height.”

— Talal Al Maiman, board member, Jeddah Economic Company

Tall Order constructionweek

“Is there such as thing as too high? I think mankind is always going to be challenged by finding the next frontier. I think there’s also a market -people will always want to be in the world’s tallest tower.”

— Bart Leclercq, head of structures for WSP Middle East

• Quote background color coding question: Template talk:Quote box#where can I find a list or key of wikipedia's background color codings?
• 2 kilometres (6,562 ft)
• 2 km (6,562 ft)

8/29 bloomberg 8/30 cwo refs, important stuff to be added/tweaked

Tower will sway up to 1 metre at 500 meters in the most extreme, 50 year flood case of winds at 120 mph

AS+GG designed whole 23 hectare KTWFront district. Piles 50 meters deep by Bauer, who did BK's 43 metre piles.

Pickard Chilton designed the mile high version, which was more unique than I thought (sorry astronaut).

Three pages about MEP by Environmental Systems Design.

Software to display information about the building's construction status?

Otis elevators

Spelling

I've noticed that in about half its occurrences in this article, the Saudi Binladin Group is spelled with "Binladin" as one word. In the other half, it's spelled as two words ("Bin Ladin"). The source article spells it as a single word. I propose changing all of the occurrences to "Binladin" for consistency. Thoughts? Armadillopteryx^talk 01:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be changed to "Binladin". Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. I've done so. Armadillopteryx^talk 03:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

quotes and other peacock language

There's a lot of wp:peacock problems in this article, especially in the totally unnecessary quotes from the designers sprinkled around in little boxes. Of course they think it's the greatest thing ever! What are they gonna say - "Yeah, it kinda sucks, but I designed it, so I guess I oughtta tell everybody how it's gonna change every paradigm of architecture"? I can't believe it was rated a "good article" with that fluff in there. Typeractive (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand what your saying, but disagree in that, although it seems like a lot at once, that's how the quotes came, they're all development related. The article will continue to grow but the quotes won't. Plus, it was hard to choose one person's quote without giving other's. As for your assertaition of bias, a few are from indirectly related architecture professionsals, one is blatantly negative, and yes, two are positive, but I don't think it's really going too far. The development may or may not be more or less significant than you think, it sure has generated a lot of stir. And the article is intended to be comprehensive. Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long or comprehensive the article is, it still shouldn't have so many peacocky quotes straight from the designer's PR press releases, especially not set off in little shaded boxes like it's a brochure or something. You're not supposed to be promoting the place, let the scale of the thing speak for itself. I was reading the article because I find the building fascinating, so it's not like I don't think it's significant. There just shouldn't be quotes like that in a "good article". Typeractive (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am looking for another negative quote. I want everbody's opinion to be expressed, because it offers insight into their character as relates to this project, that is how deep I am trying to go with it. Also, I dislike removing content. Build build build, but do the best you can to avoid quantity overtaking quality. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is not a brochure, and those quotes violate wikipolicy. I know you're working hard to improve the article, but you seem to getting unhealthily attached to it. It's a collaborative project. Typeractive (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting commencement of a policy dispute which you so openly shun on your user page? Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I came across an article with an obvious problem and suggested as easy fix. You may do whatever you want with that advice. Typeractive (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you really just forge your signature over Zeng8ers or are you the same person? Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I was using my brother's laptop and didn't realize I'd signed in under his username. Sorry for the confusion. For the record, I still think the quote boxes are a bad idea. The article looks pretty good besides them. Typeractive (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Article being used as a source for the papers; The New York Post uses Wikipedia as a source

Read this article and see if some of the Kingdom Tower stuff sounds familiar: http://m.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/wonders_of_the_new_world_tRAh0Toq5qq2wS8qB3FOiN

It can fail you in high school but I guess it's okay for a "professional" newspaper. The 200 floors inference most definitely came from here. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom City, the redlink

I am surprised no one has made an article for Kingdom City (Jeddah) which has been redlinked here for a couple weeks. It is more than worthy of an article, in fact it's a "bigger" development than just the tower. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I created a disambiguation page for Kingdom City, I might create a stub soon. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. It's all the same project; Saudi Binladin=Kingdom Tower/Kingdom City. --67.242.212.189 (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Add Kingdom Tower to this:

User:Astronaut made this derivative: File:BurjKhalifaHeight.svg. so could you add an accurate shillouette of Kingdom Tower to this? Daniel Christensen (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Refactored the above. There's no need to include the actual image as giant thumbnail here. Just put an extra colon between the second [ and the File in [[:File:BurjKh... to make it into a link.

I missed this. You should have asked on my talk page. Anyway, I could make a new drivative of this; but I think we should wait until construction starts when the design will be finalised enough to create a good profile. Astronaut (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

comment on a reverted edit of mine

An unfinished tower could hardly be called an achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliotra (talk • contribs) 06:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not improper, saying GM's new electric Caddy for the 2014 year is a "totally uncalled for car" even though it doesn't exist yet makes sense. Daniel Christensen (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge Kingdom City

I think we should merge Kingdom City with this article because it is one project.Abrnkak (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose the scope of each is large enough that they should both have their own article. If they were currently together there would be a split discussion right now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I'm sure at this point from someone with an outside view it looks like they should be together, but they shouldn't, it would be like merging Burj Khalifa with Downtown Dubai, only worse because each of these will be larger. I would like this closed quickly as the tag at the top is detrimental to the article's aesthestics Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I shouldn't SNOW close it myself because I am involved. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support There are several good reasons to merge a page: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.Wikipedia:Merging Abrnkak (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If you read further down on WP:Merging

Merging should be avoided if

1. The resulting article is too long or "clunky"
2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles
3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short

Each topic deserves its own article since each topic is notable and Kingdom City (Jeddah) can be expanded into a longer standalone article. A merger would be detrimental to Kingdom Tower because it is already 73,000 bytes. According to WP:Splitting, articles over 60 KB should "probably be divided" (emphasis added). Merging information into an article which is large enough to be divided isn't a good idea. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The other article is only 3KB. So, I suggest either expand it or merge it until there is enough material to separate it.Abrnkak (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The solution to the problem is expansion of the other article. Most articles do not get created as a full sized article. Merging the articles will inhibit expansion of Kingdom Tower (Jeddah). Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

fair enough. I wish you luck.Abrnkak (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

However, contrary to Vessey's argument of article length, those old rules of thumb have been quite outdated by faster internet and higher resolutions, for now a 100kb article is fine. In fact, they're often better that way. Additionally, much of this article's length is in the 100+ references and other html, not in written content. Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Will it happen?

i highly doubt that this will ever happen, (remember mile high tower and prince al-waleed babbeling about 1 mile + tower some years ago presenting a rendering with a "groundbreaking ceremony held") especially with what´s been going on the region as of late and the future prospects now gloomier than ever (europe going in the dumps, china bubble waiting to burst). sheer mockery ! the building looks like "the illinois" by frank lloyd wright revisited, adrian smith received his cheque and i think that is going to be about it as for the "total cost" of the project eventually. i`d rather see a revised miapolis 1k meter tower going up in miami. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.70.12 (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cost and references

I reverted this edit because the figures are not supported by the references and of US$ 30 bn seems pretty absurd. However, in checking, I noticed two different references are used and have different figures: The Wall Street Journal has SR 4.6 bn while the Sydney Morning Herald has $ 28 bn (though that doesn't say whether it is US or AUS dollars). A third reference from the (India based?) ThruthDive says SR 4.6 bn with SR 75 bn for the whole development, is used in the next sentence. Maybe someone should check all these sources for accuracy and use just one to reference the cost in this article. Astronaut (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Height

The height is listed as ">= 2000 m." This is far from most projections. Let's change it to ">= 1000 m" to match what those involved in the project claimed - at least a kilometer - and what other parts of the article say. Gpuica (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Can’t Estimate Completion Date

This building was supposed to have started construction over a year ago but nothing has happened and nobody knows when it will start so it is impossible to know when it will be finished.99.104.175.147 (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Working conditions

I have, for now, reverted this edit about working conditions on the Arabian peninsula. Whilst I sympathise with the issues raised and I seriously doubt that things will change any time soon, we have to remember that the Kingdom Tower has not yet started construction. Speculating about what the working conditions might be like in order to make a point is not what this article should be about and is very likely falling foul of the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Once construction has started and reliable sources have commented about the working conditions of the Kingdom Tower's construction workers, then perhaps some of this might then become relevant.

In the meantime, this gives us the opportunity to seek out better sourcing. After all, the boxed quotation is from a domestic worker (not a construction worker) and is nearly 10 years old; and one source is an online satirical journal with user generated content that is not a reliable source, especially when it is used to support a valid real-world fact. Astronaut (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Under construction or still a proposal?

For almost the past year or so, I have been consistantly reverting changes suggesting construction has started. The reason is that no RELIABLE source says it has yet started. Yet a few times a week someone comes by and adds that it is under construction. My edit summaries have varied from the "the sources say it is proposed" to a blunt "rv vandalism - there is STILL no evidence in reliable sources ..." and quite frankly I'm getting tired of this. Would it be a good idea to seek semi protection to cut out some of this? Astronaut (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Updated

Hello. The project has won approval from the Saudi government, but construction hasn't started yet as far as I'm aware. http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=97201 Jakebarrington (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The source you provided does not say it has "won approval". Wikipedia relies on material previously published in third party reliable sources, such as this one from the CTBUH. Until a reliable source says differently, the status should stay as "proposed". Astronaut (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Under construction or not?

At what point can construction say to be started... soil testing? site drainage? drilling holes for piles? actual piling work? I don't know, but a recent edit has again added that the project is under construction, but this time includes a source that could be reliable enough for the standards required by Wikipedia's policies. However, other sites are far from as certain that construction has started, with some saying that construction "should start by the middle of the year" though that was February's news), another saying "currently developing" (whatever that means), to a straightforward "proposed". Another reliable site says "under construction [foundation work]". I would have thought the start of construction of the world's tallest would have garnered a bigger press reaction, but there is not much out there; not even the "official" site has an announcement. So, is the source provided in the edit good enough, or is there sufficient doubt to revert the edit or at least make mention of the doubt in the article? Astronaut (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Article now has a source to say piling completed in Dec 2013, but is there more work to do on the foundations ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Smaller than WTC?

If the importance or overall size of this building is measured not by its height but by its floor count — being an indicator for how many people can work or live there — it doesn't even seem to surpass the old WTC Twin Towers in New York with 110 floors each = 220 floors. To be sure: the Twin Towers were perceived as a (symbolic) unity so this argument does count. Does nobody want to break the really old record of the year 1973 (WTC) as concerning both floor count and floor area?--93.206.161.240 (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"...so this argument does count". No it doesn't. A single building of 167 floors is taller than two buildings of 110 floors each, or any other combination of buildings whose total number of floors adds up to more than 167. Where do you stop? The original World Trade Center in New York City actually consisted of 7 buildings: 1WTC (110 floors), 2WTC (110 floors), 3WTC (22 floors), 4WTC (9 floors), 5WTC (9 floors), 6WTC (8 floors) and 7WTC (47 floors). Because Burj Khalifa and the Willis Tower have step backs at various heights, should those count as separate numbers of floors?

Also, the World Trade Center did not have a record floor area, nor does Burj Khalifa; that record is currently held by New Century Global Centre in Chengdu, China. Astronaut (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Update needed

The article is now fairly out of date, though this doesn't have to be a serious issue. It can be as simple as changing future tense prose such as "will be" to "is" or "was". Much of the major stuff is the same. No known drastic changes have been made in the past few years. B137 (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC) ..that would put my precious article out of good article standards, as I am User:Daniel Christensen, muahaha B137 (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Height

Recent press has been throwing around the number 1,008 for the height in meters recently ([1]). I speculate that 1,007/1,008 may very well be the height above sea level, similar to what they often go by in Miami due to strict height limits and very flat ground. The elevation of the site is about 25 feet (8 m), so it makes perfect sense that the actual prominence will be 1,000 meters while the "total" height AMSL will be 1,007 or 1,008. But if they're gonna go there, they might as well just count it from the bottom of the slab, or even the pilings. B137 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There are rules defined by the CTBUH about where the height is measured from. If I recall correctly, it is a measured from the ground level outside 'main entrance' - presumably to head off suggestions that measuring from sea level or from the bottom of the lowest basement level is the 'correct' way. I suspect this is why most bets and comparisons are off, until the building is complete and opened, and the CTBUH have had a chance to look over the plans of the completed building and do their own measurements. For now, I think the article should reflect the currently reported heights from reliable sources; and if there is disagreement between the reliable sources, perhaps the article either stay silent on the question of height or reflect the disagreement (eg. "Most sources say it will be 1000 m^{[1][2][3][etc.]} while the New York Times reports that it will be 1008 m^[5]"). Astronaut (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

New Pictures

Hi team, i took some new pictures of the project. you are free to use them or modify them.

File:KT Building Progress 10-JAN-2015 01.png

Project contributors sign.

Picture taken from 2.6 Kilometer distance of the building site.

Picture taken from 800 meter distance of the building site.

Picture taken from 800 meter distance of the building site. (Same picture)

cheers  A M M A R  12:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)