Talk:Nakheel Tower

Height

This is to be at least 700m tall and that has been quoted by Nakheel so it's not speculation at all. The source is already there. It's the burj dubai vs al burj article.

For gods sake please stop changing the height, "at least 700m" is what's mentioned in the article and nothing else. By the looks of that render it could well be over this but let's keep to what we know for sure.

in the burjdubaiskyscraper.com it's 800 meters.

- That's only a predicted height.

• 700 meters? I thought the proposed height was well over a kilometer tall. I forgot who it was, but I believe a representative from Al Nakheel said that the tower would taller than Burj Dubai for sure. Sherwelthlangley 02:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

New Source

A new article from www.meed.com (from 10th August) [1] says the total height of the tower will be 1050m, and 850m topped by a 200m spire. They also say it'll have 228 floors with 5 more underground, and that the location is still unknown. Unfortunately the article can only be viewed by subscription but it was posted on www.skyscrapercity.com aswell [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rahmalec (talk • contribs) 11:22:56, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I'm confused

The figures on the right of it's hight to tip massively contradict the rest of the artical that state that it's meant to be one of the tallest (the heights shown would comfortably make it the tallest).

Also, it says at the beggining that it was hyped to be one of the tallest towers - but if it was originally considered to be 1,600m, that would make it the tallest by far.

This artical is seriously messed up, it needs to sort its figures out.

The developer has not yet confirmed a location, a final design, a project plan, or got the money together for the project. One can only assume they have said it will be the one of the tallest in case it takes a while to get the project started, at which time there may be other buildings in competition. Unfortunately, the secrecy around the project details has led to speculation from many sources. Various heights ranging from 700m to 1600m have been mentioned at various times, leaving everyone confused. Astronaut 07:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the location has indeed been chosen. A member at skyscrapercity.com heard rumors of the new location, and he went and found the plot and took pictures of ongoing soil testing. Also, a reliable insider source there has seen the new design though he can't divulge it since it is confidential. He says it has been completely redesigned. Expect to hear official word on this project soon. 71.110.200.88 01:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they're soil-testing other locations as well? It's still a rumour from someone on a forum. Now, if there was a big hole in the ground and a big billboard outside the site saying "Al Burj opening 201?", then we would have a location. 'Til then, its all speculation :-)) Astronaut 03:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest News

The latest from the SkyscraperPage.com is Al Burj is definitely going ahead at the 'Dubai Waterfront' reclaimation near Palm Jumeirah. Soil testing started on 2nd Nov 2007. If no problems then construction will start in the first half of 2008. Height is still 1050m total, with 200 floors. That obvuously includes the spire, but roof top would be about 900m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.128.114 (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference? Astronaut 13:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That was from a fraudulent source. In fact, this tower has been moved completely from the Waterfront, and will be built near the Dubai Marina. Also it has been completely redesigned, though the design has not been revealed yet. Rumors suggest that March could be the final launch and the revealing of the new design. Also, work has started on this tower in the form of pile testing. Basically this entire article is out of date and wrong. I couldn't even start to try to revise it.--71.110.206.11 (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Architects

Is the "Pei Partnership Architects" anything to do with I. M. Pei or Pei Cobb Freed & Partners? Astronaut 15:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The Pei Partnership Architects has to do with I. M. Pei and not with [Pei Cobb Freed & Partners]] as I. M. Pei is no longer a partner of the later. Ppapadeas (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

i found a new rendering of the Al Burj

http://www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com/Al_Burj/al_burj.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.240.200 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

When will the Al Burj Start?

I have been hearing rumors of this so-called building since 2004. It has been over 4 years and I don't see anything. The Building was supposed to start in 2007, but that was a lie. The Building was also supposed to be the tallest Building in the world at 1600 meters but that was a lie too. Then they said 1200 meters, but that was a lie too. Then they said 1,050 meters but that was a lie too. Now they say 700 meters. So it's somewhere between 700-1600 meters. That is a 900 meter range!!!!! The range they give is about the size of the Burj Dubai!!! I mean seriously can't they narrow that a little bit. I heard they started soil testing on November 2, 2008, but I think that is just a bunch of crap because does soil testing take more than 6 months? I mean it is May 2008 and they said they would build the building in 2007 after soil testing. I am starting to think this building is a joke because of inconsistent heights and groundbreaking dates. Maybe this tower wasn't supposed to start construction in 2007, but in 2207? 2207 is much more likely. What do you think?Maldek (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia is not a forum, I will respond to this message. There have been no announcements by Nakheel (the developer) since they announced this project for Dubai Waterfront (now simply called Waterfront). Most renderings of Waterfront do not show this building. But, there have been unofficial resports that Nakheel will still build this building somewhere else. You should just be patient and let history take its course. Now, please only use talk pages to discuss changes on the article. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move at this time. JPG-GR (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Al Burj → Tall Tower — More than one user have tried to move this article to this new name today, as according to this source which states that Nakheel has renamed the planned tower. I've decided to bring this to WP:RM just to make sure that the community endorses such move, especially given the fact that "Al Burj" is naturally at this time still the most common name in English for the project. —Húsönd 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose; there are no reliable sources for such a name change. We do not know where this building will be located, or if it will even get built. No steps should be taken until there is an official announcement about this building's future. That means an announcement by Nakheel. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose lack of reliable source, and the target name is horribly generic. It should be Tall Tower, Dubai if renamed. 70.51.10.4 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence has been offered that the name has changed in terms of Wikipedia:naming conventions. Suggest also reading the proposal at Wikipedia:official names which might also help clarify the policy (on which it is based). Andrewa (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Needs a more reliable source - either a primary source like Nakheel, or a third-party source with a reputation for fact checking (like a reputable news organization). Astronaut (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

We absolutely need a reliable source - a news source at least, instead of an enthusiast blog - to justify changing the name. If the name has been indeed changed, it should not be that difficult to find an official statement from Nakheel, or at the very least a news source reporting it. The blog heard it from somewhere, right? --Golbez (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I found this article at meed.com. The headline Nakheel increases height of Tall Tower to 1.4 kilometres sounds promising as a source but you need to be a meed.com subscriber to read the article itself. Are there any subscribers out there who would care to tell us what the article says? Astronaut (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not have any source for the following, but I believe it to be true. Originally the building was known as "The Pinnacle" and was expected to be on the Palm Jumeirah. Later, it was renamed to "Al Burj" (along with an increase in height) and moved to Dubai Waterfront. Later, Al Burj was no longer included in plans and models of Dubai Watefront. Nakheel began to use the name "Tall Tower" (although unofficially) to refer to the building in the study and/or redesign stage(s). This is just the name used to refer to the building at this time. That is why MEED used that name. We should stick to "Al Burj" until there is an official announcement about any renaming. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Latest Height

Yes, I found this article at meed.com, but since you need a paid-for subscription to read the boody of the article, I cannot read it. So, is it still a good enough source to be used in the article to support the latest height proposal (1400 m)? For the time being, I have assumed good faith on the part of User:Suz1305, but if the consensus is that we cannot use the source I'll be happy to see it reverted back to before Suz1305's changes. Astronaut (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well since the article is not accessible to everyone (myself included) and we cannot read exaclty what is written there, I think we should not include it. If Nakheel has not released any information regarding Al Burj/Tall Tower, then how can we be sure that MEED is able to provide reliable information regarding the structure. I think we should only use information from Nakheel to back up information about this tower. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

All this comparison with other buildings is becoming a pretty pointless edit war. For example, the Mile-High Tower, whilst initially proposed to be 1609 m tall, has now been reduced in height and could be "up to 500 meters shorter" and leaving the name confusing to all. Perhaps Maldek has the right idea in removing the comparison completely. When comparing Al Burj to Burj Dubai, I don't see how we can provide any sensible comparison - the Burj Dubai completion date has been put back because they are "going higher" but haven't stated how much higher. Perhaps we should remove that comparison as well? Astronaut (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that we should remove the comparison. Since no heights have officially been announced for Al Burj or for the Burj Dubai, it would be best to leave it out until we are certain of a height. Once heights have been announced, it would be a good idea to include a diagram, similar to Image:BurjDubaiHeight.png. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That MEED article about Al Burj being 1.4km tall still seems legit. Plenty of highly reliable sources require paid subscriptions (such as most scientific journals).

Has anyone actually read the article? If not, we CANNOT site it here,it's not OK to cite a source based on its title/byline alone. To get the complete info and legitimately cite this source, someone should find this in a library, or splurge on the subscription which will probably come in handy on other wikipedia articles, too. Not it. Fredwerner (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to say when I raised the issue in the first place. Wikipedia relies on the verifiability of it's sources, and if no one has read it then I really don't think it can be cited as a source. I was rather hoping that a meed.com subscriber (or meed.com themselves) would take some suitable quotes from the article, or find the original information/sources used by meed.com's reporters, and add them to the article or to a more accessible (and reliable) third-party site. Astronaut (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I found an article in Dubai-based Gulf News. It says that Nakheel has denied the reports by MEED about the tower. It also states that the design is still being finalized.
  "Contest for tallest tower in the Gulf hots up". Gulf News. 2008-07-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 19:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Crazy Link

I'm new -- forgive me if I screw something up and help me do it right next time!

When I click on the the "Dubai Waterfront website" link under "External Links" I get redirected from http://www.dubaiwaterfront.ae/ to http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash

No. I don't the current version of Adobe's software. No. I don't want it. But this is the first time I've ever been sent to a download website like this just for not having the most current (or required) version of the software. And I see lots of messages about "Get Flash" this.

Can someone else check and see if you can get to the correct website for me - http://www.dubaiwaterfront.ae/. If you get to the website okay, can you get another URL that bypasses the Flash check? (Should we do that?) Or if the website is just gone, should we remove the link altogether?

I'll check back in a few days and see if I need to do anything.

Xianjiro (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes the link is to the right page. Looking at the page source for http://www.dubaiwaterfront.ae/, I can see it requires a minimum of Flash 8.0 and if that is not detected it redirects you to the Flash download page. The detection is done by Javascript and VBScript so maybe if you turned off the script handling in your browser, you would get the standard "do you want to install flash?" prompt instead.

(start rant) Unfortunately, too many sites these days assume you have Adobe Flash installed and don't provide a HTML alternative, and this site is one of them. Until quite recently I used an old computer (400MHz PII, 128Mb RAM running Windows Me) and found this particularly problematic; the need to have the latest version of flash caused the PC to slow to unusability where the browser would take 20 minutes or more to process a flash-based advert. In the end, I disabled all scripting and plugins and just didn't visit Flash-only sites, and clicked no to every "do you want to install flash?" prompt. I now have a new PC aqnd everything works fine, but for a long while I help out for financial reasons but also a smug "why should I upgrade just to see an advert?". (end rant) Sorry!

Astronaut (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. I just couldn't get it to stop long enough on their website to check the code. No change needed then.

(join rant) Well, since poverty keeps me on dial-up, I've aggressively worked to disable ads, Flash, etc just to keep my aggravation level tolerable. I love the Firefox extension "Flashblock" which drops a play button where the Flash would normally run. Then I get to decide if I want to download and use the usually completely useless thing or not. P2tP!!! (end rant)

Xianjiro (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Top floor and roof

Maldek2 needs to cite a source to say the roof is at 1050m, but he has brought up a good point. With the height increased to 1400m, what do we do about the top floor and roof heights which are still from the old design? Can I suggest they be omitted from the infobox for now? Astronaut (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Omitting the information is the best idea. The problem is that 1400 metres is probably incorrect. I am not sure if you saw my message at the bottom of Talk:Al Burj#Latest Height, but Nakheel has said that MEED's reports about the height are false. Maybe we should just remove all heights and just say that no official heights have yet been announced. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 19:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)