Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

World's Tallest Building To Open Monday

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the things-humans-do dept.

News 360

dtmos writes "The Burj Dubai ('Dubai Tower' in Arabic) is scheduled to open to the public on Monday. Its height, claimed to be 824.55m (2,705.2 feet), but believed to be 818m (2,684 feet) — either way, more than half a mile — makes it far taller than Taiwan's Taipei 101, which had been the world's tallest skyscraper at 509m (1,670 feet)."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first cock! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637980)

Looks like big gogk

I LOVE DUNE COONS! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638000)

that's because it's a bunch of sand niggers and dune coons. c'mon, "dune coons" is a funny phrase even if it's offensive. I mean fuck, it has internal rhyme. it's not as tasteless as calling Native Americans "prarie niggers" now is it??

Re:I LOVE DUNE COONS! (-1, Troll)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638066)

You Republicans are disturbing. It might be OK to use language like that at your conventions, but it's offensive and you really need someone to tell you that.

Re:I LOVE DUNE COONS! (-1, Flamebait)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638080)

...and it was Profane MuthaFucka who had to do it. So pay attention, k?

Great timing (4, Insightful)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637992)

Right in time for the Dubai economy to start tanking.

Re:Great timing (3, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638120)

You... want to buy a building? I can get you a great price.

Re:Great timing (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638236)

Yo, with this pathetic anglo-saxon name you probably never been in Dubai, so you, as person living on a recently made third world poor piece of shit country like the USA, can't understand what the Arabic civilization can achieve by selling oil to you AMERICAN PATHETIC LOSER GHETTO ASS.
Abu Dhabi is sitting on 7 TRILLION dollars of money, real cash, they made from oil trade. So, doesn't matter if Dubai is broken (they got no oil...). Abu Dhabi owns all american ports through its port's authority.
Burj Dubai is just a symbol. But it was already all sold out. So it is more than profitable. But anyways it is a symbol of how the Arabic Islamic civilization is superior to anything the FUCKED UP POOR SHIT EUROPEAN ASSHOLES can ever build.
Dubai is not Miami, with those skeleton foreclosed buildings covering its Hispanic crime-ridden ghettos. Dubai is a Jewell, and will be preserved as a proof that the Arabic civilization will always be superior to the Western civilizations.
And the USA? They won't last long, choking themselves on its own fear and cowardice with their long ass airport lines, full body scanners, and panicking everytime someone farts on an airplane. The Arabic civilization saw many western empires disappear, but never on such a pathetic way as the US is dying: drowning on its own shit, result of they shitting their own pants as they are scared because of our Arabic power and might! US IS GOING TO BECOME EXTINCT! THE ARABIC CIVILIZATION AND ITS JEWELL, DUBAI, WILL LIVE FOREVER! ALLAHU AKBAR!

Re:Great timing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638250)

I'm gonna save this gem for later. Well trolled, my friend, well trolled.

Re:Great timing (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638272)

AMERICAN PATHETIC LOSER GHETTO ASS

Thats an Australian PATHETIC LOSER GHETTO ASS thanks.

Abu Dhabi is sitting on 7 TRILLION dollars of money, real cash, they made from oil trade

There is more to life than money, and you should know that. My personal measure of a good city is one I can ride my bike around in reasonable safety. From what I have read, Dubai fails on that account.

Re:Great timing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638284)

So that's Australia's big cities out - because you'd be suicidal to ride around Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne on a bike.

Re:Great timing (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638366)

Its pretty dangerous, bot not as suicidal as it would be in Dubai.

Re:Great timing (3, Interesting)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638568)

You'd be amazed how many people ride bikes in Sydney.

Re:Great timing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638308)

Whoa! I didn't know the strawman had a real name!

Re:Great timing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638324)

So you'd agree with Cadel Evans [theage.com.au] that Australian cities aren't any good then.

Re:Great timing (3, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638358)

Oh definitely. I ride a bike to work in Melbourne and I agree totally we have serious problems.

Re:Great timing (4, Interesting)

thePig (964303) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638126)

Not quite. This building already made 10% more than what was spent. The company was hoping at max for break-even, since their whole idea was to make money from the 500 acres near it which is also owned by it.
That part might have to wait a little, but anything else now is a bonus.

Re:Great timing (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638354)

The Chrysler State Building was completed in 1930. The Empire State Building in 1931. The WTC completed at the start of the 1970s stagflation.

Construction hubris and economic crash seem to be close companions.

Re:Great timing (2, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638436)

Or it could be that every decade sees several new highest buildings erected in various places, regardless of pending economic troubles. Any correlation between ongoing construction hubris and economic crashes is likely coincidental.

Re:Great timing (1)

Jeeeb (1141117) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638470)

Construction hubris and economic crash seem to be close companions.

Come on think about it for a bit. They didn't build this in the last few months. Burj Dubai was started during an economic boom. I doubt anyone was predicting that it would be completed in an economic crash.

Although you are right about construction and economic downturn going hand in hand. It's a great way for government to keep people employed reducing discontent. It can potentially have some follow through stimulus effects. It can be seen as a form of investment. I.e. the infrastructure has future value (generally speaking).

Re:Great timing (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638392)

About two years late for that, actually.

-jcr

More than tallest building (5, Interesting)

ari_j (90255) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638004)

This is the tallest manmade structure in the world, freestanding or otherwise. The previous record was held by a TV mast in eastern North Dakota, which took the lead when a mast in Poland fell down if I am not much mistaken about the history. This building has occupied floors higher than the world's tallest TV mast. The only thing possibly taller would be offshore oil rigs, but I can't remember how those stack up against it. A very impressive accomplishment, so long as it stays standing through Monday.

Re:More than tallest building (3, Funny)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638072)

Monday - Worried a Jew or American Capitalist pig might fly a plane into it or something?

Re:More than tallest building (4, Funny)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638266)

nah, it'd have to be the prince cooperating with an international cabal to plant explosives/incendiaries in the building and setting them off at the exact moment volunteers fly aircraft into it.

Re:More than tallest building (2, Funny)

Boronx (228853) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638270)

That's not how we'll take it down.

Re:More than tallest building (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638450)

Monday - Worried a Jew or American Capitalist pig might fly a plane into it or something?

I'd say there was more risk from fellow arabs. Dubai is considered the most decadent country in the middle east by the radicals. Also the radicals have killed far more arabs than Americans, or non arabs collectively even. The tower is definitely see as a symbol of capitalism in the middle east so the odds of an attack are fairly strong. It's unlikely a complete collapse is possible but an airliner would do major damage and could do more damage than could easily be repaired. I'm equally sure if it does happen the west and the Jews will get blamed for it no matter who is at the controls.

Re:More than tallest building (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638130)

You could launch sailplanes by dropping them from an upper storey, and have enough altitude to go off looking for lift. Hmmm I wonder if they encourage or prohibit parasailing.

Re:More than tallest building (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638138)

mast? is that what you Eurofags call an antenna or aerial? yeah, just keep Riverdancing you queers, nothing homoerotic about a man wearing pants so tight you can see the outline of his nutsac while he tap-dances for you. oh and a real Scot wears nothing under his kilt right, to ease the occasional quick fuck up the ass. you bunch of faggots.

Re:More than tallest building (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638516)

mast? is that what you Eurofags call an antenna or aerial?

Americunts like you lack the education required to understand the difference between the words you are so ignorant of.

Re:More than tallest building (4, Informative)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638170)

> freestanding or otherwise

I have regularly worked to build more than 1 mile tall structures while working on the oil rigs back then. We inserted permanent steel casing after digging the hole most of the time so the casing would constitute a taller non-freestanding permanent steel structure ;-)

While drilling in the Rockies, we were well above sea level so our steel structures would actually be standing higher than the 'Dubai Tower' which I think is is at sea level (or almost).

The deapeast holes are well above 5 miles !

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/AdamCassino.shtml [hypertextbook.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_well [wikipedia.org]

Re:More than tallest building (5, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638480)

I'm not sure how having a building at a higher elevation in the Rockies is relevant. If height above sea-level is considered instead of height above local ground-level then the first homeless guy to set up a cardboard box in Denver beat the Dubai Tower by half a mile.

Re:More than tallest building (3, Informative)

PingPongBoy (303994) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638238)

The only thing possibly taller would be offshore oil rigs, but I can't remember how those stack up against it

In the open sea height is not your friend. Some platforms that have legs all the way down operate at depths up to 170 m [wikipedia.org] . The above-water portion is about the size of a regular office tower. The deep water platforms float, so their height doesn't include the water depth.

Re:More than tallest building (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638258)

This building has occupied floors higher than the world's tallest TV mast.

That part isn't actually true (though not by much). The roof of Burj Dubai's highest occupied floor seems to be [skyscraperpage.com] 620m or so, slightly less than the 629m TV mast (the last 200m or so of Burj Dubai is unoccupied structure). However, the structure as a whole is much taller than any other structure, and the highest occupied floor is over 100m higher than any other building's occupied floor.

One comment...and one tenant (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638006)

It turns out, the sole tenant is a HUGE /. fanboy!

And this changes what? (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638010)

Presumably, finishing the building is a good thing, but it doesn't make much of a dent in the fundamentals of the place that it is built in. Even a building this monumental is only going to get so much attention and translating that into revenue will be that much more difficult.

If their model really is "borrow and build", it definitely is a dangerous basis to start with. Hopefully, they can get their house in order, but that surprise moratorium on payments coupled with the extreme ambitiousness of the projects makes me wonder if they are overreaching.

On a much darker note, I also wonder whether this new building has a big bullseye painted on it for some of the region's less industrious, and more violent, inhabitants.

Re:And this changes what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638058)

And this changes what?

It advances the state of the art of structural engineering?

Re:And this changes what? (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638538)

Why would this building be a target for terrorism? As far as I can tell there's never been a case where a building was targeted by terrorists because of its height.

The way to go is up (1)

l2718 (514756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638016)

This particular building is an extreme example; it's more of a publicity stunt than an approach to urban planning. The principle of building up is right, however. Higher population density makes for better public transportation, more services available within walking distance, and nicer, more pristine outdoors spaces. It also makes more efficient use of land, hence reducing its price.

Re:The way to go is up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638028)

You can also accomplish those same goals by killing every first born.

Re:The way to go is up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638038)

tell that to my backyard.....

Re:The way to go is up (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638116)

The principle of building up is right, however. Higher population density makes for better public transportation, more services available within walking distance, and nicer, more pristine outdoors spaces.

50 years ago, Dubai (and Abu Dhabi) was nothing more than a small mud brick & stone town in the desert.
Once oil was discovered, the revenues were used to fund explosive development...
BUT the emirates did a terrible job of planning.

There are highrise apartment buildings everywhere, but no parking.
They have incredible population density, but no sewage system to speak of.
Anything you see that is green must be watered constantly or it'll die.
Dubai is a rather good example of how not to build a city.

Re:The way to go is up (3, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638156)

They have incredible population density, but no sewage system to speak of

Gee thats interesting. So how...

Never mind.

Re:The way to go is up (1)

l2718 (514756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638552)

I'm well aware of the artificial life that is a Gulf city. As I said, building up Dubai is mostly an extravaganza. Yes, building skyscrapers in Dubai is a bad idea -- but that's because building anything there is inefficient -- not because of a particular problem with skyscrapers.

The principle still holds: building up is a good approach to urban planning. Yes, you need appropriate infrastructure: a skyscraper needs a lot of public transport around it (potentially a deep parking facility), as well as massive supplies of water, gas, electricity, steam and so on. My point is that a suburban sprawling neighbourhood of 100 houses also needs these utilities, and it needs 100 versions of each.

Re:The way to go is up (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638146)

Higher population density makes for better public transportation

And because the public transportation is vertical it can be totally free without offending the free marketers.

Re:The way to go is up (1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638188)

Wait a minute, building high-rises REDUCES the price of land? Sorry buddy, I'm not sure which alternate dimension you came from, but that doesn't happen in our shard of reality. Are you one of those "new urbanists" who think creating traffic jams is a great idea [theonion.com] ?

Re:The way to go is up (0)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638334)

Given a constant population, say 1000 people, if 900 live in a highrise, that leaves the other 100 to share the entirety of the land (minus the 1% taken by the building), increasing supply and/or decreasing demand.

If those 1000 people were to vie for the land, each expecting their own plot, the land price would be substantially higher due to a constrained supply, causing a spike in demand and consequently a higher price.

It's basic Econ 101.

Now, if you mean "when xxx city built a fancy highrise, the places around it got mor expensive", that has absolutely nothing to do with the highrise, but instead is more reflecting the effect of "urban redevelopment" which may or may not involve highrise apartments, but definitely does not COME from high-rises.

Have any better way of explaining it?

Re:The way to go is up (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638264)

I though that some analysts expressed concerns about building extremely high buildings after the twin towers incident. I do not see this point mentioned in the comments yet.

Back then, I took for granted that USA would not try to hold that record again for obvious reasons.

 

Re:The way to go is up (1)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638338)

This is a primarily muslim country. At this exact moment in history, I don't know of an organized terrorist group that would be both capable and interested in knocking it over.

Re:The way to go is up (2, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638408)

I don't know of an organized terrorist group that would be both capable and interested in knocking it over.

Are you kidding? Haven't you heard about the various muslim factions that consider each other heretics?

-jcr

Re:The way to go is up (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638564)

The US hasn't held the record for highest building since 1998, and the World Trade Center was still attacked in '93 despite the Sears Tower having been taller than it for two decades. The WTC was not targeted because of it's significant height, more likely it was targeted for being the most significant landmark in America's financial center.

Impressive.. (5, Informative)

Entropy98 (1340659) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638030)

Too bad it was built with slavery [independent.co.uk] ...

Re:Impressive.. (0, Troll)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638230)

I found your assertion very uninformative. Once you get into reading your link the picture becomes clear..

"Life was fantastic. You had these amazing big apartments, you had a whole army of your own staff, you pay no taxes at all. It seemed like everyone was a CEO. We were partying the whole time."

Her husband, Daniel, bought two properties. "We were drunk on Dubai," she says. But for the first time in his life, he was beginning to mismanage their finances.

Later on the article describes how he had a brain tumor. The whole time though the Canadian couple had the opportunity to break free and catch a flight home so why didn't they? Yet another case of spending all your money away until it's too late then crying about it.

I found this part particularly humorous..

I assumed if all these big companies come here, it must be pretty like Canada's or any other liberal democracy's," she says. Nobody told her there is no concept of bankruptcy. If you get into debt and you can't pay, you go to prison.

If you move to a different country the very first thing you do is check up on the local laws. Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to go to the middle east and expect it to be like Canada. Which leads me to this part..

"When we realised that, I sat Daniel down and told him: listen, we need to get out of here. He knew he was guaranteed a pay-off when he resigned, so we said – right, let's take the pay-off, clear the debt, and go." So Daniel resigned – but he was given a lower pay-off than his contract suggested.

Typical, didn't check the contract. Either your contract says something or it doesn't why these people banked on a payout is stupid. If she realized about the local laws at this point they should have sold everything and got a ticket out the country. Not sat on your ass hoping for the best.

These aren't slaves, they're people who have over indulged, didn't think or save for the future and are now homeless crying about it.

Re:Impressive.. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638302)

In your rush to comment, you failed to read past the first section. Try again, you will find real descriptions of government-supported slavery.

Re:Impressive.. (4, Insightful)

the_womble (580291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638344)

You are missing the point. The construction workers, maids etc. are often enslaved. This guy was a CEO, or fairly senior.

The Saudis, Emiratis, Kuwaitis etc. are almost racists, and the countries are tyrannies far worse than the West's enemies like Iran, Libya, Syria Saddam Hussain etc: Syria, Iran and Iraq allow minorities freedom of worship, and religious minorities where much better off under Saddam Hussein than they are in Iraq now.

Re:Impressive.. (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638244)

I suspect that that was largely seen as a bonus. Dubai is like the Disney World of unbridled global neoliberalism(the "warts and all" version, not the idealists' version).

Having a bunch of not-quite-slaves-because-we-said-we-would-pay-them to build the scenery and fill drinks for the people who matter is just part of the "charm".

Re:Impressive.. (1)

ajay_walia (240348) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638248)

I guess this is the same with the region , everybody is doing it

http://tinyurl.com/yfp83dp [tinyurl.com]

Re:Impressive.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638254)

FTA:
I ask the Filipino girl behind the counter if she likes it here. "It's OK," she says cautiously. Really? I say. I can't stand it. She sighs with relief and says: "This is the most terrible place! I hate it! I was here for months before I realised – everything in Dubai is fake. Everything you see. The trees are fake, the workers' contracts are fake, the islands are fake, the smiles are fake – even the water is fake!"

Yeah, but it isn't slavery by white people (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638326)

It may be slavery but it isn't slavery by white people. Therefore it doesn't count.

Remember Arabs are a Marxist victim class and, as such, can do no real wrong. The Left will defend whatever practices they engage in and blame the oppressor class (read heterosexual white/Jewish males) for making them commit those acts. They will work very hard (lying and fabricating as needed) to create a moral equivalence between enslaving Arabs and Jews/Americans.

Re:Yeah, but it isn't slavery by white people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638398)

Mod parent +1 So True

Re:Yeah, but it isn't slavery by white people (0, Offtopic)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638518)

Mod -1 "Replying to yourself is lame"

Re:Impressive.. (1)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638404)

No shit, that is really sad. Shame on anyone who even mentions dubai while being ignorant of this.

Wow (5, Funny)

DemonBeaver (1485573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638036)

They sure put a lot of effort in the Citadel and City 17 sets for the upcoming Half-Life movie...

824m tall, not 818 or 808m. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638050)

The three sides of the building have different heights due to the differing ground levels.

For a long time, the unofficial height was 808m. However this then switched to 818m, and now finally 824m as different entrances were chosen as "ground level".

The problem is that the building is part of a massive development that includes quite a bit of landscaping. Thus the definition of ground level is somewhat fuzzy. The real base of the building is an enormous concrete slab a few stories underground.

Re:824m tall, not 818 or 808m. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638090)

The three sides of the building have different heights due to the differing ground levels

Often times when quoting the length of my penis, people ask me where I am measuring from: the base of my pelvis or my asshole.

It seems that this tower has the same problem.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638054)

Dubai is going to be one hell of a wasteland in the next 10 or so years. Hell, most of their coastline is already toxic due to the fact they just dump all the city's waste straight into the ocean about 50 miles outa town. Yeah, congratulations, you have the tallest building in the world. Your beaches still smell like shit.

dirty money (1, Interesting)

astar (203020) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638060)

more real estate bubble

dubui is the british replacement for hong kong for dirty money transfers. hah, every government agency has a worthless prince at the top and the second in command, who actually runs things, is always a brit. when the drug lords disneyland resorts started going under, it tended to set off a wave of soverign defaults, of which greece is the leading example. so this building is not anything to admire, but something to condemn

The people who built it were paid a pittance (1)

jsimon12 (207119) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638092)

Don't forget that the average worker on this were paid 5-10 dollars a DAY. Pratically slavery [guardian.co.uk]

My hopes (4, Funny)

nicc777 (614519) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638082)

That the building is more stable than their web server... Damn request time out every time.

Impressive (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638088)

It's an impressive achievement. I'm glad they got it finished before the economy tanked. Dubai is overbuilt, and many of the sillier projects there will never be completed, but Burj Dubai is a prestige location and will probably be rented out successfully. It's partly a hotel and residential building, not just an office tower.

The Empire State Building was built during the Great Depression and wasn't fully rented for years.

Truly sad (4, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638336)

The USA once was dominant in metrics like this. Now, our leadership position, being pissed away for so many years by inept leadership and increasily divisive politics, has been compromised in many areas.

In education, we rival the 3rd world. There is actually serious discussion about teaching so-called "Intelligent-Design" as a part of our Science curriculum! Our math and science scores are near the bottom, and are actually beaten by 3rd world countries in many cases.

Our production and manufacturing idustries have been bleeding red ink for decades. Once the pinnacle of the 1st world, we now sardonically compliment our own quality. Our upper-middle and upper classes don't buy our American-made cars.

Our leadership in Science development is tanking fast. From our until-recent ban on stem cell research funding, and our generally soft support for "basic Science" research, to our cancelling funding for the SSC supercollider [wikipedia.org] , we've sent the message to the scientific community - support is elsewhere!

Tallest building in the world is a pissing contest, that we led for a long time in the last century. We've not only lost it, but our vain attempt to regain it in the so-called "Freedom tower" is mired in controversy, bad design, and travesty, bungled so badly that it's the architectural equivalent of the "mission accomplished" poster of GWB notoriety.

I'm an American, and it's really, really sad to watch my nation slowly collapse in on itself.

Re:Truly sad (2, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638400)

In a symbolic way this seems vaguely a symptom of decline, but the U.S.'s disinterest in this particular metric---building really tall office buildings---dates back a few decades. The U.S. was still unquestionably the world superpower through the 1990s at least, but the spurt of building tall buildings stopped by the mid-1970s, since they weren't particularly economical compared to just building two or three shorter (but still pretty tall) buildings.

If anything there's a minor tall-building resurgence in the U.S. recently: the Trump Tower [wikipedia.org] in Chicago and Bank of America Tower [wikipedia.org] in NYC, both completed 2009, are the tallest new buildings since the last major spurt of skyscraper construction in 1973-74.

New Metric: Average building height per sq. mile. (1)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638526)

they weren't particularly economical compared to just building two or three shorter (but still pretty tall) buildings

We need a new "tallest building" metric to account for this. Something along the lines of average-building-height per geographic-square-mile. Or better yet, to stop cheaters building a solitary building in a vacant square mile, maybe we should use total-habitable-square-feet per geographic-square-mile (taller buildings will naturally have more habitable square feet). Or maybe total-building-volume per geographic-square-mile (this avoids the trouble with variable floor heights).

Re:Truly sad (1)

germ!nation (764234) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638476)

Jesus it's just a tall building dude. Now I'm crying too... I mean I've got something in my eye.

Re:Truly sad (5, Interesting)

ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638506)

You're right, it is a pissing contest, and there's really no point in it. The US does not need to build that high. For that matter, western Europe does not have a single building in the top 100 for height. This is a huge white elephant for the UAE, and white elephants are something the US already has plenty of.

Building a building that goes to 11 is not a technological challenge. Heck, Burj Dubai was designed by a US firm. There are a dozen firms in the US and around the world that could build a building a hundreds of feet taller than the Burj Dubai if there was a need. There isn't. Pursuing a giant national phallic symbol is not what the US should be spending its resources on.

Re:Truly sad (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638558)

The US should have responded to 9/11 by building a stupendous building on the WTC site. By that I mean they should build something which anybody else in the world considers utterly impossible. Five or 10 kilometres tall. The upper floors would of course belong to NORAD, with a big primary radar on the roof.

claimed to be 824.55m (2,705.2 feet), but believed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638174)

I LOL'd. Who gives a fuck?

Re:claimed to be 824.55m (2,705.2 feet), but belie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638234)

The lame ass architects and politicians who are compensating for their 2" dicks.

Re:claimed to be 824.55m (2,705.2 feet), but belie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638462)

Dude, this is Dubai, not China. They're 3.5".

Stupid (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638204)

When are they going to stop counting the radio antennae / spires / tethered helium balloons at the top?

dubai faq (misconceptions) (4, Interesting)

majid_aldo (812530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638214)

- dubai doesn't have oil
- dubai is very western-oriented
- dubai is not a country
- dubai has been largely isolated from regional tensions

got that?

Re:dubai faq (misconceptions) (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638426)

- dubai doesn't have oil

It does actually have oil, though you're correct that oil is no longer a major part of their economy, as the fields are mostly now depleted. However oil was very important to it being built up as the prosperous emirate it is now--- most of the current business was initially financed with oil money. At one point, Dubai's oil exports accounted for over 50% of GDP, though that number's now down under 10%.

Believed to be 818m (1)

Mr_Plattz (1589701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638216)

It's nice to know an Architect and Engineer can design a building and still not know how much above sea level it is.

Re:Believed to be 818m (1)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638304)

I'm quite sure they know, but they have no incentive to tell that the building has shrunken substantially from initial designs.

There is prestige in big numbers. It's not simply a probably of unknown dimensions.

Re:Believed to be 818m (1)

Seraphim1982 (813899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638352)

Two points:
1) Building heigth isn't measured from sea level.
2) The ground around the buldiing isn't flat, so picking 'the' spot to measure from is a subject for debate.

Re:Believed to be 818m (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638540)

It's nice to know an Architect and Engineer can design a building and still not know how much above sea level it is.

Which entrance is considered the "main" entrance has changed several times. As the landscaping around the building is not level, switching the main entrance from one side of the building to another, lower side of the building can add many meters to the "official" height.

How that affects traffic ? (1)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638220)

Tall buildings, by that I mean more that 50 storeys of livable/workable space pose very different challenges. They can house lot more people/offices/homes. How many parking lots does it have ? What about hospitals ? playgrounds ? schools ? Designing elevators for them itself takes an entire fleet of engineers. Is designing taller buildings better in general ? What about security features ? Fire exits ? These are pretty interesting things to look at I am interested in finding out how the architects in Dubai dealt with those issues.

Re:How that affects traffic ? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638282)

I am interested in finding out how the architects in Dubai dealt with those issues.

By paying Europeans to come in and do it for them. Duh. It's not like those towelheaded camel fuckers are good at anything besides, perhaps, making hummus, counting their money, and subjugating their women.

All solved with parachutes (1)

Myrcutio (1006333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638294)

What about security features ? Fire exits ?

Simple. They gave every man and male child a parachute in case of emergency, or just for plain fun. Airplane strikes the building, just open a window and glide away to safety. Assuming you don't have a burning airplane in your face of course.

Its more than 4/5ths of a Kilometer too! (0, Troll)

Helldesk Hound (981604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638290)

More than 4/5ths of a Kilometer too!

4/5 sounds more than 1/2. And Kilometers are the new metric system that everyone (except the USA - funny that) is adopting.

Lame ad? (1)

Stratoukos (1446161) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638296)

Why on earth does the website of one of the grandest human accomplishments has an ad with the "1 tip of a tiny belly"?

BASE Jump (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638300)

The first person to (successfully) BASE jump from this building is going to have serious bragging rights.

PropertyGuru (1)

propertyguru1 (1680114) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638346)

interestin time to open the Burj Dubai especially with DUbai in a financial turmoil. There is a related article on the global economy which may be of interest to some: http://www.propertyguru.com.sg/news/2010/1/27066/2009-was-an-easy-year-for-investors-and-now-comes- [propertyguru.com.sg]

Building? (1)

Smashe01 (1486933) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638372)

or World's Tallest Terrorist Target?!

Does anybody else.....? (3, Funny)

zerospeaks (1467571) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638382)

Does anyone else suddenly feel the urge to play SimTower? Is it just me?

I couldn't help but notice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638386)

... on the Taipei 101 site, the bottom left corner says "Pricavy Policy".

Have they contributed anything to science? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638396)

As a 49 year old feminist grandmother color me unimpressed. Dubai hasn't contributed anything to society, they've literally just found oil in the ground and there's no shame in that, but did they use it to educate their people? No of course not, they just spent year after year paying foreign technicians to do what they don't have the knowledge to do... build gigantic structures. The dictator behaves like a 6 year old kid in a toy store with a credit card from santa... no time for education, just another toy built by foreigners... just pay them to build it, don't pay them to teach our own illiterate population who hasn't made any contributions to science. Dubai resembles all that's what's wrong with humanity, the sooner they run out of oil and have to educate themselves or perish the better, fuck em.

Re:Have they contributed anything to science? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638416)

did they use it to educate their people?

Actually, yes, they did. The UAE citizens don't pay for schooling at all, just like the Saudis. The problem is, the citizens don't have to earn a living, so their incentives for effort are rather limited.

-jcr

Re:Have they contributed anything to science? (0)

majid_aldo (812530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638504)

- dubai doesn't have oil, it relies on foreign investments for its projects. (hence, int'l markets went bezerk when it recently defaulted)
- dubai has better educational institutions compared to the region
- dubai as it is today, wouldn't have happened w/o foreign participation, at least within this timescale
- UAE citizen's education are subsidized. in fact, UAE human development index is #35 in the world; just a tad below developed countries
- dubai is too small for it to make regular major headlines in science (unless it imports scientists en masse. is that ok with you?). as dubai is part of the larger arab and islamic world, a better question would be: why are arabs and muslims behind? (ans. should be a sophisticated analysis please)

to give dubai's leader (yes, a dicator) credit, he had to spend spend spend to create infrastructure that would ALLOW and create an environment for further development.

please make more informed comments in the future. you can take a side, as being for dubai or against it, but make more informed arguments. ideally, you wouldn't need to take a side, but comment on dubai point by point.

Holes, not poles. (1)

Tolvor (579446) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638522)

Nowdays I'd prefer my buildings to be as *low* as possible. Having a nice *deep* underground bunker would be best.

Tall buildings, as well as other major attractions like stadiums, are a status symbol. Every time the building is mentioned you name either the company, the city, or the country in question. Tall building are a brand image. In these times companies prefer a more conservative (and some may argue greener) profile. Tall buildings in this respect are not useful. It is easier to get the same name-recognition result through other channels - charity events, signage, marketing and teaming on major internet sites, and positive news-generation that involves your company name. Even viral marketing can be a major factor. Ever see the new Lady Gaga video "Bad Romance" and the brands displayed? All of these is far far FAR cheaper than a very tall building.

Now consider a nice *low* building, maybe even one underground. It is a lot more protected, it tends to be greener as can plant trees or solar panels on the top (lots of good press coverage). It tends to be a lot easier to insulate against weather. There's a lot more stability given when digging underground and the sides of the building are braced by the pressing of the surrounding earth. If a company wants the prestige factor they can put a large sign up near the highway/freeway with their company name on it.

Best of all it's good against bombs. Frankly, tall buildings are easy to hit. Underground bunkers are a lot harder.

So I say, build better deep buildings (holes), not tall towers of concrete (poles).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?