Talk:Burj Khalifa/Archive 1

message: I removed the portion that claimed that the design of the bulding is inspired by the flower Hymenocallis.  The article described it as a native desert flower.  All Hymenocallis species are endemic exclusively to the Americas no other continents.  Perhaps Hymenocallis has become a popular garden plant in UAE, or perhaps it has even naturalized itself there?
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/index.php/Hymenocallis
http://www.amaryllidaceae.org/Hymenocallis/index.htm#gra
:There are a few places online that also claim that the building's base is based on the flower.  See: .  I don't think it's impossible that the Hymenocallis, a common garden plant world-wide, would be used for inspiration for the Burj.  And don't forget, it was designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, an American firm. -Quasipalm 14:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hymenocallis 

message: See the obvious connection between Tower_of_Babel and the Burj Dubai?
Even the name Babel vs Dubai (baybel dubay) is quite simmilar.
The building of the tower is underway, just as the images are.
I just think this might be worth exploring more.--ekimdrachir 07:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely. The first thing I thought when I first heard about this was "Huh? Tower of babel again?? Better not anger the big man again, we don't need more languages ;)"
I think the only similarity between dubai and babel is that both are considered to be tall structures. It's perfectly fine to build a big tall building as long as you're not doing it to allude the worship of your God. Apparently the tower of babel was designed to withstand the biggest of floods so that the Lord couldn't cleanse wicked people like he did with the flood again.
The real story behind Babel was not the creation of languages, but the division of people.  In that regard, the World Trade Center towers had more in common with Babel than Burj Dubai has with Babel.  The WTC was an international symbol of the differences between the haves and the have nots.  When the small group of people destroyed the WTC, the destruction of the WTC further divided the people of Earth.  It will be interesting to see if the super-buildings in UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain live up to the histories of their predecessors, but that probably depends on the hubris of the countries themselves.
:Wow.  Just when I thought this section couldn't get more asanine....  The Tower of Babel is a simple story condemning the arrogance of man.  It's not about buildings nor about "dividing people" - and the story has no relevance to this article.  208.120.84.99 12:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Anyone Besides Me 

message: There are WAY too many pictures relative to the size of the article. It is difficult even to properly read the text since the pictures clutter up the page so much. Despite that, I like all of these pictures and think that they're all relevant to the article. However, until the article is larger, I think we shoudl just move, shrink, or completely remove one of the pictures to make it less cluttered. Thoughts? bob rulz 23:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel the same way. How about reducing size and move to bottom of page, and/or remove a picture. Shawnc 18:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Another option is to use the <gallery> tag to create a series of small thumbnails that can be enlarged at the reader's discretion.  If the images are free, we can also link to the commons, which would contain all images availabe.  An example of what i'm talking about is at De Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter, which uses the <gallery> and commons links. — Fudoreaper 19:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's usually best to remove pictures that don't really add much to the article.  Any free images should be moved to the commons, and this page should link to them there, not display them.  For the size of this article, I think a single image is fine; maybe two.  Keep in mind that the image server is currently very stressed.  --Quasipalm 20:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Btw, I changed the layout into a gallery after these comments, so guess the point is now moot. Peter S. 22:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Does this question of necessity section strike anyone else as pointless? It would be surprising if any very tall building were built out of "necessity". In such cases the residences in the buildings (if there are any) are, as in this case, luxury appartments for the very wealthy, hardly a way of making extra space for those who are in need of a home. Such buildings are created and occupied for reasons unrelated to limited space, such as prestige.
-- cesoid 18 November 2005
: Actually, many skyscrapers are built out of necessity, if you use a more colloquial definition of "necessity".  They may not provide the essentials of life, but especially in major cities like New York or Chicago, skyscrapers are one of the few reasonable ways of adding more offices or residences to already highly developed areas.  Those places have a very high population density and a similarly high demand for office space, and building new skyscrapers is usually the most effective way to satisfy that demand, so they could be considered necessary in that sense.  I can see there being legitimate questions about whether a skyscraper of this nature satisfies any similar demand in Dubai. - Flooey 09:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the term "necessity" is a bit too strong, but most big buildings have been built (in America at least) because of a strong demand for office / residential space and a limit on new building locations.  Growth then necessitates building up.  Not so in Dubai, they have plenty of empty desert in every direction and a small population (again, by US standards), and no real need to increase population density.  --Quasipalm 19:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, the whole 'question of necessity' seems a bit of a question of necessity in itself, driven by a citizen of the US (perhaps residing in the Portland, Oregon Metropolitan area?!). Rather than just remove it, I believe it should be expanded and renamed as the section is correct in that the project is borne out of the UAE's desire to diversify from their core income (oil).--Dan (Talk)|@ 02:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  To me, the race to build the tallest building is nothing more than a penis-measuring contest: it's immature one-upsmanship. 61.30.11.130 09:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess there is a point there, after all it's just asking for a terrorist to fly a plane into it. ArdClose 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question of necessity?