DUBAI | Burj Khalifa | 828 M / 2,716.5 FT - Pinnacle | 162 FLOORS | 2010 - Page 4

KevinFromTexas · #61 Posted **Nov 28, 2010, 1:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

Meh. It's nice but it doesn't hit me. Besides which, all that wood reminds me of that tacky wood paneling that was so popular in the 70's.

http://uglyhousephotos.com/wordpress...09/090917k.jpg

Oh and Desert Diver: Just because it's tall doesn't automatically mean everyone should like it.

Yeah, that's pretty icky. The rest of it is sleek. Love that rich wood and lighting. But yeah, that looks like something you'd find in a mobile home park.

Desert Diver · #62 Posted **Nov 28, 2010, 11:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Desert Driver, do you have any idea how high the highest occupied residence is right now? How high can you go in the residential section, what floors have you been on?

Unfortunately I don't know for sure how high you can go in the residential section, but the following pic shows the Main Elevator Lobby with lifts going up to the 72nd floor. The highest I have been in the residential part was 43rd floor, where the Pool area designated for residents is located.

Desert Diver · #63 Posted **Nov 28, 2010, 11:49 AM**

BTW:
The building has a good mix of materials, although the veneer panels dominate the walls. However, my pictures might leave an exaggerated impression on the amount of wood used, because I was there to focus on the veneers on behalf of the company which provided them. The pics (especially the other images featured on my website) will be used for their product catalogue.

jtk1519 · #64 Posted **Nov 28, 2010, 12:34 PM**

If wiki is right, the highest residential floor is the 108th. Residential floors are 9-16, 19-37, 44-72 and 77-108.

RCDC · #65 Posted **Nov 28, 2010, 3:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Yeah, that's pretty icky. The rest of it is sleek. Love that rich wood and lighting. But yeah, that looks like something you'd find in a mobile home park.

That photo's from a house in Phoenix, it has nothing to do with this building.

http://uglyhousephotos.com/wordpress/?p=11237

BrandonJXN · #66 Posted **Nov 28, 2010, 5:18 PM**

I will say this: the Burj looks better inside than outside. I do love the smooth walls and the minimalist decor.

I did not just say 'minimalist decor.'

STR · #67 Posted **Dec 1, 2010, 7:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

im not surprised...the world just doesnt need a tower this tall at the moment....

The problem isn't the Khalifa Tower, but the 1,000 other hi-rise projects throughout the city. If the whole endeavor had been planned better, I doubt they would have crashed as hard. They could have had better mass-transit to boot too. I hear that's exactly what SOM proposed back in the 90's.

Anyway, some renders. I still have to finish this one.

SD_Phil · #68 Posted **Dec 1, 2010, 8:16 AM**

^Great, as always STR.

STR · #69 Posted **Dec 1, 2010, 10:14 PM**

^The good ones didn't even show up.

SD_Phil · #70 Posted **Dec 1, 2010, 11:02 PM**

It's really amazing how much taller the Khalifa is than anything else in the world.

And with the Kuwaiti tower on its heals, it really does seem like a really interesting time for skyrise engineering and architecture

Skyscrapers144 · #71 Posted **Dec 2, 2010, 6:51 AM**

Here's a diagram of the Burj Khalifa i made:

ethereal_reality · #72 Posted **Dec 2, 2010, 5:20 PM**

^^^That is VERY impressive!

Flamesrule · #73 Posted **Dec 2, 2010, 9:07 PM**

Yes, this is a landmark of architecture meaning. Great diagram!

KevinFromTexas · #74 Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 2:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

im not surprised...the world just doesnt need a tower this tall at the moment....

Ridiculous comment since height has nothing to do with it. It's square footage that's the problem. The market over there isn't over supplied with tall buildings. It's over supplied with space.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #75 Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 3:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Ridiculous comment since height has nothing to do with it. It's square footage that's the problem. The market over there isn't over supplied with tall buildings. It's over supplied with space.

obviously anything that is 2716.5 ft. would have huge square footage.

KevinFromTexas · #76 Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 3:54 AM**

Well, according to the Wikipedia page, and I don't know how accurate this is, but they say that it has 3.3 million square feet of floor space. The tower is extremely slender. The WTC towers were 4 million square feet each, as is the Willis Tower. The problem is Dubai has 20+ other 1,000+ foot tall towers under development, too. So the market is over supplied.

Here's an article that says there's 30 million square feet of office space coming online in Dubai. And that's just office space. It doesn't even include residential, hotel or anything else. It says the total square feet on the market for office space is 48 million. That's not all that high actually.
http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articl...ncy-55565.aspx

3.3 million square feet in Dubai is a drop in the bucket to their market.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #77 Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 4:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Well, according to the Wikipedia page, and I don't know how accurate this is, but they say that it has 3.3 million square feet of floor space. The tower is extremely slender. The WTC towers were 4 million square feet each, as is the Willis Tower. The problem is Dubai has 20+ other 1,000+ foot tall towers under development, too. So the market is over supplied.

Here's an article that says there's 30 million square feet of office space coming online in Dubai. And that's just office space. It doesn't even include residential, hotel or anything else. It says the total square feet on the market for office space is 48 million. That's not all that high actually.
http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articl...ncy-55565.aspx

3.3 million square feet in Dubai is a drop in the bucket to their market.

but at this height its not all that practical,imagine if this was an office tower. what company would lease space on the 160th floor? besides that i really dont know of too many people who want to live this high.given the current economic climate,theres no practical reason to have a tower this tall.

KevinFromTexas · #78 Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 4:15 AM**

Can't argue with that. If one gets proposed for New York, I'll feel the same way.

STR · #79 Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 7:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

but at this height its not all that practical,imagine if this was an office tower. what company would lease space on the 160th floor?

Companies that don't have large operations, but want a prestigious address. The boutique offices would be great for law firms, field offices, sales offices, royal officials (we are talking about a Monarchy here). Maybe even a small clinic, there's apparently a dentist in the crown of the Chrysler Building. A lot of people need space in the 5-10,000 sqft range, and this tower caters to that market. If you need a bit more space, there's the office annex near the tower. If you need further space...well there's other buildings for that.

However, the building is primarily residential/hotel, and there is an ideal size for residential buildings. You don't want space that's too far from the window line.

As for practicality, the tower is designed to promote and integrate with the rest of the Burj Dubai complex, including the mall, mid-rise offices, and other residential towers. It's not meant to stand on its own., nor should it be judged.

Skyscrapers144 · #80 Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 12:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ethereal_reality

^^^That is VERY impressive!

Thanks dude!!!! I made i for a diagram competition that Flamesrule made at SkyscraperCity. Unfortunately i loss, lol.