Turn on thread page Beta

Is the Burj Khalifa actually occupied? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What with the Arab world engaging in a contest of willy-waving with their skyscrapers, I'm just interested to know whether their economies actually support such ostentatious buildings?
    Offline

    15
    Oil props up all of these buildings. The Burj Khalifa is occupied to a third or something I heard... not 100% sure though.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Don't think its as full as they want it to be. A lot of the Dubai building projects have remained fairly empty
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    they've planned a building twice as tall in saudi arabia... its truly ridiculous


    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'm interested in this pendulum structure.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    If it wasn't the Arabs, it would only be the Americans or the Chinese.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I've been to the UAE. Forget the fancy buildings, most ordinary buildings (at least for them) are not occupied at all. There are more apartments then people atm and that is including all the foreigners which form a clear majority, what will they do when only their citizens are left?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's eery going round Dubai. In the centre, outskirts, the Palm - everywhere - there are just so many empty or half-finished buildings. I've been before the recession and after it. The change in atmosphere was astonishing; you could definitely feel that the bubble had burst.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I go to the UAE every summer, I have a family home in Abu Dhabi so I know a fair bit about the area.

    The Burj Khalifa isn't fully occupied but they planned projects pre-world crisis and a lot of them depended on the super rich spending their wealth in the emirate. After they've been built, due to the circumstances they haven't had the forecasted net migration of expats and businesses.

    It's got to the stage where there is so much vacant property available and the demand is so low that the government has actually had to start demolishing brand new buildings! Some of them that were only like 75% complete, and taken down to drive up the prices with fewer vacant property around.

    Also this idea that Dubai affords these projects on the back of oil is a huge misconception. The ignorant immediately think Arab state = oil money. Dubai has had virtually a pittance of oil for the last 10 years, and oil only contributes less than 8% to its economy. That was the point of all the investment into Dubai for the past 20 years, to diversify the economy for the time that it no longer has oil.

    Abu Dhabi is the real powerhouse though, without a doubt the wealthiest single city on the planet...statistically speaking of course.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    If it wasn't the Arabs, it would only be the Americans or the Chinese.
    The Americans are too realistic these days. Even the twin towers' replacement, the One World Trade Center, isn't going to be that big, 1,776ft. That's far, far smaller than this thing in Saudi and only a little talelr than the Petronas Towers.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    The Americans are too realistic these days. Even the twin towers' replacement, the One World Trade Center, isn't going to be that big, 1,776ft. That's far, far smaller than this thing in Saudi and only a little talelr than the Petronas Towers.
    Sure, but it's only a matter of time before someone's going to think 'screw this, I'm just going to build a **** off building and settle this once and for all'. I just don't 'get' all the hate :dontknow:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Sure, but it's only a matter of time before someone's going to think 'screw this, I'm just going to build a **** off building and settle this once and for all'. I just don't 'get' all the hate :dontknow:
    Yeah, but at some point ambition is going to get ahead of what the engineering and construction businesses are actually capable of, I'd be surprised if this new one in Saudi wasn't somewhere near that point, tbh.

    It's all an exercise in vanity, basically. There's no need for buildings of this size, the fact that other large buildings remain mostly unused is the proof. If there was demand for collosal amounts of office space in these locations it'd be understandable.

    Anyway, not my money, not bothered. If they manage to build it, kudos.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Yeah, but at some point ambition is going to get ahead of what the engineering and construction businesses are actually capable of, I'd be surprised if this new one in Saudi wasn't somewhere near that point, tbh.

    It's all an exercise in vanity, basically. There's no need for buildings of this size, the fact that other large buildings remain mostly unused is the proof. If there was demand for collosal amounts of office space in these locations it'd be understandable.

    Anyway, not my money, not bothered. If they manage to build it, kudos.
    And why is it that people only make a point about calling out 'extravagance' when it's the Arabs? Almost all of the world's man-made 'wonders' have been extravagant projects which seemed to push the boundary of possibility. Sistine chapel, Eiffel tower, Mount Rushmore? They're all unnecessary structures which have no purpose but to be revered in their ambition. It's just a double standard I'm seeing here, I don't see anyone looking at the Eiffel tower or Statue of Liberty in disgust, but we're all ready to bust a nut when we hear of an Arab project.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    And why is it that people only make a point about calling out 'extravagance' when it's the Arabs? Almost all of the world's man-made 'wonders' have been extravagant projects which seemed to push the boundary of possibility. Sistine chapel, Eiffel tower, Mount Rushmore?
    I guarantee you, that had the internet been available at the time, plenty of people would have railed against each one of them. How many people hated the Millennium Dome? The new Wembley? The Scottish parliament? The buildings for the 2012 Olympics? And those are just British projects...

    It just so happens that it's their turn, nothing more sinister.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    If it wasn't the Arabs, it would only be the Americans or the Chinese.
    Except that the new One World Trade Centre and the Shanghai Tower will actually be occupied, because the local economies aren't one-trick ponies that are going to be horrendously bankrupt basket cases once the oil runs out.

    The Burj Khalifa is proof that you can't buy class. They threw the best architects and engineers (none of them Arabian) and a ton of money at a problem that didn't exist - that they didn't have the world's most pointless and tallest penis-compensator - rather than spend that $1.5bn on actually fixing the many problems of the UAE.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Sure, but it's only a matter of time before someone's going to think 'screw this, I'm just going to build a **** off building and settle this once and for all'. I just don't 'get' all the hate :dontknow:
    Because they are Arabs and Arabs are supposed to be the poor brown *******s living in ****ed up Islamic states. So when they are doing well and defeating a stereotype it doesn't sit well with the dicks. This is particularly evident in people feeling the need to point out that its 'not even Arabs building it.'
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, somewhat.

    I've seen an apartment personally.

    Many are not, however.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    And why is it that people only make a point about calling out 'extravagance' when it's the Arabs? Almost all of the world's man-made 'wonders' have been extravagant projects which seemed to push the boundary of possibility. Sistine chapel, Eiffel tower, Mount Rushmore? They're all unnecessary structures which have no purpose but to be revered in their ambition. It's just a double standard I'm seeing here, I don't see anyone looking at the Eiffel tower or Statue of Liberty in disgust, but we're all ready to bust a nut when we hear of an Arab project.
    My question related to the UAE economy's ability to support such a building, and this thread has shown that it doesn't have that ability.

    And in 19th century Europe, similar arguments were afoot against Napoleon's 'phallic' structure, the Eiffel Tower.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Except that the new One World Trade Centre and the Shanghai Tower will actually be occupied, because the local economies aren't one-trick ponies that are going to be horrendously bankrupt basket cases once the oil runs out.

    The Burj Khalifa is proof that you can't buy class. They threw the best architects and engineers (none of them Arabian) and a ton of money at a problem that didn't exist - that they didn't have the world's most pointless and tallest penis-compensator - rather than spend that $1.5bn on actually fixing the many problems of the UAE.
    The UAE does not have problems, Dubai does.

    Abu Dhabi, the capital, which acts as pretty much a state in itself couldn't be more thriving. It has the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world standing at over $1trillion dollars....which isn't so much of a problem as it is an unbelievable feat. The GDP of Abu Dhabi ranks 3rd in the world after Luxembourg. But of course Abu Dhabi is oil-rich, holding 10% of the world's oil and 6% of the natural gas. Considering it's about the size of London, that's incredible.

    As for the other emirates of the UAE, they're not thriving nor experiencing much problems. They're just self sustaining and have remained pretty much the same as they have for decades. Culturally, socially, economically...they're only concerned about serving the extremely small emirati population which they seem to be doing just fine.

    Dubai's ability to grow so rapidly within 20 years has also been its downfall. It developed faster than the population grew. It isn't as thriving as it was back in say 2005 but in the long term once the population grows it'll be okay.

    Also, you're incredibly naive if you think $1.5 billion does anything to help their economic problem. Abu Dhabi gave $10 billion just to cover a debt of ONE of their state-owned construction company. $1.5 billion is a pittance in their eyes.

    On top of that, the building was planned and started to be constructed many years ago, well before the economic crises...so spending $1.5 billion during that time was justified. Spending it to make a property like the Burj Khalifa is questionable, they expected more businesses and the super rich to move in.

    But anyway, having a state of the art skyscrapers lying around empty is a better problem to have than not having the means to build such things in the first place.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    They threw the best architects and engineers (none of them Arabian) and a ton of money at a problem that didn't exist - that they didn't have the world's most pointless and tallest penis-compensator - rather than spend that $1.5bn on actually fixing the many problems of the UAE.
    (Original post by Lemozo)

    And in 19th century Europe, similar arguments were afoot against Napoleon's 'phallic' structure, the Eiffel Tower.
    What is it with people and penises in this thread.

    NOTE TO EVERYONE:

    Just about every building that is longer in one dimension than it is in the other two is going to resemble a phallus. It's not because everyone wants to be reminded of penises all the time, it's because it makes sense to build vertically, than to use up precious land resources.

    Honestly, the maturity of some people in this thread.

    "IT'SASS PHAALLUSS HERP DERP!!11" :facepalm:
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.