Talk:List of buildings with 100 floors or more

Page necessity

I know it's always good to have a list of every kind so people can reference it, but is something like this necessary as a stand-alone page and not merged into List of tallest buildings in the world? And whether it is or not, shouldn't we include projects under construction with over 100 floors, like the Burj Dubai, the Chicago Spire, the Freedom Tower, etc? Jimbo 14:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If more people agree, than I agree it should be merged. I made this page to illustrate a point however.

A skyscraper has more dignity when its height is founded upon real habitable floor space and floor height. It seems to me some of these large towers are stabbing ever upward with little more than steel toothpicks vying for the claim of the tallest building in the world. Arguably, most of these are nothing more than an average sized building with an especially impressive spire attached to the top of it, as if there were a race to glue straws together in order to claim the tallest building. Some people might want to see which of these super tall towers are 'real' buildings, catch my drift?

For example, the difference between the Petronas Towers and the Sears Tower, by looking at height statistics it might seem like a Petronas tower trumps the Sears Tower in magnitude. Looking at floor counts and floor space the 110 story Sears Tower is simply a hulk compared to a Petronas tower and its architectural height carries to the very top of the building. The Petronas Towers both are just 88 stories tall and have decorative steel structures that push up just past the Sears tower in architectural height.

On the subject of Burj Dubai and other tall skyscrapers, they should be added when the 100th floor is poured or erected (concrete vs steel) and moved up the list as more floors are poured or erected. For those who aren't aware of this new construction project, Burj Dubai is coming very close to pouring its 100th floor. If all goes according to plan it will have the greatest number of floors of any building in the world sometime in early February, 2007. By its completion it will be by far the tallest structure in the world with a whopping projected floor count of 162. mKleid 13:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

U r right...there is an express interest that some people have in plainly seeing which buildings have 100 floors, as well as which ones are coming. 69.140.245.155 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If we are only counting buiildings that are "In Preparation" or "Under Construction", then shouldn't at least the proposed Russia Tower be removed? I agree with taking off all "Approved" or "Proposed' buildings, but I also agree that the the Chicago Spire, as "In Preparation", should remain. Raime 21:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Under Construction vs. Approved

Is the bottom of the page supposed to be listing only builings under construction? Many of these skyscrapers are still only proprosed, and the others are approved, but not under construction. Should they therefore be listed under this category? Raime 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it will be better to include buildings really under constructions. Many approved or under preparation buildings will be never build. Anyone oppose ?--Jklamo 13:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fine, but we should keep towers that are "In preperation", only because they won't stop once they get the ball rolling...at least I don't think they would. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 15:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Noida Tower

What evidence is there that the Noida Tower is under construction? It is still considered to only to a "Vision" on Emporis, and unless a reliable article can be cited, it should certainly not be listed as "under construction", or even be on this page for the time being. Raime 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

*Burj Dubai placement debate*

Wikipedia is a democracy and changes should be based on general consensus. There seems to be a debate over the placement of unfinished buildings in the first catagory. My intent of the first catagory was to list buildings which have poured or erected 100 floors whether they are done or not. I think the confusion has arised over the title 'completed buildings.' I feel that the title should actually be changed to include the definition of Burj Dubai. The second one exists to show which buildings are imminently (over the next few years) ready to appear in the first catagory. mKleid 20:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe you shouldn't have Burj Dubai in *both* tables. --Golbez 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it seems to me like this is a Burj Dubai marketing page-in-disguise if placed in both. It's almost like you want to push the fact that it's tall and getting taller. We all know it, so it doesn't need to be in both; pick one and stay with it. Since it's not done, I feel it needs to stay in "Under Construction". I don't know why you said there's confusion; there is none. A finished building, from my understanding, could be one of three ideas: 1.) it's topped out, 2.) habitable, or 3.) has all the siding/walls in place. The Burj doesn't meet any of those, and before you take issue with my criteria, the Ruyenyong (sp?) Hotel's got at least one of them (topped out). So, until it, at the very least, tops out, I see absolutely no reason for a dupe placement...but hey, that's just my opinion. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 15:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Freedom Tower validity

Even though the top floor will be numbered 102, the actual floor count is 82 (the numbering's starting at 20). With that said, does that even make it eligible for this list? What parameters are we gonna set for this? I, for one, think the Freedom Tower needs to go; if the BoA Tower started its numbering at 80, it too could have one of the top spots on this list...even at a whopping 386ft! EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No matter what, it shouldn't be 102; it is either 108 (counting unoccupied floors in the podium and above the observation deck) or 82 (counting only the occupied floors). Do such 'unoccupied floors' count on other buildings? If not, then the Freedom Tower is not eligible. But if they do, it is. Raime 21:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That settles it. I'll remove it. Wikipedia should not propagate this falsehood. 82 it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:2E0D:1C25:1745:D970:DD49:704B (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many floors you think it has, it is what reliable sources says that matters. At the moment, most reliable sources are saying it is 104 floors - the exception is the usually very reliable CTBUH !!! It has been reverted, for now, but let's wait until the officially building opens and the CTBUH weighs in with the official figures. Once that happens, I'm sure the other sources will fall into line to settle on one figure for the number of floors. Astronaut (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoa!!! What the hell's going on?!?

Was I just brain-dead for about 4 days, or was there absolutely no talk or discussion about even suggesting merging this article in with the List of Tallest??? I know it was briefly mentioned (by myself, in fact) about 3 months ago, but this isn't just one of those be bold things that everyone's talking about, you know! Something like this takes planning and cooperation on all accounts; hell, if I just merged every article I saw that could be integrated with another, I'd be banned from ever using this site for all the merges! If no one objects, I'm moving it back to its own article until we can get a concensus of whether to move it or not. You've got 72 hours from this point to make your case. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 12:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page because I see know reason for it to have its own page when it could be just a subsection of this one. The burden of proof is for you to prove that it deserves its own page. If we waited to build consensus for every action on Wikipedia then nothing would get done.
Note: I even left the article intact so it could be discussed on how to incorporate it. --Jorfer 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing about concensus: it's not as though I'm saying every single minute detail needs to be straw-polled before editing. I agree; nothing would ever get done. However, moving a page entirely on a whim or because you see a reason to move it isn't acceptible. It's more detremental to the project, even if it was in good faith. This is one of the very reasons we have discussion and appropriate concensus to begin with. Personally, I feel it merits being merged as well. However, if I did that back in December like I wanted to, I would have either been warned for being a "troll" or worse. While Wikipedia's not a democracy, it's only fair to give people who work long and hard on something to have a say before someone goes and makes their article disappear. So, why don't we have a vote right here and now as to whether this article should stay merged or if it should be a seperate list? I'll start off.... EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I split article back, merging article without a single word in discussion section is unacceptable. --Jklamo 23:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was against merging lists. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Article merge vote

Please vote either Support or Against as to merge this article with List of tallest buildings in the world Support means merge it, Against means leave as-is.

• Support, while I don't agree at all with his methods, Jorfer was right in merging these lists. It appears whomever set it up in the first place intended it to be some sort of cloaked marketing campaign for the Burj Dubai, as he wanted it in both the "Completed" and "Under construction" sections, which would defeat the purpose of this list anyway. As a subsection of this current list would suffice the people interested in knowing what towers are 100+ stories, but it might be wise if we're to keep this list at all if we include only true 100+ story buildings, unlike the Freedom Tower, which is only 88 stories; however, since the 1st floor's labeled "20", it has it's top floor numerically labeled "108", technically allowing it onto this list. So, in spite all my ranting and raving, I agree it should be here on this new merged list...just check with people next time you make major changes like this, Jorfer, please? EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Against It occurred to me that Jorfer's just trying to merge every article that some sort of resemblance to itself. Case in point: wanting to merge List of tallest churches and List of tallest buildings in Europe with List of tallest buildings in the world, even though the three have nothing to do with one another (the tallest chruch would be nowhere near on this list, and tall buildings in Europe are already listed in the "Tallest" list). If it were up to him, he'd probably merge American football and Canadian football, since they're similar, but alas they're not.

  I know I said before that the "100 floors" list was nothing more than a "marketing campaign for the Burj Dubai," but in the last month since I wrote that, I've seen the benefits of having seperate lists, as it gives a different perspective of what height means to people. Merging would just cause a super-list which would need to be broken-down anyway, so why not just include links in a "See also" section, as seems to be setup already on the "Tallest" list. So, I'm retracting my vote from last month and voting to keep the status quo, as it appears the only logical thing to do.

  I'm also closing this vote, seeing as there's a clear concensus to leave it as is and it's been a month since the last vote. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 12:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Against This list has its own purpose and kind of own methodology. Criteria of inclusion is number of floors, criteria of inclusion in List of tallest buildings in the world is height, that is a big difference. --Jklamo 02:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Floors are an unscientific way of measuring how tall a building is. If you work in a building with 13 floors and you walk into a building with 17 in another city, you automaticly assume that the one with 17 is taller. One is precise and the other is relative, but they are close enough to be in the same article.--Jorfer 02:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Against A page listing floors is apt in its own way. Floors are a quantifiable means of gauging substantiality. A 2000m tower may only have 20 floors. A 400m tower may have 116...catch my drift? Some people, not all, are interested in seeing this without searching through a MEGA PAGE. If you don't wanna see it, don't look at it. Merging this page will also just make a big page even bigger. MEGA PAGES are hard to navigate as they are, and how rediculously unwieldy that page is! mKleid 12:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that this information should be more visible and not on a more obscure page where few will go out of their way to find it and edit it. I would not describe the tallest building page as unwieldy. It is 38 KB and 55 KB is what is necessary for the Long warning. If I am going to print out the list of tallest buildings it would be nice to have the buildings organized by floor on the same page. Wikipedia is about collaboration, but the more separate pages, the less collaboration.--Jorfer 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Against This page is very different from tallest buildings in the world. It has its own topic, and as a topic that many people are interested in, it deserves its own page. It is a unique page that deserves to be left as is, not merged into anotehr article that is completely different. (As already pointed out, 'tallest' does not mean 'most floors' - look at Sears Tower vs. Taipei 101 and Petronas Towers, both of which are taller but have less floors.) Raime 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support This list is highly correlated with the top of the talles buildings list. Maintaining two lists that are this similar may easily result in maintenance problems Arnoutf 14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Floors?

What does C and P mean for floors? JustN5:12 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Completed to date and Proposed in the most recent design. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 01:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That should be written somewhere in the article, if not on the table itself. 218.186.9.1 06:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Burj Dubai

Acording to this source, the Burj Dubai is now at the 124th floor, making it the building with the highest floor count in the world. 218.186.9.1 06:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But it's not completed yet, therefore not eligible for the list as of yet. However, since the Ryugyong Hotel's not completed, either, I assume the requirements are for topped-out buildings and not necessarily completed ones. Hopefully someone can clarify that for me (like I also asked on Talk:List of tallest buildings in the world#Topped-out or completed? and no has yet answered) so we can figure out what the protocol will be with this.

So, to answer your question/statement, it's not eligible as of yet for inclusion into the list. Wait till it's topped-out (at least) before it's added. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 13:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

concept changes

I just reformated table little bit and made some concept changes. 1) i added Burj to first table, because it actually has 100+ floors and its completed floors are comparable to Ryugyong Hotel status. To reflect better status of first table, i deleted completed building headline (because now that means completed floors). 2) i deleted ranks, because number of building is still low and also we need not discuss about ranks of UC, destroyed or unfinished. If someone oppose first or second change, please write it down. If there will be consensus against them, i will revert these changes. --Jklamo 02:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because no one objected doesn't make it right. If I'd have seen this sooner, than I would have objected then. I objected in the thread above and I object here! The section is called "Under construction" for a reason. If we allow both under construction and completed lists to have the same ones, then what's the point of having two lists? I've been saying, and I'll continue to say, you have an agenda by trying to push the Burj Dubai. Yes, it will be the tallest, and yes it will most likely be completed, but we don't know for certain; something unforeseen could happen tomorrow and the project could abruptly end. Until it's complete, CTBUH refuses to acknowledge it and I agree it should be refused until the ribbon is cut and we know 100% for certain that people will call the Burj Dubai home. Same goes for the Shanghai International Commerce Tower; no exceptions should be make until they are completed, esp w/Shanghai, seeing as that project has been jinxed since the beginning. So, I'm going to be bold and revert the changes...I hope this doesn't turn into an edit war. EaglesFanInTampa 22:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Russia Tower

I'm pretty sure that is still only proposed, not under construction. Unless someone disagrees, I'll remove it from the list. Raime 06:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It is approved, but still not UC, despite some activities on plot.It is like Chicage Spire. We will see which one will start first. --Jklamo 11:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Shanghai World Financial Center

I am for including Shanghai World Financial Center in a first table. Building is topped out and it is comparable to Ryugyong Hotel status. Share your opinions --Jklamo 03:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If topped out, that's fine, since all other topped out buildings are listed on the main List of tallest buildings in the world...and thanks for asking this time ;-) EaglesFanInTampa 11:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Status

"Standing" is an odd word to use (highly post 9/11 referential). How about "completed". Therefore assuming if not destroyed/demolition it is indeed standing. Artlondon 18:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This list of buildings contains all buildings with 100 floors and more

should this not be a list of buildings as stand (ie not destroyed/in construction). Say, a list of wealthiest people/countries would be at a given time not estimated. Or, the number of deaths in an armed conflict. Artlondon (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not think so. The list is used to show any building in history that had more than 100 floors. Would a list of tallest buildings in the world not include the World Trade Center just because they are no longer standing? Since they held a record for a short time, they are mentioned. That is the same for this article. Having more than 100 floors is an interesting fact, in my opinion, even if the building no longer stands or is not yet complete. Would a list of the world's fastest runners only include records that were made in the past few years? I do not think so. Maybe, this list will need to change when more and more buildings have 100+ floors. But until then, I think the list's format is okay. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Shanghai Center Dragon.jpg

The image File:Shanghai Center Dragon.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sears Tower / Willis Tower

Does this need to be changed? Sears Tower was known as the Sears Tower until very recently in 2009 (March), the same year as when the Burj Dubai will open (in December). It's been known as the Sears Tower for most of its span as the tallest tower, so does this need to be decided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tk TommyKim (talk • contribs) 06:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at great lengths on Talk:Willis Tower and at various WikiProjects. It was decided that the name Willis Tower will be displayed almost everywhere - an exception being, for example, places where a record is said to be broken on the completion of the Sears Tower. Here, however, it should be Willis Tower, as this is simply its name. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How about adding "Formerly Sears Tower" in parentheses?--24.244.142.170 (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of this, in one list on the page the number of floors are given as 108, and in another, it's given as 110. Perhaps the note from the Willis Tower article needs to be duplicated here to explain the discrepancy? (i.e. 108 actual floors, but the owners have always counted two "extra" in order to say '110'). --JohnDBuell (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Better Photos

Can we get a better main photo than what is there now? It's pathetic quality photo (out of focus or blury due to motion, dust on the sensor, noisy sky). I am sure there are better photos of the building than this pathetic quality 98.156.84.149 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Construction Progress

Alright, people have been editing back and forth on this issue for a bit now, but there's been no discussion about it. What are the pros and cons of including the erection progress as indicated by # of floors completed,of towers under construction in this list? What was the original justification for including it on this list, when as far as I'm aware, no other list of buildings includes that information?Scalzi+ | (Talk | contribs) 16:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess the main problem is that it needs to be sourced. Where did you get the height updates from, anyway? --timsdad ^(talk) 01:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pingan International Finance Centre - Forgotten

Where is Pingan International Finance Centre on the construction list?? --Extra999 (Contact ^me) 17:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Canton Tower

Canton Tower's article says it is an observation tower but its infobox states it has 108 floors. To list or not? 85.217.36.71 (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not list. First of all it is a tower, not a skyscraper - it is correctly listed on List of tallest towers in the world. Secondly, there are not 108 floors. I've no idea who added that, but the CTBUH (a reliable source) says just 37 floors. I've corrected the Canton Tower article. Astronaut (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Reworked under construction list

I have spent some time reworking the under construction list using the list creation tool at the CTBUH's database: http://skyscrapercenter.com/ The CTBUH is generally acknowledged to be a reliable source when it comes to skyscrapers. I also created a second list of those buildings which started construction but will now never be completed dues to various factors. I felt this was a useful distinction to make.

In doing this, I came across the JW Marriott International Finance Centre. The building has been revised multiple times, the latest plan seemingly with 102 floors. The CTBUH lists it as on-hold and Emporis (another reliable source) has a lower version of the project on-hold. However, I find some confusing reports that either: a previous 8-storey building was demolished to make way for this project, or that a previous version of this project was demolished to make way for a newer version, or that the current version of this project has been demolished and they have given up completely. Unfortunately, I don't read Chinese, so I have to rely on a Google translation of this news item. For now, I have not listed it, but would like to when I can find out what is going on. Maybe someone who reads Chinese can help me to understand the source better. Astronaut (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Goldin Finance 117 be moved from "Completed buildings/topped-out" to "Under construction/on hold"? Ryugyong Hotel was a long time ago listed as topped out but was properly moved to under construction. I submit the Chinese building's status is probably the same as the North Korean's.Amyzex (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Column m2 of floorsurface ?

Seems very relevant. Anybody can put a student on this or make it an evening project? Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The more usual term is "Floor area" and we tend to use the {{convert}} template to include the necessary detail. However, I have reverted your change, because I really don't think it is "very relevant" to this list. Each building in the list is wikilinked to an article. Astronaut (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Buildings cancelled list

There are three new American buildings listed in this section which I do not think should be listed: the Old Main Post Office and the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel and Residences in Chicago, and the Peachtree in Atlanta. This section of the article was designed to include only buildings FOR WHICH CONSTRUCTION BEGAN, not buildings that were approved and later abandoned. Will someone remove the three buildings?Amyzex (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This must be out of date, Sky City One: changsha in China was completed in 2014 and is 838M / 2749FT, taller than anything mentioned in this article, and is not even mentioned according to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGNXcX8MvGA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.151.3 (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Central Park Tower

Shouldn't Central Park Tower be on this list? Like One World Trade Center its top floor is numbered over 100 despite the fact it will actually have less than 100 floors.Amyzex (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Remove buildings with highest floor number over 100 but with less than 100 physical floors

I don't think One WTC should be included on this page, its top floor may be the "104th floor", but the building doesn't actually have 104 floors. Similarly, 118 is not the actual number of floors for the Hong Kong ICC, only the number assigned to the top floor.

I thought I should probably discuss this here before making a big change like that?

Kestreltail (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it's a bit silly to list buildings not under their actual number of floors but under the number of the top floor. 77.56.210.240 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This issue is still ongoing with the sometimes huge discrepancy between actual floors and inflated ennumeration. Over a dozen floors are skipped in buildings such as Central Park Tower, with 98 actual floors vs the 136 marketing number. Three dozen skipped floors on top of 13 skipped and a tall floor which are often counted as two. The Ryugyong Hotel construction photos show clearly that it has way less than 100 floors.

One common trick for marketing numbers is to take the entire building height divided by 10' (old equivalent of feet per floor) or three meters and say that it's an 85 floor building if the top is around 850 feet high. Austrailia 108 is by far the shortest bulding with 100 actual floors not only on CTBUH but visible in diagrams and the building itself. It's the only supertall to stick to an unusually low for skyscrapers floor to floor height of 10 feet per floor. B137 (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

List of buildings with 100 Floors or more?

Why do we have a list of buildings with 100 Floors or more? 156.34.79.134 (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Building in the future

Building in the future 1st is nothing I'm tired by 86.3.255.238 (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Only List of tallest buildings and tallest NYC have real floor counts

Only the world's List of tallest buildings article is respectably accurate when it comes to floor counts. Buildings like the Wanda Vista Tower (St. Regis Chicago) have about 90 floors, not 100 or 101. Also the Ryugyong Hotel clearly has less than 100/105 floors. Construction shell photos, as it stood uncompleted for many years, show that it might not even have 90 floors. The glazing has more than one expansion joint, where the windows split, per floor, as do some other buildings giving an illusion of more floors as well. This is the same but opposite trick Las Vegas did to make one of their buildings look smaller, with two storey windows. There's a few dozen buildings at least with highly inflated floor counts, skipping over 10 floors in some cases, mostly supertalls. B137 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• List of tallest buildings has 19 buildings with over 100 floors, here there is 21. The real number is actually 18 as Wanda Vista Tower has less than 100 floors. It's the only certain floor count error on the List of tallest buildings article. B137 (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Rise Tower

What about Rise Tower with its 678 floors? - Shiftchange (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

lol another vision project. It would take at least a decade to build any of these from scratch, unless Broad Sustainable Building can prove their proposed Sky City modular prefab system. Even the Kingdom Tower would need a good five more years to complete, if construction resumed. Greater than a mile high, that's likely too much of an engineering jump at once. Burj Khalifa is only a half mile high .52 miles (1 km), and will likely continue to hold the records for all of thise decade if not forever. B137 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)