Let’s hope the Tower of Dubai doesn’t meet the same fate as the Tower of Babel.
The Burj Khalifah under construction. Joi
There are a lot of similarities between Dubai and the biblical city of Babel.
Last May, I described the Dubai / Babel connection, and put the call out for a “DuBabel” correspondent.
Now that Dubai is officially home to the tallest building in the world, the Babel analogy is especially creepy.
The Tower of Babel collapsed, after all. In the post 9/11 world, the idea of a collapsing sky-scraper is truly terrifying.
As Dubai celebrates the opening of the Burj Khalifah, the last thing anyone wants to think about is a disaster on the scale of 9/11. Voicing such a possibility is practically taboo.
But, with the Babel analogy already a point of discussion, the question must be aired:
Could the Burj Khalifah actually fall?
Or is the only Dubai collapse we need to worry about financial?
I’m curious to hear what you have to say, so please leave a comment below!
About the Author
More By This Author
- 10 Reasons to Study Abroad in the Islamic World (14 comments)
- Choice, Control and Travel (18 comments)
- China Executes Brit, Provokes Outrage (24 comments)
Related Posts
27 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
Ubar, a city destroyed by Allah for it’s decadence, is another analogous example of what might be in store for proud Dubai. After all, it always comes before a fall…
↵ -
I thought the same thing. When 9/11 happened, I thought it marked the end of skyscrapers, for no one would risk building the next big target.
↵ -
We haven’t seen the Freedom Tower built yet…
↵ -
Are you thinking terrorism, or is there some noted architectural concern that makes this a possibility?
↵ -
Mostly terrorism, yes, stemming from the vast gap between rich and poor that Dubai now symbolizes. But then again, it’s a half-mile tall structure built on sand, so structural integrity could also be a problem.
↵ -
Seeing as how several of the 9/11 hijackers were Emiratis, I’d say as long as the Burj Khalifah keeps all Emiratis at least 100 miles away, it’ll probably be safe.
↵ -
I thought most of the hijackers were Saudi?
↵ -
Tim, Tim, Tim.
Are you really curious to know what this bunch think of the issue?
“Structural integrity”? If that was an issue, the people who invested their billions in the building would not have done so.
Terrorism “stemming from the vast gap between the rich and the poor”? Since when has terrorism ever resulted from that?
Why has Matador abandoned even the remotest pretence at journalism, and become simply a long list of elucidated questions, for a bunch of bored, completely unqualified nonentities to attempt to answer?
I ask simply out of curiosity.↵ -
I am curious, Adam, so thanks for your comment. I’m not sure if investor confidence is an accurate indicator of structural integrity, but I am pretty sure that the vast gap between a global elite and increasingly desperate migrant workers might lead to deep resentment and acts of terrorism, especially if the elite is perceived as corrupt and far removed from traditional values.
Matador is an online community where people from all over the world can speak to one another. We write what we think, and we hope our readers do too!
↵ -
Adam -
Are you asking this question in all seriousness?
“Terrorism “stemming from the vast gap between the rich and the poor”? Since when has terrorism ever resulted from that?”
I mean, really? I find it incredibly ironic that you go on in your comment to elude to a bunch of “a bunch of bored, completely unqualified nonentities” (quite a vague and condescending description of…who? People commenting on articles, many of whom are experienced travelers and travel writers? Or the writers themselves?) when you can actually suggest in all seriousness that terrorism has nothing to do with a gap between rich and poor. I’m not sure what you’ve ever read about terrorism, but I can’t imagine making a less informed and more naive statement about the issue. Be careful getting all pompous about “completely unqualified nonentities” when your grasp of the issues leading to terrorism appears shaky at best.
As for Matador’s shift from “journalism to gossipism,” I’m not sure if you’re a journalist or not (it seems you’re a writer) but Matador has never been about traditional “journalism.” If you’ve been following Matador from the beginning, you’d know that the types of articles we write here are inherently subjective and are meant to generate thought and discussion within a wide and diverse community of travelers. These are not articles you will read in the travel section of your local newspaper. If you claim to be so worried about a supposed shift in content here at Matador, then you might want to demonstrate some awareness as to the kind of content Matador has traditionally focused on.
I’m not sure what you’ve read at Matador over the last month, but none of these articles -
http://matadorabroad.com/how-to-be-a-vegetarian-in-korea/
http://matadorabroad.com/how-to-express-your-emotions-or-not-in-other-cultures/
http://matadorabroad.com/chile-rigid-importation-laws-and-why-you-should-obey-them/
http://matadorabroad.com/how-to-travel-to-dangerous-places/
http://matadorabroad.com/thinking-of-learning-a-language-an-overview-of-the-worlds-easiest-and-most-difficult-languages/
http://matadorabroad.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-an-expat-in-gunpo-city-south-korea/are “long questions, posing as articles, which are aimed not at informing, but at provoking comments.” None of these articles fit your description of what our content is supposedly shifting to. I could keep listing more and more articles to make this point, but I think that’ll suffice for now.
I’m not sure what you’ve been reading here, or how often you come to Matador Abroad, but you don’t seem to have a very accurate conception of our overall content. As for “inviting a lot of people to make fools out of themselves” we invite our community of experienced travelers and writers to comment on issues related to traveling, living, studying and teaching abroad. I don’t know why you seem to think that you are particularly qualified to comment but other travelers and readers are not. This is an online community where people share experiences and insights – it’s not a print newspaper. If you haven’t grasped this, I’m not sure how much you understand about Matador.
@danmbob: Matador’s pieces have never aimed at being strictly journalistic and fact-based. We do travel writing here – people sharing their subjective travel experiences and insights, and offering analysis and recommendations about living, traveling, and studying abroad. We explore all aspects of travel, offer up our perspectives, and invite others to do the same. This emphasis and structure hasn’t changed from the beginning of Matador.
↵ -
Sarah, I know perfectly well that poverty is a factor in terrorism. However, the suggestion that poverty = terrorism, without the additional factors of jihadism, globalisation, the concept of “guarding arab land”, etc, is completely unfounded.
Now, I was wrong to describe your readers as “ignorant nonentities”, which I later apolagised for (see above). But the fact that they are, as you point, experienced travellers and travel writers does not make them in the slightest qualified to talk about the structural integrity of a highly sophisticated building. This is my point.
I think that I was overly generalising and rude in my first comment, but I stick by the points I made in my second comment:
As you correctly said, Matador’s articles are slightly different from mainstream journalism, and, as I said, this format seems to be working out for you. Good for you.
But even you must admit that there are limits.
So you want to generate discussion. Fine.
But why not generate genuine discussion about things that people are actually informed about?
The articles you’ve quoted are examples in point.
I’ve read, and enjoyed, quite a few of them.
But the structural integrity of a skyscraper?
I apologise for being rude above, and I guess that maybe I don’t understand Matador’s policies. I don’t want this to turn into some sort of fight.
I just want to end this discussion by suggesting that asking anyone but a qualified architect if he thinks a tower is likely to fall cannot lead to productive discussion…↵ -
Tim,
Thank you for your courteous response.
Looking at my comment, I can see that I put things a little rudely.
All that I am saying is that:
-Matador used to have informative articles.
-Matador now seems to have adopted a policy of writing long questions, posing as articles, which are aimed not at informing, but at provoking comments.
-I think that this is a shame, but it is evidently working out for you.
-However, I don’t think that Matador have managed the transition from journalism to gossipism very well.
-I think that this could perhaps be better managed by separating your actual journalism from your “chat” – that way, people like myself don’t see what looks like an interesting article, but turns out simply to be a very long question.
-I also think that if you are going to posit discussions, that they should be on subjects that people actually know about. I think that by asking people to give their opinions on the structural integrity of a highly sophisticated skyscraper, for instance, you are inviting a lot of people to make fools out of themselves by giving their opinions about something that they do not know the first thing about.
These are my opinions. I might have got completely the wrong end of the stick, but it does seem to me that something very strange is happening to Matador, which I cannot quite figure out.
Adios.
AE↵ -
Thanks for clarifying, Adam, much appreciated. Like I wrote below, we’re publishing a very wide mix of content – it’s not a move from one style to another, and Abroad still has a ton of long, informative, researched pieces.
Personally, I love these shorter thoughts that provoke conversation. I think the biggest difference in our perspective is that you seem to feel that a lot of speculation is inappropriate, while I love it when people are asked to consider a new idea, and respond with their particular insight or opinion. The more voices the better, in my book!
↵ -
I agree with Adam. It seems to me that Matador has been running more and more opinion or question pieces rather than straight articles about travel. I personally would like to see a return to fact based articles and less opinion ones or at the very least have a section for opinion pieces where it is clearly marked as opinion.
↵ -
I hear you. We’re publishing a mix of content, informative, lengthy articles, quick thoughts, questions designed to stimulate conversation, photo essays – the beauty of this medium is that it doesn’t require just one type of article or voice – in my view, that freedom is liberating.
↵ -
I’m going to visit the Burj Al Khalifa tomorrow in Dubai so I’ll ask.
↵ -
Adam and danmbob-
Thanks for your feedback. The Matador editors are always interested in knowing what readers and members of the Matador community think.
I can see how you might be troubled the move away from “fact based articles” (though, curiously, this time last year, more people were complaining about those very kinds of articles) to pieces that are more subjective in nature; however, we’ve made a conscious decision to be more transparent in our opinions and experiences for several reasons, not the least of which is that you can be certain that what we’re writing is the closest that any of us can get to the “truth.” By that, I mean this: We’re not into publishing pieces whose writers have just done some Internet research and hope that they’re accurate. From the beginning, as Sarah alluded, Matador has been about publishing writing that reflects people’s deep knowledge and experience about a place, their feelings about what’s going on in the world, and how all of us, as a community, can be conscious of the impact we have on one another and our environment.
I think there are plenty of other publications where you can find the kind of “fact based articles” you might prefer. There are far fewer where you can find a team of writers and editors who are committed to transparency, even when in being transparent, our readers might not always agree with us.
I’d love to hear from you both about the kinds of pieces you’d like to see on Matador, though. Feel free to email me directly at julie@matadornetwork.com
↵ -
I’m not looking to pile on here, but while we’re on the subject, this “bored, completely unqualified nonentity” (!) did find this article a little off-putting. That’s why I asked Tim if there was some sort or reported fear or concern that he was building off – I was hoping there was more to the story than just random unprompted speculation about a hypothetical event that would cause the deaths of thousands of people.
The simple answer is, yes, of course the Burj could fall. Anything that can be built can be destroyed. Is it even a remotely likely possibility? Nothing in this article says so. Domestic terrorism is (as far as I’m aware) non-existent in the UAE. I haven’t heard anything concrete (ha, pardon the pun) about architectural fallibility. So all we’re left with is the biblical allusion – and, pondering that, I thought to myself, well geez, how would I feel if some writer speculated that Canada might be destroyed in fire and brimstone, a la Sodom and Gomorrah, for our sinful support of gay marriage? The answer: not very good.
I dunno, I can’t quite elucidate the full why, but coming out of the blue without any supporting links, this just gave me an icky feeling. My two cents.
↵ -
Yeah, I felt a little icky as I was writing this piece too, Eva, and I actually held off on publication until running it by the Matador Team.
My reason for asking the taboo question is that the Babel analogy is already widespread and mainstream – heck, even the Wall Street Journal jumped on board:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904574638044070108838.html
But even though people must have been thinking about the full implication of the analogy, no one was voicing the fear out loud…it’s important, I think, to get the full range of questions out in the open.
↵ -
Fair point, Tim. I guess it is a little strange for folks to invoke the Babel story without acknowledging how it ends.
↵ -
Is it irresponsible to build such a tall building due to the possibility of terrorism, natural disaster, or human error in the design? Should the world get over 9-11 and build taller? Or should we take that as a lesson not to go overboard with urban development? Whether the answer is yes or no, I think this article does a good job of provoking thought and discourse.
↵ -
Thanks, Dan.
↵ -
I’d like to just say that beyond anything else, in my opinion, the world revolves around hegemony- the struggle by those in power to keep it and the rest of the world attempting to gather some power.
That being said, anytime there is a gap between the rich and the poor, especially one as extreme as in Dubai, there is a resentment that grows.
This in itself is enough for terrorism. I think you have an over generalized idea of what terrorism is. It’s not necessary for someone to blow up a building to commit terrorism.
Also, try to avoid insulting and apologizing in the same comment.
What’s most interesting to me is that you describe others that comment on the articles as bored and unintelligent. Yet, aren’t you here, wasting copious amounts of time commenting on an article that you basically call out as pointless?
Just food for thought. – To Adam Ehad
↵ -
Hey, guys – well, I visited the Burj Al Khalifa.
It looks pretty solid to me. An Aussie guy I know works in the cement pouring business in Dubai and he said they dig deep into the sand, pour a butt load of concrete and put everything on poles – a Dutch technique apparently. So unless there’s a act of God (or terrorism) that thing ain’t going nowhere.
↵ -
As a Filipino expat living in UAE for 6 years now, i quite share the views expressed by some who commented here. There is truely a wide gap between rich and poor people here which the UAE society has long denied. Life is not fair. While the world is amazed by how Dubai has came out into an architectural haven, some expats here have smirk on their faces when talked about this whole situation. Dubai may look good on the outside but on the inside it has the numerous numbers of human rights abuses, low wage/ high wage discrepancy, racial discrimination of non-white/Asian people, etc. Behind all of these i would still like to got Dubai this weeken to see Burj Khalifa.
↵ -
I say that the building will not collapse. I think this because this building is in the middle east. The middle east(iraq and afganistan mainly) is home to terrorist. They will not betray there home. They are going for the U.S. The twin towers were a terrorist attack because they were attacking a big city with a big building. The terrorist prey and believe that god hates America. The terrorist also say something in arabic like i have done this for you god. so ya that is my idea.
↵
