I haven't seen the Petronas Towers nor the Merdeka in person. But I have seen the Burj Khalifa in person and it was a beautiful structure. Also, it's lit up at night incredibly as well. It kind of looks like an over-commercialized advertisement at night. But during the day, it's a beautiful structure. I have seen the Taipei 101 building and while I don't like the look of Taipei 101 especially, but I do appreciate Taipei 101 from a technology perspective, Taipei 101 is a very impressive building. It's super flexible structure, ultra-high-speed pressurized elevators (this is starting to become common in super tall buildings) like an airplane, and the way it was built to accommodate earthquake tremors and monsoons is remarkable. Also, its floor plate and size is significantly larger than most super tall buildings. Keep in mind, Taipei 101 is around 40% shorter (about 500 meters) than the Burj Khalifa (about 800 meters), but has 30% more square footage (Taipei 101 has around 4 million square feet when Burj Khalifa only has around 3 million). Each floor is massive on Taipei 101! And the floors don't get much smaller towards the top like they do on Burj Khalifa. It was necessary to do this to make the building more efficient from a lease/revenue perspective. For instance, elevator shafts, stairways, ancillaries, and other "core" services only takes up around 11% average of the floor space per floor (less the further up you go, a little more on the lower floors). It's not unusual for this number to be close to 20% average in buildings that are less tall. Aesthetically, I'm not a huge fan of Taipei 101, but from a practicality standpoint, a technology standpoint, a safety standpoint, and every "practical" view - Taipei 101 is one of the best super-tall structures in the world. Burj Khalifa doesn't have to deal with earthquakes nor typhoon winds, so we cannot fault the Burj Khalifa for not installing these special technologies. But we can certainly praise Taipei 101 for the engineering behind it.