HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 7:28 AM
TallBob TallBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,084
Why 2 towers anyway? How about ONE 1100 footer and know the thing will probably be 40% average vacancy for 3-4 years? The extra cost of construction (time wasted for a future development that may not happen at all) and digging another Hole should end up costing about the same as a single much taller building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 6:19 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by TallBob View Post
Why 2 towers anyway? How about ONE 1100 footer and know the thing will probably be 40% average vacancy for 3-4 years? The extra cost of construction (time wasted for a future development that may not happen at all) and digging another Hole should end up costing about the same as a single much taller building.

"about the same" you say.................... no chance
__________________
Reject Biden
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 6:46 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 4,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by TallBob View Post
Why 2 towers anyway? How about ONE 1100 footer and know the thing will probably be 40% average vacancy for 3-4 years? The extra cost of construction (time wasted for a future development that may not happen at all) and digging another Hole should end up costing about the same as a single much taller building.
Construction and engineering costs skyrocket after like 1000' or something. Obviously there are a lot of factors at play but what makes you say it'd be "about the same"?
__________________
Dump Trump 2020
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 7:59 PM
pianowizard pianowizard is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Michigan, US
Posts: 503
^ That's what I've heard as well, and is the reason why so many 700-to-900 footers are being proposed and constructed: apparently that's the sweet spot in terms of benefit-cost ratio. For skyscraper fans this can be disappointing, since some of the 900+ footers would be supertalls if they were just a tad taller, but most developers don't care about that, as mentioned earlier in this thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2020, 5:31 AM
TallBob TallBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,084
I suppose some of know more about construction costs than myself. Question: What would the cost be of the time digging, drilling, foundation creation, ect., and then getting to grade and then the first 8-10 floors for a 50-60 story office building?
I've heard some of these arguments for years....Just currious I guess.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2020, 5:57 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,013
Why not a 5,000' office tower where the loss factor is 54%?
__________________
Got suspended for using the term "Dingbat", no point in participating when that's your excuse for censorship.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2020, 2:38 PM
skysoar skysoar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by pianowizard View Post
^ That's what I've heard as well, and is the reason why so many 700-to-900 footers are being proposed and constructed: apparently that's the sweet spot in terms of benefit-cost ratio. For skyscraper fans this can be disappointing, since some of the 900+ footers would be supertalls if they were just a tad taller, but most developers don't care about that, as mentioned earlier in this thread.
Very interesting, but does the cost become prohibitive over 1000 feet if you add a crown or something of that type. You may be right though about benefit-cost ratio, maybe that is the reason some newly built or proposed New York skyscrapers are in the 50 to 60 story range but with crowns or antennas list over 1000 feet. Even so if 301 and 325 Wacker Drive twin towers had sizeable crowns atop them both, that would be awesome...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2020, 4:39 PM
rgarri4's Avatar
rgarri4 rgarri4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 642
From my 3D model of Chicago.









Bonus shots of the unbuilt original proposal.






__________________
Renderings, Animations, VR
https://vizfire.net/
My 3d model of Chicago:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...wpost&t=230331
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2020, 5:17 PM
pianowizard pianowizard is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Michigan, US
Posts: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by skysoar View Post
Even so if 301 and 325 Wacker Drive twin towers had sizeable crowns atop them both, that would be awesome...
For you and me it might seem like a no-brainer to spend another, say, $500k to add some vanity height, but most penny-pinching developers would disagree.

Luckily a few developers do care for vanity height and bragging rights. Look at Chicago's 6th and 7th tallest buildings, Franklin Center and 2 Prudential Plaza. Their roofs are only around 900 ft, probably to keep the benefit-cost ratio reasonable, but both have spires that go just high enough to reach supertall status.

At only 775', 301 & 321 S Wacker Drive are too far below the 984' mark to ever become supertalls -- they would look rather silly with 210' spires -- although it's still nice that they will be the tallest identical twin buildings in North America, assuming their heights aren't cut. NOTE: The "twins" at Harbour Plaza in Toronto are not identical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rgarri4 View Post
From my 3D model of Chicago.
Being right next to Sears/Willis, these "tallest identical twin buildings in North America" look like midgets. *SIGH*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2020, 5:41 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 4,570
Nice work rgarri, although I must say 311 South Wacker triplets looks a bit odd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianowizard View Post
For you and me it might seem like a no-brainer to spend another, say, $500k to add some vanity height, but most penny-pinching developers would disagree.

Luckily a few developers do care for vanity height and bragging rights. Look at Chicago's 6th and 7th tallest buildings, Franklin Center and 2 Prudential Plaza. Their roofs are only around 900 ft, probably to keep the benefit-cost ratio reasonable, but both have spires that go just high enough to reach supertall status.

At only 775', 301 & 321 S Wacker Drive are too far below the 984' mark to ever become supertalls -- they would look rather silly with 210' spires -- although it's still nice that they will be the tallest identical twin buildings in North America, assuming their heights aren't cut. NOTE: The "twins" at Harbour Plaza in Toronto are not identical.
Not sure reaching supertall status was intentional for those buildings, I don't think most developers care about such an arbitrary number or even know it exists.

Spires are kinda lame unless they really fit the design, I'd rather just have two 775' buildings with cool roof gardens.

Quote:
Being right next to Sears/Willis, these "tallest identical twin buildings in North America" look like midgets. *SIGH*
Well yea, Sears is huge
__________________
Dump Trump 2020
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2020, 5:55 PM
Chi-Sky21 Chi-Sky21 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 994
New proposal looks way better than 3 of 311 S Wackers. That just looks weird. Good work as always rgarri
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2020, 10:11 PM
Barrelfish Barrelfish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21 View Post
New proposal looks way better than 3 of 311 S Wackers. That just looks weird. Good work as always rgarri
I agree with all parts of this
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2020, 3:26 AM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,646
yeah how much office space does white castle really need
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2020, 4:04 AM
TallBob TallBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,084
^^lol! Lots of "Sliders"!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2020, 2:51 PM
bhawk66 bhawk66 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 343
That's not at all what the original plan was. Pure artist embellishment. But thanks for playing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 5:51 AM
TallBob TallBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,084
At any rate, I'd like to see something significant go up on that site before I croak!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2020, 3:12 AM
Skyy's Avatar
Skyy Skyy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 121
Ugh if only they had built the other two, would have been a perfect postmodern paradise
__________________
Earth, Wind, Fire, Taller
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2020, 3:34 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 22,808
^ blech

One 311 s wacker is too much as it is.

Perhaps my least favorite major tower in the skyline.
__________________
If a Pizza is baked in a forest, and no one is around to eat it, is it still delicious?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2020, 5:58 AM
rgarri4's Avatar
rgarri4 rgarri4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhawk66 View Post
That's not at all what the original plan was. Pure artist embellishment. But thanks for playing.
Go back a page. I doubt the developer would use a non serious artist embellishment to advertise what they were planning.
__________________
Renderings, Animations, VR
https://vizfire.net/
My 3d model of Chicago:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...wpost&t=230331
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2020, 1:34 AM
Little_T Little_T is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 12
311 S Wacker

Three 311 S Wacker's look too much like a housing project. Thanks for the modeling but one is plenty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:00 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.