Quote:
|
Quote:
related needs to be HEAVILY controlled in the future in chicago. |
Quote:
The Spire Hole on the other hand is stopped at the best possible spot, after completion of cassions and bathtub slurry wall, but before any superstructure or even the mat is built. They can simply figure out how to set the building on the existing foundations and build whatever they want from there. I would imagine we won't see anything quite as tall and slender as the Sprire, but I bet we will see every last SF and unit entitled under that plan (and it was quite a lot of space, 1200 units and 3,000,000 SF). It will be a big building regardless of the actual aesthetics. |
Just be taller than the Sears Tower. That's all I ask for.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I question what market this would cater to? Are we speculating units in the 600k - 4 million range or something insane like 10+ million? I think the lower range would be ideal for buying if it is indeed a residential. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I agree it should be a tall and prominent tower, but why does being taller than Sears matter? |
Sorry if this is already well known, but I seem to remember Calatrava was paid something like $11 million for the design and engineering work for the Spire at this site.
Were the design rights and working plans for that design transferred to Related in the bankruptcy proceedings? I doubt it would happen, but if Related owns the Calatrava design, could they simply continue with it? Or is that somehow ruled out? After all, the foundation work in the ground right now is perfect for the 2008 version Spire, and the superstar architect already got paid. Why not use it? |
I think Calatrava did finally get paid via the courts, but I am not sure. I think Related will do their own cheaper, value engineered design, not the Spire wich was going to be a very costly building to make.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I know we don't have quite the demand, land values, or foreign investment of some of those place but damn, we built the Sears Tower, JHC, and Aon in 5 years of each other. Its fine to want to strive to make another huge mark for our city. Mainly because just 10 years ago we did strive for that mark in this exact location. |
Quote:
|
^ I just don't think Chicago needs to be the tallest any more.
This mentality is like some teenager who wants to buy a muscle car to be faster than everyone else, meanwhile the mature people driving much nicer cars are laughing at all the immaturity. Those are the needs of a different city. Chicago isn't that city any more, IMO. The focus now should be on a great urban environment, good design, and of course a rock solid economy. So to keep this post on topic, setting some kind of milestone (dude this better be taller than the Sears Tower) seems unbecoming and, frankly, juvenile to me. |
Quote:
Kelleher/Shelbourne faced this problem too, which is why he had Calatrava design the unit interiors and even the door handles - he had to create enough prestige and design star power to outweigh the major drawbacks of the condo layouts. Related could fix this by switching to a rectangular floorplate, but this would involve some massive and very expensive load transfer, either with a HUGE mat/grade beams or some structural acrobatics above ground. Will be interesting to see how they resolve this - either they go the Shelbourne route and sink money into world-class design that works around the problems of the foundation, or they spend that same money on structure to switch the configuration to a rectangle. Or maybe Chinese buyers flood into Chicago looking to park their money, and none of this will matter... :shrug: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's not hard to understand why people get more excited over a 2000 ft tall building vs a 900 ft tall building. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 2:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.