Is this stat based off under construction buildings right now?

U/C and completed.

though one quick correction, it would actually only be the 5th tallest building in philly (i forgot about 2 liberty).


here's where an 844' tower would rank in various US cities (including U/C towers):

NYC ------------- 34th tallest building
chicago ------- 14th tallest building (tied with park tower)
philly ----------- 5th tallest building
los angeles ----- 4th tallest building
san francisco --- 4th tallest building
houston -------- 4th tallest building
atlanta ---------- 3rd tallest building
seattle ---------- 3rd tallest building
dallas ----------- 3rd tallest building
cleveland ------- 2nd tallest building
detroit ---------- 2nd tallest building
jersey city ------ 2nd tallest building
charlotte -------- 2nd tallest building
miami ----------- 2nd tallest building
OKC ------------- 2nd tallest building

all other US cities - 1st tallest building

Right, and Chicago is still in the top 5 or 10 globally in many skyscraper categories.

It'll be alright.


...

Great, glad we've discussed this through and through.

Now..............is Salesforce coming or not? Because without that anchor, this tower won't be happening any time soon.

I agree that it's still going to look big, and honestly, if the design weren't so cookie cutter, I'd be ok with 844'. But another blue box with some overly contrived setbacks at the top - no thanks. At the very least, build something that attempts to inspire.

The only problem with the height reduction here is that extra 50-100' would really set it apart from the surrounding office towers, but even at 844' it's a good 100'+ taller than 444 and 150.

As TUP said what I'm really interested in is if this height reduction means Salesforce is a done deal and they just want to get shovels in the ground to deliver this beast so they can fill it with thousands of high paid tech jobs. The new design is definitely more refined than the previous even if it would look a little more soaring with 5-10 extra floors, who knows though, these office towers have a habit of gaining 2-4 extra floors after they break ground if they land more leases. It could be that this tower ends up growing back to 900' if they fill up the space not taken by SF quickly.

Let's assume Salesforce is signed (I know it's not), would they break ground on this while WPE is being built or do they need to wait for it to be topped out?

Maybe it not happening could be a blessing in disguise :shrug:

good point, and given the PD says they can go up to 950', the late-game addition of some extra floors is certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

Yup, and with office floor heights a few extra floors adds height quickly. Either way, if this breaks ground it will be awesome to have both this and 110 U/C at once. Going from no 800' office towers for decades to two at once is pretty awesome...

Yea true, same with One Chicago Square.

Either way, happy days :cheers:

I didn't say it wasn't representing just fine-I just want it to continue. And my main problem is with the building in the render now looking a bit 'stubby' at the top to me. The setbacks seem too crowded together at the top.

And yes, most other US cities would kill to have it.

:cheers:

Now that it looks like we lost amazon rahm need to give salesforce the 20mil they were asking for and lets get this lease wrapped up!!

Sure, but then the city's just gonna raise your property taxes

I agree. At least try to inspire in some way here. If it won't be height, then at least do so in design. What we are being presented here is what I'd call "decent" at best.

This design/height reduction is a pretty big disappointment. I had high hopes for this development long before anything was proposed. The location at the confluence of the River along the main branch seemed to me to demand and all but predestine a very tall and architecturally significant tower. I had hoped that this might be an eventual site for a building taller than Sears. When the three tower development was first rumored it was suggested that the tallest would be about the height of Trump. Then when the initial plans were shown the height estimate of 950ft was mentioned for the tallest tower but always seemed to be a rough number that I had hoped would be eclipsed. Indeed the three variations of renderings that we have seen for the tallest tower before the most recent one SpyGuy posted seemed to depict a tower well over 1000ft when scaled in the renderings. I also thought the designs of the various versions were pretty bland but not awful. I was willing to accept them for at least being tall and offering a visual exclamation point in terms of height at the River's Y. Now the height has been reduced and the design is still bland. The tower looks too stubby and has lost its soaring grace especially when viewed from the south. This building is not a bad design and would be fine, even good in 90% of the city but not at this location. This is the last opportunity to build something significant and provide an exclamation point at the confluence of the River's three branches. This is a very significant point from all sorts of vantage points and will be viewed by thousands on architectural river cruises each year. This development is much more important to the city of Chicago than just the actual site itself. There needs to be either a very tall building here with a handsome design or a shorter but still tall building with spectacular and innovative design, preferably a very tall tower with spectacular and innovative design. Instead it appears we are getting neither. Instead we appear to be getting a glass echo deco ripoff of 30 Rock. Chicago won't get this opportunity again so I would rather wait another 10 years or however long it takes to get a better design.

For anyone really concerned about height - remember the original 755’ proposal?http://i63.tinypic.com/snp3xv.jpg

^ Not to mention the designs were pretty horrendous originally.

^^Agreed. Looks like some turd you'd see in Hudson Yards.