Why would it be? The Spire site is excellently located, with river and lake views, next to the future DuSable park, not to mention a dedicated off ramp from southbound LSD. It would be stupid to not put condos/apartments on that site. Units located there would without a doubt command a price premium.

It probably wont be 2000 ft, but I don't see anything shorter than 700/800 feet getting built there. It's too prime a site.

Anything less than a 1000 ft wouldn't even be worth building, unless it has a really unique design.

Anyone have an idea why excavators are moving dirt on DuSable park?

perhaps soil remediation?

here's curbed article from back in july:

source: https://chicago.curbed.com/2017/7/20...-clean-up-plan

Yep, gotta get that thorium out of there before we can do anything else with the park

Cross post from Kolchak
https://s7.postimg.org/627h4xld7/VISTA_3.jpg

Hate to bump this thread, but does anyone know why there’s an excavator on site? You’d think Disable Park activity would be confined to Dusable Park...

It looks like it is for the work in the park on the other side of LSD - bike path ? They were driving in 85' friction piles today.

I don't think anything happens at the Spire site for a while, unfortunately. Between the proposed development just south of here, Vista, Wolf Point East, and One Chicago Sq., I can't see this project gaining the momentum it needs to justify another 1000 ft. tower, let alone a 2,000 ft. one. Save it for another day and make sure it's something iconic.

It was there a month ago.

the supertall at the east end of LSE probably gets built first and that's the same market, almost literally

Won't be a supertall last time I checked its height was 875 feet.

http://www.surfacemag.com/articles/s...op-their-egos/

Stephen M. Ross to Architects: Drop Your Egos

November 14, 2017

Well, "the fall" is only around for another month. It's been 3 years since they got control of the site, so the wait better be worth it.

Heard from a source in the industry that new plans are in the works. Taking it with speculation, but all the other news I have heard has been spot on (especially regarding One Chicago Square I also got the heads up on).

On a personal note, not looking for Hudson Yards here, but it would be lovely to have a supertall on that site. Not quite 2,000ft tall, but about Trump's height would look great imo.

doesnt need to be 2000ft but would want something over 1500 ft..perhaps the cities tallest atlest...i know going for 2000ft is a bit much

A skyscraper can be tall 2.000 ft thanks to a spire. There is not need to reach that height with the roof.;)

Oh my gosh you guys, get over yourselves. Let's just wait and see, because any mental foreplay you do amounts to nothing. I'll consider things a success if it breaks 1200, because I'm not sure Related has set their sights on anything more than what figures give them the best business while still being worthy of the site and Rahm's judgement, subjective as that is.

I'm holding Related to when they said they would develop something "Architecturally significant" for this site. Going to or passing 2000ft would be architecturally significant for the Western Hemisphere.

https://chicago.curbed.com/2014/11/4...ficant-chicago

I get what you're saying, but it's a shallow promise on many levels.

Architectural significance =/= height significance. Design and engineering are 90% of that discussion, especially at a time when 2000 ft is not a watershed moment. Not saying a 2000'er in NA wouldn't be significant, just that there are a lot of ways to take that statement. I'm sure many Chicagoans have or will come to find 150 N Riverside significant simply because of its cantilevers.

Really, when it comes down to it, Related is not going to tack on 500-1000 extra feet if it just results in a net loss in the 10s/100s of millions on their margins. If they want 1400 feet and a unique design like that of the recent stilt concept for the site or something like Vista (if Vista wasn't already a thing) rather than 2000, you can't really say that they're hypocrites. Maybe they just have a different mindset on the architectural significance and fit for the site. Rest assured, I think 1400 would obviously still "fit" the site's prominence. Perhaps we should be more irked that Magellan didn't try to allocate more FAR/density to Site I on the other side of the river.

Just curious, are you confident a 2000ft tower would not do well financially at that location, or is it more of a "what if" on your part?