Just please add a spire or something we are so close to the supertall mark.

Wouldn't even look that bad if it had a spire on the south point of it and partially on side of building (like wilshire grand)

Because that is what really matters here.

If anything Chicago should be above that practice considering it was because of spires that Sears lost it's title to Petronas Towers. So no, don't add a spire. In fact, fuck spires. They are pointless and should not count towards the height of a building. Sears Tower observatory is 99 feet higher than the 1WTC observatory, yet it's "officially" 326 feet shorter than 1WTC. Hah. Fuck spires.

2020? That's ambitious.

Yea whats the deal with that I thought they only counted towards height in certain circumstances?

(I'm too lazy to edit my above post so I'll add it here)
tldr it wouldn't look bad with a spire, but personally I really could care less if its a supertall or not

There's always a possibility that 950' is the highest occupied floor, and that a mechanical parapet could take this thing even higher. If I'm not mistaken I read that way back on this thread somewhere.

It would be nice to have 3 (or 4 actually if the Spire site comes around) supertalls going up in the city. :cheers:

I would have to agree with you, When ever someone ask me what the tallest building is in the U.S i tell them 1WTC, but then i explain to them why. But if there is anyway this tower can get to the "supertall" mark then that would be great. But yea Spires are soooo not Chicago. #FuckSpires2018

Spires should count. As well as antennas. If something is physically there and a helicopter has to avoid it so it doesn't hit it, then it should count.

But then our skyscraper lists should include communication towers and the like. So many of these new "supertalls" are less than 75% occupiable.

If it can contain people why not count it? Some buildings hold more than others.

It's a dangerous path, my friend.

The CTBUH says a "building" is one with at least 50% occupiable height. We're already down to 60% with some buildings. At some point we're going to have a crazy tall structure below 50% and CTBUH is again going to have to make a call like they did with the WTC spire issue.

my main complaint is it is very wide in that render looking from the west. Thinner and taller would be better

This would be a better rule. Antennas and Spires should count but they must be attached to a tower at least 300% taller then the actual antenna/spire.

I'm 5' 9". If I spike my hair up into a mohawk am I now 6' 2"?

Lets focus on getting OCS off the ground and getting to two concurrent supertalls uc. That alone would be one hell of a feat. First time since the early 1970's! (Sears & Aon)


Spires that are purely architectural count towards the height of a building, whereas communications antenna do not count. So under this paradigm, the spire atop Trump Tower and Franklin Center count, whereas the antennas atop the Hancock or Sears do not since they broadcast TV/radio.

I thought it was the other way around. The more you know :cheers:

How often does this happen?

If helicopters have to avoid it...

I am still taking that 950ft figure with a grain of salt. It is probably the height to the floor slab of the highest occupied floor or something. If you look at the rendering from the south it looks like the first setback on WPS is at the same height as the top of WPE. This would make sense to contextualize the two designs and visually tie them together. If that is indeed the case that setback would be around 680ft. Above that setback I count the equivalent of 29 stories including the crown. Assuming 12ft/story, which seems reasonable for a luxury condo or office building, that would add 348' to 680' for a total height of 1,028ft.

I like the design of this building even if it is nothing earth shattering. However, I do find the design of this along with its sibling WPE to be too similar to One Chicago Square and its sibling. The height of the taller and shorter towers in the two project are very close. The massing, style, and deco echo influences are all very similar. For me they are too similar. I like both proposals on their own but together they seem to be aping each other too much.

The sad thing is that the tower slated for one of the most visually prominent sites in the city is the inferior design.

Chicago used to be all about spires and antennas. The city has since built a lot of quality skyscrapers, but much of that history has been hidden away by characterless monoliths (which this tower seems to want to join the list of). I don't see the harm in another spire, especially after it was teased a few years back. It might make looking up at this glass slab more captivating.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3866/...b2fedf2f_b.jpg
Vintage Found Photo - Chicago Skyline by Mark Susina, on Flickr

put a stick on it!

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4WFo...ill02_dusk.jpg

The roughly 6-story tan building to the right of lower center is the site of One Bennett Park

Wasn't the tower from I, Robot in roughly this spot? A spire-like building would work nicely.

http://www.dylancolestudio.com/Matte.../ir5_70_MP.jpg

IDGAF how tall it is, this design is lit now. Just goes to show much improvement several years of gradual refinement can bring. I love the broadside of the building, a Spire would be totally inappropriate and ruin that entire elevation. Also, with the insane n/s girth of this building every last sliver of Jarta's view will be stamped out.

I couldn't agree more!
The New York Times Tower is classed as a Supertall, and considered taller than First Canadian Place.

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=80059617

Wonder if that guy still lurks SSP. I hope he is as livid as I imagine him to be, lol

haha, esp., given your screen name.

WPS all day.

What page exactly? WPS appears more refined in just about every way.

Lit indeed.

A new drawing of this popped up on the Chicago diagram, and it appears to place it around 1,100 feet.

Source / link?!?! :cheers:

Mechanical penthouse/screening could nudge the 950' height figure (that's ALWAYS been bandied about for this tower) just over the 1,000' threshold, but 1,100' is pretty unlikely, unless there's a specific height increase or they tack on a spire of some sort.

https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?

Right here on SkyscraperPage.

Artistic license, there's no facts to back that up.

I hope this happens (over the 1,000 foot mark, or at least over 300 meters.) Don't they almost always release these initial figures for top of the highest occupied floor?

I disagree with you on that. Wolf Point South has odd proportions to me.

OCS will be finished before WPS is even started so why the argument?

Both haven't even started yet, so I find it comical that you have both timelines drawn up to perfection

Speculation and giving opinions about future projects is what goes on around here...

Given his username this was a prime opportunity for a "Donnie, you're out of your element!"

I just noticed that in the diagram of this website it says this tower is 1100 ft tall. Is that a mistake or what? need information please!

Artistic license, I wouldn't pay attention to that too much.

Height of top floor will be 950 ft per released elevation, and with the crown and mechanical the structural height should (hopefully) crest about 1000 ft.

Will it be considered a supertall if the crown is about 984 ft? Sorry I'm a skyscraper rookie still

At 984' it will measure out at 300 meters, so internationally yes it would be considered a supertall as long as a portion of the tower crosses that threshold and is not a broadcast antenna.

In the US though, it's typically not considered a supertall unless it is 1000 ft or more. That's only a difference of 16 ft (4.9 m), so it really isn't that big of a deal but I suppose it depends who you talk to.

I think we can all agree that 984 ft is a supertall it's just more logical.

Looks like the rumors were true. According to Crains (Danny Ecker), Salesforce is looking to expand and could bring up to 5,000 jobs to Chicago. Fantastic news!

Salesforce eyes big Chicago office expansion
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/comme...fice-expansion

And anchor Wolf Point South...damn.

Holy shit! Looks like those rumors were spot on! :cheers:

Salesforce eyes big Chicago office expansion

https://crain-platform-ccb-prod.s3.a...lesforce_0.png

The software giant is looking to bring up to 5,000 new jobs to Chicago and could anchor a prominent new riverfront skyscraper at Wolf Point, but a few thorny issues need to be resolved to finalize the deal.

That would be more than three times the size of its current Chicago office at 111 W. Illinois St., where it houses most of its roughly 1,000 Chicago employees.... The tower would still require city approval for Hines to begin work, but it could be delivered close to the 2023 expiration of Salesforce's current 117,000 square foot lease on Illinois, sources said.


http://www.chicagobusiness.com/comme...fice-expansion

Nice! Amazing news if it all follows through. That's pretty huge... 5,000 workers.

Sounds like a Salesforce thing to do

What does Saleforce mean by video wall?