SkyscraperPage Forum
Viewing Page 33 of 132
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   CHICAGO | NEMA Chicago | 896 FT | 81 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=218570)

BVictor1 Feb 15, 2017 1:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 7712327)
What are slosh damper containers usually made of? Would welding pieces of metal together to create the container not make it sealed against leaks? Also what are your thoughts on the tuned mass damper for Taipei 101?
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/r...wind.html?_r=0

BVictor1 Feb 15, 2017 7:16 AM
1200 S INDIANA AVE
Description: INSTALL FREE STANDING POTAIN MD 485B TOWER CRANE

Application Review Summary
Name Completed Date Status
FINAL DATA REVIEW 2017-02-01 APPROVED
STRUCTURAL REVIEW 2017-01-31 APPROVED
PRELIMINARY INTAKE REVIEW 2016-12-27 APPROVED

The owners of this address received a permit on Wednesday, February 1, 2017

SamInTheLoop Feb 15, 2017 2:40 PM
Major Equity Source is from China - Ping An Insurance
 
Industry newsletter Real Estate Alert revealed yesterday that the majority of the project's equity is being funded by China insurer Ping An.

Total project cost is estimated right around where I thought it would end up - $350 mil. or so.

Article cited a unit count of around 900. That could be a mistake. Or, it also wouldn't surprise me if it's been increased somewhat with smaller avg unit sizes.....anyone here have up-to-date intel on that?

BVictor1 Feb 15, 2017 2:52 PM
^The unit count hasn't changed.

skyscraper Feb 15, 2017 4:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS! (Post 7712326)
I really hope the second tower is not built as designed. It looks like the height difference between 1GP and the second tower is 50ft at the most. That would be a disappointment.
It won't be. That is an old rendering. I did dozens of different options and iterations. I was laid off before any final decisions were made, so I have no idea what the design will be (and I don't think they know yet) but you can rest assured it won't look exactly like the old rendering. Whether it will be better or worse remains to be seen. But some of the options were as tall as 950 feet.
the overall plan had been, and this could have changed since I worked on it, to have 100 condo units at the top and about 650 rentals on the lower floors. I had heard that they had done away with some amenity floors to raise the efficiency of the building but nothing is etched in stone yet AFAIK.

skyscraper Feb 15, 2017 6:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper (Post 7712992)
It won't be. That is an old rendering. I did at dozens of different options and iterations. I was laid off before any final decisions were made, so I have no idea what the design will be (and I don't think they know yet) but you can rest assured it won't look exactly like the old rendering. Whether it will be better or worse remains to be seen. But some of the options were as tall as 950 feet.
the overall plan had been, and this could have changed since I worked on it, was to have 100 condo units at the top and about 650 rentals on the lower floors. I had heard that they had done away with some amenity floors to raise the efficiency of the building but nothing is etched in stone yet AFAIK.
Those unit counts were for phase 2, btw. The last I heard, Phase 1 counts were 792 rentals, but if that's up to 900 now then Phase 2 must be getting pared down because there is a limit of how many residential units they're allowed there by zoning.

Ike Beaard Feb 15, 2017 7:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper (Post 7712992)
It won't be. That is an old rendering. I did dozens of different options and iterations. I was laid off before any final decisions were made, so I have no idea what the design will be (and I don't think they know yet) but you can rest assured it won't look exactly like the old rendering. Whether it will be better or worse remains to be seen. But some of the options were as tall as 950 feet.
the overall plan had been, and this could have changed since I worked on it, to have 100 condo units at the top and about 650 rentals on the lower floors. I had heard that they had done away with some amenity floors to raise the efficiency of the building but nothing is etched in stone yet AFAIK.
very interesting.

Can you lend any info/ideas/teases to some of the other design and/or massing elements that might be in play?

If GP 1 is a nod to Sears, would GP 2 be a nod to anything?

skyscraper Feb 15, 2017 8:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Beaard (Post 7713342)
very interesting.

Can you lend any info/ideas/teases to some of the other design and/or massing elements that might be in play?

If GP 1 is a nod to Sears, would GP 2 be a nod to anything?
they were both going to be a "nod" to sears (yechhh, I hate that concept but it wasn't my call.) the massings would have been similar; I always described them as conjoined fraternal twins. "my" tower would have been taller and the setbacks would have happened at different levels and in different locations, but it was just a variation on the same theme.

Domer2019 Feb 15, 2017 8:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper (Post 7712992)
But some of the options were as tall as 950 feet.
So that just reinforces the likelihood of the towers being "nearly" identical in height.

skyscraper Feb 15, 2017 8:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domer2019 (Post 7713364)
So that just reinforces the likelihood of the towers being "nearly" identical in height.
I guess that depends on your definition; at the time they were around 75-80 feet apart, which is almost 10% of the height so to me not really "nearly identical."

UPChicago Feb 15, 2017 10:01 PM
I'm going to diverge from the group think for a moment and state that I would love for the developer to stick with the fraternal twin scheme.

Ike Beaard Feb 15, 2017 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UPChicago (Post 7713504)
I'm going to diverge from the group think for a moment and state that I would love for the developer to stick with the fraternal twin scheme.
I like the fraternal twin theme, but i just want it to be about 100' taller.


Looking at the skyline from Grant Park:

I think that the Museum park towers, and the grant park towers on the left would provide a nice profile.

Combined with Essex and 1000M on the right.

both sides then kind of would be starting to bring the skyline up to a point.
IMO they should burn the Jewel at Wabash/Roosevelt to the ground and put up a 1500' + tower there.

Would make for an awesome 4th "peak" in the skyline.

skyscraper Feb 15, 2017 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Beaard (Post 7713517)
I like the fraternal twin theme, but i just want it to be about 100' taller.
Hard to do. Zoning in that area requires that the ceiling in the highest occupied unit not exceed 900 feet. You can have mechanical and utility spaces above that, but not occupied spaces. We had planned 2-3 levels of mechanical above the last residential floor, but nothing that would get us to 1000'.

HomrQT Feb 16, 2017 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7712336)
Sorry I didn't see that answer any of my questions?

LouisVanDerWright Feb 16, 2017 1:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UPChicago (Post 7713504)
I'm going to diverge from the group think for a moment and state that I would love for the developer to stick with the fraternal twin scheme.
I agree, I very much like the original concept. Besides, how often do you see two very tall buildings that are very similar, but not exact twins? It's kind of a different concept. I know there's certainly nothing like it in Chicago. Hell, there are virtually no twins in Chicago except for CME and Marina City. It's almost an Illinois Center like scheme, just on steroids.

KWILLSKYLINE Feb 16, 2017 1:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 7713724)
I agree, I very much like the original concept. Besides, how often do you see two very tall buildings that are very similar, but not exact twins? It's kind of a different concept. I know there's certainly nothing like it in Chicago. Hell, there are virtually no twins in Chicago except for CME and Marina City. It's almost an Illinois Center like scheme, just on steroids.
I agree as well. They can be our Warner Towers, just much thinner, but still cornering our park.

BVictor1 Feb 16, 2017 5:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 7713651)
Sorry I didn't see that answer any of my questions?
Guess you'll have to research it yourself then :shrug:

HomrQT Feb 16, 2017 8:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7713950)
Guess you'll have to research it yourself then :shrug:
Well I guess that's it, nobody ask anymore questions from the experts here, just go do the research yourself. Why would you even respond to my comment with a link that didn't answer any of the questions I asked in the first place? :haha::haha:

JK47 Feb 16, 2017 9:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 7712327)
What are slosh damper containers usually made of? Would welding pieces of metal together to create the container not make it sealed against leaks? Also what are your thoughts on the tuned mass damper for Taipei 101?

According to the link the tank would likely be made of concrete. The simple fact though is that you're dealing with water and cost. Concrete is cheap whereas constructing a tank with copper or stainless steel is not and water will eventually corrode both of those alternatives. Everything that holds water will, given sufficient time, leak.

Lastly, a tuned mass damper is a mechanical damper which is essentially what was described as an alternative (a mechanism for absorbing shock mechanically).

HomrQT Feb 16, 2017 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JK47 (Post 7714726)
According to the link the tank would likely be made of concrete. The simple fact though is that you're dealing with water and cost. Concrete is cheap whereas constructing a tank with copper or stainless steel is not and water will eventually corrode both of those alternatives. Everything that holds water will, given sufficient time, leak.

Lastly, a tuned mass damper is a mechanical damper which is essentially what was described as an alternative (a mechanism for absorbing shock mechanically).
Thanks. I like the concept that the engineers of Tapei 101 implemented, which takes away the issues with dealing with water and provides a single point of maintenance over time if that damper needs to be checked or repaired.

I can't help but let my mind wander with the slosh damper, like a layer of aluminum creating a barrier with the concrete which is relatively cheap and fairly resistant against corrosion. In time if there's any issue with the aluminum barrier, drain the tank, install a new barrier and refill the tank. Admittedly a single physical damper that wouldn't need attention for a very long time sounds more desirable even if the upfront cost is more.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:52 PM.
Viewing Page 33 of 132
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.