Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan
chicago has built 17 major office towers so far this century. here's how they shake out on height and square footage.
|
Chicago does have a lot of fat buildings (and lower ceilings) but it seems the lot for 130 N Franklin is pretty small, not sure how it stacks up exactly compared to the others.
Quote:
that philly tower uses an egregiously tall spire to get over 1,000', and salesforce SF uses a 170' tall unoccupied rooftop video screen dealie to get there.
the occupied heights for those two towers are only 876' and 901', respectively.
chicago office tower developers have not been keen on paying for those kinds of non-returning height-increasing rooftop extravagances for roughly 3 decades now.
|
True but vanity height is pretty common nowadays (and always sort of has been).
No building outside NYC or Chicago has an occupied floor past 300 meters, only the tallest buildings of LA and Houston get extremely close.
I'd still consider Salesfroce a legit 1k footer and the two Philly towers have a roof just under 1k (974' and 996' respectively)
Just saying that an office building like Salesforce or Comcast wouldn't be totally out of the question if the stars aligned right. If it can happen in those cities it can happen in Chicago.
Chase's new headquarters in NYC show us they like to ball out lol
What would be their reasoning for not going mixed use?