CHICAGO | One Chicago | 971 FT & 574 FT | 78 & 49 FLOORS - Page 15

ardecila · #**281** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 5:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgsrand

Is that the same type of retaining wall used at the Spire site?

Yes. The more relevant comparison here is Block 37, which was also a full-block excavation with several levels below grade, and is also adjacent to two subway lines.

I would actually expect to see a slurry wall at One Chicago Square, as this is cheaper than a secant pile wall.

Sheet piling is usually the cheapest way to retain an excavation in Chicago, but I'm not sure it is cost-effective to go this deep with sheet piling...

k1052 · #**282** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 12:30 PM**

IIRC JDL used a secant wall up the street for 9 Walton.

bgsrand · #**283** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 3:08 PM**

Is everyone here an engineer besides me hahaha? Every time I think have a grasp of terms and technique I realize I know nothing.

HomrQT · #**284** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 3:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgsrand

Is everyone here an engineer besides me hahaha? Every time I think have a grasp of terms and technique I realize I know nothing.

I'm in the IT field. All of this is pure hobby for me. When these guys start talking about construction I am extremely fascinated and quite often very lost. But this is a good community to get answers if you are looking to learn something.

bgsrand · #**285** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 4:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

I'm in the IT field. All of this is pure hobby for me. When these guys start talking about construction I am extremely fascinated and quite often very lost. But this is a good community to get answers if you are looking to learn something.

Absolutely, everyone is tremendously helpful when it comes to my ignorant questions. Always fascinated.

rgarri4 · #**286** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 4:45 PM**

The busy setbacks are mostly on the West facing elevation. The East facing elevation is a bit cleaner.

HomrQT · #**287** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 5:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgarri4

The busy setbacks are mostly on the West facing elevation. The East facing elevation is a bit cleaner.

I hope you don't mind, I added a few floors to the top just to see what it would look like.

I think they should definitely go taller, purely from a design aesthetic standpoint

rgarri4 · #**288** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 6:39 PM**

Agreed. Especially from that angle.

BVictor1 · #**289** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

I hope you don't mind, I added a few floors to the top just to see what it would look like.

I think they should definitely go taller, purely from a design aesthetic standpoint

I would love to see additional height, and the way I'd truly justify it would be if the developers were willing to set their tower back from State Street an additional 15' to allow for a transformation to a grander green space over the mediocrity being proposed now.

Setting the tower back would eat into the square footage of the base. Compensate floor area and financially by adding 4 additional floors of penthouses for sale.

Make the tower 1,075'...

Khantilever · #**290** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 9:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I would love to see additional height, and the way I'd truly justify it would be if the developers were willing to set their tower back from State Street an additional 15' to allow for a transformation to a grander green space over the mediocrity being proposed now.

Setting the tower back would eat into the square footage of the base. Compensate floor area and financially by adding 4 additional floors of penthouses for sale.

Make the tower 1,075'...

Aw man, I really liked the original design but after seeing this edit the original just looks stubby. Can't be unseen.

The issue with cutting back on the base for more height is that it's not a trade of square footage of equal value. The base is for amenities like the grocery store, restaurant, etc, which increase the value of all of the units in the building. And if a few additional penthouses were worth constructing, then they would have already designed for that since height doesn't really seem to be an issue with the Alderman.

rlw777 · #**291** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 10:11 PM**

As long as we're making it taller might as well continue the stepped theme like so.

gebs · #**292** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777

as long as we're making it taller might as well continue the stepped theme like so.

^^^ build that instead

HomrQT · #**293** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 10:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777

As long as we're making it taller might as well continue the stepped theme like so.

Excellent work.

BVictor1 · #**294** Posted **Oct 31, 2017, 3:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stunnies23

Go to Aldermanhopkins.com/onechicagosquare

There you can voice your support for the project. I told him to approve as presented tonight, as quickly as possible.

Half of the comments were from NIMBYS concerned about parking, traffic, and views.
The other half were generally supportive of the project. We can win this battle for sure!

http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/688fe2...fd73bc59c9.pdf

HomrQT · #**295** Posted **Oct 31, 2017, 3:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/688fe2...fd73bc59c9.pdf

Cool presentation. I like how they made their own little skyscraperpage style diagram.

VKChaz · #**296** Posted **Oct 31, 2017, 5:19 AM**

Appear to be resident windows on the property line over the one-story restaurant that will remain. Is that expected? Does the new development own air rights or how would that work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

There's no square tough

Or any public space for that matter.

McCormick Square doesn't have much of a square either. That seems to be a thing now - squareless squares.

10023 · #**297** Posted **Nov 1, 2017, 10:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

There's no square tough

Or any public space for that matter.

It's too bad that stupid little restaurant wouldn't sell. They could push the main tower back to the west side of the block, and actually build a square in the corner facing Holy Name Cathedral. Would be a dramatic space with the church on one side and a huge tower on the other.

Now the real question... when this is U/C, will it go in the Supertall forum or the Highrise forum at 998ft?

Kumdogmillionaire · #**298** Posted **Nov 1, 2017, 6:58 PM**

It's a supertall.... so supertall, there's no "real question". That being said the other tower will be in the highrise thread obviously

HomrQT · #**299** Posted **Nov 1, 2017, 7:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

Now the real question... when this is U/C, will it go in the Supertall forum or the Highrise forum at 998ft?

For buildings above a height of 300 m (984 ft), the term "supertall" can be used, while skyscrapers reaching beyond 600 m (1,969 ft) are classified as "megatall".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper

Investing In Chicago · #**300** Posted **Nov 1, 2017, 7:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

Now the real question... when this is U/C, will it go in the Supertall forum or the Highrise forum at 998ft?

Isn't the generally accepted term (at least on this site) for supertall 300M? This building is above that threshold.