CHICAGO | One Chicago | 971 FT & 574 FT | 78 & 49 FLOORS - Page 14

10023 · #**261** Posted **Oct 25, 2017, 11:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lurker

How so? 3 were built in the late 60s/early 70s,
2 were built in the late80s/early 90s. Seeing as Trump is currently the only other supertall in Chicago, last cycle was the only one which saw one supertall. Thats hardly a pattern.

I'll be happy either way. In that location it would have a huge impact regardless, and the base would do wonders for the area

Well, Vista is going to be a supertall.

I thought One Bennett Park and One Grant Park were nearly there as well, but are both below 900 feet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Best Forumer

What this town needs is something closer to a 2000 footer...

Thompson Center.

Hawkeyes10 · #**262** Posted **Oct 25, 2017, 11:18 PM**

As of right now, CTBUH has the architectural height at 304.2m / 998ft according to their website.

r18tdi · #**263** Posted **Oct 26, 2017, 3:14 PM**

Anyone up to adding a diagram to the Chicago page?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

I love that the parking is underground. Is it all underground?

I believe there is retail parking above the giant second floor grocery store. But is wrapped behind residential units and offices.

EDIT: Hopkins posted the entire presentation! Link

Koodoo25 · #**264** Posted **Oct 26, 2017, 9:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Anyone up to adding a diagram to the Chicago page?

I'm on it, just waiting for the building to be added to the database (and possibly also clarification on the height...?)

Chicago Shawn · #**265** Posted **Oct 26, 2017, 11:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

someone needs to build a 999'-11 15/16" tower just to troll us sksycraper nerds.

"but, but, but..... it's not a supertall..... why god.... why?????????"

How about 998'?

Top of screen wall stands in at 998 currently, though strong emphasis on that figure being subject to change.

The PD envelope currently being sought (as presently drafted, also subject to change) provides for the top of structure to reach as high as 1011 ft.

I feel pretty confident this will be an official supertall at 300m+/984ft+, we shall see if it hits the four digit threshold in feet as well in due time.

Also, we will be in for quite a sight as construction begins. The ENTIRE site will be excavated down three stories from grade level. That's a lot of dirt to move!

Bonsai Tree · #**266** Posted **Oct 26, 2017, 11:53 PM**

I think it's genius if they make the building below 1,000 ft. It's the same principle as $4.95/.99 instead of $5.00. Natural human tendency makes you see the 4 first, so it seems cheaper than it really is. Same concept for skyscrapers. To a NIMBY, 998 ft seems a lot smaller than 1,011, simply because one is 3 digits and the other is 4 (and one has a 9 instead of a 10). Therefore, this allows the developer to retain hight, while also making the NIMBY's less scared.

Mr Saturn64 · #**267** Posted **Oct 27, 2017, 1:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

I think it's genius if they make the building below 1,000 ft. It's the same principle as $4.95/.99 instead of $5.00. Natural human tendency makes you see the 4 first, so it seems cheaper than it really is. Same concept for skyscrapers. To a NIMBY, 998 ft seems a lot smaller than 1,011, simply because one is 3 digits and the other is 4 (and one has a 9 instead of a 10). Therefore, this allows the developer to retain hight, while also making the NIMBY's less scared.

But I like the thought of buildings being built despite scared NIMBYs...

the urban politician · #**268** Posted **Oct 27, 2017, 1:31 AM**

^ NIMBYs aren't going to nitpick the numbers.

They will focus on traffic, parking, and an occasional goofball will spend a lot of time obsessing over what shadows it will cast

the urban politician · #**269** Posted **Oct 27, 2017, 1:33 AM**

Regarding all the excavation, that will be quite a job, being that they will be digging right above a subway station.

ardecila · #**270** Posted **Oct 27, 2017, 1:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Regarding all the excavation, that will be quite a job, being that they will be digging right above a subway station.

Adjacent to a subway station. CTA's facilities don't extend below the Holy Name lot. This won't be any more complicated than other towers next to a subway station. They just need a good retaining wall along State Street and part of Chicago.

We might see a secant pile wall being constructed around the perimeter before digging starts...

Steely Dan · #**271** Posted **Oct 27, 2017, 3:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

How about 998'?

Top of screen wall stands in at 998 currently, though strong emphasis on that figure being subject to change.

Nice.

Thanks for the height confirmation as it currently stands.

HomrQT · #**272** Posted **Oct 27, 2017, 3:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lurker

How so? 3 were built in the late 60s/early 70s,
2 were built in the late80s/early 90s. Seeing as Trump is currently the only other supertall in Chicago, last cycle was the only one which saw one supertall. Thats hardly a pattern.

I'll be happy either way. In that location it would have a huge impact regardless, and the base would do wonders for the area

To play devil's advocate.. 3,2,1 is a pattern...

bgsrand · #**273** Posted **Oct 27, 2017, 3:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Adjacent to a subway station. CTA's facilities don't extend below the Holy Name lot. This won't be any more complicated than other towers next to a subway station. They just need a good retaining wall along State Street and part of Chicago.

We might see a secant pile wall being constructed around the perimeter before digging starts...

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

The Lurker · #**274** Posted **Oct 27, 2017, 9:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

To play devil's advocate.. 3,2,1 is a pattern...

Hey, dont say that! What does that mean for Vista?! Waterview 2.0? Best not jinx it lest you be chased by a mob of angry forumers with pitchforks

rgarri4 · #**275** Posted **Oct 29, 2017, 12:27 PM**

I added some materials to my massing model.

10023 · #**276** Posted **Oct 29, 2017, 2:00 PM**

^ Have to say I prefer the North/South profile to the East/West one, but I suppose the latter creates the former.

donnie · #**277** Posted **Oct 29, 2017, 2:28 PM**

Looks like someone is trying to move a building from New York to Chicago!

Kumdogmillionaire · #**278** Posted **Oct 29, 2017, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

^ Have to say I prefer the North/South profile to the East/West one, but I suppose the latter creates the former.

I agree, it's a bit too busy for my taste on East/West, but it's still a good design overall I think

left of center · #**279** Posted **Oct 29, 2017, 8:30 PM**

Personally I love the setbacks. I appreciate how it evokes a wedding cake, art deco design.

HomrQT · #**280** Posted **Oct 29, 2017, 9:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center

Personally I love the setbacks. I appreciate how it evokes a wedding cake, art deco design.

Absolutely. This building needs to made design as is, maybe a little bit taller. Originally I wanted something more ornate done with the crown area, but the simple box look gives it a very Chicago appearance to me so I'm good with it.