CHICAGO | Salesforce Tower | 850 FT | 60 FLOORS

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by jc5680

SSP is organized around some definitions, but they don't always line up exactly with construction/developer co's definitions. Ground breaking could mean anything from case rigs to a handful of suits showing up for nothing more than a photo opp.

Either way, WPE would be a better analog given the similar site constraints and structure. That was like 10 months from case rigs arriving to the core hitting street level.

I forgot how involved the foundation for WPE was. Went back thru it's forum and yeah it was about 8 months from drilling to finishing excavation and starting to pour the lowest levels. Guess we got spoiled with 110 Wacker which broke ground over 10 months later and is finishing up around the same time as WPE.

Wolf Point East Groundbreaking: July 12, 2017
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=152

110 Wacker Groundbreaking May 30, 2018
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=769

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but i'm assuming with a concrete core, right?

just like every single other large scale office tower that's been built in our city for the past quarter century.

does anyone know when the last major office tower (>400'), that didn't have a steel frame/concrete core composite structure, was built in chicago?

I could be wrong, but my guess is that it is Citadel Center, 131 S. Dearborn. Completed early 2000s. Steel frame/steel core. As I recall, a decisive factor to go with a much lighter steel core was that they decided to extensively re-use existing deep foundations from previous structure on-site. Although I don't recall off-hand what the price of steel was at the time, it was much lower of course than today - and could have been (again don't recall off-hand) in a significant slump at the time. Point being, materials prices may have played some role there as well. If that tower were to be replicated at the site today, the economics might be different enough that they would go composite even with the existing foundation circumstance (and of course need to put in more extensive new caissons and I'd assume change to slab as well).

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

oh well, what's another handful of months in the grand scheme of things.

Also, this makes more sense in the context of the slated completion year, which has I believe always been 2023. I'd been wondering what would take this project that long - if site work would commence early this year - even with the especially complex below-ground work factored in.

[Bombardier]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but i'm assuming with a concrete core, right?

just like every single other large scale office tower that's been built in our city for the past quarter century.

does anyone know when the last major office tower (>400'), that didn't have a steel frame/concrete core composite structure, was built in chicago?

The CME building at 10-30S Wacker is a concrete office tower. The towers were built at different times some years apart (I believe by two different contractors... Metropolitan Structures was one of them) but they were completed in the 80's. Your question brings up a good point. I wonder when the steel frame with concrete core became the go-to. I think all of the Wacker drive (and Wacker drive adjacent) offices built in the last 20 year years followed this method.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ That’s right, starting with UBS Tower/1 N Wacker every single office tower in Chicago 400’ and up (maybe 300’ and up?) I can think of has been composite - with the exception I mentioned of 131 S Dearborn, which was steel core and frame. We haven’t to my knowledge had a large all-concrete office tower since the late 80s/early 90s boom (for example 2 Pru and 311 S Wacker). And my guess is that it would take very site-specific circumstances as in the case of Citadel to get an all-steel tower today. I too would be very curious to learn how common composite structures were in the mid 80s-early 90s (I wasn’t paying attention to skyscraper construction in Chicago then)...were they cropping-up regularly then, or was it not until the late 90s/early 00s that they quickly turned into the standard here?

[Zapatan]

Not a huge deal (the delay I mean), although 9 months to rise out of the ground seems like a lot.

[Chicag0]

They are Hines projected dates from last year. The last update for groundbreaking was anticipating 4/1, although they were hoping to improve...

[KWillChicago]

Is this one underground parking and if so how far down?

[PittsburghPA]

I have heard ceremonial groundbreaking could be 2/17. I won't stake my claim on it but I have seen a rough timeline of construction that says caissons rigs as early as mid March..let's wait and see.

[Steely Dan]

^ let's hope you've heard correctly.

[Steely Dan]

So I take it from the lack of updates in this thread that there was no ceremonial groundbreaking today.



Soon enough..... Soon enough......

[Fvn]

While we wait, it does have a pending foundation permit, so there is evidence of something happening...

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by PittsburghPA

I have heard ceremonial groundbreaking could be 2/17. I won't stake my claim on it but I have seen a rough timeline of construction that says caissons rigs as early as mid March..let's wait and see.

FWIW - Though I can't cite where - original groundbreaking was projected many months ago (on this forum or some news art.) for March.

[gebs]

Brian Atkinson (Managing Director at Hines) posting on LinkedIn: "Ground breaking is weeks away. We are thrilled to execute world class design on the most recognizable site in Chicago."

And here is a link to a promotional video for the tower: click here. It's short, dramatic, and hyperbolic, but it does get me pumped ... for a non-supertall that deserves to be a megatall.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by gebs

Brian Atkinson (Managing Director at Hines) posting on LinkedIn: "Ground breaking is weeks away. We are thrilled to execute world class design on the most recognizable site in Chicago."

And here is a link to a promotional video for the tower: click here. It's short, dramatic, and hyperbolic, but it does get me pumped ... for a non-supertall that deserves to be a megatall.

Has anyone provided him that feedback directly that this site is indeed the most recognizable site in Chicago would be a better stage for a supertall?

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Has anyone provided him that feedback directly that this site is indeed the most recognizable site in Chicago would be a better stage for a supertall?

Too bad they only care about money and Supertalls are expensive, I'm sure they already know that a taller building would be cooler.

[maru2501]

better hurry before the global coronavirus recession

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Too bad they only care about money and Supertalls are expensive, I'm sure they already know that a taller building would be cooler.

I absolutely agree with your comment here, I just think it may be healthy for them to get a little direct public feedback once in a while.

[chris08876]

Really nice teaser clip: https://www.333wolfpoint.com/

Put volume up for the teaser. Song if anyone is wondering is "sun in your eyes" by above and beyond.

[chicubs111]

its almost trying to hype a building that is not groundbreaking or even exciting in design in anyway?..i mean jeez so conservative in designs for these prime sites