CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 851 FT & 765 FT | 73 & ? FLOORS - Page 14

TimeAgain · #**261** Posted **Feb 24, 2017, 5:58 AM**

At this point, I'm just hoping this thing is as tall as Vista.

gramsjdg · #**262** Posted **Feb 24, 2017, 11:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Chicago has been looking forward to this site redefining our skyline for 12 years. Hopefully the wait is worth the payoff. As far as our place in the "tallest buildings in the world" department, we're getting edged out of even being in the top 15 since apparently post design antennas don't count for whatever bs reason.

Couldn't agree more. How the Sears Tower's cladded antennas don't count but WTC-1's un-cladded (and uncompleted) cable-guyed skeleton counts is beyond ridiculous.

CTBUH likely caved to 911 sentimentality pressure, at least that's what my money is on.

pianowizard · #**263** Posted **Mar 11, 2017, 6:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64

The Gateway Tower (seen in post 268) is magnificent, isn't it?

OMG yes! If built, this would be by far the most magnificient skyscraper in North America, not just in terms of sheer height but of design as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Chicago has been looking forward to this site redefining our skyline for 12 years. Hopefully the wait is worth the payoff. As far as our place in the "tallest buildings in the world" department, we're getting edged out of even being in the top 15 since apparently post design antennas don't count for whatever bs reason.

I was in Chicago earlier this week and was surprised that the Sears/Willis Tower no longer looked very tall; it used to seem taller to me. I have seen the 2074-foot Shanghai Tower in person and it appeared much, much taller. Even the 1588-foot International Commerce Center in Hong Kong looked obviously taller than Sears. Chicago deserves this 2000-footer. This height would qualify it as a "megatall", wouldn't it? I think 600 m is usually used as the threshold for megatalls.

HomrQT · #**264** Posted **Mar 11, 2017, 9:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pianowizard

OMG yes! If built, this would be by far the most magnificient skyscraper in North America, not just in terms of sheer height but of design as well.

I was in Chicago earlier this week and was surprised that the Sears/Willis Tower no longer looked very tall; it used to seem taller to me. I have seen the 2074-foot Shanghai Tower in person and it appeared much, much taller. Even the 1588-foot International Commerce Center in Hong Kong looked obviously taller than Sears. Chicago deserves this 2000-footer. This height would qualify it as a "megatall", wouldn't it? I think 600 m is usually used as the threshold for megatalls.

I absolutely agree. There is a healthy global competition in skyscraper development and Chicago is losing ground. A nice 2000 footer would put us back in the ballpark.

denizen467 · #**265** Posted **Mar 11, 2017, 9:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

Couldn't agree more. How the Sears Tower's cladded antennas don't count but WTC-1's un-cladded (and uncompleted) cable-guyed skeleton counts is beyond ridiculous.

CTBUH likely caved to 911 sentimentality pressure, at least that's what my money is on.

This is correct; CTBUH members who voted even privately cited (subtle) pressure in approving the uncompleted skeleton as being architectural. One person said he didn't want to be the one guy denying it, especially after all the complication and delay getting the building up. It didn't help that the CTBUH is based in Chicago and they would look very biased if they denied it, thereby keeping the record-holder in Chicago, in what would be viewed as borderline situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarWind

Those trees kind of look like they're gathered for a funeral...

lu9 · #**266** Posted **Mar 15, 2017, 1:57 PM**

^^ such a good call. Or to put a positive spin on it...

gathered for a ground-breaking ceremony? for NA's tallest tower

UPChicago · #**267** Posted **Mar 15, 2017, 2:10 PM**

Can we lock this thread, so depressing....

lu9 · #**268** Posted **Mar 16, 2017, 1:59 PM**

^^ I would hope so. Jeez! Can you imagine the carrying cost on this thing? I'd imagine Related would want to get going ASAP. They may have missed the boat already. I'm guessing there is a lot going on behind the scenes at the moment including some wooing of Chinese money like their competitor across the river.

JK47 · #**269** Posted **Mar 16, 2017, 4:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lu9

^^ I would hope so. Jeez! Can you imagine the carrying cost on this thing? I'd imagine Related would want to get going ASAP. They may have missed the boat already. I'm guessing there is a lot going on behind the scenes at the moment including some wooing of Chinese money like their competitor across the river.

That's going to get a lot harder going forward, at least for projects with big price tags, as Chinese regulators are starting to really step up enforcement of the strict capital controls.

Reinsdorf Sucks · #**270** Posted **Mar 23, 2017, 3:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The question being weren't we supposed to hear something in the first half of this year about the new project for this site? Wonder if Related solicited visionary proposals in a little mini competition. Perhaps this was Gensler's submission?

They did have a mini competition this time last year for at least a supertall, but didn't go with any of the submissions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KWILLSKYLINE

No way^^^ I could see Magellan keeping theirs under 900' but I dont think Related is stupid enough to keep the spire site anything less than Vista.

I believe it's the opposite. As soon as Vista broke ground the vision for this site was scaled back, and now it's likely to be 2 shorter towers.

FrankLloydWrong · #**271** Posted **Mar 23, 2017, 3:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reinsdorf Sucks

They did have a mini competition this time last year for at least a supertall, but didn't go with any of the submissions.

I believe it's the opposite. As soon as Vista broke ground the vision for this site was scaled back, and now it's likely to be 2 shorter towers.

This is what I've heard as well. Two towers, SOM design.

ithakas · #**272** Posted **Mar 23, 2017, 3:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankLloydWrong

This is what I've heard as well. Two towers, SOM design.

Hopefully the design on Rush happened because the top Chicago talent's been working on this...

JK47 · #**273** Posted **Mar 23, 2017, 4:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reinsdorf Sucks

I believe it's the opposite. As soon as Vista broke ground the vision for this site was scaled back, and now it's likely to be 2 shorter towers.

That ticks me off so much. Frankly if they decide to go smaller I hope that site gets downzoned to a parking lot.

HomrQT · #**274** Posted **Mar 23, 2017, 4:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JK47

That ticks me off so much. Frankly if they decide to go smaller I hope that site gets downzoned to a parking lot.

Woah, let's not go crazy here.

chicubs111 · #**275** Posted **Mar 23, 2017, 11:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reinsdorf Sucks

They did have a mini competition this time last year for at least a supertall, but didn't go with any of the submissions.

I believe it's the opposite. As soon as Vista broke ground the vision for this site was scaled back, and now it's likely to be 2 shorter towers.

and may I ask where are you getting your information from?

chicubs111 · #**276** Posted **Mar 24, 2017, 12:03 AM**

This was the most recent article of substance regarding the spire site...

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...uth-loop-sites

TimeAgain · #**277** Posted **Mar 24, 2017, 12:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankLloydWrong

This is what I've heard as well. Two towers, SOM design.

Twin Towers design by SOM is what Related submitted for the site 15 years ago, before the Spire won. It may still be a Twin Towers design that they go with, but I think people are reporting old info.

FrankLloydWrong · #**278** Posted **Mar 24, 2017, 1:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimeAgain

Twin Towers design by SOM is what Related submitted for the site 15 years ago, before the Spire won. It may still be a Twin Towers design that they go with, but I think people are reporting old info.

I heard this recently from someone in the know. I have no reason to doubt the information I was given.

Reinsdorf Sucks · #**279** Posted **Mar 24, 2017, 2:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankLloydWrong

I heard this recently from someone in the know. I have no reason to doubt the information I was given.

Same here.

chicubs111 · #**280** Posted **Mar 24, 2017, 2:31 AM**

^ .. I think your both the same person trolling....I mean what are odds you both only have 19 posts on this forum ...lol...