CHICAGO | Salesforce Tower | 850 FT | 60 FLOORS - Page 24

Khantilever · #**461** Posted **Jan 25, 2018, 12:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

If it can contain people why not count it? Some buildings hold more than others.

It's a dangerous path, my friend.

The CTBUH says a "building" is one with at least 50% occupiable height. We're already down to 60% with some buildings. At some point we're going to have a crazy tall structure below 50% and CTBUH is again going to have to make a call like they did with the WTC spire issue.

maru2501 · #**462** Posted **Jan 25, 2018, 12:39 AM**

my main complaint is it is very wide in that render looking from the west. Thinner and taller would be better

230Roberto · #**463** Posted **Jan 25, 2018, 12:49 AM**

This would be a better rule. Antennas and Spires should count but they must be attached to a tower at least 300% taller then the actual antenna/spire.

Freefall · #**464** Posted **Jan 25, 2018, 12:55 AM**

I'm 5' 9". If I spike my hair up into a mohawk am I now 6' 2"?

left of center · #**465** Posted **Jan 25, 2018, 1:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

It would be nice to have 3 (or 4 actually if the Spire site comes around) supertalls going up in the city.

Lets focus on getting OCS off the ground and getting to two concurrent supertalls uc. That alone would be one hell of a feat. First time since the early 1970's! (Sears & Aon)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fvn

Yea whats the deal with that I thought they only counted towards height in certain circumstances?

Spires that are purely architectural count towards the height of a building, whereas communications antenna do not count. So under this paradigm, the spire atop Trump Tower and Franklin Center count, whereas the antennas atop the Hancock or Sears do not since they broadcast TV/radio.

Fvn · #**466** Posted **Jan 25, 2018, 1:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center

Lets focus on getting OCS off the ground and getting to two concurrent supertalls uc. That alone would be one hell of a feat. First time since the early 1970's! (Sears & Aon)

Spires that are purely architectural count towards the height of a building, whereas communications antenna do not count. So under this paradigm, the spire atop Trump Tower and Franklin Center count, whereas the antennas atop the Hancock or Sears do not since they broadcast TV/radio.

I thought it was the other way around. The more you know

cannedairspray · #**467** Posted **Jan 25, 2018, 1:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 230Roberto

When ever someone ask me what the tallest building is in the U.S

How often does this happen?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freefall

I'm 5' 9". If I spike my hair up into a mohawk am I now 6' 2"?

If helicopters have to avoid it...

2PRUROCKS! · #**468** Posted **Jan 25, 2018, 4:43 AM**

I am still taking that 950ft figure with a grain of salt. It is probably the height to the floor slab of the highest occupied floor or something. If you look at the rendering from the south it looks like the first setback on WPS is at the same height as the top of WPE. This would make sense to contextualize the two designs and visually tie them together. If that is indeed the case that setback would be around 680ft. Above that setback I count the equivalent of 29 stories including the crown. Assuming 12ft/story, which seems reasonable for a luxury condo or office building, that would add 348' to 680' for a total height of 1,028ft.

I like the design of this building even if it is nothing earth shattering. However, I do find the design of this along with its sibling WPE to be too similar to One Chicago Square and its sibling. The height of the taller and shorter towers in the two project are very close. The massing, style, and deco echo influences are all very similar. For me they are too similar. I like both proposals on their own but together they seem to be aping each other too much.

Domer2019 · #**469** Posted **Jan 25, 2018, 4:48 AM**

The sad thing is that the tower slated for one of the most visually prominent sites in the city is the inferior design.

Hudson11 · #**470** Posted **Jan 25, 2018, 4:57 AM**

Chicago used to be all about spires and antennas. The city has since built a lot of quality skyscrapers, but much of that history has been hidden away by characterless monoliths (which this tower seems to want to join the list of). I don't see the harm in another spire, especially after it was teased a few years back. It might make looking up at this glass slab more captivating.

Vintage Found Photo - Chicago Skyline by Mark Susina, on Flickr

put a stick on it!

BVictor1 · #**471** Posted **Jan 25, 2018, 10:28 AM**

The roughly 6-story tan building to the right of lower center is the site of One Bennett Park

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11

10023 · #**472** Posted **Jan 25, 2018, 12:12 PM**

Wasn't the tower from I, Robot in roughly this spot? A spire-like building would work nicely.

LouisVanDerWright · #**473** Posted **Jan 25, 2018, 2:43 PM**

IDGAF how tall it is, this design is lit now. Just goes to show much improvement several years of gradual refinement can bring. I love the broadside of the building, a Spire would be totally inappropriate and ruin that entire elevation. Also, with the insane n/s girth of this building every last sliver of Jarta's view will be stamped out.

DrNest · #**474** Posted **Jan 25, 2018, 3:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Spires should count. As well as antennas. If something is physically there and a helicopter has to avoid it so it doesn't hit it, then it should count.

I couldn't agree more!
The New York Times Tower is classed as a Supertall, and considered taller than First Canadian Place.

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=80059617

left of center · #**475** Posted **Jan 25, 2018, 4:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

IDGAF how tall it is, this design is lit now. Just goes to show much improvement several years of gradual refinement can bring. I love the broadside of the building, a Spire would be totally inappropriate and ruin that entire elevation. Also, with the insane n/s girth of this building every last sliver of Jarta's view will be stamped out.

Wonder if that guy still lurks SSP. I hope he is as livid as I imagine him to be, lol

Pioneer · #**476** Posted **Jan 25, 2018, 6:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

If helicopters have to avoid it...

haha, esp., given your screen name.

untitledreality · #**477** Posted **Jan 26, 2018, 5:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

One is better and more refined than the other to me.

WPS all day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Ha, I posted on curbed that I wish WPS took a page from OCS.

What page exactly? WPS appears more refined in just about every way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

IDGAF how tall it is, this design is lit now. Just goes to show much improvement several years of gradual refinement can bring. I love the broadside of the building, a Spire would be totally inappropriate and ruin that entire elevation. Also, with the insane n/s girth of this building every last sliver of Jarta's view will be stamped out.

Lit indeed.

Mr Saturn64 · #**478** Posted **Jan 26, 2018, 2:47 PM**

A new drawing of this popped up on the Chicago diagram, and it appears to place it around 1,100 feet.

Stunnies23 · #**479** Posted **Jan 26, 2018, 3:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64

A new drawing of this popped up on the Chicago diagram, and it appears to place it around 1,100 feet.

Source / link?!?!

Steely Dan · #**480** Posted **Jan 26, 2018, 3:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64

A new drawing of this popped up on the Chicago diagram, and it appears to place it around 1,100 feet.

Mechanical penthouse/screening could nudge the 950' height figure (that's ALWAYS been bandied about for this tower) just over the 1,000' threshold, but 1,100' is pretty unlikely, unless there's a specific height increase or they tack on a spire of some sort.