HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2016, 8:50 PM
The Lurker The Lurker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Great Lakes
Posts: 696
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
Very different economic times though, which can be easy to forget (possibly deliberately, as I'm sure no ones wants to remember that time in history..)
The argument could be made that had they waited til today to finish 111 Wacker they could have gone supertall but something had to be done with the hideousness that the unfinished Waterview tower was A.S.A.P. We tolerate the massive hole in the ground but that rusting concrete shell right on the the river was intolerable. Im glad theres a building there now and it was the first 600 footer completed after the recession.
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2016, 8:50 PM
Ryanrule Ryanrule is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by intrepidDesign View Post
If that was the case why didn't they finish going supertall at 111 W Wacker? Not only was the foundation in place, but 1/4 of the building was out of the mud. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath for something earth shattering here.
related was allowed to build a piece of shit because it was half built and the city wanted something done.


related needs to be HEAVILY controlled in the future in chicago.
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2016, 12:46 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by intrepidDesign View Post
If that was the case why didn't they finish going supertall at 111 W Wacker? Not only was the foundation in place, but 1/4 of the building was out of the mud. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath for something earth shattering here.
The structure for 111 W Wacker was already 20 floors out of the ground and basically built for an impractical needle of a tower. The floor plates were very inefficiant and would have made for terrible rental units relative to the expense of building them. Remember the initial redesign and disappointing half assing we ended up with both involved massive structural rework involving the demo of the parially built existing transfer floor and the repouring of a massive mat halfway up the tower. That limits what can be done and if you are not going to be able to make slender work on that site, then you are screwed.

The Spire Hole on the other hand is stopped at the best possible spot, after completion of cassions and bathtub slurry wall, but before any superstructure or even the mat is built. They can simply figure out how to set the building on the existing foundations and build whatever they want from there. I would imagine we won't see anything quite as tall and slender as the Sprire, but I bet we will see every last SF and unit entitled under that plan (and it was quite a lot of space, 1200 units and 3,000,000 SF). It will be a big building regardless of the actual aesthetics.
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2016, 1:11 AM
TimeAgain TimeAgain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 204
Just be taller than the Sears Tower. That's all I ask for.
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2016, 1:34 AM
TimeAgain TimeAgain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
Not saying it can't happen, but you'll probably end up disappointed if that's where your hopes are. We're really lucky if it passes 1200 I think.
You're probably right, but man that would be such a wasted opportunity.
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2016, 1:57 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 42,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeAgain View Post
Just be taller than the Sears Tower. That's all I ask for.
That would be nice, of course, but I think with the location, a 900-1000' would be ideal and realistic. Thing is, the location is great and a 1300+ foot tower would be a wet dream, but will the market allow it?

I question what market this would cater to? Are we speculating units in the 600k - 4 million range or something insane like 10+ million?

I think the lower range would be ideal for buying if it is indeed a residential.
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2016, 4:08 AM
TimeAgain TimeAgain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
That would be nice, of course, but I think with the location, a 900-1000' would be ideal and realistic. Thing is, the location is great and a 1300+ foot tower would be a wet dream, but will the market allow it?

I question what market this would cater to? Are we speculating units in the 600k - 4 million range or something insane like 10+ million?

I think the lower range would be ideal for buying if it is indeed a residential.
Mixed use. Gateway concept had it right.
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2016, 12:40 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeAgain View Post
Just be taller than the Sears Tower. That's all I ask for.
In my years on this forum I will never understand this mindset. What does this tower's being taller than Sears achieve?

I agree it should be a tall and prominent tower, but why does being taller than Sears matter?
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2016, 12:43 PM
Northwest Northwest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 413
Sorry if this is already well known, but I seem to remember Calatrava was paid something like $11 million for the design and engineering work for the Spire at this site.
Were the design rights and working plans for that design transferred to Related in the bankruptcy proceedings? I doubt it would happen, but if Related owns the Calatrava design, could they simply continue with it? Or is that somehow ruled out?
After all, the foundation work in the ground right now is perfect for the 2008 version Spire, and the superstar architect already got paid. Why not use it?
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2016, 1:52 PM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,036
I think Calatrava did finally get paid via the courts, but I am not sure. I think Related will do their own cheaper, value engineered design, not the Spire wich was going to be a very costly building to make.
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2016, 2:41 PM
TimeAgain TimeAgain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
In my years on this forum I will never understand this mindset. What does this tower's being taller than Sears achieve?

I agree it should be a tall and prominent tower, but why does being taller than Sears matter?
It means we get a really tall building, and likely the "tallest building in the US" title which I want back in Chicago. It would be a huge accomplishment and ego boost to the city.
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2016, 2:42 PM
TimeAgain TimeAgain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northwest View Post
Sorry if this is already well known, but I seem to remember Calatrava was paid something like $11 million for the design and engineering work for the Spire at this site.
Were the design rights and working plans for that design transferred to Related in the bankruptcy proceedings? I doubt it would happen, but if Related owns the Calatrava design, could they simply continue with it? Or is that somehow ruled out?
After all, the foundation work in the ground right now is perfect for the 2008 version Spire, and the superstar architect already got paid. Why not use it?
Related has already gone on record multiple times stating that they will not be building the Spire.
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2016, 7:35 PM
chris11 chris11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
In my years on this forum I will never understand this mindset. What does this tower's being taller than Sears achieve?

I agree it should be a tall and prominent tower, but why does being taller than Sears matter?
I think its ok to want a building taller than Sears in Chicago. We held the title for tallest building in the world for 24 years, tallest in America until 2 years ago, busiest airport in the world for most of our lives until recently, etc. Its ok to want to strive for what other cities in America (NY) and around the world are capable of. We've gone a century being able to accomplish the same and more than any city in the world, but recently we have settled for truly being a second city.

I know we don't have quite the demand, land values, or foreign investment of some of those place but damn, we built the Sears Tower, JHC, and Aon in 5 years of each other. Its fine to want to strive to make another huge mark for our city. Mainly because just 10 years ago we did strive for that mark in this exact location.
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2016, 8:55 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
In my years on this forum I will never understand this mindset. What does this tower's being taller than Sears achieve?

I agree it should be a tall and prominent tower, but why does being taller than Sears matter?
I think it's incredibly easy to understand. People have always been fascinated with going bigger, stronger, faster, farther etc... how can you not understand that?
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2016, 9:55 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ I just don't think Chicago needs to be the tallest any more.

This mentality is like some teenager who wants to buy a muscle car to be faster than everyone else, meanwhile the mature people driving much nicer cars are laughing at all the immaturity.

Those are the needs of a different city. Chicago isn't that city any more, IMO. The focus now should be on a great urban environment, good design, and of course a rock solid economy.

So to keep this post on topic, setting some kind of milestone (dude this better be taller than the Sears Tower) seems unbecoming and, frankly, juvenile to me.
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2016, 12:13 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
The Spire Hole on the other hand is stopped at the best possible spot, after completion of cassions and bathtub slurry wall, but before any superstructure or even the mat is built. They can simply figure out how to set the building on the existing foundations and build whatever they want from there. I would imagine we won't see anything quite as tall and slender as the Sprire...
You forget, the Spire was basically a 7-sided polygon (heptagon) with a round core. The caissons are laid out in this shape also. Unfortunately this implies a polygonal or round floorplate and wedge-shaped units, which are super-inefficient and extremely difficult to sell. Every realtor worth their salt will tell their clients to look elsewhere first before buying at Related's project - those one-percenter condo buyers could get the same views in multiple Lakeshore East or Streeterville buildings after all.

Kelleher/Shelbourne faced this problem too, which is why he had Calatrava design the unit interiors and even the door handles - he had to create enough prestige and design star power to outweigh the major drawbacks of the condo layouts.

Related could fix this by switching to a rectangular floorplate, but this would involve some massive and very expensive load transfer, either with a HUGE mat/grade beams or some structural acrobatics above ground.

Will be interesting to see how they resolve this - either they go the Shelbourne route and sink money into world-class design that works around the problems of the foundation, or they spend that same money on structure to switch the configuration to a rectangle. Or maybe Chinese buyers flood into Chicago looking to park their money, and none of this will matter...
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2016, 12:34 AM
Dale Dale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 4,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
In my years on this forum I will never understand this mindset. What does this tower's being taller than Sears achieve?

I agree it should be a tall and prominent tower, but why does being taller than Sears matter?
Sorry, must be on the wrong forum. Thought this was skyscraperpage
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2016, 3:10 AM
scalziand's Avatar
scalziand scalziand is offline
Mortaaaaaaaaar!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Naugatuck, CT/Worcester,MA
Posts: 3,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Related could fix this by switching to a rectangular floorplate, but this would involve some massive and very expensive load transfer, either with a HUGE mat/grade beams or some structural acrobatics above ground.

Will be interesting to see how they resolve this - either they go the Shelbourne route and sink money into world-class design that works around the problems of the foundation, or they spend that same money on structure to switch the configuration to a rectangle. Or maybe Chinese buyers flood into Chicago looking to park their money, and none of this will matter...
The caissons were completed, but it never got to the point of pouring the mat slab, so since one is needed anyway, there would be little marginal cost designing the new one for such a structural reconfiguration.
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2016, 4:47 AM
TimeAgain TimeAgain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ I just don't think Chicago needs to be the tallest any more.

This mentality is like some teenager who wants to buy a muscle car to be faster than everyone else, meanwhile the mature people driving much nicer cars are laughing at all the immaturity.

Those are the needs of a different city. Chicago isn't that city any more, IMO. The focus now should be on a great urban environment, good design, and of course a rock solid economy.

So to keep this post on topic, setting some kind of milestone (dude this better be taller than the Sears Tower) seems unbecoming and, frankly, juvenile to me.
These things aren't mutually exclusive. You can have all of that plus a really tall building. Hell, greater size likely means more jobs and tax revenue to help the economy.

It's not hard to understand why people get more excited over a 2000 ft tall building vs a 900 ft tall building.
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2016, 7:49 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
You forget, the Spire was basically a 7-sided polygon (heptagon) with a round core. The caissons are laid out in this shape also. Unfortunately this implies a polygonal or round floorplate and wedge-shaped units, which are super-inefficient and extremely difficult to sell. Every realtor worth their salt will tell their clients to look elsewhere first before buying at Related's project - those one-percenter condo buyers could get the same views in multiple Lakeshore East or Streeterville buildings after all.

Kelleher/Shelbourne faced this problem too, which is why he had Calatrava design the unit interiors and even the door handles - he had to create enough prestige and design star power to outweigh the major drawbacks of the condo layouts.

Related could fix this by switching to a rectangular floorplate, but this would involve some massive and very expensive load transfer, either with a HUGE mat/grade beams or some structural acrobatics above ground.

Will be interesting to see how they resolve this - either they go the Shelbourne route and sink money into world-class design that works around the problems of the foundation, or they spend that same money on structure to switch the configuration to a rectangle. Or maybe Chinese buyers flood into Chicago looking to park their money, and none of this will matter...
Like scalziand said, they only put in the bathtub walls and cassions. They could easily reconfigure the load to just about any shape (though rounded would be cheaper than any other alternative) during the mat pour. They could also add Cassions here and there or not use a couple of them if they were really that inconviently placed. The problem with a project like the Waterview site is that they had to demolish a transfer floor (these things are obviously not meant to be demolished, very expensive) and then pour an entierly different transfer floor that relocated all the load from the supertall collumns on the NW side of the building to the midrise SE side of the building. Basically had to demolish one mat pour's worth of work and then replace it with an even more complicated mat pour. The Spire just has footings sitting there waiting to be tied together in any configuration you like.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:50 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.