CHICAGO | One Chicago | 971 FT & 574 FT | 78 & 49 FLOORS

[Zapatan]

It's not terrible...

Would certainly be a nice addition to a great skyline

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by rgolch

Sounds a little like wishful thinking.

nope, there's nothing wishful about it. i really do genuinely think that's what is likely going on here with the height figure discrepancies.

[Ned.B]

If you look at the last rendering posted, you can just see that the top of the building is just a screen, most likely to obscure the building cooling towers. By my scaling it is at least 30' tall, if not 35' tall. So if the roof height is indeed 962', then the tower is indeed almost 1000' tall. If 962' is to the last floor level, then the tower is even taller.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

nope, there's nothing wishful about it. i really do genuinely think that's what is going on here with the height figure discrepancies.

Yeah. . . just to reiterate, all the quotes people are reading in the media (Chicago Tribune, Crains, DNA Info, some guy who you know went to the meeting and knows for sure) are quite probably all wrong. . . first of all architects don't necessarily see 1,000' as some sort of benchmark height to deliver on. . . it's an arbitrary number that only skyscraper nerds who don't use the metric system give a shit about. . . secondly everything you're reading is an echo chamber of bullshit until someone from the CTBUH or other credible source can reference a blueprint or as-built document. . . it's futile to worry about where the height of this building will end up until the developers have a final design from the architects. . . and I'm pretty sure we don't have that yet. . .

. . .

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

. . . first of all architects don't necessarily see 1,000' as some sort of benchmark height to deliver on. . . it's an arbitrary number that only skyscraper nerds who don't use the metric system give a shit about. . .

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?????????"

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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

Seeing as we round up anyway.....

[the urban politician]

Crains being douchebags today and giving a megaphone to the anti-traffic NIMBYs

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

One Chicago Square Meeting

October 24, 2017

-15.98 FAR

-1.5 million sq ft

-795 apartments (900 sq ft avg)

-75 condos (2,700 sq ft avg)

-900 parking (225 for Holy Name)

-40,000 sq ft of boutique office.

-3 levels of underground parking

-50% of first floor for internal; loading

-250 person event space on 3rd floor of main tower
-2 floors of office above event space
-8-9 spa
-45,000 sq ft activated roof top (run by spa)

-base finished in stone (limestone)

-plan to run fountain in winter?

-interior turntable for delivery trucks

-$8,000,000 in annual taxes (where there's none now

-$7.7million paid into trust

-Density bonus $12,000,000 (80% to neighborhood opportunity) (10% adopt-a-landmark) (10% for neighborhood)

-affordable units (offsite)

-tuned mass damper

-$740,000,000 (project estimated cost)

-Rental $4.00 per sq ft.

-Break Ground September 2018?

wow! lets make this happen!

[rgolch]

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?????????"

Nice!

But ya.. Even though it's arbitrary, anyone who frequents this forum on some level cares, if even just a little bit. What's more, Blair Kamin even mentioned it may not hit the 1000 ft threshold, showing that it's a know arbitrary benchmark.

What's most important is that we get a significant, tall development on such a prime piece of real estate downtown. It'd be almost criminal if they built a couple of generic 500 footers that just blend in.

[KevinFromTexas]

Wow. This thing sweet. I'm a sucker for setbacks, and this building has them. What a beautiful tower.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by rgolch

What's more, Blair Kamin even mentioned it may not hit the 1000 ft threshold, showing that it's a know arbitrary benchmark.

Who?

. . .

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Crains being douchebags today and giving a megaphone to the anti-traffic NIMBYs

I thought that was annoying too, but the article does at least lay out many of the traffic-easing moves the developer is making. I was surprised that there was no mention, however, of the fact that it’s right off the red line.

[LouisVanDerWright]

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?????????"

Honest to god, if I ever get to build big skyscrapers like this I will make it happen, 999' and 9" or something lol. Or even better, 1 CM short of 300 M.

[Pioneer]

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?????????"

Or build a 600' tower with a 399', 11'15/16" spire. Of course, 150' of the 600' tower is pre-cast, windowless parking podium.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Who?

. . .

Wikipedia: List of Burn Wards in the United States

Someone forward this link to Kamin for that epic burn

[Randomguy34]

Not sure if this was posted, but slides from last night's presentation: http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/688fe2...fd73bc59c9.pdf

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Not sure if this was posted, but slides from last night's presentation: http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/688fe2...fd73bc59c9.pdf

Thanks for sharing! I know some people here might not like it, but I think the podium looks great.

[The Lurker]

Originally Posted by rgolch

It'd be nice to have another "official" supertall. We seem to only get one per boom cycle.

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

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

Thanks for sharing! I know some people here might not like it, but I think the podium looks great.

I'm not the biggest fans of podiums overall, but if a building was to have one, this is the right way to design it. Parking and loading hidden inside the center of the podium, with residential wrapped around it. Meaning that above the retail of the first floor, there are windows into bedrooms, living rooms and balconies with human activity, not cars and ramps encased in glass.

That being said, it could use a little more varied design to break up the monolithic look of it. I love how the grocer on the corner of State and Chicago almost looks like its a different building as it nudges outward from the base with a different design scheme to it. Something similar on the Dearborn/Chicago corner would be great, giving each corner a completely different style (existing buildings on Dearborn/Superior, and plaza on State/Superior).

Overall, this podium has been done pretty well IMHO.

[10023]

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