[cubbbyblue]

I'm stil a bit confused as the the "real" shape of this thing. It is quite abstract from every angle. I really like it. I think the closest my brain has to understanding it at this point is: Shanghai world financial building with a slimmer base, a wider "chisel point" and a bit of a twist. Hows that sound?

[aluminum]

^^^ And unlike SWFC theres no "window' on top.

[STR]

:haha: Damnit we need taller floors.

STR...aweosme work but Mandarin should be shrunk.

I just pumped out those renders during lunch today. I don't spend a lot of time on my Chicago model, my World Trade Center model gets the bulk of my attention, I want to get that one done.

[Alliance]

I'm stil a bit confused as the the "real" shape of this thing. It is quite abstract from every angle. I really like it. I think the closest my brain has to understanding it at this point is: Shanghai world financial building with a slimmer base, a wider "chisel point" and a bit of a twist. Hows that sound?

Its a square of which two opposite sides twist to meet at the square's diagonal while the other two rise vertically.I just pumped out those renders during lunch today. I don't spend a lot of time on my Chicago model, my World Trade Center model gets the bulk of my attention, I want to get that one done.

When you're ready :cool:

[Rail Claimore]

Daley I saw three 1100+ buildings rise, it's only natural Daley II do the same.

[observer]

Destefano website has some images of project...nothing new...other than a few picture of tower in model...but it looks like a slightly different version in model photos....not sure.

[spyguy]

Destefano website has some images of project...nothing new...other than a few picture of tower in model...but it looks like a slightly different version in model photos....not sure.

Good find.

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/6003/waldorf2ea0.jpg
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3930/waldorf3qu0.jpg
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6238/waldorf4dm5.jpg
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/4440/waldorf5ez7.jpg
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/807/waldorf6ab2.jpg

[Alliance]

It almost looks like its attached to the Hilton.

[Fabb]

100 floors !
Not so many skyscrapers reach that dramatic threshold.

[Alliance]

And! It does so at a record low height!

I just realized...that LSE spot next to the Swissotel would be a perfect spot for and LSE supertall. Shrink Aqua 2 and put more height there...though I would prefer to have a big boy to the eastside of the developemt.

[Swede]

Not only is the design a simple idea that turns into complex geometry, to me it feels like it earns all the height it has by 1) no spire and 2) shortest 100-floor building yet. Chicago having so many buildings that are short for their nunmber of floors says to me that Chacago is about building for what's used, not for attention.
/except the Spire, of course, where the attention is part of the usefullness :P

[chicubs111]

Love the building but I do wish it was around 1200ft...I mean I really dont get how this building can be a luxury tower if you have such short floor to ceiling ratio's?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Well part of the reason is that it is more than half hotel, which doesn't have as high of ceiling heights as a condominium would.

[Aleks]

I thought that too chicubs111 but it's residential so floors don't have to be as tall as office towers.

I like the concept and the tower it's self but as other people said, I don't think that the design is too original for Chicago. Again, it looks way too much like the SWFC and Chicago seem.....like it ran out of ideas. Which I doubt because there are so many nice buildings there.

[cubbbyblue]

Good find.


http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/4440/waldorf5ez7.jpg
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/807/waldorf6ab2.jpg
These last two really put into perspective the actual shape. Thanks, my brian can finally rest

[chicubs111]

I thought that too chicubs111 but it's residential so floors don't have to be as tall as office towers.

I like the concept and the tower it's self but as other people said, I don't think that the design is too original for Chicago. Again, it looks way too much like the SWFC and Chicago seem.....like it ran out of ideas. Which I doubt because there are so many nice buildings there.


Yea, but look at trump tower its all residiential and hotel mixed...its 92 stories and taller than this building (Im not counting the spire on trump either)?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Trump is also on top of a parking podium, the parking here is underground.

[CenIL_LA]

I thought that too chicubs111 but it's residential so floors don't have to be as tall as office towers.

I like the concept and the tower it's self but as other people said, I don't think that the design is too original for Chicago. Again, it looks way too much like the SWFC and Chicago seem.....like it ran out of ideas. Which I doubt because there are so many nice buildings there.


It to me borrows more inspiration from the Spire and box building than from SWFC. Any building with sloping sides from here on out could be attributed to the SWFC but those ideas existed even before the SWFC. Truly new ideas in architecture are rare. Most cities in the world are going to have something similar within them. I dont think this building itself is a copy of anything though it does borrow. Therefor it is a new idea. To say it is a copy is not giving credit to the principles that built the two different project ideas.

[wrab]

Much more of a twist than I'd appreciated. I like. The twist will let the highest condo floors have views that extend out over the Lake (and perhaps to Grant Park?), without any interruption from the Spire.

[observer]

Similar to SWFC but different enough....two fewer sides...no hole...'warped' glass....that's different enough...right?

[FrancoRey]

I think they should consider twisting it the other way. Wouldn't one of the sides better face out the river towards the lake for a more 'open' view?

[10023]

I thought that too chicubs111 but it's residential so floors don't have to be as tall as office towers.

But 10 feet per floor is still extremely low for an office building. And with hotel lobby, ballroom, fitness center, restaurants, etc being higher ceilings, the average floor height per occupied floor is probably below that.

Remember that there is space between the floors for structural, electrical, mechanical, plumbing elements, as well.

I would say that 10' ceilings would be the threshold for a luxury development, and this will be more like 9'.

[aluminum]

I was expecting it be around 370 m or 1200'. I still think this height is quite low for a 100 story monster. And then theres aqua, with amazingly low ceilings ! Chicago's gettin' whole bunch of such buildings.

If Aqua was 950' and W-A, 1200-1250', it might've been better.

Ahh well, at least the Spire's not using the studio gang's math :cheers: .

[bnk]

Is it me or are the last 10 or so floors of this building impossibly thin?

How can anything be utilized up there where it looks like nothing more than 50 feet across at the last 10 floors.

Architects defend this building, or are is it just flourishes?

And if it is just flourish than how is this one over 100 stories.

Thanks in advance.

bnk

[kalmia]

Yes, it does seem short for 100 stories, especially with the top so thin. But it also matters whether it is steel or poured concrete. Poured concrete would allow higher ceilings.

[LaSalle.St.Station]

I think they should consider twisting it the other way. Wouldn't one of the sides better face out the river towards the lake for a more 'open' view?

it's a nice day dream this proposal, but it is not happening. Carley is good in a boom, good luck in tight finance town.

[Knightwing]

Yes, it does seem short for 100 stories, especially with the top so thin. But it also matters whether it is steel or poured concrete. Poured concrete would allow higher ceilings.

This twisting design would be virtually impossible using steel...

[Aleks]

But 10 feet per floor is still extremely low for an office building. And with hotel lobby, ballroom, fitness center, restaurants, etc being higher ceilings, the average floor height per occupied floor is probably below that.

Remember that there is space between the floors for structural, electrical, mechanical, plumbing elements, as well.

I would say that 10' ceilings would be the threshold for a luxury development, and this will be more like 9'.

That's what I said. Office towers have taller roofs than residential high-rises.
A tower here in Seattle is over 500 feet tall and it only has like 36 floors. A residential tower which is also the same height will have 46 which is way shorter floors, oh and the residential one is only 500 ft. because it has a spire.

[honte]

it's a nice day dream this proposal, but it is not happening. Carley is good in a boom, good luck in tight finance town.

Carley made it very clear that his strategy is to have everything ready when the next boom starts up, not now.

[Haworthia]

Is it me or are the last 10 or so floors of this building impossibly thin?

How can anything be utilized up there where it looks like nothing more than 50 feet across at the last 10 floors.

Architects defend this building, or are is it just flourishes?

And if it is just flourish than how is this one over 100 stories.

Thanks in advance.

bnk
I feel the same way about how thin this tower is. It boggles my mind how the upper space would be used and serviced.

Another thing that worries me is how it will take the forces from the wind. A strong wind hitting the broad, flat portion of the building at the very top would be some serious stress. I assume the architects know what they are doing, but to my eye, it seems impossible.

[Chi649]

Is it me or are the last 10 or so floors of this building impossibly thin?

How can anything be utilized up there where it looks like nothing more than 50 feet across at the last 10 floors.I have no idea but I would love it to be an observation deck :D. I'm sure that's just wishful thinking on my part but when is a developer finally going to get smart in this town and realize the $$$ potential of an observation deck?

[DHamp]

I have no idea but I would love it to be an observation deck :D. I'm sure that's just wishful thinking on my part but when is a developer finally going to get smart in this town and realize the $$$ potential of an observation deck?

Hancock has one. I think that's plenty until you get a building that is both non-residential and significantly taller. I'm holding out hope for the lot south of NBC.

[10023]

That's what I said. Office towers have taller roofs than residential high-rises.
A tower here in Seattle is over 500 feet tall and it only has like 36 floors. A residential tower which is also the same height will have 46 which is way shorter floors, oh and the residential one is only 500 ft. because it has a spire.
That's not what I was saying at all.

What I was saying is that a luxury residential highrise with 100 floors should be well over 1,000ft. I would say 1,100ft or so for appropriate/ideal ceiling heights, without a spire.

Chicago seems to have low ceilings, don't understand why.

[hartss]

It almost looks like its attached to the Hilton.

I believe that's actually the Sheraton next door.

[Alliance]

I believe that's actually the Sheraton next door.

Well, given the models, not above ground its not.I have no idea but I would love it to be an observation deck :D. I'm sure that's just wishful thinking on my part but when is a developer finally going to get smart in this town and realize the $$$ potential of an observation deck?

Becuase its shorter than the other two, wouldn't be nearly as profitable, and would involve unneeded foot traffic and security in the hotel.

[aaron38]

This twisting design would be virtually impossible using steel...

It doesn't actually twist, it only looks like it does. Steel could do the job just fine, but it'll probably be concrete.


I feel the same way about how thin this tower is. It boggles my mind how the upper space would be used and serviced.

I doubt the upper and thinnest part of the blade is actually floors. It's probably just a screen for the mechanical penthouses.

[Ryan81]

http://aycu22.webshots.com/image/29981/2002483864226497055_rs.jpg

[dallasbrink]

http://aycu22.webshots.com/image/29981/2002483864226497055_rs.jpg

it all looks good, except that blocky building with the hole in it. Needs more to it.

[Rail Claimore]

http://aycu22.webshots.com/image/29981/2002483864226497055_rs.jpg

That is amazing...

[Chicago2020]

Needs some more to the left of Sears

[Seppuko_Panda]

Needs some more to the left of Sears


There will be eventually. There's a lot of space there. Someone will notice at some point.

[Chi649]

Becuase its shorter than the other two, wouldn't be nearly as profitableIf there are habitable floors all the way to the roof, it has the potential to be higher than Hancock, since Hancock's observatory is on the 94th floor but only has an 18 foot higher roof than Waldorf. You might be right about the profitability since this building will not have the name recognition of Sears or Hancock but I do think there is a market for an additional observation deck somewhere in the city. All I know is that the view, with Spire, Trump, Aon, and Hancock would be breathtaking. :yes:

foot traffic and security in the hotel.2nd entrance just like Sears. Inside the building, hotel guests could use their room key for access to the observation lobby.

[aluminum]

Maybe they'll increase the height of W-A and then an OD will become more reasonable.

[Nowhereman1280]

Wait, I don't get why everyone wants ODs so much? There really isn't much of a market for much more than two or three in any city. I don't understand what the big deal is about them on this site. They are nothing more than tourist traps and don't really add much to the city, especially when there are already two of them. I could see there being lots of interest in them if we didn't already have two buildings like this, but three, especially on a shorter building like this, doesn't make sense.

Maybe if that guy who wants the WTB in Chicago or Houston actually proposes something feasible at like 3000 or 3500', then we can talk the need for a new OD. But until then there is no product differentiation between these "medium" range buildings we are getting. Yes that's right 1000' is now medium in Chicago...

[Norsider]

Wait, I don't get why everyone wants ODs so much?

Because we want to go up in them.

[CHAPINM1]

Because we want to go up in them.

You couldn't be any more right, all the observation decks I visit are always backed up with visitors. With more observation decks throughout a city, the waiting times at each is bound to decrease substantially.

[KevinFromTexas]

You couldn't be any more right, all the observation decks I visit are always backed up with visitors. With more observation decks throughout a city, the waiting times at each is bound to decrease substantially.

I totally agree. That gives them more time to be out enjoying the city and spending money! :cool:

[hoju]

The thing about ODs is that sometimes, a mid-sized building of 50 or 60 floors can offer a very unique and fantastic view of the city that you haven't seen in all the postcard shots. It is nice on one hand to be at the top of sears and to see other states, but it is also nice to be in the forest of skyscrapers and to feel like you are floating right in the middle of the city. The pictures forumers take from their downtown office and condo buildings can attest to this. Also, we dont have a totally open air deck in chicago, only that open window area in the hancock. But the logistics and elevator infrastructure necessary for an OD may be too difficult for many buildings to accommodate. Personally, I think we could use one or two more that could still turn a profit.

[BVictor1]

Prepare for this one to possibly go taller.

[wrab]

Prepare for this one to possibly go taller.

Well now, that's a teaser!

[X-fib]

Prepare for this one to possibly go taller.

You lucky people with access to inside info!:) Dare I ask when we might know?

[pip]

Prepare for this one to possibly go taller.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/images/smilies/banana.gif

[BVictor1]

You lucky people with access to inside info!:) Dare I ask when we might know?

No clue, but when I find out, you all will be the first to know.

[djvandrake]

:cheers:

1300' would certainly be welcome here. :)

[budman]

That is amazing...

The amazing part is that, aside from Sears, the Loop is the small part of that picture.

[Alliance]

Prepare for this one to possibly go taller.


Increasing floor heights, stories? mixed use? spires? what?

[Nowhereman1280]

Increasing floor heights, stories? mixed use? spires? what?

I highly doubt that there would ever be spires on a design like this, I just don't know where they would put one?

I'm sure its got to do with the seemingly short floor heights we have right now. I am willing to bet the floor count its correct, but the building is really more like 1250' or something like that. Or maybe it will become like 110 floors and 1300' or something...

This is definately a better place for a 1300'er than an 1100'er, this would be a good oppurtunity for Daley to push for more height.

[Fabb]

Is there such a thing as too many classy, spectacular, amazing projects and constructions in a city ?

Because I think that Chicago is getting close.

[SlatsGrobnik]

Prepare for this one to possibly go taller.

Please god not 2,000'. We don't need a return of the goal posts.

[Steely Dan]

* posts deleted *

this thread is for discussion about the waldorf-astoria proposal in chicago. if you want to discuss dubai or any of its projects, you will have to take those discussions elsewhere.

[SNT1]

While I can't complain that its currently accepted height is 1100', I wish they would go around 1300ish, give/take a few feet. It's just that Chicago already has a few buildings in the 1050-1150 range (in terms of roof height); some height variety would be great (Oh, come on, who doesn't want a height increase? :) )

[Alliance]

Most certainly, THIS building is worthy of the title of Chicago's 3rd tallest.

Hear that Mr. Trump? This thing needs 63' more to beat "Chicago's new tallest"...that would be 2.

1300' would be excellent.Please god not 2,000'. We don't need a return of the goal posts.

Well, the Chicago river is going to be a series of supertalls anyway...:haha:

Spire, Waldorf, Aon, Trump, Waterview...Wolf Point should be on that list too (if there is an actual serious proposal there) and Aquitectonica's LSE proposal is a mere 900' as well.

Is there such a thing as too many classy, spectacular, amazing projects and constructions in a city ?

Because I think that Chicago is getting close.

:cool: Thanks.

[aeathin2]

Honestly if this thing could go up to 1350', forget about it. I could literally buy a boat, sit in lake michigan and stare at Chicago for the rest of my life. I personally think this is the best tower of the ones that are proposed or u/c. I really do feel that it needs to go up to over 1300' for it to stand out and do this tower justice.

Ryan81...your photoshoped picture with all the proposals and u/c's....amazing job. Any chance you can post the original picture for a comparison?

[aaron38]

I wrote a paper last year for a project management class, and used this site as an example of technology allowing very early stakeholder involvement in projects.
Maybe Carley saw the discussion here of our photoshops and STR's work, where people said it didn't stand out much and decided it DID need to stand out more??

That would be so amazing, if he saw those skyline renders we did and changed his mind...

[Mr Roboto]

Well, its currently very short for 100 floors. It should be at least as tall as the Hancock in terms of its highest occupiable floor, plus the added height for where it comes to its tip. I could easily see this being proposed at close to 1300'. At least, that would be very cool.

[aluminum]

1300' is awesome ! But before discussing height, I would like to ask about the chances of W-A being built in the first place.

[Nowhereman1280]

I would say pretty decent with WA signed on and taking up 50% of the space in the building. Also, I think recently proposed buildings that won't be in sales for a few more years are very likely to be built and turn a huge profit right now. Think about it, if they don't start sales for another year and a half, the condo market should be just about at the beginning of another boom cycle, meaning these units will be coming online right at the peak of a boom cycle. That's very good for the developer because many units will sell at peak prices.

[Alliance]

Yeah...reasons suporting construction.

1. Large/Powerful hotel anchor.
2. Limited number of condos
3. New condo market.
4. Location

The only buildings it would probably directly compete with are the tail end of the Spire (assuming sales aren't very rapid) and buildings like Arquitectonica, GP3, etc...bigger proposals that aren't U/C yet. Besides, the urban condo market in Chicago is not exacly in dire straits.

[VivaLFuego]

Besides, the urban condo market in Chicago is not exacly in dire straits.
Considering the apparently high number of investors and flippers that bought in higher-end buildings just coming online (eg 340OTP), I wouldn't be so sure. The market may look very different a few months from now. My guess is one of two scenarios:
1) the upper end market really is just tapped out in terms of live-in buyers, and obviously investor and flipper activity has already fully calmed, or
2) what's left of the high end market here was waiting all along for the Spire and is in the process of negotiating units there.

Neither of which bold well for this tower in the short-to-medium term, except for the obvious fact that there is a major hotel anchoring the building, and it's much easier to sell units under construction, or better yet completed, than ones for which ground has yet to be broken.

Remember, Trump has barely sold any units in the past month, Canyon Ranch is apparently a sales disaster and risks cancellation, and who the heck knows about Mandarin Oriental. These units would get a big boost if the building were under construction (helped along by the hotel), and of course may hopefully benefit because they're projected to come online more in the 2010-2012 timeline, by which time the real estate market may have swung up.

[Alliance]

340 is somethign to watch. However, I don't see a real test until the Aqua/Legacy duo is completed. I think then we'll have a gauge of the more average condo market.

[honte]

^ 340 allegedly took many precautions to prevent excessive flippers / investors.

The upper-end market generally is not in any hurry to purchase units. They already have perfectly nice places to live generally. The slowdown at the top could be as VivaL says, but it also may simply be due to people waiting a bit for more favorable rates (although they are not bad now) or more confidence in the market's overall strength. But the Spire Effect should not be downplayed one bit.

Still, I think if Carley is really planning this thing for a few years out, he'll be in fine shape.

[Alliance]

Well, even if he started today, he's looking at 2011. Give this one a year to steep and brew. Thats still into territory where we know nothing about what will be comming hot off the press. He may even wait to see if we get the games.

Thought I bet if we do, Intercontinental will be starting their hotel tower too, which will be taking away market from Carley's tower.

[Nowhereman1280]

Question:
Do you guys think that this increase in height will just be a floor height increase, or do you thing they might extend the rotation of this form, making it rotate 90 degrees instead of 45 or something?

[sale]

Question:
Do you guys think that this increase in height will just be a floor height increase, or do you thing they might extend the rotation of this form, making it rotate 90 degrees instead of 45 or something?

I would speculate it could simply be upping the height of each floor. Or maybe, they are thinking about plopping a pole on top. :D

[Dr. Taco]

guys guys, we're taking this rumor* a little too far. a height increase could mean 10' more feet. I guess it would be reasonable to add 100', but all this talk about 1300-1400 feet, spires, more rotations... i mean, i guess its fun to dream and speculate, but isn't this a little much?

*discrediting bvictor is not my intention

[Alliance]

It is a rumor, but this could go from the 6th tallest in chicago to third with just a 63' increase. Thats like 6" per floor.

[SNT1]

hahah looks like 1300' is (almost) everyone's wish for this to go taller.

Bvictor didn't say anything specific. It could be floor height increase, spire (for this design, god forbid), or actual floor increase. I wanna see someone shoop a 1300'+ version into the skyline, just for fun.

[cactus22minus1]

Ok I know 1300 is just an arbitrary number that's being thrown around, but just for fun...

This is just stretched... basically a ceiling height increase.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8886/chicagowaincreasehi7.gif

[Steely Dan]

^ 1,300' would be pretty damn sweet.

let's hope the right people are snooping 'round these parts.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Yep, that's what I thought, it NEEDS to be that tall. At 1300' it eats everything other than the Sears and CS alive. I'm sure it probably won't be that tall, but either way, I like how it looks at that height!

[X-fib]

^^^^^ Agreed

[aluminum]

SWFC has only more floor but is more than 500' feet taller.

[Steely Dan]

SWFC has only more floor but is more than 500' feet taller.

SWFC is an office building, and they tend to have greater floor-to-floor heights than condo/hotel towers like waldorf-astoria.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

I think that the Waldork-Astoria being at least 1300-1400 feet would be key. If it were 1100 feet, I think there is the possibility that the Chicago Spire would dominate/overshadow the rest of the nearby skyline TOO much...as it is 2,000 feet, and the next highest buildings that are within a mile are about 1100 feet (Hancock, Aon, WA, and WV), and then you have some buildings in the 800-900 feet range. So by the lake, you have a a building that is 2000 feet and then a plateau of numerous other buildings that are about half the size of it. If the WA is 1300, 1400, or even 1500, it allows the skyline to build up to the Spire a little bit more gradually.

[gramsjdg]

Agreed, 1300 ft minimum for such a nice design. 1350-1400 ft would be just about perfect!

[pip]

on that diagram above:

Waldorf-Astoria is a fine looking building, really liking it
Waterview: one of my favorites looks only ok in comparison
Sears: is an all around classic
Chicago Spire: just huge and a unique design
AON: dull but it is good to have a supertall with that style
Hancock: screams steel
Trump: big and smooth

[AnotherPunter]

This building has a very interesting sculptural shape and all, but I don't quite get the economics of it. The developers will be able to charge much higher prices for the highest floors, but the design gives them progressively less floorspace to work with. Why shoot yourself in the foot?

That said, I also kind of wonder about the look itself. Looking at it straignt on to the flat part, it looks dramatic and really interesting. But looking at it in perspective--i.e., straight on to the thinnest part of the wedge--i have to say i think the building looks kind of strange... I just lose the plot. Its like wearing a tie thats the same color as your shirt if that makes any sense...

[Alliance]

I hate to say it, but this building could beat out JHC and the Spire for my favorite supertall in Chicago.

[Steely Dan]

I hate to say it, but this building could beat out JHC and the Spire for my favorite supertall in Chicago.

why would you hate to say that?

as i said at last evening's CBP meeting, if chicago is lucky enough to be blessed with both this project and the spire, i think they would have an equal shot at the title for best chicago supertall, the determining factors coming down to materials and execution. the design for both projects appears to be there, now they just gotta build........... and build wisely and faithfully.

[Alliance]

^ because I find it rather amusing with all the hoopla surrounding the Spire that the 2000' giant could be immediately outdone.

@1300', Waldorf and Hancock make one hell of a duo.

[Crazy Ivan]

Yeah, at 1300ft that’s a great looking building. It makes it a recognizable icon rather than just another building that blends into the background.

[scalziand]

Also, if its viewed from the skinny side, WA almost seems wimpy in the skyline when compared to the other 1100's with flat roofs. I agree that 1300' would really help.

[STR]

@1,300, except the last thumbnail
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/7219/chi11vo1.th.jpg (http://img508.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chi11vo1.jpg) http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/913/chi12im9.th.jpg (http://img484.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chi12im9.jpg) http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/2056/chi13ox1.th.jpg (http://img453.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chi13ox1.jpg)

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8415/chi10ox2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[djvandrake]

:cheers:

1300' would certainly be welcome here. :)

Guys, I really just pulled 1,300 out of my hat because I thought it would be a very nice balance for the area. Great addition to the massing without trying to compete with the allmighty spire. Just peeking over the head of AON and leaving Trumpster as an also ran. :haha: I don't have any idea if 1,300 has a real chance of happening. I do say that after looking at the awesome shots from STR's model, my initial musing is certainly validated. Those are really awesome STR. Thanks!

*goes off to pray to the skyscraper gods for a 1,300' WA* :tup:

[Nowhereman1280]

You're not the only person to suggest 1300 as a random number out of their hat. I said that too, that 1300 would be the perfect height for this guy. I have to say it would look pretty good in the 1600-1800' range as well though!:tup:

Great renders STR! I love it when you post them!

[spyguy]

BVic, I think you blew Rosenberg's mind when you mentioned that there will be a W=A in Chicago. Also kind of funny how quickly you listed off these new towers which most people don't even realize are going up. Nice job.

[observer]

Does anyone know how big the base of the tower is...as currently planned?...I'm just trying to picture how big it would be at the ground .....relative to the Sears Tower or John Handcock center.

[Alliance]

@1,300, except the last thumbnail

Great, but is there anyway you can get the little indent and make the glass lighter?
You're not the only person to suggest 1300 as a random number out of their hat. I said that too, that 1300 would be the perfect height for this guy. I have to say it would look pretty good in the 1600-1800' range as well though!:tup:

Great renders STR! I love it when you post them!

...so anything as long as its taller :haha:

[STR]

Great, but is there anyway you can get the little indent and make the glass lighter?

Sure...I'll make the modification at my standard modeling rate. Cut a check for $100 and the renders will be up in no time. :banana:

[10023]

@1,300, except the last thumbnail
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/7219/chi11vo1.th.jpg (http://img508.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chi11vo1.jpg)

Skyline looks very strange in this one. It's like two medium sized city skylines with midrises in between.

And then you think for a minute and go "wait a minute... those midrises are 40 or 50 stories tall!"