[cbotnyse]

I guess the point is here that Chicago will now have a new #3. Thats is pretty damn cool if you ask me. I hope this one gets done!

[SimbyHeart]

Man just imagine the next coming booms, the heights that await for future buildings! Chicago, im so in love with u!

[Dr. Taco]

Now we just need one at 1090'ish (wolf point? Franklin Point?) and we will have a perfect exponential function of roof height going on between Waterview and CS

nerd.

F(x) ~= 1000 + 1000e^(-x/1000)
x measured in feet


nice :tup:

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Hey, if there are two things I love its efficiency and mathematical balance.

[aluminum]

How about this?
f(x) = 1000 + 1000[{2^(1/x)}-1] where x moves from 1 to infinity and is measured in feet.
We get:
x1 = 2000 Height of CS
x2 = 1414 Close to the height of Sears
x3 = 1260 Close to the height of W=A
x4 = 1189 Close to the height of Trump
x5 = 1149 Close to the height of Aon
x6 = 1123 Close to the height of JHC
x7 = 1105 As Nowhereman1280 said, we need a building of this height to make a proper function.

Pretty close, eh ?

[SNT1]

I'd hate to see a visible function regarding skylines in general. Need more randomness! Needs to be a jungle!:haha:

oh, and 1265' is welcome. :notacrook:

[Alliance]

Personally, I like orderd jungles. One thing I dislike about some cities that have larger skylines than Chicago is they appear disordered and cluttered. I'd much rather see a resonable amount of urban planning that could combine the will of developers and the chaos that such brute capitalism builds with a more sweeping vision of a logical skyline that allows buildings to breathe.

[choyak1]

Nah, something needs to be built in the 1700 feet range as a center point between Sears and CS!!

Perhaps a scaled down version of 7 South Dearborn, I loved that building. I was so upset when it was cancelled.

[SNT1]

Just glad that this will stand out even more, rising from the scraper jungle from north of Grant Park. The 1109' version stood out, but I can only imagine a bigger impact from this one. From 2 diagonal angles it will look broad too. This one needs a fair and speedy approval !:cheers:

I hope they don't change the design too much though; the renderings we see (the 1109') looks almost perfect already.

[John Hinds]

Is the 1265ft height official? If so i'll draw a new diagram drawing.

[Alliance]

Is the 1265ft height official? If so i'll draw a new diagram drawing.

Its supported enough to make Steely change the thread title :)

[Steely Dan]

Is the 1265ft height official? If so i'll draw a new diagram drawing.

nothing is ever official in these extremely early phases of a project, the 1265' figure is merely the most recent one victor has reported.

[John Hinds]

nothing is ever official in these extremely early phases of a project, the 1265' figure is merely the most recent one victor has reported.

What I meant was is the 1265 height based on any solid facts or was Victor just estimating it based on the 1200ft quoted in the letter.

And if the roof is 1200m, then what does the 1265ft height represent?

[Steely Dan]

What I meant was is the 1265 height based on any solid facts or was Victor just estimating it based on the 1200ft quoted in the letter.
it's based on facts, victor obtained the 1,200' and 1,265' height figures from the development team.




And if the roof is 1200m, then what does the 1265ft height represent?
i assume you meant the roof is 1,200', not 1,200m ;)

but seriously, the 1,265' height figure is to the very top of the structure.

[Steely Dan]

for those wishing to continue the off-topic general state of chicago architecture discussion that was taking place in this thread, a new thread has been created in the buildings & architecture sub-forum and many of the posts from this thread have been moved over to that one. please continue discussing the topic over in the new thread.

link: The State of Chicago Architecture (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=140434)

[aliendroid]

1265 feet is a good height for this building. I don't consider spires to be part of a building's height but this doesn't have a spire, the extra 65 feet are part of the structure of the building so I think the offical height should be 1265.

[bnk]

There was a large render in the business section of the Trib (page 3) with the descrition

www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri_kc_tower_1102nov02,0,3004485.story

Another giant to knife into city skyline
November 2, 2007




Under the render it states that it will be a 102 story building.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ probably means like 102 usable floors with 5 mechanical floors that wouldn't count to the average person.

[Fabb]

There was a large render in the business section of the Trib (page 3) with the descrition

www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri_kc_tower_1102nov02,0,3004485.story

Another giant to knife into city skyline


... only available to Subscriber Advantage members

[BVictor1]

... only available to Subscriber Advantage members

Bastards...

Looks like I will just have to pick up a hard copy then

[Chi649]

^^ yes, it's in todays Trib, Business section, page 3

[detroitismylove]

^^ yes, it's in todays Trib, Business section, page 3

Someone scan it or something.

[BVictor1]

Someone scan it or something.

It's just a black and white rendering will a bit of caption. There was no story.

[LaSalle.St.Station]

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9846/fromhancockze1.jpg

What a future...... for ryan81. and Chicago too. nice.

[Frank 77]

It will become one of my favs in Chicago , looks much better than the MCC .

[Northwest]

This building is in the right place at the right time. The architecture is unique and stunning, with nothing else similar to it, in Chicago at least.
Now its just a matter of waiting and hoping for the follow through. I think this project has a lot going for it, with a very high chance of success!

[Ryan81]

The original image used for this composite was posted on SSC by secondcity1 on 3/23/07


Was a difficult shot to dertermine exact locations since there are only outlines of the buildings which makes it somewhat difficult to determine at which angel the shot was taken. It was also difficult to determine the height of trump tower due to perspective. Feel free anyone to move bulidings to their proper location. Anyway....so here's my shot:

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/1975/secondcity132307ssc2lf8.jpg

[phillyskyline]

Stunning! I like how this building along w/ Stratosphere will make a new focal point in Chi's skyline.

[Steely Dan]

Stunning! I like how this building along w/ Stratosphere will make a new focal point in Chi's skyline.

stratosphere? ummmmm.......... that's out in vegas, dude. ;)

might you be referring to the chicago spire?

[Northwest]

stratosphere? ummmmm.......... that's out in vegas, dude. ;)

might you be referring to the chicago spire?

I read the same thing, and thought "stratosphere"? Did I miss some big new proposal? Could this reference perhaps actually be the Chicago Spire, or perhaps the W=A itself?

[aaron38]

In regards to Ryan's picture, W=A is going to do so much to pull the Spire into the skyline. And the height ratio is perfect. The Spire doesn't look isolated, and W=A doesn't look overbearing. A perfect balancing act.

[sfguy]

I really like the design of this building. It kind of reminds me of the Shanghai World Financial Center.

[Hankster]

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/1975/secondcity132307ssc2lf8.jpg[/QUOTE]

What a stunning picture! Wow!

[bnk]

I really like the design of this building. It kind of reminds me of the Shanghai World Financial Center.


I have heard this stated before about this project.:hmmm:
:ancient:

[Alliance]

The original image used for this composite was posted on SSC by secondcity1 on 3/23/07


Was a difficult shot to dertermine exact locations since there are only outlines of the buildings which makes it somewhat difficult to determine at which angel the shot was taken. It was also difficult to determine the height of trump tower due to perspective. Feel free anyone to move bulidings to their proper location. Anyway....so here's my shot


Where is waterview....;)

[Dr. Taco]

^

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y6/jstush04/eghi.jpg


right there?

[Alliance]

I'd say more like this. :cool:

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e399/delta2094/Untitled-1.jpg

[Dr. Taco]

:cool:

[Nowhereman1280]

Trump is about 1 cm too far left in those pictures, it needs to be right behind the NBC tower, which you can see between Trump and CS, with the little poker on top. That would allow you to see Waterview better. Trump should be right next to W=A in that photo. Waterview also then needs to be moved over the same distance. That would be much more accurate.

This view is going to be so incredibly tall and dense in 5 years, it will be unbelievable!

[aaron38]

Where is waterview....;)

Exactly. It's a freakin' supertall, and in that shot it gets lost. And in your version it's flat out buried.

[Alliance]

Its really too far back to make a big impact on the skyline form this angle. IF WP is also only a measely supertall, it'll be lost in that mess as well.

[Ryan81]

I have updated this composite as follows:

Orientation and view angle has been updated for Waldor=Astoria. The Spire has increased a tad in height to reflect more closely the actual height. The shadows on the spire have been improved as well. After Studying the perspective and angle of this shot, trump tower's orientation as well as overall height in this image have changed.

http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/34929/2005279126873297837_rs.jpg

[cbotnyse]

fantastic renders ryan. it really puts in perspective the perfect location and height of W=A. thanks.

[simcityaustin]

It's amazing how all the supertalls make the regular highrises look so short!

Great job Ryan!

[ComandanteCero]

i apologize if this has already been addresssed...

but why do people keep referring to this as Waldorf=Astoria or W=A instead of just Waldorf-Astoria or W-A?

Did i miss some kind of updating of the Waldorf-Astoria brand, are they going for a variation on the brand name for this project?

Is that why the title has the "="?

Just curious.....

[cbotnyse]

W=A is what they use on their own official site, so I guess we should do the same.

[Mr Roboto]

This building (along with the spire, smurfit, 2pru) really helps break up the monotony of the typical chicago box skyscraper, especially with the more prominent ones. Not that I dont like the box, but it is about time to add some variety in the shapes. The shape of this one looks very cool. With this, and combined with the need for height in proximity to the Spire, I think this one is a absolutely welcome addition for the skyline. Thanks for the render, looks good.

[Ryan81]

Where is waterview....

Haha, I thought somebody might ask that. Honestly, I just don't have it modeled yet, and so usually leave it out. I will try and make it a priority to get it modeled. In the mean time, I will just model a massing....

I'd say more like this.

More like this......with waterview included;)

http://aycu17.webshots.com/image/31416/2002482197827795020_rs.jpg

I had to figure it out....used google earth and attempted to get the closest view as is shown in the actual photo, then inserted my models into google earth and captured a screenshot. My original location assumtions were close. Needed to move the spire and waldorf astoria to the left a tad, as well as aqua and arquitectonica a tad to the right.

[LucasS6]

The Loop really needs a couple taller buildings. If you didn't know better, and looked at these last few renders, where would you say Chicago's CBD is? I hope that gets changed, but I don't see it happening in the near future.

[Alliance]

Well, there are several problems with this.

First, the loop is set back several blocks behind grant park. Thus, from the lake, buildings that would fit right in with all the LSE buildings appear to be much smaller, simply because of perspective.

Secondly, Chicao is challenging the mold when it comes to the type of buildings being built. ALL of our supertalls U/C or proposed are residential or res/hotel buildings. There is no office space. We're just not building supertall office buildings. Thus, the tallest area of the city isn't aligned with the CBD.

[forumly_chgoman]

Well, there are several problems with this.

First, the loop is set back several blocks behind grant park. Thus, from the lake, buildings that would fit right in with all the LSE buildings appear to be much smaller, simply because of perspective.

Secondly, Chicao is challenging the mold when it comes to the type of buildings being built. ALL of our supertalls U/C or proposed are residential or res/hotel buildings. There is no office space. We're just not building supertall office buildings. Thus, the tallest area of the city isn't aligned with the CBD.
Your second observation is particularly interesting.....it is true of the "super talls" in the center of the skyline photo only Aon is office, and that was built in 1974?? I think, he rest are life centers ie living, playing (hotel)...I guess hotel is also business esp if conventioneers are involved

[LucasS6]

I know why. I'm from Bridgeport, I'm familiar with where the buildings are (as far as perspective) and I'm also familiar with what are office buildings and what aren't.

The simple fact that I'm pointing out is that what will be the tallest area of Chicago won't be the CBD, and that's a little strange and I'm not sure I like it.

[Alliance]

Its simply a different message. Chicago is much more than a global finnacial powerhouse, its also a place to live. People generally don't want to live in the CBD because its dead at night. With the uncomparable views of the river, park, and lake, it makes sense that these spots will house large residential buildings.

[ChiPsy]

:previous:

I think he meant the foreground/background distortion you get viewing the skyline from Bridgeport. From a SW side "rooftop deck" perspective, I bet it *would* suck to have all the new gems being built in Streeterville ;)

Anyway, welcome to the forum, Lucas :)

[Untitled]

I have updated this composite as follows:

Orientation and view angle has been updated for Waldor=Astoria. The Spire has increased a tad in height to reflect more closely the actual height. The shadows on the spire have been improved as well. After Studying the perspective and angle of this shot, trump tower's orientation as well as overall height in this image have changed.

http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/34929/2005279126873297837_rs.jpg

BCBS will own this perspective once its height doubles, just due to sheer mass.

Fantastic image. W=A will fit in perfectly.

[mediaman]

Ryan -- great composite. I noticed a few buildings that are proposed or u/c that will make Streeterville even denser than this composite.

Streeter II
Park View West, and the 27 story East
Peshtigo
and the existing, old River East Arts Center

The Fairbanks buildings may also be in there but I think they'd be obscured by W=A and Arquitechtonica.

[Chicago Shawn]

As reported this is 1265'-0" from the hotel entrance about 1/2 way up the slope of Park Drive, midway between Upper East North Water Street (love that street name) and Illinois Street. The usuable space ends at 1200', above that is mechanical and "ornimental roof feature". Now since the main hotel entry is above natural grade on the sloped Park Drive, the actual ground level along New Street will be an additional 12'-11", so in reality this tower is 1278 feet tall. The New Street frontage will be a terra-cotta rainscreen, which does not look very inviting; just a long blank wall. There are four levels of underground parking and then two additional levels for back-of-house opperations and the Ballroom positioned between grade and Upper East North Water St. Floor count is stated as 107.

[Steely Dan]

Now since the main hotel entry is above natural grade on the sloped Park Drive, the actual ground level along New Street will be an additional 12'-11", so in reality this tower is 1278 feet tall.

but its official height, per emporis guidelines, should remain at 1,265' for now, correct?

[BVictor1]

but its official height, per emporis guidelines, should remain at 1,265' for now, correct?

Correct

[honte]

^ You know, after Alliance made that comment, I started thinking about it in this league. For some reason, with CS, 1265' doesn't ring home like it used to.

The interesting thing is, the development does not have the starpower of the WTC projects, and yet, I find the architecture of this one far more exciting and convincing. Go figure?

Yes, execution will be everything, and of course I have to wait to see the final product. But it is case-in-point that Starchitects alone do not necessarily result in great buildings.

[Steely Dan]

there will be no debate about CBTUH or emporis rules in this thread. all such further posts in this thread about the topic of a building's "true" height will be deleted. if that annoys you, go start a new thread about the topic in the buildings & architecture forum.

also, the new york vs. chicago BS is always verboten on this forum.

[goldstar133]

When are they going to build this?

[OhioGuy]

Ryan, I just want to say I really appreciate the renderings you've been doing.

[NYguy]

^ You know, after Alliance made that comment, I started thinking about it in this league. For some reason, with CS, 1265' doesn't ring home like it used to.

It will, once its built.

[Kngkyle]

When are they going to build this?

Thursday, April 25th, 2008 @ 7:35 AM central time.

[Hed Kandi]

Thursday, April 25th, 2008 @ 7:35 AM central time.


ROFL ! :haha:

[empvic]

That is one cool looking building. I hope it gets built

[direfloyd]

Very cool design!!!

[goldstar133]

Thursday, April 25th, 2008 @ 7:35 AM central time.

In that case they better start now :notacrook:

[Roy McDowell]

Wow! Chicago is kicking some major ass with these supertalls. The Waldorf Astoria should compliment the Spire very nicely. I'm just imagining the reaction of all those tourists while boating down the Chicago River with cameras flashing. It looks like the skyline on the front cover of the touring brochures will need updating soon. I hope I live to see at least 20x 1,000+ footers doting the skyline in my life time. Nice work on the renderings everyone. Especially this one by Ryan81
http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/34929/2005279126873297837_rs.jpg

[mountsac]

wow!!! just saw this today =P

it's right behind the spire, which might be blocked when viewed in a skyline shot from the lake. but it is nonetheless very exciting :cheers:

the design is reminescent of freedom tower and SWFC

[Fabb]

it's right behind the spire, which might be blocked when viewed in a skyline shot from the lake.

Only from a precise angle. I wouldn't worry about that.

[Nowhereman1280]

Oh crap, our 1265'er is going to blend into the skyline and will barely make an impact! :shrug: ;)

[Alliance]

guess we'll have to build more 2000'ers.

[Untitled]

^ oh, darn.

[Manahata]

This is a very elegant building, Both W=A and" its older twin" Shanghai WFB will become icons

[forumly_chgoman]

edit

[StevenW]

Chicago is amazing!!

[Thefigman]

Nice work on the renderings everyone. Especially this one by Ryan81


Here here to that. I now have new desktop wallpaper. :yes:

[left of center]

Streeterville is going to look insane once this boom has run its course. Its literally going to be as dense as the Loop! Now if only they built taller (and glassier) in River North west of Dearborn...

[Busy Bee]

^I'm hoping "this boom" isn't something that just runs its' course, but I hope what we are really witnessing is an unprecedented urban renaissance that will continue even if the economy stagnates. This may happen because the booms' momentum isn't completely determined by dollars and cents as we have seen in the past—it's impetus seems to be equally defined by a widespread change in mentality—where we want to live, were we want to be and the general perception of the urban environment.

I've said it on this board and I'll say it again: this generation is going to completely reinvigorate our cities, not just Chicago. The suburbs may still be alive with construction for people who desire a big lot and too much soulless square footage, but energy issues and the mainstreaming of conservationist "green" thinking will only serve to reinvigorate cities with people who are searching for a better quality of life and more progressive, cultural and smarter places to call home. There are very exciting days ahead for Chicago. I have a feeling we've only seen the beginning. Onward and upward.

[aaron38]

I walked around the area today for the first time since the proposal was anounced, and it's going to be stunning. It's going to dominate the view from so many angles.

Well, if the Spire wasn't there, but still, it's going to look really good.

[archytype]

Wow! Chicago is kicking some major ass with these supertalls. The Waldorf Astoria should compliment the Spire very nicely. I'm just imagining the reaction of all those tourists while boating down the Chicago River with cameras flashing. It looks like the skyline on the front cover of the touring brochures will need updating soon. I hope I live to see at least 20x 1,000+ footers doting the skyline in my life time. Nice work on the renderings everyone. Especially this one by Ryan81
http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/34929/2005279126873297837_rs.jpg

I just want to clarify that I made the rendering. My boss bought the aerial pix, I cleaned it up, and I threw in the LSE buildings.

[Ryan81]

I just want to clarify that I made the rendering. My boss bought the aerial pix, I cleaned it up, and I threw in the LSE buildings.

I had no idea where the original rendering came from or for that matter who did it. When this was originally posted quite some time ago, I was under the impression that it was a marketing rendering from the Lakeshore East development. I guess I was wrong.

I have never claimed credit for inserting the lakeshore east buildings (aqua or arquitectonica) as a matter of fact, I even stated that the lakeshore east renderings were not my work when I originally posted my version in one of the other threads months ago. My addition at that time was Trump and the Spire. The composite above is my update to include Waldorf=Astoria.

Again, my contribution to this composite includes the insertion of my Sketchup models of Trump, Waldorf, and the Spire. I am not responsible for the very well done additions of the Arquitectonica building and Aqua.

I apologize. It was never my intention to claim anybody else's work.

[Ryan81]

I had no idea where the original rendering came from or for that matter who did it.

I went and checked. I did give archytype credit when I posted my additions to the Spire Thread originally. See link below:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=2872369#post2872369

I guess at one time I knew who posted it, but had since forgotten.

Again, my apologies Archytype - never meant to take credit from where credit is due. Thank you for pointing that out so that if I make future additions to this composite (with your permission) I can remember to credit you for the original work.

[Norsider]

This may happen because the booms' momentum isn't completely determined by dollars and cents as we have seen in the past—it's impetus seems to be equally defined by a widespread change in mentality—where we want to live, were we want to be and the general perception of the urban environment.


Increased demand is about as "dollars and cents" as it gets. There is nothing mystical going on here. If people want to pay money for real estate, there will be builders willing to sell it to them. The very instant people stop buying, the developers will stop building. It's happened before, it will happen again.

Back in the 90's, they used to day the DOW would go up forever. Let's not make the same miscalculation. This cycle will most certainly end someday. So let's enjoy it while it lasts.

[Alliance]

The issue is not "end" but slowing down. Sure everyone is expecting a short term decrease in demand for these sort of projects, that doesn't mena that developers will "stop building" or people "stop buying." The market doesn't just die.

[Norsider]

The issue is not "end" but slowing down. Sure everyone is expecting a short term decrease in demand for these sort of projects, that doesn't mena that developers will "stop building" or people "stop buying." The market doesn't just die.

1990

[Busy Bee]

1990 was another time and another era. The Chicago climate felt completely different in 1990. Nearly 20 years and an entire generation can make a big difference.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

The issue is not "end" but slowing down. Sure everyone is expecting a short term decrease in demand for these sort of projects, that doesn't mena that developers will "stop building" or people "stop buying." The market doesn't just die.

I agree that there probably won't be an "end" but there will be a slowing down - which is already occurring. Luckily, we have almost 60 buildings in Chicago that are 12+ stories under construction.....plus with a decent amount of proposed condo buildings with sales close to 50% and thus don't need many more sales to get built (eg - MO, the X/O towers, Lincoln Park 2520, Glashaus, etc.), and a fairly strong market for new rental towers, office towers, and hospitals, we should still see quite a bit of highrise construction going on in Chicago for at least a few more years.

I do think that getting the 2016 Olympics would do wonders in terms of prolonging the high-rise boom in Chicago.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

Also, I do believe that even in a much weakened condo market, some bigprojects such as Arquitectonica in LSE (and any other new highrise condos in LSE) and Grant Park 3&4 should still almost definitely succeed as their condos would be still be in great demand due to their great location.

[GregBear24]

If any particular project is of relatively high quality, location, design, views, and price, then it will likely succeed even in the current type of market. The slowing of the condo boom only lowers construction costs, and can actually be a great time to build. Smart investors are actually still waiting for values to go down, so they can invest more heavily in high quality projects so that when the market comes back they have high gains. MO could fail because of its lack of a relatively good location compared to competition, lack of views, and high price points. W=A has a better location in a more residential neighborhood, and will have better views of the river and lake, with the only nearby blocker being the spire, and aon sort of. Grant park towers 3&4 should do well, because people know that development and it will have great city, park and lake views forever. 680 Rush is another that could possibly fail, but i think it has a better chance then MO. If you build it (quality), they will come.

[ChitownBill]

The issue is not "end" but slowing down. Sure everyone is expecting a short term decrease in demand for these sort of projects, that doesn't mena that developers will "stop building" or people "stop buying." The market doesn't just die.

I agree the market doesn't die but it does adjust. I know this isn't a popular stance but we are entering a period of adjustment. Some of these proposals will be just that. There are alot of experts in the field of buildings and architecture on these forums which is great and thats why I visit them, but in my field (economics) we are forced to deal with reality, fantasy doesn't work well with corporate budgets.

[Dream'n]

I am not going to debate the meaning of die and waste peoples time. I have to go start my car now..I think it might be dead.

[observer]

Why do you think it is dead?...who told you that?

[migueltorres]

Why do you think it is dead?...who told you that?

I think he meant his car, not the W=A building

[observer]

LOL...i need sleep I think.

[BVictor1]

An image :)

I'll upload a few more when I'm back in town.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/147/65572661ze2.jpg

[Marcu]

^ Wow.

[CenIL_LA]

Holy ****:tup: