CHICAGO | Fordham Spire | NEVER BUILT | Former proposal for the Chicago Spire site
 

this thread is a place holder for all of the discussion about this now defunct skyscraper proposal. she was a beauty, but she ain't never gonna get built.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/4717/fordham4lq.jpg

EDIT:

the current project for this piece of land is also being designed by santiago calatrava. it is called "Chicago Spire" and it can be discussed in the following thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=124368

You almost made my heart sink Dan when I read this thread title, I thought it meant there was some devastating breaking news and the Spire project was dead all together or you were just being super pessimistic. When I went to the Chicago Spire thread I was releaved to find out that this is refering to the FORDHAM spire whos name and design (the modified design lives on) is now dead. I agree with that, if people want to talk about the original proposal they should do it here.

:haha:

I still think A was better than B. It was artistically proportional.

deleted

Yeah...I'm 23 years old but my heart felt like that of a 110 year old woman trapped in a den of lions. Goodness...

same here, had a little heart attack of dissapointment, then , oh, yeah

:haha: :koko: :haha: :jester: :yes: :cheers: :jester: :frog: :worship: :tup: :haha: :haha: ;) ;) ;) :) :cool: :D :D :D

I am not giving up hope on this one quite yet. Just because Chicago real estate prices couldn't justify the construction of this thing, aren't there cities out there that could make this work? So what cities could afford to build version B?

New York might be a stretch because construction costs are so high, but if you put this thing around Central Park then you never know. Weren't condos at 15 Central Park West going for 5,000/sq ft? Then again, all New York would really need is someone as crazy as Kelleher to just go ahead and build the damn thing. It would be nice to see this built in the US.

London could definitely afford to build this, considering real estate is more expensive here than anywhere else right now. Of course, could they really justify an apartment 1600 feet in the air when 50% of the days are overcast? I'd probably go nuts up there.

Dubai is probably the most reasonable choice. Dirt cheap construction costs, a booming housing market, and daring developers. Then again, the burj is still rising and as daring as they seem to be that seems like a bit of overkill. But then again, this is Dubai we're talking about. Another disadvantage in Dubai is the brown, sandy air. Similar to the clouds in London, it will make views poor from the top. But then again, what do they care? They're building a half mile tower for Christ's sake.

Shanghai, Tokyo or Hong Kong are possibilities. Hong Kong and Shanghai might have the advantage of having the Chinese government there to ensure the development of this landmark. I'm not sure about how development works in China, so I might be off base by saying so.

San Fransisco has the housing demands and the prices, but a 2000 footer in a city prone to having earthquakes might not be the best idea.

I'm sure someone, Carley perhaps, owns the design.

yeah the old design is way better than the new one
i really liked the spire at the top

but the new one seems flat at the top and for a building with so many curves i dont think a flat roof is a good idea

You seem to forget that good architecture is designed for a particular place and time. This proposal was designed for Chicago's lakefront, and nowhere else. To just erect it out of context would be an insult to Calatrava and Chicago.

I doubt Calatrava would let it happen anyway...

:::

Now, Steely Dan, thank you for making this thread. :worship: I vote that all discussion about the benefits / detriments of spires, observation decks, restaurants, or the like also be put in this thread.

Some of the lesser known renders. Beautifully done in black and white.
The transition from the square bottom to the round top is pure genius.
http://www.boca-del-mar.com/FAQ/Gallery/verB_BW.jpg
http://www.boca-del-mar.com/FAQ/Gallery/verB_BW2.jpg

I think its a bit overpowering. Chicago's skyline is great because of the three peaks of the Aon, Sears, and JHC give you a good sense of scale.

Yes, that is exactly what made the proposal so beautiful. I thought it justified the twisting. The new Chicago Spire, while I am thrilled about it, lacks this sense of design purpose.

Thanks to Dan for this outlet.:)


The best version of any building in the world, at least on paper, is [B].

Good post.

But I would rather not see the B built anywhere else if the version G-H-I is built in Chicago. It would seem to be a rip off of the first Cal S Chicago building built.

Maybe in a thousand years some young architect will look at the masterpiece of what it was an build it someday. What Cal S did with B will not be lost forever I believe.

wtf? are you serious?

B was always my favorite. But I still love the current design.

just extraordinary. it makes the current chicago spire proposal look like a child's toy.

Steely, is it possible you could add a remark in your first posting about the Chicago Spire proposal still being alive, just in a new iteration(s) -- I think you're giving too many people heart attacks, dude :jester:

Edit: For those of you looking for the current version of this project, check out the Chicago Spire thread amid the active projects. Caissons ordered for May/June.

Yeah, and while you're at it, you can make new threads for 7SD and the Miglin-Beitler Skyneedle, because they're still alive too! As long as the developer is concerned with making a profit, this thing ain't never gonna be built. Maybe in Dubai.

DIE Fordham Spire. DIE!