CHICAGO | 110 N Wacker | 817 FT | 56 FLOORS - Page 56

Steely Dan · #**1101** Posted **Sep 21, 2018, 4:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedCorsair87

Last I heard from the firm itself, it was 797,

what's interesting about that 797' figure, when i scale the image spyguy posted, i get exactly 797' to the top of the building, not including the mechanical penthouse.

when people quote building heights, they very often neglect to include things like mechanical penthouses, parapets, screen walls, etc.

Abuilder0430 · #**1102** Posted **Sep 21, 2018, 6:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

when people quote building heights, they very often neglect to include things like mechanical penthouses, parapets, screen walls, etc.

The Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats (CTBUH) has an outline and procedure for measuring the heights of the building that is becoming a standard for Tall and Super Tall high rises. I don't know specifics but I know they are making a standard for these types of things.

PittsburghPA · #**1103** Posted **Sep 21, 2018, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abuilder0430

The Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats (CTBUH) has an outline and procedure for measuring the heights of the building that is becoming a standard for Tall and Super Tall high rises. I don't know specifics but I know they are making a standard for these types of things.

Thanks for the crane info Ski Steve.

I thought that as long as it's included in the design on the architectural drawings it can be included in the final height? Example, Trump's official height is pinnacle height due to the spire being included in original design vs Sears' official height is to the roof because the Antenna were added later.

I could be wrong about that.

The Lurker · #**1104** Posted **Sep 21, 2018, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

Did this one grow? Zoning application shows 814' to the top of the mechanical penthouse.

Look closelyer. 56 floors according to the drawing. It looks like it grew by 4 floors.

HomrQT · #**1105** Posted **Sep 21, 2018, 9:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PittsburghPA

I thought that as long as it's included in the design on the architectural drawings it can be included in the final height? Example, Trump's official height is pinnacle height due to the spire being included in original design vs Sears' official height is to the roof because the Antenna were added later.

That's it. It's stupid but that's it.

Tom In Chicago · #**1106** Posted **Sep 21, 2018, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PittsburghPA

Thanks for the crane info Ski Steve.

I thought that as long as it's included in the design on the architectural drawings it can be included in the final height? Example, Trump's official height is pinnacle height due to the spire being included in original design vs Sears' official height is to the roof because the Antenna were added later.

I could be wrong about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

That's it. It's stupid but that's it.

No that's not it. . . Trump's spire is counted because it's the highest decorative architectural element for the building. . . Sears Tower's antennae are mechanical and therefore NOT counted. . .

With regards to this building, the mechanical penthouse is in fact counted because, for all intents and purposes with regards to parapet walls, screens and building enclosures, it's the highest architectural element of the building. . .

http://www.ctbuh.org/HighRiseInfo/Ta...S/Default.aspx

. . .

spyguy · #**1107** Posted **Sep 22, 2018, 12:22 AM**

Here's the blown up version if it helps

BonoboZill4 · #**1108** Posted **Sep 22, 2018, 4:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

No that's not it. . . Trump's spire is counted because it's the highest decorative architectural element for the building. . . Sears Tower's antennae are mechanical and therefore NOT counted. . .

With regards to this building, the mechanical penthouse is in fact counted because, for all intents and purposes with regards to parapet walls, screens and building enclosures, it's the highest architectural element of the building. . .

http://www.ctbuh.org/HighRiseInfo/Ta...S/Default.aspx

. . .

I still really hate this rule because of its definition of architectural purpose and how it knocks on things that have a purpose beyond just visuals(as if buildings are just there for architecture and to house people and businesses).

The Sears Tower's antennae are more iconic than most spires are for buildings and are visually quite striking. The fact that their serving a purpose other than design is the reason they don't get counted, but lame little cigarettes on buildings that serve no purpose other than being sticks are counted is flat out goofy. I don't want to derail the conversation too much here though, so I'll digress.

The building is going to look even taller from the river level too, another reason I really love the riverboat tours is how the buildings tower over even more and are viewed in a way that they can only be seen from that position.

Tom In Chicago · #**1109** Posted **Sep 22, 2018, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4

I still really hate this rule because of its definition of architectural purpose and how it knocks on things that have a purpose beyond just visuals(as if buildings are just there for architecture and to house people and businesses).

The Sears Tower's antennae are more iconic than most spires are for buildings and are visually quite striking. The fact that their serving a purpose other than design is the reason they don't get counted, but lame little cigarettes on buildings that serve no purpose other than being sticks are counted is flat out goofy. I don't want to derail the conversation too much here though, so I'll digress.

The building is going to look even taller from the river level too, another reason I really love the riverboat tours is how the buildings tower over even more and are viewed in a way that they can only be seen from that position.

You don't have to like it. . . and you can go on and rank skyscrapers however you feel is appropriate. . . it's just that the CTBUH Height Committee rules are as such. . . I'm sure there are many discussions over the years in the appropriate sub-forums that have gone on about this specific topic ad-nauseum, so by all means feel free to continue the conversation there. . .

. . .

The Lurker · #**1110** Posted **Sep 23, 2018, 4:15 PM**

I just realized that with the height bump this one will be 30 feet taller than 300 N. LaSalle, making it the tallest office building built in the city in 30 years. That calls for a

r18tdi · #**1111** Posted **Sep 24, 2018, 6:05 PM**

Crain's is reporting 820'
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/comme...getting-taller

Might just be rounding up from 814 figure?

Rizzo · #**1112** Posted **Sep 24, 2018, 6:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

Did this one grow? Zoning application shows 814' to the top of the mechanical penthouse.

I feel like BofA tower was copy and pasted. But I appreciate the height and density of this

Notyrview · #**1113** Posted **Sep 24, 2018, 6:28 PM**

Crain's is now reporting 820 feet

"The 1.4 million-square-foot tower, slated to open in 2020, will be 820 feet high and the tallest new office building in the city since the 61-story Two Prudential Plaza opened in 1990."

JK47 · #**1114** Posted **Sep 24, 2018, 6:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

it's just that the CTBUH Height Committee rules are as such

You say that as if we have to follow those rules. However I read that and to me it says that we're free to ignore them. That their stupid "mechanical" vs "architectural element" distinction has resulted in distortions in the marketplace by encouraging pointless spires (well not entirely non-functional...they do have navigational lights mounted on them) is all the more reason to disregard this rule.

Barrelfish · #**1115** Posted **Sep 24, 2018, 7:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JK47

... pointless spires (well not entirely non-functional...they do have navigational lights mounted on them)

A spire whose function is to hold a light that says "don't run into this spire". Reminds me of this sign:

https://www.signsworldwide.com/image...g?t=1473283704

source: https://www.signsworldwide.com/traff...inum-sign.html [/SIZE]

Tom In Chicago · #**1116** Posted **Sep 24, 2018, 10:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JK47

You say that as if we have to follow those rules. However I read that and to me it says that we're free to ignore them. That their stupid "mechanical" vs "architectural element" distinction has resulted in distortions in the marketplace by encouraging pointless spires (well not entirely non-functional...they do have navigational lights mounted on them) is all the more reason to disregard this rule.

You're free to do as you please. . . I'm not suggesting otherwise. . . but take this discussion to the proper sub-forum please. . .

. . .

SolarWind · #**1117** Posted **Sep 25, 2018, 1:25 AM**

September 24, 2018

lakeshoredrive · #**1118** Posted **Sep 25, 2018, 1:47 AM**

It looks like the footprint of this building will be small when looking at the construction update pictures.

Skyguy_7 · #**1119** Posted **Sep 25, 2018, 2:55 AM**

^ What you’re seeing right now is just the core. Take a look at the elevation drawing several posts up. This building is massive.

Notyrview · #**1120** Posted **Sep 25, 2018, 2:14 PM**

Reminds me of 300 N Lasalle's core. I wish this were a steel skyscraper. Those grow like weeds and are so cool to watch.