HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2008, 4:37 PM
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
it's common knowledge that frank lloyd wright's mile high proposal for chicago was merely a design exercise and it never approached being a "real proposal". this was just a flight of fancy of a brilliant mind........ architectural day-dreaming.

in fact, i'm always a bit surprised that some people actually mistake this old fantasy from FLW for being a serious proposal.
it was ABSOLUTELY a real proposal. the original intent was for him to design a television antenna that would be a mile high, and his thought was, well let's build an office building around it.
this was done very late in his life, when he was at his busiest. there wasn't time for daydreaming. he had daydreamt about this kind of thing earlier in his career, and this was what he had hoped would be the realization of those daydreams. but it was a real proposal.
__________________
"Difficult times produce strong people. Strong people produce good times. Good times produce weak people. Weak people produce difficult times."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2008, 12:12 AM
schwerve schwerve is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper View Post
it was ABSOLUTELY a real proposal. the original intent was for him to design a television antenna that would be a mile high, and his thought was, well let's build an office building around it.
this was done very late in his life, when he was at his busiest. there wasn't time for daydreaming. he had daydreamt about this kind of thing earlier in his career, and this was what he had hoped would be the realization of those daydreams. but it was a real proposal.
no. it was a semi-serious attempt at a design of a mile high building but it was, never, a real proposal. end of discussion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2008, 3:14 AM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrightguy0 View Post
Really? I never knew that
Wright's elevator setbacks for the Illinois would show up later on the Transamerica Pyramid:


physto.se
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2008, 3:18 AM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorancisOMP View Post
Here how the mile long tower will look in the skyline.




In that image it appears the Illinois is placed at about where Trump Tower is now, in which case, the scaling is horrendously wrong. Illinois should be 4 times the height of Aon, not 3, and the base would be HUGE, probably one of the largest bases in all of Chicago, not that spindly tower suggested. For its proportions, Illinois is quite skinny, but it would still be immensely wide. That rendering vastly underscores how massive this building would be.
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2008, 2:15 PM
ethereal_reality's Avatar
ethereal_reality ethereal_reality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lafayette/West Lafayette IN, Purdue U.
Posts: 12,674
You're right CGII about the elevators in the Transamerica Pyramid.
I'm glad you pointed that out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2008, 4:44 AM
America 117 America 117 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 613
This would have looked cool if it was built!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2008, 1:21 PM
CHI-TOWN FLAME's Avatar
CHI-TOWN FLAME CHI-TOWN FLAME is offline
CHICAGO ADDICTED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Posts: 24
Question

http://time-blog.com/looking_around/milehigh.jpg DOES VISIONARY MEAN THEY WONT BUILD IT???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2008, 9:01 PM
Jarrod's Avatar
Jarrod Jarrod is offline
I'm cheap
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 1,211
Apparently it was supposed to be about 18.5 million2 Feet of floor space. I found it out on Wiki so it might not be accurate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2009, 9:10 PM
dachacon dachacon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGII View Post
Wright's elevator setbacks for the Illinois would show up later on the Transamerica Pyramid:


physto.se
so the outer walls at the top are elevator banks?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2009, 10:05 PM
ethereal_reality's Avatar
ethereal_reality ethereal_reality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lafayette/West Lafayette IN, Purdue U.
Posts: 12,674
Yes, the verticle protrusions on two of the sides.

My guess is, by placing the elevators banks in this manner,
they solved the problem of the elevator shafts taking up too much of the rentable floor space
on the smaller floors at the top.

I could be wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2009, 11:48 PM
citywarrior's Avatar
citywarrior citywarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4
I think this would be okay in chicago- it was just designed in thje 50's, so it was never built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2009, 5:02 AM
Krases's Avatar
Krases Krases is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,227
The only problem I have is whether or not it gets enough light on the interior. Ideally it would be flooded with light with that type of open exterior.

How much would this thing cost? Even if they used something better than atomic powered elevators and diamond meshings for stability, I think it would run up to about 75-100 billion. It would need huge amounts of both private and public funding and ideally it would have a massive transit hub nearby.
__________________
There are many things money can buy. But one thing money can't buy is your momma, she's for free and everyone knows it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2009, 5:10 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,495
I doubt it would be 75 billion. If the Chicago spire is estimated to be 2.3 billion to build, this couldn't be much more than 10 billion. I mean its only 2.5 times taller than the spire, so I don't see why it would be much more than 4 or 5 times more expensive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2009, 9:30 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,927
^ Except I doubt it could be built with traditional steel. Nanotube technology may be needed to keep this structure from collapsing on itself. So that $75 Billion price tag may be right.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2009, 3:55 AM
Krases's Avatar
Krases Krases is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,227
Plus its not like this has been done before. What about research costs? It seems like a whole series of new technologies and devices would be needed to make this thing work.
__________________
There are many things money can buy. But one thing money can't buy is your momma, she's for free and everyone knows it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2009, 5:50 AM
OhGreatOne OhGreatOne is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Harlingen, Texas
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
I doubt it would be 75 billion. If the Chicago spire is estimated to be 2.3 billion to build, this couldn't be much more than 10 billion. I mean its only 2.5 times taller than the spire, so I don't see why it would be much more than 4 or 5 times more expensive.
2.5 times the height of the Spire would not mean that the building is 2.5 times as large, using 2.5 times as much materials, manpower, etc. Let's hypothetically construct a new Chicago Spire at one mile in height, and proportionally similar to the one currently on hold that might one day be built. The base of this mile-high building would necessarily--in order to preserve the proportionality--be 2.5 times as long and 2.5 times as wide. Each floor would have 2.5 squared or 6.25 times the floorspace of each corresponding floor on the Spire. Since the building would also, of course, be 2.5 times as tall, it would require 2.5 cubed, or 15.625 times as much material, and correspondingly, 15.625 times as much manpower to construct it. This assumes, of course, that it would be made of the same materials. My guess is that one would need some kind of strong, lightweight graphite compound for support, since traditional steel, glass, etc., would create unimaginable pressures at the base. I estimate that it would cost around $40billion to construct it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2009, 8:50 PM
SapphireBlueEyes SapphireBlueEyes is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago-John Hancock Center
Posts: 206
I would love to live in that thing so I can look down on the John Hancock Center.
__________________
[CENTER][FONT=Impact][SIZE=2][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]Ornamentation is the principal part of architecture, considered as a subject of fine art.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Impact][SIZE=2][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue] - [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Impact][SIZE=2][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][URL="http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/authors/john_ruskin_a001.htm"]John Ruskin[/URL], [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Impact][SIZE=2][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][I]True and Beautiful--Sculpture[/I][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial Narrow][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/CENTER]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2009, 8:52 PM
Chicago103's Avatar
Chicago103 Chicago103 is offline
Future Mayor of Chicago
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
It always seems to be situated somewhere along on in Lincoln Park...
I read in a book it was supposed to be Lincoln Park, in a render it looks like its in a park with other buildings in the background. If I had to pick a parcel it looks like the southeastern corner of Lincoln Park. 1600 North Lake Shore Drive would be the address and the tower site would be bound by Lake Shore Drive on the east, North Avenue on the south, State Street (if State Street were extended past North Avenue) on the west, and La Salle Drive on the north (the diagonal feeder that connects the normal La Salle Street with Lake Shore Drive).

Do you think this site would even be big enough? Lets forget the huge plaza/garden thing that Wright envisioned around the tower, but just for the base of the tower itself.

This would be an interesting but weird spot, North Avenue Beach is just to the east past Lake Shore Drive, the Cardinal's residence is just to the south. Gold Coast and Lincoln Park NIMBY's would all have nervous breakdowns.

Other possible locations would be southern Grant Park (above the Roosevelt Metra stop), the vacant land south of Roosevelt Road along the Chicago River, Northerly Island, and Wolf Point assuming the demolition of the Apparel Center.

All of the above locations with the exception of Wolf Point would require no major demolition of existing buildings due to being on unbuilt/undeveloped land.
__________________
Devout Chicagoan, political moderate and paleo-urbanist.

"Auto-centric suburban sprawl is the devil physically manifesting himself in the built environment."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2009, 6:15 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago103 View Post
Gold Coast and Lincoln Park NIMBY's would all have nervous breakdowns.
I think the whole town's NIMBY's would have nervous breakdowns.

But seriously, this would be roughly twice the height of the Burj, so don't be surprised if people got a little freaked out.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted May 10, 2009, 7:20 AM
Tower6's Avatar
Tower6 Tower6 is offline
Its the Sears Tower
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Outer Suburbia
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethereal_reality View Post
Yes, the verticle protrusions on two of the sides.

My guess is, by placing the elevators banks in this manner,
they solved the problem of the elevator shafts taking up too much of the rentable floor space
on the smaller floors at the top.

I could be wrong.
If I remember right, on the Illinois, Wright imagined a new kind of elevator that would be six floors high and ratchet up on the outside (unseen part) of the building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:12 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.