Midwest Highrise Construction - Page 17

Steely Dan · #**321** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 8:36 PM**

so i've officially lowered the threshold to 200'/20 stories. so i'm adding that milwaukee project to page 1. please post any other highrise projects that might be under construction or proposed in your city. and post renderings too.

Paule · #**322** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 9:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

are there any renderings available?

Yes there is, and to correct the floor count, it's to be 19 floors, not 18. This proposal has been approved by the city but has fallen short of 4 to 5 million on Federal bonds so they are currently working with the city to garantee the loan to cover the difference. Again, no one yet has heard any word when the city will vote on this but it shouldn't be too long from now.

The developer is new land Enterprises and here is their website.
http://www.nledevelopment.com/

The building which is called The Bookends North really is nothing special at all but here are the renderings.

The Transera is another condo project by New Land that is proposed and has been approved, however this one is tied up in court and will likely be there for sometime. It looks alot better than the Bookends North though. The transera would be the tallest building in the eastside skyline.
http://www.thetransera.com/index.html

Steely Dan · #**323** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 6:29 PM**

^ wow, i really like that transera proposal. i hope it can make it through the legal process (btw, the website says the project has been approved, so why is it tied up in the courts?). it'd be great to see a new tallest peak on the east side skyline.

i've added it to the page 1 list of proposals.

anyone else, if you've got info and renders for any 200+'/20+ floor highrise projects in your city, please post them so i can add them to the list on page 1.

Markitect · #**324** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 9:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

btw, the website says the project has been approved, so why is it tied up in the courts?

It's not tied up in the courts.

It's tied up in the economy.

No money for big condo projects like this right now.

That's why New Land (Transera's developers) are focusing on apartment projects (The Bookends--horrible design an name, by the way) at the moment.

Steely Dan · #**325** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 10:14 PM**

^ thanks for clarifying, mark, i only asked because paule had stated that the project was tied up in the courts. knowing that it's fully approved gives me hope that it will proceed at some point down the line when the conomy is better. does new land have a good track record of delivering on their projects?

Paule · #**326** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 11:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markitect

It's not tied up in the courts.

It's tied up in the economy.

No money for big condo projects like this right now.

That's why New Land (Transera's developers) are focusing on apartment projects (The Bookends--horrible design an name, by the way) at the moment.

Ah yeah you're right, I got the Transera mixed up with the Downer project which is tied up in some kind of lawsuit.

I agree with you on the Bookends, I say New Land should totally scrap the Bookends and consintrate on the Transera.

2taall · #**327** Posted **Nov 19, 2009, 3:47 PM**

ROBERTS TOWER(U/C)
312' to the structural top.

The 312' structural top is to the parapet of the rooftop structure on the west end of the tower's roofline. 298' to the roofline. I just called and spoke to the building's architect at, Trivers and Associates, today and he gave me the figures directly from the blue prints.

Roberts Tower:
Roof height 298'
Structural 312'

Centenne Center(U/C)
This has been reduced down 4 or 5 floors to 17 floors. The unreduced height was 313', but this tower will probably wind up in the 250 foot range now.

So we have Roberts and a couple more tower over 300 feet in the Midwest...

Steely Dan · #**328** Posted **Nov 19, 2009, 3:55 PM**

^ do you have any renderings for those st. louis projects? if so, please post them.

2taall · #**329** Posted **Nov 19, 2009, 5:18 PM**

ST. Louis area under contruction

Roberts Tower 312'

On the skyline

Rendering

You can see more pics of Robert U/C on page 16 of this thread.

Centenne Center ~250'
Rendering

Centenne is starting contruction on its final floor.

Steely Dan · #**330** Posted **Nov 19, 2009, 6:00 PM**

^ muchos gracias, 2taall. both projects have now been added to page 1.

Paule · #**331** Posted **Nov 19, 2009, 8:57 PM**

I like that Roberts Tower, should be a good addition to St. Louis.

Paule · #**332** Posted **Nov 19, 2009, 9:51 PM**

These are just proposals in Milwaukee and I don't know alot about them so I don't know if you want to include them on the first page.

This first one all I have is a rendering. I don't know the floor count or height but looking at the rendering it would seem to meet the requirements of the thread.
The Athletic Club Tower

http://www.studio1032.com/main5.html

This next one, The Rivianna, I know the floor count is at 18 floors but don't know the height. Looking at the rendering I would say it would probably fall short of 200' but thought I'd post it anyway.
The Rivianna

Paule · #**333** Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 1:20 PM**

Steely Dan, I've found out that the height of the Transera in Milwaukee will be at 425'.

Steely Dan · #**334** Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 3:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paule

Steely Dan, I've found out that the height of the Transera in Milwaukee will be at 425'.

huh? that doesn't add up. 425' is very tall for a 27 story condo tower. my guess is either the floor count has grown or that height figure is wrong. what's the source for that height number?

Paule · #**335** Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 3:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

huh? that doesn't add up. 425' is very tall for a 27 story condo tower. my guess is either the floor count has grown or that height figure is wrong. what's the source for that height number?

That's what they're reporting over at SSC. I'll get back to yah.

Steely Dan · #**336** Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 3:41 PM**

well, just looking visually at the rendering, i can tell something is wrong. 1522 on the lake, the building on the left in the image below, is 192'. there is no way that the transera, as depicted in the rendering, is 233' taller than 1522. for the 425' figure to be correct, the transera would have to be more than twice as tall as 1522, which is clearly not how it's shown. either the building has grown or the height figure is wrong or the rendering is inaccurate/outdated.

based on this rendering, and 1522's known height, my best guess would place the height of the transera in the 300'-325' range.

Paule · #**337** Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 8:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

well, just looking visually at the rendering, i can tell something is wrong. 1522 on the lake, the building on the left in the image below, is 192'. there is no way that the transera, as depicted in the rendering, is 233' taller than 1522. for the 425' figure to be correct, the transera would have to be more than twice as tall as 1522, which is clearly not how it's shown. either the building has grown or the height figure is wrong or the rendering is inaccurate/outdated.

based on this rendering, and 1522's known height, my best guess would place the height of the transera in the 300'-325' range.

True but also look at the last rendering I showed where the show the building super impossed in the skyline. The far building all the way to the right is the Landmark apartments and the height of that building is 350' and the rendering shows the transera towering of it. That's why I at first didn't question the 425' but I agree that you do have a point in questioning this height. I've looked through the website and it never states the height so hopefully I can get to the bottom of this soon.

Paule · #**338** Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

well, just looking visually at the rendering, i can tell something is wrong. 1522 on the lake, the building on the left in the image below, is 192'. there is no way that the transera, as depicted in the rendering, is 233' taller than 1522. for the 425' figure to be correct, the transera would have to be more than twice as tall as 1522, which is clearly not how it's shown. either the building has grown or the height figure is wrong or the rendering is inaccurate/outdated.

based on this rendering, and 1522's known height, my best guess would place the height of the transera in the 300'-325' range.

True but also look at the last rendering I showed where the show the building super impossed in the skyline. The far building all the way to the right is the Landmark apartments and the height of that building is 350' and the rendering shows the transera towering over it. That's why I at first didn't question the 425' but I agree that you do have a point in questioning this height. I've looked through the website and it never states the height. If anything the building could be 375' but none-the-less I will get to the bottom of this.

Steely Dan · #**339** Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 8:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paule

The far building all the way to the right is the Landmark apartments and the height of that building is 350'

that's incorrect, landmark on the lake is only 248' tall. further evidence that the 425' figure for transera is either wrong or the proposed tower has grown in height since the renderings were released.

Paule · #**340** Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 10:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's incorrect, landmark on the lake is only 248' tall. further evidence that the 425' figure for transera is either wrong or the proposed tower has grown in height since the renderings were released.

Ok, I give up. I could have sworn that Emporis always listed The Landmark on the Lake at 350. I wasn't argueing that the Transera was 425, in fact I agreed with you that you had a point and that the building has to be shorter than that. But when they were building the Kilbourn Tower I remember specifically compareing the Landmark and Kilbourn and noticing that the Kilbourn would be 30 ft taller. Oh well, I think I'm losing my mind now, LOL!