HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2005, 2:50 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,254
^I don't mind at all. We wouldn't be real architecture geeks if we didn't use these images for our own "pleasure" or should I say our own personal documentation.


Okay, well I counted the floors on the rendering that I got from the sales center today, and I did count 61 floors NOT including the stainless steel mechanical penthouse on the top of the structure. On the copies of the floorplan layout of the units, the highest unit is on Floor 61. Now, according to the residential features sheets I got today the units will have 9' Ft ceiling heights, and lets just assume that means all the residential floors.

Let do a bit of unscientific math.
Residential floors: 61 x 9' = 549'

Estimated guess of floor plate thickness: 61 x 1.25' = 76.25'

Mechanical Penthouse: 5 x 9' = 45'

TOTAL = 670.25'


In the renderings the mechanical penthouse appears to be about 5 stories, and I don't think that there will really be floos in there seeing as it will house chillers, air conditioning equipment and all other type of stuff that's large, so in that calculation I left out the floorplate thickness.

That concludes this lesson for the evening ladies and gentlemen!!!

What you all think?
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2005, 3:33 AM
2PRUROCKS!'s Avatar
2PRUROCKS! 2PRUROCKS! is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 469
^ What rendering are you counting from? I counted about 61 on the post card rendering I got at the sales center but I counted 69 on the model. The rendering has that top set back on the northwest side (so it has 3 set backs other than the main cylinder and crown on that side) while the model only has 2. I assumed the model was more accurate than the postcard rendering but I could be wrong.
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2005, 4:18 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,254
^I was counting from the "postcard" rendering that I got from the sales center, as well as from the number of floors listed on the floor plans that I got, they only go as high as 61. As I said it was an unscientific method. I was just fuckin' around, trying to calculate a ballpark figure for the height. We'll get the accurate height in time.
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2005, 4:29 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Miami of Canada
Posts: 19,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1
We'll get the accurate height in time.
correct. until then, we can all rest assured that whether the tower stands 670' or 770' or somewhere in between, it is going to have MAJOR skyline impact given its location. the location of this tower is far more significant than what ever height figure it eventually ends up being. we know it's going to be an exceptionally tall building far that part of town, and that's why i am not terribly concerned with the precise figure. as victor said, we'll find that all out in due time anyway.
__________________
He has to go.
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2005, 4:31 AM
Chase Unperson's Avatar
Chase Unperson Chase Unperson is offline
Freakbirthed
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Papa Songs.
Posts: 4,329
That's a great looking building. Some said the rendering looked bulky, but I think it looks massive and soaring. I really like it a lot.

Not that it matters too much, but I remember when this was first announced we thought it would be over 800 feet. 670 (BVs estimate) is still a tall residential building, but....
__________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2005, 5:28 AM
HowardL's Avatar
HowardL HowardL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: East Lakeview, Chicago
Posts: 1,144
I was curious as to how many floors the model was showing. So Photoshop + a couple of beers later and it appears that the tower is 65 on top of a 4 story base.
Not like that's what they'll end up building, just what they told the model builders to make.

     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2005, 5:49 AM
Rivernorth's Avatar
Rivernorth Rivernorth is offline
Vertigo City
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1
^I don't mind at all. We wouldn't be real architecture geeks if we didn't use these images for our own "pleasure" or should I say our own personal documentation.


Okay, well I counted the floors on the rendering that I got from the sales center today, and I did count 61 floors NOT including the stainless steel mechanical penthouse on the top of the structure. On the copies of the floorplan layout of the units, the highest unit is on Floor 61. Now, according to the residential features sheets I got today the units will have 9' Ft ceiling heights, and lets just assume that means all the residential floors.

Let do a bit of unscientific math.
Residential floors: 61 x 9' = 549'

Estimated guess of floor plate thickness: 61 x 1.25' = 76.25'

Mechanical Penthouse: 5 x 9' = 45'

TOTAL = 670.25'


In the renderings the mechanical penthouse appears to be about 5 stories, and I don't think that there will really be floos in there seeing as it will house chillers, air conditioning equipment and all other type of stuff that's large, so in that calculation I left out the floorplate thickness.

That concludes this lesson for the evening ladies and gentlemen!!!

What you all think?

very interesting. hopefully, the floor to ceiling height is larger...

if it was just 1 foot taller, at 10 ft, then the height, according to your above calculations, would be 736.25 ft. There is a good chance it could be 10 ft, or even greater, due to the very luxurious nature of the tower... so lets keep our fingers crossed!
__________________
RIP America. 1776 - 2004
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2005, 6:23 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan
it is going to have MAJOR skyline impact given its location. the location of this tower is far more significant than what ever height figure it eventually ends up being.
I 100% agree. 2 to 3 months ago, something like this was a sparkle in all our eyes. We never imagined something as promising and as tall would be build south of Roosevelt. Now here we are, anticipating a 650'+ tower and 3 other that will be 500'+.

I'm just happy that sparkle, more than likely is about to become a reality.
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2005, 10:04 AM
Fabb's Avatar
Fabb Fabb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 9,018


It's a little scary, isn't it ?
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2005, 9:16 PM
AJphx AJphx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 944
lol... scary in what way, Fabb?

anyway, great model pics. I like it!
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2005, 9:19 PM
Chi-town Chi-town is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UWS NYC
Posts: 8,264
Hopefully it sells quickly and they decide to bump up the height a little...
__________________
"Architecture is the art of balancing values: economic, aesthetic, public, private. It always involves compromise, and few architects would deny that the client's desires take precedence. But the best architects understand that they also have an obligation to the public welfare, no matter who is paying their bills. That often means investing time in educating clients rather than simply acceding to their desires."

- Nicolai Ouroussoff, New York Times
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2005, 9:28 PM
Fabb's Avatar
Fabb Fabb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 9,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJphx
lol... scary in what way, Fabb?
I don't know, all these setbacks. Maybe it's just me.
Anyway, from the angle I referred to, it doesn't look like a sleek tower (which is not necessarily a bad thing).
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2005, 4:06 AM
Marvel 33's Avatar
Marvel 33 Marvel 33 is offline
"The World is my Oyster"
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 943
Guys, I sent an e-mail today to the gentleman I met during the Grant Park Council Meeting a few weeks ago. He is in P.R. for the architectural firm who designed this building. He replied back and he's sticking to the 720' height they gave me at the time. He's going to refer me to another team member who is more involved with the facts of the design such as height and number of floors. In the mean time, he's sticking to the original height. If I get any more news from the other gentleman, I'll make sure to post them here.
__________________
CHICAGO
Also known as:
The Windy City - The City of Broad Shoulders - Chitown - City in a Garden - Gem of the Prairie - Second City - The "I Will" City
_________________________________
Architectural News At: NewcitySkyline.com
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2005, 12:51 PM
Chad's Avatar
Chad Chad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 412
Tremendous !!!
__________________
"Bangkok".......more than you think.
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2005, 2:27 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,254
This article is from the Skyline paper. And for those of you who don't know what Skyline is, it's a weekly community newspaper. I am typing this article word for word, including the errors.


January 13, 2005
"South Wall" condo project moves ahead in Grant Park


By: Adam Pincus
Contributor


Saying it will nicely frame the south end of Grant Park, comminity groups are pleased with plans for One Museum Park, the condo tower thar will anchor the long-awaited "South Wall" project in the park.

In fact, the only complaint neighborhood groups have about the high-rise tower planned for Columbus and Roosevelt is that it is not quite tall enough.

Developer Central Station Development Corp. submitted plans for 65-story anchor building to the city, but will likely start with 61-feet and possibly build up to 65-feet. One Museum Place is one of the four buildings that will form the "wall."

"The city is approving 65 stories," said Tim Desmond, president of Central Station Development Corporation, who said they could add stories if there is interest.

The city's Dept. of Planning and Development was expected to approve the plan Wednesday, January 12. Construction on One Museum Park, which went on the market January 10, is planned for this fall.

Jeffrey Key, president of the Greater South Loop Association, said the group had wanted at least a 70-story tower in order to ballance the 1,136-foot Aon Center and other buildings on the north side of the park.

"But we are happy that they did a large, architecturally-significant building there," said Key.

Desmond said the costs for a 75-story building "were outrageous. The costs just "skyrocketed" as it got taller, and "the pricing in Chicago wouldn't support that kind of height."

Developers and architects unveiled renderings and outlines for the four buildings that make up the project to about 100 people at a December 9 community meeting hosted by the Grant Park Advisory Council and the grant Park Conservency.

Co-developer Fogelson, in a phone conversation December 24, explained that the city wanted architecture that would form a gateway to the museum campus and be "bookends to the (Grant) park."

He said the city and community groups, cognizant of the lasting significance of these buildings, urged developers and the Chicago-based architect, Pappageorge/Haymes to build modern and slender structures. The same firm recently designed the towers to be built at 600 N. Lake Shore Dr.

The city, he said, "wanted modern architecture. They wanted balance on the Park, to frame the Park. They did not want lots of mass, but taller and more graceful [buildings]."

Local community groups, such as South Loop Neighbors, support the project and the building, though not without some reservations.

The president of South Loop Neighbors, Leslie Gryce Sturino, said in a phone interview that One Museum Park, "is a very sharp design. It will add some real sparkle to the south end of [the Loop] skyline."

She added however, "Some of our members thought it was counterintutive to build west to east, getting increasingly taller," thereby blocking some views of the lake. One Museum Park will be the tallest building in Central Station.

The buildings are planned for the northern edge of the 80 acres of land owned by Central Station Development Co., a partnership of Chicago-based Fogelson Cos. and Cleveland's Forest City Enterprises, Inc. These companies are partnered with Chicago-based Enterprise Development Co. for the development of the first two buildings, which will include One Museum Plaza.

The corner tower will house "about 280" market-rate condominium units, reguardless of the height, which will be priced between $400,000 and $4.1 million, according to developers.

The engaging architecture is a union of two separate design elements: a mast-like central tower with vertical accents, which is framed on each side by asymmetrical wings of staggered terraces, full of horizontal accents.

The economic impact on the south Loop promises to be tremendus, which is what developers and community leaders are counting on.

Central Station, which currently accounts for about a quarter of all condominium sales in the Loop, according to Desmond, will grow by 1,000 units with the completion of the four buildings.

These buildings, Desmond said, "Set the stage for the development of the park", as development at the north end of Grant Park spurred the development of Millennium Park.

Each building should generate approximately $2 to $3 million in property taxes for the Near South Tax Increment Financing District (TIF), which will be used for infrastructure and other projects.

Bob O'Neill, president of the Grant Park Advisory Council said, "We are looking into TIF money for Grant Park south," which he characterized as still unfinished near Roosevelt Road.

The scene at the VIP sales release, at the Museum Park sales offices at the corner of 13th St. and Indiana Ave. was a "madhouse" Monday, according to one attendee.

He said he waited an hour in an unsuccessful attempt to meet with a sales agent, before giving up and leaving. "I overhead people talking about buying several units," he said, adding that he thought a lot of the building boom in the South Loop is investor driven.

The building should be ready for occupancy in 2007.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see, there is still a chance for an increase in height. In my opinion, the developers better take every chance possible to increase the height of this building; it's not every day when you get several neighborhood groups who want a taller building. And I think that Mr. Desmond was incorrect when he said the prices wouldn't support a taller building seeing as there are 2 soon to be built residential buildings in Chicago surpassing 1,000'.
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2005, 4:03 AM
jcchii's Avatar
jcchii jcchii is offline
Content provider
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: city on the take
Posts: 3,119
but if it gets too tall it will look like it's hanging out down there by itself.
all in all I think it's pretty good.
a nice skyline extender, though not architecturally stunning or anything.
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2005, 4:28 AM
Chi-town Chi-town is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UWS NYC
Posts: 8,264
Unfortunately, I think it's pretty clear that this building will not be able to command the prices that Trump Chicago has, and Waterview is of course still a question mark. So I wouldn't use those as evidence that this thing could go to 1,000 feet and remain profitable. But I'd love to see it go as high as possible, of course. The nature of the design means that the longer and more slender the structure becomes, the better.


__________________
"Architecture is the art of balancing values: economic, aesthetic, public, private. It always involves compromise, and few architects would deny that the client's desires take precedence. But the best architects understand that they also have an obligation to the public welfare, no matter who is paying their bills. That often means investing time in educating clients rather than simply acceding to their desires."

- Nicolai Ouroussoff, New York Times

Last edited by Chi-town; Jan 14, 2005 at 5:10 AM.
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2005, 4:37 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Miami of Canada
Posts: 19,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1



As you can see, there is still a chance for an increase in height. In my opinion, the developers better take every chance possible to increase the height of this building; it's not every day when you get several neighborhood groups who want a taller building. And I think that Mr. Desmond was incorrect when he said the prices wouldn't support a taller building seeing as there are 2 soon to be built residential buildings in Chicago surpassing 1,000'.
nice find on the image there victor.

i too would like to see them build as tall as possible to help counterbalance aon center on the north side of the park, but one reason why building a taller building might not make as much sense as it does in the case of TTC and waterview is location. i understand that 1 museum oark has a ridiculously awesome location with regards to lake and city views, but its also down at roosevelt, whereas TTC and waterview are more centrally located. the developer might be correct when he says that building a 75 floor building doesn't make the most economic sense for that piece of land.

as i've said before, even a 61 floor buildinjg will MAJOR skyline impact in this location, and that's really all that matters, from a height standpoint.
__________________
He has to go.
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2005, 4:54 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,254
^I agree with both of you, it's just that i'd rather see a 720' tower than a 670' tower, but i'll certainly settle for either. I'm visualizing myself driving down LSD or even Roosevelt toward this building, and it's going to be a stunner.

The demand is really high for this building though. As you read in the article one gentlemen got tired of waiting and left, and I saw the madness first hand at the sales center, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2005, 5:12 AM
Chi-town Chi-town is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UWS NYC
Posts: 8,264
I'll just say this: the building should have at least as many floors as depicted in the image above (anyone counted them?). It looks just tall enough in that pic to maintain elegant proportions. It could go taller, but I wouldn't want to see it more than a few floors shorter.
__________________
"Architecture is the art of balancing values: economic, aesthetic, public, private. It always involves compromise, and few architects would deny that the client's desires take precedence. But the best architects understand that they also have an obligation to the public welfare, no matter who is paying their bills. That often means investing time in educating clients rather than simply acceding to their desires."

- Nicolai Ouroussoff, New York Times
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:01 AM.

     

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