CHICAGO | One Chicago | 971 FT & 574 FT | 78 & 49 FLOORS - Page 39

Donnie77 · #**761** Posted **Sep 29, 2018, 6:15 PM**

But can we se her at nite Rgarri?

Great job.._..

Zapatan · #**762** Posted **Sep 29, 2018, 9:21 PM**

rgarri, your 3D models are awesome! What program did you use?

LouisVanDerWright · #**763** Posted **Oct 1, 2018, 1:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Looking at this and comparing to the images on page 1 of this thread, clearly in rgarri’s mockups the towers look much taller. I’m guessing that you did your math correctly and that these mockups are an accurate representation of how these buildings will appear?

If so, that just goes to show you that developers are going out of their way to diminish the size of their projects when they show renderings to the community, doesn’t it?

I don't think they shrink them, I think it's got to do with the perspective. They take angles that diminish the size or they don't include neighboring buildings oftentimes which makes it hard to get perspective on the true size.

Ned.B · #**764** Posted **Oct 1, 2018, 12:20 PM**

I can say from experience on other projects that for the renderings we show the public, we specifically pick out vantage points that make the building fit in as much as possible. We don't cheat the height, but might show an aerial perspective, or pick a view with the most other tall or large buildings in the background. Anything to minimize neighbors from freaking out over it's size as much as possible.

maru2501 · #**765** Posted **Oct 1, 2018, 3:43 PM**

total game-changer for the look and feel of that northwest quadrant of the skyline

rgarri4 · #**766** Posted **Oct 2, 2018, 12:27 AM**

It looks tall in my model but I have it at 1046 ft.

BonoboZill4 · #**767** Posted **Oct 2, 2018, 1:13 AM**

That Lucian Legrange design on the left of the model there is probably the best one I've seen him come up with... I know that isn't saying much but I actually wouldn't mind seeing that one get developed this cycle.

As usual, amazing vantage points, and the 1046 height is the right one, so that should mean you aren't misleading us at all with these images so far! Exciting

Bombardier · #**768** Posted **Oct 25, 2018, 1:58 AM**

New drawings have been issued, there has been a small height reduction. 78 floors to roof, 977’-8” to top... just under super tall.

Shorter tower is... 50 floors to roof, 593’-4” to top

Zapatan · #**769** Posted **Oct 25, 2018, 2:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bombardier

New drawings have been issued, there has been a small height reduction. 78 floors to roof, 977’-8” to top... just under super tall.

Shorter tower is... 50 floors to roof, 593’-4” to top

978 is still a good height, if only they went 6 more feet but whatever.

the 600 footer will be a nice filler I guess.

I'm happy because this is still a really tall building that seems like it will actually move forward. More so than Related or Tribune (not saying they won't but at least not as soon).

marothisu · #**770** Posted **Oct 25, 2018, 2:37 AM**

Almost 1000 feet at State & Chicago Ave - not one to complain about that really. This will change that immediate area for the better (not that it's bad already - but it's a parking lot). When I lived nearby, I always dreamed of that entire lot being developed LOL. Can't wait to see what it's like once completed.

PittsburghPA · #**771** Posted **Oct 25, 2018, 4:07 AM**

Why the height reduction after it was already green lit at its full proposed height? Although 977' and 600' is great for the area and will dramatically make a difference, that is still disappointing.

Chicago_Forever · #**772** Posted **Oct 25, 2018, 5:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bombardier

New drawings have been issued, there has been a small height reduction. 78 floors to roof, 977’-8” to top... just under super tall.

Shorter tower is... 50 floors to roof, 593’-4” to top

Doesn't make much sense. Going by the thread title, it seems both towers grew in floor count (the taller by 2 and the shorter by 1). But you're saying, the overall height on both towers have been reduced. If true then I'm guessing they've substantially reduced the floor heights. Again, if true, this is a bit disappointing but not a deal breaker considering no one ever imagined anything over 600-700 ft going up at the location anyway. Awaiting proof...

BuildThemTaller · #**773** Posted **Oct 25, 2018, 1:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago_Forever

Doesn't make much sense. Going by the thread title, it seems both towers grew in floor count (the taller by 2 and the shorter by 1). But you're saying, the overall height on both towers have been reduced. If true then I'm guessing they've substantially reduced the floor heights. Again, if true, this is a bit disappointing but not a deal breaker considering no one ever imagined anything over 600-700 ft going up at the location anyway. Awaiting proof...

It could be that the podium has been reduced in height.

the urban politician · #**774** Posted **Oct 25, 2018, 1:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PittsburghPA

Why the height reduction after it was already green lit at its full proposed height? Although 977' and 600' is great for the area and will dramatically make a difference, that is still disappointing.

Agreed

F1 Tommy · #**775** Posted **Oct 25, 2018, 1:32 PM**

Probably pulled back on some of the top crown. Seems to be popular around Chicago on new buildings lately, that is until Salesforce comes to town and moves into WFS

Steely Dan · #**776** Posted **Oct 25, 2018, 1:41 PM**

it could also be a VE floor-to-floor height reduction.

"mister contractor, we're way over-budget, i need you to squeeze $20M out of this project."

"well, if we shrink each floor by 8", i can give you $10M back right there."

"do it."

OhioGuy · #**777** Posted **Oct 25, 2018, 1:57 PM**

Still happy to see the parking lot disappear and I like the tower design, but that’s disappointing...

LMich · #**778** Posted **Oct 25, 2018, 1:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bombardier

New drawings have been issued, there has been a small height reduction. 78 floors to roof, 977’-8” to top... just under super tall.

Shorter tower is... 50 floors to roof, 593’-4” to top

Link?

the urban politician · #**779** Posted **Oct 25, 2018, 2:04 PM**

^ There won’t be a link.

He’s obviously somebody on the inside, maybe working for the contractor or architect, and thus this isn’t public info.

But we’re glad he provides this forum with such info.

Zapatan · #**780** Posted **Oct 25, 2018, 2:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PittsburghPA

Why the height reduction after it was already green lit at its full proposed height? Although 977' and 600' is great for the area and will dramatically make a difference, that is still disappointing.

Maybe it made economic sense to do so, or some of the crown was taken off?

I agree it's disappointing.