World's Tallest Building in Chicago, Los Angeles or Houston? ........ yeah, right - Page 5

BrandonJXN · #81 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 4:56 AM**

What's this Wolf Point that Chicago forumers keep mentioning every so often?

Austin55 · #82 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 5:02 AM**

3,000 to the spire probably

Chicago or houston not L.A.

Alliance · #83 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 5:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

What's this Wolf Point that Chicago forumers keep mentioning every so often?

A very empty peninsular lot at the very center of the city. Right on the river, where it splits. Goldmine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by austin55

3,000 to the spire probably

^^^ Note the lack of spire.

DJM19 · #84 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 5:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFW

Houston has height restrictions downtown since the seventies Chase Tower was originally Texas Commere Bank and was proposed to be 80-stories but was reduced to 75-stories due to Hobby Airport, Hobby is being expanded as well today, it won’t happen there.

So maybe they should consider Dallas instead of Houston.
Dallas has no height restrictions on the western half of downtown.

In LA the developers of those skyscraper purchased the air rights above the library in order to exceed height restrictions and erect their massive structures. (Case: the formerly called Library Tower 1,017-ft) So in other words developers in the downtown LA area must buy the air rights in square footage in order to exceed height restrictions for their tall buildings and only so much can go around downtown. And what about earth quakes?

Chicago is the only one that has a better chance, all flight paths go around downtown skyscrapers.

The city is now selling the air rights over the convention center, which is a massive amount of space to buy UP. Plus, new zoning laws are being worked on that are more lax.

Plus I think all of these cities will have taller skylines in the future regardless, so we have to not limit our image of how this will look to just the present

Austin55 · #85 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 5:09 AM**

^^^ Note the lack of spire.[/QUOTE]

sorry I want talking about your rendiring,but I do lov the fact it dwarfs trump

JMininger · #86 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 5:17 AM**

Quote:

sorry I want talking about your rendiring,but I do lov the fact it dwarfs trump

Makes Trump look lika little girlie building

rsbear · #87 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 5:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

Wonder how much a penthouse unit would cost in a 2,000 story building?

A lot - because it would be over 28,000 feet upl (2,000 x 14 = 28,000) and would have to be pressurized!

Alliance · #88 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 5:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMininger

Makes Trump look lika little girlie building

IT IS

PIZ · #89 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 6:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Nahh. Dubai would then turnaround and promptly announce a 200,000 storey rotating skyscraper that would reach the Van Allen Belts, and would be build in the middle of the Persian gulf and connected to London England via underground highspeed supertrains.

lol!!! Funnist thing I've heard in months, you have my humor brother!!

P.S.- 15 minutes later and I am still laughing!!

PIZ · #90 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 6:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark

No, I took the Texas Commerce Tower, or whatever it is called these days and squeezed it into a pyramid, than kept stacking them up.

Ohhh! Oops! Very nice though, would look great in Chicago. Even though I am a magician (have been since birth!lol!), I can be just as gullible as the rest of em!! Nice stacking brother!

........'PIZ'

munda · #91 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 7:48 AM**

CHICAGO
i say the best location for this building would be when the Chicago River splits
that would be an amazing

KevinFromTexas · #92 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 9:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trae

I had no idea where to put this:

Zaya Younan wants to build the world's tallest building — in Los Angeles, Houston or Chicago.

Towering ambition

July 26, 2007
Chicago Sun-Times
BY DAVID ROEDER - droeder@suntimes.com

Zaya Younan is not crazy. Since starting a real estate business in 2002, he has become one of the largest office landlords in Texas, and accumulated property worth about $1.5 billion, claiming strong and steady returns for investors.

Now he wants to build the world's tallest building. He wants it in Chicago, Los Angeles or Houston. He wants it for the glory of the United States of America, and to take advantage of long-term trends that he said will lead to more vertical living in major cities.

Full Article: http://www.suntimes.com/business/484...unan26.article

_______________________

As much as I would love new supertall in Houston, this idea is a little out there. I would much prefer short towers than this one. If he wants to build a 1100-1400 foot tower in Houston, go for it, but 3,000 feet is a bit much. Even if it was built I wouldn't want it Downtown, or Uptown. I would much rather have it out by NASA or on the Bay somewhere and let it be some sort of tourist attraction.

It's funny that the man has aspirations of building a new world's tallest in Houston, as he's posing for a photo in Dallas.

I hope it doesn't get built in Texas. I think it would ruin the skyline. No thanks. Houston has been in the running before for mega towers. There was one vision back in the 80s for a building called "Houston Tower" (really creative, eh?), anyway it would have been 6,864 feet tall and would have had 500 floors. The design was bundled tube. 16 tubes. The only thing is it would have covered 9 city blocks and would have required mega-demo of existing buildings. I personally don't care for super tall buildings. They just seem so silly.

PIZ · #93 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 10:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

It's funny that the man has aspirations of building a new world's tallest in Houston, as he's posing for a photo in Dallas.

I hope it doesn't get built in Texas. I think it would ruin the skyline. No thanks. Houston has been in the running before for mega towers. There was one vision back in the 80s for a building called "Houston Tower" (really creative, eh?), anyway it would have been 6,864 feet tall and would have had 500 floors. The design was bundled tube. 16 tubes. The only thing is it would have covered 9 city blocks and would have required mega-demo of existing buildings. I personally don't care for super tall buildings. They just seem so silly.

I am just asking? But do you consider the Chicago Spire as a "Super tall building"?? And if so, do you consider it silly?? Just a wonder...

KevinFromTexas · #94 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 11:49 AM**

^ Well, the definition of super tall is changing as buildings get taller and taller. I mean 100 years ago 1,000 feet was "super tall" by comparison of everything else that existed at that time. Today several major metros have buildings of that height and taller. I've never given it much thought as to all the classifications of heights, I've even heard "hyper tall". I don't think there's a real official definition of the term yet actually as these projects are just now starting to happen. I'm not sure, I guess a few years ago Chicago Spire might have been super tall, or maybe it still is? Today Chicago Spire doesn't seem "super tall" compared to some projects that have been considered. I guess in the future even 3,000 feet won't seem all that tall. It's crazy and hard to try and imagine that, but I guess it will happen.

MolsonExport · #95 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 1:42 PM**

I would take density over supertalls, if ever forced to choose between the former and the latter.

RocTX · #96 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 2:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

out of place @ 3000'? Maybe not SOO bad @ Wolf Point.

This is the best of the three alternatives. Chicago can handle a building of this size, especially if the Spire gets built.

Lecom · #97 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 2:44 PM**

Yep, Chicago is the most viable alternative in the United States, even more so than New York (and I tend to be very hometown-biased). That render actually looks good. Considering that this guy is not getting built or even proposed as of now, I wish that site was occupied by Chicago Spire rather than the site it currently occupies.

Red UM Rebel · #98 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 2:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RocTX

This is the best of the three alternatives. Chicago can handle a building of this size, especially if the Spire gets built.

I think it is hilarious how tiny both the Trump and Sears look. It really puts into perspective how insanely tall the CS will be and how tall One Patriot Tower (my name for the project) could possibly be. Chicago and NY really are the only feasible places. LA with the Ring of Fire and Houston with Hurricanes could be dangerous. Also if they hurry up and start building on One Pat Tower and CS speeds up construction, there is no question that Chicago won't get a coming Olympics.

RocTX · #99 Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 3:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red UM Rebel

I think it is hilarious how tiny both the Trump and Sears look.

They do look like midrises.

On another note... I'm not a expert in building design or anything, and I'm really not trying to bag on such a high profile project, but I'm not sure I really like the Spire so much--it's kind of shaped like an "appendage," if you know what I mean.

DHamp · #**100** Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 3:30 PM**

^Oh, here we go with that again...