CHICAGO | St. Regis Chicago (Vista) | 1,191 FT | 101 FLOORS - Page 88

BVictor1 · #**1741** Posted **Sep 27, 2016, 2:10 AM**

On a slightly different note.....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wanda-...230954669.html

2PRUROCKS! · #**1742** Posted **Sep 27, 2016, 3:22 AM**

What is the most recent render of Vista's north elevation (the view from the river)? I ask because the render on the 1st post of this thread and the boom rundown don't match what is on the Vista website or the model in the sales center. The main difference is the lowrise portion on the far east of the site. The render in the first post of this thread and the boom rundown show that lowrise section having the honeycomb façade pattern matching the section above the road that passes through the building. The Vista website and model in sales center show the lowrise section having the multi-hewed layered glass façade matching most of the rest of the building. Does anyone know what the most current design is?

Steely Dan · #**1743** Posted **Sep 27, 2016, 3:30 AM**

The rendering in the first post of this thread is the exact same one found on vista's official website, so I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about.

The rendering in the Boom Rundown thread is old and outdated. I will replace it.

rlw777 · #**1744** Posted **Sep 27, 2016, 2:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The rendering on the first post of this thread is the exact same one found on vista's official website, so I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about.

The rendering in the Boom Rundown thread is old and outdated. I will replace it.

I'm guessing he's referring to the image in the header of this thread

Steely Dan · #**1745** Posted **Sep 27, 2016, 2:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777

I'm guessing he's referring to the image in the header of this thread

oh yeah, that image is super old, from several iterations ago.

i don't know how to change the thread header images. maybe only admins can do that.

2PRUROCKS! · #**1746** Posted **Sep 27, 2016, 10:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The rendering in the first post of this thread is the exact same one found on vista's official website, so I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about.

The rendering in the Boom Rundown thread is old and outdated. I will replace it.

Yes, you are correct. I looked at the 1st post on page 1 last week and thought it was the same as the one in the Boom run down thread. I had been looking at a lot of renderings of this building last week trying to recall the evolution of the design and I must have gotten confused. Anyhow, my main point was to figure out what the current design is and it seems that it is the multi-hewed glass for the eastern lowrise portion as opposed to the honeycomb design. I am a bit disappointed as I liked how the two honeycomb sections broke up the design further reinforcing the illusion it is four buildings as opposed to one but this is still an exciting building that I think is a great design.

BVictor1 · #**1747** Posted **Sep 28, 2016, 6:29 AM**

09/27/16

• Video Link

nice · #**1748** Posted **Sep 28, 2016, 9:39 PM**

I just was catching up on this one. It seems Case will utilize 2 BG40 rigs to install the many belled caissons and install the permanent steel casing to rock for the rock socketed caissons. Most likely an air rig attachment will be mounted on a crane to remove the rock sockets which i heard are 6ft into solid rock but with weathered rock could be up to 23ft of rock removal. That being said i bet the Manitowoc 999 rig is the service crane to pic the very heavy rock cages/perm casings. They will most likely utilize a smaller crane to service the iron workers and other misc activities. This job is just getting off to a good start.

The project should take about 3 months for the caissons to be installed utilizing 3 drill rigs. The goodness is just starting. I wish Case and the McHugh team nothing but a successful safe operation throughout the course of the entire project.

Tom In Chicago · #**1749** Posted **Sep 28, 2016, 9:41 PM**

I've been out of town for the last 10 days. . . did I miss anything???

. . .

camdoodlebop · #**1750** Posted **Sep 28, 2016, 11:49 PM**

They've already built the first 20 floors, didn't you notice?

maru2501 · #**1751** Posted **Sep 29, 2016, 3:13 PM**

topped out

shakman · #**1752** Posted **Sep 29, 2016, 5:15 PM**

Residents can start moving in tomorrow.

NYC2CHI · #**1753** Posted **Oct 2, 2016, 12:32 AM**

This post from Sept 19:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=1670

I believe is suggesting that the 22' mark on the caisson is the diameter of the shaft. Actually, the mark represents the length of that section. Based on other photos taken at the Vista site, it appears this one has a diameter of 12'. Can anyone confirm the largest one they are pouring for this project?

new.slang · #**1754** Posted **Oct 2, 2016, 12:49 PM**

Any good skyline renderings with this beaut?

ardecila · #**1755** Posted **Oct 2, 2016, 3:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by observer

Countless buildings have been built in New York since 911, and since 2008 with scissor stairs. A few posts back someone posted an article on how they were not allowed. Simply not true. They are everywhere in NY today on new towers, perhaps most notably on 432 Park Avenue. Just google 432 Park Avenue Plan and you can see for yourself (sorry, too lazy to post a photo).

The use of them are a big reason they can get skinny towers to work out in NY. It really consolidates the core, making for more rentable area on the floor. The difference between this approach and a conventional split stair add up quick, especially on tall tower design.

They are not illegal in Chicago either, but they require special permission from a City board and I understand they are difficult to get.

denizen467 · #**1756** Posted **Oct 2, 2016, 9:46 PM**

In the case of a building with ordinary residential floor heights (let's just say 9 feet), I assume you can't collapse 2 emergency stairs into the footprint of just 1; I assume they can only be stacked to the point where their combined footprint is like 1.5 at best -- otherwise head clearance on the stair isn't enough. Am I right about this? Conversely if you have very tall slab-to-slab, you could probably collapse 2 of them into a perfect double-helix, occupying the footprint of just 1 and realizing maximum space savings.

The below diagram (best one that I could google in half a minute) seems to show 2 staircases combined into the footprint of about 2 -- resulting in negligible space saving (but presumably some cost saving). Any better diagrams out there of space saving examples?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...0&postcount=47