CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction - Page 361

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**7201** Posted: **Mar 14, 2012, 3:36 PM**

Is that the cantilevered pool deck??

Hayward · #**7202** Posted: **Mar 14, 2012, 3:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Is that the cantilevered pool deck??

Indeed it is

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**7203** Posted: **Mar 14, 2012, 7:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayward

Indeed it is

Wow. I didn't think it would actually happen.

george · #**7204** Posted: **Mar 15, 2012, 12:46 AM**

3-13

Clark & Grand Hotels

SamInTheLoop · #**7205** Posted: **Mar 16, 2012, 4:13 PM**

^ Great updates, and very nice progress!

So here's a question......I'm curious why the variation in how far the core gets above poured floors in Chicago high-rise construction.....to keep comparable, just thinking solely in terms of residential and/or hotel, all reinforced contcrete construction.........I notice on two Lend Lease-built projects - Hotels on Grand and 500 N. Lakeshore Drive, the core seems to be several floors ahead of the floor plates, and then McHugh for example, in many of its projects - thinking Coast, and early stages of K2, and then some more 'historic' examples, the core is essentially just 1 floor higher...............any specific reason for this difference, or would it really come down to just general contractor preference, or some other simple, seemingly arbitrary reason?

SamInTheLoop · #**7206** Posted: **Mar 16, 2012, 4:14 PM**

Anybody pass by the site this week? I know someone mentioned site prep had begun - I think last month - and wondering if we have an official construction start here........

Mr Downtown · #**7207** Posted: **Mar 16, 2012, 6:28 PM**

^Could the difference be where the tower crane is mounted?

Nowhereman1280 · #**7208** Posted: **Mar 16, 2012, 6:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^Could the difference be where the tower crane is mounted?

I think it just has to do with the way the floors tie into the core. Certain buildings probably can't be properly tied into the core if it rises above the surrounding floors. This would explain why the cores on steel towers always take off since they have steel plates embedded in them which obviously can be welded onto regardless of how many floors of concrete are above them.

Think about it, if you have a design that requires rebar or post tensioning to tie into the core, you don't want to run your core up 10 floors and have bundles of rebar and post tensioning cables just hanging there waiting to get bent or snag something and cause an accident.

chrisvfr800i · #**7209** Posted: **Mar 17, 2012, 1:29 AM**

Usually, the dead-ends of the tendons are in the area of the core, and the stressing ends are at the perimeter of the slab, so there usually aren't any hanging cables in the core. You'd still have to box-out the wall to let the dead ends tie in to the wall. If the core is climbing ahead, a bend-out dowel assembly (often called a "Stay-box"), is usually needed, and that will interfere with the tendons.

On a non-PT building, which seems to be a rarity lately, the climbing core is limited by practical issues, like access to the top of the core, the height of the crane, design of the core wall itself, COST, etc.

Something weird I've noticed, on steel buildings with a concrete core built in NYC, the structural steel is ALWAYS ahead of the concrete core. In Chicago, it's the opposite. Anyone know why the different approach in NYC?

scalziand · #**7210** Posted: **Mar 17, 2012, 4:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

Something weird I've noticed, on steel buildings with a concrete core built in NYC, the structural steel is ALWAYS ahead of the concrete core. In Chicago, it's the opposite. Anyone know why the different approach in NYC?

It's a union thing. The steel workers want to be above the concrete workers.

I suppose it helps tie the floors into the core better, since the beams are cast into the core, rather than being welded into plates cast into the core.

i_am_hydrogen · #**7211** Posted: **Mar 18, 2012, 2:21 AM**

J_M_Tungsten · #**7212** Posted: **Mar 18, 2012, 5:16 AM**

Is that proposal next to SONO west going to happen?

i_am_hydrogen · #**7213** Posted: **Mar 18, 2012, 5:24 AM**

^I did see construction crews working on a parcel very close to Sono West. What's planned for it? I can't remember.

denizen467 · #**7214** Posted: **Mar 18, 2012, 5:27 AM**

If it's on Kingsbury, it's probably the Petco and Buy Buy Baby (or whatever it's called) suburban-style retail development. It started work as did Kingsbury Street reconstruction, so the whole area should look different by September. (Especially if that gentlemen's club gets shut down.)

J_M_Tungsten · #**7215** Posted: **Mar 18, 2012, 5:30 AM**

This is what I remember spyguy posting.

Pic from http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/5028/freemont.jpg

i_am_hydrogen · #**7216** Posted: **Mar 18, 2012, 5:35 AM**

^It's hard to get my bearings on that rendering.

I just looked at Google Streetview. The site is bordered by Kingsbury, Evergreen, Dayton, and Eastman.

ardecila · #**7217** Posted: **Mar 18, 2012, 7:39 AM**

The rendering above is for a small site on Fremont, but it's just at proposal phase. The site current under construction is the new strip mall. Total crap.

source

J_M_Tungsten · #**7218** Posted: **Mar 18, 2012, 2:31 PM**

That is just horrendous. What a waste of land. I'd rather it stay a vacant lot.

shivtim · #**7219** Posted: **Mar 18, 2012, 3:15 PM**

^^ Yuck, that looks like something we'd get here in Atlanta, and we'd still be upset about it.

Mr Downtown · #**7220** Posted: **Mar 18, 2012, 3:46 PM**

East-West University building is still just a couple of backhoes doing excavation.