HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

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

    

OneEleven in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #361  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 11:15 PM
ChiPhi's Avatar
ChiPhi ChiPhi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chicago, Philadelphia
Posts: 500
^^^^Such a small number of people are actually feeling the dramatic tension that the folks at Related are trying to create... And I am one of them... GAHHHH!!!!
     
     
  #362  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 11:43 PM
Kippis's Avatar
Kippis Kippis is offline
Chicagoland Runaway
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryc View Post
It better turn some more corners, because I'm getting sick and tired of looking at this hulk.

I guess this means that (obviously) there have to be some sort of concrete plans in place, if you pardon the pun? I remember seeing the updated renderings from DeStefano a while back, but with the firm splitting in two -- and JMT's earlier post -- it doesn't seem like that's moving forward either. So what the heck is going to happen here?
     
     
  #363  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 2:19 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,539
^^^ Again, DeStephano's split will have NO effect on whether that design gets built. If the developer already paid for the design, then the architecture firm can go bankrupt for all they care because the plans and design are now owned by the developer. This isn't even a case of an architect going bankrupt so I'm not sure why people think the new domestic firm is just going to be like "well we just split, better throw away all of our active commissions because we don't like having work". What kind of imbecile would run a business like that? "Oh no we split into two new firms, better kill all our current projects and get rid of our clients because we wouldn't want to continue to exist as a company or anything..."

I'm not guaranteeing what we see in the renderings is exactly what will get built, but I am guaranteeing that DeStephano's split would have absolutely no effect on whether this gets built. Also, some CG artist is probably the least reliable source on this kind of news because they have 0 involvement in the business side of things and, in my experience, have absolutely no business sense.
     
     
  #364  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 6:04 PM
Hayward's Avatar
Hayward Hayward is offline
High above the Gold Coast
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,337
Hold up now.. Was there ever an actual tendered drawing set for the re-design? Excuse the renderings, they don't mean or prove anything.
     
     
  #365  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2012, 1:59 AM
Kippis's Avatar
Kippis Kippis is offline
Chicagoland Runaway
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
]I'm not guaranteeing what we see in the renderings is exactly what will get built, but I am guaranteeing that DeStephano's split would have absolutely no effect on whether this gets built. Also, some CG artist is probably the least reliable source on this kind of news because they have 0 involvement in the business side of things and, in my experience, have absolutely no business sense.
Lol I have no idea about the implications of what happens with proposals from firms that end up splitting apart, so thanks for pointing that out. Also, DeStefano couldn't have been the only firm interested in this property, I'd imagine, so that's something else that needs to be considered when referring to what might happen here (design-wise) with Related owning the property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
Hold up now.. Was there ever an actual tendered drawing set for the re-design? Excuse the renderings, they don't mean or prove anything.
I don't believe so. The "renderings" I'm referring to were on the last page or two, but again, those were from the set of images released by the CG artist from last year -- before the split. So like you said, they don't mean anything.
     
     
  #366  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2012, 3:38 AM
ChiPhi's Avatar
ChiPhi ChiPhi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chicago, Philadelphia
Posts: 500
Not that these are at all relevant to the final design, they are interesting nonetheless. These are some plans Teng (now EXP) put together of the site for the Burnham plan centennial committee. If you haven't heard of EXP or Teng, you aren't alone; their stuff is a pretty mixed bag, but these case studies are sheer beauty in my opinion.



     
     
  #367  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2012, 7:26 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is online now
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 2,033
Something like that would be realllly cool
     
     
  #368  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2012, 9:34 PM
chicagoisepic's Avatar
chicagoisepic chicagoisepic is offline
Don't mess with Chicago
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 77
that's very beautiful
     
     
  #369  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 1:31 AM
tyleraf's Avatar
tyleraf tyleraf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 486
Wow. Look at the comparison between the first tower and Trump.
     
     
  #370  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 2:10 AM
Hayward's Avatar
Hayward Hayward is offline
High above the Gold Coast
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,337
That's a very cool concept.
     
     
  #371  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 5:34 PM
jcchii's Avatar
jcchii jcchii is offline
Content provider
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: city on the take
Posts: 2,969
maybe someone will put that first concept at the Spire site using the foundation work
     
     
  #372  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 7:38 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is online now
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 2,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcchii View Post
maybe someone will put that first concept at the Spire site using the foundation work
and make it 2000 feet tall
     
     
  #373  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 10:58 PM
BorisMolotov's Avatar
BorisMolotov BorisMolotov is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 511
The second proposal looks a lot like the Tour Phare in La Defense in Paris that was at least proposed a few years ago. I have no idea if it went forward or not though.
     
     
  #374  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2012, 8:43 PM
takascar takascar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 110
OK, so does anyone have any guess or inside info about how long it will take for Related to show us details of what they will build?

What is the procedure that they have to follow to get this approved by the city? I don't think anything has been publicly submitted yet.

There needs to be public hearings and sign-off by the city. I'm thinking that we must be at least 6 months away from any construction resuming.
     
     
  #375  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2012, 9:43 PM
headcase's Avatar
headcase headcase is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: East Village, Chicago
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by takascar View Post
OK, so does anyone have any guess or inside info about how long it will take for Related to show us details of what they will build?

What is the procedure that they have to follow to get this approved by the city? I don't think anything has been publicly submitted yet.

There needs to be public hearings and sign-off by the city. I'm thinking that we must be at least 6 months away from any construction resuming.
It will need to be signed off by the city, but I don't think any hearings are necessary (they rarely are)

My only question, and it would be pretty easy to find out, is how the Waterview PD effects zoning on the site.

SSDD
__________________
He was constantly reminded of how startlingly different a place the world was when viewed from a point only three feet to the left.
     
     
  #376  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2012, 9:54 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,539
^^^ I'm not certain they need to go back to the city on this. I believe the only real PD triggers are height and FAR and the intent of this design is to pack all of the FAR into a lower height thereby increasing the profitability of the design.

As long as they stick within those PD parameters I don't think they need to do anything but renew their building permits and all that. Remember, Lakeshore East operates under a PD and never has to get approval for any of their designs since they general heights and densities are pre-approved. For example, the Coast started basically as soon as they had the money and construction diagrams because that density and height was already approved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by takascar View Post
OK, so does anyone have any guess or inside info about how long it will take for Related to show us details of what they will build?
I know someone who used to work at Related and is chums with everyone there. All I've heard for sure is that the cantilever pretty much has to happen. They could just do a massive transfer floor, but it would cost essentially just as much as the cantilever and they feel the radical design adds value. Anyhow, I've been hearing that since before the design is released. From what I understand they want to move ASAP on construction, but are still getting their money ducks in a row.
     
     
  #377  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 3:11 AM
ChiPhi's Avatar
ChiPhi ChiPhi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chicago, Philadelphia
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
All I've heard for sure is that the cantilever pretty much has to happen. They could just do a massive transfer floor, but it would cost essentially just as much as the cantilever and they feel the radical design adds value. A
Nice. No complaints from me (though I would like to see a little more cohesion between the two sections of the building).

Is the choice between the cantilever, a transfer floor and continuing with the old design of a reduced depth that is economically unrealistic? Or is the last of the three also impossible at this point?
     
     
  #378  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 8:52 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
vertical
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: unconventionally bicoastal
Posts: 10,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
^^^ I'm not certain they need to go back to the city on this. I believe the only real PD triggers are height and FAR and the intent of this design is to pack all of the FAR into a lower height thereby increasing the profitability of the design.
How do you figure? The foundation's already in the ground, so Related is paying for 1047' of height whether they use it all or not.

Also - cramming FAR into a lower height makes sense for office property, where added lease depth is desirable, but not for residential or hotel where you want to maximize the perimeter for access to light. People will pay more for a light-filled unit than they will for a deep one with a solitary window at the end. If you can save on foundation costs it makes sense to quash the height, but as I already said, the foundation for a supertall at Waterview is a (literally) sunk cost.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #379  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 2:18 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiPhi View Post
Is the choice between the cantilever, a transfer floor and continuing with the old design of a reduced depth that is economically unrealistic? Or is the last of the three also impossible at this point?
I'm no engineer, but from what I understand they need to make the floor plates bigger to make them more efficient and therefore profitable. The only way to do that is to spread the extreme load bearing capacity of the NW side of the site evenly across the site. This essentially requires the construction of a MASSIVE transfer floor which will essentially be a cantilever whether it's as dramatic as the current plan or not. The could eliminate the "stem", but at that point they are building the exact same transfer floor whether it's right on top of the existing structure or elevated 50 feet above it. So I suppose they could make it look like there is no cantilever, but it will be there either way and cost almost the same either way so I've heard they want to make it dramatic to increase the value/notoriety of the property.

They could still build the full height, but it's much more expensive because the floor plates would be ultra inefficient for rental.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
How do you figure? The foundation's already in the ground, so Related is paying for 1047' of height whether they use it all or not.
Not really. From what I understand they basically paid a price that was basically only slightly more than what this would have been as a vacant lot. The foundations are a sunk cost at this point and should be disregarded in all economic decisions for the property. You can't get that money back anymore.

Also, it's not as if they aren't using the full load bearing capacity of the foundations. They are just shifting the capacity to hold the same amount of SF and weight in less height.

Quote:
Also - cramming FAR into a lower height makes sense for office property, where added lease depth is desirable, but not for residential or hotel where you want to maximize the perimeter for access to light. People will pay more for a light-filled unit than they will for a deep one with a solitary window at the end. If you can save on foundation costs it makes sense to quash the height, but as I already said, the foundation for a supertall at Waterview is a (literally) sunk cost.
You are forgetting this tower was one of the skinniest ever proposed. The floor plates in this were something like 15,000 SF above the transfer floor and I'm sure they had a massive loss factor (probably 30%+ in the lower floors) due to elevators, elevator lobbies, utility runs, wider columns, etc.. So we are talking floors with like 11,000 usable SF MAX. This means you are looking at MAYBE 8 unit's per floor if you really cram them in. At the same time you are paying out the ass for all sorts of sheer bracing because the structure is so damn skinny and supports for extremely heavy loads in the lower floors.

Or you can just revert to the typical 22,500 SF floor plate of the rest of the building and have a more typical loss factor of maybe 18-20% and have 18,000 SF of usable space per floor and comfortably fit 12 or 13 units on each floor. It's not as if this building is going to have any trouble with getting like anyhow considering it already equals the height of all the buildings around it and the "stem" will rise above them all giving the building uninhibited views in all directions. Remember, they are never going to redevelop LaSalle Wacker and the North and East sides face streets and the river. The only possible redevelopment site would be due south and that's a relatively new building that I can't imagine being redeveloped in the next 20 or 30 years. And, if it is, odds are the developers would give this tower space because their tenants wouldn't like peering directly into someone's window 10 feet outside of theirs anymore than Waterview's residents would.

So basically you'd have to spend all sorts of extra money for less efficient usage of the FAR to build it to 1047' so you can see why they don't give a fuck if they could build to 1047' because they'd rather reallocate the strength of the existing foundations to support a shorter, cheaper, structure.
     
     
  #380  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2012, 12:44 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is online now
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 2,033
Yea but with all the residential development in the city, you think they could at least wait for a strong enough market to just build the original tower, considering the foundation is already laid.



Would be far better than this monstrosity


     
     
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 3:38 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.