There goes that word again...

^^To bad burj dubai is UC right now...

Lord..

Lord..

:lol:

Controversial skyscraper plan gets new look

By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published December 21, 2006, 3:05 PM CST


Addressing criticism sparked by the latest plan for a 2,000-foot-tall, twisting skyscraper along Chicago's lakefront, the project's developer and architect have quietly shopped an alternative version to Mayor Richard M. Daley, community groups and leaders of the city's architecture community, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The alternative design has a tapering, tip-like summit instead of the nearly-flat dome in the proposal that was unveiled in early December and attracted a volley of criticism, people at the meetings said. They added that the tower's top has regained some of the whirring, twisting look that led Chicagoans to affectionately dub the proposed skyscraper "The Drill Bit." And now, they said, a thin shaft of light would shoot upwards from the tower at night, extending its presence into the sky.

People who attended the meetings also said that the tower's architect, Zurich-based Santiago Calatrava, made a presentation showing that the skyscraper would be far more slender than comparable supertall buildings such as Sears Tower. The move apparently was aimed at rebutting the view that the proposed tower has grown too bulky because Dublin-based developer Garrett Kelleher wants to nearly triple the number of units.

The skyscraper would be the nation's tallest building, eclipsing both the current title-holder, the 1,450-foot Sears Tower, and the under-construction, 1,776-foot Freedom Tower in New York, scheduled for completion in 2011.

At least some in attendance found the latest version of the 160-story luxury condominium tower, which would be built at a now-empty site on the Chicago River's north bank at Lake Shore Drive, a significant improvement. "It's like nothing else in North America," said Donna Robertson, dean of the architecture school at the Illinois Institute of Technology. "It's innovative. It puts Chicago on the map."

Daley also has been shown the alternative version of the tower, which is called "Version D," a spokeswoman for the developer said. It is not known how Daley, who is intensely interested in architecture, reacted. In 2005, the mayor ordered flamboyant New York developer Donald Trump to put a spire on top of his 92-story hotel and condominium tower now being constructed alongside the landmark Wrigley Building.

Kelleher filed his proposal with the city Dec. 8 and immediately encountered resistance, with many observers saying the design was far less attractive than the plans for the skyscraper unveiled in July 2005 and March 2006 by the project's previous developer, Christopher Carley of Chicago. Carley's versions were topped by a broadcast tower that also served as a spire, but Kelleher eliminated it, along with a hotel that Carley wanted to place on the tower's lower floors.

An influential community group, the Streeterville Organization of Active Residents (SOAR), expressed disappointment with the design and the proposed increase in the number of units, which it predicted would aggravate traffic congestion in the already-clogged area west of Navy Pier.

And Ald. Burton Natarus (42nd), in whose ward the project would be built, said he was concerned about the project's size and its effect on traffic, adding a political obstacle to the economic hurdles the mega-tower already faces.

The cost of the project once was estimated at $1.2 billion, but Kelleher's Shelbourne Development has not provided an updated figure. Kelleher assumed control of the project last summer after Carley's drive to build it faltered.

The groups shown the alternative version of the project include SOAR, the Chicago Architecture Foundation and the Chicago chapter of the American Institute of Architects, according to people familiar with the meetings. Several of the groups saw the plans Wednesday in the offices of the associate architects for the project, Chicago-based Perkins + Will.

In addition, the Illinois Institute of Technology on Tuesday hosted a dinner party at which Calatrava and Kelleher presented the design to leading figures in the city's design community. Among those attending the event -- held in Crown Hall, master modernist Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's renowned temple of steel and glass -- were Joseph Rosa, the Art Institute of Chicago's curator of architecture and design, and Ed Uhlir, the design director for Millennium Park, people familiar with the event said.

At the IIT meeting, people who attended say, the project's backers argued that the elimination of the hotel would lessen, rather than aggravate, traffic congestion. Without the hotel, fewer taxicabs would head to the tower, some present at the meeting said. In addition, they said, many of tower's residents are expected to be affluent residents who would not live in Chicago during the winter months, further reducing the tower's effect on congestion.

The flurry of meetings is a prelude to a still-to-be-scheduled hearing before the Chicago Plan Commission that could be held as early as January. Constance Buscemi, a planning department spokeswoman, said city officials "still need to meet with the development team and look at the design in more detail." The city's transportation department is also scrutinizing the plans.

Kelleher wants to break ground by June.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-061221tower-story,1,6758570.story?coll=chi-news-hed

let's hope this baby starts in June :cheers:

I'm sure it will!!!

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/st...810-qqqx=1.asp

Trump slams Kelleher’s plans for Chicago residential tower

24 December 2006 By Niall Stanage
Irish property developer Garrett Kelleher’s plans to build the world’s tallest residential building in Chicago have come under fire from one of America’s most famous businessmen.

Irish property developer Garrett Kelleher’s plans to build the world’s tallest residential building in Chicago have come under fire from one of America’s most famous businessmen.

Donald Trump, who seeks the media spotlight as assiduously as Kelleher avoids it, told the Chicago Tribune that the Irishman’s plans amounted to ‘‘financial suicide’’.

Trump asserted that ‘‘the Chicago market is not good.

“There are many planned projects that won’t get built, and I predict this is one of them.”

Trump, most recently seen presenting the TV show The Apprentice, was reacting to an amended design of Kelleher’s project. Now called the Chicago Spire, the design of the massive skyscraper by Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava has been altered dramatically. Kelleher’s company, Shelbourne Development, announced earlier this month that the tower would have 160 storeys, an increase of more than 30 from the initial plan.

Although the building’s height (2,000 feet) remains unchanged, space that had been taken up by an actual spire will now be filled by the added residential floors. The building will also be broader and, whereas the original design had the tower appearing to ‘‘twist’’ through 360 degrees on its way to its summit, now the turn is only 270 degrees.

All of these changes mean that the Chicago Spire will have three times the capacity it had in its earliest stages. It will total about three million square feet, and will include 1,300 luxury residential apartments. An earlier plan to include a 150-bedroom hotel has been shelved.

The development company’s aim to sell the units at a price of about $1,000 per square foot has raised some eyebrows. The so-called Windy City has several other high-end buildings either constructed or under development.

Some real estate experts in the city have questioned whether there will be sufficient demand to make the Kelleher project a success.

By some estimates, the Spire will cost almost $2 billion to build.

Due to the fact that one of the other luxury buildings in which units are still for sale is a Trump Tower, Trump has a motive to denigrate the Spire.

Kelleher’s Chicago spokesman Thomas Murphy insisted that the project had sound financial foundations.

‘‘Garrett Kelleher is interested in marketing this project globally,” Murphy told the Chicago Sun-Times.

‘‘You look at the markets around the world, and you have to say that Chicago is underpriced and maybe it’s undiscovered.”

However, the new design for the Spire has not met with criticism merely from Kelleher’s business rivals.

Architectural commentators have also reacted negatively.

‘‘Calatrava’s latest design for the project, heavily tweaked to adapt to the specifications of its new developer, Garrett Kelleher, is a grim first step down the same path that took New York’s Ground Zero project towards its current state of dispiriting mediocrity,” Sun-Times architecture critic Kevin Nance wrote earlier this month.

‘‘The former Fordham Spire is now the Kelleher Calamity.”

Addressing criticism sparked by the latest plan for a 2,000-foot-tall, twisting skyscraper along Chicago's lakefront, the project's developer and architect have quietly shopped an alternative version to Mayor Richard M. Daley, community groups and leaders of the city's architecture community, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The alternative design has a tapering, tip-like summit instead of the nearly-flat dome in the proposal that was unveiled in early December and attracted a volley of criticism, people at the meetings said. They added that the tower's top has regained some of the whirring, twisting look that led Chicagoans to affectionately dub the proposed skyscraper "The Drill Bit." And now, they said, a thin shaft of light would shoot upwards from the tower at night, extending its presence into the sky.
Yay!

:grouphug:

I just wished the FAA/FCC would both shut their mouths and eliminate the national 2,000ft restriction. It's so retarted, only helicopters go that low, and landing planes. Helicopters shouldn't be going so low in urban areas, and besides, your not going to have a whole skyline full of 2,000ft buildings.

Put this building at it's height of 2,000ft w/o a spire, then slap a spire up on top of it... Heck, they should build the spire inside the tower, then lift it up at the end, just to slap the FAA/FCC in the face.

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/st...810-qqqx=1.asp

Trump slams Kelleher’s plans for Chicago residential tower

24 December 2006 By Niall Stanage

Trump asserted that ‘‘the Chicago market is not good.

“There are many planned projects that won’t get built, and I predict this is one of them.”Clever Donald. Seems like he wouldn't like this tall stealing the thunder from his new tower in Chicago, even though Trump Tower's construction is already in full swing.

...and the Chicago market seems fine, just fine. Residential markets keep changing anyway.

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/st...810-qqqx=1.asp

Trump slams Kelleher’s plans for Chicago residential tower

24 December 2006 By Niall Stanage
Irish property developer Garrett Kelleher’s plans to build the world’s tallest residential building in Chicago have come under fire from one of America’s most famous businessmen.

Irish property developer Garrett Kelleher’s plans to build the world’s tallest residential building in Chicago have come under fire from one of America’s most famous businessmen.

Donald Trump, who seeks the media spotlight as assiduously as Kelleher avoids it, told the Chicago Tribune that the Irishman’s plans amounted to ‘‘financial suicide’’.

Trump asserted that ‘‘the Chicago market is not good.

“There are many planned projects that won’t get built, and I predict this is one of them.”

Trump, most recently seen presenting the TV show The Apprentice, was reacting to an amended design of Kelleher’s project. Now called the Chicago Spire, the design of the massive skyscraper by Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava has been altered dramatically. Kelleher’s company, Shelbourne Development, announced earlier this month that the tower would have 160 storeys, an increase of more than 30 from the initial plan.

Although the building’s height (2,000 feet) remains unchanged, space that had been taken up by an actual spire will now be filled by the added residential floors. The building will also be broader and, whereas the original design had the tower appearing to ‘‘twist’’ through 360 degrees on its way to its summit, now the turn is only 270 degrees.

All of these changes mean that the Chicago Spire will have three times the capacity it had in its earliest stages. It will total about three million square feet, and will include 1,300 luxury residential apartments. An earlier plan to include a 150-bedroom hotel has been shelved.

The development company’s aim to sell the units at a price of about $1,000 per square foot has raised some eyebrows. The so-called Windy City has several other high-end buildings either constructed or under development.

Some real estate experts in the city have questioned whether there will be sufficient demand to make the Kelleher project a success.

By some estimates, the Spire will cost almost $2 billion to build.

Due to the fact that one of the other luxury buildings in which units are still for sale is a Trump Tower, Trump has a motive to denigrate the Spire.

Kelleher’s Chicago spokesman Thomas Murphy insisted that the project had sound financial foundations.

‘‘Garrett Kelleher is interested in marketing this project globally,” Murphy told the Chicago Sun-Times.

‘‘You look at the markets around the world, and you have to say that Chicago is underpriced and maybe it’s undiscovered.”

However, the new design for the Spire has not met with criticism merely from Kelleher’s business rivals.

Architectural commentators have also reacted negatively.

‘‘Calatrava’s latest design for the project, heavily tweaked to adapt to the specifications of its new developer, Garrett Kelleher, is a grim first step down the same path that took New York’s Ground Zero project towards its current state of dispiriting mediocrity,” Sun-Times architecture critic Kevin Nance wrote earlier this month.

‘‘The former Fordham Spire is now the Kelleher Calamity.”

The link is not working for me. Also is this brand new reaction to the latest design or just a rehashing of the old criticisms of the initial redesign? 'The Donald' has been saying shit all along..and the architecture people were actually much more receptive to the latest redesign. This does not appear to be an accurate summary of criticism also since the new redesign has the full 360 degree rotation back.

I like it.

The link is not working for me. Also is this brand new reaction to the latest design or just a rehashing of the old criticisms of the initial redesign? 'The Donald' has been saying shit all along..and the architecture people were actually much more receptive to the latest redesign. This does not appear to be an accurate summary of criticism also since the new redesign has the full 360 degree rotation back.

It seems like this was recent from the following quote ‘‘The former Fordham Spire is now the Kelleher Calamity.” But there is some old stuff in there too, so who knows. If it was recent, I'm suprised it wasn't more widely reported in the news. But then again, this may be big news for us but for the general population, this is relatively insignificant.

Sorry for the bad link. Here is the correct path:
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=news-qqqid=19810-qqqx=1.asp

http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/calatravachicago/spires.jpg

The second one looks so much better and much more solid. I'm starting to like this project better. Good thing they got rid of that nasty looking spire.

I never said they were mine to begin with. Make no assumptions. And yes, credit goes to STR for that fantastic model of Chitown. You guys get too worked up in these threads. No wonder people keep telling me they don't even want to comment on here anymore.

It was silly the comparison between Chicago and Dubai. There are people who don't like this project, but these are few opinions.


I saw the last renderings looking up the building, and I think it's one of the most amazing projects in the world!!!! :eek:

CONGRATULATIONSSS :) :) :) :yes: :yes:

The design will start growing on people eventually.

The second one looks so much better and much more solid. I'm starting to like this project better. Good thing they got rid of that nasty looking spire.

I believe the photo on the left represents the original design. The spire was later shortened to be more proportional to the rest of the building.

Model by STR
http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=39392&drawingID=39884

I think it's stupid if this thing doesn't get a spire now.

Have a look on a side by side comparison with the Burj Dubai, they could take the WTB title off the Burj Dubai if they try. SO CLOSE! A moderate spire would do it.

So I'd get that FAA clearance if they can.

Besides, it looks like a giant chimney otherwise, albeit a nice twisting chimney.

More models from STR, actual design at far right. In my opinion, the twisting pattern is more graceful.

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/6127/3633mn.jpg

^the first one is the new re-design?

^No, that's just an untwisted version. All of the above are models of the old design. The new design (Version D) has not been publicly revealed.

What the he11 is this?

http://dallasmetropolis.com/urbantemps/chicago/fordhamspire25gi-edited2.jpg

Found this on the espn baseball message board of all places.

That is some antenna they where but now are trying again to get approved.

without the spire and because of its slenderness it looks totally like a factory tower. only the twisting doesn't help the the tower to be some kind of aesthetically or unusually

What the he11 is this?

http://dallasmetropolis.com/urbantemps/chicago/fordhamspire25gi-edited2.jpg

Found this on the espn baseball message board of all places.

Here is the thread for the other tower that you see next to Chicago Spire:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=273195

The twist by the time it will be built will be boring.

:) nice!

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/187027,CST-FIN-roeder27.article

A fistful of groups sure to warmly say goodbye to 2006

December 27, 2006
BY DAVID ROEDER Sun-Times Columnist
As we celebrate the holidays, remember the less fortunate, those who have lost their way and are suffering for their mistakes. Don't worry. I'm not going all Oprah here. In our preferred subject of real estate, a business that's kindest to those with sharp elbows, glib tongues and calculating minds, "less fortunate" means those who, often through no fault of their own, experienced a setback or a blown-up deal and need a comeback.
As 2006 winds down, here's a look at five entities who have reason to kick the old year in the pants as it heads out the door and warily embrace the new one

• • Christopher Carley and Garrett Kelleher, respectively once and present developers of the Santiago Calatrava spire on the lakefront. It's looking more like a crazy dream. You have to hand it to Carley and Kelleher for backing something that has Chicagoans talking, but the building is financially preposterous. Carley, genuinely smitten with Calatrava's drawings, got wise and exited before risking too many millions. Now Kelleher is in the deal trying to imitate Donald Trump, but without The Donald's network of back-end investors to acquire the condos.

The building is in its third design stage after the second one, swollen to some 1,300 units from the original 450, was panned by us locals. Probably the next step is to rename it the Richard M. Daley Spire at Hon. Burton F. Natarus Plaza. That would help at the zoning hearing but not in the marketplace, which will consign this building to that architectural purgatory known as Unbuilt Chicago.

i love that tower

Me too.

^^ I love your avatar :P

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/187027,CST-FIN-roeder27.article

A fistful of groups sure to warmly say goodbye to 2006

December 27, 2006
BY DAVID ROEDER Sun-Times Columnist
As we celebrate the holidays, remember the less fortunate, those who have lost their way and are suffering for their mistakes. Don't worry. I'm not going all Oprah here. In our preferred subject of real estate, a business that's kindest to those with sharp elbows, glib tongues and calculating minds, "less fortunate" means those who, often through no fault of their own, experienced a setback or a blown-up deal and need a comeback.
As 2006 winds down, here's a look at five entities who have reason to kick the old year in the pants as it heads out the door and warily embrace the new one

• • Christopher Carley and Garrett Kelleher, respectively once and present developers of the Santiago Calatrava spire on the lakefront. It's looking more like a crazy dream. You have to hand it to Carley and Kelleher for backing something that has Chicagoans talking, but the building is financially preposterous. Carley, genuinely smitten with Calatrava's drawings, got wise and exited before risking too many millions. Now Kelleher is in the deal trying to imitate Donald Trump, but without The Donald's network of back-end investors to acquire the condos.

The building is in its third design stage after the second one, swollen to some 1,300 units from the original 450, was panned by us locals. Probably the next step is to rename it the Richard M. Daley Spire at Hon. Burton F. Natarus Plaza. That would help at the zoning hearing but not in the marketplace, which will consign this building to that architectural purgatory known as Unbuilt Chicago.

Pretty harsh assesment. We have another peanut gallery clown.

Here's an alternate vision (par moi) for the crown of the tower. Rumours have spread concerning what the crown will look like, and it seems to be headed towards some sort of parabolic dome. But here's my feable attempt:
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/308/fordham1ql8.jpg
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/4793/fordham2kr3.jpg

nice sketches!

Here's an alternate vision (par moi) for the crown of the tower. Rumours have spread concerning what the crown will look like, and it seems to be headed towards some sort of parabolic dome. But here's my feable attempt:
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/308/fordham1ql8.jpg
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/4793/fordham2kr3.jpg


They should be so lucky.

Where did the spire go? I really can't like this one as much anymore, which is a shame because it was beautiful.

Do we know exactly why the spire had to be removed?

Where did the spire go? I really can't like this one as much anymore, which is a shame because it was beautiful.

Do we know exactly why the spire had to be removed?

There is a huge discussion on this issue in ssp. Basicly it was more cost effective to eliminate the spire and add additonal units to offset the cost of this beast. It does not make sense to me either.

And what's all this speculation about a new crown adorning its top?

Will there actually be such a thing added back into the design?

And what's all this speculation about a new crown adorning its top?

Will there actually be such a thing added back into the design?

Someone posted an article on SSP (which is down now, lamentably) concerning neighbourhood and city officials working out some sort of crown to the building, it led one to believe that it would be, like said, a parabolic glass dome, but the actual crown design is about as speculative and chancy as the whole project is.

Someone posted an article on SSP (which is down now, lamentably) concerning neighbourhood and city officials working out some sort of crown to the building, it led one to believe that it would be, like said, a parabolic glass dome, but the actual crown design is about as speculative and chancy as the whole project is.

what is up with that again..(What is really sad is the withdrawal I am going through..)

From the SSP main page:

'Work In Progress
We will be upgrading some parts of the website over the next few months, so some sections may be offline temporarily. The gallery will be coming back soon.'

It works for me... (the main page, the forums...)

It's up again, then.

Yeah dude that is an awesome spire concept, in fact i prefer that to any of the actual designs ever presented for the tower, maybe somebody with influence will see it:)

Woah... that forumer DID design those! (I just say the "par moi" he said, hehe)...

OMG PLEASE email those designs to the guys behind it, or the Chicago newspaper for their next article about the project... that's a beautiful alternative for the project. I like it more than the spireless current version.

Toronto had Sapphire Tower... now Chicago has the Spire. Same idea... large, ambitious, and... still up in the air, but will be a scaled-back version if it is built :( In Toronto's case, we now realize it was for the better.

Looks like a twisted freedom spire

I think you mean twisted Freedom Tower.

And yes it does a bit. Well done CGII.

Don't like the new version withouth spire either :(
They should really hire CGII and drop calatrava :D

Thanks for those drwaings CGII. When the news came that there was a new design with a top that tapers to a point, everyone seemed to assume that this meant a convex taper, but in my head I presumed that it meant a concave taper more similar to what you've drawn. We haven't seen the actual renderings yet (at least I haven't), so I hope it's more like your drawings and less like the bullet-tipped ones we've seen.

Images of Version D, from a metting at IIT (http://admission.iit.edu/blog/index.php)

Posted by High Sky Zephyr
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/5615/dsc04621778228wq5.jpg

Edited:
http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/6132/csvdps3.jpg

Okay, so snub-nosed bullet it is.

nice d!ldo

^Do you consider that a good or bad thing?

In any case, I think this is by far the best version shown publicly. It restores a lot of the elegance missing in the last revision while still being quite tall.

im with Mr d!ldo :P

^Do you consider that a good or bad thing?

In any case, I think this is by far the best version shown publicly. It restores a lot of the elegance missing in the last revision while still being quite tall.

loOL, i too think its the best version yet, but the resemblance is there... is the height the same or the changed it?

The bullet top looks much better, it loses the chimney look.

This version is a lot better than the last one.. though the one before that was the best :( without that spire, it'll never look so sexy and majestic as it once did.

The first thought that came into my head...

"Oh my God a dildo"

Turns out it wasn't a unique thought. A bit like London's Mallory Clifford Project (I think it was called)

Looks ridiculous so far BUT it's only one model shot, the renders should look a lot better. I love the whole concept of this project so I'm not gonna be pessimistic just yet.

so, is the height the same?

so, is the height the same?

Yes. 2,000ft/610meters and 160 floors.

oh, ok, so its the same of the last proposal

In any case, I think this is by far the best version shown publicly. It restores a lot of the elegance missing in the last revision while still being quite tall.

Ditto.

oh, ok, so its the same of the last proposal

Yep. The height for Version D remains the same as Version C. The only thing that changed was the design.

Quick rundown of heights for each version:

Version A - 1,483ft to the roof & 2,000ft structural top
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y119/Chgo83/FordhamSpire-ComputerRendering2.jpg

Version B - 1,600ft to the roof & 2,000ft structural top
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y119/Chgo83/FordhamSpire-Revised.jpg

Version C - 2,000ft to the roof/structural top
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y119/Chgo83/ChicagoSpire-VersionC.jpg

Version D - Same as Version C height wise.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y119/Chgo83/ChicagoSpire-VersionDII.jpg

Its not what you were looking for probably but I dont think it hurts to put out there for others that want to know, if they already didnt.

actually that was exactly what i was asking

They fixed the twist! SPLENDID!!!

Bring back the podium & needle point spire and it shall win me over!

:grouphug:

I agree with Spyguy. This new design restores the elegance that the old design had before they dropped the spire.

The building looks massive in that picture. But I guess it is 2000 feet.

You guys should be happy, the top looks fine now and it's 517 feet taller to roof than the original version, I mean that's a lot more substantial a tower.

So it worked out pretty well in the end, I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth if I was from Chicago!;)

they need to bouild it

actually that was exactly what i was asking

Oh okay. :)

I added the images for each version in my original post also.

Sorry for the large images as I pushed spyguy's post off of the page.

Here's a re-do of spyguys post. I pushed it off with my large images.

Images of Version D, from a metting at IIT (http://admission.iit.edu/blog/index.php)

Posted by High Sky Zephyr
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/5615/dsc04621778228wq5.jpg

Edited:
http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/6132/csvdps3.jpg

it looks like it twist all the way up. Will the top light up. Thumps up

WOW CGII's spire sketch shows how good this will appear if there were to be a SPIRE on the Chicago SPIRE!!! I like your idea of not just a stick, but a gradual diminishment of the size until the spire is reached, and perhaps just go a little over 2K feet, like 2222!!!

WOW CGII's spire sketch shows how good this will appear if there were to be a SPIRE on the Chicago SPIRE!!! I like your idea of not just a stick, but a gradual diminishment of the size until the spire is reached, and perhaps just go a little over 2K feet, like 2222!!!

While I admire his effort, his spire doesnt work out when applied to the rendering of this tower at SSP. It especially failed (too harsh but...) from a distance to the point of insignificance. Now granted if professionals got a hold of his drawing, surely they would work it out a bit better but Im not convinced this building needs a spire. Visually, to me, the building is the spire. For this design, esp Version D, adding anything else to the top would be overkill in my humble opinion.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/194975,CST-FIN-roeder03.article

SPIRE MIRE: Gail Spreen, president of the Streeterville Organization of Active Residents, said leaders of the civic group are due to meet Thursday to consider endorsing the latest redesign of the Chicago Spire, the proposed Santiago Calatrava building near Navy Pier. She said the new version retains the roughly 1,300 units planned in a former and widely panned design. But she said it also adds some grace and a true spire that were present in Calatrava's original proposal.

That might help with the politics, but economics is this building's most formidable foe.

Images of Version D, from a metting at IIT (http://admission.iit.edu/blog/index.php)

Posted by High Sky Zephyr
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/5615/dsc04621778228wq5.jpg

Edited:
http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/6132/csvdps3.jpg
:bash: :ohno: what a crappy design

I disagree, I like it.

^^ :lol: you like that Giant dildo

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Calavatra whyyyyyyyy????????

^^ the same question i want to know :lol:

for lack of a better term, it looks like a d***o

chicago has some amazing architecture and i have had the pleasure of seeing it first hand, and honestly, a move to the future is good, but with good architecture is how its done, not by this

im sorry chicago...

Well I'm sad that you think that way, having to relate a building to a sex toy.

You're from Chicago so you should be damned greatful you're getting a building this good and this tall in your city.

And that's only a simple model, how can you judge the design on that?

Well I'm sad that you think that way, having to relate a building to a sex toy.

And that's only a simple model, how can you judge the design on that?

Correct on both counts.

There are hundreds of [famous] structures and objects that are considered phallic, but no one makes a big deal out of them eventually, at least mature people.

Wait for some renderings before saying how terrible it is.

We'll have to wait for the real renderings, but I don't like the rounded top either.

Still 2000 feet to roof? To skinny to be a dildio, not as good as the last design.

nice!

It certainly is going in the right direction with the increase in taper, full and continuous rotation and the end of the flat top. And I have never seen a dildo that looks like that! (and I have seen a few :) :lol: )

It IS too skinny to be a dildo - it's slender and elegant, and with a proper render I suspect a lot of opinions will change. Not mine, though - I love it.

^^ if you say so! :jk:

Id like to see a rendering with a sharp top. not a spire, but a very sharp, well-finished point.
I think that would look nice

elegant. A proper render is needed.

Id like to see a rendering with a sharp top. not a spire, but a very sharp, well-finished point.
I think that would look nice

Like a cone sort of a thing? I was thinking that too... but it won't fit as many units in.

I disagree, I like it.

me too

i have to say this design is starting to look more ugly in each inception..it now looks like a 'dildo' as someone has mentioned earlier without a doubt. Calatrava is a genius but sometimes even genius's get it wrong.

So far Version D seems to be much better than version C but wait till renders. They will likely make it look even more kickass though.

It doesn't really need a spire though.

It doesn't really need a spire though.

Doesn't need one no. But would look better with one yes. In my opinion at least. Even if it were just a little spire.

Love it. Spire isn't any bad.

how tall will that tower be with a spire?? 700m+??

how tall will that tower be with a spire?? 700m+??

There is no talk of there being a spire. But if there were to be one who knows. Since the roof height is so far up there a rather large spire would look properly proportionate.

for lack of a better term, it looks like a d***o

chicago has some amazing architecture and i have had the pleasure of seeing it first hand, and honestly, a move to the future is good, but with good architecture is how its done, not by this

im sorry chicago...

1. Im not from Chicago, I never said I was.
2. It looks like a damn d***o
3. It seems to be a consensus that it is a horible design

get over it, not everyone is going to like it, hell, people dont like a lot of the designs of Nashville's buildings and say shit all the time. people have their opinion and your going to hear it!

It doesn't really need a spire though.


Correct, it is a spire.

Can we stop calling it a dildo. The building is spectacular. Once is done it will look totaly different. Remember the building has a twist all the way up and the condos stick out of the building making it almost 3d.

The funny part about all of this is how everyone here is judging the building by a picture silhouette of the white model. Lets all use our heads for a moment here and wait until the actual renderings are released before we say it is shit/godlike.

Can we stop calling it a dildo. The building is spectacular. Once is done it will look totaly different. Remember the building has a twist all the way up and the condos stick out of the building making it almost 3d.

its hardly original though.After calatrava started this misconceived obsession with swisty buildings in malmo the rest of the world followed suit. Now dubai has probably 2 similar structures going up and russia has another, I imagine china will have 3 or so, and it looks like a di*do...sorry or one of those ugly candles popular in the eighties.

Someone has disgusting crap on their mind if that is what they see in a building.

Some folks see Virgin Marys everywhere. Others dildos.

I don't like the roundish top, it kinda bastardizes it IMO. I think either a spire or flat top makes it look more distinguishing.

It does NOT look like a damn dildo..if anyone tried to use that model of this building as a dildo they would end up with a ruptured orifice(of whatever kind)..it is too long, narrow, and pointed(even while rounded off) at the top to be a damn dildo. Jeez~!

Can we stop calling it a dildo. The building is spectacular. Once is done it will look totaly different. Remember the building has a twist all the way up and the condos stick out of the building making it almost 3d.

haha i didn't even think about it this way. Well the twist just gives it a look of a screw, or a drill bit. I don't want to say anything about it until it's actually done, but a spiral building isn't very good looking imo.

To me the most important thing about the building is the aesthetics (it should be so obvious) so i don't really know about the spire, it depends o nhow good the final product looks like. Right now, the look (on page one) doesn't strike me as being very good.

I prefer version C but D will do just dandy. I like the 2k height of C and D so that will be fine. I wonder what chance there is in this building being built to 2k to the roof. Way too much talk in Chicago over a huge building...ie. MB Tower, 7SD, Chicago WTC, and now CS.

haha i didn't even think about it this way. Well the twist just gives it a look of a screw, or a drill bit. I don't want to say anything about it until it's actually done, but a spiral building isn't very good looking imo.

To me the most important thing about the building is the aesthetics (it should be so obvious) so i don't really know about the spire, it depends o nhow good the final product looks like. Right now, the look (on page one) doesn't strike me as being very good.

Well you might want to check through the thread since that 'look' on page one is version 'A' and we are discussing version 'D' now..much much different.

Deleted. Not worth it.

Deleted.

...Way too much talk in Chicago over a huge building...ie. MB Tower, 7SD, Chicago WTC, and now CS.

Its not that simple. The market crash of the 80's is what killed MB and I believe Chicago WTC. Find me a bank thats going to lend money in that kind of environment. There's nothing a developer can do about that, unless there's something I dont know. 7SD met its fate due to an over ambitious, greedy fool of a developer (Toberman) who had no experience in the market he stepped in and got shafted. Oops. Im not hearing of a potential market crash and Kelleher is far from the likes of Toberman. And in the end if CS doesnt get built, another one will follow. Its in the blood of this city to build big.

Correlation betweem 7SD and Chicago Spire = 0.

I'm not worried about these current opinions. Once built people will get what Calatrava did. It's a masterpiece in waiting.

This is a beautiful building - much nicer than Burj Dubai (which I also like, though).

P

i'd say it resembles a vibrator more than a dildo,
if we're getting technical here.

I honestly think Calatrava has hit the nail on the head with this one. It looks nothing whatsoever like a dildo, it's way too skinny and the shape is all wrong aswell. You might as well say any tower looks like a dildo since that's the general shape.
I love the organic touch and right now doesn't resemble any familiar object I can think of, not a drill bit anymore and not a dildo either.

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/6132/csvdps3.jpg


Looks amazing and out of this world. Imagine seeing this in real life in full size!

i'd say it resembles a vibrator more than a dildo,
if we're getting technical here.:hilarious

Grant Park Advisory Council public meeting

Parkitecture - the continued framing of the park as Grant Park becomes one of Chicago's great economic engines. With all of the new high-rises, Lollapalooza, and the leasing of the Grant Park garages, Grant Park is generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue as it becomes one of the world's most beautiful and cultural parks. Much of this revenue is going to improve Chicago's neighborhood parks.

Monday, January 15, 2006 - 6:30 p.m.

Daley Bicentennial Plaza - 337 E. Randolph just east of Columbus Drive.


The Grant Park Advisory Council and Grant Park Conservancy hope you're feeling InSPIREd this new year.

Please join us for a public meeting on two new buildings proposed to join our distinguished skyline. One has generated a great deal of excitement and discussion in Chicago already. The other will be revealed to the public for the first time. Come and be a part of shaping our great city.

Millennium Park Plaza
John Lahey from the architecture firm of Solomon Cordwell Buenz and Associates will introduce to the public for the first time the design of a new high-rise building to be built at the NE corner of Randolph and Michigan Avenue on Grant Park. As part of the plans for this new high-rise, there will also be the creation of much-needed, new, modern retail space in the existing "Doral Plaza" building on Michigan Avenue.

Shelbourne Spire
Garrett Kelleher of Shelbourne Development Group will be coming all the way from Ireland to present to you the latest design for the "Spire" designed by architect Santiago Calatrava.

We look forward to having you join us for the presentation and discussion about the newest architecture in Chicago and how improving Grant Park leads to more economic development.

Thank you very much for your interest and participation.

Bob O'Neill


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



get there early if you can. i'm guessing this one will be quite popular. ;)

From SSP.

Grant Park really is transforming into something amazing. Very exciting watching the changes progress.

So now it's the Shelbourne Spire huh?

So now it's the Shelbourne Spire huh?

No. That wasn't official or anything.

The obtrude thing resembles with my umbrella.

from SSP:



Mon. Jan 8, 2007
http://www.cactus22minus1.com/pics/chicago/01-08-07_1208.jpg

Those guys were digging post holes for whatever that's worth.

Not anything official, but it was made by a forumer on SSP.

http://www.boca-del-mar.com/publish/csthin4.jpg

Close to the real thing.

It's alright, but I thinkI like the second version the most still.

I think this could work...

I loved that flat topped version but this is the next best thing and I like it too. The height really is what is keeping on board as a supporter :D

This is still great architecture and a monumental building but I'm not as thrilled with this as I was with the previous design and the original.

i still think the first design was the best, but then i seem to be the only person on these forums that likes spires. This ends to abruptly and personally i think its lost a lot of its personality in the redesigns. Will still be stunning to see it rise though, hell i dont care what it looks like at that height, build the fucker

Not anything official, but it was made by a forumer on SSP.

http://www.boca-del-mar.com/publish/csthin4.jpg

Close to the real thing.

with all due respect to who made that render, it is not the same as the model. The model has a much smaller top compared to the base, and the ripples are less noticeable toward the top.

with all due respect to who made that render, it is not the same as the model. The model has a much smaller top compared to the base, and the ripples are less noticeable toward the top.

A SSP forumer made that render prior to the model pictures being posted. He made a good guess as to what it might look like.

January 12, 2007

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/5761/dsc0227copybn5.jpg
^ south plot closer to Chicago River

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/8785/dsc0212copyhn4.jpg
^ north plot closer to Ogden Slip

No workers or equipment today. It looks like they've finished up the immediate work and have graded the site. I noticed that location identifiers are present on the fence to layout the grid referenced in a floor plan (i.e. column G-10)

thank's for the update

what's the south plot for ?

what's the south plot for ?

That's where the underground parking will be located. On top if the parking will be a public plaza.

Megatower, why do you always start the threads for all these buildings? Just curious.

Cus' it's a megatower duh

^^ there's your answer, oh thanks for the info BVictor1

2 hours 30 minutes into the public meeting. Hopefully we will get the lo-down soon.

I just took the Green Line back home from the Grant Park Advisory Council meeting. Things I learned and/or found interesting:

Garrett Kelleher is a cool dude. He spoke softly, dressed down, seemed like a cool guy to hang out with. Picture Donald Trump's opposite. He confirmed that it will begin construction without presales this Spring (yes, as in Spring 2007) and as laro3 stated, he wanted to start caissons within "a few weeks"!!!!!!!. I was struck by how extremely confident he is in the project. I imagine that developers have to be 100% behind their projects, but he exuded the impression that there is no way this project can fail in his mind. He confirmed that it will be called Chicago Spire.

Disappointingly, there was no new rendering of the building. Blair Kamin, the Tribune's architecture critic, put Kelleher on the spot and demanded to know why the 3D model that was shown at IIT a few weeks ago wasn't being shown today. Kelleher seemed to deny that the model was ever shown in the first place. Kamin asked a lot of specific questions but in an annoyingly, somewhat creepy manner. I can't believe he's the person behind the architecture column.

The rendering of the Millennium Park Plaza, which looks like an awesome building, and, rest assured that pictures will be posted here soon, was introduced first and felt like an opening band going on before the main act.

Finally, it was good to meet many of you forummers that post here often. Hope to see you in the future at more of these meetings.


Pherek from SSP.

God they are fast.

Tallest tower will be built, developer pledges

By Tonya Maxwell
Tribune staff reporter
Published January 15, 2007, 9:51 PM CST

Making his first public appearance, the developer of a proposed 2,000-foot tower for Chicago's lakefront said Monday night that he is so confident the project will succeed that he is ready to order foundations, even though the skyscraper has yet to receive city approval.

"This is getting built," said the developer, Garrett Kelleher of Dublin, Ireland, answering skeptics of the twisting condominium tower designed by Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava.

Taking a swipe at developer Donald Trump, who has called Calatrava's tower "financial suicide," Kelleher said of Trump's 92-story hotel-condominium skyscraper on the former Chicago Sun-Times site: "In my view, the Sun-Times site is neither residential nor office."

Kelleher spoke before more than 100 people at a meeting of the Grant Park Advisory Council, a citizens group. He did not show Calatrava's latest version of the design, but he addressed a broad range of issues, from parking to open spaces.

The skyscraper, called the Chicago Spire, would be located west of Lake Shore Drive across from Navy Pier. It would be the nation's tallest building.

Those in attendance lauded Kelleher's project, and his talk drew several rounds of applause. "These are very great strides forward," said Ward Miller, a Chicago preservationist.

The project would be 150 stories tall, not 160, as his team previously disclosed, Kelleher said. It would have anywhere from 1,000 to 1,350 units, a possible reduction from the number of units announced last month.

Kelleher added that some of the skyscraper's seven levels of underground parking would be directly beneath the building.

Asked about the possibility of a vehicle-delivered bomb like the one that struck the public parking garage of the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six people, Kelleher said his architect is "more than capable of dealing with that."

He offered no firm numbers on cost—previously estimated at $1.2 billion—nor would he commit to paying for two Calatrava-designed pedestrian bridges that are part of his vision for the tower's environs.

Ald. Burton Natarus (42nd), in whose ward the project would be built, has expressed concerns about traffic congestion. But Bruce Toman of Perkins + Will, the project's local architect, said that ramps off Lake Shore Drive would handle most traffic.

Here's a question what type of materials do they plan on using to get this thing in the clouds?

http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/nance/212152,CST-FTR-arch16.article

Latest Calatrava talk a fishy business at best

January 16, 2007

The unmistakable aroma of seafood wafted through Monday night's meeting of the Grant Park Conservancy, and it wasn't of the gourmet variety.
The odor emanated from the presentation by Irish developer Garrett Kelleher and members of his team on the proposed Santiago Calatrava-designed condo tower on the Chicago lakefront near Navy Pier. Heavily attended on a snowy weekday night (and on a holiday to boot), the meeting had been advertised as an opportunity to view the latest design scheme for the 150-story Chicago Spire, which at 2,000 feet would top out as the nation's tallest building. For his own inscrutable reasons, however, Kelleher apparently elected not to deliver.

Instead, he served up a meal that had been cooked at least six weeks ago. The design scheme that he and Bruce Toman (of the Chicago firm of Perkins + Will, which is handling the project locally) was virtually identical to Calatrava's widely criticized revision of early December.

Monday night's scheme lacked several key elements of a still more recent (and more popular) revision floated by the celebrated Spanish architect and Kelleher at private meetings the week of Dec. 18.

In that version, the tower's elegantly twisting shape (whose illusion of undulant movement was slowed from a 360-degree turn to about 270 degrees) had been brought closer to the original scheme. The tower's initially tapering form (which had given way to a fatter shaft with a flat top) was partially restored, and the spire itself, which Kelleher had ordered removed as financially unfeasible, was replaced by a spirelike light shooting up into the night sky.

Monday night: A 270-degree twist. No restored tapering on the way up. No light.

Asked to explain these seeming omissions from what Toman described as the "current" design, Kelleher scoffed: "A lot of things have been reported."

Yes, they have, and unless dozens of Chicago's most observant citizens are suffering from a mass hallucination, the design we saw Monday was not the design they saw three weeks ago. And if this week's design is indeed the latest one, it seems the pre-Christmas meal that the developer and architect served their invited guests was raw at best.

What is Kelleher playing at? Yes, as Toman repeated more than once, the building's design is unfinished and will continue to evolve. But what is the actual state of the design right now? Is it Version 3, which we saw Monday night, or Version 4, which others saw just before Christmas? It's a simple question. It's also a pressing one, given Kelleher's startling assertion that he's ordering caissons for the site "within weeks," even though city planning officials aren't close to granting approval.

Other questions remained unanswered. How many units will the tower contain? Somewhere between 1,000 and 1,350, Kelleher said -- a wide range of possibilities, to say the least. How much will the building cost to build? He couldn't say, or wouldn't. How much will the condos cost per square foot? No idea.

This isn't exactly being forthright with the public, which has every right to be closely informed about the progress of a building that would radically alter the city's skyline forever. It smells, and you know of what.

In striking contrast to the cloak of confusion and (perhaps) misdirection that has fallen over the Calatrava project like a shroud, Solomon Cordwell Buenz's presentation at the same meeting -- about its new Millennium Park Plaza, a new 40-story, curtain-walled residential tower on the northwest corner of Randolph and Michigan, was a breath of fresh air. It's a sleekly modernist, modestly handsome project that will fit its site and its city like a glove, and it's likely to benefit immeasurably from the easy straightforwardness of its lead designer, John Lahey, who answered every question he was asked. What a concept.

knance@suntimes.com

From Sun Times article:
"Other questions remained unanswered. How many units will the tower contain? Somewhere between 1,000 and 1,350, Kelleher said -- a wide range of possibilities, to say the least. How much will the building cost to build? He couldn't say, or wouldn't. How much will the condos cost per square foot? No idea."

If this idiotic newsperson was in the real estate business, he would know that the number of units is adjusted to market demand for the size of units buyers want and that costs are very difficult to predict in this type project.

More from the article:
"This isn't exactly being forthright with the public, which has every right to be closely informed about the progress of a building that would radically alter the city's skyline forever. It smells, and you know of what."

IMO the reporter or "the public" has no rights. They do not own the lot. Typical arogance of a media type who couln't build a treehouse if he had to.

Yahaha

From Sun Times article:
"Other questions remained unanswered. How many units will the tower contain? Somewhere between 1,000 and 1,350, Kelleher said -- a wide range of possibilities, to say the least. How much will the building cost to build? He couldn't say, or wouldn't. How much will the condos cost per square foot? No idea."

If this idiotic newsperson was in the real estate business, he would know that the number of units is adjusted to market demand for the size of units buyers want and that costs are very difficult to predict in this type project.

More from the article:
"This isn't exactly being forthright with the public, which has every right to be closely informed about the progress of a building that would radically alter the city's skyline forever. It smells, and you know of what."

IMO the reporter or "the public" has no rights. They do not own the lot. Typical arogance of a media type who couln't build a treehouse if he had to.

yeh, that's right

edit... :banana:

yeh, that's right

great, just what Chicago needs.. a fucking nimby journalist who is against this project..

I wish that this thing would just get approved so we can have at least the
"2nd tallest in the world" building here in the US.. It sucks because there are no public viewing decks planned for this.. a lot of people on here I gather are against it, but this is the 1st building in this country to hit 2000 feet so there is going to be a lot of curiosity. maybe if they had a small public deck somewhere near the top, so we could have the title of the "highest accessible obs deck" in the world. If they would build it at least 1800 ft up, I would visit Chicago in a New York second... :lol: :banana: :banana:

FYI - The obs deck in the Burj Dubai (124th floor) is "only" 442m up (just barely above the Sears Tower's roof) so it would be easy to take the title from the Burj of the highest obs deck - At least until Dubai decides to go crazy and build another one of their proposed monstrosities! :cheers:

A restaraunt near the top would make a lot of money obviously.. I saw in a previous thread on SSP that the Signature Room in the Hancock Tower was very pricey and the Windows on the World in the old WTC was the highest grossing eatery in the country...

a little off subject, but what are the average prices to eat in the Signature Room? How much did it cost for 1 person to eat lunch (for example) in the Windows on the World restaraunt?


why the fuck is this site starting to run like Myspace??? its taking almost 10 minutes to submit a damn reply...

From Sun Times article:
"Other questions remained unanswered. How many units will the tower contain? Somewhere between 1,000 and 1,350, Kelleher said -- a wide range of possibilities, to say the least. How much will the building cost to build? He couldn't say, or wouldn't. How much will the condos cost per square foot? No idea."

If this idiotic newsperson was in the real estate business, he would know that the number of units is adjusted to market demand for the size of units buyers want and that costs are very difficult to predict in this type project.

More from the article:
"This isn't exactly being forthright with the public, which has every right to be closely informed about the progress of a building that would radically alter the city's skyline forever. It smells, and you know of what."

IMO the reporter or "the public" has no rights. They do not own the lot. Typical arogance of a media type who couln't build a treehouse if he had to.

:hilarious

In that version, the tower's elegantly twisting shape (whose illusion of undulant movement was slowed from a 360-degree turn to about 270 degrees) had been brought closer to the original scheme. The tower's initially tapering form (which had given way to a fatter shaft with a flat top) was partially restored, and the spire itself, which Kelleher had ordered removed as financially unfeasible, was replaced by a spirelike light shooting up into the night sky.

Monday night: A 270-degree twist. No restored tapering on the way up. No light.
:doh:

I miss the days of this:

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8599/chicagospire3hb5.jpg

It just seemed so right.

^^ Agreed.

But in today's age of bureaucracy, political correctness and economics, things just dont make any sense anymore...

It just seemed so right.

Except for the proportions in that rendering.

great, just what Chicago needs..

I wish that this thing would just get approved so we can have at least the
"2nd tallest in the world" building here in the US.. It sucks because there are no public viewing decks planned for this.. a lot of people on here I gather are against it, but this is the 1st building in this country to hit 2000 feet so there is going to be a lot of curiosity. maybe if they had a small public deck somewhere near the top, so we could have the title of the "highest accessible obs deck" in the world. If they would build it at least 1800 ft up, I would visit Chicago in a New York second... :lol: :banana: :banana:

A restaraunt near the top would make a lot of money obviously.. I saw in a previous thread on SSP that the Signature Room in the Hancock Tower was very pricey and the Windows on the World in the old WTC was the highest grossing eatery in the country...


...


Thanks for your comments. But if built out to its greatest height it would only be the 3rd tallest ITW. Threre are 2 buildings compeating for the WTB right now in Dubai.

^^ there's not 2 buildings compeating for the WTB right now in Dubai, because the AL BURJ is not U/C but the Burj Dubai is U/C

And don't forget Russia Tower.

And don't forget Russia Tower.

Oh! those Russians.

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/1000%20Calatrava%201.jpg

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/Calatrava%202.jpg

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/Calatrava%203.jpg

USE VERSION C AND ADD A SPIRE TO BEAT BD NOT ONLY IN ROOF HEIGHT, BUT ALSO OVERALL HEIGHT!

I don't know, it looks like a Big Pop frozen popsicle to me.

Oh! those Russians.

Well they were talking about Burj Dubai and Al Burj as the Worlds tallest, I thought I should add this too. hehe.

Man, even the worst version (that being C) is better looking than any other building on the skyline.

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/1000%20Calatrava%201.jpg

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/Calatrava%202.jpg

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/Calatrava%203.jpg

USE VERSION C AND ADD A SPIRE TO BEAT BD NOT ONLY IN ROOF HEIGHT, BUT ALSO OVERALL HEIGHT!

I like this design the best, im not a big fan of pointed/sharp spires.

Why must you quote thise big ass pics?

Hmmm, I like the tower. Although I get the feeling its a futile attempt to keep up with developments in Asia and Dubai. America has enjoyed the status of having the big cities with the really tall buildings for a while, but the balance is shifting. It will be interesting to see how this develops, both financially and construction wise.

Thanks for the updates though.

Woww!! Really impressive. My favourite project in the world, without a doubt.

One question: will it have 150 or 160 floors? Cause once I read 160

^^ it's now 150, i'v read it in a news paper and it said it's going to be 150 floors

Hmmm, I like the tower. Although I get the feeling its a futile attempt to keep up with developments in Asia and Dubai. America has enjoyed the status of having the big cities with the really tall buildings for a while, but the balance is shifting. It will be interesting to see how this develops, both financially and construction wise.

Thanks for the updates though.
If you read the interviews with Calatrava, you will know that Chicago Spire has nothing to do with trying to be the tallest or anything like that. Chicago has been getting these proposals for decades, this has nothing to do with Asia and Dubai.

Why was the name changed from Fordham Spire?

^The original developer is no longer involved.

Can't wait to see the newer renders whenever they are released. Hopefully soon.

February 19.



Just pulling that one out of my ass.

Why would you say that?

^^ it's now 150, i'v read it in a news paper and it said it's going to be 150 floors


It'll be in the 150-160 story range. Nothing is set in stone yet.

Can't wait to see the newer renders whenever they are released. Hopefully soon.

I've been told that whould happen within the next several weeks

^^ well in the tribune said it's most likely going to be 150

i trust bvictor over the tribune. bvictor is an insider.

Wait... so we are waiting for new renders? Hopefully no square-topped nonsense...

Or is it that cucumber-shaped design we are waiting to see renderings of?

I don't think the original design fits well into the Chicago skyline at all. I hope when new renderings are released some major redesign is done.

I don't think the original design fits well into the Chicago skyline at all. I hope when new renderings are released some major redesign is done.

how short sided and limited is that? Chicago is a the most modern/American city there is and narrow viewpoints that don't think outside of the box are better left to Minnesota. i'm tired of the skeptics. it's all about redefining and creating anew. If our forefathers had your viewpoint, they never would have built the John Hancock building.

I think the fact that it alters the skyline that makes it such an exciting project. Chicago's skyline has never been one of my favourites, (I'm not big into skylines really) but I see this tower as changing that, and giving a new, different focal point to its skyline which would make it alot more interesting to me, atleast.

---------please delete----------

---------please delete----------

---------please delete----------

---------please delete----------

I feel bad for spamming this thread and fueling an argument with this ridiculously defensive SNL guy... I'll edit out my posts, hopefully a mod can rid us of them.

Sorry,
-thryve

I feel bad for spamming this thread and fueling an argument with this ridiculously defensive SNL guy... I'll edit out my posts, hopefully a mod can rid us of them.

Sorry,
-thryve

I don't see why you think I am defensive. Anyway, I can't wait to watch this enormous beauty grow before my very eyes this spring and summer. :cheers:

how short sided and limited is that? Chicago is a the most modern/American city there is and narrow viewpoints that don't think outside of the box are better left to Minnesota. i'm tired of the skeptics. it's all about redefining and creating anew. If our forefathers had your viewpoint, they never would have built the John Hancock building.

I'm all for modern designs, but it looks like white licorice, not like a skyscraper, IMHO. I think the Waterview is a much cooler and classier design for Chicago. This seems it would fit better in Dubai.

By the way, Minneapolis has built a few modern buildings in the past few years, such as the Guthrie Theater, the new Walker Art Center, and the Carlyle. More and more are coming, including a new baseball stadium that will aim to redefine the modern ballpark and another 50 story high rise condo/retail building. It sounds a little ignorant to define Minnesota as confined thinkers, although there are a few people in local government who certainly support your argument.

Spire developer releases latest drawings
New twist and turns for tallest buildingBy Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published January 21, 2007


Under fire for withholding the latest design for a twisting lakefront tower from the public, the project's developer has relented and released to the Tribune his new vision for the proposed 2,000-foot skyscraper, which would be the nation's tallest building.

A computer rendering pictures the tower with a tapering, conelike top rather than the blunt summit that was shown in early December and drew a thumbs-down from critics and the public. While details of the design by Zurich-based architect Santiago Calatrava are sure to change, the developer, Dublin-based Garrett Kelleher, appears to have made a firm choice on its broad outlines.


His decision to release the rendering and Calatrava's conceptual sketches for the project seeks to quell controversy about his obligation to fully inform the public about the shape of a project that would dramatically remake Chicago's skyline. It would rise 550 feet higher than the 1,450-foot Sears Tower, now the tallest building in the U.S., and would be nearly twice as tall as the 1,127-foot John Hancock Center.

"The whole thing is evolving," Kelleher said.

"We are getting closer and closer to the definite shape," Calatrava said.

Called the Chicago Spire, the skyscraper would rise on a now-vacant site west of Lake Shore Drive across from Navy Pier. Last summer, Kelleher assumed control of the project from its original developer, Chicago's Christopher Carley. Carley had proposed a stack of hotel rooms and condominiums topped by a 400-foot broadcast tower.

Kelleher eliminated the hotel and broadcast tower and nearly tripled the overall number of units to 1,300, all condominiums, in an attempt to make the project economically feasible. But Calatrava's first stab at dealing with these economic mandates flopped and was quickly dubbed "Twizzler Tower" for its resemblance to a piece of the red licorice.

The new images show that his design is poised to regain the spectacular whirring energy that captivated the public when Carley announced the high-rise in 2005. They also provide a glimpse of Calatrava's vision for the skyscraper's lobby, which would be a soaring, cathedral-like space, five stories tall and framed by arching vaults of concrete.

More broadly, the drawings open a window onto Calatrava's creative process, which draws inspiration from a variety of sources--nature and the human body, as well as past architectural masterpieces such as the churches of 17th Century Baroque architect Franceso Borromini.

The skeptics

Many have expressed skepticism that Kelleher will ever amass the funds needed to build the 150-story skyscraper. The developer has not announced an overall price for the building. Nor has he indicated that he has buyers signed up, as developers of such projects typically do. The tower still requires city approval and Ald. Burton Natarus (42nd), in whose ward the skyscraper would be built, has expressed concerns about traffic congestion and density.

But Kelleher has a hive of architects, structural engineers and other consultants at work on the 36th floor of 330 North Wabash, a black slab that overlooks the slowly growing superstructure of Donald Trump's 92-story hotel-condominium tower along the Chicago River. Skeptics also dismissed Trump's project, but the flamboyant New York developer proved them wrong, aided by a windfall of publicity from his reality TV series, "The Apprentice."

During an interview Tuesday night, Calatrava illustrated his design ideas for the Chicago Spire with his ever-present sketchpad. He also pulled a small brown snail shell out of his pocket and placed it on a conference table, indicating how the shell's graceful, rotating forms may inspire his design for the tower's summit.

"We are trying to give a kind of beautiful significance to the [skyscraper], as it is in nature," he said.

At the end of the session, the Tribune asked Kelleher to make Calatrava's sketches available so the public could see them.

The developer consented and Calatrava, one of the only architects in a computer-obsessed world who travels with a paintbrush and a palette of watercolors, proceeded to color the sketches in shades of yellow, red, blue and green. The drawings were returned to Kelleher on Wednesday.

The issue of the public's right to be informed about the design came to a head Monday night at a public meeting of the Grant Park Advisory Council, an influential citizens board.

Although the Chicago Spire would be built several blocks north of Grant Park, Kelleher was invited to speak at the meeting. The advisory council advertised Kelleher's appearance as a chance to see the "latest design" of the Chicago Spire.

The `Twizzler'

Instead, Kelleher showed the widely panned version of the plan he made public in early December: a beefed-up, nearly flat-topped version of the high-rise, whose upper floors had far less twist than in the original design.

At the meeting, the Tribune asked Kelleher why he was not showing the public the revised, tapering version of the skyscraper that he and Calatrava privately shopped to citizens groups and leaders of Chicago's design community in late December.

Kelleher insisted he was presenting that version.


Chicago's architecture critics didn't buy it.

"This isn't exactly being forthright with the public, which has every right to be closely informed about the progress of a building that would radically alter the city's skyline forever. It smells, and you know of what," Chicago Sun-Times architecture critic Kevin Nance wrote Tuesday.

Made aware he was facing a credibility problem, Kelleher offered a meeting Tuesday night with himself and Calatrava.

At the session, the architect confirmed with the swift strokes of his pen that he and the developer have been considering several versions of the tower.

One alternative had a spire that would have stretched the 150-story skyscraper's height to 2,150 feet--nearly 500 feet taller than the current world's tallest building in Taipei, Taiwan. However, it was looked at only for study and was eliminated, Kelleher said.

All the versions could accommodate anywhere from 1,000 to 1,350 condominium units, Kelleher said, adding that the exact number hasn't been determined.

The latest version is the plan shown privately in late December. It would rotate 360 degrees from ground to summit instead of the 270-degree twist in the "Twizzler" proposal. To achieve the illusion of movement, each floor of the skyscraper would rotate slightly over the one beneath it.

Calatrava also illustrated how the skyscraper's lobby would have highly transparent, cable-supported glass walls and steel-reinforced concrete vaults that would form cathedral-like interior spaces. Outside, the tower's structural columns would join to form W-shaped clusters. They would frame a tall exterior arcade.

While the lobby might not be open to the public for security or privacy reasons, pedestrians walking the exterior arcade could look in. "It's a beautiful space that you can enjoy inside. But you can also enjoy it from outside," Calatrava said.

Kelleher, who wants to break ground on the project by the end of June, said at the Grant Park Advisory Council meeting that he is ready to order caissons even though the skyscraper has not yet received formal city approval. Public hearings are likely to be held in March, according to people close to the project.

---

bkamin@tribune.com


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070121spire-story,1,5761527.story?page=1&coll=chi-news-hed

^^

POST THE NEW RENDERINGS!!!

You tease... :yes:

And the link to the Sun-Times requires a subscription, fyi.

One alternative had a spire that would have stretched the 150-story skyscraper's height to 2,150 feet--nearly 500 feet taller than the current world's tallest building in Taipei, Taiwan. However, it was looked at only for study and was eliminated, Kelleher said.

blah!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...l=chi-news-hed

A video capture from Steely Dan:
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/6775/spire7cq.jpg

Can't wait for the more detailed renderings to come out!

can't wait so see them

that other design looked like a dildo to me

You have to look in the video slideshow for the images.

Screenshots of the most important images:
http://img327.imageshack.us/img327/2632/cs12sl.jpg
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/8349/cs21kx.jpg
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/9799/cs33mj.jpg
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/2153/cs47bh.jpg
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/9864/cs50nw.jpg
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/7997/cs65gh.jpg
http://img327.imageshack.us/img327/9622/cs72ym.jpg

its still undersized on the render for a 2k footer

If they can make and give us a render that corectly displays the actual gurth of the building it would give everyone a better understanding of how iconic this building really is going to be and how much of an effect it will have on the Chicago skyline. If you propose a 2k ft building you don't give the people a render of a 1500k ft building. A simple render makes the world of difference and I really wish the would use a more updated picture of Chicago.

Here are some bad scans from the same article

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/4574/cssmall9sg.jpg
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/2443/csbig2ud.jpg

The new top doesn't match and looks like it was grafted on from another design. Pfffff

i've the feeling the new top is more thin than on the old pics

The new top doesn't match and looks like it was grafted on from another design. Pfffff

Come on already. Its a bad scan as spyguy stated. Have we all lost our imaginations?

I'll wait for the high-res renderings that are supposed to be released soon. That should give us a better idea of the details on the skin, which Im most excited about. If the details are anything like what was shown in Version C, I'll be a happy man.

Kamin unveils latest design for Calatrava's Chicago Spire

Developer Garrett Kelleher decides to go public with rendering of Santiago Calatrava's latest design for the 2,000-foot-high Chicago Spire.

-by Lynn Becker

In this Sunday's, January 21st edition of the Chicago Tribune, architecture critic Blair Kamin has a great story that unveils Santiago Calatrava's latest design for the 2,000-foot-high Chicago Spire. The publishing of the design comes after Shelbourne Development Chairman Garrett Kelleher withheld the rendering from a presentation made last Monday, January 15th to a packed meeting of the Grant Park Advisory Council, and then appeared to be trying to deny that it existed. The very next evening, Kamin was asked by Kelleher to join himself and Calatrava for a discussion of the project's evolution.

http://www.lynnbecker.com/repeat/calatravachicago/spires3.jpg

The newest version does not restore the antenna that originally created the project's spire, whose intricately intertwined design, Keller said on Monday, "wouldn’t even work as an antenna. If you look at any antenna - on the Sears or the Hancock - the structures themselves have to be at least 40 feet apart to make sense." However, as opposed to heavily thickened version of the building unveiled in early December, where occupied structure replaced the antenna spire for the top 500 feet, Calatrava's latest design returns a substantial taper to the tower, as well as, according to Kamin, replacing a reduced 270 degree rotation from base to top with the original full 360.

On Monday, partnering architect Bruce Toman of Perkins+Will said that Calatrava had also modified the tower's twist. "Originally he had six points, Toman said of Calatrava's first design. “And he realized that the whole structure got more interesting by making seven points, an odd number. And that subtle change made the tower look even more slender."

As is depressingly usual with the Tribune, their web version of the story includes none of the images accompanying the print edition, no images at all.

???????????????? !

In this case, though, that's more than made up for with a top-notch Flash presentation (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/broadband/chi-spire-flashhtml,1,3327872.htmlstory?coll=chi-news-hed), produced by Bonnie Trafelet, which couples Kamin's narration to a sequence of images that include a wide range of Calatrava sketches - from one with four iterations of the tower's profile, to those of the five-story lobby - drawn by Calatrava complete with Calder mobile - with its cable-supported glass walls and arching concrete columns that connect the exterior columns to the core like a succession of snap-proof wishbones. There's even a photo of the small brown snail shell that Calatrava pulled from his pocket to illustrate how, in Kamin's words, its "whirring, rhythmically complex, softly coiling shape" is “an inspiration for him to design the top of the building."

Think Washington Monument cross-bred with Frank Lloyd Mollusk.

What remains to be revealed is how much of the 3,000,000 square feet of the early December plan is carved away by the renewed taper, and how this will effect the number of apartments, which on Monday Kelleher said was oscillating between 1,350 and 1,000, as well how it will affect the final cost of the project. Kamin reports that March is the probable date for public hearings on the project.

http://www.lynnbecker.com/repeat/calatravachicago/20070115spirefloor2.jpg


http://www.lynnbecker.com/repeat/calatravachicago/calatrava3rd.htm

Much nicer than the ugly flat-topped one. My second choice.

a unicorn!! :yes:

http://ewancient.lysator.liu.se/pic/art/k/e/kent/unicorn.jpg

^^ I like that

Much better indeed.

yes, i also think the new is much better

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0701210477jan21,1,3035291.story?coll=chi-news-hed

CRITIQUE

New plan sees sizzle in skyline

By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published January 21, 2007


A skyscraper is an unlikely mix of ruthless capitalism and aesthetic idealism. The New York architect Cass Gilbert once called it "a machine that makes the land pay." Yet Louis Sullivan, Chicago's 19th Century poet of the skyscraper, sought to endow this money-grubbing pile with the same spiritual values as Europe's grandest cathedrals. The skyscraper, he said famously, should be a "proud and soaring thing."

Santiago Calatrava's latest design for the twisting, 2,000-foot Chicago Spire, which the project's developer has released in the face of controversy about his obligation to inform the public about a tower that would reshape Chicago's skyline, navigates these conflicting poles far more deftly than a disappointing version of the skyscraper unveiled in early December.

That design, which was dubbed "Twizzler Tower" for its resemblance to the red licorice, unsuccessfully grappled with Dublin-based developer Garrett Kelleher's mandate to eliminate a spirelike broadcast tower and nearly triple the building's number of units to make the 150-story condominium skyscraper economically feasible. With its buzz-cut top and lack of rotation in its upper stories, the design conspicuously lacked the whirring energy of Calatrava's original plan, introduced in 2005.

The new version restores the project's earlier spontaneity, although, as Calatrava is quick to point out, it has almost precisely the same underlying structure as the December version--a cylindrical concrete core ringed by interior columns and a scalloped perimeter that would rotate as the tower rises. What has changed, however, is the way Calatrava has handled the developer's mandate for more condominiums and no broadcast tower. He transforms it into skyline sizzle.

Again making a full 360-degree rotation, unlike the Twizzler's 270 degrees, his latest version would whirl into the sky with the same exuberant energy as the beloved, romantic skyscrapers of the 1920s. Yet the design wisely forgoes the nostalgia of postmodern, Chrysler Building wannabes such as Chicago's Two Prudential Plaza. It would be a single, organic piece of skyline sculpture rather than an object with a spike stuck atop it--a supersize drill bit for a city that has fallen in love with a supersize Bean.

The spiral has always expressed human aspiration, and it serves Calatrava well here, setting his design apart from Sears Tower and the sober, flat-topped, utilitarian towers of the mid-20th Century. They were built for a meat-and-potatoes Chicago. This is a different skyscraper for a different city, a city that plays as well as works, a city where the vast majority of new high-rises are places to live, not places to work. With Calatrava drawing inspiration for the tower's top from a light brown snail shell--its softly coiling shape provides a perfect model for the skyscraper's top--the possibility of an extraordinary skyline silhouette is now within reach.

There are caveats, of course, and they go beyond the questions of density, traffic congestion and the threat of terrorism that a project of this scale inevitably must face.

As Calatrava and Kelleher acknowledge, the tower remains a work in progress. Calatrava is fully aware that he needs to endow its exterior with the kind of rich, formal complexity that uplifts a much-smaller rotating skyscraper, Frank Lloyd Wright's pinwheeling Price Tower in Bartlesville, Okla., of 1956. But he shows every sign of wanting to do much more than an architectural one-liner, especially in his drawings for the tower's lobby. They reveal the possibility for thrilling structural drama, both inside the skyscraper and outside.

This project remains surrounded by questions, none more pressing than whether Kelleher will be able to come up with the funds to build it. But if he can--and if Calatrava continues to gracefully develop a design concept that is now back on track--this could be Chicago's finest supertall building since the mighty John Hancock Center.

----------

bkamin@tribune.com

Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

I also like the new version. I am glad that the other version is scrapped.

I dont really like the newer version, It doesnt really match the blocky type skyline. http://www.lynnbecker.com/repeat/calatravachicago/spires3.jpg
I think the middle one matches more with the rest of the buildings than the recent one.

Enough with the "It doesn't match the blocky skyline"

As many have said, "If no one did it first, we wouldn't have the current skyline."

That is true. If you look at it, no building would have matched the skyline when it was built. But look at it now, they all fit.

I dont really like the newer version, It doesnt really match the blocky type skyline. http://www.lynnbecker.com/repeat/calatravachicago/spires3.jpg
I think the middle one matches more with the rest of the buildings than the recent one.

Keep in mind that Trump Chicago will help it blend in more amongst the boxes.

Hmm, I actually like it not matching. Symbolic of the times that we are currently in. Whats the point of building things that dont reflect the culture of your point in time? Sure, it might look out of place for a while, but people will apperciate it down the track for being a distinctive building that reflects the architectural style of the era. It becomes a visual timeline and gives the city more character.

Probably didnt say that too well, but I hope you get what I am trying to say :P

^^ Actually you said that very well :applause:

I believe building the current style is desirable for reasons docomo already mentioned. I also think it's ok to build retro style sometimes. Architecturally, the most interesting thing a city can have are works from all eras, IMO. This can only happen if the current style is being built.

I think the 3rd one is the best and it will look absolutely stunning in the Chicago skyline. Thank God the second option is out of the question!!!!!!!!

Can somebody recap renders of all the designs to see the how the design has changed since this tower was first announced? I remember there was an A, B, C, D version of it and I guess this latest one is E?

isn't it the pic in the post 463?

isn't it the pic in the post 463?

I think there was another one cuz after the original, they changed the height of the building or the antenna or something while keeping the same design?? Maybe I'm wrong.

I like the December version better as well. The latest one I like least.

A
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/7536/spire1kq.gif

B
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/4674/f30ur9eg.png

C
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/3740/5041476jm.jpg

D - latest
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/6775/spire7cq.jpg

^^ Thank you Spyguy. I agree that those are the 4 "officially" released renders. Great collection and very interesting to see how the design has evolved in response to architecture critics, economics and financing, public feedback, real estate market, etc.

What is the chance that this will be built?

I think there was another one cuz after the original, they changed the height of the building or the antenna or something while keeping the same design?? Maybe I'm wrong.

oh yes you're right, I forgot that :)

What is the chance that this will be built?

Your guess is as good as anyone else's.

With that said though, the momentum behind this project seems to be quite substantial. It goes for re-approval soon. I believe next month. The developer said that cassions have been ordered according to a couple of guys that attended a meeting with the devloper a week or so ago. He said that he will begin construction without pre-sales this Spring (I remember hearing the month of June). He is investing 100% of equity into this project. He also has extensive history with Anglo-Irish bank. They mentioned a few times that they were proud to be a part of this project. Financing sounds very promising but Im simply an outsider. There are a few more things that Im forgetting about this that would strongly suggest that this will become reality.

Even with all of that said, until cassions are drilled into the ground come this Spring/Summer as the developer confirmed, I think the majority of us Chicago nerds are cautiously optimistic. You know we've been burned a few times already.

Think the original design most resembled a drill bit, the second one a Twizzler, and now the latest on resembles an icicle. Gotta give it up for Calatrava, cuz all three designs are awesome. But I'd keep the icicle!!!!!!!! :)

I liked design C ( i can even say it was my world's favorite propasal ) much more than current one
It's amazing how form of the top part of this tower changes overal look...

A and B are the same design :lol:

A and B are the same design :lol:

Why is that so funny? Im lost.


Version A has a roof height of 1458ft. Version B is 1600ft. But yeah the overall silouette is the same.

^^ Aren't the spires different also? And from the renders, it looks like the the "points" or "knobs" that give shape to the twist of Option B do not increase in width as you go up the tower in the same way as Option A. Just an observation though, could be just an optical ilusion from the render

Your guess is as good as anyone else's.

With that said though, the momentum behind this project seems to be quite substantial. It goes for re-approval soon. I believe next month. The developer said that cassions have been ordered according to a couple of guys that attended a meeting with the devloper a week or so ago. He said that he will begin construction without pre-sales this Spring (I remember hearing the month of June). He is investing 100% of equity into this project. He also has extensive history with Anglo-Irish bank. They mentioned a few times that they were proud to be a part of this project. Financing sounds very promising but Im simply an outsider. There are a few more things that Im forgetting about this that would strongly suggest that this will become reality.

Even with all of that said, until cassions are drilled into the ground come this Spring/Summer as the developer confirmed, I think the majority of us Chicago nerds are cautiously optimistic. You know we've been burned a few times already.


I hope that it's built for Chicago's sake, but if so, the developer is retarded. Chicago has a lot of condos coming to the market, and doesn't he need to price these at unheard of levels (by Chicago standards) simply to break even?

Yeah they were different although, if I can remember correctly, there was no definite design for the spire in any version. They only thing changed about them was, of course, the height. And Im not sure about the second part and whether its an optical illusion or a change in design. Ive never paid it any attention. Not only that but this project has been plagued by not-so-great renderings so it just hard to tell.

Edit: Responding to JuanPaolo.

Why is that so funny? Im lost.


Version A has a roof height of 1483ft. Version B is 1600ft. But yeah the overall silouette is the same.
there both the same design, it's actual 1550, not 1483. and that height is the top of the building. the 1600ft is the top of the water tank.
if these isnt clear enough, here's the pic. i will label what i'm talking about
the top line which is the tip of the spire, is the 2,000 ft mark
the 2nd to the top line is the water tank which is 1,600ft
the 3rd line for the top is the roof height which is 1,550

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/4517/f30ur9eg44444444443rj.png (http://imageshack.us)
you get it now ?

I hope that it's built for Chicago's sake, but if so, the developer is retarded. Chicago has a lot of condos coming to the market, and doesn't he need to price these at unheard of levels (by Chicago standards) simply to break even?

There was a lengthy discussion about this over on SSP regarding pricing and financing. I'll see if I can find a couple of post and I'll paste it here because it was better explained than I could provide.

there both the same design, it's actual 1550, not 1483. and that height is the top of the building. the 1600ft is the top of the water tank.
if these isnt clear enough, here's the pic. i will label what i'm talking about
the top line which is the tip of the spire, is the 2,000 ft mark
the 2nd to the top line is the water tank which is 1,600ft
the 3rd line for the top is the roof height which is 1,550


They're actually not the same design. The A version was the original design, when it was first revealed many summers ago. At that time it was merely a few feet taller than the Sears roof-wise. Many months later, the design was revised to 1600' at the top of the water tank, which counts as the roof height. Also, the first version has a different base and spire, and probably a few other things I'm forgetting.

you get it now ?

Version A had a roof height of 1458ft. The elevation shot you have is Version B. And I know the difference between the water tank and the roof. 50 feet. Pretty insignificant, dont you think?

And if you want to get technical, there was no actual design made for the spire. Someone correct if Im wrong.

But beyond all of this, what in the hell are you trying to argue?

Edit: Correction on Version A roof height.

^^ well that's not what the news paper said

^Go to the NYT archives - they were the first ones with a rendering and height info, which is embarrassing for Chicago newspapers.

^Go to the NYT archives - they were the first ones with a rendering and height info, which is embarrassing for Chicago newspapers.

well not really embarrassing since the NYT is nosey as hell. Plus they are great at calling you in 3 in the morning asking if we want the Times, we say no but instead they send it anyway and we get billed for 5 weeks of newspapers because their bill was late and I had wouldnt get a response after I email, mail, and called them.

Thats the NYT for ya.

P.S. I dont even live in NY to even want the Times.

well not really embarrassing since the NYT is nosey as hell. Plus they are great at calling you in 3 in the morning asking if we want the Times, we say no but instead they send it anyway and we get billed for 5 weeks of newspapers because their bill was late and I had wouldnt get a response after I email, mail, and called them.

Thats the NYT for ya.

P.S. I dont even live in NY to even want the Times.

The NY Times is the best English language paper in the world and maybe the best paper period. It covers NY in a separate Metro Section. The main section is international news followed by national news (political -- not USA Today, Chicago Trib., etc. hype).

The paper is, however, a typical New York institution (i.e., erudite, worldly, etc.).

The NY Times is the best English language paper in the world and maybe the best paper period. It covers NY in a separate Metro Section. The main section is international news followed by national news (political -- not USA Today, Chicago Trib., etc. hype).

The paper is, however, a typical New York institution (i.e., erudite, worldly, etc.).

well from my history with it, i will have to disagree with you.

^^ well that's not what the news paper said

you believe everything that you read in the papers?

You believe Roeder's article?

There have been 4 versions of this tower released to the public. Verison 1 and 2 or A and B respectively was very similar, but there were some minor differences.

Version A had 115 floors
Version B had 124 or so floors.

There were other minor differences, but enough to be 2 seperate designs.

The New York Times is not the best newspaper in the world. It's not even a good newspaper. Now, it is a big newspaper.

The New York Times is not the best newspaper in the world. It's not even a good newspaper. Now, it is a big newspaper.

You've got to be kidding me. What is better in your view?

edit.

please move discussion to the new thread.

Please go here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=434232) for part 4