Fordham Spire
Chicago
Roof: 2000' (~610 m)
no Spire (official height): 2000' (~610 m)
Designed by Santiago Calatrava for the Fordham
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/5985/26towergraphic0ygbz7.th.gif (http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=26towergraphic0ygbz7.gif)http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/7909/44381315pagi5.th.jpg (http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=44381315pagi5.jpg)http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1571/b29302860pu0.th.jpg (http://img101.imageshack.us/my.php?image=b29302860pu0.jpg)http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/866/f19huta7.th.png (http://img101.imageshack.us/my.php?image=f19huta7.png)http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/185/f30urzi8.th.png (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=f30urzi8.png)http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3269/spire37005vzly6.th.jpg (http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spire37005vzly6.jpg)http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5585/fordhamhighres2drrr1.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fordhamhighres2drrr1.jpg)

I'm not really a fan of the spire. I think the building is amazing but the spire just seems to me like it's tacked on like an afterthought.

Some other sort of spire, or no spire at all.

^There is no spire anymore :)

you could at least capitalize Chicago in the threat title. :$

^There is no spire anymore :)

So do we have a flat roof or the twisting continues till it reaches and apex?

I dunno, the (former) spire of the tower seemed to fit, well it looks alot better than, say, NYTimes/BoA tower's toothpicks.

Now that that's gone we dont have to worry about that....

...unless they put that spire back on the top of that 2000' thing! :D
(wishful thinking I know)

Aww, I liked the spire. :(


BUT 2000' ROOF YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Damn this is great for Chicago. I too wonder if they will just have a flat roof..or how they will handle the top-if they are only going to 2000 feet and that is all condos how will they do the top now? Also I wonder if they are widening it-is just getting rid of the hotel on the first 20 floors and using up the top 500 or so feet of narrow spire really going to enable them to have 1000 condos? I am sure however they do it I will love it...as long AS they do it. Yay Chicago!!!!:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :) :cheers: :)

I doubt that the roof will go ALL the way to 2000ft, since they would have to have a flat roof for that and it wouldn't look that good. But it should be close.

I doubt that the roof will go ALL the way to 2000ft, since they would have to have a flat roof for that and it wouldn't look that good. But it should be close.


The top unit will be 50 square feet (4.5 square meters). The occupant will only be able to stand up in the center of the unit. (Unless it is purchased by leprechauns that Kelleher can round up in his home country)

The top unit will be 50 square feet (4.5 square meters). The occupant will only be able to stand up in the center of the unit. (Unless it is purchased by leprechauns that Kelleher can round up in his home country)

Sounds like the size of my apartment here :ohno:

To me, it's the length of the spire, I think they could shorten it by like 150 ft. Aside from that, I love the building.

Major redesign is latest twist in plan for spire

By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published December 7, 2006

The proposed "drill bit" skyscraper has lost its point but gained some heft.

The developer of the twisting spire, which would be the nation's tallest building, has overseen a top-to-bottom redesign that seeks to make the much-ballyhooed project financially feasible, and he will submit his revised plans to the city Friday, people close to the project told the Tribune.

Designed by renowned Spanish architect and engineer Santiago Calatrava for Dublin-based developer Garrett Kelleher, the tower no longer has a 400-foot broadcast antenna at its top or a hotel at its base. It is now all condominiums, 1,300 of them. The portion that modern-day cliff dwellers would live in has grown taller and wider, doubling the amount of sellable space to about 1.8 million square feet, said people associated with the project.

"It's all in the service of getting it built," said Kelleher's spokesman, Chicago lawyer Thomas Murphy. "If you're not going to have the broadcast tower, what are you going to have up there?"

Murphy hinted last week that the broadcast tower would be eliminated, saying, "the decision was not to get into a business that we don't know anything about." The Irish-born Kelleher worked in the Chicago real estate market from 1986 to 1996 but has no experience in broadcast towers.

His new plan calls for a 150-story building, with a total of 3 million square feet. That's 35 more floors than in the original design unveiled in 2005 by the project's initial developer, Christopher Carley, and 26 more than in Carley's revised version of the tower. The 1,300 condominium units would nearly triple the number of condominium and hotel units Carley envisioned in both plans. Kelleher assumed control of the project last summer after Carley's drive to build it sputtered.

The cost of the project has been estimated at around $1.2 billion, but developers recently backed off from that figure without providing a new one.

Because of the changes, Kelleher needs to go through a new round of city planning and zoning hearings for the project, which the Chicago Plan Commission approved in March when it consisted of a 150-room hotel and about 300 condos priced from about $600,000 to $5 million. While political approval is not expected to be difficult, it is unclear whether a slowing real estate market will support the colossal venture.



Soil-testing work started

The skyscraper would be built on an empty site along Lake Shore Drive and on the north bank of the Chicago River. On Wednesday, a yellow bulldozer smoothed earth on the site's north side. A sign posted on a chain-link fence bore the name of Kelleher's company, Shelbourne Development Ltd. The bulldozer was doing soil-testing work, which has turned up old foundations, Murphy said.

During a Tuesday interview, Calatrava, whose works include the birdlike addition to the Milwaukee Art Museum and the planned transportation center at the World Trade Center in New York, confirmed that he has signed a contract with Kelleher for full design and construction supervision services.

The architect expressed pleasure that the building's simplified top, in which the tower's twisting curves would culminate in metal fins protruding slightly above the roof, no longer resembles the needlelike spires of the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings, New York's two great Art Deco towers.

"We don't want to imitate something before," Calatrava said at the interview, held in the offices of the associate architects for the project, Chicago-based Perkins + Will.

"I am learning from Chicago," Zurich-based Calatrava added, using his ever-present sketch pad in an attempt to show how his tower recalled the simple silhouettes of the John Hancock Center and Sears Tower, the nation's tallest building.

Indeed, the skyscraper's form has become less twisty.

In the version approved in March, each floor rotated slightly above the one below it, and the tower made a 360-degree rotation as it rose. In the latest version, the total rotation has been cut to 270 degrees. There is more rotation now at the base and none at the top, Calatrava said.

Floors at the tower's base have become about 35 feet wider, Murphy said, but "the shape is the same" because the building is both taller and wider, he said.

The redesign extends to ground level, where plans for an adjacent six-story parking garage have been scrapped and replaced with seven stories of underground parking. That likely will prove an expensive shift because Kelleher will need to add a concrete "bathtub" to insulate the facility from groundwater.

Kelleher thought the garage's presence would blight the jewel-like tower, Murphy said.

The tower's footprint also has been moved slightly to the north, putting it just north of North Water Street, the small east-west street that slices through the Streeterville neighborhood and stops at the foot of the skyscraper's site.

That shift opens space for a circular drive to the south of the tower, as well as a grand plaza that would punctuate the end of the riverfront promenade leading to Lake Michigan from Michigan Avenue.



A `holistic vision'

And as he revealed with a model of the skyscraper, Calatrava has been laying out plans for the area around it, including pedestrian connections beneath Lake Shore Drive to the planned DuSable Park to the east. The model includes one of his signature cable-supported bridges, which would form a link in the lakefront bike path and swing open to allow boats to pass.

"This is a more holistic vision," Calatrava said.

Basic aspects of the design remain unchanged. The tower still would have a central core of concrete, ringed by concrete columns and floor space cantilevering outward from them. Its exterior wall would be made of glass and a still-to-be-determined metal to make the tower look light and reflective in contrast to the black skyline brackets of Sears and the Hancock.

But to accommodate the shift to all condominiums, Calatrava included four banks of elevators within the tower's circular core, one each for low-rise, middle low-rise, middle high-rise and high-rise units, respectively.

The plan remains to break ground in the second quarter of 2007, Murphy said.

----------

bkamin@tribune.com


Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

HERE'S THE RENDERING

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2006-12/26775311.jpg

Well to be honest I prefered the spire version but still...

Holy COW!!!

150 floors all the way to the top? I wonder if this'll cause some BD to gain some floors? ;)

I just received this...


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Kim Metcalfe
Weber Shandwick
kmetcalfe@webershandwick.com
Direct: (312) 988-2393
Cell: (312) 802-0211

Shelbourne Development Files New Design of “The Chicago Spire” with the City of Chicago
Community Groups Applaud New Look of 400 North Lake Shore Drive

CHICAGO / December 7, 2006 – Tomorrow, December 8, Shelbourne Development Group, Inc. will officially file for final design approval with the City of Chicago to build “The Chicago Spire,” a landmark 2,000-foot tall spiraling tower at the mouth of the Chicago River along the shores of Lake Michigan. The new plan includes several improvements to the original design that will enhance the building’s integration with the riverfront and minimize traffic flow through the neighborhood.

“We have taken what was a highly-innovative design and turned it into something even more desirable,” said Garrett Kelleher, executive chairman of Shelbourne Development Ltd. & the Shelbourne Development Group, Inc. “We look forward to the city’s approval and to breaking ground next year.”

Famed architect and engineer Santiago Calatrava, who is both the lead architect and engineer for the project, echoed Kelleher’s enthusiasm. “"The sculptural idea of an extremely slender building that twists as it rises has been retained. But, I believe the design is more mature than it was initially, and the relationship between the building and the city is better, which is something I could accomplish only with Mr. Kelleher’s partnership,” said Calatrava.

Tomorrow, the city planning department will begin reviewing the proposal, which calls for a property encompassing 3 million square feet and soaring 2,000-feet above the ground. However, unlike the initial concept, The Chicago Spire will not include a broadcast antenna, nor will it include a hotel or retail space. The number of floors has increased from 124 to 150, and the number of exclusive residences now total 1,300. The tower’s spectacular lobby will feature 56-foot tall ceilings and glass walls allowing for an unobstructed view through the base on all sides.

To maximize the property’s riverfront access, The Chicago Spire will be situated along the Ogden Slip at the northern end of the property. The new plans call for an underground 5-floor garage, which will sit under the building’s riverside plaza. The development team is also dedicated to the early development of DuSable Park, which borders the property to its East.

Kelleher and members of his development team, including Calatrava, conducted a series of introductory meetings this week with city homeowners and community groups with a presence in the Streeterville area to discuss development plans and the construction of the building.

“It was important to us that we had the opportunity to receive feedback from the community before submitting our design for city approval,” said Kelleher. “I am now even more confident that we will develop a building that the city and neighborhood will embrace and which will take its rightful place in the history of modern architecture.”

The earliest the city might approve the changes would be next month. For more information about The Chicago Spire and Shelbourne Development Group, Inc., see http://www.shelbournedevelopment.com/.

About Shelbourne Development
Shelbourne Development, headquartered in Dublin, is one of Ireland's leading property development companies, widely regarded as one of the country’s most professional and progressive developers. In the past three years, Shelbourne’s experienced team, known for its track record in evaluating and capitalizing on cycles in property markets, has completed in excess of 1.5 million square feet of construction in Ireland. It currently has a development pipeline in Dublin in excess of $2 billion US. Shelbourne is currently pursuing developments and projects in Ireland, UK, France and Chicago. Garrett Kelleher, executive chairman of Shelbourne Development Ltd & the Shelbourne Development Group, Inc. holds significant investment properties in Europe.
#####

I love the tweak.

bring back the spire!! what they are ruining the design wit the difference in the twists... nooo! I loved the old design :(

I think they should just add the spire again, maybe not as tall as the other one, it just needs something up there.

Was wondering though, since they're planning on trippling the number of units aren't people going to complain about traffic and all this other crap people usually complain about?

BTW, it's underscaled in that render, again!

We'll need a moderator to change the floor tally to 150.

Overall, I prefer the previous design. Although I like the added girth of the present version, I'm not fond of how abruptly it ends. The spire provided for a more graceful terminus in keeping with the proportions of the building. Also, the older design's twists seemed more harmonious to me. This design has too many twists, and the twists aren't uniform. Instead, they are all bunched up at the bottom and middle portions of the building. Nonetheless, I still like the design and obviously want this one to end up being built.

I love the former design.

Wow, 2000 ft without cheating with a spire. I'm awstruck.
Beats everything in the Western hemisphere hands down.
Gorgeous design.

http://www.shelbournedevelopment.com has more renders.

Hey, at least it shut up those people who believe spires are cheating

also, the twist have been lessened from 360 degrees to 270, although its more unevenly distributed this ime

I think they should fight with the FAA to be allowed to go over 2000 feet in order to add a spire. A twisting spire of say 400 feet on top of this would harmonize with the greater twisting near the bottom and all. I can see having to go all the way to the top and broaden it(and straighten it even near the top) to make it economically feasible, but they need some twisting spire(at least a couple hundred feet-would that be that hard?) at the top to balance the twisting bottom and not have that flat roof. Do not like this design as much as the previous one but still like it and want to see it built.:)

The previous design was so much more graceful. Im hoping that the rendering shown is playing tricks on the eye. I think he should relax the torque on the bottom half and carry it through to the top. Maybe with more detailed renderings I'll warm up to it but as of now, Im deeply disappointed with this redesign. This was my favorite project too. :ohno:

Damn.

i'm a fan of the new design...doesn't like such tall spires's, a bigger numbers of floors is much better for me.

They can add a new spire, but not as tall as before, and I like the asymmetric twist, it gives it the extra thing that I thought it lacked before. It adds character while losing a bit of goofiness I think.

The tower is called spire but there's no spire on the roof? I liked more about that older rendering with a nice antenna. Flat roof doesn't look as nice.
Hope they will build it. I definately want to see that if i have a chance to get there sometime. When do you guess its construction could get started?

I preffered the old design, this new one isn't awful...but isn't so beautiful in my opinion compared to the old design.

The 400ft spire was too tall in my opinion. I think it would look best if it had a 200ft spire, and also without the asymmetric twisting.

I like it a lot, good improvement. I bet Trump is pissed now that it is closer to his tower. plus Chicago Spire kills his design that he uses for all of his buildings.

it seems to me like everyone is passing judgment based on a rendering constructed by fellow forumers or newspapers and not by the real design team. the rendering we are all looking at does not follow in any way the description its supposed to resemble. whoever did it has no vison .according to the article the structure will only twist 270 deg. and then continue on up without twisting- this is probrobly meant to be understood that as it rises , the concave sides will become smaller to eventualy become circular shaped from the 270 deg. turn on up. the building will be toped off with finn like structures which noone added to their already inaccurate renderings. the fins will most likely follow the curve and twist of the building and extend the glass facade from 4 "sides" with triangulare shaped glass ,of the what will be a circulare shaped building at that point, and add a realy cool effect to the towers peak.

You guys, the design on the website is just an interim rendering. It clearly shows a twist of far more than 360' whereas we've found out that it will only be 270'. Look for updated and REAL renderings once the final production has been completed by Calatrava.

lol i come here to see how the ground work is and.. i see a redesign... wtf... this is vey awful.. this tower claims a spire it needsa spire! it seems to lack something up there, dont u think?

but by the other side... 2000" ROOF!!!!!! wow... but they cant leave the desingn like it is they MUST add an spire.. is very necessary

Wow this is spectacular. I like this version alot better. I love how people bitch about the spire and now that its gone they miss it. lol aint that how it works?

Heres my pitiful attempt at adding a spire:
http://img447.imageshack.us/img447/1492/spirenf1.png

^^ Nice, but won't happen. They would be back at square one in the approval process if they went over the 2000 foot special zoning allowance AND with the added headache of trying to convince the FAA that a special allowance into airspace was "necessary". As much as the "2000 foot roof is great but it needs a spire" is fun to dream about, it is going to be one or the other.

^^ Nice, but won't happen. They would be back at square one in the approval process if they went over the 2000 foot special zoning allowance AND with the added headache of trying to convince the FAA that a special allowance into airspace was "necessary". As much as the "2000 foot roof is great but it needs a spire" is fun to dream about, it is going to be one or the other.

Daley will want a spire. Daley gets what he wants. :cheers:

Also, I think we can assume a liberal interpretation of "2000 foot roof" to mean more along the lines of filling the prior spire space with condos rather than to mean that there will actually be a condo right at 2000 feet. It isn't normal to have the top occupied floor be right at the architectural tip of the building. I wouldn't think that there will be occupied floors closer than 20 or 30 feet from the tip top.

Daley will want a spire. Daley gets what he wants. :cheers:

If Daley insists on a spire, and gets what he wants, I would think that it would be much more likely for him to say "put the roof at 1900 feet and put on a 100 foot spire" than to say "put the roof at 2000 feet and put on a 100 foot spire"

it looks so much better with a spire... this 270 angle thing is killing the great design

So are there any larger renderings about?

People complain about spire, now they complain about no spire.

No pleasing.

^^ lol exactly what i said on the last page. the grass is always greener on the other side i guess

610m + Spire.....can be almost an 700m Tower!!!

610m + Spire.....can be almost an 700m Tower!!!

Not a chance.

Not a chance.

Everyone said the same thing about the floor height possibly being raised to 2,000'

nice!

Other images
http://www.***************************/random/newspire.gif
http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/6690/chicagospirequ5.jpg
http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/5650/chicagospirenavypierbt4.jpg

Bridge:
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/5281/10483306320x240qf6.jpg
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2351/10483305320x240pk6.jpg
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/9929/10483344320x240fz9.jpg

By the way, Chicago Spire was just a temporary name, probably so that they didn't continue to give free publicity to the Fordham Co.

"The FAA presumption against construction of structures over a certain height is set forth in the FAA rules. A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air navigation and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Each notice submitted under the FAA rules proposing a structure in excess of 2,000 feet above ground must contain a detailed showing, directed to meeting this burden. Only in exceptional cases, where the FAA concludes that a clear and compelling showing has been made that it would not result in an inefficient utilization of the airspace and would not result in a hazard to air navigation, will a determination of no hazard be issued (14 CFR § 77.17(c))."
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/policy/dtv/

I wonder how difficult it would really be to get a 'no hazard' determiniation?

I'm kinda sad....I REALLY like the old design so much better. Helas!

http://www.visualcollection.nl/decollectie/collectie_images/spekkies.jpg

Everyone said the same thing about the floor height possibly being raised to 2,000'

The floor height being raised idea has been floating around for over a month, and lots of people, including myself, considered it to be possible. But there is a big difference here. To raise the floor height, just the designers and architects have to sit down and change the plans. Then it is a minor ordeal to get the changes approved. To go above the 2000 foot mark is a huge deal. The FAA assumes that this is a bad use of airspace, and they would have the burden of presenting proof to the FAA that it is not. The FAA is not easily swayed, and would not be impressed by "but our building needs it to look better". And then the whole approval process would have to start over and the land be re-zoned, inviting long delays and possible rejections. I just can't see them electing to go through this.

I wonder how difficult it would really be to get a 'no hazard' determiniation?

I think the "inefficient use of airspace" part would be a lot harder to convince the FAA than the "no hazard" part.

That rule is there for ultrathin masts in the middle of nowhere

I think the "inefficient use of airspace" part would be a lot harder to convince the FAA than the "no hazard" part.

If the mayor and city council want a spire, they can damn well get one. Their has been talk about making the airspace a no-fly zone as it is.

only bad thing now that the roof was rased is it shortens the chicago skyline, kinda like what cn does for toronto.

It's gorgeous!!

:)

only bad thing now that the roof was rased is it shortens the chicago skyline, kinda like what cn does for toronto.

HUH? That makes no sense.

OK, I give up. One spire, coming right up.

This would be the actual roof height in this render if it were proportionate to Lake Point Tower (645 ft).
http://runepixels.com/uimages3/proportionate.png

only bad thing now that the roof was rased is it shortens the chicago skyline, kinda like what cn does for toronto.


This is my only fear.

But when people come to see it in real life thinking that the rest of the buildings are small and then see the true size, they will be amazed.

From SSP:
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/4522/spirexk7.jpg

And this one is way to huge to post here:
6857x4724! You can see the bridge in here as well.
http://runepixels.com/uimages6/cshires.jpg

Being from spain and seen some of his work, you can not judge this building now untill we see Calatrava vision in his renderings. Everytime he designs something it comes out totaly different and more beautifull in person when done. We will just have to wait.

That one definitely improves upon the smaller render.

But when people come to see it in real life thinking that the rest of the buildings are small and then see the true size, they will be amazed.


Thanks you calmed me down a little.:)

But what about those that never come to see it and only see it on postcards, like the CN in toronto?

Maybe they will wait before putting a spire on top until they see whether or not Christopher Milam decides to put a spire on his proposed building in Vegas, which so far doesn't include a spire in the design, but did have a higher roof until this new redesign of the Chicago Spire. At 1,888 feet, adding a simple 120 foot spire would eclipse Chicago Spire. Milam clearly stated that his goal was to have the tallest building in the western hemisphere, so he'll have to raise his height, and he did say that the SOM designed structure could handle more height. But then again, so far everything in the project is approved except for the height. I'll be watching this race closely.

The redesign is good, but it looks stumpy.

I guess now it looks like the Pillar that holds the sky up in Chicago but the roof seems a bit... flat.

so what is new height? without spire?

I'm a little bit dissappointed.

so what is new height? without spire?

It's still 2000 ft.

The redesign is good, but it looks stumpy.



Personally, I don't find it the least bit good. The prior design was one of my favorites ever (if it had had about a 200 foot spire instead of 400 it would have been perfect). This one looks like it's going along and then abruptly hits an invisible barrier. Which is exactly what happened (the 2000 foot zoned limit)...any time some constraint besides the artistic vision of the architect affects a design, the design suffers.

Although I too liked the first version, I still don't find anything particularly objectional with this redesign. If anything, the overall project is MUCH better now than it was from day one.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we were all shown the same renderings for over a year now, so we're all used to the spire.

Again guys . this is not in any way an accurate rendering! quite passing judgment on the spire based on some ones lame attempt . wait till the real one is released. better yet quit posting those shitty inacurate renderings.

Yeah, let's all wait until the final thing is out before we make some definitive judgements.

^I'm not sure what you mean. Of course there will be more renderings in the future and there will surely be changes, but if we can't trust the renderings from the developer's website, then who do we trust? :)

I didn't know these were coming from the developer websites. I thought that the actual unveiling of the thing has yet to take place. If these are the leaked actual renderings than, I guess we don't have to wait for anything.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0612080145dec08,0,4850514.story?coll=chi-business-hed

Giant condo tower raising big doubts

By Susan Diesenhouse
Tribune staff reporter
Published December 8, 2006


The new design of a twisting skyscraper proposed for Chicago's lakefront, unveiled Wednesday, seeks to make it more financially feasible, but opinions about that seem to range from skeptical to dismissive.

"It's financial suicide," Donald Trump, developer of a luxury condominium-hotel project going up not far away on the Chicago River, said Thursday of Shelbourne Development's plan to enlarge its proposed condominium tower on the river's north bank at Lake Shore Drive.

But James Loewenberg, whose Magellan Development LLC is building Lakeshore East near Millennium Park, said, "It's a great project if they can pull off the numbers," referring to quickly selling the 1,300 luxury units for at least $1,000 a square foot. Magellan has sold 1,350 of the 2,500 condos it is building at Lakeshore East for $350 to $650 a square foot.

Dublin-based Shelbourne announced that its Santiago Calatrava-designed tower would still be 2,000 feet tall, as previously planned. But the building would be about 3 million square feet with perhaps 160 stories, up from 115 in the original design, the company said Thursday, and seven more stories for underground parking.

While Shelbourne spokesman Thomas Murphy declined to give an estimated total development cost for what would be the world's tallest building, experts in residential real estate said the price tag could approach $2 billion or even surpass it.

In this era of rapidly rising construction costs, building such tall structures is very expensive because they are complicated engineering feats and get more so the taller they soar. Sometimes, towers with at least 50 stories yield only about 73 percent of sellable space compared with about 85 percent for a smaller structure.

Also, markedly multiplying the complexity and cost of the project would be excavating to build underground parking at the site. To dig below the water level while keeping the site dry, Shelbourne will use a process called slurry wall construction that calls for great skill and time, both costly commodities.

"I compliment the effort, but building at this height with this substructure can sometimes lead to surprises," said John Murphy, a partner at Ricker Murphy Development LLC, which is planning a 325-condominium project in Lincoln Park.

He added that "it will test the elasticity of luxury demand."

In other words, will buyers come?

The yield of sellable space at the Calatrava structure will be 65 percent to 70 percent, Thomas Murphy said, and it will be marketed internationally by Britain-based Savills PLC for at least $1,000 a square foot.

"We're looking at bringing it to another level," Murphy said. In Chicago, "One thousand dollars a square foot has already been achieved at the Trump and Ritz projects."

But, he added, "We're looking at a global market in which $1,000 a square foot is not a lot."

Chicago has six high-end luxury residential projects under development, with a total of 1,100 units. About 500 units are being marketed for as much as $1,000 a square foot, said Gail Lissner, vice president of Appraisal Research Counselors.

About 486 of the 1,100 units are at Trump International Hotel and Tower, which started sales in September 2003, she said.

Of the Calatrava building, Lissner said: "This could be a very long sellout unless they find other buyers nationally and internationally. Clearly, the Chicago market [alone] would have a great deal of difficulty absorbing them."

As far as Trump is concerned, right now "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, who said he has sold 70 percent of his units, said, "I sold many of mine for $900 to about $1,200 a square foot two years ago."

He estimates that the Calatrava spire will cost about $1.7 billion to develop. "I'd like to see it get built," Trump said.

The twisting shape of the design will complicate construction, he said. And coupled with a slow residential market that he does not think will draw many international buyers, Trump believes the project "is financially impossible."

Loewenberg is more agnostic about the spire's prospects.

"There's only one Chicago project that has allegedly sold for $1,000 a square foot. It's Donald Trump's," he said. "What the market is [for more luxury condos] has yet to be determined."

Shelbourne has a strong design, Loewenberg said, and "a super site and sophisticated marketing plan."

But with a plethora of condominiums scheduled to be built in the next few years, he said, "It will be a struggle, and only those with the best location and product will survive."

----------

sdiesenshouse@tribune.com



Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

Donald is just worried that the spire would give him competition, as far as product and location you just cant get any better than calatrava and the lake front. If i was Murphy i would just build it, light up the entire building so it would over power Donalds.

Thanks you calmed me down a little.:)

But what about those that never come to see it and only see it on postcards, like the CN in toronto?

tru but their missing out.. but toronto's buildings do look alot smaller in pics because in person theres nothing small about them.

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

^^ The original was like 100 times more sexy. I'm not as excited about this projet anymore :(

maybe, but since its also alot more massive and more Chicago-like (hey didnt alot of fools used to complain the old spire was too un-Chicago?), I'm basically in a "its 2000-ft/150 floors-f**k-it-Idontcare" mood.

:D

gotta love Trump, his TTC is gonna get owned (The TTC is a magnificent project, but damn, this 2000ft tower is something else!)

hey guys, shelbournedevelopment.com states it has 160 floors. Misprint?

it would be SO SO SO cool if my home town got the record for tallest building agin

All i am asking for from this new look is something on the top , it is just too flat like is is not finish. Besides that i think is great

Yeah, I like this design more, except for the top. Also, I like how the previous design tapers a bit. I'd like the revision more if it did this and it would make the top w/ or w/o spire look better. I like the way that it twists now, and I really hate how tall the spire was before.

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

were did you get the pic from ?

^^
Wow, that will be cool, it is getting taller!
I would say that if its top is naturally twisted finish along with its twisting body that will give a more smooth effect on visual, the flat out top is just seem too ordinary for such a master spire!:lol:

Oh, yea, I also can't wait for the day my hometown reclaims the world's tallest building again!:cheers:

The 400ft spire was too tall in my opinion. I think it would look best if it had a 200ft spire, and also without the asymmetric twisting.


That tower without the twisting design would be nothing. Don't you think it would be just an ordinary plain box-building then? In Chicago, there are plenty of those box-buildings already. The height isn't everything. The higher the better sure, but only the height won't help if the design itself doesn't work. While building new skyscrapers, they should pay more attention to the design. We don't need more old-looking skyscrapers, do we?

it would be SO SO SO cool if my home town got the record for tallest building agin

only the tallest in USA :)

That tower without the twisting design would be nothing. Don't you think it would be just an ordinary plain box-building then? In Chicago, there are plenty of those box-buildings already. The height isn't everything. The higher the better sure, but only the height won't help if the design itself doesn't work. While building new skyscrapers, they should pay more attention to the design. We don't need more old-looking skyscrapers, do we?

Read my post more carefully. I said without the asymmetric twisting. What I mean is I liked it better when it twisted at a constant rate as in the old version.

It's beautiful and when compared to the older version, IMO much better. If they put a spire or something on top, might look ok, might not. It looks great the way it is though. I really REALLY REALLY hope this one goes through after so many prior proposals for Chicago.

This design encourages to have something like a spire on top. I wouldn't being surprised at all, if this was not the last re-design...

i like it. :yes:

I wish the new one had the same elongated pear shape as the old one. That and a spire would make this one a beast. I don't like how it's almost like a rectangle shape. The asymmetric twisting I like more than before, but both look good.

Oh no, now it looks rubbish. It's not sleek any more. I want that antenna back.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0612080145dec08,0,4850514.story?coll=chi-business-hed

"It's financial suicide," Donald Trump, developer of a luxury condominium-hotel project going up not far away on the Chicago River, said Thursday of Shelbourne Development's plan to enlarge its proposed condominium tower on the river's north bank at Lake Shore Drive.

...

As far as Trump is concerned, right now "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, who said he has sold 70 percent of his units, said, "I sold many of mine for $900 to about $1,200 a square foot two years ago."

He estimates that the Calatrava spire will cost about $1.7 billion to develop. "I'd like to see it get built," Trump said.

The twisting shape of the design will complicate construction, he said. And coupled with a slow residential market that he does not think will draw many international buyers, Trump believes the project "is financially impossible."

Loewenberg is more agnostic about the spire's prospects.

"There's only one Chicago project that has allegedly sold for $1,000 a square foot. It's Donald Trump's," he said. "What the market is [for more luxury condos] has yet to be determined."



I hate Trump. He is such a donkey.

beautiful tower, the best in northamerica

only the tallest in USA :)

Ok the highest occupid floor.

The 400ft spire was too tall in my opinion. I think it would look best if it had a 200ft spire, and also without the asymmetric twisting.

I couldn't agree more. Although I was not an immediate fan of the older design due to the massive proportions of the spire, I would have to say that deleting the spire entirely may be a bad move, at least aesthetically. They then attempted to make up for this by adding some, IMO, hasty design details in order to provide some perceived character needs. This resulted in losing the elegance and class that the tower emitted in previous renderings. I can only hope that this is a rushed rendering that will be later altered befitting the class that the former design once held. I also feel as though a consistent rotational approach would give it a much more pleasing presence.

^^
Wow, that will be cool, it is getting taller!
I would say that if its top is naturally twisted finish along with its twisting body that will give a more smooth effect on visual, the flat out top is just seem too ordinary for such a master spire!:lol:

Oh, yea, I also can't wait for the day my hometown reclaims the world's tallest building again!:cheers:

Oh, what I shouda say was that they should get the inspiration from the Midwest "TWISTER" shape! Sort of twisting to the sky instead of flat top, we need continuation to the top people! So I would vision a twisting needle at the tip of it!:cheers: :bow:

So I wasn't a big fan of the old design, but this new design makes me appreciate the older one. So in short, without the spire it doesn't look too good.
Bring back the spire.

This tower is fantastic :)

:ohno: i don't like the new tower, old spire was much more beautifull

the new design with a spire would be perfect :)

like this ZZ-II http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/6402/threespirespireproposalbs7.th.jpg (http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=threespirespireproposalbs7.jpg)

yep, like Pic C :)

^^ that's the same one i picked to, and the crazy part about it is, the spire is over 2600FT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I pick A, an 700 foot tall spire is dumb.

I pick A, an 700 foot tall spire is dumb.

Agreed.

I pick A. Wow what a differnce it makes with a top.

"B"

Imagine the Sears Tower or the JHC without their antennas, and they wouldn't look too good. This building's upward twisting design practically requires a spire or antenna, because of how it leads the eye. Even the ST and JHC need antennas to bring the eye to a conclusive point. The old rendering's spire should be heightened slightly to keep the proportion correct, and added to this one. This seems to be a lot of people's thought in general (needing a spire), but what other possible combinations or new ideas does everyone have?

only bad thing now that the roof was rased is it shortens the chicago skyline, kinda like what cn does for toronto.

This will only be a factor if the picture is from the lake, but still nothing compared to what the CN Tower does to Toronto's skyline. To get an accurate measurement of how someone would perceive Hancock or Sears Tower, you have to include the antennas. With antennas, Hancock is 1500' and Sears is 1729'. Yes, a 2000' building will dominate the Chicago skyline, but not as much as you might think. Even as such, Toronto is still much better off with the CN tower. CN tower is not too tall, the surrounding buildings are just too short.

I feel the same way as most of you here, Chicago Spire would look better with a spire. Therefore, would it not be great if the following happened:
Mayor Daley asks Shelbourne Development to make the building over 2000' because he wants a spire. Shelbourne then requests FAA approval. Daley is then delighted as he uses this new attention to push his case for a no-fly zone over downtown, which he really really wants. In many ways this is unlikely, but it does seem to be the mayor's style. He is a political genius when it comes to getting things done that he strongly believes in.

like this ZZ-II http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/6402/threespirespireproposalbs7.th.jpg (http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=threespirespireproposalbs7.jpg)

B.

But it would be interesting if the blades met, as in they curve in towards each other.

I doubt between A or C
I choose A!

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

The second image looks like one of those pretzel twists now. I like the first rendering better, but as long as this gets built then I'll be happy!

Are the twists more compact or something now? I still hate the new design.

Pic C

I pray that this and LVT get built. Not only are they great but itll give the US some height pride again.

Are they planning it taller than Burj Dubai?

BTW I saw the bridge near the tower will change. Any details?

taller than BD?? not really :)

But it'll be the tallest all residential in the world..I think :)

Let's twist again
Third time's a charm for lakefront tower -- or is it?
By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published December 11, 2006


I just had a revelation about Santiago Calatrava's latest proposal for a twisting, 2,000-foot tower as I was driving south on Lake Shore Drive and staring at the John Hancock Center. The mighty, X-braced Hancock is 1,127 feet tall. Stack another tower nearly as high atop it and you have some idea of how enormous Calatrava's new skyscraper would be. We're talking condos piled 2,000 feet into the sky, nearly twice the Hancock's height. That's a huge leap in scale, not an itty-bitty tweak.

The distinction is critical because we're likely to hear from Dublin-based developer Garrett Kelleher and city officials, who are ga-ga over Calatrava, that this design is a mere revision that needs a quick once-over from city planners before it gets the inevitable City Council rubber stamp. Nothing could be further from the truth. With the needle-thin broadcast antenna gone and its airspace replaced by sellable condo space, this is practically a whole new building.

And it is not, all things considered, a better one.

The tower's newly truncated top, which Calatrava advertises as simpatico with the simple profiles of Sears Tower and the Hancock, is a sky-high letdown. Why soar 2,000 feet into the air for what is essentially a buzz cut? With its pinprick spire, the tower was an exultant urban presence, the pinnacle brilliantly culminating its upward drive. Now, for good reason, unhappy e-mailers are offering the following suggestion: Paint it red and call it the "Twizzler Tower." Tellingly, the nickname is not being conferred with the same affection as the tower's previous sobriquet -- "The Drill Bit."

I am not saying this skyscraper, which would rise just west of Lake Shore Drive and near the north bank of the Chicago River, should not be built. I am saying it demands the highest level of scrutiny so it can fulfill the highest standards of design.

Provided Kelleher can disprove skeptics and get it built, the skyscraper will become the postcard image of Chicago for the next 50 years, maybe the next 100. Calatrava, a superb architect by nearly everybody's measure, can do better. And with time and money he surely will. The point is that he needs to be pushed by his client -- and by the city. The last thing we need is what transpired when the Chicago Plan Commission approved an earlier version of the project in March: Aldermen fawned over Calatrava, turning his appearance into a performance rather than a public hearing.

At root, the question about the revised plan (which now stands at 160 stories rather than the 150 the developer announced last week) is this: Has Calatrava turned new functional and financial requirements to his advantage -- or has he sold out the integrity of the original design?

That tension is most evident on the skyline, where Kelleher's desire to nearly triple the number of units for sale to 1,300 from 450, has put the architect in a bind. Before, his tower didn't just twist. It gracefully tapered, getting noticeably thinner as it climbed into the sky. Now, it looks straighter, flatter, less voluptuous, more Twizzler-ish. And it meets the sky weakly, its enormous curving ribs culminating in tiny metal fins that are preposterously small, like so many extended pinkies.

All this is not a veiled suggestion that Mayor Richard Daley do what he did with Donald Trump and order a spire atop this skyscraper. But it is a suggestion for Calatrava and Kelleher to rethink the tower's top and to refine its middle.

The big gesture of the twist is not enough. God has to be in the details throughout. Based upon renderings I saw last week, the project has miles to go before it achieves the level of refinement evident in another twisting tower, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill of Chicago's under-construction Infinity Tower in Dubai, or even Calatrava's own "Turning Torso" tower in Sweden. For those new to architecture, twisting towers are all the rage these days.

There is more reason for concern at ground level, and it's related to what's happening in the sky. With the number of proposed units almost tripled, Kelleher's potential for profit grows exponentially -- as does the threat of aggravating Streeterville's already clogged streets. The tower, which would be the nation's tallest building, would rise on a tiny side street called East North Water Street. When the skyscraper had just 450 units, that incongruity could be passed over. No longer.

There are, to be sure, some positive features in the redesign, but even they invite further scrutiny. By moving the tower slightly to the north and putting all parking underground, Calatrava and Kelleher generously create the possibility for ample public open space between the tower and the Chicago River. In the same holistic vein, they are proposing two Calatrava-designed pedestrian bridges in an attempt to make the tower less of an isolated object. One would cross the Chicago River east of Lake Shore Drive, forming a link in the lakefront bike trail and pivoting to allow boats through. The other would span Ogden Slip to the north of the skyscraper, joining the bike path and the tower to the planned DuSable Park east of Lake Shore Drive.

But who would pay for the bridges: the city or the developer? And I wonder whether the public space along the riverfront promenade would be usable or ceremonial. Would passersby be encouraged to use it, or would they be made to feel as if they were encroaching upon somebody else's high-priced turf? The answers will determine whether the proposed improvements turn out to be genuine amenities or mere attempts by the developer to justify his enormous increase in sellable space.

Once so promising, the twisting tower has now reached a crucial stage. It still has the capacity to enliven and enrich Chicago's skyline and its streets. Literally and aesthetically, it remains head and shoulders above the city's mediocre residential high-rise norm. The issue is whether city officials, especially Daley, will drive the architect to deliver the greatest possible benefits to the public realm. Calatrava is certainly capable of achieving them.

Can a mod change the floor count to 160 floors? And capitalize the C in Chicago :D

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/6402/threespirespireproposalbs7.th.jpg (http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=threespirespireproposalbs7.jpg)

I like A. It's amazing how adding those points to the curves' ends finishes off the design and integrates the design with the sky, totally changes things for me. I'd much rather have it as 1,900 feet with the 100 foot spires than have it 2000 feet and a flat roof. Thanks to whoever drew those options.

OMG, this is NEWS! :eek:

Let's twist again
Third time's a charm for lakefront tower -- or is it?
By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published December 11, 2006


I just had a revelation about Santiago Calatrava's latest proposal for a twisting, 2,000-foot tower as I was driving south on Lake Shore Drive and staring at the John Hancock Center. The mighty, X-braced Hancock is 1,127 feet tall. Stack another tower nearly as high atop it and you have some idea of how enormous Calatrava's new skyscraper would be. We're talking condos piled 2,000 feet into the sky, nearly twice the Hancock's height. That's a huge leap in scale, not an itty-bitty tweak.

The distinction is critical because we're likely to hear from Dublin-based developer Garrett Kelleher and city officials, who are ga-ga over Calatrava, that this design is a mere revision that needs a quick once-over from city planners before it gets the inevitable City Council rubber stamp. Nothing could be further from the truth. With the needle-thin broadcast antenna gone and its airspace replaced by sellable condo space, this is practically a whole new building.

And it is not, all things considered, a better one.

The tower's newly truncated top, which Calatrava advertises as simpatico with the simple profiles of Sears Tower and the Hancock, is a sky-high letdown. Why soar 2,000 feet into the air for what is essentially a buzz cut? With its pinprick spire, the tower was an exultant urban presence, the pinnacle brilliantly culminating its upward drive. Now, for good reason, unhappy e-mailers are offering the following suggestion: Paint it red and call it the "Twizzler Tower." Tellingly, the nickname is not being conferred with the same affection as the tower's previous sobriquet -- "The Drill Bit."

I am not saying this skyscraper, which would rise just west of Lake Shore Drive and near the north bank of the Chicago River, should not be built. I am saying it demands the highest level of scrutiny so it can fulfill the highest standards of design.

Provided Kelleher can disprove skeptics and get it built, the skyscraper will become the postcard image of Chicago for the next 50 years, maybe the next 100. Calatrava, a superb architect by nearly everybody's measure, can do better. And with time and money he surely will. The point is that he needs to be pushed by his client -- and by the city. The last thing we need is what transpired when the Chicago Plan Commission approved an earlier version of the project in March: Aldermen fawned over Calatrava, turning his appearance into a performance rather than a public hearing.

At root, the question about the revised plan (which now stands at 160 stories rather than the 150 the developer announced last week) is this: Has Calatrava turned new functional and financial requirements to his advantage -- or has he sold out the integrity of the original design?

That tension is most evident on the skyline, where Kelleher's desire to nearly triple the number of units for sale to 1,300 from 450, has put the architect in a bind. Before, his tower didn't just twist. It gracefully tapered, getting noticeably thinner as it climbed into the sky. Now, it looks straighter, flatter, less voluptuous, more Twizzler-ish. And it meets the sky weakly, its enormous curving ribs culminating in tiny metal fins that are preposterously small, like so many extended pinkies.

All this is not a veiled suggestion that Mayor Richard Daley do what he did with Donald Trump and order a spire atop this skyscraper. But it is a suggestion for Calatrava and Kelleher to rethink the tower's top and to refine its middle.

The big gesture of the twist is not enough. God has to be in the details throughout. Based upon renderings I saw last week, the project has miles to go before it achieves the level of refinement evident in another twisting tower, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill of Chicago's under-construction Infinity Tower in Dubai, or even Calatrava's own "Turning Torso" tower in Sweden. For those new to architecture, twisting towers are all the rage these days.

There is more reason for concern at ground level, and it's related to what's happening in the sky. With the number of proposed units almost tripled, Kelleher's potential for profit grows exponentially -- as does the threat of aggravating Streeterville's already clogged streets. The tower, which would be the nation's tallest building, would rise on a tiny side street called East North Water Street. When the skyscraper had just 450 units, that incongruity could be passed over. No longer.

There are, to be sure, some positive features in the redesign, but even they invite further scrutiny. By moving the tower slightly to the north and putting all parking underground, Calatrava and Kelleher generously create the possibility for ample public open space between the tower and the Chicago River. In the same holistic vein, they are proposing two Calatrava-designed pedestrian bridges in an attempt to make the tower less of an isolated object. One would cross the Chicago River east of Lake Shore Drive, forming a link in the lakefront bike trail and pivoting to allow boats through. The other would span Ogden Slip to the north of the skyscraper, joining the bike path and the tower to the planned DuSable Park east of Lake Shore Drive.

But who would pay for the bridges: the city or the developer? And I wonder whether the public space along the riverfront promenade would be usable or ceremonial. Would passersby be encouraged to use it, or would they be made to feel as if they were encroaching upon somebody else's high-priced turf? The answers will determine whether the proposed improvements turn out to be genuine amenities or mere attempts by the developer to justify his enormous increase in sellable space.

Once so promising, the twisting tower has now reached a crucial stage. It still has the capacity to enliven and enrich Chicago's skyline and its streets. Literally and aesthetically, it remains head and shoulders above the city's mediocre residential high-rise norm. The issue is whether city officials, especially Daley, will drive the architect to deliver the greatest possible benefits to the public realm. Calatrava is certainly capable of achieving them.

The peanut gallery is always full. The seats are cheap.

As much as I love this project, I lament the one it replaces. Why couldn't they just have made a scaled up version of the old general design? If we're really lucky, though, some company will come back with a desire to place an antenna on top, which of course must be quite far from the residents to keep them safe from radiation, and warrant an integrated design with a 100 m spire... Please... the old somewhat elliptic design with a spire mimicing it was soo sexy....

Good God are they drunk?

WORST...RE-DESIGN...EVER!!!

b is fantastic!!! at least the redesign is starting to be like i wished

This was a complete shock for me. I had no idea they where even considering a re-design of an already perfect tower. I have to say I really like the re-design. I've been noticing a lot of fuss and yelling about the top of the building on both SSC and SSP. I'm for one am not worried. They will top off the re-design with a spire. Daily made Trump add one to his building what goes to say he wont this time around? Public opinion will have a roll as well.
:cheers:

Night time pic:
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2640/calatrava2031nh5.jpg

I like it. Is it exactly to scale?

I like it. Is it exactly to scale?

No, it should be taller.

at 600m/160st, it will easily be worlds tallest resi tower.

No, it should be taller.

That's what I thought.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/742/chicago2ln4.jpg

at 600m/160st, it will easily be worlds tallest resi tower.
if that's the case then the Burj Dubai designers and engineers, architects are hopefully going to push the highest occupied floor levels higher ?

^^^ that wouldn't make a difference because the burj dubai is a mixed used building.

So it's shorter by 10m but taller to roof? Cool but id add the uber large spire or rather they just scaled the old design taller.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/742/chicago2ln4.jpg

Extravaganz!!! From street level atlease..:)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2006-12/26775311.jpg

ok, I like this one even more than the original one.

Nice to see a unique design from the states at last. But it does look out of place with all the boxes surrounding it. It's like you guy's are beginning to notice all the stunning design from accross the pond and this is your attempt at catch up.
I love the taper twist and the flat roof is a good thing. Better than that spire added for good measure.
Let's hope you yanks continue to pursue better design and realise that less can be more.

Nice to see a unique design from the states at last. But it does look out of place with all the boxes surrounding it. It's like you guy's are beginning to notice all the stunning design from accross the pond and this is your attempt at catch up.
I love the taper twist and the flat roof is a good thing. Better than that spire added for good measure.
Let's hope you yanks continue to pursue better design and realise that less can be more.

Your post came across to me as very condescending. 'At last'? 'Attempt to catch up''? Beginning to notice the 'stunning' designs across the pond'? You mean like Tour Signal? *vomits*.

Nice to see a unique design from the states at last. But it does look out of place with all the boxes surrounding it. It's like you guy's are beginning to notice all the stunning design from accross the pond and this is your attempt at catch up.
I love the taper twist and the flat roof is a good thing. Better than that spire added for good measure.
Let's hope you yanks continue to pursue better design and realise that less can be more.

You do realize that you're flapping your gums at the city that gave birth to the skyscraper, don't you? Chicago is the only museusm of skyscrapers in the world that has the complete collection. How could there be any other city with such a treasure of skyscrapers when Chicago was the first to build them? It's time London stopped building giant dildos and took a page out of the classy book.

I feel the same way as most of you here, Chicago Spire would look better with a spire. Therefore, would it not be great if the following happened:
Mayor Daley asks Shelbourne Development to make the building over 2000' because he wants a spire. Shelbourne then requests FAA approval. Daley is then delighted as he uses this new attention to push his case for a no-fly zone over downtown, which he really really wants. In many ways this is unlikely, but it does seem to be the mayor's style. He is a political genius when it comes to getting things done that he strongly believes in.


I don't see why it is an issue. The FAA should not have jets flying over chicago's loop in the first place. They should go around the most dense areas if possible, IMO.

Nice to see a unique design from the states at last. But it does look out of place with all the boxes surrounding it. It's like you guy's are beginning to notice all the stunning design from accross the pond and this is your attempt at catch up.
I love the taper twist and the flat roof is a good thing. Better than that spire added for good measure.
Let's hope you yanks continue to pursue better design and realise that less can be more.

:lol:

And it's time you Brits built a decent skyline that could match...Charlotte!

Nice to see a unique design from the states at last. But it does look out of place with all the boxes surrounding it. It's like you guy's are beginning to notice all the stunning design from accross the pond and this is your attempt at catch up.
I love the taper twist and the flat roof is a good thing. Better than that spire added for good measure.
Let's hope you yanks continue to pursue better design and realise that less can be more.

...do you have some weird denial complex. It is not possible for Chicago to be behind London in skyscraper terms. And when you say less is more...and your glad we are realizing it... um i think this tower is very large. It may twirl and look feminine but is undeniably massive.

This buliding looks really cool! I was wondering when the completion date is?

^^ I was wondering when the start date is?

^^ I was wondering when the start date is?

January 28, 2008

I can't fathom how anyone could feck up such a perfect tower ... but they have. It's gone from best in the world to one of the worst with a few more twists and the lopping of the spire they have destroyed the aesthetics.

What a shame.

the tower needs a spire, it just does. it looks funny with no spire. it looks mongulated, like a disabled building. Like they ran out of money and just suddenly stopped. Maybe NY times tower should donate its useless spire to this one.

...do you have some weird denial complex. It is not possible for Chicago to be behind London in skyscraper terms. And when you say less is more...and your glad we are realizing it... um i think this tower is very large. It may twirl and look feminine but is undeniably massive.

I didn't say London did i. Accross the pond meaning Europe. Basicly Europe has better design. Less meaning without that spire and taller is not always better, which must be hard for you to understand.

I didn't say London did i. Accross the pond meaning Europe.
No - this colloquialism is all but exclusive to the UK & references the old steamship routes between England and Eastern NA.

Basicly Europe has better design.
Granted, Spain & the UK are putting up some of the most exciting architecture on the planet lately. Your point being what? This thread is about a specific project by a Spaniard for an American client, not the international design zeitgeist.

Less meaning without that spire and taller is not always better, which must be hard for you to understand.
You've got the issue backwards here - people are objecting to the redesign because it is larger w/o the spire. The redesign without the spire is the same height as the original design was with the spire, but has more mass.

can we stop posting in the other thread?

No - this colloquialism is all but exclusive to the UK & references the old steamship routes between England and Eastern NA.


Granted, Spain & the UK are putting up some of the most exciting architecture on the planet lately. Your point being what? This thread is about a specific project by a Spaniard for an American client, not the international design zeitgeist.


You've got the issue backwards here - people are objecting to the redesign because it is larger w/o the spire. The redesign without the spire is the same height as the original design was with the spire, but has more mass.

My point was that the original design had a spire purely to increase height. Before was egotistical, now is functional. It makes me feel the US is desperate to reclaim the wtb tital.

It wasn't purely to increase height, it was for looks as well as financial means through broadcasting deals you dimwit! I find it humorous a non-American/non-Chicagoan is telling us about the spire game when it was the mighty Sears Tower that was ripped off by a building with 20 concrete floors and a spire! In Chicago, it's about more than meaningless titles that hold little weight in today's world since we are advancing at a furious pace. It's about the holistic approach. Chicago is much more than one tower. I take it you have never been to Chicago, Londoner, because you are missing out on the greenest and most modern city in the World!

I don't see why it is an issue. The FAA should not have jets flying over chicago's loop in the first place. They should go around the most dense areas if possible, IMO.
That would seem to make sense but somehow the FAA will not create a no-fly zone over downtown Chicago.

My point was that the original design had a spire purely to increase height. Before was egotistical, now is functional. It makes me feel the US is desperate to reclaim the wtb tital.

That makes no since because *news flash* it will not be the worlds tallest building.

If it still had a spire it could push the official height to about 800m. I'm hoping it get's a new spire

^^ :lol:, yeah right. the FAA wouldn't let that happen, unless there's something the Mayor Daley could do :wink2: :D. but other then that it would be So cool. for sure Burj Dubai would go for 950M if the fordham spire were to go to 800M :lol:

I wish I knew how to create renders, because then I would show you the perfect tower:

The shape and spiral configuration of the previous design would return. The difference is that the top floor would be 1800feet instead of 1600 with a 200ft spire up to 2000 feet. Also the width of the base would be increased so it was the same as the new design, but it would taper at the same rate as the old design.

^^ :lol:, yeah right. the FAA wouldn't let that happen, unless there's something the Mayor Daley could do :wink2: :D. but other then that it would be So cool. for sure Burj Dubai would go for 950M if the fordham spire were to go to 800M :lol:

Actually, every building over 500 feet has to get FAA approval. I think the 2,000' "limit" isn't as solid as a lot of people make it out to be. In the 1980's the Chicago World Trade Centers got FAA approval rather easily and they were well over 2,000'.

bring back the spire!
:lol:

Actually, every building over 500 feet has to get FAA approval.

I've been hearing that argument a lot lately, with people saying because of that that there is no difference between one over 500 and one over 2000. But the difference is that at the 2000 foot mark, the FAA automatically declares the structure to be an aviation hazard, and the developer must prove to them that it is not. Yes, the 2000 foot limit is not impossible to get waived, but it is hard and I really doubt the developer would try. If they demand a spire, I predict that this will be accomplished by lowering the roof height.

Can anybody tell me the probability of this getting built at the current height and design?

^^ :lol:, yeah right. the FAA wouldn't let that happen, unless there's something the Mayor Daley could do :wink2: :D. but other then that it would be So cool. for sure Burj Dubai would go for 950M if the fordham spire were to go to 800M :lol:

By then the BD would be done, and if they were going for tallest they wouldnt tell them how tall they were going just so the other guy can add a foot to the spire.

Good God are they drunk?

WORST...RE-DESIGN...EVER!!!

Ditto!

The elegance of the old design is lost.

I wish I knew how to create renders, because then I would show you the perfect tower:

The shape and spiral configuration of the previous design would return. The difference is that the top floor would be 1800feet instead of 1600 with a 200ft spire up to 2000 feet. Also the width of the base would be increased so it was the same as the new design, but it would taper at the same rate as the old design.

Or even better just enlarge the old design to 2000 feet with the spire being about 400 or 500 feet. Increasing the width like you said at the same rate. It would basically be increasing the design by 25 percent of the original. This would not be wider than this new design(what is it..35 feet or so?). If anyone could get the waiver from the FAA it would be Daley. And you already have within 1 mile (including antennae) towers of over 1450 and 1700 feet in the JHC and the Sears Tower..so what would be the big deal really? It would not be that much of an increase. Would like to see how the square footage and all would compare too. I wish someone would do a render like that..or like the one you mentioned.

Night time pic:
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2640/calatrava2031nh5.jpg

Wow, looking great!

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/6402/threespirespireproposalbs7.jpg

I really like B!:)
How about making B's crown slightly twist too and connect each end at the tip? Make it look like a spire?

That radio mast in north dakota is 2,063 ft tall so did it get approval for that height?

That radio mast in north dakota is 2,063 ft tall so did it get approval for that height?

It was built before the FAA regulation so I imagine it was grandfathered in. Nothing over 2000 feet has been built since the FAA enacted the 2000 foot limit. From what has been said here and over at SSP it does not look like it would be a completely insurmountable obstacle however.

It looks alright, it's not too drastically bad, the orginal of course looked star quality but if they add a spire to the redesign i'm probably going to like this one more, still a nice supertall. One of the best too.

The crown makes it look like Isengard from lotr :)

The crown makes it look like Isengard from lotr :)

My thoughts exactly:D AMAZING structure!!!:bow: :bow: :bow:

My thoughts exactly:D AMAZING structure!!!:bow: :bow: :bow:

yeah i was thinking that also. i really like the new design, it's much more iconic, much more powerful.

Spire serves no purpose.

Wowww!!! LOVE IT!! One of the tallest in the world; the best skyline really deserves it!

Maybe I prefered the old design, but I'm getting used to this one, and I think it's amazing too. A spire like in the last rendering at night would look awesome!

Anyway, my favourites projects on earth are in Chicago!! :okay:

Go CHICAGOOOOOOOOOOOO :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

Spire serves no purpose.


Umm, people will live in this building... I would say that's a purpose.

No I think he's referring to the idea of a spire on the "Chicao Spire" building...rather than saying the building itself serves no purpose.

It was built before the FAA regulation so I imagine it was grandfathered in. Nothing over 2000 feet has been built since the FAA enacted the 2000 foot limit. From what has been said here and over at SSP it does not look like it would be a completely insurmountable obstacle however. the FAA only allows 2,000 feet high.

I also prefer the original design but still an amazing building all chicagoans should be proud of

Two other renderings
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/451/csuporce1.jpg
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/1039/csupua5.jpg

Second one looks firme.

If they make it look half as nice as those renders this thing will be amazing.

nice buildinig but i prefer previous design. the building doesn't looks complete without the spire...

the FAA only allows 2,000 feet high.

from my earlier post number 51 in this very thread:

"The FAA presumption against construction of structures over a certain height is set forth in the FAA rules. A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air navigation and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Each notice submitted under the FAA rules proposing a structure in excess of 2,000 feet above ground must contain a detailed showing, directed to meeting this burden. Only in exceptional cases, where the FAA concludes that a clear and compelling showing has been made that it would not result in an inefficient utilization of the airspace and would not result in a hazard to air navigation, will a determination of no hazard be issued (14 CFR § 77.17(c))."
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/policy/dtv/

so it is not 'disallowed'..you just have to present a 'clear and compelling' case that is it not an inefficient utilization of airspace and would not be a navigation hazard. If a spire would be used for telecommunications purposes, and the site restrictions of the small site and need for great height needed for economic viability of the whole project could be the 'efficient' use of airspace. And it would hardly be a hazard to air navigation if there was a no fly zone there..and there are already (with antennae) structures of 1450 and 1700+ feet in the area..how much more of a 'hazard' could it be?


so basically if they present an 'exceptional' case, they can get a waiver.

Two other renderings
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/451/csuporce1.jpg
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/1039/csupua5.jpg

These were the renderings I was waiting for. God is in the details. And the attention to detail, as well as its design, is the reason why this building is fantastic. This is architecture. Not just a shiny, new glass skyscraper.

I wonder what color glass they have in mind. The right glass treatment will do nothing but enhance this thing even more. I like the piping as well. I wonder if its structural. Probably.

Looks nice in them renders but I am still not convinced. The finish just isn't dramatic anymore. Each floor looks the same all the way up as well. There is no details apart from the twisting.

edit

Looks nice in them renders but I am still not convinced. The finish just isn't dramatic anymore. Each floor looks the same all the way up as well. There is no details apart from the twisting.

Yeah I agree. I prefered the building when the footprint was a square-ish shape, now it's Hexagonal and thus the twist doesn't have much impact on the building's shape.

Wow I am now hooked on this new design! Those 2 renders did it for me!!! The detail is amazing!!!

Spire serves no purpose.

lol

Bring it home Chicago!!

Reminiscent of an MC Escher drawing.
Truly awe inspiring.
Elegant design; no gimmicks.
Agree with ChgoLvr83. This is architecture.

So maybe I have missed it but what are the chances of this getting built?

Yes these new renders look great, but mostly because they don't show the current odious design of the top :(

So maybe I have missed it but what are the chances of this getting built?

x%

x = your opinion.
fill in for x.

x%

x = your opinion.
fill in for x.

I'd say x = 51

there's only a 89 foot difference between the Burj Dubai tallest occupied floor level. i bet you that the fordham spire will actual take the advantage and have the highest occupied floor level. 1 thing is for sure the Fordham spire can go higher because mayor Daley is going to make downtown Chicago a no flying zone. and that's were the FAA will let them go ahead with it. and if they FAA doesn't, well that's were Daley comes in. he's a big skyscraper fan. he helped the sears tower be tall as it is now. by actual talking to the FAA. so i really do hope the fordham spire takes the record for the tallest occupied floor

Looks nice in them renders but I am still not convinced. The finish just isn't dramatic anymore. Each floor looks the same all the way up as well. There is no details apart from the twisting.

I dont get it, people criticize skyscrapers that are just plain boxes such as WTC, sears tower, Aon center (L.A.)
and now we hear the same about a spire design.

interesting.

1 thing is for sure the Fordham spire can go higher because mayor Daley is going to make downtown Chicago a no flying zone.
umm dude, downtown Chicago is already a no fly zone.

umm dude, downtown Chicago is already a no fly zone.

No it is not. Have you read the thread and all of the comments about Daley wanting to get a no fly zone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fly_zone not the best source but accurate enough.

those latest renders make me get all warm and fuzzy inside. i dig

any views on what thhe layouts of the individual floors will look like?

^^ If you mean floorplans, they usually come with the PR and marketing of apartments.

These were the renderings I was waiting for. God is in the details. And the attention to detail, as well as its design, is the reason why this building is fantastic. This is architecture. Not just a shiny, new glass skyscraper.

I wonder what color glass they have in mind. The right glass treatment will do nothing but enhance this thing even more. I like the piping as well. I wonder if its structural. Probably.Well said ChgoLvr83...well said. Glass boxes can look quite great too though, depending on their finishes, particlarly features albethem small, their crowns, atriums, lobbies etc...but yeah, this IS architecture.

Reminiscent of an MC Escher drawing.
Truly awe inspiring.
Elegant design; no gimmicks.
Agree with ChgoLvr83. This is architecture.They *are* remininiscent of Escher.

...and I agree that you are agreeing with ChgoLvr83. ;)

It's so great how advances in structral engineering allow such feats....but really, they are just floorplates being offset to the next as in any 'turning torso', and in this case downsizing the further up as in any "classic" tapered building, ...and its simple curves.

So simple yet so clever. :okay:

there's only a 89 foot difference between the Burj Dubai tallest occupied floor level. i bet you that the fordham spire will actual take the advantage and have the highest occupied floor level. 1 thing is for sure the Fordham spire can go higher because mayor Daley is going to make downtown Chicago a no flying zone. and that's were the FAA will let them go ahead with it. and if they FAA doesn't, well that's were Daley comes in. he's a big skyscraper fan. he helped the sears tower be tall as it is now. by actual talking to the FAA. so i really do hope the fordham spire takes the record for the tallest occupied floor

Highly doubt they will increase the roof height again. I don't think they are building this to be the worlds tallest building. And it isn't called Fordham spire anymore...

you have to let it go megatower.

there's only a 89 foot difference between the Burj Dubai tallest occupied floor level. i bet you that the fordham spire will actual take the advantage and have the highest occupied floor level. 1 thing is for sure the Fordham spire can go higher because mayor Daley is going to make downtown Chicago a no flying zone. and that's were the FAA will let them go ahead with it. and if they FAA doesn't, well that's were Daley comes in. he's a big skyscraper fan. he helped the sears tower be tall as it is now. by actual talking to the FAA. so i really do hope the fordham spire takes the record for the tallest occupied floor

when they'll build Burj Dubai over 900m your dream is over ^^

I love how everyone is swallowing the nuts of the Burj.

The CS is architecture at it's finest. Spire or no spire.

The Burj is just tall.

Now can we lay off the 'Well the Burj Dubai is taller and yadda yadda.'

It's going to be taller anyway. We don't need to be reminded all the fucking time.

I love how everyone is swallowing the nuts of the Burj.

The CS is architecture at it's finest. Spire or no spire.

The Burj is just tall.

Now can we lay off the 'Well the Burj Dubai is taller and yadda yadda.'

It's going to be taller anyway. We don't need to be reminded all the fucking time.

a-fucking-men

lay off the nuts already

I love how everyone is swallowing the nuts of the Burj.

The CS is architecture at it's finest. Spire or no spire.

The Burj is just tall.

Now can we lay off the 'Well the Burj Dubai is taller and yadda yadda.'

It's going to be taller anyway. We don't need to be reminded all the fucking time.

calm down ^^

^^^ It's the truth.

^^^ It's the truth.

Someone finally had to say it. This is the Chicago Spire thread, not the Burj Dubai thread. I for one, am sick of reading replies about the Burj Dubai here. The developers of the Chicago Spire are NOT trying to make this the tallest building in the world, nor going for any title. (Ok, thats my opinion on it; Can't prove they aren't)

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/1039/csupua5.jpg
Beautiful renderings! Just makes it even more miserable to witness the worst redesign ever.. A masterpiece is turned into a merely very interesting building. I wish the redesign is just some kind of provocation to make people and politicians want the original design even more

Beautiful renderings! Just makes it even more miserable to witness the worst redesign ever.. A masterpiece is turned into a merely very interesting building. I wish the redesign is just some kind of provocation to make people and politicians want the original design even more

You read my mind. You couldn't have said it better. to me, CS went from a Mercedez Benz to a Honda with and upgrade package. I'm so dissapointed and it annoys me that economics and politics have transformed this beauty. But that is life, and that is how the business world works. Unless you are in Dubai, where money does not seem to be an issue anytime.

i love this tower even more with those new renders

caltrava at his best

I love how everyone is swallowing the nuts of the Burj.

The CS is architecture at it's finest. Spire or no spire.

The Burj is just tall.

Now can we lay off the 'Well the Burj Dubai is taller and yadda yadda.'

It's going to be taller anyway. We don't need to be reminded all the fucking time.

Nice, execpt i think Burj is a pretty good design.

Can we please bann the word Dubai from this thread.

People tend to forget too quick. Just look at the beauty of the curves in the old design: So sexy....like a bottle of coke. Now is just like a tootsie roll or something...aughhh

If you leave the spire in or out I do not care...but the twisting was a thousand times sexier and elegant on the previous design. Calatrava please bring it back!!!!!!!

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7426/postcard.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9739/LSERiver.jpg

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/927/LPTLeft.jpg

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/2661/NBCLot.jpg

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/227/Clockwise.jpg

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/1071/GoldCoast.jpg

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/8553/harborPoint.jpg

A few more for your delight.

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/7361/f73.jpg

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/5262/lc155je.jpg

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/452/f78.jpg

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/7493/lc16.jpg

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3843/it12.jpg

I wish people would understand that the old design was unfeasible, plain and simple. The renderings were nice and glossy, but totally unrealistic. You can't just tell the workers, "Build this":
http://img287.imageshack.us/img287/7853/spirebx9.gif

Somewhere down the road, turning the twisting idea above into reality involved major modifications, and that is what we have today.

Basically it boils down to this: the renderings you saw before could never happen, and a major change to make this tower a real proposal was inevitable, so stop complaining :)

Sometimes I wish the old renderings were never released, then we wouldn't have all these fits.

I wish people would understand that the old design was unfeasible, plain and simple. The renderings were nice and glossy, but totally unrealistic. You can't just tell the workers, "Build this":
http://img287.imageshack.us/img287/7853/spirebx9.gif

Somewhere down the road, turning the twisting idea above into reality involved major modifications, and that is what we have today.

Basically it boils down to this: the renderings you saw before could never happen, and a major change to make this tower a real proposal was inevitable, so stop complaining :)

Sometimes I wish the old renderings were never released, then we wouldn't have all these fits.


Amen...

Yeah, it's still gunna be a stunner. It's simple, elegant and effective to boot! Calatrava & Co. won't let us down.

Someone finally had to say it. This is the Chicago Spire thread, not the Burj Dubai thread. I for one, am sick of reading replies about the Burj Dubai here. The developers of the Chicago Spire are NOT trying to make this the tallest building in the world, nor going for any title. (Ok, thats my opinion on it; Can't prove they aren't)Yay! It really is boring eh? I agree totally. A little comparison work is fine, but to go on & on & on & on &.....

That's one reason I stopped going to any of the WTC threads. They are just full of cheap & unknowledgeable opinions, endless comparisons to other works and city parochial world domination...all done courtesy of (often) pointless squabbling.

I wish people would understand that the old design was unfeasible, plain and simple. The renderings were nice and glossy, but totally unrealistic. You can't just tell the workers, "Build this"

Do you have any other reason other than financial reasons why the old design was not feasible?

^ You should give credit to STR for those renderings he made.

Do you have any other reason other than financial reasons why the old design was not feasible?


Good lord, do you need another reason than financial reasons? :ohno: :lol: You think Kelleher has money coming out of his ass?

Good lord, do you need another reason than financial reasons? :ohno: :lol: You think Kelleher has money coming out of his ass?

I don't need another reason. It just sounded like spyguy was saying that the first design was absolutely imposible. Again, that is the difference between Dubai and the rest of the world. Anything can get built in Dubai. It sucks!!! hahaha

It really doesn't matter; once things get the green Chicago will have a great supertall, one that will be world-class and iconic.

and please dont D*bai this thread too. WTC, a great project thread, has been marred by trolls who D*bai every damn thread. I dont want the CS ending up with the same fate.

I don't need another reason. It just sounded like spyguy was saying that the first design was absolutely imposible. Again, that is the difference between Dubai and the rest of the world. Anything can get built in Dubai. It sucks!!! hahaha

Just because anything in the world can be built in Dubai doesn't mean that everthing being built in Dubai is a world class design. There are alot of totally awesome buildings under construction in Dubai right now (Ocean Heights II stands out in my mind. Love that buillding). But at the same time, alot of buildings in Dubai lack 'soul.' An example would be if you were to go to Vegas and look at the Venetian and marvel at all the detail that was put in to mimick Venice, you'll say 'wow.' But at the same time, it'll feel lifeless. Like it won't be a meaningfull experience. That's how I would feel if I were to go to Dubai. It'll be fun to look at the Burj Dubai and marvel at it's height and so on and so fourth but that's it.

CS on the other hand is a landmark skyscraper. It'll truly be iconic in terms of design and presense. However it DOES need at least a 200 foot tall spire. A spire like the one on the New York Times Tower would be perfect.

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/927/LPTLeft.jpg

Is that batman or some other superhero posing in that pic? :P

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/927/LPTLeft.jpg

Is that batman or some other superhero posing in that pic? :P

LOL.

Lakepoint does look rather evil. Give it red eyes and it'll really be sinister.

CS on the other hand is a landmark skyscraper. It'll truly be iconic in terms of design and presense. However it DOES need at least a 200 foot tall spire. A spire like the one on the New York Times Tower would be perfect.

A 200 foot spire would be just the right height. The old 400 foot spire was too much, but I don't think it looks good with a flat top. Whether that meant putting the roof at 1800 and going to 2000 or if it meant taking the spire to 2200 wouldn't matter.

My point was that the original design had a spire purely to increase height. Before was egotistical, now is functional. It makes me feel the US is desperate to reclaim the wtb tital.

Come on man, desperate??
personally I think Europe is jsut desperate to catch up to the U.S. in terms of style and notable designs. but hey that's jsut my opinion.

desperate to build the WTB? might as well flame on the burj dubais thread, not here.

JuanPaulo, how about you give some credit to the person who has put in hours of work into this before saying things like "here's a few more for your pleasure"

Any latest shots from the site?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0612200229dec20,0,1966921.story?coll=chi-business-hed

SIDE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE

Tower developer to set up shop in Chicago

BY SUSAN DIESENHOUSE
Published December 20, 2006


A new tenant scheduled to soon move into about 7,000 square feet on the 50th floor at 111 S. Wacker Drive could have a greater impact on the Chicago property market than this small amount of space indicates.

This will be the in-town home for Dublin-based Shelbourne Development Ltd. as it refines plans to build a 2,000-foot-high lakefront residential tower that could become the nation's tallest building.

The wood-paneled walls and luxury furnishings being installed will be a showplace for planning the 160-story, spiral-shaped structure designed by Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava that could cost close to $2 billion to develop.

JuanPaulo, how about you give some credit to the person who has put in hours of work into this before saying things like "here's a few more for your pleasure"


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.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0612200229dec20,0,1966921.story?coll=chi-business-hed

SIDE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE

Tower developer to set up shop in Chicago

BY SUSAN DIESENHOUSE
Published December 20, 2006


......the 160-story, spiral-shaped structure designed by Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava that could cost close to $2 billion to develop.

$2 billion!
$1.2 billion was the previous estimate that I had seen, but I guess that was probably for the smaller version. Major buckolas here. I hope the banks backing Shelbourne don't chicken out. But heck, that is what we spend on the Iraq war every week.

^Could cost. No one has given any indication of the real price yet.

Plus, Trump's estimates say $1.7B; so I dont think its gonna be the old $1.2B figure we are used to.... but seeing the tower multiply in size then it won't be so bad if they sell condos. (keyword: if)

I wish people would understand that the old design was unfeasible, plain and simple. The renderings were nice and glossy, but totally unrealistic. You can't just tell the workers, "Build this":

Somewhere down the road, turning the twisting idea above into reality involved major modifications, and that is what we have today.

Basically it boils down to this: the renderings you saw before could never happen, and a major change to make this tower a real proposal was inevitable, so stop complaining :)

Sometimes I wish the old renderings were never released, then we wouldn't have all these fits.
Why is that? A load bearing central core with elevators, and support columns inside the largest circle that could fit inside a floor. I don't see why that wouldn't work. Besides, Calatrava was supposed to engineer it himself, he wouldn't look good if he'd gotten the go-ahead on the original one, and had to tell them he couldn't do it, now would he?

Why is that? A load bearing central core with elevators, and support columns inside the largest circle that could fit inside a floor. I don't see why that wouldn't work. Besides, Calatrava was supposed to engineer it himself, he wouldn't look good if he'd gotten the go-ahead on the original one, and had to tell them he couldn't do it, now would he?


The original design didn't have enough saleable floor space. It was economically unfesible.

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

"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."

Oh, God, here go the NIMBY's crawling out of the woodwork.

^^ Well the sooner this gets built,the sooner we will be able to through them off the top floor. :P

I love the final plan of the building although it really looks like a drill bit. hehe
It's time to bring back the title of the world's tallest building in Chicago. (by the way hw do you post a picture in this thread???)

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